Search results

Purpose – This chapter identifies the reasons why institutions need to undertake transformation to engage a diverse student population: it presents a model of student retention and success, which centres on student engagement pre- and post-entry.

Methodology/approach – The chapter overviews the literature on student retention and success and utilises emerging findings from the meta-analysis of the What works? Student retention and success programme.

Findings – The emerging model puts student engagement at the heart of student retention and success. Institutions should promote engagement by•Provision of a range of opportunities for student engagement of different types, at different levels, across the institution in different sites (academic sphere, social sphere and professional services sphere), throughout the student lifecycle.•Developing students to recognise the importance of engagement and to have the capacity to engage in a range of opportunities.•Developing staff responsibility for and capacity to provide effective engagement opportunities.•Taking responsibility for engagement, including monitoring engagement and acting when there are indicators of lower levels of engagement.•Creating a partnership between students and institutions towards a shared outcome of successful learners and graduates.

Research limitations – This chapter draws on emergent findings from the What works? programme.

Practical implications – This chapter assists institutions to improve student retention and success by focusing on engagement and institutional culture.

Social implications – The model assists institutions to critically consider transformation to engage a diverse student population and improve retention and success.

Originality/value – The chapter pre-views original research about engagement, retention and success, which are international concerns.

This chapter reports on the findings from an Australian study exploring how best to facilitate the success of students from low socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds who are studying at regional universities. Interviews with 69 successful students from low SES backgrounds and with 26 stakeholders experienced in supporting these students were carried out across six regional universities. The chapter focuses on one of the key findings to emerge from the study – the criticality of the technology use in facilitating the success of these particular equity group students. The ways in which the use of technology enables flexibility and facilitates connectedness for students are foregrounded as research-based strategies for improving practice within universities.

In many ways the state of affairs for students, service delivery personnel, and researchers in the field of college students with learning disabilities (LD) has remained largely unchanged over the past 25 years. Many of the same barriers to student success that we have seen over the past three decades remain today. In this chapter, I review issues related to success for college students with LD, explore current service delivery models, and discuss potential areas of future research that could lead to improved outcomes for college students with LD. Additionally, I explore the possible need to reconceptualize service delivery models on college campuses.

Despite millions of dollars funding increases in the California Community College system, statistics show that less than 50% of students complete their two-year degree in six years. The 114 colleges that serve over two million students have, therefore, been mandated to implement student success programs under the Chancellor’s Vision for Success strategy. Dr. Ortiz Oakley’s plans to decrease attrition and graduation time while improving equity entail additional responsibilities for the instructors because one of its measures ties a percentage of funding to quantifiable increases in success rates. Such connection was one of the reasons for a no confidence motion voted against the Chancellor by the Faculty Association. Though circumscribed, this case calls attention to the general question of accountability in the classroom. Can instructors be held responsible for students passing their classes? In face of rates of failure that are rare in other professional fields and unacceptable given Community College students’ vulnerability and the vital importance of degrees to enter the workforce and earn living wages, this chapter examines how weaving a social justice component into instructors’ mission of knowledge dissemination leads to the constitution of a beneficial civil society but generates conflict among the Colleges’ leaders.

The success of Black males in community colleges across the nation is at a pivotal turning point. Due to increased social unrest in America and the global challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a renewed focus on equitable outcomes for marginalized, underrepresented, and minoritized student groups. Consequently, institutions have sought to identify innovative and effective solutions to recruit, engage, retain, and graduate Black males.

In this chapter, best practices focused on the areas of advising, engagement, instruction, and programing will be discussed. The authors call for a strategic shared responsibility between Academic Affairs and Student Services to promote the educational, civic, and social success of Black males. The importance of workforce development for nondegree seeking Black male students will be explored. It is vital for community college professionals to develop cultural competency by developing a shared understanding of values and language. Other areas to be emphasized include developing consistency for psychological safe spaces, disaggregating student data, and providing access to key services and resources.

Increasing diversity in higher education (HE) – or widening participation (WP) – is now a concern worldwide (Billingham in this volume, Chapter 1; Bowes, Thomas, Peck, & Nathwani, 2013; Shah, Bennett, & Southgate, 2016). However, we all know that access to HE is not sufficient; access needs to be accompanied by success – staying on the course, gaining a good degree and securing graduate-level employment. In this chapter, it is argued that in order to equalise student outcomes a ‘whole institution approach’ (WIA) is required. Evidence is drawn from two studies (each led by the author): one focussing on improving student retention and success in HE, which concluded that a WIA is required (Thomas, Hill, O’ Mahony, & Yorke, 2017, pp. 133–135). The second commissioned by the Office for Fair Access to better understand a WIA to WP (Thomas, 2017). The chapter discusses three key findings: the importance of both cultural and structural change; the role of evidence and the need for a deliberate process of change. These findings are illustrated with examples.

As institutions forge forward with creating online learning experiences for college and university students, student affairs professionals should seek to create an experience that anticipates and supports their needs from expression of interest in the program to graduation. The term “student affairs” encompasses administrative and management functions created to meet the needs of students including extracurricular activities as well as academic and emotional support. Student affairs departments may be involved in residence life, advising, leadership development, career services, advocacy and support services, and more. All students, including online students, excel both academically and emotionally when they feel valued, welcomed, and supported. The following chapter provides recommendations on ways campuses can transform the existing ecosystem of support services and engagement opportunities to be inclusive of online learners. A systematic review of the current ecosystem of support has been made to analyze the ways in which access is provided remotely to online learners and to ensure that the language and engagement opportunities shared with students are inclusive of online learners. In addition to this expanding of current support systems, it is recommended that campuses should consider specific initiatives they can create and implement for their online population including online orientation, success coaching, library support services, and the use of predictive analytics for student success.

Meadway School for Girls (not its real name) is a London comprehensive school for girls aged 11–16. I worked there for just under four years as a part-time learning support teacher, with students who had been identified as having ‘special educational needs’. Some of these students also participated in my ethnographic research into the micro/politics of ‘special educational needs’ (Benjamin, 2002). Meadway is, in current terms, a ‘successful school’: relatively high proportions of its students attain examination results at or above normative levels, and it has a low rate of student exclusions. Every year, when the local league tables of schools’ examination results are published, Meadway vies with another local girls’ comprehensive school for top place. This contest for league table precedence is played out on the battleground of percentages of sixteen-year-old leavers achieving at least five passes at grades A^∗ to C in the externally-administered General Certificate of Education (GCSE) examinations. These examinations, traditionally regarded as school leaving examinations, measure individuals’ performance on a scale from A^∗ (the top grade) to G (the lowest grade), though employers, further education institutions and the media commonly recognise only grades from A^∗ to C as passes. Schools’ overall results are collated, and local ‘league tables’ based on the percentages of students scoring five or more A^∗ to C grades are compiled and published. In the academic year ending in 2001, just over sixty percent of Meadway’s leavers attained this ‘benchmark’ of externally-recognised success: the school’s best ever score. Such a figure is above the national average, and is well ahead of the National Learning Target of 50% of sixteen-year-olds achieving such a standard by 2002 (DfEE, 1999). In the statutory documentation of school performance, Meadway itself scores an ‘A’ grade when compared with ‘other similar schools nationally’: that is, comprehensive girls’ schools in which over thirty percent of students are eligible for free school meals.

As the US transitions to a majority–minority population, the underrepresentation in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce must be resolved to ensure that our nation maintains its competitiveness and global economic advantage. The persistent problem of retaining underrepresented minority (URM) students in STEM continues to be a national priority after several decades of attention. The role of historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) in addressing this challenge cannot be overstated, given their history in producing African American STEM graduates. As the largest HBCU in the country, North Carolina A&T State University (NC A&T) serves a combined undergraduate and graduate population of 11,877 students, 78% of which self-identify as African American. To overcome the multiple challenges that impede retention and persistence to degree completion in biology, the Department of Biology at NC A&T has adopted a major cultural shift in its advising strategy. The new approach encompasses a Life Mapping and Advising Model that builds faculty–student relationships and engages both parties effectively in the process. The model includes six important pillars to drive student success: (1) dedicated advising space, the Life Mapping and Advising Center (LMAC), (2) effective advisors, (3) integrated peer mentor and peer tutoring programs, (4) an intrusive advising strategy, (5) integration with first-year student success courses, and (6) life coaching. Although the program is in its infancy, based on the first-year assessment data, we have observed many promising trends that, together, point toward successful retention and persistence of our students in the major.