Lessons about Student Successfrom High-Performing

Colleges and Universities

(BY GEORGE D. KUH, JILLIAN KINZIE, JOHN H. SCHUH, AND ELIZABETH J

e 're back at Macalester College for our second sitevisit. This meeting is with the provost to get feedbackabout ihe interim report we sent a few weeks ago.We 're ready to record what he says we missed aboutwhat the coUege docs to enhance student success.Instead, he pulls out a pen and legal pad and says.

"This was a fine report. Now lell us how we can do things bet-ter here at Mac."

There's a lot of buzz these days about student success andeducational effectiveness. College costs are rising and enroll-ments are at an all-time high, yet the proportion of studentsearning degrees has stayed more or less constant for decades.This leads some to conclude that colleges aren't holding uptheir end of the educational bargain.

The question. Do they graduate? is receiving the mostscrutiny by state legislatures and by those drafting the re-authorization legislation for the Higher Education Act. Butpolicymakers, parents, and students are also asking tough ques-tions about what they can reasonably expect from colleges anduniversities while students are enrolled. Are schools allocating

George D. Kuh is chancellor's professor and director of the IndianaUniversity Center for Postsecondary Research. Jillian Kinzie is asso-ciate director of the NSSE Institute for Effective Educational Practiceat the Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research. JohnH. Schuh is distinguished professor of Educational Leadership andPolicy Studies at Iowa State University. Elizabeth J. Whitt is professorof education and coordinator of graduate programs in student affairsat The University of Iowa.

44

resources in ways that enhance student learning? Are studentschallenged and supported in their studies? Do they acquire thelifelong learning skills and competencies that will enable themto lead productive, civically responsible lives after college?

A time-honored approach to improving effectiveness is toleam what high-performing organizations within a given indus-try do and then to determine which of their practices are repli-cable in other settings. A team of 24 researchers coordinated bythe National Sur\'ey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Institutefor Effective Educational Practice at the Indiana UniversityCenter for Postsecondary Research set out to do just that.

The Documenting Effective Educational Practices (DEEP)project was a two-year study of 20 four-year colleges and uni-versities that had both higher-than-predicted graduation ratesand higher-than-predicted scores on the NSSE. Graduation isincreasingly used in accountability and performance systems asan indicator of institutional effectiveness, and student engage-ment is important because research shows that it's linked to ahost of desirable outcomes of college.

The schools listed in the box on page 48 are not necessarilythe "most engaging" institutions in the country, nor do they nec-essarily have the highest graduation rates, But they exceed whatthey are expected to do in these two key areas, after taking intoaccount relevant student and institutional characteristics. Takentogether, these two indicators suggest that these colleges and uni-versities "add value" to their students' experiences.

The DEEP research team visited each institution twicefor several days. Altogether, we talked with more than 2,700people; observed dozens of classes; and spent time in libraries.

CHANGE • JULY/AUGUST 2005

cafeterias, and other campus venues.We also reviewed hundreds of printand electronic documents. Erom thismountain of data, we distilled a handfulof common themes that cut across thesevery different colleges and universities.These are described in our new book.Student Success in College: CreatingConditions Thai Matter.

One of the most important conditionscharacterizing the DEEP institutionsis an intentional focus on institutionalimprovement. In this article we illustratewhat [his improvement-oriented ethoslooks like in practice and conclude withsome ideas for what other institutionscan leam from DEEP

AN IMPROVEMENT-ORIENTEDETHOS

The Macalester College provost'sresponse to our description of his in-stitution illustrates several key featuresof the DEEP schools. They constantlyexperiment with new approaches forimproving teaching and learning, oc-casionally adopting promising practicesfrom other institutions. Confident as towho and what they are, their motivationfor getting "better" generally is internal.And they continuously moniior whatthey're doing, where they are, and wherethey want to go, in order to maintain mo-mentum. Although generally self criti-cal, they aren't plagued by a culture ofcomplaint, in large part because of theirbent toward innovation. To varying de-grees, they're emblematic of the learningorganizations described by Peter Sengeand the firms studied by Jim Collins thatcatapulted from good to great.

Supporting this orientation towardimprovement is a "can-do" ethic thatpermeates the campuses—a tapestry ofvalues and beliefs that reflect the in-stitutions' willingness to take on mat-ters of substance consistent with theirpriorities. Indeed, they exude a senseof "positive restlessness" in how theythink about themselves and what theyaspire to be.

Positive restlessness. Never quitesatisfied with their perfomiance, DEEPcolleges and universities are restless in apositive way. A faculty member at Ever-green State College explained what thisfeeling is like on that campus. "We talkabout what needs to be fixed all the time.This is very much a part of our culture."Indeed, much of Evergreen's academic

PROJECT DEEP COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

Alvemo College (WI)

California State University at Monterey Bay (CA)

The Evergreen State College (WA)

Fayetteville State University (NC)

George Mason University (VA)

Gonzaga University (WA)

Longwood University (VA)

Macalester College (MN)

Miami University (OH)

Sewanee: University of the South (TN)

Sweet Briar College (VA)

University of Kansas (KS)

University of Maine at Earmington (ME)

University of Michigan (MI)

University of Texas at El Paso (TX)

Ursinus College (PA)

Wabash College (IN)

Wheaton College (MA)

Winston-Salem State University (NC)

Wofford College (SC)

program is reinvented on an annual basis.Anchoring its curriculum is the "Pro-gram," an interdisciplinary semester- oryear-long study of a topic or problemthat a small group of faculty from dif-ferent disciplines design and pursuewith two dozen or so interested students.Eaculty who teach similar material or theinstitution's core courses follow the basicapproach of the Program by frequentlyrevising both the content and pedagogy oftheir courses as well.

Improving the quality of leaming andteaching is pretty much the order of theday at DEEP schools. As a sociologyfaculty member involved in the Teachingand Leaming Center at Eayetteville StateUniversity in North Carolina told us,"We are very conscious of the need tounderstand students and to engage themactively in the classroom." Another fac-ulty member explained that it's part ofthe institutional culture here "to addresspoor teaching."

Eaculty Leaming Communities atMiami University provide a venue for

faculty members to discuss ways toextend their pedagogical repertories.Each participant identifies a specificcourse that he or she wants to improve,discusses ways to make improvements,and implements changes during theacademic year. Theme-based leamingcommunities focus on such issues ascooperative leaming and ethics acrossthe curriculum, using team teachingand small-group strategies to enhanceleaming. Other groups experiment withproblem-based leaming and teachingportfolios, along with strategies for as-sessing student leaming.

Erom its founding in 1994. Califor-nia State University at Monterey Bayset out to be an innovative, learner-cen-tered educational institution. Today, theuniversity integrates interdisciplinaryacademic programs, active and collab-orative leaming, and service learningthroughout its curriculum. According toone administrator, "We are our biggestcritics,...We hold ourselves to a higherstandard because we're supposed to be

CHANGE • JULY/AUGUST 2005

trying new things."George Mason University's

(GMU) similar inclination toinnovate is due in part to its rela-tive youth and its self-perceptionas an "underdog" in the Virginiahigher education system. As onestaff member told us, "Becausethis is a young institution, there'sa strong dynamic sense, an open-ness to try new things and dointeresting things." Another said,"What's so great is there's nopredefmed way of doing things,of how this place moves—ex-cept forward." A student voiceda similar sentiment: "We're bigon improvement here, and thisplace is so responsive. You canmake things happen very fast."A faculty member added. "Theattitude is. 'Let's do it and seewhat happens.'"

Investing in student success.Discretionary resources existat the University of Michiganto seed innovation. The provostsupports initiatives to improveundergraduate education, andacademic units sponsor scoresof small programs that signifi-cantly enrich the undergraduateexperience. Among these arethe Undergraduate ResearchOpportunity Program and anumber of highly visible di-versity initiatives, such as thePathways to Student Successand Excellence Program, theMinority Engineering Program,and the King/Chavez/Parks Col-lege Clubs.

Even DEEP schools withmodest resources are committedto support good ideas thai prom-ise to enhance student leaming.For example, although resourcesat Gonzaga University are lim-ited, one senior administratorasserted, "We have a can-do at-titude....We figure out how to getthings done." Students are part of the so-lulion, as one administrator pointed out:"We need to employ students to operate."

Campus work experiences are ofteneducationally enriching as well as asource of income, providing studentswith substantive leadership and leam-ing opportunities. Another positive sideeffect of hiring large numbers of stu-

CHANGE* JUIY/AUGUST 2005

dents for campus jobs is a strong senseof student ownership of university pro-grams and services.

Although resources at the Universi-ty of Maine at Farmington (UMF) arestretched thin, its financial challengesseem to strengthen, not threaten, itssense of purpose. A senior administra-tor told us, "We do a lot with a little.

but where you put your moneyspeaks volumes." Like Gon-zaga, its Student Work Initiativeemploys students on campusin jobs essential to keeping thecampus functioning. Jump-started with $80,000 from thepresident's office, the programensures that more than half ofUMF students work on campus,and the school's persistence rateis rising.

Decisionmaking informed bydata. DEEP schools frequentlycombine stories with systemati-cally collected information aboutstudent and institutional per-formance to estimate how wellthey're doing. As the Universityof Kansas (KU) provost told us,"Data drive most of the thingswe do." Most use some form ofbenchmarking and were amongthe early adopters of NSSE, us-ing it in combination with otherassessment tools to determinewhether some aspects of studentand faculty behavior could bebetter aligned.

Another example is theUniversity of Michigan, whichconducted six major studies ofthe undergraduate experience be-tween 1986 and 2003. Alvemo'sassessment-driven ability basededucation and Cal State Mon-terey Bay's Outcomes-BasedEducation model are vehicles forcoordinating and revising aca-demic offerings and for improv-ing instmctional practices.

Moreover, the DEEP institu-tions report their performance.A steady stream of reports fromKU's Office of InstitutionalResearch and Planning ensuresthat information is available forpolicy formation and decision-making there. Results from theGeneral Education Assessment,Student Perceptions Survey,

Senior Survey, and NSSE are reportedroutinely to academic and student-lifeadministrators. These data are then usedto modify advising practices, curricu-lum requirements, and administrativestmctures. Three-person faculty teamsat KU annually conduct interviewswith about 120 graduating seniors toassess the impact of general education

47

courses, information that is thenfed back to departments.

Longwood University andGMU operate under a Virginiastate-mandated assessmentrequirement that has led todata-informed decisionmaking.Extensive faculty discussionsat Longwood during the late1980s led to a revision andexpansion of its general educa-tion requirements in 1990. To-day, Longwood evaluates theimpact of these changes usingmultiple measures, includingsurveys, academic progressstatistics, curriculum evalua-tions, and nationally normeddiscipline-specific achieve-ment tests.

GMU faculty also respondedto the state's assessment man-date. Every semester facultymembers in Mason's New Cen-tury College develop a portfolioassessment for each course, onwhich they base changes in thecourse for the next term, whilethe GMU School of Nursingfaculty use student focus groupsto solicit feedback on course of-ferings and pedagogy.

Other GMU academic de-partments meet with the leadersof student organizations to ob-tain comments on courses andto plan revisions of them. Suchefforts are essential, explainedone faculty member: "You won-der if your assumptions aboutleaming are correct becausethe student body constantlychanges and comes from differ-ent backgrounds than do manyof the faculty."

Miami University facultymembers talk about the "senseof momentum" that is fueledby continuous assessment.Groups there such as the LiberalEducation Council, Multicul-tural Council, and Committee for theEnhancement of Leaming and Teachingreview programs regularly and recom-mend ways to strengthen them. TheCommittee on Student Assessment andExpectations is pursuing an ambitiousbenchmarking exercise whereby eachdepartment and program evaluates itsown practices, makes comparisons to six

strong departments at other universities,and implements the best practices theyfmd. More than 100 plans for improve-ment have ensued.

And to varying degrees DEEPschools are willing to confront "the bru-tal facts of reality." as Jim Collins putsit. Fayetteville State University and theUniversity of Texas at El Paso, embar-

rassed by their poor graduationrates, did something about them.Sewanee was disappointed in itsNSSE active and collaborativeleaming scores and revised itsfirst-year program to encouragesuch activities.

In the early 1990s, Macal-ester commissioned a retentiontask force to examine first-yearstudent retention, which waswell below the 90 percent levelto which campus leaders aspired.Identifying academic advisingand student-faculty interactionas areas to enhance. Macalesternow requires all students to takeits effective—but previously"'optional"—first-year seminarcourse and clarified the aca-demic advising responsibilitiesof the faculty members teachingthe course.

How DID THEY Do IT?

While all 20 DEEP collegesand universities are inclinedtoward improvement, eachtook a different path. At someschools—Evergreen, Macalester,the University of Michigan, andUrsinus—the curriculum wasthe focal point for promotingstudent success. Gonzaga Uni-versity, Longwood University,Miami University, and UME useoul-of-class activities to engagestudents with their classes andthe institution.

Sometimes—for example,at Alvemo College and CalState Monterey Bay—a con-vergence of extemal forces,such as changing accreditationstandards and an authenticdesire to improve student learn-ing, prompted schools to lookclosely at various aspects of thestudent experience and institu-tional performance.

At other schools—such asUME, the University of Texas at ElPaso. Fayetteville State, and GMU—visionary leaders pointed the way. Atstill others—Cal State Monterey Bay,Evergreen State, Michigan, Sewanee,Sweet Briar, and Wabash—a salientfounding mission and strong campusculture sustain the necessary commit-ment to student success.

4 8 CHANGE • JUIY/AUGLIST 2005

Although each DEEP school chartedits own course to institutional improve-ment, there are some lessons from theirexperiences and circumstances that othercolleges and universities can apply intheir own context.

Stay the course. DEEP schools didnot become high-performing institutionsovernight: they had the advantage ofpeople at the institution working on oneor more initiatives for an extended pe-riod of time. Some of the key championsfor change had been at the institution along time, such as the KU provost andthe Miami vice president for student af-fairs. Evergreen's academic dean gradu-ated from the college; his knowledge ofthe institution and its founding valueswere instrumental in aligning the col-lege's mission, educational philosophy,policies, and practices.

Provide leadership from every corner.Many institutions plod along withoutvisionary executive leadership. Thisis not the case at DEEP schools. Whatsets most of these presidents apart frommany of their counterparts is their holisticperspective on student development andinstitutional responsibilities for studentsuccess. They recognize that it is essentialto provide a leaming environment thatcombines high academic challenge withcommensurate support.

They also surround themselves withtalented colleagues—especially senioracademic and student affairs officers—who work well together to implementpolicies and practices that realize theinstitution's mission. The relationshipmay not be causal, but it's worth notingthat all the presidents had held academicappointments before being selected fortheir presidency.

As important as senior administra-tors are. effective leadership for studentsuccess is not concentrated exclusivelyin the executive ranks. Senior andjunior faculty and staff members areencouraged to find ways to weave theirideas for improving teaching and learn-ing into policies and everyday practic-es. Indeed, at many DEEP schools someof the more powerful innovations wereintroduced by faculty members.

Leaders are not necessarily expectedlo bring about the changes themselvesbut rather to motivate, monitor, encour-age, and support others who are alsoworking on the issues. Consequently,DEEP colleges and universities had lots

of people pulling in the same directionat the time we conducted this study.

Put someone in charge, but makeit collaborative. There is an old adagethat when everyone is responsible forsomething, no one is accountable forit. For this reason, DEEP schools usu-ally assign some individual or groupthe responsibility for coordinating andmonitoring the status and impact of itsstudent-success initiatives. Sometimesthe usual suspects are enlisted—facultyand staff members with a reputationfor getting things done. Sometimes key

What sets

most of [DEEP]

presidents apart

from many of their

counterparts

is their holistic

perspective on

student

development and

institutional

responsibilities for

student success.

newcomers help lead the way. as dida new academic dean at Sewanee andthe new vice president of student af-fairs/dean of co-curricular life at SweetBriar charged with pulling the in-classand out-of-class experience on campuscloser together.

At the same time, collaboration iskey. The success of Miami's efforts washelped immeasurably by an effectiveworking relationship among the provost,the academic deans, and the vice presi-dent for student affairs. Evergreen's ef-forts benefited from a fixed-term "thinkforce" of administrators, key facultymembers, students, and governing boardmembers. Such a high-profile group

adds legitimacy to change initiatives andcan engender commitment from others.By connecting to similar activities andindividuals across the institution, thesegroups create support and synergy forchange.

Eaculty collaboration is a key ingre-dient of curriculum revision. At Wof-ford College and Ursinus, for example,creating common intellectual experi-ences tended to neutralize the polar-izing effects of disciplinary loyalty bycompelling faculty to work together ona project that benefited the whole col-lege and enhanced the overall qualityof the student experience.

Sustainable improvements are notusually ihe work of a single unit. Rather,these innovations typically cross tradi-tional organization boundaries, such asthe collaborations between academicand student affairs on learning commu-nities at the University of Texas, El Paso;the early alert programs at Cal StateMonterey Bay, Fayetteville State, andWinston-Salem State University; and ihefirst-year initiatives at Miami.

Moreover, the innovations oftenspread horizontally to different areas,further increasing the chances thatmany students will be touched by theeffort. For example, efforts aimed atenhancing undergraduate education atthe University of Michigan involvedadministrative leaders in the president'sand provost's offices and were cham-pioned by the goveming board, thedivision of student affairs, facultymembers, and students. Consequently,the commitment to improving under-graduate programs became embeddedin strategic planning activities and, sub-sequently, policy decisions.

Get and keep the right people. AsJim Collins says, it's important that theright people be on the bus. The changeprocess starts with getting the best peoplein the hiring pool, something that DEEPprovosts and academic deans are veryintentional about and do very well. Theyunapologetically emphasize lo potentialfaculty the importance of high-quality un-dergraduate teaching and probe the extentlo which potential hires are enthusiasticabout and committed to it. Some DEEPschools such as UMF feature an extendedcampus visit (three days) so that both thepotential hire and institution can leamabout one another in a variety of socialand professional situations.

CHANGF. •JULY/AUGUST 200^ 4 9

Lee Shulman reminds us that newfaculty members are socialized duringgraduate school to do some things andnot others and to value certain ideas andviews about the professoriate, teaching,and leaming over others. For this reason,newcomers need lo be taught what theinstitution values; in some instances,ihey need to be countersocialized. Thisis best done by veteran faculty with sup-port from administrators. Such effortsmust be ongoing, not relegated to anhour during new faculty orientation.

The Ursinus vice president for aca-demic affairs sponsors ongoing collo-quia, attended by a few senior faculty, tointroduce newcomers to various aspectsof the college and to emphasize the insti-tution's central focus on student leamingand other values. Newcomers at KUhear plainly from senior faculty that theywill occasionally be asked lo set asidepersonal priorities for the good of thecampus, such as when general educationrequirements are revised. As one veteranKU faculty member put it, "We give up alittle to make the whole better," a legacyof the Populist heritage of its region.

Convert challenges into opportuni-ties. As our research team colleague,Adrianna Kezar, pointed out, organi-zational change requires openness tosurprises, a focus on creativity, and anappreciation for chance occurrences. !nsome cases, the triggering occurrence isa problem.

For example, Wofford's failure toobtain an NSF curricular-reform grantprompted it to revisit what it was doingand why, resulting in a renewed commit-ment to an interdisciplinary approachto general education, with leamingcommunities as the featured deliveryvehicle. Wheaton responded to enroll-ment shortfalls by changing its missionand reinvigorating its curriculum witha gender-balanced educational philoso-phy. In some instances, concems aboutthe state of affairs tumed the institutionin a different direction. UTEP adopteda new mission to take advantage of theinexorable shift in the demographics ofits region.

What tums these problems into op-portunities is when people^usuallyadministrators, but often faculty mem-bers and occasionally students—identifysuccessfully lobbies to have the issueaddressed in an open fomm. A facultymember at Evergreen State labeled this

"sensing negative restlessness. Workingout problems is vital," he said. "We haveto leam to collaborate and help faculty,staff, and students to have faith in theprocess." Skills like "taking the tempera-ture of the group" and "building groupconsciousness" are part of Evergreen'sethos and take different forms at otherDEEP schools.

Cultivate a campus culture thatmakes space for differences. Virtuallyevery study of high-performing entitiesconcludes that culture is the single mostimportant element that must be altered

Often

too little

thought is

given to where

the resources or

energy will come

from to sustain

the efforts

beyond a first

or second

cycle.

and managed in order to change whatan organization values and how it acts.Unless they are stitched into campusculture, as Peter Ewell once observed,institutional change initiatives tend to be"trains on their own track," running par-allel but not converging.

"Culture" consists in part of tacitassumptions and beliefs that influenceboth the substance of policies, pro-grams, and practices and how they areimplemented. Culture also gives peoplea common language and values. Astrong, coherent institutional culture thatfeatures talent development, academicachievement, and respect for differencesis congenial to student success.

But institutional culture is not mono-lithic—especially as students, faculty,and staff members become more di-verse—and cultures have their "shadowsides," aspects of institutional life thatare problematic. Who and what are priv-ileged and valued are often contested, asare interpretations of events and actions.Some issues, such as striking an ap-propriate balance between teaching andresearch, can quickly galvanize partiesinto staking out all-too-familiar posi-tions that foreclose altemative interpre-tations or reconciliation efforts. This istrue at DEEP colleges as well as at othercolleges and universities.

To their credit, DEEP schools gener-ally address such matters head on bycreating opportunities for issues anddifferences to be vetted, understood, andmanaged. Eaculty leaders and senioradministrators often take the lead insuch dialogues to keep differences fromfestering and paralyzing institutionalfunctions. When done well, public con-versations strengthen academic valuesand remind colleagues of their responsi-bilities to encourage and model reasoneddiscourse about complicated matters anddifferences of opinion.

A hot-button topic almost everywhereis diversity. At Sweet Briar, studentsdebate not only whether the institutionis doing enough to realize its purportedaspirations for a diverse student bodyand faculty but the meaning of diversityitself. At Miami, the desire to movebeyond a tolerance of diversity to theconstmction of a pluralistic communityhas been a topic of healthy campus dis-cussion for more than a decade.

Avoid overload. The inclination tocontinually improve undoubtedly exac-erbates the universal sense that peopleat DEEP schools—and just about every-where else—are on overload. One fac-ulty member described the teaching loadat his institution as "crushing." Thus,one of the most important questions forinstitutions to address is not what to donext but what to stop doing so there istime and energy to invest in promisingnew initiatives. Otherwise there are fewperiods during which people give them-selves permission to coast, catch theirbreath, and renew their spirit and energy.

To their credit, some DEEP schools areworking on these matters. For instance,Ursinus has a panel of faculty studyingworkload demands, which increased after

5 0 CHANGE • JULY/AUGUST 2005

the college introduced a package of curric-ular revisions to enhance student engage-ment ;ind academic rigor. Evergreen Stateuses Disappearing Task Forces (DTFs)to address important govemance mattersas they arise in order to concentrate fac-ulty service commitments on key issues.Unlike standing committees elsewhere,which take time away from teaching andadvising, these task forces are subsequent-ly decommissioned.

Overload can affect students, too,which is why Miami University intro-duced Choice Matters, an initiative thatencourages undergraduates to more de-liberately select among the many learn-ing opportunities inside and outside theclassroom that they will pursue in orderto get the most out of college.

CONCLUSION

Our time on DEEP campuses has con-vinced us that an improvement-orientedethos contributes to student success atthese institutions. It sounds simple, eventrite, but these institutions set prioritiesconsistent with their espoused missionand educational purposes, fund thesepriorities to the extent possible, moni-tor their performance and that of theirstudents, and use data to infomi deci-sionmaking. They create effective leam-ing environments for large numbers ofstudents by linking together educationalpractices that challenge and support them.Institutional leaders champion and rewardexperimentation consistently with theschool's mission and values.

If these very different colleges anduniversities can do this, so can manyothers. That's not to say it's easy. Thepath to institutional improvement is lit-tered with failed and faltering interven-tions, because often too little thought isgiven to where the resources or energywill come from to sustain the effortsbeyond a first or second cycle. ButDEEP schools did not let sustainabilityparalysis set in. Highly self-critical.they do not allow themselves to becomecomplaisant. Rather, they exhibit apersistent tendency to move forwardwith eyes wide open and altemativestrategies in mind to deal with changingcircumstances.

These institutions are doing manythings from which other schools can leam.But they are not pertect—<:lose inspectionreveals flaws in each of these gemstones.For example, as good as they are, each has

one or more groups of student.s who arenot as engaged as the institution wouldlike. Although their priorities and proper-ties make them attractive on a variety oflevels, faculty and staff at DEEP schoolsare the first to admit that they would liketo be even better than they are.

Indeed, this drive to improve isone of their more distinctive and en-dearing characteristics. More than anyother trait, it may be the one that leadsthem to discover even more effectivestrategies for promoting studentsuccess. E

W e are indebted to Lumina Foundation for Education and the Center ofInquiry in the Liberal Arts (CILA)at Wabash College for their support of

Project DEEP and our partners at the American Association for Higher Educa-tion who assisted in various aspects of the study. However, the views expressedin this article are solely those of the authors, noi Lumina or CILA.

Also we wish to acknowledge other members of the DEEP research team:Rob Aaron, Charles Blaich, Anne Bost, Larry Braskamp. Ed Chan. ArthurChickering, Jason DeSousa. Elaine El-Khawas. Sara Hinkle. Mary Howard-Hamilton, Bruce Jacobs. Adrianna Kczar, Richard Lynch, Peter Magolda. Kath-leen Manning. Carla Morelon. Shaila Mulholland, Richard Muthiah, CharlesSchroeder, and Mary Beth Snyder.

Finally, we wish to thank the faculty, staff, and students at the 20 DEEP col-leges and universities who gave freely of their time during our campus visits andhelped us discover what "matters " to student success.

To assist institutions in taking stock of the extent to which the conditions forstudent success exist on their campus, we developed the Inventory for StudentEngagement and Success described in Kuh et ai (in press). * ^

RESOURCES

• Collins, J., Good to Great, New York: HarperCollins, 2001.• Ewell, P. T., "Organizing for Leaming: A New Imperat'we,'' AAHF Bulletin,Vol. 50, No. 4, pp. 3-6. 1997.• Eullan, M., Leading in a Culture of Change, San Francisco: Jossey Bass,2001.• Kezar, A., Understanding and Facilitating Organizational Change in the 21stCentury: Recent Research and Conceptualization, ASHE-ERIC Higher Educa-tion Report, Washington, DC: The George Washington University, GraduateSchool of Education and Human Development. Vol. 28. No. 4. 2001.• Kuh, G.D., J. Kinzie, J.H. Schuh, and E.J. Whitt & Associates, Student Suc-cess in College: Creating Conditions that Matter. San Francisco: Jossey-Bassand American Association for Higher Education, 2005.• Kuh, G.D., J. Kinzie, J.H. Schuh. and E.J. Whitt, Assessing Conditions toEnhance Educational Effectiveness: The Inventory for Student Engagement andSuccess. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, in press.• Kuh, G.D., J.H. Schuh, and E.J. Whitt & Associates, Involving Colleges: En-couraging Student Learning and Personal Development through Out-of-ClassExperiences, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991.• Pascarella, E., and P. Terenzini, How CoUege Affects Students: A Third De-cade of Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 2005.• Senge, P.M., The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Orga-nization, New York: Doubleday. 1990.• Shulman, L.S., Teaching as Community Property: Essays on Higher Educa-tion, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2004.• Tagg, J., The Leaming Paradigm College, Bolton, MA: Anker, 2003.• Weick, K.E., "Small Wins: Redefming the Scale of Social Problems," Ameri-can Psychologist. Vol. 39, No. I, pp. 40-49, 1984. ' ^

CHANGE • JULY/AUGUST 2005 S I