Thriving in Transitions: A Research-Based Approach to College Student Success [2 ed.] 1942072465, 9781942072461

Citation preview

Cite as: Schreiner, L. A., Louis, M. C., & Nelson, D. D. (Eds.). (2020). Thriving in transitions: A research-based approach to college student success (2nd ed.). University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience & Students in Transition. Copyright © 2020 University of South Carolina. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or copied in any form, by any means, without written permission of the University of South Carolina. ISBN: 978-1-942072-46-1 ISBN (ePub): 978-1-942072-47-8 ISBN (eBrary): 978-1-942072-48-5 Published by: National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience® and Students in Transition University of South Carolina 1728 College Street, Columbia, SC 29208 www.sc.edu/fye The First-Year Experience® is a service mark of the University of South Carolina. A license may be granted upon written request to use the term “The First-Year Experience.” This license is not transferable without written approval of the University of South Carolina. Production Staff for the National Resource Center: Project Manager: Tracy L. Skipper, Assistant Director for Publications Design and Production: Stephanie L. McFerrin, Graphic Artist Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Schreiner, Laurie A., editor. | Louis, Michelle C., editor. | Nelson, Denise D., editor. | National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition (University of South Carolina), issuing body. Title: Thriving in transitions : a research-based approach to college student success / Laurie A. Schreiner, Michelle C. Louis, and Denise D. Nelson, editors. Description: 2nd edition. | Columbia, SC : National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 2020. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020021796 (print) | LCCN 2020021797 (ebook) | ISBN 9781942072461 (paperback) | ISBN 9781942072478 (ebk) | ISBN 9781942072485 (ebook other) Subjects: LCSH: College freshmen--United States. | Transfer students--United States. | Student adjustment--United States. Classification: LCC LB2343.32 .T47 2020 (print) | LCC LB2343.32 (ebook) | DDC 378.1/980973--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020021796 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020021797 ii

About the Publisher The National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition was born out of the success of University of South Carolina’s much-honored University 101 course and a series of annual conferences focused on the freshman year experience. The momentum created by the educators attending these early conferences paved the way for the development of the National Resource Center, which was established at the University of South Carolina in 1986. As the National Resource Center broadened its focus to include other significant student transitions in higher education, it underwent several name changes, adopting the National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition in 1998. Today, the National Resource Center collaborates with its institutional partner, University 101 Programs, in pursuit of its mission to advance and support efforts to improve student learning and transitions into and through higher education. We achieve this mission by providing opportunities for the exchange of practical and scholarly information as well as the discussion of trends and issues in our field through convening conferences and other professional development events such as institutes, workshops, and online learning opportunities; publishing scholarly practice books, research reports, a peer-reviewed journal, electronic newsletters, and guides; generating, supporting, and disseminating research and scholarship; hosting visiting scholars; and maintaining several online channels for resource sharing and communication, including a website, listservs, and social media outlets. The National Resource Center is the trusted expert, internationally recognized leader, and clearinghouse for scholarship, policy, and best practice for all postsecondary student transitions.

Institutional Home The National Resource Center is located at the University of South Carolina’s (UofSC) f lagship campus in Columbia. Chartered in 1801, UofSC Columbia’s mission is twofold: to establish and maintain excellence in its student population, faculty, academic programs, living and learning environment, technological infrastructure, library resources, research and scholarship, public and private support and endowment; and to enhance the industrial, economic, and cultural potential of the state. The Columbia campus offers 324 degree programs through its 15 degree-granting colleges and schools. In fiscal year 2019, faculty generated $279 million in funding for research, outreach and training programs. South Carolina is one of only 32 public universities receiving both Research and Community Engagement designations from the Carnegie Foundation.

iii

CONTENTS Tables and Figures ....................................................................................................................................... vii Preface ....................................................................................................................................................................ix Laurie A. Schreiner, Michelle C. Louis, and Denise D. Nelson

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 A New View of Student Success Jillian Kinzie

Chapter 1 .............................................................................................................................................................17 From Surviving to Thriving During Transitions Laurie A. Schreiner

Chapter 2 ............................................................................................................................................................ 33 A Strengths Development Model for Enhancing College Student Thriving Michelle C. Louis and Laurie A. Schreiner

Chapter 3 ............................................................................................................................................................ 53 Thriving From the Start: Equipping Students for Success in the First Year Denise D. Nelson, Deb Vetter, and Matthew K. Vetter

Chapter 4 ............................................................................................................................................................ 79 Thriving and Students of Color: Daily Transitions on Predominantly White Campuses Kristin Paredes-Collins and Eric J. McIntosh

Chapter 5 ............................................................................................................................................................ 97 Thriving in High-Risk Students Rishi Sriram and Jennifer Tharp

Thriving in Transitions

Chapter 6 ......................................................................................................................................................... 129 Beyond Sophomore Survival Laurie A. Schreiner, Tamera Pullins, and Eric J. McIntosh

Chapter 7 ......................................................................................................................................................... 153 Maximizing Transfer: Thriving on a New Campus Eric J. McIntosh and Denise D. Nelson

Chapter 8 ..........................................................................................................................................................171 Thriving in the Senior-Year Transition Michelle C. Louis and Eileen Hulme

Chapter 9 ..........................................................................................................................................................193 The Role of Faculty in College Student Thriving Laurie A. Schreiner, Tami K. Martinez, Jennifer Drumm, and Crystal Keetch

Chapter 10 .......................................................................................................................................................211 Recommendations to Promote Thriving in Transitions Laurie A. Schreiner, Denise D. Nelson, and Michelle C. Louis

Index ....................................................................................................................................................................219 About the Authors .................................................................................................................................... 235

vi

TABLES AND FIGURES Tables Table 3.1

Characteristics of the First-Year Student Sample .......................................................60

Table 3.2 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis of Predictors of Thriving Scales and Overall Thriving ................................................................................ 62 Table 5.1

Study 1 Participant Demographics ................................................................................... 104

Table 5.2 Descriptive Statistics for Variables: First-Semester Grades Regression .... 105 Table 5.3 Descriptive Statistics for Variables: Intent to Persist Regression ................... 106 Table 5.4

Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses: First-Semester Grades ................................................................................................................ 108

Table 5.5

Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses: Intent to Persist .................................................................................................................................110

Table 5.6

Study 2 Participant Demographics ....................................................................................114

Table 5.7

Multivariate Analysis of Covariance of Posttest Academic Effort as a Function of Growth Mindset Treatment Condition ...................................116

Table 6.1

Demographic Characteristics of the Student Sample .......................................... 135

Table 6.2

Summary of Logistic Regression Analysis Predicting Persistence: Specific Satisfaction Model .................................................................................................... 137

Table 7.1

Demographic Information of the Transfer Study Participants ...................... 158

Figures Figure 1.1 Construct of Thriving as Represented in the Thriving Quotient .....................22 Figure 6.1 Structural Equation Model of Sophomore Thriving ............................................. 140 Figure 9.1 Structural Regression Model of Thriving for Students of Color ....................196

PREFACE Laurie A. Schreiner, Michelle C. Louis, and Denise D. Nelson

Higher education is at a critical juncture. Faced with unprecedented economic hardships, increased demands for accountability, and challenges from students, families, and the public to demonstrate the value of a college education, we must find new ways of helping students succeed not only in college, but in life. The strides that have been made in access to college have not translated to equivalent rates of success, as only 60% of college students who pursue a bachelor’s degree graduate within six years (National Center for Education Statistics, 2019). Disparities in graduation rates, academic success, and psychological well-being across ethnic groups on campus (Bowman, 2010) underscore that traditional approaches to helping students succeed are not working—at least not for all students. The traditional perspectives that define student success as strong grades and timely graduation are open to question, as practitioners and researchers acknowledge that there is more to the college experience than the classroom and commencement (Kuh et al., 2010). Engaging fully in that experience and benefiting most meaningfully from a college education involves potentially life-changing decisions, relationships, emotional reactions, social interactions, and psychological responses that transcend the behaviors measured by GPA and graduation rates. When this book was first written eight years ago, we presented thriving as a new concept that provided an expanded vision for student success. The very word thriving implies that success involves more than surviving a four-year academic obstacle course. Students who thrive are vitally engaged in the college endeavor—intellectually, socially, and psychologically. They are investing effort within the classroom and managing their lives well beyond it. Thriving students are also goal-oriented, applying their strengths to address the academic challenges they face. When they are thriving, students are connected to others in healthy and meaningful ways, and they desire to make a difference in the world around them. They also see the world differently: Equipped with a positive perspective on life, they are secure in the present and confident of the future. Thriving is not a personality trait. Because it is comprised of psychosocial characteristics that are changeable within a person, interventions and environmental situations can make a difference. Thriving students are those who are able to experience life’s transitions as ix

Thriving in Transitions

opportunities that lead to significant personal growth. Yet, they rarely do so without support. Thriving students are typically surrounded by others who are thriving and are often embedded in a community that provides them with a sense of belonging and competence. The very nature of college demands the successful navigation of a series of changes; thus, the focus of this book is on thriving in transitions. In this revised edition, we seek to provide higher education faculty, staff, and administrators with the most recent research on thriving, so they are equipped with a roadmap for helping students thrive during the myriad transitions that occur during the college years. As a result, each chapter outlines research about students experiencing a specific type of transition, offering empirical evidence for what contributes to thriving during that period, and also includes practical suggestions for how educators can help students remain fully engaged during difficult times of change. Because the concept of thriving is a departure from the behaviorally oriented theories that populate the current student success literature, the book opens with an introduction by Jillian Kinzie, who places student success theories in historical and theoretical context as a foundation for the exploration of thriving. The next two chapters provide the framework for the book. In Chapter 1, Schreiner describes the nature of successful transitions and outlines how the construct of thriving was developed and measured, as well as how it provides a helpful perspective for navigating transitions. In Chapter 2, Louis and Schreiner highlight strengths development as the vehicle for helping students thrive in college. They include concrete descriptions of how integrating a strengths perspective might inform the work of advisors, educators in the classroom, and student affairs professionals. As with each chapter in the book, the authors’ focus is on practical strategies that can be implemented on a variety of campuses. The remainder of the book highlights the successive transitions that students experience while in college. A chapter on the first-year experience by Nelson, Vetter, and Vetter delineates the hurdles students experience as they transition from high school to college, as well as the structures that institutions could put in place to support students during that transition. Collins and McIntosh’s chapter on students of color highlights the daily transitions that these students experience when navigating a predominantly white campus. Sriram and Tharp continue the theme of continual transitions as they explore the experiences of highrisk students and what helps them succeed. Sophomores receive particular attention from Schreiner, Pullins, and McIntosh in Chapter 6, as the authors use the results of two national studies of thousands of sophomores as the basis for their recommendations on how advising, student–faculty interaction, spirituality, and a sense of community in the classroom can foster thriving in the sophomore year. Transfer students and their ability to navigate a new institutional system are the focus of McIntosh and Nelson’s quantitative research in Chapter 7. In the following chapter, Louis and Hulme x

Preface

describe an extensive qualitative study of high-achieving seniors who were followed into the year after graduation for insights on how these students thrived as they moved out of college. Each of these chapters was in the first edition of this book, but all have been updated to reflect the latest research on thriving, along with more recent literature on the nature of the transitions each student population experiences. Following these chapters examining particular transitions in greater detail, the book concludes with two chapters that synthesize findings across the book. In a chapter that is new to this edition, Schreiner, Martinez, Drumm, and Keetch focus on the role of faculty in helping students thrive during transitions. This chapter is designed to provide an overview of the types of challenges students experience throughout their college education, along with specific actions faculty can take to enhance student thriving. The final chapter is written by the editors and synthesizes the recommendations from each chapter into a roadmap for educators. Recommendations are grouped into the three main arenas of thriving: academic, interpersonal, and psychological. The chapter ends with campuswide recommendations for establishing a culture that is conducive to this holistic vision of student success. Throughout the book our purpose is to balance empirical evidence about a wide variety of college-related transitions with practical suggestions for faculty, staff, and administrators as they help students address the challenges that accompany periods of change. For educational access to translate to student success, the rigorous inquiry described in this volume must be coupled with our best creative thinking to craft targeted solutions that equip all students to succeed. To that end, perhaps the most important principle we offer is that colleges and universities have both the power and the responsibility to help every student thrive.

References Bowman, N. A. (2010). The development of psychological well-being among first-year college students. Journal of College Student Development, 51(2), 188-200. http://doi.org/dq4vqm. Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J., & Associates. (2010). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass. National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). Fast facts: Graduation rates. U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=40

xi

INTRODUCTION A NEW VIEW OF STUDENT SUCCESS Jillian Kinzie

Over the last three decades, concern about lagging graduation rates in postsecondary education has captured the attention of researchers and educational policymakers. Despite increased access to higher education from a broader segment of the United States population, baccalaureate degree completion rates have remained at about 60% for decades. Within community colleges, the success rate is even lower; the percentage of students who earn a certificate or degree hovers around 32% (NCES, 2019). Every year thousands of students withdraw from postsecondary education without completing a degree or certificate program. Moreover, according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) report, Education at a Glance 2019, which compares the proportion of students who began postsecondary education but did not complete a degree across 18 countries, the U.S. no longer holds a position of leadership in degree production. The U.S has experienced growth in higher education participation rates, yet completion rates have not kept pace. The OECD data, coupled with reports from influential higher education organizations such as the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U), make a strong statement that degree attainment rates are failing to grow fast enough to meet or maintain international economic competitiveness. In addition, the learning outcomes of graduates are not meeting society’s needs in workforce readiness (AAC&U, 2015). These failings do not bode well, given that education beyond high school is now considered essential to earn a middle-class income, and as an increasingly diverse population with a wider range of academic preparation enters higher education. Quite simply, although the postsecondary system has widened opportunity to numerous students from diverse backgrounds, this increased access has not resulted in higher degree completion rates or a better educated workforce. Student success remains a vexing challenge in postsecondary education. With graduation rates continuing to lag despite investments to increase educational attainment, fresh thinking about student success is needed. Why have graduation rates remained stagnant for decades? Who are the culprits of depressed success rates: underprepared or unmotivated students or ineffective pedagogies and under-performing institutions? Is a “success orientation” something that could be encouraged in a student, or is this an unalterable student trait? Are traditional models of success simply deficient, 1

Thriving in Transitions

in that they neglect vital aspects of institutional practice, student attributes and behaviors, or emotional or psychological phenomenon? Will current models for student success have any relevance for an increasingly diverse student population? What is missing from current student success research? There is no shortage of practical (and in some cases impractical) questions regarding the persistent need to enhance student success. The contemporary challenge of student success demands more theorizing, advanced definitions, enriched models, and practical approaches and interventions to help more students succeed. A tall order for sure, but one that can be tackled given some fresh thinking in psychology, new perspectives on personal well-being, and the development of novel tools to assess student success. These fresh perspectives frame student success questions in more productive ways by inviting expansive thinking about the factors that affect student success. It is this evident need for an expanded understanding of student success and the potential of new thinking that is the point of departure for Schreiner, Louis, and Nelson’s book, Thriving in Transitions. In the chapters that follow, the authors provide a comprehensive introduction to the notion of thriving as a fresh, research-based approach to student success. Conceptualized as optimal functioning in areas believed to contribute to student success and persistence, the concept of thriving emanates from research on psychological well-being and emphasizes the individual motivation and psychological processes that lead to student success behaviors. Borrowing from the field of positive psychology (Keyes & Haidt, 2003), with its emphasis on what contributes to positive individual and community functioning, the concept of thriving proposes to explain the difference between students who flourish in college, those who make the most of campus opportunities and fully invest in learning, compared to students who simply survive college by meeting requirements with a minimal investment in learning (Schreiner, 2010, 2016). The stark differences between students who thrive and those who merely survive are recognizable to most educators in colleges and universities. No doubt at some point we have all wondered why students who seem to have similar backgrounds and potential for success have qualitatively different experiences at the same institution. Thriving also draws from psychological models of student retention in higher education. These models propose that characteristics, such as self-efficacy and locus of control, help students persevere when faced with academic and social challenges and that students’ interaction with the institution influences the development of a set of attitudes about being a student. These factors, plus a student’s sense of commitment to the institution, result in persistence (Bean & Eaton, 2000). The notion of thriving promises to explain the observable differences in how students approach, experience, and persist in college and to suggest where theory can aid in the design of interventions to enable a greater percentage of students to thrive in college. Ultimately, thriving promises to make a novel contribution to the contemporary problem of student success. 2

Introduction

In Piecing Together the Student Success Puzzle: Research, Propositions, and Recommendations (Kuh et al., 2007), my co-authors and I provide only the briefest introduction to the psychological perspectives that bear on the topic of student success and present extensive information about the educational practices that make a difference for student learning and success. The authors of Thriving in Transitions add an important piece to the student success puzzle by effectively elaborating the psychological models of student success and demonstrating the power of measuring thriving. Even more, they describe the utility of this information for developing a predictive model to estimate student success and for designing practical educational interventions. This revised edition continues to rely on an extensive body of research from Laurie Schreiner’s Thriving Project (see www.thrivingincollege.org). Authors in this edition fully explore the conceptual foundations for thriving, present empirical research on the predictors of thriving, and identify approaches that influence students to thrive. The notion of thriving is explored in several chapters by examining its relationship to important college transitions, such as the first college year, the sophomore experience, and the transition during senior year and beyond. The concept is also explored specifically for underserved student populations, including students of color on predominantly white campuses, transfer students, and high-risk students. A chapter focused on the role of faculty in helping students thrive is new to this edition, as research on thriving continues to find that faculty attitudes and behaviors have a strong influence on student thriving (Ash & Schreiner, 2016). Each chapter contributes to the development of a more nuanced understanding of thriving and offers practical educational interventions to increase student success. Before delving fully into the concept of thriving in this edition, it is important to set the stage for this work and consider the foundational principles of student success upon which the concept of thriving rests and also builds. Here, I provide a broad introduction to the topic of student success by first describing the national context for the current focus on student success and outlining some of the challenges associated with this emphasis. Then I briefly discuss the theoretical constructions for traditional definitions of student success and review the frameworks for alternative conceptions of student success to provide a context for conceptualizing thriving as a new view of student success. I close the chapter with a discussion of the ways in which the concept of thriving complements and extends existing research on student success and consider where this new view may lead, given current and future concerns in postsecondary education.

Student Success as Degree Completion The national goal for a greater percentage of students to earn a college degree is ambitious. Rising concerns about college affordability and value, at the same time a college education is deemed essential to earning even a modest middle-class living, coupled with stagnant 3

Thriving in Transitions

graduation rates, place significant pressure on administrators, educators, and policymakers to reduce the barriers to degree completion. The emphasis on increasing educational attainment rates illustrates the most basic definition of student success: that is, enabling students to gain access to college and complete a certificate or degree. This definition of increasing the rate of college survival, or what institutions outside the U.S. often refer to as “throughput,” is the basis of arguments that emphasize increasing access, enrollment, and persistence (Bowen et al., 2009; Hauptman, 2007). Student success is equated with graduation in this definition. The roots of student success theories are thus anchored in models of student persistence and graduation, as this definition of student success is foundational to all subsequent definitions. The conceptual framework for student success developed out of practical needs when campus administrators in the 1970s were generally concerned about students who departed, and in the 1980s when they realized that it was in their best interest to intensify efforts to retain and graduate the qualified students who had matriculated at their institutions. These interests led to research exposing the broad, complicated set of factors that interact to influence persistence. The persistence theories that have formed the basis of perspectives on student success derive from several different disciplinary perspectives, notably sociology, economics, organizational development, and psychology. This work is heavily based on Tinto’s (1975) model of student integration, Braxton’s (2000) framework of college student departure, and the economic models of St. John et al. (2000). Although all of these models address factors that influence a student’s decision to stay in college, they do so through competing explanations. Sociological perspectives were evident among the first persistence theories. These theories generally involve a search for commonalities of behavior that distinguish groups of students who remain enrolled in an institution from groups of students who leave. These theories also emphasize an array of academic and social interactions that encourage students to become integrated into the systems within the university (Mayhew et al., 2016). By far, the most widely adopted sociological model is Tinto’s (1975, 1993) interactionalist theory of retention that asserts student success is based on student–institution fit, which is influenced by two independent, but complementary adjustment processes: academic and social integration. Academic integration represents the extent to which a student adapts to explicit norms, such as earning passing grades, and the normative academic experiences and values of the institution. Social integration represents the extent to which students find the institution’s social environment to be agreeable with their preferences. Student persistence is a function of the quality of the relationships between students and other actors within the college and their home community, as well as their integration with academic norms. Students most likely to persist are those whose values, norms, and behaviors are congruent with the dominant patterns on campus (Berger & Milem, 1999). Increased levels of academic 4

Introduction

and social integration are presumed to lead to greater commitment to the institution and to the goal of graduation (Tinto, 1993). These commitments, in turn, increase the likelihood a student will persist to graduate. The second perspective dominating student persistence studies emphasizes an economic point of view. The primary determinants of persistence in studies that employ an economic perspective include financial need, student aid packaging, and adequacy of aid (Cabrera et al., 1992; St. John et al., 1996). Research using this approach has focused on the overall effect of financial aid on persistence; the sensitivity of persistence decisions to grants, loans, and other forms of financial assistance; and the effectiveness of different student aid packages in the retention of underrepresented students (St. John et al., 2000). An economic perspective is also evident in retention theories that emphasize the extent to which students consider the costs and benefits of staying in college and participating in various activities. These “price-response theories” focus in part on students’ analyses of the social and economic benefits of attending college compared to the costs and benefits associated with alternative choices, such as working full-time (St. John et al., 2000). If a student perceives that the cost of staying in school or becoming involved in educational activities, such as a first-year seminar, internship, or study abroad, outweighs the return on investment, they may forgo the opportunity and leave college prematurely (Braxton et al., 2004). Although the economic perspective has contributed to a deeper understanding of student persistence decisions, it neglects the role that the institution and campus actors play in shaping those decisions. Factors such as student support systems, interaction with faculty, and affective outcomes associated with college, which are known to play a role in student persistence (Mayhew et al., 2016), are typically not included in these models. Organizational perspectives emphasizing the institutional structures and processes that influence student behaviors also inform the retention theories foundational to any conceptualization of student success. Basic institutional features such as enrollment, selectivity, residential facilities, campus climate, and faculty–student ratio shape students’ attitudes and behaviors (Pike & Kuh, 2005). From this perspective, a student’s beliefs are affected by experiences with the institution, which then evolve into attitudes about the institution, which ultimately determine a student’s sense of belonging or fit. The organizational perspective advances the idea that institutional structures and processes, combined with students’ perceptions of the fairness of institutional policies and the responsiveness of faculty and staff members, affect decisions to persist or leave the institution. The final perspective employed in student success studies emanates from psychological theories. This focus views student persistence and success as largely influenced by students’ individual attributes, perceptions, beliefs, coping skills, levels of motivation, and interactions with other members of the campus community. Psychological theories of motivation, attribution, and self-efficacy are foundational to this perspective. 5

Thriving in Transitions

Students’ motivations are integral to psychological perspectives of college persistence. Ethington’s (1990) model of persistence is rooted in expectancy-value theory (Eccles, 1987), whose premise is that students’ expectations of success combine with the extent to which they value the goal of degree completion to produce differing levels of motivation that determine the amount of effort they invest in the college experience. What students generally expect to happen when they enter college shapes their subsequent behaviors in college, which in turn affects their academic performance and social adjustment to college life (Howard, 2005; Kuh, 1999). Students’ levels of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1982), or belief in their ability to succeed in college, affects these expectations of college, as does their sense of academic control (Perry et al., 2005). Students who perceive the outcomes of academic tasks and challenges to be under their own control, rather than a function of luck or powerful others, are also more motivated to engage in the academic environment and invest the necessary effort to succeed. According to attribution theory (Weiner, 1985), those who are most likely to persist are those who attribute their failures to a lack of effort rather than to a lack of ability. In the case of college students, this attribution enables them to seek new strategies and invest greater effort when they face challenges, so that they eventually complete a college degree. Bean and Eaton’s (2000) psychological model of college student retention incorporates these theories into a comprehensive portrait of student persistence. In their model, students’ personality, skills and abilities, beliefs, and motivation to attend college combine with their levels of self-efficacy, attribution, and coping skills at college entrance to create a predisposition toward persistence or departure. Then, as a consequence of students’ interactions with others on and off campus, their attitudes and sense of institutional fit are shaped. If the interactions bolster students’ self-efficacy; increase their confidence, motivation, and internal attributions of control; and reduce their stress levels, academic and social integration are more likely to occur. Integration produces a greater sense of institutional fit and loyalty, which in turn leads to a higher likelihood of persistence. A psychological perspective of student success provides the conceptual underpinnings of the construct of thriving as a new way of defining student success (Schreiner, 2010). The concept of thriving explored in this book is rooted in the field of positive psychology, which emphasizes well-being and positive functioning, with specific connections to the construct of flourishing (Keyes & Haidt, 2003, Seligman, 2011) that is manifested through positive relationships, rising to meet personal challenges, and engagement with the world (Schreiner, 2010). This perspective expands on theories of motivation and individual psychological processes that can be influenced by practices at the individual, classroom, and programmatic levels that would enable more students to flourish in college. It also emphasizes the differential effects of interventions on student success. More specifically, it advances a measure of students’ positive functioning in three key areas that are typically associated with student 6

Introduction

persistence: (a) academic engagement and performance, (b) interpersonal relationships, and (c) psychological well-being. The construct is somewhat more expansive than other psychological theories of student success because the measures of thriving involve individual attitudes; aspects of cognition and learning such as self-regulation; and also students’ experiences, interactions, and perceptions of the campus community. Taken together, the different theoretical perspectives on student persistence account for most of the key factors that shape what students are prepared to do when they enter college, how they respond to the college environment once enrolled, and the meanings they make of their experiences. However, each perspective has its shortcomings in terms of advancing the understanding of student success. In fact, no one theoretical perspective can adequately account for all the factors that influence success in college. Instead, contemporary theories must incorporate a range of perspectives to address the complexities of student success and to inform practice and policy on students’ behalf.

Frameworks for Student Success Although equating student success with increased completion rates is straightforward and essential to address current concerns, the focus is also limited in that it offers little insight into the complexities of student success. With its focus on the percentage of students who persist at a specific institution from year to year, along with GPA as an intermediate marker of their progress to graduation, this definition conceptualizes the problem simply as reversing the dropout rate and increasing completion rates. Unfortunately, it also leads to the position that the easiest way to improve graduation rates is for colleges and universities to become more selective. Indeed, research demonstrates that students with certain characteristics, such as those who have strong high school records, come from higher income families, and attend full time, are more likely to graduate (Adelman, 2006). However, such an approach of only admitting students whose background characteristics predispose them to graduate would not only fail to help the U.S. reach its ambitious goals for more adults with postsecondary credentials, but it also contradicts all the efforts to expand college access to a wider range of students. The laser focus on completion may also overshadow other important college processes and outcomes, including the quality of students’ experiences in undergraduate education, student behaviors and level of engagement in educationally purposeful activities, learning outcome attainment, preparation for the world of work and lifelong learning, personal growth and development, and many other desirable outcomes of college. The singular focus on graduation rates also provides limited insight into the full scope of what may be contributing to lagging completion rates and, more importantly, what action should be taken to improve student success. Finally, the emphasis on simple survival to earn a degree 7

Thriving in Transitions

can eclipse important educational experiences that engage students at high levels and help them make the most of their college experience. Although the focus on increasing college completion rates is important, to make a real difference in a wider range of student success goals in U.S. postsecondary education, a more expansive and actionable definition of student success is needed. Expanded definitions still include graduation rates, but they also consider the attainment of other desirable outcomes and aspects of the educational experience itself. More specifically, expanded definitions attend to issues of the quality of the experience and the content of the learning environment, student perceptions and behaviors, the attainment of educational and personal objectives, what students accomplish, and how they develop while in college. Finally, these expanded views and definitions of student success must also help guide and inform action to improve such success. Definitions of student success that move beyond the fundamental benchmarks of college completion rates and grades have emerged in recent years. Such expanded definitions have included learning gains, talent development, satisfaction and sense of belonging, and student engagement. The emphasis on student learning gains, for instance, has shaped a definition of student success that is about the attainment of various intellectual, personal, and social development outcomes, such as becoming proficient in writing, speaking clearly, and developing critical thinking skills. The attention to the attainment of particular educational goals is foremost on the agenda of many educators and organizations, including the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U, 2015). An emphasis on educational gains and learning outcomes as determinants of student success is emblematic of a learning-centered focus in higher education. This emphasis focuses attention on creating conditions that produce learning. In this framework, student success results when colleges and universities focus on developing students’ talents and habits for learning and is gauged by the extent to which student learning is advanced. Astin (1985a) advanced a theory of talent development that emphasizes the institution’s role in promoting student learning as a key aspect of student success in college. A talent development view emphasizes the educational impact of the institution on students and the extent to which the institution is able to enhance students’ intellectual and scholarly talents to make a positive difference in their lives. The talent development view of student success recognizes that every student can learn under the right conditions; therefore, the institution must organize its resources and create conditions for teaching and learning to optimize success. The talent development view of student success is about increasing the institution’s commitment to developing students to their full potential. This view of student success as developing student talent and potential has particular relevance to assuring success for an increasingly diverse student population. A talent development approach emphasizes the need to embrace and address students’ diverse talents 8

Introduction

and needs (Chickering, 2006). In this view, all students’ characteristics are considered assets rather than deficiencies. By adopting a talent development perspective and taking into account the backgrounds and characteristics of students, institutions develop approaches that are more responsive to the diverse learning needs of students historically underserved in higher education. Students’ perceptions of their experience in college, and specifically their sense of belonging and satisfaction, are also critical dimensions of student success. Astin (1993) proposed that an important aspect of student success is the extent to which students are satisfied with their educational experience and feel comfortable and affirmed in the learning environment. This definition supports the view that students’ impressions of institutional quality, the degree to which they feel a sense of belonging and support in the college environment, their willingness to attend the institution again, and their overall satisfaction with their experiences are precursors of educational attainment and critical dimensions of student success (Strauss & Volkwein, 2002; Tinto, 1993). Student engagement is another aspect of student success that has received considerable attention in recent years (Mayhew et al., 2016; Wolf-Wendel et al., 2009). A substantial body of research indicates that once students start college, a key factor in whether they will persist and thrive in college is the extent to which they participate in educationally effective activities that have been empirically demonstrated to contribute to their learning, personal development, and eventual success and persistence (Kuh, 2001). The concept of student engagement originates from Pace’s (1982) measures of quality of effort and Astin’s (1985b) theory of involvement and represents two key components (Kuh, 2001). The first is the amount of time and effort students put into their studies and additional activities that lead to the experiences and outcomes that characterize student success. The second component of the student engagement perspective is how institutions of higher education allocate their human and other resources and organize learning opportunities and services to encourage students to participate in and benefit from such activities. Because colleges and universities have control over the institutional conditions and practices that foster student success, this second dimension of engagement represents a point of influence for institutions. The emphasis on the institutional perspective of student success is vital, as it appropriately places greater onus for student success on institutional conditions and action, rather than ascribing all the responsibility for success to students. It has been argued that many more students would persist to their academic goals if colleges and universities intentionally and strategically designed themselves to promote greater student success (Kuh et al., 2005). Although student background characteristics influence persistence and completion rates as well as other college outcomes, engagement in specific educational practices increases the probability of success for all students. Essentially, successful students persist, benefit in desired ways from their college experiences, are satisfied with college, and graduate. 9

Thriving in Transitions

Another important consideration in the student engagement perspective is that engagement does not happen the same way for all students. Research by Harper and Quaye (2009) and Bensimon (2007) elaborate the needs of historically underrepresented students in higher education and expose some of the institutional barriers to engagement among these populations. Views of student engagement and success must be expanded to examine differences among student populations and advocate for the creation of conditions in the learning environment that take into account the particular needs of diverse student populations. To address the contemporary challenges of student success, institutions must be intentional about creating educationally engaging learning environments for all students. The aforementioned perspectives on student success are well established in the literature, and there is wide agreement on their practical importance. Notably, in recent years new elements of student success have emerged, representing novel dimensions, variations on common indicators, and harder to measure ineffable qualities. Examples of such indicators are an appreciation for human differences, commitment to democratic values, a capacity to work effectively with people from different backgrounds to solve problems, information literacy, and a well-developed sense of identity (Finley, 2012). Although degree attainment will likely remain the definitive measure of student success, strategies for advancing educational attainment are dependent on expanded definitions of success.

Expanded Views of Student Success The development of expanded views of student success was one of the objectives of the National Postsecondary Education Cooperative (NPEC), an organization of the U.S. Department of Education, to advance the quality, comparability, and utility of postsecondary data and information to support federal, state, and institutional policy development. In 2006, NPEC sponsored a forum for exchanging ideas about what constitutes student success and what factors impact the chances of success for different types of students in different types of postsecondary institutions. This event and the research publications emerging from the project offered new perspectives, highlighted the multidimensional issue of student success, and offered distinct definitions, revealing the varied nature of the concept of postsecondary student success (see www.nces.ed.gov/npec/papers.asp for commissioned papers). The major papers for the NPEC project adopted a different viewpoint to address the question: What is student success? In this section, the key points from these papers are summarized. The new definition of student success offered by Kuh et al. (2007) is broad: academic achievement; engagement in educationally purposeful activities; satisfaction; acquisition of desired knowledge, skills and competencies; persistence; attainment of educational objectives; and post-college performance. The authors also proposed a depiction of the route to student success as a wide path that begins with students’ precollege experiences and then moves into the college experience itself, which includes two central features—students’ 10

Introduction

behaviors and institutional conditions—and ends with desired outcomes and post-college indicators of student success. In contrast to the traditional educational pipeline image, this framework acknowledges the twists, turns, detours, roundabouts, and occasional dead ends that many students encounter in their college experience. This framework for student success emphasizes the actions that institutions and other organizations associated with postsecondary education must take to improve student success. Perna and Thomas (2008) specified student success as a generic term for an array of milestones ranging from middle school into adulthood. The authors reviewed literature on student success across four disciplines—economics, education, psychology, and sociology— and organized success into a chronological map of four transitions: (a) college readiness, (b) college enrollment, (c) college achievement, and (d) post-college attainment. Their report develops a conceptual model to guide policymakers, practitioners, and researchers in their efforts to reduce gaps in success across income, class, and racial/ethnic groups. The model suggests that one of the key steps to close the gap in student success must include recognition that student success is a longitudinal process shaped by multiple levels of context. Braxton (2008) explained that student retention and graduation are markers of student success, yet the meaning of student success extends beyond these two well-recognized indicators. He identified eight domains of college student success: (a) academic attainment, (b) acquisition of general education, (c) development of academic competence, (d) development of cognitive skills and intellectual dispositions, (e) occupational attainment, (f) preparation for adulthood and citizenship, (g) personal accomplishments, and (h) personal development. These domains reveal multiple ways for postsecondary students to demonstrate success and suggest that if a student achieves any of these, some degree of success has been attained. Braxton’s definition of student success also focused on student learning in a course as the fundamental factor in college outcomes. Feldman et al. (2008) adopted a view of student success informed by Holland’s (1997) person–environment fit theory to argue for the importance of judging student success within a particular context, namely the college major. They asserted that academic environments within colleges and universities are an essential component in understanding student success. Academic environments influence student learning; however, the authors maintain that all environments can be equally successful in promoting student learning, whether or not students’ personalities are congruent with those environments. This finding is instructive since it is grounded in a more developmentally and futuristically oriented perspective based on the competencies and interests that students desire to develop as a result of their collegiate experiences. It suggests that student performance and ultimate success must be judged in relation to students’ possession of the interests, abilities, and values that the respective academic environments seek to reinforce and reward.

11

Thriving in Transitions

Finally, Tinto and Pusser (2006) advanced an expanded view of student persistence that defines success as the completion of a college degree but places responsibility with institutions to enhance rates of degree completion, particularly among students from lowincome backgrounds. They argue for an institutional view and suggest that each student exists in a particular context that shapes their probability of succeeding in higher education. Their focus is primarily on institutional action; therefore, they outline the college or university conditions that are needed to promote success, exploring aspects of the institutional environment within the capacity of institutions to change, while also emphasizing the impact of state policies on student success. A prominent theme across the NPEC-produced research is that the impact of collegiate experiences is conditional, as these experiences interact with each student’s economic circumstances, social and cultural milieu, and attitudes and values. In addition, despite the extensive body of research on student persistence and success, it remains challenging to translate research findings about student success into forms of knowledge that institutions and states can use to direct their actions. It is also clear that no single program or well-crafted policy can increase educational success to the level that is required. It will take a systemic solution, the coordinated efforts of many educators and educational services, all focused on student success.

What Does Thriving Contribute to Student Success? Given the strong demand from various sectors to demonstrate evidence of student success beyond completion rates, it is not surprising that multiple definitions exist and that new constructions continue to emerge. The concept of thriving offers a new vision of student success. It extends existing definitions and research by focusing on the quality of students’ experience in postsecondary education and the impact that the experience has on life outside and beyond college. It also adds to the psychosocial dimensions of success by considering the internal psychological lens through which students view the world and, hence, their experience in postsecondary education. This approach advances the identification of the psychosocial processes within students that are most predictive of their academic success and persistence, with the ultimate aim of using this perspective to design interventions to help students get the most out of their college experience. In addition, while thriving makes an obvious contribution to increasing students’ ability to maximize their college experience on an individual level, it can also have an effect on institutional outcomes by increasing overall levels of student persistence and success. Thriving is another view of student success that encourages thinking beyond grades, retention, and graduation as the measures of success. Thriving advances a view of student success that is more holistic. Specifically, it offers a unified construct that incorporates both cognitive and psychosocial components. This view is consistent with current perspectives 12

Introduction

about college outcomes that emphasize learning gains and broader societal expectations of college graduates, including civic engagement, commitment to community welfare, and lifelong learning. The construct of thriving also moves beyond conceptions of student success that emphasize the influence of student backgrounds and experiences prior to college. Although research demonstrating the relationship between characteristics such as precollege preparation, high school grades, and socioeconomic status and college outcomes is robust, Schreiner (2010) posits that once levels of thriving are factored into the equation, students’ backgrounds are not as important to understanding their success as is their level of thriving. Her research demonstrated that students who were connected to others and were investing effort in the learning experience, regardless of their entry characteristics, were achieving higher grades and greater learning gains and were experiencing more success in college. This finding is critically important, given that more students than ever arrive at college with several of the classic predictors of premature departure. Even more, it suggests the potential for increasing all students’ likelihood of success by designing interventions to enable them to thrive. Thriving also expands on the popular notion of student engagement as an approach to student success. Although being engaged at high levels in educationally purposeful activities is associated with student success, thriving emphasizes the value of exploring the psychological processes that contribute to high levels of engagement and are in turn affected by that engagement. For example, information about students’ psychological perspectives and attitudes, such as their sense of academic determination, positive perspective, and social connectedness, could help explain differential levels of student engagement and also help campus administrators and educators address student attitudes and perspectives that might influence their engagement in educationally purposeful activities. Combining the psychosocial elements of thriving with the behavioral and institutional aspects of student engagement creates a powerful model for understanding student success in college. Finally, the most important aspect of all expanded definitions of student success, and particularly thriving, is the extent to which they stimulate action to enhance student success in college. The components of thriving are all amenable to change within students, rather than fixed traits with no potential for influence, and are open to intervention at the campus level. As a result, knowledge of student thriving levels can help guide programming and services to increase student success. The ultimate goal of the thriving perspective is to inspire interventions that enable more students to flourish during their college years and beyond.

Conclusion American higher education is changing dramatically as an increasingly diverse population enters college. This change provides an exciting opportunity to strengthen the potential of colleges and universities to enhance success for all students. If the goal is 13

Thriving in Transitions

to increase college completion rates, new models of success must address issues related to the diverse nature of students and must move beyond traditional views of student success. Although it is important to dedicate attention to retention and graduation rates as measures of success, greater attention must be given to the quality of students’ experience that fosters or hinders their success. New visions of success can also motivate new strategies to assist students. Visions of student success such as those represented by the thriving perspective demonstrate the potential for more students to succeed in college and suggest the campus interventions needed to increase success. Too much attention to simple measures of college completion has the potential to distract from the important work of ensuring educational quality and vibrant learning experiences that enrich students’ experiences in college. Quite simply, there is much more to a successful college experience than earning a degree, and institutional leaders must fully invest in optimizing the experience for all students.

References Adelman, C. (2006). The Toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school through college. U.S. Department of Education. Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). (2015). Committing to equity and inclusive excellence: A campus guide for self-study and planning. Ash, A., & Schreiner, L. A. (2016). Pathways to success in students of color on Christian campuses: The role of institutional integrity and sense of community. Christian Higher Education, 15(1-2), 38-61. http://doi.org/gfvtfm Astin, A. W. (1985a). Achieving educational excellence. Jossey-Bass. Astin, A. W. (1985b). Involvement: The cornerstone of excellence. Change, 17, 35-39. http://doi. org/cmm54q Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. Jossey-Bass. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147. http://doi.org/dszsqm Bean, J. P., & Eaton, S. (2000). A psychological model of college student retention. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the departure puzzle: New theory and research on college student retention (pp. 73-89). University of Vanderbilt Press. http://doi.org/b7d944 Bensimon, E. M. (2007). The underestimated significance of practitioner knowledge in the scholarship on student success. Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 441-469. http://doi.org/dqcj Berger, J. B., & Milem, J. F. (1999). The role of student involvement and perceptions of integration in a causal model of student persistence. Research in Higher Education, 40(6), 641-664. http://doi.org/cpn2ct Bowen, W. G., Chingos, M. M., & McPherson, M. S. (2009). Crossing the finish line: Completing college at America’s public universities. Princeton University Press. Braxton, J. M. (Ed.). (2000). Reworking the student departure puzzle. Vanderbilt University Press.

14

Introduction

Braxton, J. M. (2008). Toward a theory of faculty professional choices that foster college student success. In John C. Smart (Ed.), Higher Education: A Handbook of Theory and Research (Vol. 23, pp 181-207). Springer. Braxton, J. M., Hirschy, A. S., & McClendon, S. A. (2004). Understanding and reducing college student departure (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Vol. 30, No. 3). Jossey-Bass. http://doi.org/dzxn2f Cabrera, A. E., Nora, A., & Castaneda, M. B. (1992). The role of finances in the persistence process: A structural model. Research in Higher Education, 33(5), 571-593. http://doi.org/ds5qnd Chickering, A. W. (2006). Creating conditions so every student can learn. About Campus, 11(2), 9-15. http://doi.org/b2v2pk Eccles, J. S. (1987). Gender roles and women’s achievement-related decisions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11(2), 135-172. http://doi.org/d9hwz3 Ethington, C. A. (1990). A psychological model of student persistence. Research in Higher Education, 31(3), 279-293. http://doi.org/c62dg6 Feldman, K. A., Smart, J. C., & Ethington, C. A. (2008). Using Holland’s theory to study patterns of college student success. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 23, pp. 329-380). Springer. http://doi.org/cjjqgc Finley, A. (2012). Making progress? What we know about the achievement of liberal education outcomes. Association of American Colleges & Universities. Harper, S. R., & Quaye, S. J. (Eds). (2009). Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations. Routledge. Hauptman, A. M. (2007). Strategies for improving student success in postsecondary education. Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE). Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (3rd ed.). Psychological Assessment Resources. Howard, J. A. (2005). Why should we care about student expectations? In T. E. Miller, B. E. Bender, & J. H. Schuh (Eds.), Promoting reasonable expectations: Aligning student and institutional views of the college experience (pp. 10-33). Jossey-Bass. http://doi.org/fhptc2 Keyes, C. M., & Haidt, J. (Eds). (2003). Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well-lived. American Psychological Association. Kuh, G. D. (1999). Setting the bar high to promote student learning. In G. S. Blimling, E. J. Whitt, & Associates (Eds.), Good practice in student affairs: Principles to foster student learning (pp. 67-90). Jossey-Bass. http://doi.org/dqcp Kuh, G. D. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning: Inside the National Survey of Student Engagement. Change, 33(3), 10-17, 66. http://doi.org/d9rmk7 Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2007). Piecing together the student success puzzle: Research, propositions, and recommendations (ASHE Higher Education Report Volume 32, Number 5). Jossey-Bass. http://doi.org/dqcq Kuh, G., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J., Whitt, E., & Associates. (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. Jossey-Bass. Mayhew, M. J., Rockenbach, A. N., Bowman, N. A., Seifert, T. A. D., & Wolniak, G. C., with Pascarella, E. T. & Terenzini, P. T. (2016). How college affects students: 21st century evidence that higher education works, Volume 3. Jossey-Bass. 15

Thriving in Transitions

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2019, May). The condition of education. U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_ctr.asp Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2019). Education at a Glance 2019: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing. http://www.oecd.org/education/ Pace, C. R. (1982). Achievement and the quality of student effort. National Commission on Excellence in Education. Perna, L. W., & Thomas, S. L. (2008). Theoretical perspectives on student success: Understanding the contributions of the disciplines. ASHE Higher Education Report, 34(1). Jossey-Bass. Perry, R. P., Hall, N. C., & Ruthig, J. C. (2005). Perceived (academic) control and scholastic attainment in higher education. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 20, pp. 363-436). Springer. http://doi.org/bb793b Pike, G. R., & Kuh, G. D. (2005). A typology of student engagement for American colleges and universities. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 185-209. http://doi.org/fgct2x Schreiner, L. A. (2010). The “Thriving Quotient: A new vision for student success. About Campus, 15(2), 2-10. http://doi.org/dgdbg2 Schreiner, L. A. (2016). Thriving: Expanding the goal of higher education. In D. W. Harward (Ed.), Well-being and higher education: A strategy for change and the realization of education’s greater purpose (pp. 135-148). American Association of Colleges and Universities. Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. Free Press. St. John, E. P., Cabrera, A. E., Nora, A., & Asker, E. H. (2000). Economic influences on persistence reconsidered: How can finance research inform the reconceptualization of persistence models. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 29-47). Vanderbilt University Press. St. John, E. P., Paulsen, M. B., & Starkey, J. B. (1996). The nexus between college choice and persistence. Research in Higher Education, 37(2), 175-220. http://doi.org/fvfxhp Strauss, L. C., & Volkwein, J. F. (2002). Comparing student performance and growth in 2- and 4-Year institutions. Research in Higher Education, 43(2), 133-161. http://doi.org/d475kb Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45, 89-125. http://doi.org/b2kbj6 Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. Tinto, V., & Pusser, B. (2006). Moving from theory to action: Building a model of institutional action for student success. National Postsecondary Education Cooperative, U.S. Department of Education. Weiner, B. (1985). An attribution theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92(4), 548-573. http://doi.org/ccmnx4 Wolf-Wendel, L., Ward, K., & Kinzie, J. (2009). A tangled web of terms: The overlap and unique contribution of involvement, engagement, and integration to understand college student success. Journal of College Student Development, 50(4), 407-428. http://doi.org/cq34fk

16

CHAPTER ONE FROM SURVIVING TO THRIVING DURING TRANSITIONS Laurie A. Schreiner

The college years are full of transitions. First-year students move from the structured environment of high school or the world of work to the bewildering array of choices and increased academic expectations of a university. Sophomores transition from the visible support of the first-year experience to a period in which there is little tangible support or attention from the institution, and academic requirements increase compared to the first year. Students transferring into an institution transition from the familiar processes of their former college or university into a new system with unfamiliar bureaucratic structures. Students choosing a major—or changing a major—transition from one discipline’s way of viewing the world to the perspectives, expectations, and vocabulary of a new discipline. Additional transitions occur as those who have lived on campus move off campus, as each new course begins, and as responsibilities and freedoms shift with workloads and family obligations. The ultimate transition occurs as graduating seniors prepare to enter the world beyond college. In each of these transitions, there is opportunity for growth. Times of transition can be positive experiences that involve movement toward one’s full potential, but they can also be negative experiences that shatter a student’s confidence or lead to disengagement from the environment (Goodman et al., 2006). The pivotal nature of these pervasive transitions is why we have chosen to focus on them in this book. Successful transitions are integral to a student’s ability to complete and benefit from a college education, and many of the students who choose to leave college do so during transition periods. For students from populations that historically have been underserved by higher education, transition is an almost daily occurrence as they constantly move in and out of differing subcultures and environments. These students in particular deserve attention, as many of the programs and services developed to help them succeed in college have not been effective (Attewell et al., 2006). The traditional view of student success as academic performance (i.e., GPA) and graduation that Kinzie outlined in the introduction does not encompass all the ways that higher education hopes to impact students and prepare them to serve an increasingly complex society, nor has it provided an effective repertoire of interventions to enable more students to reach their educational goals. Instead, a broader vision for student success is needed, one that incorporates all the dimensions articulated by Kuh and associates (2005): “satisfaction, 17

Thriving in Transitions

persistence, and high levels of learning and personal development” (p. xiv). The construct of thriving provides a new and more expansive perspective of student success by focusing not only on academic success, but also on the relationships, perspectives, and psychological well-being that allow students to gain maximum benefit from their college experience (Schreiner, 2010a). Because thriving is characterized by aspects of a student’s experiences or perspectives that are amenable to change, there is enormous potential for institutions to design interventions that will enable a greater number of students to succeed. This chapter addresses the nature of transitions and outlines why they are critical junctures for student success. It will explore characteristics of successful transitions and describe the construct of thriving as a conceptualization of student success that holds promise for enabling more students to experience successful transitions during the college years and be prepared for the further transitions of life. The chapter also will highlight institutional efforts to intervene in ways that promote thriving as effective strategies for assisting students in transition.

The Nature of Transitions All transitions involve change—change from the familiar to the unknown. As psychologists have noted for generations, anytime a person encounters the change inherent in a transition, whether minor or significant, they experience a stress reaction (Selye, 1976). Stress researchers have found, however, that not all persons respond in the same way to the stressors in their lives; the key element is how positively or negatively the person perceives the event, which is determined by their cognitive appraisal of the situation (Lazarus, 1998). Schlossberg’s (1989) original conceptualization of transition theory within a higher education context supports this view as she defines student transitions as influenced by perceptions. Students respond differently from one another in transitions, adjust to the required change at varying rates, and experience growth or decline primarily as a function of their perceptions and the quality of support provided during the transition. Schlossberg’s (1989) transition theory was originally intended to describe adult students returning to college, yet the principles apply to students regardless of their age or stage in life. Transition begins with an event or nonevent that is perceived as significant by the student: something occurs that was either anticipated or unexpected, or a significant event that was expected to happen does not. As a result, relationships, roles, life routines, and ways of seeing the world begin to change. As Schlossberg notes, the impact of such inherently stressful changes depends on the ratio of the student’s assets and liabilities at the time, as well as whether there are single or multiple changes occurring simultaneously. A student with a strong repertoire of coping skills and a significant support system who perceives the changes as a necessary part of a positive new future will experience a less traumatic stress 18

Surviving to Thriving

reaction than will a student who lacks adequate coping skills and sufficient support. A student who perceives the stress of transition negatively is less equipped to manage it effectively. Although transitions begin with a single event or nonevent, dealing with a transition is a process that extends over time. Goodman and colleagues (2006) refer to the process as a series of phases they label moving in, moving through, and moving out. For example, first-year students transitioning from high school to college experience multiple changes in roles, routines, and relationships that continue throughout the first semester and even through the first year. In fact, researchers Gale and Parker (2014) prefer the perspective of transition as becoming, noting the complexity and fluidity of the identity changes that occur over time and are not bound to certain events or timespans. How students respond to these changes depends on two aspects of what psychologists call their cognitive appraisal: primary and secondary appraisal (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Primary cognitive appraisal is how someone views the transition itself: Is it positive, negative, or irrelevant? When a transition is viewed as a positive opportunity, students are more likely to use what Bean and Eaton (2000) refer to as approach coping skills: seeking out information and assistance, engaging with support systems, and investing effort and energy in the transition activities. In contrast, those who perceive a transition as negative are more likely to engage in avoidance coping mechanisms: denying the need for help or information; avoiding the situation; and using alcohol, sleep, or other distracting activities to escape. Secondary cognitive appraisal occurs after a student has determined whether the transition is positive, negative, or irrelevant. This appraisal is a self-assessment of one’s resources for coping with the change as it occurs: Does one have the information, support, and coping skills needed to handle the transition? A student’s sense of control over the situation is paramount throughout the cognitive appraisal process. When students feel they have some degree of control during a transition, they are far more likely to use healthy coping skills and problem-solving strategies and to remain engaged with their changing circumstances in positive ways (Perry et al., 2005). Successful transitions thus have five hallmarks that distinguish them from unsuccessful transitions. Students (a) perceive them positively as opportunities for growth; (b) use healthy coping skills during the transition to approach the transitional activities rather than avoid them; (c) believe they have the support they need to move through the transition successfully; (d) access resources during the transition for relevant information, assistance, and support; and (e) emerge from the transition having grown in personally significant ways. The construct of thriving, with its expanded perspective on student success, offers a framework for helping students proceed successfully through transition periods in college in ways that further their growth and enable them to benefit more fully from their college experience.

19

Thriving in Transitions

Thriving as an Expanded Vision for Student Success The construct of thriving was developed in response to the focus on graduation rates as the ultimate measure of student success in higher education (Bowen et al., 2009). Although graduation is an important outcome indicative of student success, its very nature as an event that either does or does not occur conveys a survival perspective: college graduates are those who have survived the college experience. Yet, there are broader qualitative outcomes of the college experience that have been overlooked in this perspective—aspects of personal growth, healthy relationships, connections to a broader community, and ways of seeing the world that enable the student to gain maximum benefit from both the college experience and life after college. The promise of higher education lies in its ability to empower students and broaden their capacity to engage the world as global citizens and whole persons (Schneider, 2005). Student success is more than just surviving in the college environment; thriving redefines student success as being fully engaged intellectually, socially, and emotionally, experiencing a sense of psychological well-being that leads not only to persistence to graduation, but also to being able to contribute meaningfully to society (Schreiner, 2016). Thriving is conceptualized as optimal functioning in three key areas: academic engagement, interpersonal relationships, and psychological well-being (Schreiner, 2016). Thriving students are not only succeeding academically but also are engaged in the learning process, investing effort to reach important educational goals, managing their time and commitments effectively, connected in healthy ways to other people, optimistic about their future, positive about their present choices, appreciative of differences in others, and committed to enriching their community. Based on this holistic vision of college student thriving, the Thriving Quotient was developed to measure these aspects of students’ academic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal engagement and well-being. Each scale on the instrument consists of multiple psychological constructs that combine to characterize a high-functioning individual (Schreiner, 2010a). The conceptual framework that guided the development of the Thriving Quotient combines empirical research from positive psychology about what contributes to optimal individual and community functioning (Keyes & Haidt, 2003; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000) with models of student retention that emphasize students’ psychosocial processes and interactions (Bean & Eaton, 2000; Braxton et al., 2004). Pilot testing, as well as interviews and focus groups with students who were perceived by faculty, staff, and their peers to be thriving, refined the elements from these theories that were included in the final instrument. One of the key concepts to emerge within the field of positive psychology is flourishing, which Keyes and Haidt (2003) describe as high levels of emotional, psychological, and social well-being that are associated with productive engagement with others and in society. Because flourishing is not a construct that has been studied extensively in college students and thus does not contain the academic component so crucial to student success, the construct is 20

Surviving to Thriving

insufficient to describe the experiences of college students who are vitally and successfully engaged, both psychologically and behaviorally, in the intellectual and social demands of the college environment. We have chosen the term thriving to characterize the combination of positive functioning demonstrated in flourishing with the unique attitudes and behaviors evident in highly successful college students. The concept of thriving is not only linked to models of psychological well-being but is also influenced by models of student retention that emphasize the psychosocial nature of student success. Bean and Eaton’s (2000) model highlights the psychological processes in which students engage as they experience college life, processes that develop a sense of academic and social integration leading to institutional fit, retention, and graduation. Another relevant persistence model emphasizes the psychological processes that influence social integration in particular, and includes communal potential, proactive social adjustment, and psychosocial engagement (Braxton et al., 2004). These models, combined with the concept of flourishing from the field of positive psychology, form the conceptual framework within which thriving was developed. After combining these interdisciplinary perspectives on well-being and student success with descriptions derived from interviewing successful college students, the Thriving Quotient was developed to reliably measure thriving. Pilot testing, revision, and exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses resulted in a survey instrument with 24 items clustered on five factors, a model that produced an excellent fit of the data and demonstrated high reliability (α = .89; Schreiner, 2016). The construct of thriving is represented in the Thriving Quotient with scales labeled (a) Engaged Learning, (b) Academic Determination, (c) Positive Perspective, (d) Diverse Citizenship, and (e) Social Connectedness. Each of the factors represents an element of academic, psychological, or interpersonal thriving that has been empirically demonstrated to be amenable to change within students, rather than a fixed personality trait over which there is little control (see Figure 1.1). In a national study of 14,067 students from 53 public and private four-year institutions, these aspects of thriving were found to account for an additional 11%-23% of the variation in important outcomes such as college grades and intent to graduate, over and above what was explained by institutional differences and individual student demographic characteristics (Schreiner et al., 2011). The three major areas of thriving will be explored below, along with the specific scales that comprise each of them. Academic Thriving Academic thriving is characterized by two scales on the Thriving Quotient: Engaged Learning and Academic Determination. Students who are thriving academically are psychologically engaged in the learning process; they are meaningfully processing course material, making connections between what they already know or are interested in and 21

Thriving in Transitions

what needs to be learned. They are focused and attentive to new learning opportunities and actively thinking about and discussing with others what they are learning. In short, engaged learners are energized by the learning process (Schreiner & Louis, 2011). Thriving students also possess a strong sense of academic determination, characterized by a powerful motivation to succeed in college and the willingness to invest the necessary effort to do so. Students high in Academic Determination are able to self-regulate in order to maximize their success. They effectively manage their time and the multiple academic and personal demands of the college environment; they have clear educational goals and strategies for reaching them; and when classes and assignments are difficult or boring, they employ a variety of strategies to persist until they succeed (Schreiner, 2016). Most importantly, students who thrive academically are aware of their strengths and know how to apply them to the academic challenges they face, fully cognizant that it is the investment of quality effort on a regular basis that will help them reach their goals.

Figure 1.1. Construct of thriving as represented in the Thriving Quotient.

Psychological Thriving Thriving in college requires the development of healthy attitudes toward self as well as the learning process. Although psychological elements are interwoven throughout the Thriving Quotient, the factor called Positive Perspective represents the primary psychological lens through which students view the world. Students who thrive have an optimistic way of viewing the world and their future, with the result that they tend to be more satisfied with their lives and enjoy the college experience more. This perspective is not an overly optimistic view of self that is unrealistic and ultimately unhealthy, however (Carver et al., 2009). A positive perspective is a way of viewing reality and coping with it proactively. Students with a positive perspective are able to take a more long-term view of events that happen to 22

Surviving to Thriving

them and are able to consider those events from multiple vantage points. As a result, they are less likely to overreact; they can put things in perspective and reframe negative events to find some positive benefit or learning opportunity. Adversity is perceived as a temporary setback that can be addressed with greater effort or more effective strategies in the future. Realistic optimism enables students to experience more positive emotions on a regular basis (Carver et al., 2009), which leads to higher levels of satisfaction with the college experience (Schreiner, 2016). Interpersonal Thriving Relationships play an important role in student success and positive life outcomes. Two aspects of interpersonal thriving are reflected in the factors of the Thriving Quotient: Social Connectedness and Diverse Citizenship. Although both of these factors describe interpersonal connections, the former captures students’ beliefs about the sufficiency of their personal relationships, while the latter emphasizes the attitudes and values that drive their interactions with others. Social Connectedness is the presence of healthy relationships in students’ lives. Having good friends, being in relationship with others who listen to them, and feeling connected to others so that one is not lonely all combine to form this factor. The ability to form and maintain healthy relationships is an important element in college students’ growth (Chickering & Reisser, 1993). Also critical to thriving is the sense of mattering (Rayle & Chung, 20072008; Schlossberg, 1989), which is the sense of being cared for and appreciated, along with the belief that others value an individual’s contribution and take time to understand them. Diverse Citizenship is a combination of openness and valuing of differences in others, along with a desire to make a contribution to one’s community and the confidence to do so. Thriving students give time to help others and respond to others with openness and curiosity, believing that the other has something important to contribute to the relationship. They want to make a difference in their community and the larger society (Schreiner, 2016). Together, the academic, psychological, and interpersonal domains of thriving represent areas of student functioning that are amenable to change. Students bring into the college environment personality predispositions, behavioral tendencies, life experiences, and ways of seeing the world that often appear to be fixed and beyond an institution’s control. However, there are also many attitudes and behaviors that can be changed with intervention. By defining and measuring thriving with constructs that other researchers have empirically demonstrated are malleable, the Thriving Quotient provides a method for colleges and universities to measure student development holistically and suggests specific mechanisms for increasing the benefits students gain from the college experience. Although the initial goal in creating the instrument was to develop a reliable and valid measure of positive student functioning that connects to important outcomes in higher 23

Thriving in Transitions

education, the ultimate goal is to design interventions that enable a greater percentage of college students to thrive during their college years and beyond. In the following section, I outline specific ways that designing programs and services around the concept of thriving in transitions could enable more students to derive full benefit from the college experience during times of significant change.

Thriving in Transitions Given that transitions occur throughout the college experience, providing students with strategies for approaching these periods of change could prove useful in enabling them to successfully cope with subsequent transitions not only during college, but also throughout their lives. The construct of thriving provides a useful framework for exploring how colleges and universities might more effectively equip students for successful transitions. Three key elements of successful transition experiences can be addressed by a focus on the components of thriving. First, a successful transition begins with a positive cognitive appraisal: Thriving students perceive the transition as an opportunity for positive growth and believe that they have the ability to successfully move through the period of change and benefit from it. Second, successful transitions occur within a context of support: Thriving students are surrounded with the information, resources, feedback, and people they need to sustain their energy and motivation through the change process. Finally, successful transitions result from effective strategies employed at the appropriate time: Thriving students are equipped with proactive coping skills and ways of interacting with others and with events that occur during the transition (Schlossberg, 2007). In each element of a successful transition, an institutional focus on specific aspects of student thriving can enable students to move through the change process in positive ways and emerge more confident and equipped for the future. Positive Appraisal Successful transitions begin with how such events are perceived. When they are perceived as positive opportunities for growth, rather than as threats to self-esteem or as challenges that are likely to result in failure, the student has the motivation and confidence to engage throughout the transition period (Schlossberg, 2007). The Positive Perspective element of thriving addresses this issue of perception, as it equips students with the ingredients for a positive primary and secondary cognitive appraisal of transition events. Foundational to thriving in transitions is the outlook on life that students hold and the perspective they take of events that happen. Thriving college students have a positive perspective on life, what Seligman (1990) calls an optimistic explanatory style, which enables them to handle challenges more easily. These students’ way of appraising a transitional event is to take the long view and see the bigger picture; they view the transition as necessary and tend 24

Surviving to Thriving

to detect aspects of the transition events that are opportunities for them to learn and grow. As institutions attempt to equip students for successful transitions, two strategies could be helpful in bolstering students’ ability to make positive appraisals. The first approach targets all students entering a transition, whereas the second approach targets specific students in need. All students about to experience a transition could benefit from intentional communication from institutional representatives about the meaning and potential growth opportunities of the upcoming period of change well before the events begin. When an institution can frame a transition for students in terms of the positive impact it can have, the benefits to be gained from it, and the specific opportunities for learning and growth that are open to all students during the period of change, students are equipped with mechanisms for understanding what is likely to happen and how it can benefit them. Perceiving a potentially stressful time as an opportunity rather than as a threat is the first step toward a successful transition (Schlossberg, 2007). In addition to helping students frame the upcoming transition positively, institutions could equip students to assess their own ability to handle the demands of the transition by outlining what those demands are likely to be. Secondary cognitive appraisal involves a self-assessment of one’s coping skills, available resources, and potential support networks, within the context of the demands required during the transition (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Accordingly, a description of the expected demands, along with the types of coping skills that will be beneficial and the specific support the institution will provide, will equip students with the ability to determine their likelihood of effectively managing the transition. The way students are oriented to college, to their major, and even to the courses in which they are enrolled in the early stages of a transition is crucial. When institutional leaders convey that there are effective strategies for success in college, or when faculty explain that part of their job is to teach students strategies for success in their course, students are more likely to experience a sense of control that is vital to their success and is amenable to intervention (Perry et al., 2005). Institutions could be of further help to students by providing them with a way of measuring their current thriving and then directing them to the specific resources and support they need, based on the areas indicated in their Thriving Quotient scores. This second approach to bolstering positive cognitive appraisal of a transition thus targets specific students for intervention. Students’ thriving could be measured at the beginning of the transition period, and those students whose Positive Perspective scores are significantly lower than other students of the same class level could be targeted for further intervention that would teach them an optimistic explanatory style, for example. Such interventions could be implemented in the advising relationship, in peer mentoring, or through workshops offered online or as part of student life programming. Equipping students with an optimistic explanatory style is particularly important with first-year students, who are in a new and 25

Thriving in Transitions

unfamiliar environment and may be feeling they have little control. The intervention would teach students to attribute failures to controllable causes and to view them as unique to a specific event rather than global in nature (Perry et al., 2005; Seligman, 1990). As students learn about the psychological processes that impact their success, they are provided with a road map that normalizes the journey and gives them a sense of control over it. Students who have mastered these skills could offer insight to other students, as well as to the institution, about the strategies and support that have contributed to their positive perspective. Providing Support The likelihood of a successful transition increases with the amount of appropriate support provided. Institutions have designed a wide array of programming for students in transition with this premise in mind. Orientation, first-year seminars, peer leadership programs, and academic support centers have all been developed as mechanisms to provide intentional support to students who are experiencing a transition period. The support is often a combination of information and emotional connections: Students are connected to the information and resources they need to succeed, as well as to others who are compatriots or role models (Greenfield et al., 2013). Despite this network of support created by many institutions, students are still most likely to drop out of college during a transition period (Nora et al., 2005). Their departure may signal that their own appraisal of the transition resulted in the conclusion that they are not equipped to succeed, but it also could mean that the way the institution provided support was not appropriate or sufficient. Support during transition is most effective when it meets students’ emotional needs, providing assurance and generating positive emotions, and also when it meets their needs for information and feedback. Institutions provide a significant amount of information to students in transition, but that information may not be salient to students due to the timing or method of communication (Bransford et al., 2000). Beyond midsemester warnings, it is rare for institutions to provide individual feedback to students during a transition period so that students are aware of how their effort and strategies are contributing to their experience of success or failure, yet such information can be vital to student success (Kuh, 2008). Institutional interventions that bolster the Social Connectedness and Diverse Citizenship inherent in student thriving can assist students in transition by providing the type of support that enables them to successfully navigate college’s challenges. Social Connectedness, which involves positive interactions with others and a sense of mattering to other people, can be fostered by intentionally linking students not only to others who are experiencing the same transition but also to people who have successfully navigated that transition and to those who are part of the community to which students are transitioning. This concept is at the heart of most first-year experience programs and peer mentoring, but too many 26

Surviving to Thriving

institutions end this practice in the first year. National research on sophomores highlighted in Chapter 6 of this book underscores the importance of structural supports that go beyond the first year, as more than a third of students report a desire for the institution to provide more assistance to them in making friends. Helping students make the transition to college is an important first step, but intentional mechanisms on campus are needed to connect students to social networks after the first year. Astin’s (1984) model of student involvement highlights the positive role that involvement on campus plays in students’ learning and development. Cheng’s (2004) research has found that the involvement needs to be selective, intentional, and meaningfully connected to the larger campus community for students to derive the most benefit. Connecting students to other students and faculty in their major is particularly beneficial for providing the type and quality of support that is needed in an academic environment (Kim & Sax, 2017). Interventions designed to enhance students’ Diverse Citizenship also can provide the varied types of support that are vital to a successful transition. Diverse Citizenship reflects openness to and appreciation of differences in others, a desire to make a difference in one’s surrounding community and the broader society, and the confidence to do so. Interventions that enhance this aspect of thriving typically place students in regular contact with others who are different but also provide ongoing social support and timely feedback about students’ actions. For example, effective service-learning courses and living–learning communities have several key ingredients in common that contribute to their significant ability to enhance thriving during transitions. These include: (a) the opportunity for sustained contact based on equal status, (b) a safe environment and structural support for providing individual feedback and managing conflict, and (c) a common goal that requires collaboration across differences (Schreiner, 2010b). Thus, when academic courses are organized to include servicelearning opportunities as partnerships rather than as charity (Yamamura & Koth, 2018), or when living–learning communities have themes and specific goals to which all members subscribe, there is greater potential for the experience to enable successful progression through a period of transition. In both instances, there is not only emotional support but also the timely provision of contextualized information, along with feedback from faculty, classmates, and community partners about the student’s growth and progress. Effective Strategies The final component of a successful transition involves employing effective strategies to move through the transition and experience growth. As Bean and Eaton (2000) emphasize, such strategies propel the student toward further engagement and problem solving, rather than encourage defensive actions that lead to withdrawal and disconnection. Although positive appraisal and the perception of adequate support during a stressful transition are vital, if

27

Thriving in Transitions

effective strategies for responding to the demands of the transition are not employed, the student is not likely to transition successfully and be prepared for the next phase of college life. Interventions that focus on student thriving in the classroom offer the best chance for helping students in transition develop effective strategies for success. Strategies with empirical support for their effectiveness include components of the Academic Determination aspect of thriving: goal-setting, effort regulation, self-regulated learning, strengths development, and the identification of multiple pathways to educational goals (Lopez & Louis, 2009; Pintrich & Zusho, 2002; Robbins et al., 2006; Snyder et al., 2002). Classroom interventions that enhance the Engaged Learning element of thriving focus on strategies for motivating students, helping them make meaningful real-world connections to their learning, and encouraging mindful attention to new ideas (Louis, 2015; Schreiner & Louis, 2011). Institutions that design interventions to address academic thriving focus their efforts on faculty development, advising, and curriculum design. They also work with student life professionals to normalize the help-seeking process on campus so that students feel comfortable accessing resources and learning effective strategies for success during transitions. Faculty development programs that demonstrate effective methods of engaging students in the learning process can lead more faculty to use active learning and inclusive pedagogy, to connect to students in and out of class, and to teach students specific strategies for mastering the course content. The more faculty learn to “situate learning in the learners’ experiences” (Baxter Magolda & King, 2004, p. 41), the more likely students are to meaningfully process course content and become academically engaged. Providing students with choices in how to demonstrate mastery of the course content also enhances students’ sense of control in an unfamiliar academic environment, which can lead to greater learning (Perry et al., 2005). An institution is positioned to enhance academic thriving when faculty development programs equip instructors with effective assessment strategies that provide a range of options to students. The academic advising relationship is an ideal vehicle for equipping students with effective strategies during a transition because it is a structured opportunity that all students on every college campus have for an ongoing, one-on-one interaction with a concerned faculty or staff member who is focused on the student and their current transition. Advising programs that teach students effective strategies for handling the demands of a transition emphasize student responsibility and initiative, teaching students specific skills for becoming engaged in their own learning and investing the necessary effort to succeed in college (Drake et al., 2013). Advisors can teach students coping skills that are implicit in the Positive Perspective element of thriving: proactive and problem-focused, rather than reactive and avoidant. They can encourage students to seek out information, reframe negative events so they see others’ perspectives or can find something to be learned from the experience, use humor effectively to cope, and view failures as temporary setbacks from which they can learn (Schreiner & 28

Surviving to Thriving

Hulme, 2017). But the primary way in which academic advising that is focused on student thriving can equip students with the necessary strategies for successful transitions is by building hope. The more advisors can encourage students to brainstorm multiple pathways to their educational goals, the greater the likelihood of a smooth transition. The final institutional vehicle for interventions that increase academic thriving among students in transition is curriculum design. Although faculty and academic administrators may be unlikely to view curriculum design as an intervention strategy for thriving in transitions, there is research to support the power of an integrated and coherent curriculum to enhance student learning and success (Braskamp et al., 2006). In addition, considerable empirical support for the value of learning communities suggests that redesigning the curriculum around student cohorts, interdisciplinary content, and faculty partnerships at key points in the college years can enable more students to transition effectively through the demands of a college degree (Fink & Inkelas, 2015; Rocconi, 2011). Living–learning communities provide a particularly powerful means for not only providing social support and feedback, but also teaching students specific strategies for success. When students experience a sense of community within a learning environment that extends beyond the classroom into their living environment, they grow and develop intellectually, interpersonally, and emotionally (Fink & Inkelas, 2015; Inkelas & Weisman, 2003). In addition to the aforementioned institutional interventions, normalizing the helpseeking process on campus is an important strategy for helping students thrive in transitions. Students need to know not only the campus resources that are available and how to access them, but also that successful students seek out those resources, particularly during times of stress and change. Too often, students may believe that only those of low ability put effort into academic pursuits and that help-seeking is perceived as a sign of weakness (Dweck, 2006). Student life professionals can help change campus norms by conveying that effort is a necessary ingredient in success and through the use of peer models who emphasize helpseeking as a strategy used by successful students (Schilling & Schilling, 2005; Schuh, 2005).

Conclusion Transitions are part of every student’s college experience and are pivotal times for students’ decisions about their abilities and resources to succeed. By shifting the focus to thriving during transitions, institutions have a new repertoire of interventions that can enable more students to benefit from the college experience. Helping students appropriately frame transitions, providing timely information and feedback in a context of emotional support, and teaching students effective strategies to proactively cope with multiple demands during times of significant change provide a strong foundation for ensuring that students not only graduate, but establish healthy patterns for flourishing in life transitions beyond college. 29

Thriving in Transitions

References Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308. Attewell, P. A., Lavin, D. E., Domina, T., & Levey, T. (2006). New evidence on college remediation. Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 886-924. http://doi.org/cr8g4p Baxter Magolda, M., & King, P. (Eds.). (2004). Learning partnerships: Theory and models of practice to educate for self-authorship. Stylus. Bean, J. P., & Eaton, S. B. (2000). A psychological model of college student retention. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the departure puzzle (pp. 48-61). Vanderbilt University Press. Bowen, W. G., Chingos, M. M., & McPherson, M. S. (2009). Crossing the finish line: Completing college at America’s public universities. Princeton University Press. Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. National Research Council (U.S.) Committee on Learning Research and Educational Practice, National Academies Press. Braskamp, L. A., Trautvetter, L. C., & Ward, K. (2006). Putting students first: How colleges develop students purposefully. Anker. Braxton, J. M., Hirschy, A. S., & McClendon, S. A. (2004). Understanding and reducing college student departure (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Research Report, Volume 30, Number 3). JosseyBass. Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., Miller, C. J., & Fulford, D. (2009). Optimism. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 303-312). Oxford University Press. Cheng, D. X. (2004). Students’ sense of campus community: What it means and what to do about it. NASPA Journal, 41, 216-232. http://doi.org/ds498n Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass Drake, J. K., Jordan, P., & Miller, M. A. (Eds.). (2013). Academic advising approaches: Strategies that teach students to make the most of college. Jossey-Bass. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House. Fink, J. E., & Inkelas, K. K. (2015). A history of learning communities within American higher education. In M. Benjamin (Ed.), Learning communities from start to finish (New Directions for Student Services, No. 149, pp. 5-15). Wiley. Gale, T., & Parker, S. (2014). Navigating change: A typology of student transition in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 39(5), 734-753. http://doi.org/gfx62n Goodman, J., Schlossberg, N., & Anderson, M. (2006). Counseling adults in transition: Linking practice with theory. Springer. Greenfield, G. M., Keup, J. R., & Gardner, J. N. (2013). Developing and sustaining successful first-year programs: A guide for practitioners. Jossey-Bass. 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, 335-368. http://doi.org/d6dvj7 Keyes, C. L. M., & Haidt, J. (Eds.). (2003). Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well-lived. American Psychological Association. 30

Surviving to Thriving

Kim, Y. K., & Sax, L. J. (2017). The impact of college students’ interactions with faculty: A review of general and conditional effects. In M. B. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 85-139). Springer. Kuh, G. D. (2008). Advising for student success. In V. N. Gordon, W. R. Habley, T. J. Grites, & Associates (Eds.), Academic advising: A comprehensive handbook (2nd ed., pp. 68-84). JosseyBass. Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J., and Associates. (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. Jossey-Bass. Lazarus, R. S. (1998). Fifty years of the research and theory of R. S. Lazarus: An analysis of historical and perennial issues. Erlbaum. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. Springer. Lopez, S. J., & Louis, M. C. (2009). The principles of strengths-based education. Journal of College and Character, 10(4), 1-8. http://doi.org/fkmvpg Louis, M. C. (2015). Enhancing intellectual development and academic success in college: Insights and strategies from positive psychology. In J. C. Wade, L. I. Marks, & R. D. Hetzel (Eds.), Positive psychology on the college campus (pp. 99-131). Oxford University Press. Nora, A., Barlow, E., & Crisp, G. (2005). Student persistence and degree attainment beyond the first year in college. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College student retention: Formula for student success (pp. 129-154). Praeger. Perry, R. P., Hall, N. C., & Ruthig, J. C. (2005). Perceived (academic) control and scholastic attainment in higher education. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 20, pp. 363-436). Springer. Pintrich, P. R., & Zusho, A. (2002). The development of academic self-regulation: The role of cognitive and motivational factors. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 250-284). Academic Press. Rayle, A. D., & Chung, K. Y. (2007-2008). Revisiting first-year college students’ mattering: Social support, academic stress, and the mattering experience. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 9(1), 21-37. http://doi.org/dk6pmd Robbins, S. B., Allen, J., Casillas, A., Peterson, C. H., & Le, H. (2006). Unraveling the differential effects of motivational and skills, social, and self-management measures from traditional predictors of college outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(3), 598-616. http://doi.org/cxvgv4 Rocconi, L. M. (2011). The impact of learning communities on first-year students’ growth and development in college. Research in Higher Education, 52, 178-193. http://doi.org/c58kmv Schilling, K. M., & Schilling, K. L. (2005). Expectations and performance. In M. L. Upcraft, J. N. Gardner, & B. O. Barefoot (Eds.), Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college (pp. 108-120). Jossey-Bass. Schlossberg, N. K. (1989). Marginality and mattering: Key issues in building community. In D. C. Roberts (Ed.), Designing campus activities to foster a sense of community (New Directions for Student Services, No, 48, pp. 5-15). Jossey-Bass. Schlossberg, N. K. (2007). Overwhelmed: Coping with life’s ups and downs (2nd ed). Evans and Company.

31

Thriving in Transitions

Schneider, C. G. (2005). Liberal education: Slip-sliding away? In R. H. Hersh & J. Merrow (Eds.), Declining by degrees: Higher education at risk (pp. 61-76). Palgrave Macmillan. Schreiner, L. A. (2010a). The “Thriving Quotient”: A new vision for student success. About Campus, 15(2), 2-10. http://doi.org/dgdbg2 Schreiner, L. A. (2010b). Thriving in community. About Campus, 15(4), 2-11. http://doi.org/dvqtxt Schreiner, L. A. (2016). Thriving: Expanding the goal of higher education. In D. W. Harward (Ed.), Well-being and higher education: A strategy for change and the realization of education’s greater purpose (pp. 135-148). American Association of Colleges and Universities. Schreiner, L. A., Edens, D., & McIntosh, E. J. (2011, March). The Thriving Quotient: A new vision for student success. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, Philadelphia, PA. Schreiner, L. A., & Hulme, E. (2017). Positive psychology on campus. In C. R. Snyder, S. J. Lopez, & S. C. Marques (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive psychology (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. http://doi.org/dzwd Schreiner, L. A., & Louis, M. C. (2011). The Engaged Learning Index: Implications for faculty development. Journal of Excellence in College Teaching, 22(1), 5-28. Schuh, J. (2005). Student support services. In M. L. Upcraft, J. N. Gardner, & B. O. Barefoot (Eds.), Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college (pp. 428-444). Jossey-Bass. Seligman, M. E. P. (1990). Learned optimism. Knopf. Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5-14. Selye, H. (1976). The stress of life. McGraw-Hill. Snyder, C. R., Shorey, H. S., Cheavens, J., Pulvers, K. M., Adams, V. H., & Wiklund, C. (2002). Hope and academic success in college. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 820-826. http://doi.org/cn5vr2 Yamamura, E. K., & Koth, K. (2018). Place-based community engagement in higher education: A strategy to transform universities and communities. Stylus.

32

CHAPTER TWO A STRENGTHS DEVELOPMENT MODEL FOR ENHANCING COLLEGE STUDENT THRIVING Michelle C. Louis and Laurie A. Schreiner

An increasingly competitive educational marketplace and public demands for accountability in higher education have prompted an unprecedented urgency to create environments that foster learning among a rapidly diversifying student population (American Council on Education, 2019). Postsecondary leaders concerned with institutional effectiveness emphasize the importance of understanding the conditions, programs, and policies that will optimize student success, which has been defined as “satisfaction, persistence, and high levels of learning and personal development” (Kuh et al., 2005, p. xiv). According to this definition, student success encompasses more than the mere completion of a course of study in that it also emphasizes the nature of each student’s experience on campus and the quality of learning and personal development that occurs within the educational context. These concerns are not only personal to students, but they also have meaningful social implications because the quality of the talent pool relies largely on the extent to which colleges and universities develop students’ capacities (Astin, 2016). The scope and complexity of contemporary environmental, political, and economic concerns that graduates will encounter as part of a global society demand a diverse set of competencies and skills. Therefore, educators must adopt the vision and perseverance required to expand postsecondary education beyond its dominant historical norms by recognizing and honoring in greater measure the rich multitude of cultural and personal strengths that students now bring to institutions and to the process of learning (Chavez & Longerbeam, 2016). From this perspective, perhaps the most essential task for leaders is to take responsibility for “finding the potential in people and processes, and … the courage to develop that potential” (Brown, 2018, p. 4). Indeed, a study of highly effective postsecondary institutions suggested that excellent educational environments are those that promote talent development: They “arrange resources and learning conditions to maximize student potential” (Kuh et al., 2005, p. 77). This emphasis on nurturing student talent has infused the ongoing dialogue regarding how to most effectively promote student success by creating programs and policies that build on students’ strengths rather than simply remediating their deficiencies (Gardner et al., 2005), structuring learning experiences according to

33

Thriving in Transitions

a consideration of what students do well (Kuh et al., 2006), and cataloging institutional policies and practices that promote student success (Harper, 2010). These objectives are resonant with what has become known as a strengths philosophy or strengths perspective (Aspinwall & Staudinger, 2003). Grounded in the field of positive psychology, which aims to understand and promote that which allows individuals and communities to thrive (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), a strengths perspective leverages the positive qualities of each individual with the ultimate goal of optimizing achievement (Anderson, 2005), well-being, or character development (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Strengths-oriented educators believe that potential exists in all students and that it is possible to develop learning opportunities that will help students realize that potential (Lopez & Louis, 2009). A strengths approach is characterized by “efforts to label what is right” within people (Buckingham, 2007, p. 6) and to subsequently cultivate it to catalyze optimal levels of learning, performance, and well-being. Some proponents of a strengths philosophy have asserted that capitalizing on one’s areas of strength is likely to lead to greater success than would be possible by making a comparable investment of effort into overcoming personal weaknesses or deficiencies (Clifton & Harter, 2003). This paradigm highlights the importance of intentionally choosing to focus one’s attention and energy on cultivating that which will yield the most significant growth. Rather than ignoring weaknesses, the focus is on understanding and managing areas of deficiency while optimizing efforts to build on strengths (Clifton & Nelson, 1992). At the individual level, a strengths approach encompasses the identification of positive personal qualities, along with their integration into one’s view of self, resulting in behavioral changes (Clifton & Harter, 2003) and enhanced well-being (Goodman et al., 2018). Those seeking to “nurture genius” (Seligman, 2003, p. xv) in others have found strengths development approaches to be useful (Fox, 2008; Linley, 2008) because they enact the belief that each person has behavioral, psychological, or cultural resources that can be mobilized toward desired outcomes (Anderson, 2000; Saleebey, 2006; Yosso, 2005). Strengths development approaches explore how to empower individuals to flourish rather than to simply survive (Liesveld & Miller, 2005) and are therefore resonant with the central themes of this book on thriving in transitions. This chapter highlights how strengths development approaches can be a powerful strategy for promoting thriving among college students. Our discussion begins by placing strengths development within the context of thriving in transitions as a precursor to summarizing the various ways that strengths are conceptualized, measured, and developed. The chapter continues with a description of how integrating a strengths perspective might inform classroom teaching efforts, advising, and student affairs work, with each section offering practical strategies for adopting a strengths-oriented approach. We conclude with several general suggestions for educators seeking to initiate a strengths development strategy on campus. 34

Enhancing College Student Thriving

Strengths Development and Thriving in Transitions A central focus of this book is describing strategies that enable students to thrive during periods of transition. As noted in Chapter 1, a successful transition occurs when students perceive it as a positive opportunity to grow and learn, use appropriate coping skills to engage during the transition, feel supported by others, and are able to access needed resources. The ability to not just survive the inevitable transitions of college life, but to thrive during these pivotal experiences, is the expanded vision for student success that is articulated throughout this volume. Rather than defining success solely in terms of academic performance and persistence to graduation, a focus on thriving encourages a more holistic view of student development that includes healthy relationships, making a contribution, and proactively coping with life’s challenges (Schreiner, 2010a). Promoting thriving as a goal informs the strategies educators use to assist students; it requires a shift from deficit remediation to strengths development and from a focus on students’ immutable past to their possibilities for the future. Rather than aiming to prevent failure, the objective is instead to promote success. This focus on strengths development is integral to thriving: As Fredrickson (2009) noted, “people who have the opportunity every day to do what they do best—to act on their strengths—are far more likely to flourish” (p. 189). Developing students’ strengths holds the potential for energizing students to become engaged in the learning experience, to invest the effort necessary to succeed, and to connect with others in positive ways. The concept of learning about success by studying success and noticing what is right with people or what is working effectively, is one of the hallmarks of a strengths development approach (Buckingham, 2007; Clifton & Harter, 2003; Shushok & Hulme, 2006). Summarizing the prevalent themes that emerged from interviews with more than two million successful people in a variety of professions across the world, Clifton and Harter (2003) noted three consistent characteristics of high achievers: (a) They spend most of their time in their areas of strength; (b) they focus on developing and applying their strengths while managing their weaknesses; and (c) although they do not necessarily have more talents than other people, they have developed their capabilities more fully and have learned to apply them to new situations. Teaching students to pattern their lives after such high achievers is one way of helping them thrive as they transition from the known to the unknown in each phase of college life and beyond.

Approaches to Understanding and Building Student Strengths To provide a context for the discussion of a strengths development perspective, we begin by summarizing the most prevalent ways that strengths are defined and measured in educational settings. Although different models exist regarding what constitutes strengths 35

Thriving in Transitions

and how they should be cultivated, perhaps the most comprehensive understanding of personal strengths emerges from considering the valuable contribution that each perspective offers. Conceptualizing and Measuring Strengths Many of the strengths-oriented activities and programs on today’s postsecondary campuses use one of several possible assessments to give participants individualized feedback on personal strengths, although researchers have conducted successful strengths interventions that do not rely on a specific assessment tool (e.g., Seligman et al., 2005). The strengths instruments used most commonly include the CliftonStrengths assessment, formerly known as the Clifton StrengthsFinder (Gallup, 1999), and the Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS; Seligman et al., 2004), although several others also exist. Each of these instruments offers a distinct approach to measuring strengths. These unique approaches are derived from the two main paradigms that exist regarding the definition and classification of human strengths. One approach views strengths as personal competencies that produce excellent performance whereas the other understands strengths to be elements of character that are the building blocks of virtue. Specifically, according to the Gallup model, strengths are cultivated when knowledge and skill are added to naturally occurring patterns of thought, feeling, or behavior (talents, in this model), thereby producing levels of excellence in a particular activity (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001). In contrast, the classification of strengths advanced by the Values in Action Institute conceptualizes positive individual traits as existing in several categories. The broadest category consists of the virtues, described as the “core characteristics [ubiquitously] valued by moral philosophers and religious thinkers” (Peterson & Seligman, 2004, p. 13). The virtues are comprised of character strengths, which are positive traits that are relatively stable across situations and are the “psychological ingredients—processes or mechanisms—that define the virtues” (Peterson & Seligman, 2004, p. 13). According to this paradigm, character strengths provide venues for the virtues to be displayed. More recently, some authors have argued that strengths are not moral in nature but are best understood as “adaptive endpoints of normal personality traits…that enable or promote well-being” (Goodman et al., 2018, p. 2). The Nature of Strengths Development Programs Depending on the context and goals of the initiative, strengths interventions may assume a variety of forms and encompass a range of strategies (see Louis & Lopez, 2014, for a review). Some strengths-oriented programs may simply seek to help students use their talents more readily and with greater frequency, based upon the notion that talents are developed into strengths through regular use (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001). This strategy is useful in that greater strengths use has been associated with increased levels of well-being over time (Wood 36

Enhancing College Student Thriving

et al., 2011). However, developing students’ strengths requires a more nuanced approach than merely identifying areas of talent and encouraging reliance on them for excellent performance (Louis, 2011). Students may benefit from a more complex consideration of how to modify the application of various talents according to situational factors, a process that may actually involve learning how to reduce their use or apply them with greater insight (Kaplan & Kaiser, 2010). This approach suggests that strengths should be applied with an awareness of the impact that they have on self and others, and in alignment with personal values or desired outcomes. Strengths development initiatives may also involve evaluating how various strengths combine within an individual or a group to produce certain outcomes, contemplating which activities may be helpful in catalyzing strengths growth (Lopez & Louis, 2009) or considering how strengths can be applied in novel ways (Seligman et al., 2005).

Strengths Development Across Campus The following sections describe how approaching teaching, advising, and student affairs work from a strengths development perspective could enhance efforts to promote student thriving. Although the ideas presented here may prompt educators to consider new programs or initiatives that focus on cultivating student strengths, it is equally likely that the concepts we describe may result in a consideration of the ways in which existing programs and practices could be redesigned using a strengths development framework to enable students to gain optimal benefits from involvement in them. Strengths Development in the Classroom Two aspects of college student thriving during transitions can be directly influenced by classroom experiences. The first is engaged learning: students’ ability to meaningfully process what they are learning in class and connect it to other aspects of life (Schreiner & Louis, 2011). The second is academic determination: the investment of effort needed to regulate learning, meet important educational goals, and manage multiple demands (Schreiner, 2010a). A strengths development approach in the classroom may help students thrive in these important areas that lead to success (Louis, 2015). Instructors can use five specific strengths-oriented strategies to foster students’ engaged learning and academic determination. 1. Create a sense of community in the classroom by emphasizing the strengths that each student contributes. A holistic understanding of one’s sense of community is derived from four distinct but interrelated elements: (a) membership, the sense that one belongs; (b) ownership, the ability to make a contribution and have a voice; (c) relationship, positive social interactions and shared emotional connections; and (d) partnership, interdependence and commitment to a common goal (Schreiner, 2010b). Inclusive environments promote learning (McLaren, 2009), and students with a strong sense of community are more likely to engage in the learning process and experience academic success (DeNeui, 2003). Research 37

Thriving in Transitions

indicates that preemptively normalizing the struggle associated with transitions can promote achievement and mitigate against concerns of incompetence or lack of belonging (Yeager et al., 2014). True belonging is distinguished from “fitting in” in that the former entails a sense that one is valued as unique whereas the latter requires assimilation for acceptance (Brown, 2017). As the large majority of college students are now commuters (NCES, 2018), the classroom becomes a particularly important place for a sense of community to develop, even as instructors continue to consider how to build relationships with and among students before and after class. In a strengths-oriented classroom, faculty build a sense of community by knowing their students and “their preferred learning styles, their talents, and when and where they need help” (Kuh et al., 2005, p. 301) and by emphasizing what each student’s life experience, culture, and talent contributes to the shared learning process (Chavez & Longerbeam, 2016). This recognition of existing strengths and personal resources sends a message to students that they are valued members of the academic community who are expected to contribute to mutual learning in the classroom. Throughout the term, the instructor intentionally structures the classroom experience so that students thoughtfully consider their strengths and how they can be used to master course assignments and objectives (Lopez & Louis, 2009). Instructors are also transparent about their own strengths and how those are being applied effectively in mastery of the discipline (Schreiner, 2014). This transparency builds rapport with students and connects them not only to each other, but also to the instructor and the subject matter in ways that increase engagement in the learning process. 2. Design active-learning experiences that are connected to students’ interests and that capitalize on students’ diverse strengths and learning preferences. Learning is an active process of making meaning; it entails connecting to other learners and their different perspectives as well as to what one already knows, to meaningful goals, and to one’s own strengths and ways of seeing the world (Tagg, 2003). Engaged learning reflects this meaningful processing along with the focused attention and active participation that are indicative of psychological engagement in the learning process (Schreiner & Louis, 2011). Classroom learning experiences that actively engage students with course content and with each other lead to higher levels of enjoyment and to greater learning (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). Chavez and Longerbeam (2016) assert that engagement in learning can be enhanced when faculty depart from a primarily content-driven framework for course design and facilitation and instead allow their work to be driven by a more process-oriented approach. Activelearning experiences such as learning teams, debates, varied formats of interactive class discussions, simulations, case studies, role playing, and jigsaw learning techniques engage students in their own learning, helping them derive the most out of the classroom experience (Brookfield, 2015; Silberman, 1996). Research indicates that these collaborative learning

38

Enhancing College Student Thriving

strategies occur more frequently on campuses where student engagement and persistence to graduation are higher than expected (Nelson Laird et al., 2008). In a strengths development classroom, learning experiences are connected to students’ personal and cultural strengths and learning preferences. Assignments that enable students to reflect on how their strengths have helped them succeed academically can equip students to use those strengths to become better learners. Creating a classroom experience that is reflective of the cultural frameworks familiar to the students in the room requires faculty to “redesign and balance pedagogies, interactions, assignments, and evaluations across integrated and individuated cultural frameworks” to create more inclusive practices (Chavez & Longerbeam, 2016, p. 8). Research has suggested that people learn better when a wide variety of techniques, learning modes, and practices characterize a classroom (Zull, 2002). Intentionally creating diverse learning teams and teaching students how to work effectively together while capitalizing on the strengths each person contributes to the team helps students consider not only their own strengths but also those of others and the synergy that occurs when the team harnesses mutual strengths. Focusing on students’ interests, qualities, and learning styles, as well as connecting new material to what students already know, creates a powerful dynamic in the classroom that fosters intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). 3. Develop meaningful assignments in a context of clear expectations, choices, and an optimal level of challenge. Engaged learning and academic determination are more likely to develop when students are intrinsically motivated. Intrinsic motivation, or what Ryan and Deci (2000) refer to as self-determination, emerges when students’ needs are met in three key areas: competence, autonomy, and relatedness. Carefully structured, meaningful assignments address all three needs. Competence needs are met by communicating clear expectations and structuring the assignment so that students are optimally challenged and are able to demonstrate their mastery in ways that are congruent with their strengths. Emphasizing the meaningfulness of the activity and articulating the level of effort required to master it also can equip students with an increased sense of competence. Students’ needs for autonomy can be met through allowing choice in assignments because intrinsic motivation blossoms when students see aspects of their academic tasks as chosen and relevant to their own goals and values (Ryan & Deci, 2000). When the assignments are structured so that students can work collaboratively, their needs for relatedness are addressed, fostering increased engagement with learning. In a strengths development classroom, assignments are clearly structured to allow students to mobilize their assets. Students receive concrete parameters and expectations for the learning objectives the assignment is designed to meet, but they may choose to meet those objectives in ways that capitalize on their strengths. For example, students whose strengths lie primarily in their verbal communication and ability to connect with an audience can demonstrate mastery of the course objectives by developing podcasts or 39

Thriving in Transitions

delivering oral presentations, while students whose strengths lie in their analytical thinking or writing skills can demonstrate course mastery through research papers or other written assignments. Choice, clarity, meaningfulness, and optimal challenge combine to create a classroom environment that engages students and unleashes their motivation to produce their best work. 4. Communicate to students that there are strategies for success and that learning is under their control. Cultivating a climate for thriving requires that educators consider more than the logistical aspects of implementing various curricular initiatives; it also demands an examination of the psychological factors that influence how students view the learning process and how they perceive themselves as learners (Louis, 2015). One scholar notes that “the beliefs that individuals hold about their abilities and about the outcome of their efforts powerfully influence the ways in which they will behave” (Pajares, 1996, p. 543). Thriving during transitions is enhanced when students exhibit academic determination, which is the ability to monitor and regulate the investment of energy and effort required to successfully navigate the demands of the learning environment. However, it is precisely during transitions that students are most likely to perceive that such effort may be fruitless or irrelevant in generating academic success (Perry, 2003). Anyone in an unfamiliar environment is uncomfortable until the expectations and requirements are clear and methods for navigating the new environment become second nature. Students who are able to gain perceived academic control believe that their personal efforts will influence their academic outcomes (Perry et al., 2005) and are able to benefit most from their learning experience. Research indicates that strengths-based educational approaches can help students maintain perceived academic control during transitions (Louis, 2008), perhaps because these approaches help students consider the personal assets and resources that they can draw upon to meet new challenges. Beginning on the first day of class in a strengths development classroom, the instructor establishes the tone by communicating to students that there are specific strategies for success in the class and that it is the instructor’s job to teach students those strategies. A strengths-oriented instructor places the control of the learning process in students’ hands by reminding them that they have assets that can be applied to succeed in the class. The instructor also communicates that the quality of the effort students invest in learning will influence their academic outcomes. By teaching students to have a growth mindset, instructors can affect students’ feelings of control, which in turn increases their motivation to learn, level of effort invested, and persistence in the face of setbacks (Perry et al., 2005). This individualized approach is ideally a complement to institutional efforts that ensure that systems and policies are designed in such a way as to promote learning for all students. 5. Provide feedback that is frequent, constructive, process-oriented, and wise. Students who perceive themselves as capable of accomplishing academic tasks are not only more likely to achieve but also to persist and experience greater levels of personal adjustment (Chemers 40

Enhancing College Student Thriving

et al., 2001). When feedback is constructive rather than simply critical, it builds a sense of relatedness between the professor and student (Kuh et al., 2005) and enhances students’ perception of psychological safety (Edmonson, 2012). Research indicates that the level of trust in a relationship is the critical determinant of whether corrective feedback will be dismissed as biased and irrelevant or viewed in a positive light and with helpful intent (Cohen et al., 1999). Goffman (1963) notes that mistrust can be mitigated by the use of what he calls wise feedback strategies—those that emphasize treating a student with dignity and humanity instead of according to a negative stereotype. A wise feedback model notes that corrective feedback is a reflection of an instructor’s high standards, paired with a personal assurance that a student has the potential to meet those standards. When critical feedback is offered to members of marginalized or underrepresented groups, adopting a wise model is particularly important in helping such students view themselves as capable of accomplishing academic tasks (Yeager et al., 2014). To provide the support required for students to meet high standards, feedback must be sufficiently frequent and substantive, targeting specific actions that can be taken to attain higher levels of excellence (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Acknowledging the effective strategies students used to advance toward their goals (process praise), rather than praising personal attributes such as their innate ability (person praise), fosters the intrinsic motivation that leads students to invest the ongoing effort necessary to succeed (Halmovitz & Corpus, 2011). However, educators must not simply affirm effort as sufficient for attaining achievement; students need realistic feedback that encourages them to try new learning strategies paired with thoughtful and timely input when they lose momentum (Amemiya & Wang, 2018; Dweck, 2015). In a strengths development classroom, instructors take this feedback one step further by tying students’ successful outcomes to the effective application of their strengths. Instructors highlight the strengths they see in students’ work, and they also describe the skills, knowledge, and strategies that contributed to success. Areas for improvement are noted as well, with suggestions for specific skills or strategies to be employed that capitalize on the strengths seen in the work. Timely, constructive, process-oriented feedback delivered in ways that reflect a belief in students’ capacity for growth leads to a more authentic engagement in learning experiences. Advising from a Strengths Development Perspective During transition periods, the provision of timely information and feedback in the context of an ongoing relationship can be particularly helpful to students (Schlossberg, 2008). The advising relationship is the one opportunity all students have for an ongoing relationship with someone who knows both the institution and the student; thus, it is the ideal vehicle for helping students through transitions. It is also an excellent venue for teaching students how to develop their strengths (Schreiner, 2013). 41

Thriving in Transitions

Although advising is pivotal to students during times of uncertainty and change, it is an often-neglected aspect of their experience. Light (2001) concluded that the impact of advising is underestimated and too often unexamined. If the institutional advising strategy tends to emphasize course selection rather than helping students envision their future and make plans toward reaching those goals, then there is unfulfilled potential in campus advising practices. A strengths-based perspective approaches the advising relationship and the entire college experience from a different vantage point. Rather than focusing on students’ problems, this approach emphasizes possibilities. Instead of assessing the areas in which students are deficient and in need of remediation, strengths-based advising assesses the personal assets or qualities that students bring into the college environment, as well as their community cultural wealth (Yosso, 2005), and considers how such assets can be deployed to address the challenges students may face. In short, advising from a strengths perspective represents a paradigm shift for higher education from failure prevention and a survival mentality to success promotion and a thriving perspective (Schreiner, 2013). The literature describes two similar approaches to advising that integrate a strengths perspective: strengths-based advising and appreciative advising. Strengths-based advising is derived from an interdisciplinary approach grounded in the fields of social work, positive psychology, and positive organizational scholarship (Schreiner, 2013). Appreciative advising is a social constructivist approach to advising derived from the organizational change theory of appreciative inquiry (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005) and involves the “intentional and collaborative practice of asking positive, open-ended questions that help students optimize their educational experiences and achieve their dreams, goals, and potentials (Bloom et al., 2013, p. 83). Both advising models seek to help students reach their goals by focusing on students’ assets. The two approaches will be combined in this chapter into one strengths development approach to advising that we believe captures the best of both perspectives. The steps of strengths development advising. Strengths development advising begins with identifying and affirming students’ strengths. This process of discovery builds rapport with students when advisors focus on who the student is and what he or she can contribute to the learning environment. Advisors can ask open-ended questions about students’ previous successes, or they can provide students with access to instruments that measure their talents and strengths. As previously noted, the CliftonStrengths assessment (Gallup, 1999) measures strengths of competence whereas the VIA-IS (Seligman et al., 2004) assesses strengths of character. Regardless of which tool is used, these types of assessments offer students positive feedback about themselves in concrete language that not only identifies their positive qualities but also provides external affirmation and increased self-awareness. This phase of strengths development advising builds positive emotions in students as they learn about aspects of themselves that can equip them for success and psychological 42

Enhancing College Student Thriving

well-being. These positive emotions, in turn, enhance students’ problem-solving skills and capacity for creativity, as Fredrickson (2009) notes in her broaden-and-build theory. Particularly during times of transition, these positive emotions and enhanced creative problemsolving skills equip students with the positive perspective that is foundational to thriving. The second step of strengths development advising is helping students envision their future. Discussing their dreams and aspirations leads naturally to goal setting (Bloom et al., 2013); picturing a desired future self can begin the process, and learning how their strengths are pathways to that future self provides students with both the motivation and specific strategies for reaching that goal (Schreiner, 2013). In this envisioning phase of strengths development advising, self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation are generated by the process of articulating what Markus and Nurius (1986) call possible selves, those aspects of oneself that one most wants to embody in the future. For some students, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, a highly motivating possible self may be a negative vision of the future they wish to avoid—their most feared version of themselves that they do not want to become. Whether positive or negative, a concrete and vivid depiction of one’s possible selves can serve to motivate students to take specific steps in the present to create (or avoid) that future self. Designing a plan for reaching the student’s goals is the third step of strengths development advising. Helping students connect their passions and their strengths to their future selves often opens possibilities for academic majors and careers that the student had not previously considered (Bloom et al., 2013). In this step of advising, the focus is creating a concrete plan that students can implement, with both short-term and long-term goals that are important to the student and congruent with his or her values and strengths. This step of strengths development advising uses strategies that Lopez and colleagues (2004) have labeled hope building. Research on college students has indicated that, after controlling for entrance exam scores and other demographic characteristics, levels of hope are significantly predictive of college outcomes such as GPA and persistence to graduation (Snyder et al., 2002). Building hope in the academic advising process involves helping students (a) identify an educational goal that is meaningful and realistically attainable for them, (b) develop multiple pathways for reaching the goal, and (c) brainstorm how to handle obstacles and remain motivated along the way. The strengths that students have identified through instruments and dialogue throughout the advising process become pathways for reaching their goals. Advisors can help students reframe potential obstacles to success as challenges that can be overcome with effort, providing the essential encouragement and support that can sustain the motivation necessary for reaching their goals (Schreiner et al., 2009). The final phase of strengths development advising is teaching students to apply their strengths to the challenges they face in college. Rather than communicating that there is one strategy for success, this approach to advising emphasizes that the secret to success 43

Thriving in Transitions

lies in capitalizing on one’s strengths by using them as the foundation for addressing and overcoming challenges. Teaching students to transfer strengths from one setting to another, such as from the playing field or the theatre stage to the classroom, is a critical component of a strengths-based approach to advising (Schreiner, 2013), yet it is often missing in traditional advising practices. Taken together, these phases of strengths development advising address key issues that are salient during important transitions in college students’ lives: (a) their ability to accurately and positively appraise the situations they face, (b) the provision of support and challenge that sustains students’ energy and motivation through the change process, and (c) the use of effective strategies at the appropriate time. As students learn how to develop their strengths and apply them to meet challenges and reach important goals, they experience a level of self-efficacy that can sustain them through difficult times. They also develop a wider repertoire of success strategies and proactive coping skills because they learn to use their strengths as pathways to their goals and as the foundation for addressing the inevitable challenges of college life (Schreiner, 2013). These skills are developed within a context that is affirming and supportive, teaching students that they are valued members of the college community (Bloom et al., 2013). Strengths Development in Student Affairs Programs Mather (2010) described possible ways that the emerging research in positive psychology might be applied within the context of student affairs work on today’s college campuses. Positive psychologists and student affairs professionals have the mutual goal of actualizing human potential, and Mather suggested that a strengths approach could make a valuable contribution to that objective within the domain of student affairs by providing clues to effective intervention strategies that build upon what students do well. Integrating a strengths perspective into areas of student life programming can provide a venue for students to be mindful of their similarities as opposed to merely their differences. This awareness can facilitate the building of relationships by laying the groundwork for students to connect with each other in a positive way that acknowledges the value of each contributor to an interdependent community. For example, student orientation programs might include a strengths component that helps students identify their talents through the use of an assessment that offers a shared positive language among incoming students and highlights the capabilities they possess in navigating the transition into college. Diversity initiatives might be enhanced through the use of a strengths perspective because this approach provides insight into another dimension of individual uniqueness and can help students celebrate their own positive qualities and appreciate those of others. Team-building efforts in areas such as residence life, athletics, or student leadership could include a strengths component that helps students understand the behavioral tendencies of their team and 44

Enhancing College Student Thriving

recognize the contribution that each member makes. When students understand the best of what each individual brings to a group effort and then learn to interpret others’ behaviors accordingly, a climate of respect develops and relationships are enhanced. Strengths development works most effectively when educators adopt a growth mindset (Dweck, 2006) in conceptualizing strengths as dynamic qualities, and when they consider a developmental perspective in their approach to cultivating strengths (Louis, 2011). These principles align with the aims of many leadership development programs that exist on today’s campuses. Instead of understanding leadership in narrow, dichotomous ways that frame leadership ability as something one either has or lacks, a strengths approach offers a more generous, nuanced foundation for leadership development by asserting that each individual has strengths of character or competence that could contribute to effective leadership if leveraged with insight and proficiency. This perspective emphasizes the acquisition of skills and the nurturing of character over the mere presence of certain traits as the primary contributors to leadership excellence and suggests the importance of a collaborative mindset in leadership endeavors. In this sense, a strengths-oriented leader has two central objectives: (a) to understand his or her own strengths and assume responsibility for developing them and (b) to recognize and cultivate the strengths of others. These dual foci are resonant with recent literature on leadership theory and practice, which has witnessed a shift from hierarchical, individualistic models to understandings of leadership that emphasize collaboration, collegiality, and empowerment (Kezar et al., 2006).

Guidelines for Implementing a Strengths Development Initiative on Campus For campuses seeking to initiate new opportunities for students to explore and develop their strengths in the ways described in this chapter, we offer the following suggestions for the successful launch of a strengths initiative. Some of the ideas noted here refer to macrolevel decisions that may initiate a climate of readiness for the addition of strengths-oriented curriculum whereas others offer remarks on how to design the program so that it will be most effective. Connect Efforts to Institutional Mission, and Seek Broad-Based Input and Participation As is the case with any educational reform, it is critical to consider how a strengths initiative might address current priorities on campus (such as the desire to promote student success, increase retention, or encourage appreciation for diverse perspectives) and how it aligns with the institutional mission. Clarity on these issues provides a foundation for communicating how a strengths perspective could contribute to the attainment of institutional goals and increases the likelihood of engendering support for the program from high-level institutional leaders. 45

Thriving in Transitions

The formation and implementation of a successful strengths initiative can be facilitated when the planning efforts include representation from multiple departments or arenas of campus, such as student affairs, academic affairs, and the student body. One of the many benefits of such a group is that it is well-positioned to consider how a strengths approach might be infused into various areas of the curricular or cocurricular experience, thereby reinforcing key learning objectives and providing a more seamless approach to helping students develop their strengths. Specify Meaningful and Measurable Learning Outcomes When planning for the implementation of a strengths program, it is important to establish a clear sense of the specific objectives or learning outcomes that it is designed to facilitate because this information will determine the nature and content of the curriculum. Identifying measurable and attainable learning objectives, which encompass the “knowledge, skills, attitudes, and habits of mind that students take with them from a learning experience” (Suskie, 2004, p. 75), provides guidance during the initial formation of a strengths initiative and is essential for assessing its effectiveness. Strengths-oriented programs have been used successfully to heighten learning and engagement in the classroom (Cantwell, 2005), to increase students’ sense of control over their academic outcomes (Louis, 2008), to predict academic satisfaction over time (Allan et al., 2019), to facilitate attainment of information literacy skills (Krutkowski, 2017), to enhance retention (Soria & Stubblefield, 2015a; 2015b), and to cultivate leadership qualities (Lehnert, 2009), among many other possibilities (Ghielen et al., 2017). Although strengths-oriented initiatives on various campuses may share a common philosophical core, they will likely vary greatly in form as they are tailored to the specific goals of the setting or population for which they are developed. Provide Adequate Support Consider ways to provide practical support to those charged with leading or implementing any aspect of a strengths initiative, whether through resources, training, or opportunities for collaboration. Once a strengths program has been successfully launched, the support required to sustain it may be in the form of outcomes assessment results that provide valuable feedback on the program’s effectiveness and offer insight into what is working well and what needs to be reconsidered. Ongoing professional development for strengths program leaders may entail formal educational experiences or may be more informal in nature, such as the opportunity to participate in occasional discussion forums to share questions, insights, and success strategies with others on campus who are involved in the strengths initiative.

46

Enhancing College Student Thriving

Engage Students in a Developmental Process, Conceptualizing Strengths as Dynamic Regardless of one’s approach to defining and measuring strengths, research suggests that merely offering students affirming labels to help them categorize their positive personal qualities is an incomplete strengths intervention strategy (Louis, 2011). Instead, it is critical for educators leading strengths-oriented programs to describe strengths as characteristics that are malleable and to provide activities that encourage their development. Creating strengths initiatives that exclusively seek to help students identify personal strengths may unintentionally send the message that individual success is dependent primarily on the presence of certain attributes rather than on the work required to cultivate and use them skillfully (Louis, 2011). It is therefore essential for campuses integrating strengths programs into their student success strategy to adopt a developmental perspective in their approach, helping students to understand the importance of personal effort in developing and mobilizing strengths in optimal ways. In a practical sense, this charge may have implications for the way in which educators describe the nature of strengths to their students and the approach they use to help students make meaning of any strengths assessment results that may be included in the program. Specifically, it is more beneficial to frame strengths as personal tendencies that can be developed as opposed to innate characteristics that are either present or absent. In addition, a developmental approach emphasizes the importance of finding ways to cultivate strengths and offers students tangible support in exploring ways to do so by making them aware of resources and opportunities available on and off campus that may be useful in their ongoing learning.

Conclusion A strengths development approach stimulates thriving during transitions because it is able to foster all of the elements that contribute to a successful transition. Specifically, strengths development approaches may encourage positive cognitive appraisal by increasing students’ awareness of the personal strengths and resources they have at their disposal when facing the challenges inherent in the college experience—a perspective that may support the development of confidence and self-efficacy, thereby helping students view transitions as opportunities for growth as opposed to threats. When students are encouraged to develop their strengths, they discover and build the very strategies that will help them navigate the transitions they will encounter throughout their college years and beyond. In the process of cultivating their strengths, students learn vital information about themselves and their surroundings and are also equipped to view others through an appreciative lens, a stance that provides a foundation for building supportive relationships. These outcomes contribute to the creation of a climate of support, the third factor present in successful transition experiences, and may enhance students’ sense of community—a powerful contributor to thriving. 47

Thriving in Transitions

As described in this chapter, strengths development may adopt a variety of forms and can be tailored to address the unique goals of the institution or individuals it is designed to serve. The ideas presented here can provide a springboard for educators to consider how strengths development might be integrated into the campus ethos to help students realize their personal potential, derive maximum benefit from the educational experiences offered on campus, and thrive throughout college and beyond.

References Allan, B. A., Owens, R. L., Kim, T., Douglass, R. P., & Hintz, J. (2019). Strengths and satisfaction in first year undergraduate students: A longitudinal study. The Journal of Positive Psychology. http://doi. org/dj6p Amemiya, J., & Wang, M. T. (2018). Why effort praise can backfire in adolescence. The Society for Research in Child Development, 12(3), 199-203. http://doi.org/gc92qq American Council on Education (2019). Race and ethnicity in higher education: A status report. Anderson, E. C. (2000, February). Affirming students’ strengths in the critical years. Paper presented at the Annual Conference on The First-Year Experience, Columbia, SC. Anderson, E. C. (2005). Strengths-based educating: A concrete way to bring out the best in students— and yourself. Educational Horizons, 83(3), 180-189. Aspinwall, L. G., & Staudinger, U. M. (Eds.). (2003). A psychology of human strengths: Fundamental questions and future directions for a positive psychology. American Psychological Association. Astin, A. W. (2016). Are you smart enough? How colleges’ obsession with smartness shortchanges students. Stylus. Bloom, J., Hutson, B., & He, Y. (2013). Appreciative advising. In J. K. Drake, P. Jordan, & M. A. Miller (Eds.), Academic advising approaches: Strategies that teach students to make the most of college (pp. 83-104). Jossey-Bass. Brookfield, S. D. (2015). The skillful teacher: On technique, trust, and responsiveness in the classroom (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass. Brown, B. (2017). Braving the wilderness: The quest for true belonging and the courage to stand alone. Random House. Brown, B. (2018). Dare to lead. Random House. Buckingham, M. (2007). Go put your strengths to work. The Free Press. Buckingham, M., & Clifton, D. O. (2001). Now, discover your strengths. The Free Press. Cantwell, L. (2005). A comparative analysis of strengths-based versus traditional teaching methods in a freshman public speaking course: Impacts on student learning and engagement. Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(02A), 478-700. (UMI No. AAT3207574). Chavez, A. F., & Longerbeam, S. D. (2016). Teaching across cultural strengths: A guide to balancing integrated and individuated cultural frameworks in college teaching. Stylus. Chemers, M. M., Hu, L., & Garcia, B. F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first-year college student performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 55-64. http://doi.org/ bq4rvr Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7. http://doi.org/bdkkvj 48

Enhancing College Student Thriving

Clifton, D. O., & Harter, J. K. (2003). Investing in strengths. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 111-121). Berrett-Koehler. Clifton, D. O., & Nelson, P. (1992). Soar with your strengths. Dell. Cohen, G. L., Steele, C. M., & Ross, L. D. (1999). The mentor’s dilemma: Providing critical feedback across the racial divide. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1302-1318. http://doi.org/ fb6j32 Cooperrider, D. L., & Whitney, D. (2005). Appreciative inquiry: A positive revolution in change. In P. Holman & T. Devane (Eds.), The change handbook (pp. 245-263). Berrett-Koehler. DeNeui, D. L. C. (2003). An investigation of first-year college students’ psychological sense of community on campus. College Student Journal, 37(2), 224-234. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House. Dweck C. S. (2015). Carol Dweck revisits the ‘growth mindset.’ Education Week, 35(5), 20-24. Edmonson, A. C. (2012). Teaming: How organizations learn, innovate, and compete in the knowledge economy. Jossey-Bass. Fox, J. (2008). Your child’s strengths: Discover them, develop them, use them. Viking. Fredrickson, B. L. (2009). Positivity. Crown. Gallup (1999). Clifton StrengthsFinder. Gardner, J. N., Upcraft, M. L., & Barefoot, B. O. (2005). Principles of good practice for the first college year and summary of recommendations. In M. L. Upcraft, J. N. Gardner, & B. O. Barefoot (Eds.), Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college (pp. 515-524). Jossey-Bass. Ghielen, S., van Woerkom, M., & Meyers, M. C. (2017). Promoting positive outcomes through strengths interventions: A literature review. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 13(6), 573-585. http://doi.org/gf5dp7 Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of a spoiled identity. Prentice Hall. Goodman, F. R., Disabato, D. J., & Kashdan, T. (2018). Integrating psychological strengths under the umbrella of personality science: Rethinking the definition, measurement, and modification of strengths. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 14(1), 61-67. http://doi.org/gf4j9p Halmovitz, K., & Corpus, J. H. (2011). Effects of person versus process praise on student motivation: Stability and change in emerging adulthood. Educational Psychology, 31(5), 595-609. http://doi. org/c6g9mx Harper, S. R. (2010, Winter). An anti-deficit achievement framework for research on students of color in STEM. New Directions for Institutional Research, 63-74. Kaplan, R. E., & Kaiser, R. B. (2010). Toward a positive psychology for leaders. In P. A. Linley, S. Harrington, & N. Garcea (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive psychology and work (pp. 107-117). Oxford University Press. Kezar, A. J., Carducci, R., & Contreras-McGavin, M. (2006). Rethinking the “L” word in higher education: The revolution of research on leadership. ASHE Higher Education Report 31(6). Jossey-Bass. Krutkowski, S. (2017). A strengths-based approach to widening participation students in higher education. Reference Services Review, 45(2), 227-241. http://doi.org/dqdj

49

Thriving in Transitions

Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B., & Hayek, J. C. (2006, July). What matters to student success: A review of the literature. Paper presented at the National Symposium on Postsecondary Student Success, Washington, DC. Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., & Associates. (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. Jossey-Bass. Lehnert, A. B. (2009). The influence of strengths-based development on leadership practices among undergraduate college students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Regent University. Liesveld, R., & Miller, J. A. (2005). Teach with your strengths: How great teachers inspire their students. Gallup Press. Light, R. J. (2001). Making the most of college: Students speak their minds. Harvard University Press. Linley, P. A. (2008). Average to A+: Realising strengths in yourself and others. CAPP Press. Lopez, S. J., & Louis, M. C. (2009). The principles of strengths-based education. Journal of College and Character, 10(4), 1-8. http://doi.org/fkmvpg Lopez, S. J., Snyder, C. R., Magyar-Moe, J. L., Edwards, L. M., Pedrotti, J. T., Janowski, K., Turner, J. L., & Pressgrove, C. (2004). Strategies for accentuating hope (pp. 388-404). In P. A. Linley & S. Joseph (Eds.), Positive psychology in practice. Wiley. Louis, M. C. (2008). A comparative analysis of the effectiveness of strengths-based curricula in promoting first-year college student success (Publication No. 3321378) [Doctoral Dissertation, Azusa Pacific University]. ProQuest Dissertation and Theses Open. Louis, M. C. (2011). Strengths interventions in higher education: The effect of identification versus development approaches on implicit self-theory. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 6(3), 204-215. http://doi.org/drmsgv Louis, M. C. (2015). Enhancing intellectual development and academic success in college: Insights and strategies from positive psychology. In J. C. Wade, L. I. Marks, & R. D. Hetzel (Eds.), Positive psychology on the college campus (pp. 99-132). Oxford University Press. Louis, M. C., & Lopez, S. J. (2014). Strengths interventions: Current progress and future directions. In A. C. Parks & S. M. Schueller (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of positive psychological interventions (pp. 66-89). Wiley Blackwell. Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954-969. http://doi.org/dsg7rt Mather, P. (2010). Positive psychology and student affairs practice: A framework of possibility. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 42(7), 157-173. http://doi.org/b867x3 McLaren, P. (2009). Critical pedagogy: A look at the major concepts. In A. Darder, M. P. Naltodano, & R. D. Torres (Eds.), The critical pedagogy reader (pp. 61-83). Routledge. National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2018). Characteristics of postsecondary students. In The condition of education. U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/ programs/coe/indicator_csb.asp Nelson Laird, T. F., Chen, D., & Kuh, G. D. (2008). Classroom practices at institutions with higherthan-expected persistence rates: What student engagement data tell us. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.), The role of the classroom in college student persistence (New Directions for Teaching and Learning No. 115, pp. 85-100). Jossey-Bass.

50

Enhancing College Student Thriving

Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543578. http://doi.org/btcnm9 Perry, R. P. (2003). Perceived (academic) control and causal thinking in achievement settings. Canadian Psychology, 44(4), 312-331. http://doi.org/bf95sk Perry, R. P., Hall, N. C., & Ruthig, J. C. (2005). Perceived (academic) control and scholastic attainment in higher education. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 20, pp. 363-436). Springer. Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Oxford University Press, American Psychological Association. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. http://doi.org/c48g8h Saleebey, D. (2006). Introduction: Power in the people. In D. Saleebey (Ed.), The strengths perspective in social work practice (4th ed., pp. 1-24). Pearson. Schlossberg, N. K. (2008). Overwhelmed: Coping with life’s ups and downs. M. Evans. Schreiner, L. A. (2010a). Thriving in the classroom. About Campus, 15(3), 2-10. http://doi.org/ c63d7j Schreiner, L. A. (2010b). Thriving in community. About Campus, 15(4), 2-11. http://doi.org/dvqtxt Schreiner, L. A. (2013). Strengths-based advising. In J. K. Drake, P. Jordan, & M. A. Miller (Eds.), Academic advising approaches: Strategies that teach students to make the most of college (pp. 105-120). Jossey-Bass. Schreiner, L. A. (2014). Strengths-oriented teaching: Pathways to engaged learning. In B. F. Tobolowsky (Ed.), Paths to learning: Teaching for engagement in college (pp. 77-92). University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition. Schreiner, L. A., Hulme, E., Hetzel, R., & Lopez, S. (2009). Positive psychology on campus. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 569-578). Oxford University Press. Schreiner, L. A., & Louis, M. C. (2011). The Engaged Learning Index: Implications for faculty development. Journal of Excellence in College Teaching , 22(1), 5-28. Seligman, M. E. P. (2003). Foreword: The past and future of positive psychology. In C. L. Keyes & J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well-lived (pp. v-xvi). American Psychological Association. Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 51-82. http://doi.org/dt4zs8 Seligman, M. E. P., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2004). The Values in Action (VIA) classification of character strengths. Ricerche di Psicologia, 27(1), 63-78. Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60(5), 410-421. http://doi.org/d9598q Shushok, F., & Hulme, E. (2006). What’s right with you: Helping students find and use their personal strengths. About Campus, 11(4), 2-8. http://doi.org/c7txmh Silberman, M. (1996). Active learning: 101 strategies to teach any subject. Pearson, Allyn, & Bacon.

51

Thriving in Transitions

Snyder, C., Shorey, H., Cheavens, J., Pulvers, K., Adams, V., & Wiklund, C. (2002). Hope and academic success in college. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 820-826. http://doi.org/cn5vr2 Soria, K. M., & Stubblefield, R. (2015a). Building a strengths-based campus to support student retention. Journal of College Student Development, 56(6), 262-631. http://doi.org/dqnv Soria, K. M., & Stubblefield, R. (2015b). Knowing me, knowing you: Building strengths awareness, belonging, and persistence in higher education. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory, & Practice, 17(3), 351-372. http://doi.org/gc6xsz Suskie, L. (2004). Assessing student learning: A common sense guide. Anker. Tagg, J. (2003). The learning paradigm college. Anker. Wood, A. M., Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Kashdan, T. B., & Hurling, R. (2011). Using personal and psychological strengths leads to increases in well-being over time: A longitudinal study and the development of the strengths use questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(1), 1519. http://doi.org/dqnp3t Yeager, D. S., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Garcia, J., Apfel, N., Brzustoski, P., Master, A., Hessert, W. T., Williams, M. E., & Cohen, G. L. (2014). Breaking the cycle of mistrust: Wise interventions to provide critical feedback across the racial divide. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 143(2), 804-824. http://doi.org/f62qbx Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 8(11), 69-91. http://doi.org/ctqp52 Zull, J. E. (2002). The art of changing the brain: Enriching the practice of teaching by exploring the biology of learning. Stylus.

52

CHAPTER THREE THRIVING FROM THE START: EQUIPPING STUDENTS FOR SUCCESS IN THE FIRST YEAR Denise D. Nelson, Deb Vetter, and Matthew K. Vetter

This chapter examines perhaps the most visible transition encountered by college or university students—the initial transition to higher education. Exploring the attitudes and experiences that allow students to successfully navigate their complex new living and learning environment helps institutions equip first-year students to thrive personally, socially, and academically. The more fully colleges and universities understand the positive influence of the elements that facilitate success, the more effectively they can construct curricular and cocurricular support structures on behalf of entering students. The transitional nature of the first year of college makes it “the most critical in shaping persistence decisions” (Trotter & Roberts, 2006, p. 372) and forming students’ attitudes about learning throughout their academic careers (Astin, 1993; Mayhew et al., 2016). Given that more than 30% of first-year college students do not persist to the second year (ACT, 2018), concern regarding student success during the transition into college is well-founded. This window of opportunity should draw institutions’ focused efforts because it is the point at which supportive initiatives may have the most powerful long-term effects. Students who perceive strong institutional commitment to their success are more likely to persist (Braxton et al., 2014), and it follows that institutions espousing such commitments will actively support the transition of first-year students to the college environment. Accordingly, a thorough exploration of thriving through the transitions of the first year requires an acknowledgement of its importance, an examination of the attitudes and experiences associated with thriving in the first year, and a discussion of programmatic interventions for facilitating thriving during this important transition.

First-Year Success Early in the millennium, Upcraft and colleagues (2005) described the result of “overwhelming evidence that student success is largely determined by student experiences in the first year” (p. 1), explaining that colleges’ acceptance of this reality has triggered countless initiatives focused on the beginning college experience. These initiatives have become increasingly well-informed by research on effective educational practices. Accordingly, robust 53

Thriving in Transitions

first-year experiences are designed not only to address academic transitions but also to support students’ more holistic success and development within the postsecondary environment. Considerable empirical evidence indicates that effective educational practices provide “substantial educational benefits to students” (Kuh, 2008, p.1). These purposeful active learning experiences, also known as high-impact practices, are consistently connected to student success (Kilgo et al., 2015; Schreiner, 2018). High-impact practices include first-year seminars and experiences, common intellectual experiences, learning communities, writingintensive courses, collaborative assignments and projects, undergraduate research, diversity/ global learning, service-learning and community-based learning, internships, and capstone course projects (Kuh, 2008). To enhance student engagement and increase student success, Kuh (2008) has recommended that every student participate in at least two high-impact activities during the undergraduate experience, one—such as the first-year seminar—in the initial year of college and the second during later years in relation to the major field of study. The relationships between these effective educational practices and selected aspects of student success in college were explored using the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE; Kuh, 2008). Students who participated in high-impact activities evidenced significantly greater gains in effective general educational practices, personal and social development, and practical competence than their peers without similar involvements. These students described their campus environment as supportive and reported more engagement in higher levels of academic challenge, participation in active and collaborative learning, and interactions with faculty (Finley & Kuh, 2016; Kuh, 2008). Two practices, learning communities and service-learning, were particularly important for first-year students (Kuh, 2008; Tukibayeva & Gonyea, 2014). First-year students involved in these programs were more likely than their peers to have higher levels of persistence and self-reported gains in general education (Tukibayeva & Gonyea, 2014). In addition to learning communities and service-learning, the first-year seminar is a high-impact practice commonly deployed to support entering college students. In the sections that follow, we briefly introduce these initiatives as sites to support thriving in the first college year. First-Year Seminars The modern first-year seminar, likely the most ubiquitous high-impact practice, was first introduced by John N. Gardner at the University of South Carolina in 1972. Research has suggested the first-year seminar may serve as the cornerstone of an intentionally comprehensive and integrated experience for first-year students (Padgett & Keup, 2011; Schmidt & Graziano, 2016; Tobolowsky & Associates, 2008). In 1986, the National Resource Center for The Freshman Year Experience, now known as the National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition, was created. Since its inception, the Center has periodically conducted the National Survey of First-Year Seminars (NSFYS) to 54

Thriving From the Start

collect information regarding trends in the changing components of the first-year seminar and to provide an understanding of curricular initiatives fostering active participation in learning and student development in the first year of college (Young & Hopp, 2014).1 A far-reaching outcome of the first NSFYS survey was a working definition of the first-year seminar, that is a course intended to enhance the academic and/or social integration of first-year students by introducing them (a) to a variety of specific topics which vary by seminar type, (b) to essential skills for college success, and (c) to selected processes, the most common of which is the creation of a peer support group. (Barefoot, 1992, p. 49) The structure and content of first-year seminars varies based on institutional mission, culture, and student population, ranging from extended orientation and study skills programs to topical or discipline-specific seminars. Regardless of seminar type, more than half of the institutions that participated in the 2012-2013 NSFYS reported that at least 90% of their students were enrolled in a seminar (Young & Hopp, 2014). Four-year and private institutions were more likely to have 100% of their first-year students enrolled in the seminar. The pervasiveness of programs designed specifically for first-year students suggests that such seminars or courses offer a prime venue for delivering interventions that enable thriving across the class of newly enrolled students. Research on first-year programs is prolific, and much of the extant literature focuses on the effects of participation in first-year seminars. In their comprehensive review of research, Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) found that first-year seminars “produce uniformly consistent evidence of positive and statistically significant advantages to students who take the courses” (p. 400). Their review emphasized the benefits of first-year seminars and courses in regard to persistence, graduation rates, and academic performance. A more recent review (Mayhew et al., 2016) corroborated the usefulness of such courses, noting that the positive relationship between these offerings and academic attainment is evident across the variety of seminar types. First-year seminars intentionally designed to enhance student thriving would include a number of key features. In addition to the smaller class sizes, discussion focus, and emphasis on creating community and navigating university systems that characterize many such courses (Upcraft et al., 2005), faculty would co-teach with an upper-class peer instructor (Kuh, 2008; Schreiner, 2010) and would also serve as academic advisors throughout their students’ first year (Schreiner, 2010). Such an approach would provide learners with concrete assistance in connecting course content to their broader academic and life goals; this structure would encourage the development of a more substantive relationship with the advisor, as well. The use of peer instructors not only offers the mentoring support that In 2017, the National Resource Center broadened the focus of this national survey beyond the first-year seminar to explore the range of possible initiatives an institution might implement to support entering college students and how they administered those initiatives. 1

55

Thriving in Transitions

is integral to developing a psychological sense of community, but also provides student role models for self-regulated and engaged learning. Learning Communities Learning communities, defined as a cluster of classes organized around a curricular theme taken by a group of students (Laufgraben, 2005), offer another structure that provides an opportunity to enhance student thriving. Linking the first-year seminar thematically within a learning community, using peer instructors who co-teach with the faculty in these classes, and focusing the linked seminar intentionally on “learning how to learn” would foster students’ academic determination and engaged learning, setting them on a trajectory for success as they transition to college (Schreiner, 2010). Learning communities might reasonably be considered a high-impact meta-practice because they are easily linked with other first-year seminars or courses and can facilitate additional high-impact practices such as common intellectual experiences, collaborative projects, and relevant service-learning opportunities. The learning community context helps students view their academic experience holistically and from an interdisciplinary perspective, encouraging greater engagement in the learning process. Whether through increased engagement with learning or through the supportive social and academic structures they provide, learning communities serve students well, facilitating gains in both general education and in more focused academic knowledge (Mayhew et al., 2016). Learning communities deserve special attention in the discussion regarding student success in the first year of college because they “attempt to move collaborative learning beyond the classroom and into broader aspects of a college student’s life” (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005, p. 109). Kuh et al. (2005) identified learning communities as an especially useful approach to this sort of expansive learning environment, suggesting that students in learning communities engage more actively with academic material and with their peers. Rocconi (2011) confirmed this assertion in his findings that “learning community students exert more effort in their coursework and in their interactions with faculty members and other students” (p. 188). Learning communities likely include the kinds of first-year seminars or courses described in this chapter, but they also build upon those experiences with additional shared courses, activities, and, in some cases, shared on-campus living arrangements (Fink & Inkelas, 2015; Mayhew et al., 2016). Laufgraben’s (2005) examination of the educational and developmental benefits of learning communities demonstrates that the extent of students’ integration into shared academic and social experiences corresponds to their overall success within the college environment. The National Study of Living-Learning Programs (NSLLP) has also provided rich analysis establishing the positive relationship between living–learning communities (LLCs) and student success (Brower & Inkelas, 2010; Inkelas et al., 2007; Soldner & 56

Thriving From the Start

Szelényi, 2008). By offering blocks of thematically linked courses in conjunction with social activities, out-of-class academic activities, and other learning or service opportunities for a group of students, colleges and universities create learning communities that encompass both academic and social aspects of students’ development (Kuh et al., 2005; Mayhew et al., 2016), thereby fueling their ability to thrive. Service-Learning Service-learning, a pedagogical approach that includes a structured community project component (Laufgraben, 2005), is a high-impact practice that can be effectively included in a first-year seminar, other general education course, or learning community, providing additional opportunities for effective student development. Studies have found positive impacts on student identity development, self-efficacy, moral development, spiritual growth, communication and leadership skills, interpersonal development, racial and cultural understanding, academic learning, and social responsibility, among other outcomes (Eyler et al., 2001; Mayhew et al., 2016). Working alongside faculty, classmates, and members of the larger community provides first-year students a valuable opportunity to create new relationships and deepen existing connections while contributing meaningfully to enrich the lives or circumstances of others. Service-learning also provides opportunities for students to expand their relationships with faculty and peers through shared intellectual experiences. Opportunities for small-group discussions and exposure to the diverse views of others, along with opportunities for reflection and frequent feedback, allow students to become more aware of their beliefs, values, and worldview (Laufgraben, 2005). Mayhew et al.’s (2016) evaluation contended that when students are part of a supportive community that facilitates genuine relationships with peers and creates opportunities for greater interaction with faculty—as found in courses designed for the transition of first-year students to college—they are likely to develop a positive perspective about themselves as learners and as members of the community. This positive perspective is indicated by the quality and diversity of their relationships and their clear sense of purpose in pursing an education as demonstrated by the psychological energy they devote to the learning process. In short, robust programs designed to meet the needs of first-year college students deliver personal and academic benefits. Students have opportunities to build relationships with peers and faculty, to understand and implement effective learning strategies, and to develop a healthy perspective about their role within their larger community. Despite the demonstrated benefits of high-impact practices delivered in the context of well-designed structures, these practices are insufficient to comprehensively address the challenges of the transition to college. Data from the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center (2019) have indicated that first- to second-year retention rates have improved just over 2% in the last decade. Supporting first-year success requires a new perspective that not only 57

Thriving in Transitions

has persistence as its goal but also emphasizes individual student thriving and seeks to understand the forces that enable it. Thriving students function well academically and interpersonally, view their circumstances optimistically, and experience a sense of well-being, which enables them to approach the demands of college well-equipped for success (Schreiner, 2016). However, students who lag in these essential characteristics are unable to fully enjoy the breadth of positive experiences offered by the postsecondary living and learning environment and may struggle to persist. Armed with data regarding students’ needs, institutions can more effectively support new students as they succeed and intervene on their behalf before challenges lead to dissatisfaction, poor performance, or departure.

Predicting Thriving in the First Year One effective framework for exploring outcomes of higher education experiences for first-year students is Astin’s (1984) input-environment-output (I-E-O) model. The input component of the model encompasses characteristics of students upon their arrival at an institution, including variables such as demographic data, financial resources and perspectives about their adequacy, and academic aspirations. These input factors are useful contributors to understanding student success, yet they are inadequate to independently predict or prevent attrition (Swing & Skipper, 2007). Accordingly, Astin’s (1984) model also examines the college environment and the experiences that take place within it. Among these in-college characteristics are attitudes and activities that influence students’ integration into the academic and social structures of their institutions. These positive connections likely support a sense of belonging within the college community, which is itself predictive of retention to the second year (Hausmann et al., 2007). Psychological sense of community (PSC), a construct originally described by Sarason in 1974, captures the extent to which individuals feel they belong within a community of which they are proud and in which they can connect meaningfully with other people. Astin’s (1984) model culminates with the output that accrues to students in light of their input characteristics and the attitudes and activities experienced within the college environment. Thriving, which is characterized by optimal functioning in academic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal domains of the college experience (Schreiner, McIntosh, et al., 2009), is both an outcome itself and a predictor of other positive outcomes. Thriving students are significantly more likely to report outcomes such as higher college grades, stronger intentions to graduate from their current institution, greater feelings of institutional fit, and a higher likelihood of selecting the same school again if given a chance to revisit their college enrollment choice (Schreiner, Pothoven, et al., 2009). Offering more than just a broader context for retention discussions, thriving embraces the notion of fulfilling, positive functioning in all major domains of student life. Thriving describes first-year students who are successfully meeting 58

Thriving From the Start

the challenges of entering the college environment and functioning well within it. Although every institution wants its students to thrive, administrators, researchers, and practitioners enable thriving only by understanding its precursors and creating campus initiatives and environments that fuel them. To better understand the predictors of thriving in first-year students, a hierarchical multiple regression was conducted using responses to the Thriving Quotient from 1,200 first-year students. Hierarchical multiple regression enables investigators to reasonably predict the extent to which student thriving is the product of individual attitudes, behaviors, or experiences. Precursors were identified for analysis based on prior research on student thriving (McIntosh, 2012; Schreiner et al., 2015; Vetter, 2018) and applied here to firstyear students. The outcome variable in the analysis was the mean score on the Thriving Quotient—a 24-item measure of holistic college student success (Schreiner, 2016). Additional hierarchical regressions were conducted with each of the five Thriving Quotient sub-scales as the outcome variable: Academic Determination, Engaged Learning, Positive Perspective, Social Connectedness, and Diverse Citizenship. Participants were drawn from 14 public and private four-year colleges in the United States and Canada. Data were collected through an online survey during the fall of 2017. Student responses were screened for participants identifying as 18 to 23 years old and as first-year, first-time undergraduate degree-seeking students at a four-year college or university. The sample was mostly female (69%), White (74%), and lived on campus (85.7%). A minority of the students were the first in their family to attend college (22.8%). Table 3.1 provides additional demographic details. A hierarchical regression analysis was conducted using direct imputation. The independent variables were blocked together by category for analysis: (1) student demographics, (2) pre-college characteristics, (3) college experiences, (4) student attitudes, (5) experiences with faculty, and (6) Psychological Sense of Community. Block 1 included measures of gender, race, and first-generation status. Gender was dummy-coded as Female (0 = male, 1 = female), and race was dummy-coded as White (0 = not White, 1 = White). Measures of high school grades, degree goal, and financial difficulty were included in Block 2. Degree goal assessed the degree aspirations of participants (1 = none, 2 = bachelor’s, 3 = teaching credential, 4 = master’s, 5 = doctorate). Financial difficulty evaluated the perceived financial stress of students after considering their financial aid and personal or family income. Block 3 included two measures of student cocurricular involvement. Quality of Involvement is a 5-item measure of students’ psychological engagement in a campus organization or leadership role. Quantity of Involvement was the sum of hours per week participating in a student organization or leadership role and the number of leadership positions held. Both involvement measures are based on Winston and Massaro’s (1987) research, which has been revised by Endress (2000) and Vetter (2018). Block 4 included two measures: Spirituality 59

Thriving in Transitions

Table 3.1 Characteristics of the First-Year Student Sample (N = 1,200) Characteristic

N

%

Gender Male

372

31.0

Female

828

69.0

888

74.0

Race/Ethnicity White/Caucasian African American/Black Latino/Latina Asian/Pacific Islander Aboriginal/Native/Metis/ Inuit/First Nations heritage

97

8.1

120

10.0

49

4.1

4

0.3

33

2.8

9

.8

Yes

48

4.0

No

1,152

96.0

First-generation

273

22.8

Not first generation

927

77.3

On campus

1,028

85.7

Off campus

172

14.3

Other Decline to respond International Student

Generational Status

Residence

and Institutional Integrity. Spirituality assessed a broad sense of meaning-making that may or may not include religious beliefs. The variable was created as a 3-item scale based on questions from the College Students’ Beliefs and Values survey (Astin et al., 2011). Institutional integrity evaluates students’ perceived congruence between an institution’s mission and the actions of faculty and staff. The 3-item measure used in the study is grounded in Braxton and Hirschy’s (2004) retention research as adapted by Ash and Schreiner (2016). The two measures in Block 5 included Faculty Interaction and Faculty Diversity Satisfaction. The frequency of student interactions with faculty was measured via a 5-item scale assessing different contexts for engagement. Faculty Diversity Satisfaction included four items designed to measure student satisfaction with the diverse perspectives offered in class and the extent to which faculty acknowledged and promoted those diverse perspectives. In the final block, a single 60

Thriving From the Start

4-item scale assessed students’ Psychological Sense of Community (PSC). Grounded in the research of McMillan and Chavis (1986), PSC describes the pride, belonging, and fulfillment students experience through their membership in the campus community. Six separate hierarchical multiple regressions were calculated—one using overall Thriving Quotient scores as the outcome variable and five additional regressions where each of the Thriving Quotient scales was the outcome variable (see Table 3.2). The overall model was found to predict nearly 52% of the variance in student thriving. Of the five component models, the Diverse Citizenship model explained the most variance (39%). Approximately 22% of the variance in Social Connectedness and Positive Perspective could be explained by the models. In all of the regression models, the findings indicate that elements of student thriving in college can be predicted with some confidence when accounting for student characteristics, experiences, and attitudes. PSC predicted the greatest amount of unique variance in most of the models, with Spirituality also demonstrating significant predictive power. Although the predictors of each component of thriving differed slightly, five key predictors most consistently predicted student thriving in this sample of first-year students: degree goal, quality of involvement, spirituality, experiences with faculty, and PSC. Degree Goal Astin’s (1984) I-E-O model would likely place educational aspiration among other input variables because students arrive at college with such goals already established. Previous research (Lohfink & Paulsen, 2005; Pike & Kuh, 2005) has found that the level of education to which students aspire is powerfully associated with their likelihood of persisting to the second year of college. The present study demonstrates that students’ degree goals also fuel thriving in the first year, significantly predicting two of the five thriving factors—Engaged Learning and Diverse Citizenship—as well as overall thriving. Unlike demographic characteristics such as race or first-generation status, students’ degree goals may change over time. Some students may artificially limit their initial goals due to fear of failure, lack of highly educated role models, underestimation of the education required for their desired profession, or simply never having considered graduate education. For these students, programming that provides information about career requirements and advanced educational opportunities and that helps them set suitable educational goals may prove highly beneficial. Not only does increased degree aspiration correspond to higher levels of overall thriving, but expectancy-value motivation theory (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002) contends that individuals are motivated to achieve goals they believe are attainable, intrinsically valuable, and practically beneficial. Accordingly, understanding the utility of continued education and setting appropriately high degree goals within the context of a supportive environment should engender persistence in pursuit of those goals.

61

Academic determination

Engaged learning

Positive perspective

Social connectedness

Diverse citizenship

Overall thriving

ß

ß

ß

ß

ß

ß

.011

.043

-.046

-.022

.035

.001

White

.009

-.036

-.023

-.027

-.023

-.031

First-generation

-.001

-.021

-.011

-.063*

.011

-.029

.006

.005

-.002

.004

.003

.004

.115***

.051*

.040

-.052

.021

.043*

Variable

Step 1 Gender (female)

Adj. R

2

Step 2 HS grades Degree goal

.040

.070**

.047

.028

.052*

.068**

Financial difficulty

-.061*

-.007

.004

-.063*

.020

-.033

.039

.020

.011

.009

.018

.029

Involvement quality

.016

-.016

.170***

.067*

.186***

.118***

Involvement quantity

.016

.019

-.030

-.022

-.037

-.016

.051

.027

.054

.022

.096

.079

.051

.055

-.028

-.108**

.002

-.017

Adj. R 2 Step 3

Adj. R 2 Step 4 Institutional integrity

Table continues on page 63

Thriving in Transitions

62

Table 3.2 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis of Predictors of Thriving Scales and Overall Thriving (N = 1,188)

Table continued from page 62 Variable

Spirituality

Academic determination

Engaged learning

Positive perspective

Social connectedness

Diverse citizenship

Overall thriving

ß

ß

ß

ß

ß

ß

.175***

.027

.281***

.072**

.178***

.206***

.199

.157

.197

.140

.282

.358

Faculty interaction

.078**

.019

.064*

.038

.117***

.085***

Faculty diverse satisfaction

.064*

.189***

-.000

-.061

.183***

.093***

.213

.194

.200

.139

.331

.381

.404***

.458***

.179***

.358***

.308***

.486***

.304

.312

.217

.211

.384

.514

.312

.319

.226

.220

.391

.519

Adj. R 2 Step 5

Adj. R 2 Step 6 PSC Adj. R

2

Total R 2

Note. Values for the variable Degree goal reflect the highest degree the respondent intends to pursue, ranging from 1 = none to 5 = doctorate and including bachelor’s degree, teaching credential, and master’s degree as the interim values. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. Thriving From the Start

63

Thriving in Transitions

Quality of Involvement High-quality campus involvement is the second noteworthy predictor of thriving among the first-year college students in this study. Although the higher education literature often uses the term involvement to describe the frequency of participation in cocurricular activities (Vetter, 2018; Wolf-Wendel et al., 2009), the quality of students’ involvement is equally important (Astin, 1984; Vetter, Schreiner, McIntosh, et al., 2019). Quality of involvement describes the investment of energy and psychological engagement of students in a single cocurricular organization or leadership role. Participating in group discussions, volunteering when group tasks are assigned, or taking on group activities with peers characterizes quality involvement behaviors. Involvement in campus activities and organizations is an essential component of the environment portion of Astin’s (1984) I-E-O model in which he contended, in part, that interaction with peers increases students’ learning and development. The behavioral nature of involvement makes it particularly amenable to change. Students need not necessarily gain new skills or academic knowledge to expand their involvement or improve the quality of their involvement experiences. In many cases, however, first-year students may lack an awareness of the breadth of opportunities afforded by their institutions for activities, organizations, or events. In other circumstances, the highly stimulating postsecondary environment may overwhelm some students who, not knowing how best to become involved, shrink from cocurricular involvement altogether. For both the uninformed and the reluctant, colleges and universities may be wise to explore new strategies for encouraging first-year students toward focused engagement in the campus activities and organizations that best align with their interests and values. Spirituality Students whose spiritual or religious beliefs help them make meaning of life experiences and persevere through life challenges are more likely to thrive in college. Spirituality has consistently been shown to be one of the strongest predictors of thriving (Ash & Schreiner, 2016; McIntosh, 2012; Schreiner et al., 2015, 2017). In the present study, Spirituality produced a larger increase than any other variable in the explanatory power of the predictive model when it entered the regression, and only PSC explained a greater amount of unique variance in overall thriving scores. Moreover, Spirituality significantly contributed to the predictive models for four out of the five dimensions of thriving—excluding only Engaged Learning. The first-year transition is often characterized by an onslaught of new experiences, new relationships, and exposure to new ideas. The presence of a foundational spiritual or religious framework enhances the capacity of students to interpret these new experiences and engage purposefully in college life. Spiritually grounded students see themselves as connected to others and to the world around them and are therefore able to make values-based decisions 64

Thriving From the Start

about their academic and cocurricular engagements that place them on a pathway toward college success (Astin et al., 2011). Experiences with Faculty The contribution of student relationships with faculty to student success is well documented over decades of research (Chickering & Gamson, 1987; Kuh, 2008; Mayhew et al., 2016), especially during the first year of college (Gardner et al., 2005). Contextualized to the study of student thriving, the evidence demonstrates that student experiences with faculty contribute to holistic gains in the academic, social, and emotional well-being of firstyear students. Understanding that the mere frequency of interaction with faculty cannot alone predict student success (Kim & Sax, 2017), a measure of quality is assessed by investigating student satisfaction with the diverse perspectives and contributions facilitated by faculty in the classroom. In writing-intensive courses, students might be asked to reflect regularly on the ways their professors welcome or navigate diverse perspectives among members of the classroom community, thereby experiencing two high-impact practices—diversity learning and intensive writing. Frequent out-of-class interactions with faculty can also help first-year students remain optimistic in the face of academic challenges and help students connect to the campus community. When faculty acknowledge and introduce diverse perspectives in the classroom, students deepen their engagement in course content and broaden their commitment to a diverse community. Psychological Sense of Community The final key predictor, psychological sense of community (PSC; Sarason, 1974), proved to be the single variable that significantly predicted overall thriving as well as all five component factors of the construct. These relationships are evident after accounting for numerous other influences including demographic characteristics, academic performance and aspiration, financial considerations, quantity and quality of involvement, institutional integrity, spirituality, and experiences with faculty. Nearly half of the variation in students’ levels of overall thriving could be explained by their reported levels of PSC. The college or university campus environment is inarguably a community, and the extent to which students positively identify with the institution’s educational and social structures informs their success, both individually and collectively. Students who score high on the PSC scale have indicated strong agreement that they belong at their college or university, that being a student at their chosen institution fills an important need in their life, that they are proud of the school they have chosen to attend, and that they perceive a strong sense of community on campus. These students are conveying a sense of assurance that they are valued and supported by their institution, that sufficient personal relationships are available, and that they have chosen well in their college search. 65

Thriving in Transitions

Recommendations for Curricular and Cocurricular Thriving Practices Practitioners who bear responsibility for crafting effective first-year experiences are likely already serving students well through the implementation of high-impact practices that provide opportunity for social and intellectual development. They recognize the value of service-based learning and exposure to diverse experiences and perspectives, and they engage in collaborative work that helps dismantle the perceived barrier between curricular and cocurricular realms. Even so, augmenting first-year programs with components known to facilitate thriving can yield even greater benefits for the students these programs serve. Career Development and Exploration Given that degree aspirations are predictive of overall thriving, the first-year experience should include intentional career development initiatives. Many first-year students enter college with concerns regarding their major and career. Providing experiences that assist them in identifying a meaningful career goal is so significant that some researchers have recommended that career development, exploration, and vocational reflection be categorized as a high-impact practice (Stebleton & Diamond, 2018). When students adopt higher degree aspirations, they are more likely to be psychologically engaged and energized by the learning process, as well as motivated to invest the effort necessary to succeed in college: two factors that comprise academic thriving (Schreiner, 2012). Career development opportunities that help first-year students become more aware of their values, interests, skills, strengths, and personality as they explore vocational options can be embedded in the first-year experience through new-student orientation, workshops, first-year seminars, career- and life-planning courses, service-learning opportunities, or LLCs. First-year seminars and career- and life-planning courses should include curricular opportunities for self-assessment and occupational exploration. Students should receive information about campus resources, including the career development and academic advising offices and the programs they offer to assist students. As they explore their career goals, students should also hear from upper-level peers and faculty about their educational and vocational journeys, including their participation in relevant high-impact undergraduate experiences such as internships or research opportunities. Within learning communities, students should be given opportunities for informal, one-on-one interactions with faculty to discuss the possibilities of post-baccalaureate education and to explore their dreams or concerns about the options available to them. Faculty might describe the circumstances that propelled them toward an advanced degree and the educational or other obstacles they overcame. Similarly, staff from various offices could spend time with the learning community participants to share about how their academic experiences prepared them for their roles at the institution. Excellent opportunities for faculty to initiate quality interaction with students outside the classroom lie in serving as mentors 66

Thriving From the Start

for orientation groups, hosting gatherings of first-year students in their homes, eating meals in campus dining areas during the first weeks of the semester, and participating in social events or service activities. More formal activities for students could involve goal-setting exercises that map a path from the first year of college to the student’s ultimate career goal, acknowledging the level of education required to enter the chosen profession competitively. In addition to the career development opportunities commonly afforded by first-year seminars and learning communities, both of these structures lend themselves to the addition of service-learning experiences. Even discrete service-learning activities allow students to build useful teamwork and communication skills and to reflect on their own values and priorities. However, integrating ongoing service-learning involvement into a more holistic framework that extends throughout—or beyond—the first year allows a longer timeframe for internalizing career-related values such as service and civic engagement, as well as establishing deeper relationships with potential employers (Mitchell & Rost-Banik, 2019). Involvement and Spirituality Cocurricular involvement experiences provide an ideal opportunity for first-year students to engage in the academic and social life of the college in ways that promote meaning-making, a sense of community, and thriving. When participation in campus activities or organizations involves service to the community, exposure to diverse perspectives, or collaboration among peers, students’ experiences not only increase their likelihood of thriving, but also provide beneficial exposure to educationally effective high-impact practices. Many colleges already host a plethora of involvement opportunities for first-year students: clubs, intramurals, theater, varsity sports, student government, and ethnic identity groups, to name a few. Students who navigate these opportunities to join a group that matches their interests and connects them to a cohort of peers are more likely to thrive in their first year (Tieu & Pancer, 2009). In fact, evidence supports that high-quality engagement in just one organization promotes student thriving more strongly than any number of hours spent in less meaningful cocurricular pursuits (Vetter, Schreiner, McIntosh, et al., 2019). Promoting meaningful involvement in just one group can foster the social connections, emotional support, and academic engagement emblematic of high-thriving students. In addition to the intrinsic benefits of participating in a cocurricular activity, student involvement works to promote thriving through three added benefits: (a) inspiring meaningmaking and spirituality, (b) fostering connections to the campus community, and (c) increasing positive interactions with faculty. Evidence suggests that many high-thriving students maintain deep connections to a spiritual sense of meaning and purpose during college. Involvement experiences hold the potential to connect students to like-minded spiritual communities and inspire students towards lives of purpose in ways that promote thriving. Secular involvement experiences that promote spirituality could include service-learning, mindfulness practice, 67

Thriving in Transitions

or values-based leadership education. The opportunity to practice one’s religious faith on campus could be equally effective. The need for strong spiritual communities as a pathway to thriving is particularly salient for students of color (Ash & Schreiner, 2016; McIntosh, 2012, 2015), yet this finding is somewhat troubling given the assertion by Interfaith Youth Core that “religious and worldview diversity is not yet clearly or consistently understood by [higher education] as an integral part of campus diversity and inclusion work” (HartmanPickerill, 2017, p. 1). The cocurriculum could be an ideal avenue for students to experience positive interfaith engagement that facilitates appreciation for diverse worldviews and kindles a desire to more fully understand their own spiritual perspective (Rockenbach et al., 2018). Evidence also suggests that supporting students of color to engage with off-campus faith communities could be beneficial to student transitions and success (Dugan et al., 2013). Resources provided in the first year can position students to make the most of their access to cocurricular programming on campus. First-year seminar courses offer opportunities to explore and reflect upon involvement experiences as faculty instructors introduce students to institutional opportunities. They may even consider encouraging participation in events such as student involvement fairs by including these expectations in the syllabus. In first-year programs where peer mentors are used, these more experienced students can help connect newer students to clubs and organizations that match their interests. Faculty instructors and peer mentors should also invite students to reflect on their involvement experiences and to refine their commitments. With guidance, practicing this reflection can help first-year students prioritize their time and deepen the meaningful connections they are making across campus. The natural intertwining of the academic and cocurricular domains provides opportunity to deepen student engagement and to enrich student–faculty interaction. Evidence suggests that frequent involvement in student organizations or leadership roles can connect students to faculty and, in turn, promote student thriving (Vetter, Schreiner, McIntosh, et al., 2019). Colleges should see the attachment of faculty advisors to student organizations as an opportunity to develop important mentorship relationships. As first-year students transition into their second semester, relationships with faculty established in the cocurriculum can help sustain initial institutional engagement into the second semester and then the second year of college. Motivated faculty who meet first-year students in an area of mutual interest can inspire intellectual curiosity, encourage curricular applications, and explore career pathways that match student interests. This technique of connecting with students personally was observed as a common practice among first-year seminar instructors of high-thriving students of color (Vetter, Schreiner, & Jaworski, 2019). Cocurricular involvement holds great potential to foster student–faculty interactions and meaningful mentor relationships.

68

Thriving From the Start

Sense of Community As new students begin to build relationships with their institution and the faculty, staff, and peers they encounter within it, first-year programs provide a natural channel through which to increase students’ feelings of value and belonging to the institution. Four important elements contribute to a PSC: (a) membership, (b) influence, (c) integration and fulfillment, and (d) shared emotional connection (McMillan & Chavis, 1986; Sarason, 1974). Many of these elements may be addressed through activities and assignments associated with common first-year experiences such as the first-year seminar, learning communities, servicelearning, or residence life. The particular importance of sense of community for fueling first-year thriving warrants special attention to each of those elements and to activities with potential to engender them. First and foremost, students must feel that they belong at their chosen institution. In order to help students visualize their membership within the institutional learning community, first-year seminar instructors might ask students to work in groups to identify several concise descriptions of the school, of groups within it, or of the values the institution represents. Students should brainstorm several words or phrases that describe themselves or their values. The class might then be given several minutes to move throughout the learning space, posting descriptions of themselves or their values under corresponding categories that describe the school. Either in discussion or in a written assignment, students should reflect on the areas in which they were able to connect their own values with those of the institution and should be encouraged to speculate on ways their distinctive attributes enrich the larger institutional community. This learning experience could also be facilitated by hall directors, resident assistants, peer leaders, or other student life staff as part a student development seminar within first-year living spaces, relating students’ values to those of their immediate living and learning community as well as to the institution at large. Even in off-campus service-learning settings, students participating in such an activity could strengthen their feelings of membership by naming and intentionally identifying with the unique values characteristic of those service efforts. Facilitated well, this reflective exercise should demonstrate students’ existing points of connection to the institutional community and should frame their uniqueness as a tool for contributing to their living, learning, and service environments. Influence, the second component of sense of community, reflects the extent to which students believe their input is respected in decision-making processes at the institution. For colleges and universities with a student government or a similar student-led policy group, first-year learners should be introduced to the activities of that body. Even more importantly, representatives of the student government should be invited to address first-year seminar classes or meetings in first-year residence halls. Their presentations might include specific examples of the initiatives accomplished by the group and clear invitations for the new students 69

Thriving in Transitions

to participate in every appropriate way. To help first-year students articulate their potential contribution to the college or university, an assignment for the first-year seminar might be staging a mock campaign. Each class member could craft a campaign plan that specifies a student leadership role or office and then enumerates the initiatives they would pursue if elected to that position. The plan might then specify how the student’s strengths or skills support the goal of improving their particular learning community or the broader institution. Within the context of service-learning activities, students might be given opportunity to offer ideas for expanding the effectiveness or scope of their service. Regardless of the specific initiative, efforts to develop students’ feelings of influence should emphasize that students not only contribute individually to the community as a whole, but also that each student is uniquely able to influence the community for its good. In addition to understanding the ways in which students can contribute to the institution, first-year students need to feel that the institution provides resources to safeguard their individual well-being. Integration into the institution’s structures and community requires that students have access to help when they need it. One way to help a first-year seminar class learn about the resources available to them is to create a collaborative case study project in which small groups of students are each assigned a fictitious student with a well-described set of needs. Collaborative projects are among the high-impact pedagogical approaches that provide a common intellectual experience; when structured as an assignment that explores a need, they may also serve as diversity learning experiences, helping students more fully understand and empathize with diverse peers. To fulfill the assignment, groups might identify appropriate campus resources for each of the needs attributed to their fictitious peer and visit the office responsible for the designated service to obtain a description of all of the ways that office helps provide for student needs. Within living–learning communities, each group should also consult a resident assistant or resident mentor for the community to learn about less visible resources and to better understand the role of these important peers in effectively connecting students with beneficial support. To complete the project, each group could make a presentation describing the needs of their assigned individual, identifying the range of available resources, and explaining how the case study student should seek support. Within the framework of PSC, need fulfillment suggests not only that students’ needs are met but also that they experience positive psychological consequences of their association with the institution. Fulfilled students are proud of their college or university and believe that their student role meets an important need in their lives. The first-year seminar can engender this sense of fulfillment by featuring successful alumni as guest speakers and asking those individuals to describe how the institution prepared them for their current success. If firstyear students are participating in a learning community or a service-learning project, peer mentors or alumni speakers who share that experience should highlight formative aspects 70

Thriving From the Start

of those involvements that have remained especially meaningful to them. Following this panel or special presentation, students may be asked to identify two or three of their personal goals for life after college and then explain how their current learning experiences support the accomplishment of those goals. Finally, a PSC requires that students feel a shared emotional connection with others in the community. Particularly within the college environment, these connections are often expressed as friendships. Extended orientation programs and LLCs can help initiate and enrich friendships by providing nonacademic social gatherings for participants. A combination of voluntary and required activities such as scavenger hunts or group games allows students to work together in friendly competition with one another, while less structured events such as picnics, bonfires, or local sightseeing outings allow informal interaction with peers. This type of activity traditionally falls within the cocurricular realm, so institutions that offer this sort of first-year seminar should rely on the expertise of student life professionals who may be particularly adept at delivering these programs. At institutions where social activities tend to involve only residential students, the first-year seminar or orientation may be one way of connecting commuting students with these valuable opportunities for interpersonal connection. Service-learning that takes place among closely connected students may also involve commuting students and provides ample opportunity to reflect on personal growth and interpersonal development in ways that build a PSC for participants. First-year seminars or learning communities that focus primarily on academic experiences might build a shared emotional connection through extended, meaningful conversations among students and their faculty about issues of personal importance that arise in connection with course material. One characteristic of high-impact practices is that they promote students’ interaction with faculty and their peers in regard to substantive issues (Kuh et al., 2013). Accordingly, the combination of big academic questions, deeply held personal perspectives, and well-developed relationships provides opportunity for academic contexts to facilitate emotional connections among first-year students and the faculty and staff with whom they interact. Ideally, first-year programming comprehensively supports students’ academic and social selves by emphasizing the connectedness between the two. To that end, LLCs may offer the most holistic form of community building, as faculty and cocurricular staff mentor students through the challenges of coursework, the ups and downs of interpersonal relationships, and the numerous stages of envisioning their possible futures. As the most powerful predictor of thriving among first-year students, the development of a PSC should be a driving priority for those who facilitate first-year programming in its many forms. Even at institutions that lack the specific programmatic structures discussed here, opportunities to enrich students’ sense of community abound. Creative planning allows institutional leaders to develop contextually appropriate experiences that allow first-year students to internalize four central messages about their community: (a) You belong here, 71

Thriving in Transitions

and your presence is needed; (b) You have a voice here, and you can change this community for the better; (c) Your needs are met here, and you can be proud of this community; and (d) You can connect here, and meaningful relationships are available.

Conclusion First-year seminars, extended orientations, and learning communities provide an expansive venue for institutional programming that reaches large groups of new students. For many institutions, one or more of these first-year programs already exists, but these are not the only mechanisms through which colleges and universities can equip first-year students to thrive through their initial year of college and beyond. Any first-year program in which students can explore common themes, learn both collectively and collaboratively, and interact extensively with peers and faculty provides experiences understood to have a high impact on student success and offers beneficial exposure to institutional opportunities that fuel thriving. As colleges and universities learn about the predictors of thriving for students transitioning into the higher education environment, they should eagerly pursue initiatives that provide opportunities for first-year students to examine their degree goals, become productively engaged with campus organizations or activities, deepen helpful spiritual connections or explore a sense of meaning and purpose, interact meaningfully with faculty, and bolster their PSC. Tinto (1975) famously and controversially explored suicide as a conceptual framework for understanding withdrawal from the college environment. Although the merits of this analogy have been argued in countless studies, it provides two important ideas. First, languishing comprises multiple influences—background characteristics, social integration, academic integration, and other individual student factors—suggesting numerous points at which a student’s downward trajectory may be interrupted. Second, just as most individuals are neither perfectly healthy nor desperately suicidal, most students are neither seamlessly integrated within their college environment nor completely estranged. Nearly 30 years ago, Bean (1990) provided important insight on this reality, asserting that “fitting in”—in both academic and social terms— “is not an all-or-nothing issue, but occurs in degrees” (p. 149). If the successful transition to college hinges to a great extent on students’ inner resources as exemplified by the concept of thriving, the persistent challenge for colleges is the creation of living and learning environments where such resources may be maximized to students’ benefit. Clearly conveying institutional expectations within these supportive settings empowers students to take responsibility for themselves and their learning throughout their postsecondary experience. By creating programs that serve all first-year students, colleges and universities increase students’ likelihood of persistence and success, even for learners whose needs may not have been apparent upon enrollment. When researchers, practitioners, and institutions of higher education create structures, programs, and opportunities for first-year 72

Thriving From the Start

students, integrating high-impact practices demonstrated to be educationally effective with a wide variety of conversations and experiences designed to increase student thriving is the greatest and most effective expression of commitment to their first-year students’ success.

References ACT. (2018). National collegiate retention and persistence to degree rates. http://www.act.org/content/ dam/act/unsecured/documents/MS2807rev1-retention-persistence-2018-07.pdf Ash, A. N., & Schreiner, L. A. (2016). Pathways to success for students of color in Christian colleges: The role of institutional integrity and sense of community. Christian Higher Education, 15(1), 3861. http://doi.org/gfvtfm Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308. Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. Jossey-Bass. Astin, A. W., Astin, H. A., & Lindholm, J. A. (2011). Assessing students’ spiritual and religious qualities. Journal of College Student Development, 52(1), 39-61. http://doi.org/fgnv65 Barefoot, B. O. (1992). Helping first-year college students climb the academic ladder: Report of a national survey of freshman seminar programming in American higher education (Paper No. 1539618580) [Doctoral dissertation, The College of William & Mary]. William & Mary ScholarWorks. http://doi.org/dj9s 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). Jossey-Bass. Braxton J. M., Doyle, W., Hartley, H., Hirschy, A., Jones, W., & McClendon, M. (2014). Rethinking college student retention. Jossey‐Bass. Braxton, J. M., & Hirschy, A. S. (2004). Reconceptualizing antecedents of social integration in student departure. In M. Yorke & B. Longden (Eds.), Retention and student success in higher education (pp. 89-102). Open University Press. Brower, A. M., & Inkelas, K. K. (2010). Living-learning programs: One high-impact educational practice we now know a lot about. Liberal Education, 96(2), 36-43. Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987, March). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 3-7. Dugan, J. P., Kodama, C., Correia, B., & Associates. (2013). Multi-institutional study of leadership insight report: Leadership program delivery. National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs. Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109-132. http://doi.org/dhmnvv Endress, W. L. (2000). An exploratory study of college student self-efficacy for relational leadership: The influence of leadership education, co-curricular involvement, and on-campus employment (Publication No. 9967894) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. Eyler, J., Giles, D. E., Jr., Stenson, C. M., & Gray, C. J. (2001). At a glance: What we know about the effects of service-learning on college students, faculty, institutions, and communities, 19932000: Third Edition. Higher Education, 139. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.unomaha. edu/slcehighered/139/ 73

Thriving in Transitions

Fink, J. E., & Inkelas, K. K. (2015). A history of learning communities within American higher education. In M. Benjamin (Ed.), Learning communities from start to finish (New Directions for Student Services, No. 149, pp. 5-15). Wiley. http://doi.org/drf6 Finley, A., & Kuh, G. D. (2016). The case for connecting first-year seminars and learning communities. In Schmidt, C. L. & Graziano, J. (Eds.), Building synergy for high-impact educational initiatives: First-year seminars and learning communities (pp. 3-18). University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition. Gardner, J. N., Upcraft, M. L., & Barefoot, B. O. (2005). Principles of good practice for the first college year and summary of recommendations. In M. L. Upcraft, J. N. Gardner, & B. O. Barefoot (Eds.), Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college (pp. 515-524). Jossey-Bass. Hartman-Pickerill, B. (2017). Engaging religious and worldview diversity: A snapshot of promising practices at U.S. colleges and universities. Interfaith Youth Core. https://www.ifyc.org/books-key-publications Hausmann, L. R. M., Schofield, J. W., & Woods, R. L. (2007). Sense of belonging as a predictor of intentions to persist among African American and White first-year college students. Research in Higher Education, 48(7), 803-839. http://doi.org/fh2rc8 Inkelas, K. K., Daver, Z., Vogt, K. E., & Leonard, J. B. (2007). Living-learning programs and firstgeneration college students’ academic and social transition to college. Research in Higher Education, 48(4), 403-434. http://doi.org/bw94s3 Kilgo, C., Ezell Sheets, J., & Pascarella, E. (2015). The link between high-impact practices and student learning: Some longitudinal evidence. Higher Education, 69(4), 509-525. http://doi.org/f65vdc Kim, Y. K., & Sax, L. J. (2017). The impact of college students’ interactions with faculty: A review of general and conditional effects. In M. B. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 32; pp. 85-139). Springer. Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact practices: What are they, who has access to them, and why they matter. Association of American Colleges and Universities. Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., & Associates. (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. Jossey-Bass. Kuh, G. D., O’Donnell, K., & Reed, S. D. (2013). Ensuring quality & taking high-impact practices to scale. Association of American Colleges and Universities. Laufgraben, J. L. (2005). Learning communities. In M. L. Upcraft, J. N. Gardner, & B. O. Barefoot (Eds.), Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college (pp. 371-389). Jossey-Bass. Lohfink, M. M., & Paulsen, M. B. (2005). Comparing the determinants of persistence for firstgeneration and continuing-generation students. Journal of College Student Development, 46(4), 409-428. http://doi.org/czfz5g Mayhew, M. J., Rockenbach, A. N., Bowman, N. A., Seifert, T. A., Wolniak, G. C., Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2016). How college affects students: 21st century evidence that higher education works (Vol. 3). Jossey-Bass. McIntosh, E. J. (2012). Thriving in college: The role of spirituality and psychological sense of community in students of color (Publication No. 3521901) [Doctoral dissertation, Azusa Pacific University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

74

Thriving From the Start

McIntosh, E. J. (2015). Thriving and spirituality: Making meaning of meaning making for students of color. About Campus, 19(6), 16-23. http://doi.org/dqgv McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 6-23. http://doi.org/fvxz24 Mitchell, T. D., & Rost-Banik, C. (2019). How sustained learning-service experiences inform career pathways. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning , 25(1), 18-29. National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. (2019). Snapshot report: First-year persistence and retention for fall 2017 cohort. https://nscresearchcenter.org Padgett, R. D., & Keup, J. R. (2011). 2009 National Survey of First-Year Seminars: Ongoing efforts to support students in transition (Research Report No. 2). University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research. JosseyBass. Pike, G. R., & Kuh, G. D. (2005). First- and second-generation college students: A comparison of their engagement and intellectual development. Journal of Higher Education, 76(3), 276-300. http:// doi.org/fjspwh Rocconi, L. (2011). The impact of learning communities on first year students’ growth and development in college. Research in Higher Education, 52(2), 178-193. http://doi.org/c58kmv Rockenbach, A. N., Mayhew, M. J., Correia-Harker, B. P., Morin, S., Dahl, L., & Associates. (2018). Best practices for interfaith learning and development in the first year of college. Interfaith Youth Core. https://www.ifyc.org/resources/best-practices-interfaith-learning-and-development-first-yearcollege Sarason, S. B. (1974). The psychological sense of community: Prospects for a community psychology. JosseyBass. Schreiner, L. A. (2010). Thriving in the classroom. About Campus, 15(3), 2-10. http://doi.org/c63d7j Schreiner, L. A. (2012). From surviving to thriving during transitions. In L. A. Schreiner, M. C. Lewis, & D. D. Nelson (Eds.), Thriving in transitions: A research-based approach to college student success (pp. 1-18). University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for the First-year Experience and Students in Transition. Schreiner, L. A. (2016). Thriving: Expanding the goal of higher education. In D. W. Harward (Ed.), Well-being and higher education: A strategy for change and the realization of education’s greater purpose (pp. 135-148). Bringing Theory to Practice, American Association of Colleges and Universities. Schreiner, L. A. (2018). Thriving in the second year of college: Pathways to success. In L. A. Schreiner (Ed.), Sophomore success: Making the most of the second year (New Directions for Higher Education, No. 183, pp. 9-21). Wiley. http://doi.org/dqgz Schreiner, L. A., Kalinkewicz, L., McIntosh, E. J., & Cuevas, A. E. P. (2015). Advancing a psychosocial model of college student success: The role of thriving [Manuscript submitted for publication]. Department of Higher Education, Azusa Pacific University. Schreiner, L. A., Louis, M. C., Vetter, M. K., & Vance, R. (2017, November). Moments that matter: The role of “microaffirmations” in the ability of students of color to thrive in college. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Houston, TX.

75

Thriving in Transitions

Schreiner, L. A., McIntosh, E. J., Nelson, D. D., & Pothoven, S. (2009). The Thriving Quotient: Advancing the assessment of student success. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Vancouver, BC. Schreiner, L. A., Pothoven, S., Nelson, D. D., & McIntosh, E. J. (2009). College student thriving: Predictors of success and retention. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Vancouver, BC. Schmidt, L. C., & Graziano, J. (Eds.). (2016). Building synergy for high-impact educational initiatives: Firstyear seminars and learning communities. University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition. Soldner, M., & Szelényi, K. (2008). A national portrait of today’s living-learning programs. Journal of College & University Student Housing , 35(1), 14-31. Stebleton, M. J., Diamond, K. K. (2018). Advocating for career development and exploration as a high-impact practice for first-year students. Journal of College and Character, 19(2), 160-166. http://doi.org/dqgw Swing, R. L., & Skipper, T. L. (2007). Achieving student success in the first year of college. In G. L. Kramer & Associates (Eds.), Fostering student success in the campus community (pp. 369-391). Jossey-Bass. Tieu, T. T., & Pancer, S. M. (2009). Cocurricular involvement and first-year students’ transition to university: Quality vs. quantity of involvement. Journal of The First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 21(1), 43-63. Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89-125. http://doi.org/b2kbj6 Tobolowsky, B. F., & Associates (Eds.). (2008). 2006 national survey of first-year seminars: Continuing innovations in the collegiate curriculum (Monograph No. 51). University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition. Trotter, E., & Roberts, C. (2006). Enhancing the early student experience. Higher Education Research and Development, 25(4), 371-386. http://doi.org/c4hggr Tukibayeva, M., & Gonyea, R. M. (2014). High-impact practices and the first-year student. In R. D. Padgett (Ed.), Emerging research and practices on first-year students (New Directions for Institutional Research, No. 160, pp. 19-35). Wiley. http://doi.org/drf5 Upcraft, M. L., Gardner, J. N., & Barefoot, B. O. (2005). Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year. Jossey-Bass. Vetter, M. K. (2018). Quality and quantity of co-curricular involvement as predictors of college student thriving (Publication No. 10829754) [Doctoral dissertation, Azusa Pacific University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. Vetter, M. K., Schreiner, L. A., & Jaworski, B. (2019). Faculty attitudes and behaviors that contribute to thriving in first-year students of color. Journal of The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition, 31(1), 9-28. Vetter, M. K., Schreiner, L. A., McIntosh, E. J., & Dugan, J. P. (2019). Leveraging the quantity and quality of co-curricular involvement experiences to promote student thriving. Journal of Campus Activities Practice and Scholarship, 1(1), 39-51. Winston, R. B., & Massaro, A. V. (1987). Extracurricular involvement inventory: An instrument for assessing intensity of student involvement. Journal of College Student Personnel, 28, 169-175. 76

Thriving From the Start

Wolf-Wendel, L., Ward, K., & Kinzie, J. (2009). A tangled web of terms: The overlap and unique contribution of involvement, engagement, and integration to understanding college student success. Journal of College Student Development, 50(4), 407-428. http://doi.org/cq34fk Young, D. G., & Hopp, J. M. (2014). 2012-2013 National Survey of First-Year Seminars: Exploring highimpact practices in the first college year. (Research Report No. 4). University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition.

77

CHAPTER FOUR THRIVING AND STUDENTS OF COLOR: DAILY TRANSITIONS ON PREDOMINANTLY WHITE CAMPUSES Kristin Paredes-Collins and Eric J. McIntosh

When asked to describe her first-year transition to college, Katrina, a Black student in her third year at a small, private, predominantly white institution (PWI) on the West Coast, used words such as “unbearable” and recalled feelings of invisibility among her peers. When Katrina was interviewed in conjunction with a broad study on campus climate for diversity, she gave in-depth descriptions of her experience as a Black woman in the classroom, her overall cultural transition, and the difficulty she encountered as she attempted to forge real relationships with White students: I didn’t fit in. I wore Jordan’s, Timberlands, I listened to hip-hop, and I was loud. I just, I was honest, and I met this kind of façade in a way. Everyone wants you to think that they are your friend and you really believe that you’re really their friend, but after the first semester…it started to become really cliquey. Katrina continued, describing some of the struggles she experienced as she tried to fit in during her first year: I really became conscious of watching what I said, and simple things like smell. I don’t wash my hair every day; they do. The people I lived with in my dorm, they are all White, they wash their hair every single day. So I became conscious of the smell of hair and whether mine smelled different or not. What we ate [was also different]: tofu, what is that? I had never heard of that. Okay, sushi—yes, it is an Asian cuisine, but why are all the people here eating it? Coffee? I don’t drink coffee. Who drinks coffee? My grandparents drink coffee. Tea? That is for when you are sick. Stuff like that just did not register. I did not fit in, and I had to become okay with not fitting in. Beyond the more visible differences between Katrina and her college peers, she also expressed how difficult it was to feel seen. To Katrina, it seemed that her White peers could not see past the color of her skin.

79

Thriving in Transitions

Sometimes, people can get lost in how you’re saying it and never hear you and never see you for who you are. That hurts. So in that way, yes, I feel judged, I feel discriminated against. Has anyone ever outright called me the N-word? No. Has anyone ever made motions or said, “You can’t sit at this table”? No. But I feel it, and I shouldn’t have to. Although Katrina’s skin color seemed to separate her from the majority of students on campus, she was very drawn to those who looked like her. When people of color come here, particularly Black people, I am so excited; I just want to go meet them. Part of me is, I don’t want them to feel like, “Oh my gosh, the only reason they are saying hello is because we look alike.” But at the same time, when I came, it was awesome to have someone reach out to me and say, “I’m happy you are here.” Three years later, when asked if she fits in now, Katrina responded, “Oh, I still don’t fit in. But I learned the culture, I learned the society.” Katrina’s feelings are shared by an unfortunate proportion of students of color at PWIs (Harper & Hurtado, 2007; Rankin & Reason, 2005; Smith et al., 2016). Her lived experience is an example of the daily transitions from one culture to another experienced by students of color on traditionally white campuses. These transitions include navigating the social distance between home or family culture and the prevailing white campus culture, but they also encompass constant movement between the counterspaces on campus that serve as a refuge for students of color and the fortified or contradictory campus spaces where they experience overt or covert racial conflict with their White peers or other members of the campus community (Harwood et al., 2018). This chapter provides a brief overview of the transitions that students of color like Katrina tend to experience at PWIs. In light of the unique challenges associated with being a student of color at a PWI (Harper & Hurtado, 2007), the various paths to thriving for this important population of students are also explored. Thriving students are fully engaged intellectually, socially, and emotionally, and they experience a sense of community and psychological well-being, all of which contribute to overall student success (Schreiner, 2016). As many students of color at PWIs struggle socially and emotionally (Guiffrida & Douthit, 2010), the concept of thriving is of particular value to this population of students. This chapter also examines the expanding body of thriving-related research, exploring how data from the last few years has provided increasing clarity in regard to thriving among students of color at PWIs. New findings disseminated since the national quantitative study described in the first edition of this book highlight the characteristics currently understood to be predictive of thriving in students of color. In conclusion, specific recommendations to enhance the opportunity for students of color to thrive in college are provided. 80

Thriving and Students of Color

Students of Color in Transition Bennett and Okinaka (1990) conceptualized the phenomenon of positive college adjustment as the “opposite of transitional trauma,” which they define as the “level of alienation a student experiences when unfamiliar with the norms, values, and expectations that predominate” (p. 35). The transition from high school to college can be challenging for any student but is particularly daunting for students of color (Guiffrida & Douthit, 2010; Lee & Barnes, 2015; Smith et al., 2016). In addition to the host of transitional experiences typical of the first college year, students of color at PWIs must navigate additional obstacles (Bourke, 2010; Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Vetter et al., 2019) such as interpersonal struggles related to fitting in with majority ethnicity peers or roommates (Lowe et al., 2013; Rankin & Reason, 2005) and transitioning from their home culture to a predominantly white culture (Yosso, 2005). Any of these difficulties may entail exposure to new or unexpected forms of discrimination (Lee & Barnes, 2015). In the academic environment, students of color might be expected to represent the perspective or experience of their entire racial or ethnic group (Linley, 2018; Smith et al., 2016), or their scholarly abilities might be doubted (Harwood et al., 2018; Smith et al., 2016; Von Robertson et al., 2014). These subtle racial attitudes and other comments or behaviors that communicate covert bias, also called racial microaggressions, further impact the academic and social environment for students of color (Casanova et al., 2018; Harwood et al., 2018). In 1992, Allen found that Black students at PWIs experienced feelings of alienation and lack of integration, and they sensed hostility and racial discrimination. More than 25 years after Allen’s research, students of color at these institutions continued to report such feelings (Harwood et al., 2018). Individuals from the dominant culture may unconsciously engage in actions and make statements that result in feelings of alienation; nevertheless, such experiences negatively contribute to students’ perceptions of the campus climate and enhance feelings of self-doubt, disengagement, frustration, and isolation (Casanova et al., 2018; Smith et al., 2016; Solorzano et al., 2000) regardless of the intent. Many minoritized students’ first experiences on campus are characterized by stereotypes held by their peers (Newman et al., 2009; Smith et al., 2016). For example, Bourke (2010) found that Black students experienced peer expectations that they grew up in an urban area, that they had to triumph over insurmountable odds to enroll, and that affirmative action or athletic talent might have played a role in their acceptance. Smith et al. (2016) identified additional burdens for Black males, who experienced stereotyped expectations that they were likely to engage in predatory or criminal behavior. In many cases, these first experiences can influence future success. Newman and colleagues (2009) found that when students are stereotyped as poor academic performers, they withdraw effort in order to protect self-esteem, to the detriment of their academic performance. Any race-based assumption regarding academic performance is demeaning, whether framed negatively, as is often the 81

Thriving in Transitions

case for Black students (Harwood at al., 2018), or positively, which more frequently affects some groups of Asian American students (Museus & Park, 2015). Katrina’s experiences reveal that academic assumptions in the classroom, from faculty as well as students, can result in heavy burdens for students of color: I felt like I had to bust my butt harder than the [White students] to prove myself more than they did because my professors were judging me, they were thinking these things at me, and that is how I thought of myself, but that is because I was surrounded by what you see on TV. I had to learn, how to feel okay…Adapt or die…When I did not understand [something], I had to get past the thoughts of, “Oh, of course I will not understand, because I am the only Black girl in class. Of course, I was the dumb one.” In Katrina’s own words, “It is a tough role to play, and there is a lot on your shoulders.” The experiences of students of color, particularly on predominantly white campuses, are qualitatively different than those of their White peers. Students of color report lower levels of satisfaction and sense of belonging than do Caucasian students (Park, 2009). They are more likely to experience the campus racial climate as negative (Lowe et al., 2013) and to describe relationships with faculty in ways that differ significantly from their White peers (Cole, 2007; Kim & Sax, 2009).

Campus Climate for Diversity The campus climate for diversity is a comprehensive reflection of diversity-related considerations that includes historical practices of inclusion or exclusion of particular groups, compositional diversity of the institution, the psychological climate of the campus in regard to issues of diversity, and a behavioral element representing the type and quality of interactions among individuals and groups on a campus (Hurtado et al., 1998). The perceived climate has potential to alienate students of color, but it may also draw them into the community. For example, a campus climate thoughtfully cultivated to facilitate safety and demonstrate inclusiveness and sensitivity is an essential component of feelings of belonging for students of color (Lee & Barnes, 2015). Although research has demonstrated the link between climate and educational outcomes for all students, understanding how the overall campus climate for diversity impacts students of color is of particular importance (Milem et al., 2005) as these students navigate intercultural transitions daily. Majority students may underestimate the antagonism experienced by students of color, even while underrepresented students widely report prejudicial treatment and racist campus environments (Museus & Park, 2015; Rankin & Reason, 2005). Further, White students overestimated the satisfaction of students of color. Although White students noticed that students of color participated in 82

Thriving and Students of Color

campus events at a lower rate than their White peers, they assumed students of color had identical levels of satisfaction (Rankin & Reason, 2005). Long-standing research on students’ perceptions of the college environment has demonstrated that campus climate for diversity can have a significant impact on students both academically and socially (Hurtado et al., 1996, 1998). When institutions succeed in expanding compositional diversity, yet fail to assume a proactive stance regarding race relations on campus, negative interactions affecting students of color are likely to occur (Allen et al., 2006; Chang, 2000; Harwood et al., 2018). Even in largely multicultural academic environments, “integrated spaces remain uneven geographies and spaces of domination” (Harwood et al., 2018, p. 1246) where students of color may experience hostility, marginalization, or exclusion (Museus & Park, 2015). Elements Influencing the Campus Climate for Diversity A variety of elements contribute to the campus climate for diversity. Adapted from several well-established frameworks (Hurtado et al.,1998, 1999; Milem et al., 2005) that address the numerous forces, policies, perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors related to campus climate, the following three interrelated components contribute to the campus climate for diversity: (a) compositional diversity, (b) the behavioral dimension, and (c) the psychological dimension. These factors combine to describe the transition to predominantly white campuses for students of color. In the case of Katrina, the lack of compositional diversity on campus impacted her ability to fit in, and she felt particularly drawn to reach out to new students of color on campus in order to offset the lack of diversity. Although Katrina remarked that she had never been called a derogatory name, she felt judged and discriminated against when people did not see her for who she was. These feelings reflect the psychological dimension of the climate for diversity. In regard to the behavioral dimension, Katrina noted that it was particularly difficult to establish real friendships with White students, and in order to do so, she had to adapt to the culture of the campus community. Compositional diversity. Compositional diversity refers to the demographic diversity demonstrated within the student body, faculty, and staff of an institution. Park (2009) found that satisfaction with compositional diversity was positively associated with a greater sense of community, racial heterogeneity of the student body, and higher satisfaction with peer interactions and the overall college experience for all students. One benefit of greater compositional diversity is the increased likelihood of interaction with diverse peers, which, when experienced positively, has been found to increase perceptions of institutional integrity as well as students’ levels of thriving (Ash & Schreiner, 2016). However, as diversity is not “an end in itself ” (Chang, 2005, p. 10), institutions must move beyond their initial focus on compositional diversity, pursuing the academic benefits that emerge when diversity is paired

83

Thriving in Transitions

with student engagement and involvement through institutional support, positive faculty interaction, and thoughtful curricular and co-curricular programming. Behavioral dimension. The behavioral dimension of campus climate for diversity refers to formal and informal cross-racial interactions between peers, the extent of diversity reflected in the curriculum and the cocurriculum, and the level of participation in diversity-related activities, both socially and academically (Allen, 2006; Hurtado, 2007; Hurtado et al., 1998). Institutions across the country have devoted resources and staff to facilitate diversity interactions, which include racial awareness programs, group discussions about social and race issues, diversity-related courses, mentoring programs, and historical curricula based on non-Western cultures (Bok, 2006; Delgado Bernal et al., 2009). Although these programs have certainly not fully mitigated racial tension on campuses, they have provided meaningful opportunities to enrich all students’ awareness of diverse perspectives instead of “merely assimilating minority students” into the campus community (Bok, 2006, p. 199). Further, the behavioral dimension of campus climate for diversity is linked to the psychological component. Frequent positive interactions with diverse peers, a behavioral component, have been positively associated with psychological measures such as increased sense of belonging (Locks et al., 2008), enhanced critical thinking and social cognitive skills (Hu & Kuh, 2003; Hurtado, 2006), cultural and social awareness, and civic engagement (Hurtado, 2007). Psychological dimension. The psychological dimension of campus climate refers to perceptions of and encounters with racial tension, conflict, or discrimination on campus (Hurtado, 1992; Hurtado et al., 1998, 1999). Two broad themes have emerged from studies that have observed this dimension of the climate for diversity. First, individuals of different racial or ethnic groups experience the campus climate very differently (Ancis et al., 2000; Linley, 2018; Lowe et al., 2013). In a comprehensive, 10-campus study, Rankin and Reason (2005) found that students of color were much more likely to report the campus as being unfriendly, racist, and disrespectful whereas White students perceived the climate to be exactly the opposite. This finding was surprising because nearly 40% of White students acknowledged that race-based harassment occurred on campus. The second theme that has emerged from research on the psychological dimension of the campus climate for diversity is that perceptions of a hostile climate can negatively impact various outcomes for all students, and especially for students of color (Johnson et al., 2007; Locks et al., 2008; Rankin & Reason, 2005). In Rankin and Reason’s (2005) study, one third of students of color reported experiencing race-based harassment from peers, and Locks et al. (2008) found that a perception of racial tension was negatively associated with sense of belonging for both students of color and their White peers. Their findings corroborate those of Johnson et al. (2007), who identified a predictive relationship between perceived campus racial climate and students’ sense of belonging. Such perceptions are powerful. According to Hurtado and colleagues (2008), “Subtle perceptions of a hostile climate had more of an 84

Thriving and Students of Color

impact on all areas of adjustment to college (social, academic, personal-emotional, and attachment to the institution) than actual behaviors” (p. 209).

Predictors of Thriving in Students of Color Research conducted over the past three decades has clearly demonstrated that students of color at predominantly White colleges and universities experience a variety of unique challenges. In response to such evidence and in conjunction with the growing body of research on student thriving (Schreiner, 2016), several researchers have explored the influential components that comprise the unique paths to thriving for students of color (Ash & Schreiner, 2016; McIntosh, 2012, 2015; Schreiner, 2014, 2018; Vetter et al., 2019). Students who are thriving in college surpass simple survival, engaging fully in the entirety of their college experience and enjoying an overall sense of community and psychological well-being, all of which contribute to student success (Schreiner, 2016). For students of color, thriving has potential not only to help ameliorate the negative impacts of day-to-day cultural transition experiences, but also to fuel holistic well-being and student success. The national study of thriving explored in the first edition of this book helped launch a research agenda that continues to explicate and improve levels of thriving experienced by students of color at PWIs. The Thriving Quotient project (www.thrivingincollege.org) and related research emerging from the work of Laurie Schreiner’s research team at Azusa Pacific University (Ash & Schreiner, 2016; McIntosh, 2015; Schreiner, 2014, 2018; Vetter et al., 2019) have continued to build upon the insights provided by that initial study. In addition to this published literature, two recent conference papers have continued to draw attention to issues of thriving among students of color (Drumm et al., 2019; Schreiner et al., 2018). The quantitative investigation of thriving explicated in these papers details recent data identifying relationships among the significant predictors of thriving for students of color. Analyzing information from more than 30,000 students, Schreiner (2014) reported that, especially on predominantly white campuses, African American, Asian, and Latino students had fewer pathways to thriving than their White peers. Although the pathways are fewer, close attention to the elements that contribute to thriving among students of color has potential to inform institutional change and meaningfully enrich the college experience for these students. Data collected in Fall 2017 (Drumm et al., 2019; Schreiner et al., 2018) identified seven predictors that contribute to variation in thriving among students of color: (a) sense of community, (b) perceptions of faculty sensitivity to diverse students and diverse perspectives in the classroom, (c) perceptions of institutional integrity, (d) certainty of major, (e) level of spirituality, (f) frequency of interaction with faculty, and (g) involvement on campus. Two of these predictors, student–faculty interaction and perceptions of faculty sensitivity to diverse students and multiple perspectives in the classroom, are explored in Chapter 9, where Schreiner and associates explain that these elements have “a direct effect 85

Thriving in Transitions

on the academic, interpersonal, and psychological engagement and well-being of all students, but even more so for students of color” (pp. 198-199).1 The remainder of the predictors of thriving among students of color are discussed below. Psychological Sense of Community The growing body of literature on thriving has demonstrated repeatedly that a strong sense of community is a particularly important predictor of thriving for students of color (Ash & Schreiner, 2016; Drumm et al, 2019; McIntosh, 2015; Schreiner, 2014). Psychological sense of community (PSC; Sarason, 1974) describes an individual’s feelings of belongingness and voice within a community, and students with high PSC feel pride and fulfillment as a result of that affiliation (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). For students of color, a sense of community represents feelings of membership within the campus community, within subcultures that feel familiar and the broader campus culture that may feel less so. Katrina described how her campus could have helped support the development of a stronger sense of community: There should be a place with couches and movies and magazines, all kinds of things, where you can just come and be. . . there is something about being around people who look like you that make you feel comfortable and welcome, and I think that we need to be intentional about that feeling. Giving people the space and the opportunity to have that feeling, which helps them when they move into this place that is all White, pretty much predominantly white university, and be encouraged to feel comfortable in their own skin. With that comfort, they feel strengthened enough to venture out and get outside their bubble. Although Katrina’s words are those of only one student, her voice mirrors the significant quantitative research that demonstrates the difficulties facing students of color as they initially transition into the culture of a PWI and continually transition among campus spaces that provide varying levels of comfort and tension. Institutional Integrity Braxton and colleagues (2004) described institutional integrity as the perceived alignment between students’ actual experiences and the promises, both implicit and explicit, made by the institution prior to the student’s enrollment. Although well-meaning institutions may attempt to convey messages of inclusiveness by crafting marketing materials that depict exaggerated levels of diversity, Ash and Schreiner (2016) warned that misrepresentations of the campus climate are likely to be detrimental to perceived institutional integrity as well as measures of student success. Institutional integrity has been found to significantly See Chapter 9 of this book for data and structural regression model depicting the predictive relationships.

1

86

Thriving and Students of Color

predict sense of community on campus, intent to graduate, and thriving for students of color, which suggests that accurate recruitment materials and messages, an interest in students’ expectations, and a strong commitment to student welfare yield positive consequences for students (Ash & Schreiner, 2016). The elements of institutional integrity that mattered most to students of color differed by racial or ethnic group (Schreiner, 2014); however, perceptions of integrity contributed to a sense of community for students of all groups. Spirituality Astin and colleagues (2011) defined spirituality as a complex quality that involves an active quest for answers to life’s “big questions,” a global worldview that transcends ethnocentrism and egocentrism, a sense of caring and compassion for others coupled with a lifestyle that includes service to others, and a capacity to maintain one’s sense of calm and centeredness, especially in times of stress (p. 4). For students of color, spirituality and religiousness have been found to mediate resilience in the face of microaggressions and to serve as coping mechanisms that facilitated forgiveness and empathy (Johnson, 2012). In addition, spirituality and religiousness facilitated coping in the face of adversity (Constantine et al., 2006), and among Hispanic students, higher levels of spirituality resulted in students reporting they were even better off after having faced adversity (Consoli et al., 2015). In regard to thriving, spirituality has emerged as a particularly important resource for students of color, serving as a far more powerful predictor of thriving among these students than among their White peers (McIntosh, 2012, 2015). Ash and Schreiner (2016) explained that when both direct and indirect effects were taken into account, spirituality had greater total effects on thriving among students of color than even PSC. According to McIntosh (2015), ongoing thriving research defines spirituality as reliance on a power greater than oneself, a sense of purpose and meaning, and a transcendent perspective through which one sees the world. Students with higher levels of spirituality approach their college experience with a sense of purpose that motivates them toward a fulfilling relationship with their campus community. In McIntosh’s research (2015), as much as half of the variation in PSC among students of color could be predicted by their self-reported levels of spirituality. Hence, for students of color, this “overlooked pathway to thriving” (Schreiner, 2018, p. 15) was the greatest contributor to a PSC, which was itself the most powerful predictor of thriving for all students (McIntosh, 2015; Schreiner, 2014). Campus Involvement and Major Certainty Campus involvement, which reflects the extent of students’ participation in formal activities and organizations associated with their institution, has been identified as a significant component of the pathway to thriving among students of color (Drumm et al., 2019). The study described by Drumm et al. (2019) and Schreiner et al. (2018) found that the 87

Thriving in Transitions

contribution of involvement to thriving is significant but indirect, which means that the power of involvement to predict variation in thriving relies on the relationship between campus involvement and higher levels of spirituality and PSC, each of which contributes to thriving. In a study examining differences among students of color in relation to campus involvement, Schreiner (2014) found that Latino and African American students experienced unique barriers to engagement with campus activities. Most notable among these barriers were commuter status and off-campus work commitments, which thwarted involvement for Latino and African American students, respectively. For all student groups, increased involvement predicted higher levels of thriving, which makes these barriers to participation especially concerning. For Asian and Latino students, the contribution of involvement to thriving was indirect, mediated by frequency of faculty interaction and levels of PSC. For African American students, however, involvement was a direct contributor to thriving, even more so than it was for White students. Involvement became especially powerful for African American students when they were engaged in leadership roles, demonstrating the importance of investigating the nature and quality of students’ involvements (Lundberg & Schreiner, 2004) in addition to the frequency of their participation. As was the case for campus involvement, the strength of students’ certainty about their chosen major was assessed using a single-question measure by Drumm et al. (2019) and Schreiner et al. (2018), who found that students who were more sure of their major were more likely to report higher levels of thriving due to both direct and indirect relationships between the two variables. The indirect effects of major certainty on thriving were mediated by three other variables: campus involvement, spirituality, and perceptions of faculty sensitivity to diverse learners and multiple perspectives in the classroom. Students who were surer of their major were more likely to be involved in campus activities and organizations and to feel a sense of purpose or meaning, both of which contributed to PSC.

Implications for Institutions Much of the research on campus climate for diversity shows that institutional action is an important factor in the success of all students of color within the campus community. To ensure a healthy campus climate, the institution must clearly and tangibly communicate support of diversity by “redeeming systems of injustice” through the examination of policies and practices that are embedded in privilege (Ash & Schreiner, 2016, p. 55). Educators, administrators, and staff must be willing to share responsibility for facilitating an environment where students of color can thrive. The recommendations in this section draw upon the various themes presented in this chapter in order to provide all campus personnel with changes that can be implemented in the areas under their control. The suggestions for change fit within two broad categories: (a) tangible programmatic changes and (b) more comprehensive institutional change. 88

Thriving and Students of Color

Programmatic Change These recommendations correspond with the significant predictors of thriving among students of color (i.e., sense of community, faculty interaction, and spirituality), in conjunction with the various elements that make their transition more challenging. Opportunities for campus involvement are also included. Areas where campuses should seek to make programmatic change include the following: •

enhancing course instruction through the inclusion of diverse perspectives in required readings, reflective assignments, and classroom conversations;

•

establishing educational or social small groups for first-year students led by thriving students of color who are further along in the educational journey and can guide and support their less-experienced peers during the initial transition into college and ongoing cultural transitions;

•

connecting students with subcultures (e.g., ethnic organizations) early in their college careers in ways that offer support and “validate their campus presence” (Harwood et al., 2018, p. 1256), facilitating a sense of group membership within the larger campus community;

•

designing programming that addresses how to balance family life with expectations of academic success in college and engages family members of students of color in student orientation and informational efforts;

•

creating spaces and providing opportunities for critical discourse and individual expression on issues of race/ethnicity and the experiences of students of color;

•

inviting students of color to participate in opportunities other than diversity-specific programming and encouraging them to pursue leadership roles that suit their strengths and interests;

•

educating faculty and students about the harmful effects of expecting students of color to speak on behalf of their racial/ethnic group, in or out of the classroom;

•

acknowledging, validating, and learning about the experiences of students of color—both within and beyond the campus community—through focus groups, panels, surveys, and classroom conversations;

•

providing opportunities for expressions of faith and spirituality (e.g., facilitating transportation to a variety of local houses of worship that minister to specific ethnic congregations); and

•

integrating discussions of calling and vocation into classroom, mentorship, or smallgroup settings. 89

Thriving in Transitions

These are only a few of the ways that faculty and staff can encourage thriving among students of color on predominantly white campuses. Although programmatic changes will likely improve the experience of students of color, the greater concern of campus climate for diversity must be addressed at an institutional level. Institutional Change The campus climate for diversity plays a significant role in the experiences of students of color on predominantly white campuses. Accordingly, improving the climate for diversity is both a substantial and an important undertaking. Movement toward change must be grounded in an institutional commitment to integrate diversity into the campus community, with senior administrators at the forefront (Milem et al., 2005; Winkle-Wagner & Locks, 2019). Institutionalizing diversity-related values requires that campus leaders have made a commitment to integrate diversity into all aspects of the campus community, stretching beyond the creation of an inclusive environment and initiating meaningful change in resources, policies, practices, climate, and culture (Kezar, 2007). Specific recommendations for change directed toward administrators, institutional stakeholders, and policy makers include the following:

90

•

creating a strategic diversity platform driven by educational, social, cultural, and business rationales for change and guided by the president’s leadership in communicating the importance of a diversity agenda;

•

assessing the campus climate for diversity among faculty, staff, and students; developing faculty, staff, and administrators as diversity leaders on campus; and reporting progress over time to the campus community;

•

reviewing literature, slogans, mission statements, and admission materials to examine the congruency between implied realities and students’ lived experiences;

•

revising materials as necessary to accurately reflect the institution’s commitment to diversity and its progress toward diversity-related goals;

•

educating the institution’s board or governing body on issues of diversity, integrating a commitment to those values into the strategic plan, establishing mechanisms to measure change, and allocating financial resources where needed;

•

hiring new faculty and staff with a demonstrated commitment to diversity initiatives and prioritizing hiring faculty and staff of color;

•

developing safe havens for students of color on campus and establishing opportunities for all students to engage in a broad, multicultural living and learning environment; and

Thriving and Students of Color

•

continually engaging the community in the discussion of diversity, stimulating the community to identify growth areas, and creating opportunities for continued progress.

Although these recommendations are grounded in best practices and case studies in organizational change, it is important to recognize the unique nature of every institution. There is no single reliable way to ensure that change occurs; however, institutional strategies that take a multifaceted approach to pursuing cultural change are more likely to be successful. Identifying champions or opinion leaders in all sectors, including faculty, administration, staff, board members, students, and alumni, is an initial step to developing a cohesive strategy. More nuanced strategies should evolve as information is collected about the climate for racial diversity in each sector of the institution. It is essential for universities and colleges to move beyond equating demographic diversity with a healthy climate for diversity. Strategic goals and measures of climate should be incorporated into an institution-wide plan and led by a diversity council or a designated group with a task force mentality for advancing the learning environment for students of color.

Conclusion Compositional diversity alone will not create the environment necessary to help students of color thrive, especially in times of transition. Higher education continues to prioritize the creation of diverse learning environments that enrich the campus climate for diversity, encourage freedom of expression, and provide feelings of safety for all students (Cesar-Davis, 2019). Even as institutions embrace these laudable values, intentional support for students of color requires an understanding of the pathways that contribute to thriving for these students as well as an assessment of the institutional structures, policies, and opportunities that help or hinder their success. Students of color at PWIs experience many of the challenges that characterize collegiate transitions for all students, but they also face obstacles unique to their status as individuals of non-White, European descent, which may exacerbate the transition challenges between their home culture and the pervasive, but much less familiar, institutional culture. Although institutional resources are increasingly limited, if colleges and universities fail to equip students from all backgrounds to thrive personally, socially, and academically, a college degree will function more as a symbol of stratification and inequality than as evidence of learning. Creating a healthy and diverse learning environment is not only valuable, but also necessary for institutions to enrich the experience of every student.

91

Thriving in Transitions

References Allen, W. (1992). The color of success: African-American college student outcomes at predominantly White and historically Black public colleges and universities. Harvard Educational Review, 62(1), 26-44. http://doi.org/dqkq Allen, W. (2006). Sticks, stones, and broken bones: Rhetoric and reality in the University of Michigan affirmative action cases. In W. Allen, M. Bonous-Hammarth, & R. Teranishi (Eds.), Higher education in a global society: Vol. 5. Achieving diversity, equity and excellence (pp. 203-226). Elsevier. Allen, W., Bonous-Hammarth, M., & Teranishi, R. (2006). Innovation and diversity: New horizons in higher education. In W. Allen, M. Bonous-Hammarth, & R. Teranishi (Eds.), Higher education in a global society: Vol. 5. Achieving diversity, equity and excellence (pp. 345-347). Elsevier. Ancis, J. R., Sedlacek, W. E., & Mohr, J. (2000). Student perceptions of campus cultural climate by race. Journal of Counseling & Development, 78(2), 180-85. http://doi.org/fx2gxs Ash, A. N., & Schreiner, L. A. (2016). Pathways to success for students of color in Christian colleges: The role of institutional integrity and sense of community. Christian Higher Education, 15(1-2), 38-61. http://doi.org/gfvtfm Astin, A. W., Astin, H., & Lindholm, J. (2011). Cultivating the spirit: How college can enhance students’ inner lives. Jossey-Bass. Bennett, C., & Okinaka, A. M. (1990). Factors related to persistence among Asian, Black, Hispanic, and White undergraduates at a predominantly White university: Comparison between first and fourth year cohorts. Urban Review, 22, 33-60. http://doi.org/d498cs Bok, D. C. (2006). Our underachieving colleges: A candid look at how much students learn and why they should be learning more. Princeton University Press. Bourke, B. (2010). Experiences of Black students in multiple cultural spaces at a predominantly White institution. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 3(2), 126-135. http://doi.org/ff3mfb Braxton, J. M., Hirschy, A. S., & McClendon, S. A. (2004). Understanding and reducing college student departure (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Volume 30, Number 3). Jossey-Bass. Casanova, S., McGuire, K. M., & Martin, M. (2018). “Why you throwing subs?”: An exploration of community college students’ immediate responses to microaggressions. Teachers College Record, 120(9), 1-48. Cesar-Davis, N. M. (2019, May). 2018 diverse learning environments [Research Brief]. Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA. https://www.heri.ucla.edu/briefs/DLE/DLE-2018-Brief.pdf Chang, M. (2000). Improving campus racial dynamics: A balancing act among competing interests. The Review of Higher Education, 23(2), 153-175. http://doi.org/dqkv Chang, M. (2005). Reconsidering the diversity rationale. Liberal Education, 91, 6-13. Cole, D. (2007). Do interracial interactions matter? An examination of student-faculty contact and intellectual self-concept. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(3), 249-281. http://doi.org/cnh52n

92

Thriving and Students of Color

Consoli, M., Delucio, K., Noriega, E., & Llamas, J. (2015). Predictors of resilience and thriving among Latina/o undergraduate students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 37(3), 304-318. http:// doi.org/f7mc3x Constantine, M. G., Miville, M. L., Warren, A. K., Gainor, K. A., & Lewis-Coles, M. E. L. (2006). Religion, spirituality, and career development in African American college students: A qualitative inquiry. Career Development Quarterly, 54(3), 227-241. http://doi.org/fzzg6z Delgado Bernal, D., Alemán, E., & Garavito, A. (2009). Latina/o undergraduate students mentoring Latina/o elementary students: A borderlands analysis of shifting identities and first-year experiences. Harvard Educational Review, 79(4), 560-585. http://doi.org/dqn3 Drumm, J., Keetch, C., Martinez, T., & Miller, A. (2019). We are: Committed to helping ALANA students thrive. Paper presented at the American College Personnel Association, Boston, MA. Guiffrida, D. A., & Douthit, K. Z. (2010). The Black student experience at predominantly White colleges: Implications for school and college counselors. Journal of Counseling & Development, 88, 311-318. http://doi.org/fxtpwd Harper, S. R., & Hurtado, S. (2007). Nine themes in campus racial climates and implications for institutional transformation. In S. R. Harper & L. D. Patton (Eds.), Responding to the realities of race on campus (New Directions for Student Services No. 120, pp. 7-24). Jossey-Bass. http:// doi.org/d9x4tp Harwood, S. A., Mendenhall, R., Lee, S. S., Riopelle, C., & Huntt, M. B. (2018). Everyday racism in integrated spaces: Mapping the experiences of students of color at a diversifying predominantly White institution. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 108(5), 1245-1259. http:// doi.org/gc95mz Hu, L., & Kuh, G. D. (2003) Diversity experiences and college student learning and personal development. Journal of College Student Development, 44, 320-344. http://doi.org/c3scgp Hurtado, S. (1992). The campus racial climate: Contexts of conflict. The Journal of Higher Education, 63(5), 539-569. http://doi.org/fh4nrb Hurtado, S. (2006). Diversity and learning for a pluralistic democracy. In W. Allen, M. BonousHammarth, & R. Teranishi (Eds.), Higher education in a global society; Achieving diversity, equity and excellence: Advances in education in diverse communities: Research, policy and praxis (Vol. 5, pp. 249-268). Elsevier. Hurtado, S. (2007). Linking diversity with the educational and civic missions of higher education. Review of Higher Education, 30(2), 185-196. http://doi.org/cnx3w6 Hurtado, S., & Carter, D. F. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of the campus racial climate on Latino college students’ sense of belonging. Sociology of Education, 70(4), 324-345. http://doi.org/g8w Hurtado, S., Carter, D. F., & Spuler, A. (1996). Latina/o student transition to college: Assessing difficulties and factors in successful college adjustment. Research in Higher Education, 37(2), 135-157. http://doi.org/dmsc9c 93

Thriving in Transitions

Hurtado, S., Griffin, K. A., Arellano, L., & Cuellar, M. (2008). Assessing the value of climate assessments: Progress and future directions. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1(4), 204221. http://doi.org/d262xb Hurtado, S., Milem, J., Clayton-Pederson, A., & Allen, W. (1998). Enhancing campus climates for racial/ethnic diversity: Educational policy and practice. The Review of Higher Education, 21(3), 279-302. http://doi.org/dqsq 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 Reports, Volume 26, No. 8). The George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development. Johnson, L. S. (2012) Spirituality as a viable resource in responding to racial microaggressions: An exploratory study of black males who attended a community college [Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts Boston]. UMass Boston ScholarWorks. https://scholarworks.umb.edu/ doctoral_dissertations/70/ Johnson, D. R., Soldner, M., Leonard, J. B., Alvarez, P., Inkelas, K. K., Rowan-Kenyon, H. T., & Longerbeam, S. D. (2007). Examining sense of belonging among first-year undergraduates from different racial/ethnic groups. Journal of College Student Development, 48(5), 525-542. http://doi.org/d5p47k Kezar, A. (2007). Tools for a time and a place: Phased leadership strategies to institutionalize a diversity agenda. The Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 413-439. http://doi.org/dqsr Kim, Y. K., & Sax, L. J. (2009). Student-faculty interaction in research universities: Differences by student gender, race, social class, and first-generation status. Research in Higher Education, 50, 437-45. http://doi.org/btg8m7 Lee, J. A., & Barnes, A. R. (2015). Predominantly white institutions: Transition programs to address academic underpreparedness and experiences of discrimination. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 1(4), 401-410. http://doi.org/dqss Linley, J. L. (2018). Racism here, racism there, racism everywhere: The racial realities of minoritized peer socialization agents at a historically White institution. Journal of College Student Development, 59(1), 21-36. http://doi.org/gf9mzq Locks, A. M., Hurtado, S., Bowman, N. A., & Oseguera, L. (2008). Extending notions of campus climate and diversity to students’ transition to college. The Review of Higher Education, 31(3), 257-285. http://doi.org/dqst Lowe, M. R., Byron, R. A., Ferry, G., & Garcia, M. (2013). Food for thought: Frequent interracial dining experiences as a predictor of students’ racial climate perceptions. Journal of Higher Education, 84(4), 569-600. http://doi.org/dqsv Lundberg, C. A., & Schreiner, L. A. (2004). Quality and frequency of faculty-student interaction as predictors of learning: An analysis by student race/ethnicity. Journal of College Student Development, 45(5), 549-565. http://doi.org/dq6bcb 94

Thriving and Students of Color

McIntosh, E. J. (2012). Thriving in college: The role of spirituality and psychological sense of community in students of color (Publication No. 3521901) [Doctoral dissertation, Azusa Pacific University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. McIntosh, E. J. (2015). Thriving and spirituality; Making meaning of meaning making for students of color. About Campus, 19(6), 16-23. http://doi.org/dqgv McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 6-23. http://doi.org/fvxz24 Milem, J. F., Chang, M. J., & Antonio, A. L. (2005). Making diversity work on campus: A research-based perspective. American Association of Colleges and Universities. Museus, S. D., & Park, J. J. (2015). The continuing significance of racism in the lives of Asian American college students. Journal of College Student Development, 56(6), 551-569. http://doi.org/dqsw Newman, M. L., Keough, K. A., & Lee, R. M. (2009). Group identification and college adjustment: The experience of encountering a novel stereotype. The Journal of Social Psychology, 149(6), 694-708. http://doi.org/cw9pkq Park, J. J. (2009). Are we satisfied? A look at student satisfaction with diversity at traditional White institutions. The Review of Higher Education, 32(3), 291-320. http://doi.org/dqsx Rankin, S. R., & Reason, R. D. (2005). Differing perceptions: How students of color and White students perceive campus climate for underrepresented groups. Journal of College Student Development, 46(1), 43-61. http://doi.org/d887cx Sarason, S. B. (1974). The psychological sense of community: Prospects for a community psychology. Jossey-Bass. Schreiner, L. A. (2014). Different pathways to thriving among students of color: An untapped opportunity for success. About Campus, 19(5), 10-19. http://doi.org/gf6kcj Schreiner, L. A. (2016). Thriving: Expanding the goal of higher education. In D. W. Harward (Ed.), Well-being and higher education: A strategy for change and the realization of education’s greater purpose (pp. 135-148). Bringing Theory to Practice, American Association of Colleges and Universities. Schreiner, L. A. (2018). Thriving in the second year of college: Pathways to success. In L. A. Schreiner (Ed.), Sophomore success: Making the most of the second year (New Directions for Higher Education, No. 183, pp. 9-21). Wiley. http://doi.org/dqgz Schreiner, L. A., Martinez, T., Miller, A., Keetch, C., & Drumm, J. (2018). The role of “woke” faculty for thriving students of color. Paper presented at the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Tampa, FL. Smith, W. A., Mustaffa, J. B., Jones, C. M., Curry, T. J., & Allen, W. R. (2016). “You make me wanna holler and throw up both my hands!” Campus culture, Black misandric microaggressions, and racial battle fatigue. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 29(9), 1189-1209. http://doi.org/gf9m2b Solorzano, D., Ceja, M., & Yosso, T. (2000). Critical race theory, racial microaggressions, and campus racial climate: The experiences of African American college students. Journal of Negro Education, 69(1-2), 60-73. 95

Thriving in Transitions

Vetter, M. K., Schreiner, L. A., & Jaworski, B. (2019). Faculty attitudes and behaviors that contribute to thriving in first-year students of color. Journal of The First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 31(1), 9-28. Von Robertson, R., Bravo, A., & Cheney, C. (2014). Racism and the experiences of Latina/o college students at a PWI (predominantly White institution). Critical Sociology, 42(4-5), 1-21. http:// doi.org/dqs2 Winkle-Wagner, R., & Locks, A. M. (2019). Diversity and inclusion on campus: Supporting racially and ethnically underrepresented students. Routledge. Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity Education, 8(1), 69-91. http://doi.org/ctqp52 

96

CHAPTER FIVE THRIVING IN HIGH-RISK STUDENTS Rishi Sriram and Jennifer Tharp

Helping college students thrive is perhaps of greatest concern for those students who are most at risk to depart before obtaining a degree. Higher education institutions consider students high-risk if their academic backgrounds or characteristics, such as status as a firstgeneration student, do not adequately prepare them for college success (Astin, 2016; Pizzolato, 2004). Efforts in higher education to help high-risk students in their academic persistence and achievement have not generally been effective, especially in four-year institutions. For example, remedial courses designed to help underprepared students are often found instead to serve as additional barriers (Attewell et al., 2006; Boatman & Long, 2018; Calcagno & Long, 2008; Chaney, 2010; Martorell & McFarlin, 2011). Research from the U.S. Department of Education estimates that of the approximately 40% of first-year students who enroll in remedial courses at four-year institutions, only 55% complete their remedial course sequences, and of the completers, only 50% persist to a bachelor’s degree (Chen, 2016). Thus, approximately 11% of students who enroll in remedial courses complete a bachelor’s degree, compared to 67% of nonremedial students at the same four-year institutions. Therefore, colleges need new and better methods for intervening with the students who are most at risk academically, and the thriving model (Schreiner, 2010b) offers such an alternative conceptual framework with promising results. Rather than using a deficit paradigm that focuses on what high-risk students lack, the thriving model emphasizes what students need to flourish. In addition to a discussion of remedial education and high-risk students, this chapter advocates for the need to help these students thrive through pathways specifically helpful to them. For the student group examined in this chapter, the academic component of thriving and its two contributing factors—engaged learning and academic determination—are the areas most in need of enrichment. Engaged learning refers to the energy students invest in their learning, often observed through heightened attention and involvement in learning activities (Schreiner & Louis, 2011). Academic determination is the ability of students to regulate their learning behaviors by exhibiting focused effort and self-control (Schreiner, 2010b). This chapter discusses two studies that highlight the importance of thriving for high-risk students. The first study uses a quantitative research methodology to assess the pathways to first-year success among a cohort of high-risk students at five institutions, examining the predictors of students’ first-semester grades and intent to persist to the second year. The

97

Thriving in Transitions

second study employs an experimental design to demonstrate how a thriving intervention can positively impact the success of high-risk students. The results of both studies, when combined with the existing literature on college student success, have numerous implications for higher education scholars and practitioners.

Academically High-Risk Students To convey risk for withdrawal as a gradient scale (as opposed to a dichotomous characteristic a student does or does not possess), research suggests that scholars and practitioners use the term high-risk instead of at-risk (Pizzolato, 2004). In addition to the transitions typical of most college students, high-risk students must compensate for their lack of academic preparation relative to their peers, which can be reflective of students’ socioeconomic status and subsequently the high schools they attended (Astin, 2016). Because the high-risk label is relative to other students in the same institution, high-risk students have always existed as a portion of the college student body. However, the population comprising the college student body has changed due to historic events such as the GI Bill, Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Higher Education Act of 1965 that significantly increased access to higher education in the U.S. Although these policies diversified the student population decades ago, high-risk students continue to persist at lower rates than their counterparts. This achievement gap demonstrates not only the complexity of college persistence among high-risk students, but also that diversity efforts on college campuses in the U.S. have made more progress with access than attainment (Blumenstyk, 2015).

Intersectionality in High-Risk Students High-risk indicators are often considered simultaneously due to the volume of students who qualify to be included in more than one risk category. For example, first-generation college students tend to be low-income (Davis, 2010), historically underrepresented (Saenz et al., 2007), and less academically prepared for college-level learning than their counterparts (ACT & Council for Opportunity in Education, 2013). Therefore, certain demographics are often related to academically high-risk students, despite students’ limited control over these factors that influence the types of secondary schools they attended, the nature of standardized test preparation offered at those high schools, and the input or support they received when selecting a college path (Astin, 2016; Westrick et al., 2015). College students with one or more of these high-risk indicators face more challenges in the transition from high school to college than do their peers (Pascarella et al., 2004). Pascarella et al. (2004) analyzed longitudinal data on first-generation students from 18 four-year colleges. They found that the level of parental education significantly influences college selection, academic and nonacademic college experiences, and cognitive and noncognitive college outcomes. First-generation students tend to choose less prestigious 98

High-Risk Students

institutions even after controlling for academic qualifications and, once enrolled, take less advantage of the in-class and out-of-class opportunities a college experience offers. Firstgeneration students are more likely to leave college than their counterparts (Ishitani, 2006), and those who do graduate are less likely to enroll in graduate school. Approximately 41% of first-generation students were reported by the U.S. Department of Education to enroll in graduate education after completing college, compared to 46% of their counterparts whose parents earned bachelor’s degrees (Cataldi et al., 2018). Additionally, first-generation students may possess less cultural and social capital, which negatively affects their ability to make decisions that could promote degree attainment (Pascarella et al., 2004). Moreover, these students are less engaged in college and have lower educational aspirations than their peers (Pike & Kuh, 2005). Standardized test scores, a frequent factor considered in college admissions, are significantly correlated with family income and parents’ education (Astin, 2016). Low-income students tend to be first-generation and students of color, and they tend to be employed for a greater number of hours than higher-income students, adding another potential barrier to success in college (Anderson & Steele, 2016). Thus, indicators of risk in college can be difficult to untangle due to the frequent presence of more than one factor. Navigating college is more difficult for high-risk students because college comprises more than taking classes and completing course assignments. Students need interpersonal, intrapersonal, and academic skills to succeed (Schreiner, 2010b). They need what some scholars refer to as academic capital—the knowledge of how to navigate educational systems (St. John et al., 2011; Winkler & Sriram, 2015). Exposure to this “hidden curriculum” can help high-risk students break through the walls that prevent them from accessing higher education and develop new patterns of educational success perhaps not previously experienced in their communities (Margolis et al., 2001, p. 4). Current programs and services in higher education such as advising sessions, orientation programs, and even remedial courses specifically targeting high-risk students do not typically address this hidden curriculum, however.

Remedial Education and High-Risk Students To help high-risk students achieve desired academic outcomes, colleges provide special developmental education programs, also known as remedial education. The modern form of remedial programming is an offspring of academic and social forces present even in the late 17th century. Perhaps surprisingly, the earliest forms of remedial education appear at some of the most prestigious colleges in the United States, such as Harvard, Yale, and Princeton (Arendale, 2002). Coinciding with changes in the college student population, remedial programs continued to evolve and eventually became part of the mainstream services provided by U.S. colleges and universities. These programs are intended to help high-risk students gain the knowledge and skills necessary to perform successfully in college and may 99

Thriving in Transitions

comprise advisement, special courses, and other forms of academic support (Bettinger & Long, 2008; Calcagno & Long, 2008; Martorell & McFarlin, 2011). The number of students requiring developmental education has steadily increased, and current national estimates of the percentage of students in these programs range from 40% to 60% (Jimenez et al., 2016). Despite the prominent role remedial programs have in higher education, research on the outcomes associated with developmental programs has long demonstrated inconsistent results, with some studies showing small benefit, others showing no benefit, and some even revealing negative effects of these programs (Bettinger & Long, 2008; Boatman & Long, 2018; Calcagno & Long, 2008; Jaggars & Bickerstaff, 2018; Jaggars & Stacey, 2014; Saw, 2019; Scott-Clayton & Rodriguez, 2015). Additionally, scholars who have reviewed the literature find that the majority of previous research on remedial education has serious methodological flaws (Boylan & Saxon, 1999). Many studies simply compare students placed in remedial programs to those who are not in such programs without accounting for characteristic differences between the two groups of students (Bettinger & Long, 2008; Calcagno & Long, 2008; Martorell & McFarlin, 2011). Calcagno and Long (2008) studied the effect of remedial programming on 100,000 college students in the state of Florida. Although they found remedial education does have some limited benefits, such as short-term persistence, it is not a significant predictor of students earning a degree. They conclude that the current design and implementation of remedial programs means the effect of these programs on degree completion is questionable relative to their cost. Attewell et al. (2006) determined that remedial coursework might have a negative effect on students enrolled in four-year institutions. After controlling for academic preparation and other characteristics, they found that remedial education reduced the likelihood that a student would graduate by approximately 7%. Also, Attewell and colleagues did not find any evidence that remedial education increases graduation rates in alternative models explored in their study.

Thriving and Remediation Considered collectively, the most recent and robust studies on remedial education indicate current programs are not especially effective at helping academically high-risk students succeed. Scholars conclude that “remediation does little to improve students’ marketable human capital” (Martorell & McFarlin, 2011, p. 25). Stated differently, current remedial education does not help students thrive or gain the academic capital needed for success. It does not meaningfully influence the two factors within the domain of academic thriving: engaged learning and academic determination. Two important questions emerge: (a) Why is remedial education not effective in generating desired outcomes? and (b) What can be done to help high-risk students thrive? 100

High-Risk Students

A tension exists among colleges and universities between the desire to preserve access while equipping underprepared students, and the evidence from current empirical studies indicating that the benefits of remedial programming may not justify their cost. In response to this tension, Arendale (2002) calls for a significant shift in how remedial education is delivered: The challenge for learning assistance and developmental educators is to reinvent themselves as part of the new wave of “talent developers” on their campus. When policy makers begin to see the role [as]… developing the talent of all students, then postsecondary education will take another major step in achieving two of the noble goals of American higher education: higher levels of personal and academic success with broader access to more students. (p. 10) As Arendale (2002) suggests, remedial programming needs to shift away from trying to help students avoid failing and toward developing factors such as active participation, self-regulation, and the investment of effort. In an assessment of the contribution of remedial education to student success, Astin (2016) highlighted the “relativistic and arbitrary” nature of the remedial category for students and for courses (p. 52). For this reason, Astin observes that [T]here is little, if any, evidence to support the argument that remedial students are somehow incapable of learning, that their learning styles differ markedly from those of other students, that they require some radically different form of pedagogy, or that they need to be segregated from other students in order to learn. (p. 52) Unfortunately, beliefs regarding the role of effort in generating achievement may determine the kinds of interventions that are suggested. Various cultures have different understandings of the relationship between effort and success. For example, in Japan, effort is credited as the primary factor for achievement, but receives relatively less emphasis in the U.S. (Heine et al., 2001). In other words, Americans tend to identify innate ability as the primary determinant for success. Consequently, high-risk students may attribute their performance to a lack of ability relative to their peers, an attitude that is predictive of dampened motivation and confidence for success. Research on remedial programming also indicates that a negative stereotype is often associated with such programs. This stereotype creates additional obstacles for high-risk students, further impeding academic thriving. Bettinger and Long (2004) describe this phenomenon by noting that being in remedial programs may produce “a stigma, or ‘Scarlet Letter’ effect,” as perceived by other students and faculty (p. 23). Therefore, remediation could add a psychological burden that negatively affects outcomes for students and reduces their effort. Newman and colleagues (2009) found that students who were identified as poor academic performers subsequently withdrew academic effort to preserve their self-esteem and 101

Thriving in Transitions

doing so negatively affected their academic performance. Therefore, these students question their own abilities and feel a loss of control over their academic performance (Aronson & Steele, 2005; Perry et al., 2005). Such research suggests that high-risk students’ perceptions of their basic abilities contribute to less academic effort and environmental mastery, two key components of academic determination. However, influencing their self-perceptions could subsequently reverse these effects and help high-risk students thrive in college. There is great need in higher education to discover innovative approaches that improve the success of high-risk students and that evaluate those approaches with rigorous research designs. But for scholars and practitioners to change the behaviors of high-risk students, they must first begin by changing these students’ beliefs. Helping academically high-risk students thrive has two prerequisites. First, scholar-practitioners must discover the pathways to high-risk students’ success in college; then, they must use this information to create interventions that help foster these outcomes in high-risk students. Two recent studies conducted on various campuses represent steps toward meeting these prerequisites.

Study 1: Thriving as a Pathway to Success The first study highlighted in this chapter goes beyond analyzing conventional, programmatic approaches for supporting students in the first year, such as remedial courses, summer bridge programs, first-year seminars, and academic support services, to evaluate the influence of psychosocial factors on high-risk students’ success (Tharp, 2017). Recent studies suggest that psychosocial factors could be a powerful mediator to risk in college and may subsequently be a promising tool for intervention (Duncheon & Tierney, 2014; Fishbane & Fletcher, 2016; National Center for Education Statistics, 2013). Thriving is one such psychosocial construct that reflects students’ academic, interpersonal, and psychological well-being (Schreiner, 2010b). Thriving has been demonstrated to partially mediate the relationship between students’ entering characteristics and various aspects of their success and satisfaction in college (Derrico et al., 2015; Schreiner et al., 2009). Students who thrive in college are more likely to experience the full value of a college education. Thriving students engage effectively in coursework, associate learning with effort, actively manage their resources, foster meaningful relationships, appreciate differences in others, and seek to invest in their communities. Because these behaviors and perspectives represent the approaches that high-risk students perhaps need most to persist, the first study reported here considers the extent to which high-risk students who experienced thriving were successful in the first year. Methodology The purpose of this first study was to explore the contribution of high-risk students’ thriving levels to the variation in their first-semester outcomes, including GPA and persistence. 102

High-Risk Students

Two predictive models were developed to reflect the findings of relevant literature on high-risk student success. The sample for this study included 253 first-year students, from five private four-year institutions, who self-identified as historically underrepresented, first-generation, low-income, or academically underprepared (see Table 5.1). Students were included based on completion of the Thriving Quotient (Schreiner, 2010a) survey as well as self-identified qualifying factors: high school grades at or below a C average, enrollment in one or more remedial course, an estimated household income of less than $30,000 a year, status as being the first in their immediate family to attend college, or a reported identity as Black or Latinx. Students’ survey responses were collected in the fall semester of their first year in college. We used hierarchical multiple regression to consider the extent to which students’ thriving levels, entering characteristics, incoming perspectives on both spirituality and mindset, and college experiences predicted self-reported grades and intent to persist among these students in the first semester of college, after controlling for their risk factors. Hierarchical multiple regression was the appropriate approach for analysis because it could control for the influence of students’ demographic variables, and it also allowed for the evaluation of predictor variables within sequential models, thus assessing the unique contribution of each model to the explanation of the variance in the dependent variables (Mertler & Vannatta, 2013). Variables were entered into each model according to Astin’s (1993) conceptual framework of input-environment-output (I-E-O), beginning with demographic variables in the first model and subsequently adding perspectival and experiential variables. Five composite variables comprise thriving: (a) Academic Determination, or knowing about and using one’s agency toward academic goals; (b) Engaged Learning, students’ psychological and cognitive investment in deep learning; (c) Social Connectedness, or healthy and supportive engagement in relationships; (d) Diverse Citizenship, or valuing the perspectives of others and seeking their good; and (e) Positive Perspective, which is similar to optimism (Schreiner, 2010b). The variables were entered individually in each model to account for the distinct contributions of each. In addition to thriving levels, Student–Faculty Interaction, Spirituality, Campus Involvement, first choice of the institution at enrollment, major certainty, and Psychological Sense of Community (PSC)—which represents having a sense of membership, influence, interdependence, and shared emotional connections within a group (McMillan & Chavis, 1986)—were included because these aspects of the college experience influence students’ thriving and have been found to subsequently support student success outcomes (Schreiner, 2013). Two additional factors were also hypothesized to contribute to first-semester success among high-risk students: Mindset (Dweck, 2006) and Institutional Integrity (Braxton et al., 2014). Mindset is the extent to which students believe their abilities can grow with effort. Institutional Integrity is the extent to which the college experience fulfills what students believe was promised.

103

Thriving in Transitions

Table 5.1 Study 1 Participant Demographics (N = 253) Variables

Number

Percent

198

78.3

55

21.7

Asian

35

13.8

Black

18

7.1

Hispanic

46

18.2

Total students of color

99

39.1

Yes

87

34.4

No

166

65.6

Yes

88

34.8

No

165

65.2

3

1.2

Gender Female Male Race/ethnicity

First-generation

Enrolled in remedial course(s)

High school grades Below C- average Mostly C’s

12

4.7

Mostly B’s and C’s

28

11.1

Mostly B’s

93

36.8

117

46.2

Less than $30,000 a year

52

20.6

$30,000 to $59,999

58

22.9

$60,000 to $89,999

52

20.6

$90,000 to $119,999

50

19.8

$120,000 or over

41

16.2

Students with 1 risk characteristic

166

65.6

Students with 2 risk characteristics

64

25.3

Students with 3 risk characteristics

17

6.7

Students with 4 risk characteristics

6

2.4

Mostly A’s and B’s Household income

Number of risk factors per student

104

High-Risk Students

Findings Descriptive statistics for the dependent and independent variables considered in the regressions are included in Tables 5.2 and 5.3. Table 5.2 Descriptive Statistics for Variables: First-Semester Grades Regression (N = 253) Variables

%

M

SD

-.20

1.09

High school grades (z score)

-.34

1.20

Household income (z score)

-.27

1.06

Spirituality (z score)

-.06

.96

Mindset (z score)

.06

.80

Engaged Learning (z score)

-.12

.90

Diverse Citizenship (z score)

-.01

.68

Academic Determination (z score)

-.07

.81

Positive Perspective (z score)

-.01

.89

Social Connectedness (z score)

-.08

.73

-.003

1.02

.02

.65

Outcome variable First-semester grades (z score) Model 1: Student demographic characteristics Students of color

39.1

First-generation

34.4

Enrollment in remedial course(s)

34.8

Model 2: Entering perspectives

Model 3: Thriving levels

Model 4: Campus experience factors Working off campus Major certainty (z score)

14.2

Model 5: Interpersonal experience factors Student–faculty interaction (z score)

105

Thriving in Transitions

Table 5.3 Descriptive Statistics for Variables: Intent to Persist Regression (N = 237) Variables

%

M

SD

-.14

1.09

High school grades (z score)

-.36

1.22

Household income (z score)

-.25

1.06

First choice

.75

.44

Spirituality (z score)

-.07

.98

Mindset (z score)

.08

.80

Engaged Learning (z score)

-.09

.91

Diverse Citizenship (z score)

-.004

.69

Academic Determination (z score)

-.05

.81

Positive Perspective (z score)

-.003

.89

Social Connectedness (z score)

-.07

.74

-.004

1.03

.02

.65

-.09

.93

Outcome variable First-semester grades (z score) Model 1: Student demographic characteristics Students of color

38.8

First-generation

34.2

Model 2: Entering perspectives

Model 3: Thriving levels

Model 4: Campus experience factors Working off campus Major certainty (z score)

14.4

Model 5: Student-faculty interaction Student–faculty interaction (z score) Model 6: Campus experience satisfaction Institutional integrity (z score)

The final model of the regression equation predictive of first-semester grades was significant (p < .05) and accounted for 29.3% of the variance in students’ self-reported grades (see Table 5.4). The factors that contributed to significance in the final model included high school grades (β = .43, p < .001), Academic Determination (β = .28, p < .001), working off campus (β = –.13, p < .05), and Student–Faculty Interaction (β = .13, p < .05). An interpretation of the standardized regression weights indicates that for every 1 SD increase in Academic 106

High-Risk Students

Determination scores, first-semester grades increase by .28 SDs; similarly, for every 1 SD increase in Student–Faculty Interaction, first-semester grades increase by .13 SDs. After adding Institutional Integrity in the final model considering the predictors of students’ intent to persist, the model was significant and explained 27.5% of the variance in intent to persist. Institutional Integrity (β = .39, p < .001) accounted for the most variance, with household income remaining significant (β = .12, p < .05; see Table 5.5). Thus, for every 1 SD increase in Institutional Integrity, intent to persist increased by .39 SDs among the sample considered in this study. Additional variables were significantly predictive of students’ intent to persist only to the extent that students reported experiencing Institutional Integrity. In other words, variables such as Social Connectedness, Spirituality, and Mindset were significant when they were first entered into the regression equation, but they became non-significant when subsumed by the overwhelming influence of Institutional Integrity. As a result, it can be interpreted that these other variables contribute to students’ intent to persist only to the extent that students also perceive high levels of institutional integrity. The importance of Academic Determination, Student–Faculty Interaction, and Institutional Integrity indicates the powerful role that college environments play in influencing student success and helping high-risk students thrive. Both models in this study provided insight into the pathways for first-year success among high-risk students. Perhaps most exciting among these findings is that malleable factors—such as students’ approaches to learning and perceptions of institutional support—can mitigate the influences of their risk-related characteristics in the first year. For example, a related study found that the mindset of faculty directly affects student achievement: Racial achievement gaps were twice as large in courses in which the professor had a fixed mindset than for courses with a growth mindset professor. In fact, faculty mindset beliefs predicted both student achievement and motivation more than any other faculty characteristic (Canning et al., 2019). Part of the institutional support provided to high-risk students should include helping both faculty and students develop a growth mindset (Dweck, 2019).

107

Thriving in Transitions

Table 5.4 Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses: First-Semester Grades B

SE(b)

ß

Students of color

-.13

.14

-.08

First-generation

-.19

.14

-.08

High school grades

.40

.05

.44***

Household income

-.04

.06

-.04

Enrollment in remedial course(s)

-.08

.15

-.04

Model 1

R2

.18

Model 2 Students of color

-.09

.14

-.04

First-generation

-.14

.14

-.06

High school grades

.41

.05

.45***

Household income

-.02

.06

-.02

Enrollment in remedial course(s)

-.08

.15

-.04

Spirituality

.11

.07

.09

Mindset

-.13

.08

-.09

R 2 change

.01

Model 3 Students of color

-.10

.13

-.04

First-generation

-.16

.14

-.07

High school grades

.39

.05

.43***

Household income

-.07

.06

-.07

Enrollment in remedial course(s)

-.12

.14

-.05

Spirituality

-.05

.07

-.04

Mindset

-.15

.08

-.11

Academic Determination

.40

.11

.30***

Engaged Learning

-.01

.09

-.01

Social Connectedness

.03

.09

.02

Diverse Citizenship

-.01

.11

-.01

Positive Perspective

.11

.08

.086

R change 2

Table continues on page 109

108

.09

High-Risk Students

Table continued from page 108 B

SE(b)

ß

Students of color

-.13

.13

-.06

First-generation

-.18

.13

-.08

High school grades

.39

.05

.43***

Household income

-.10

.06

-.09

Enrollment in remedial course(s)

-.14

.14

-.06

Spirituality

-.05

.07

-.04

Mindset

-.15

.08

-.11

Academic Determination

.40

.11

.30***

Engaged Learning

-.004

.09

-.003

Social Connectedness

.001

.09

.001

Diverse Citizenship

.004

.11

.003

Positive Perspective

.10

.08

.08

Working off campus

-.40

.18

-.13*

Major certainty

.09

.06

.08

Model 4

R change

.02

2

Model 5 Students of color

-.18

.13

-.08

First-generation

-.19

.13

-.08

High school grades

.39

.05

.43***

Household income

-.09

.06

-.08

Enrollment in remedial course(s)

-.18

.14

-.08

Spirituality

-.06

.07

-.05

Mindset

-.13

.08

-.09

Academic Determination

.38

.10

.28***

Engaged Learning

-.01

.09

-.01

Social Connectedness

-.01

.09

-.01

Diverse Citizenship

-.02

.11

-.01

Positive Perspective

.08

.08

.06

Working off campus

-.41

.17

-.13*

Major certainty

.08

.06

.08

Student–faculty interaction

.22

.10

.13*

R 2 change

.01

Total R

.29

2

Total ∆ R

2

Note. First-semester grades: n = 253, F (1, 237) = 4.830, p < .000). *p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

.11 109

Thriving in Transitions

Table 5.5 Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses: Intent to Persist B

SE(b)

ß

Students of color

-.05

.16

-.02

First-generation

-.17

.16

-.07

High school grades

.06

.06

.06

Household income

.16

.07

.14*

Enrollment in remedial course(s)

.55

.18

.20*

Model 1

R2

.05

Model 2 Students of color

-.04

.16

-.02

First-generation

-.13

.16

-.05

High school grades

.02

.06

.02

Household income

.17

.07

.15*

Enrollment in remedial Course(s)

.42

.18

.15*

Spirituality

.25

.08

.21**

Mindset

.20

.10

.13*

R 2 change

.06

Model 3 Students of color

.01

.16

.004

First-generation

-.16

.16

-.06

High school grades

.02

.06

.02

Household income

.15

.07

.13*

Enrollment in remedial course(s)

.43

.18

.16*

Spirituality

.12

.09

.10

Mindset

.13

.10

.09

Academic Determination

.17

.13

.11

Engaged Learning

.12

.11

.09

Social Connectedness

.21

.11

.13*

Diverse Citizenship

.10

.13

.06

Positive Perspective

.01

.10

.009

R 2 change

Table continues on page 111 110

.07

High-Risk Students

Table continued from page 110 B

SE(b)

ß

Students of color

-.02

.16

-.006

First-generation

-.16

.15

-.07

High school grades

.01

.06

.01

Household income

.13

.07

.11

Enrollment in remedial course(s)

.38

.18

.14*

Spirituality

.13

.08

.10

Mindset

.14

.09

.10

Academic Determination

.16

.12

.11

Engaged Learning

.12

.10

.09

Social Connectedness

.17

.11

.10

Diverse Citizenship

.12

.13

.07

Positive Perspective

-.002

.10

-.001

Working off campus

-.37

.21

-.11

Major certainty

.14

.07

.12

Model 4

R 2 change

.02

Model 5 Students of color

-.05

.16

-.02

First-generation

-.17

.15

-.07

High school grades

.01

.06

.007

Household income

.13

.07

.12

Enrollment in remedial course(s)

.39

.18

.14*

Spirituality

.11

.08

.09

Mindset

.17

.10

.11

Academic Determination

.14

.12

.09

Engaged Learning

.12

.10

.09

Social Connectedness

.15

.11

.09

Diverse Citizenship

.10

.13

.06

Positive Perspective

-.03

.10

-.02

Working off campus

-.38

.21

-.11

Major certainty

.14

.07

.12

Student–faculty interaction

.22

.12

.12

R 2 change

.01

Table continues on page 112 111

Thriving in Transitions

Table continued from page 111 B

SE(b)

ß

Students of color

-.08

.15

-.03

First-generation

-.12

.15

-.05

High school grades

.02

.06

.02

Household income

.14

.07

.12*

Enrollment in remedial course(s)

.22

.17

.08

Spirituality

.06

.08

.05

Mindset

.15

.09

.10

Academic Determination

.15

.12

.10

Engaged Learning

.004

.10

.003

Social Connectedness

.08

.10

.05

Diverse Citizenship

-.04

.12

-.02

Positive Perspective

-.08

.10

-.06

Working off campus

-.32

.20

-.09

Major certainty

.10

.07

.08

Student–faculty interaction

.07

.12

.04

Institutional integrity

.51

.10

.39***

Model 6

R change

.09

Total R 2

.29

Total ∆ R 2

.11

2

Note. Intent to persist: n = 237, F (1,220) = 27.642, p < .000. *p < .05.** p < .01. *** p < .001.

Study 2: Developing a Successful Mindset Study 1 highlights the importance of environmental factors for academically high-risk students. However, such understanding leads to limited long-term benefit unless colleges develop interventions for supporting high-risk students by helping them thrive. To address this need, an experimental intervention was conducted at a large private research university to determine whether the development of a particular mindset in academically high-risk students leads to academic thriving, such as increased use of academic strategies and improved academic effort. A necessary step toward increasing academic effort in high-risk students, and thereby improving their academic achievement, is to help these students understand that they possess the potential to thrive. In her research on self-theories, Dweck (2006) describes how the 112

High-Risk Students

beliefs individuals have about themselves create different psychological paradigms that lead to various feelings and behaviors. These influences can be fundamental to student thriving because they can determine what students believe to be within their control. The Role of Mindset in Student Success A critical aspect of understanding achievement motivation is to understand an individual’s personal and implicit beliefs about competence, called a self-theory (Dweck, 1999). The belief that intelligence is a fixed, innate entity that cannot change, otherwise known as a fixed mindset, can lead students to purposefully withhold effort when they think they might fail in order to protect their confidence and self-esteem. If they do not try, any failure they experience can be excused as lack of effort rather than a commentary on their ability. However, a focus on the malleable nature of intelligence and the potential to increase it—a growth mindset—fosters positive self-regulation of motivation, self-esteem, and attention (Dweck & Molden, 2005). Thus, mindset has a central role in motivation, particularly in response to emotional events such as successes or failures. Individuals who conceive of their own intelligence as a fixed entity adopt performance goals, while people with a growth mindset possess learning goals. The former focuses on securing positive judgments of current competence whereas the latter emphasizes increasing competence. In addition, a fixed mindset emphasizes extrinsic motivation; a growth mindset relies upon intrinsic motivation. Students’ theories about their abilities influence the goals they pursue, and these goals subsequently generate mastery-oriented or helpless response patterns. Mindset shapes the core of a whole system of meaning, creating a framework for understanding and interpreting achievement and effort (Dweck, 1999, 2006). People with a growth mindset want to learn, and they possess a desire to engage in challenging tasks. They focus on long-term outcomes, effort, and strategies that will result in learning and achievement (Burnette et al., 2019; Dweck, 2002). This mindset helps people thrive even during the most difficult situations they encounter (Dweck, 2006). Rather than being overly concerned with appearing smart, these students work hard to become smarter. Effort and progress are more important than achievement and appearances of competence. These students still care about goal-directed thinking, but such students will forego opportunities to appear intelligent in order to stretch their current knowledge and skills. Therefore, individuals with a growth mindset thrive on challenges (Dweck, 1999). Research suggests that mindset can play a key role in college student success and can be altered through interventions with this population (Aronson et al., 2002; Dweck, 2019; Robins & Pals, 2002). If a growth mindset promotes positive responses, whereas a fixed mindset is associated with destructive reactions, then an emphasis on fostering a growth mindset within high-risk students could alter their behavior in foundational ways, leading to desired outcomes such as active participation, self-regulation, and investment of effort. 113

Thriving in Transitions

Methodology The purpose of the second study was to determine whether an intervention designed to help academically high-risk, first-year college students form a growth mindset of intelligence resulted in significant differences in their academic effort and GPA compared to students in a control condition. Using a sample of 105 high-risk, first-year students enrolled in a remedial course at a private research university in the Southwest (see Table 5.6), a pretestposttest control group design was employed to determine the effect of a web-based mindset intervention on outcomes critical to student success: mindset, academic effort, and GPA. The study randomly assigned students to a treatment or control group and then measured the mindset of students before and after the interventions using Dweck and colleagues’ (1995) Implicit Theory of Intelligence Scale. The treatment group (n = 45) was taught that intelligence is malleable and can be improved. The control group (n = 60) was taught additional study skills and strategies. The purpose of using a study skills curriculum as the control intervention was to compare the effects of promoting a growth mindset to what is typically done in remedial programming in higher education. Table 5.6 Study 2 Participant Demographics (N = 105) Variable

Percent of sample

Gender Men

33.3

Women

66.7

Race/ethnicity European American

58.1

Hispanic

21.9

African American

12.4

Asian

2.9

Native American

0.9

Other

3.8

Experimental Group

114

Treatment group

57.1

Control group

42.9

High-Risk Students

The growth mindset intervention consisted of four sessions that were delivered online. Each session comprised these basic components: (a) a quote from a famous person in history emphasizing a malleable view of intelligence, (b) teaser questions, (c) a movie clip portraying the positive effects of a growth mindset or the negative effects of a fixed mindset, (d) reflection questions about the movie clip, (e) a video lecture about the malleability of the brain and intelligence, (f) a summary of research pertaining to mindset and college students, and (g) teaser questions for the next session. Students completed each session in approximately 15 minutes over the course of four weeks. This growth mindset intervention was based on previous mindset interventions (Aronson et al., 2002; Blackwell et al., 2007; Chiu et al., 1997). These interventions used elements of neuroscience and psychology to teach about the anatomy and function of the brain and a growth mindset, using videos and articles to teach participants that the brain can be intentionally strengthened in a manner similar to what exercise does for muscles. The study compared group means of the treatment and control groups on the dependent variables of academic effort and achievement, while controlling for pretest levels of academic effort, high school class rank, and college entrance exam scores. Academic effort was measured through the six separate but related dependent variables of academic discipline, academic self-confidence, commitment to college, general determination, goal striving, and study skills. Each of these variables represents a scale on the Student Readiness Inventory (Le et al., 2005), published by the American College Testing (ACT) program as a measure of psychosocial factors that are predictive of college retention and academic success (Peterson et al., 2006). Academic achievement was measured by the cumulative GPA at the end of the first semester of the first college year. The primary independent variable in this study was the mindset intervention designed to promote a malleable view of intelligence. Findings Statistical analyses were performed to evaluate treatment fidelity (whether the mindset intervention actually changed the students’ perceptions of intelligence) and to compare the scores of high-risk, first-year students in the treatment and control conditions on the dependent variables of academic effort and achievement. Differences within each group on the mindset variable were evaluated using paired sample t-tests. Significant differences between the two groups on effort and achievement were determined via Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA) and Analyses of Covariance (ANCOVA), respectively. Results demonstrated that students in the mindset intervention significantly increased their growth mindset, while students in the study skills control group did not experience a change in mindset. These initial findings confirmed the fidelity of the growth mindset intervention. The findings also suggest that students’ perceptions of intelligence do not change without direct intervention, which align with the literature on this topic. 115

Thriving in Transitions

The primary question of the study was whether a growth mindset intervention would significantly increase the academic effort of high-risk students in a remedial course. As stated above, academic effort was defined as a multivariate variable comprised of six separate and related variables. Table 5.7 demonstrates that academic effort differed significantly between the two groups with a large effect size, Wilks’ Lambda = .787, F(6, 89) = 4.02, p < .01, partial η2 = .213, with the growth mindset group displaying higher levels of effort than the study skills group, even after controlling for pretest levels of academic effort. Table 5.7 Multivariate Analysis of Covariance of Posttest Academic Effort as a Function of Growth Mindset Treatment Condition Multivariate

Univariate Academic discipline

Academic selfconfidence

Commitment to college

F (1, 94)

η2

F (1, 94)

η2

.039

.089

.001

Source

F (6, 89)

η2

F (1, 94)

Growth mindset

4.02**

.213

1.23

Pretest academic discipline (covariate)

15.08***

.504

71.07***

.431

.228

.002

.084

.001

Pretest academic self-confidence (covariate)

33.34***

.692

.838

.009

159.55***

.629

.102

.001

Pretest commitment to college (covariate)

45.98***

.756

1.21

.013

2.02

.021

186.42***

.665

Pretest general determination (covariate)

10.95***

.425

1.48

.015

1.53

.016

.589

.006

Pretest goal striving (covariate)

12.09***

.449

.361

.004

7.33**

.072

.002

.000

Pretest study skills (covariate)

17.55***

.542

3.03**

.031

.799

.008

.268

.003

Table continues on page 117

116

η2 .013

3.85

High-Risk Students

Table continued from page 116 Multivariate

Univariate General determination

Source Growth mindset

F (6, 89)

η2

Goal striving

Study skills

F (1, 94)

η2

F (1, 94)

η2

F (1, 94)

η2

4.02**

.213

.382

.004

.059

.001

14.33***

.132

Pretest academic discipline (covariate)

15.08***

.504

8.09**

.079

.326

.003

.080

.001

Pretest academic self-confidence (covariate)

33.34***

.692

.682

.007

2.44

.025

.223

.002

Pretest commitment to college (covariate)

45.98***

.756

.003

.000

1.66

.017

.030

.000

Pretest general determination (covariate)

10.95***

.425

43.53***

.316

4.18*

.043

Pretest goal striving (covariate)

12.09***

.449

.040

.000

31.83***

.253

.178

.002

Pretest study skills (covariate)

17.55***

.542

.020

2.84**

.029

92.01***

.495

1.91

1.12

.012

Note. Multivariate F ratios were generated from the Wilks’ Lambda statistic. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Both mindset and academic effort were demonstrated to be amenable to positive change as a result of the growth mindset intervention; however, further statistical analyses were conducted to examine if there were significant differences in academic achievement between the two groups. Findings indicated that there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of cumulative semester grade point average or grades for the remedial course. Although the growth mindset intervention created a boost in academic effort, that short-term boost was not sufficient to impact grades. Longer and more thorough interventions may be needed for high-risk students, as discussed in the next section.

117

Thriving in Transitions

Exploring the Studies Academic Determination and Institutional Integrity in First-Year Success High-risk students are less likely to be successful in college because of the barriers they face in academic preparation and academic capital, often over which they have no control. The findings of the first study demonstrated that some psychosocial factors—which faculty and administrators are well-positioned to influence—support students’ first-semester grades and intent to persist. Academic Determination was found to significantly and positively predict students’ self-reported grades. Academically determined students associate learning with effort, apply their strengths to meet academic challenges, and engage in creative problem solving to manage everyday life and work toward their goals. The significant and positive relationship between Academic Determination and college grades adds to the existing literature on factors supportive of high-risk student success in the first year, especially because the components of Academic Determination can be developed in college, given the right resources and programming (Schreiner, 2010b). Institutional Integrity (Braxton et al., 2014) was found to significantly and positively predict students’ intent to persist. Students who perceive high levels of institutional integrity recognize a coherence between what they were told about the institution and the interactions they have with faculty, staff, and administrators on campus (Braxton et al., 2014). Because high-risk students are more likely to need support in the first year, this finding suggests that students’ perceptions of support services could be a factor in their plans to return for the second year. A Growth Mindset Another important factor in increasing academic thriving in college students is improving the amount of effort they invest in their academic experiences (Schreiner, 2010b). The results of the second study are important and relevant for faculty, staff, and campus leaders in higher education, providing another avenue to increase the academic effort of students, especially those who are most at risk for failure. They further reveal the potential of a growth mindset to shape academic skills. The implications for practice are especially pertinent to remedial programs, which are often assigned the task of helping college students succeed who are academically underprepared and who may lack proper motivation for success. The findings of the second study provide a framework for understanding how institutions can increase the motivation and energy students exert toward their academic experiences by intervening to shape how students view themselves. In particular, high-risk students’ concept of intelligence as something that can be increased can help to boost factors of academic thriving, but such an increase must be sustained. 118

High-Risk Students

Although the six variables that comprised academic effort were significantly higher for the growth mindset group than the control group, most of the difference was powered by the study skills variable. In other words, the study skills variable changed so much that it had a ripple effect for the other five variables that were used to define academic effort. Therefore, a mindset intervention may be best suited as one component of a broader academic intervention designed to increase academic determination in college students. These findings present a certain level of irony, however. The results indicated that students who were encouraged to view intelligence as malleable reported employing study skills significantly more than the students who were directly taught more study skills. Although it did not significantly change all of the variables comprising academic effort, a growth mindset does appear to lead students to engage in the academic tasks presented to them in significantly different ways and at a level that goes beyond what typical remedial courses foster. These results provide evidence that changing students’ psychological approach to learning is needed in addition to teaching them new behaviors. As Schreiner and Louis (2011) note, the behavioral and psychological aspects of engagement go hand-in-hand.

Implications for Policy and Practice The results of these studies are relevant for any campus administrator or faculty member who works directly or indirectly to help students succeed in terms of their retention, engagement, achievement, and development. The first study demonstrated that two malleable factors influenced high-risk student success. Academic determination is a psychosocial factor that represents approaches to learning that can be taught. The environmental factor, which supported students’ intent to persist—Institutional Integrity—can be regarded by college faculty and administrators as an invitation to care not only about the alignment of admissions practices with satisfaction but also about every institutional interaction a student has on campus. Help Faculty and Staff Fulfill Promises to Students Specifically, campus leaders can support students’ perceptions of institutional integrity when they foster a clear mission and institutional goals for stakeholders (Braxton et al., 2014; Felten et al., 2016). Faculty and staff function as the conduits of each student’s experience, so every interaction students have with a college representative has the potential to either add value to the student experience or create dissonance around the intent to persist. Thus, the key to increasing student’s perceptions of institutional integrity is caring for faculty and staff well-being and providing them with clarity about institutional values and priorities related to high-risk student support. This endeavor begins with actually defining in an honest manner what the institution can and cannot provide and being clear with prospective students about which values are embodied and which are aspirational. 119

Thriving in Transitions

Additional strategies for supporting students’ views of institutional integrity include disaggregating survey data to learn about the distinct experiences of students in high-risk cohorts and responding with institutional action, becoming aware of students’ specific needs and potential barriers throughout the institutional ecosystem and planning in anticipation for their success, and going beyond managing students’ expectations for the college experience in general to specifically teach them how to expect to learn in college. Encourage Students’ Academic Determination It is good news for faculty and administrators who support high-risk students that Academic Determination was demonstrated to predict high-risk students’ first-semester academic performance because academic determination can be taught (Schreiner, 2010b). Through institutional support and student engagement, students can improve their learning experiences, sometimes even making greater gains than their counterparts when they begin college with one of the risk factors noted here (Kuh et al., 2008). The first-year seminar is a key opportunity to support students’ development of academic determination in the first year. By combining early vocational discernment tools that support motivation, meaningful interactions with faculty, and training in how to engage in the phenomenon of learning, rigorously designed first-year seminars are a ripe opportunity to support high-risk student learning and success (Habley et al., 2012, Graff & Paulsen, 2014; Permzadian & Credé, 2016). Other features of first-year seminars that could be leveraged for gains include connections with peers and peer mentors, workshops on goal-setting, and an emphasis on the importance of effort. Furthermore, institutional leaders can reimagine the role of remedial courses in first-year support through a strengths-based lens, which has been described in the university setting as reframing institutional “thinking, interactions, and pedagogy in a way that emphasizes the positive” (Shushok & Hulme, 2006, p. 2), rather than giving outsized focus to the factors that can detract from successful learning experiences. Such a strengths-based lens could be implemented in remedial courses through prompting students to recall their strengths related to the content area based on past learning experiences, providing students with opportunities to demonstrate their growing ability within the class as new skills are mastered, and by more widely considering the experiences of students who were successful in remedial courses in the past. In taking a strengths-based lens for remedial education, institutions can support students in retraining their attributions of failure and success within the learning environment and support students in addressing their learning challenges by capitalizing on their strengths.

120

High-Risk Students

Promote a Growth Mindset in Students A specific, practical place to start developing a growth mindset in high-risk students is to offer curricula, both in and out of the classroom, that promote a malleable view of abilities. Light (2001) noted that although some in higher education may advocate for admitting only high-achieving students and getting out of their way, colleges should attempt to get in the way of students—in a positive manner—to help them reach their goals. Similarly, Astin (2016) argued that higher education institutions fulfill their mission when students experience cognitive and intellectual growth in college. When institutions admit high-achieving students and then graduate capable cohorts, the institution’s contribution to students’ ability can be unclear. Yet a focus on developing multifaceted and attributionally mindful campus interventions, beyond merely increasing awareness of mindset, will lead to the most positive outcomes (Bailey et al., 2013; Dweck, 2019) and to mission fulfillment as well. Programs that directly discuss how to develop talents and skills will empower students to do so. These programs can also host honest discussions about failure and how to appropriately respond to setbacks. Scholars and practitioners must place more emphasis on how students view their own abilities, such as their intelligence, and whether those perceptions are constructive or detrimental to achieving desired outcomes. Although campus leaders can certainly initiate new programs aimed at promoting a growth mindset in high-risk students, administrators and faculty members may also incorporate a growth mindset curriculum into currently existing programs. Prior to presenting content on academic or study skills for students, remedial programs could offer curriculum promoting a growth mindset. This content could be a mixture of psychology and neuroscience, with both areas used to increase motivation by demonstrating how the brain grows and changes. The curriculum could be designed to help students understand how their self-theories lead to either constructive or destructive behavior. The fixed and growth mindset paradigms could be explained along with the effects of each mindset as found in the literature. If such content were used to demonstrate the importance of effort in interpersonal, intrapersonal, and academic growth, then it will likely help academically high-risk students thrive. In this sense, a growth mindset becomes an amplifier to increase the benefit of evidencebased interventions (Robbins et al., 2009). Remedial programs may be the ideal place to provide such amplification. Currently, the study skills offered by remedial programs may remain dormant in high-risk students due to mental filters that cause them to believe that they cannot change. A growth mindset can remove such filters, thereby helping students understand that significant change is not only possible but worth the effort.

121

Thriving in Transitions

Study What is Right with High-Risk Students Rather than only attempting to gather more data on why students leave a particular institution, scholars and practitioners can also begin to learn why some students stay (Shushok & Hulme, 2006). Accordingly, campus leaders should study those students who, although labeled as academically high-risk upon admission, became successful outliers. Conducting focus groups of seniors who “beat the odds” at an institution is a valuable first step to understanding the emotional and behavioral resources a college or university should engender within its students. There is little doubt that results from such attempts will overlap with the current findings and may also generate new avenues for intervention and support.

Conclusion Thriving in college students occurs at the intersection of academic engagement and performance, healthy relationships, and individual well-being. This chapter began by proposing that college student thriving is most urgent for those students at highest risk for academic failure. Colleges and universities label students as high-risk if they have lower high school achievement and college entrance test scores than their peers. Other characteristics, such as status as a first-generation student, also increase academic risk. From almost the beginning of higher education in the United States, remedial programs have been used to help academically high-risk students succeed, but recent and robust research indicates that these programs are not especially effective in four-year institutions (Jimenez et al., 2016). The lack of success from remedial programs may be due to their tendency to focus only on academic performance while ignoring the other vital components of thriving. In order to help high-risk students thrive, scholars and practitioners must first understand what contributes to the success of high-risk students who achieve academic success. Then, it is important to implement appropriate interventions that can help promote these traits in other high-risk students. The two studies discussed in this chapter highlight the importance of thriving for high-risk students and begin to address these needs. The first study sought to understand the factors contributing to first-semester grades and retention in high-risk students. One of the key findings is the large role the college environment plays in student success—and over which faculty and administrators have significant influence. It also found that students’ academic determination influenced their academic success, which can also be positively affected by intentional pedagogy and support. The second study demonstrated how to use an intervention to change high-risk students’ mindsets and positively impact their success. It found that interventions can promote a growth mindset and thereby increase academic effort in high-risk students, but such interventions must be sustained in order to affect academic achievement. The results of both studies, when combined with the existing literature on college student success, suggest that higher education scholars and practitioners must influence the way academically high-risk students think about themselves and experience 122

High-Risk Students

institutional support to fuel thriving for this important student population. To help highrisk students succeed, administrators and faculty are encouraged to help faculty and staff fulfill promises to students, encourage students’ academic determination, promote a growth mindset in students, and learn from the high-risk students currently succeeding on campus.

References ACT & Council for Opportunity in Education. (2013). The condition of college & career readiness 2013: First generation students report. http://www.act.org/newsroom/data/2013/states/pdf/ FirstGeneration.pdf Anderson, C. B., & Steele, P. E. (2016). Foiling the drop-out trap: Completion grant practices for retaining and graduating students. http://www.aplu.org/projects-and-initiatives/urban-initiatives/ coalition-of-urban-serving-universities/aplu-usu-dropout-trap-full.pdf Arendale, D. R. (2002). History of supplemental instruction (SI): Mainstreaming of developmental education. In D. B. Lundell & J. L. Higbee (Eds.), Histories of developmental education (pp. 1528). Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy, General College, University of Minnesota. Aronson, J., Fried, C. B., & Good, C. (2002). Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 113-125. http://doi.org/fgtrsx Aronson, J., & Steele, C. M. (2005). Stereotypes and the fragility of academic competence, motivation, and self-concept. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 436-456). Guilford. Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. Jossey-Bass. Astin, A. W. (2016). Are you smart enough?: How colleges’ obsession with smartness shortchanges students. Stylus. Attewell, P. A., Lavin, D. E., Domina, T., & Levey, T. (2006). New evidence on college remediation. Journal of Higher Education, 77, 886-924. http://doi.org/dqs6 Bailey, T., Jaggars, S. S., & Scott-Clayton, J. (2013). Commentary: Characterizing the effectiveness of developmental education: A response to recent criticism. Journal of Developmental Education, 36(3), 18-25. Bettinger, E., & Long, B. T. (2004). Shape up or ship out: The effects of remediation on students at four-year colleges (NBER Working Paper 10369). National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www. nber.org/papers/w10369 Bettinger, E., & Long, B. T. (2008). Addressing the needs of under-prepared students in higher education: Does college remediation work? (NBER Working Paper 11325). National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w11325 Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78(1), 246-263. http://doi.org/djv8rz Blumenstyk, G. (2015). American higher education in crisis?: What everyone needs to know. Oxford University Press.

123

Thriving in Transitions

Boatman, A., & Long, B. T. (2018). Does remediation work for all students? How the effects of postsecondary remedial and developmental courses vary by level of academic preparation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40(1), 29-58. http://doi.org/gcxtrt Boylan, H., & Saxon, D. (1999). What works in remediation: Lessons from 30 years of research. [Prepared for The League for Innovation in the Community College.] http://www.ncde.appstate.edu/ reserve_reading/what_works.htm Braxton, J. M., Doyle, W. R., Hartley, H. V., Hirschy, A. S., Jones, W. A., & McClendon, M. K. (2014). Rethinking college student retention. Jossey-Bass. Burnette, J. L., Hoyt, C. L., Russell, V. M., Lawson, B., Dweck, C. S., & Finkel, E. (2019). A growth mindset intervention improves interest but not academic performance in the field of computer science. Social Psychological and Personality Science. http://doi.org/ggj9wt Calcagno, J. C., & Long, B. T. (2008). The impact of postsecondary remediation using a regression discontinuity approach: Addressing endogenous sorting and noncompliance (NBER Working Paper 14194). National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w14194 Canning, E. A., Muenks, K., Green, D. J., & Murphy, M. C. (2019). STEM faculty who believe ability is fixed have larger racial achievement gaps and inspire less student motivation in their classes. Science Advances, 5(2), 1-7. http://doi.org/gf7rhs Cataldi, E. F., Bennett, C. T., & Chen, X. (2018). First-generation students: College access, persistence, and postbachelor’s outcomes. Stats in Brief (NCES 2018-421). National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018421.pdf Chaney, B. W. (2010). National evaluation of student support services: Examination of student outcomes after six years. U.S. Department of Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED526943.pdf Chen, X. (2016). Remedial Coursetaking at U.S. Public 2- and 4-Year Institutions: Scope, Experiences, and Outcomes (NCES 2016-405). National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2016/2016405.pdf Chiu, C., Dweck, C. S., Tong, Y. Y., & Fu, J. H. (1997). Implicit theories and conceptions of morality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 923-940. http://doi.org/c7rw3m Davis, J. (2010). The first-generation student experience: Implications for campus practice, and strategies for improving persistence and success. Stylus. Derrico, C., Tharp, J. L., & Schreiner, L. A. (2015). Called to make a difference: The experiences of students who thrive on faith-based campuses. Christian Higher Education, 14(5), 298-321. http://doi.org/dqs7 Duncheon, J., & Tierney, W. (2014, November). Is college readiness enough?: Definitions, limitations, and contextual considerations. Paper presented at the 39th annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Washington, D.C. Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Psychology Press. Dweck, C. S. (2002). Beliefs that make smart people dumb. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Why smart people can be so stupid (pp. 24-41). Yale University Press. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House. Dweck, C. S. (2019). The choice to make a difference. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(1), 21-25. Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6(4), 267-285. http://doi.org/bq4kxq

124

High-Risk Students

Dweck, C. S., & Molden, D. C. (2005). Self-theories: Their impact on competence motivation and acquisition. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 122140). Guilford. Felten, P., Gardner, J. N., Schroeder, C. C., Lambert, L. M., & Barefoot, B. O. (2016). The undergraduate experience: Focusing institutions on what matters most. Jossey-Bass. Fishbane, A., & Fletcher, E. (2016). Nudging for success: Using behavioral science to improve the postsecondary student journey. http://www.ideas42.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/ Nudging-for-Success-ideas42-FINAL.pdf Graff, C. G., & Paulsen, M. (2014, November). A different view of retention and student success: Exploring factors in students’ decision-making process to enroll in a first-year seminar. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of the Study of Higher Education, Washington, D.C. Habley, W. R., Bloom, J. L., & Robbins, S. (2012). Increasing persistence: Research-based strategies for college student success. Jossey-Bass. Heine, S. J., Kitayama, S., Lehman, D. R., Takata, T., Ide, E., Leung, C., & Matsumoto, H. (2001). Divergent consequences of success and failure in Japan and North America: An investigation of self-improving motivations and malleable selves. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 599-615. http://doi.org/fc5mn2 Ishitani, T. T. (2006). Studying attrition and degree completion behavior among firstgeneration college students in the United States. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 861-885. http://doi.org/dmq8 Jaggars, S. S., & Bickerstaff, S. (2018). Developmental education: The evolution of research and reform. Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University. Jaggars, S. S., & Stacey, G. W. (2014). What we know about developmental education outcomes. Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University. Jimenez, L., Sargrad, S., Morales, J., Thompson, M. (2016). Remedial education: The cost of catching up. Center for American Progress. 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. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(5), 540-563. http://doi.org/crjppw Le, H., Casillas, A., Robbins, S. B., & Langley, R. (2005). Motivational and skills, social, and selfmanagement predictors of college outcomes: Constructing the Student Readiness Inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65, 482-508. http://doi.org/bmmf5t Light, R. J. (2001). Making the most of college: Students speak their minds. Harvard University Press. Margolis, E., Soldatenko, M., Acker, S., & Gair, M. (2001). Peekaboo: Hiding and outing the curriculum. In E. Margolis (Ed.), The hidden curriculum in higher education (pp. 1-19). Routledge. Martorell, P., & McFarlin, I. (2011). Help or hindrance? The effects of college remediation on academic and labor market outcomes. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 93(2), 436-454. http://doi.org/dvk4m2 McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 6-23. http://doi.org/fvxz24 Mertler, C. A., & Vannatta, R. A. (2013). Advanced multivariate statistical methods: Practical application and interpretation. Pyrczak.

125

Thriving in Transitions

National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). Digest of education statistics [Table 306.10]. http:// nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_306.10.asp Newman, M. L., Keough, K. A., & Lee, R. M. (2009). Group identification and college adjustment: The experience of encountering a novel stereotype. The Journal of Social Psychology, 149(6), 694708. http://doi.org/cw9pkq Pascarella, E. T., Pierson, C. T., Wolniak, G. C., & Terenzini, P. T. (2004). First-generation college students: Additional evidence on college experiences and outcomes. The Journal of Higher Education, 75(3), 249-284. http://doi.org/fqz5pt Permzadian, V., & Credé, M. (2016). Do first-year seminars improve college grades and retention?: A quantitative review of their overall effectiveness and an examination of moderators of effectiveness. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 227-316. http://doi.org/dqs8 Perry, R. P., Hladkyj, S., Perkrun, R. H., Clifton, R. A., Chipperfield, J. G. (2005). Perceived academic control and failure in college students: A three-year study of scholastic attainment. Research in Higher Education, 46(5), 535-569. http://doi.org/cvjh8p Peterson, C. H., Casillas, A., & Robbins, S. B. (2006). The Student Readiness Inventory and the big five: Examining social desirability and college academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 663-673. http://doi.org/bv9s9d Pike, G. R., & Kuh, G. D. (2005). First- and second-generation college students: A comparison of their engagement and intellectual development. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(3), 276-300. http://doi.org/fjspwh Pizzolato, J. E. (2004). Coping with conflict: Self-authorship, coping, and adaptation to college in first-year, high-risk students. Journal of College Student Development, 45, 425-442. http://doi.org/ cxb6vt Robbins, S. B., Oh, I., Le, H., & Button, C. (2009). Intervention effects on college performance and retention as mediated by motivational, emotional, and social control factors: Integrated metaanalytic path analyses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1163-1184. http://doi.org/djgrw6 Robins, R. W., & Pals, J. L. (2002). Implicit self-theories in the academic domain: Implications for goal orientation, attributions, affect, and self-esteem change. Self and Identity, 1, 313-336. http://doi. org/d2zrnj Saenz, V. B., Hurtado, S., Barrera, D., Wolf, D. S., & Yeung, F. (2007). First in my family: A profile of firstgeneration college students at four-year institutions since 1971. Higher Education Research Institute, University of California, Los Angeles. Saw, G. K. (2019). Remedial enrollment during the 1st year of college, institutional transfer, and degree attainment. The Journal of Higher Education, 90(2), 298-321. http://doi.org/dqs9 Schreiner, L. A. (2010a). The “Thriving Quotient”: A new vision for student success. About Campus, 15(2), 2-10. http://doi.org/dgdbg2 Schreiner, L. A. (2010b). Thriving in the classroom. About Campus, 15(3), 2-10. http://doi.org/ c63d7j Schreiner, L. A. (2013). Thriving in college. In P. C. Mathers & E. Hulme (Eds.), Positive psychology and appreciative inquiry in higher education (New Directions for Student Services, No. 143, pp. 41-52), Jossey-Bass. Schreiner, L. A., & Louis, M. C. (2011) The Engaged Learning Index: Implications for faculty development. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching , 22(1), 5-28. http://doi.org/dqk6 126

High-Risk Students

Schreiner, L. A., McIntosh, E. J., Nelson, D. D., & Pothoven, S. (2009, November). The Thriving Quotient: Advancing the assessment of student success. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education. Vancouver, Canada. Scott-Clayton, J., & Rodriguez, O. (2015). Development, discouragement, or diversion? New evidence on the effects of college remediation policy. Education Finance and Policy, 10(1), 4-45. http://doi.org/dqtb Shushok, F., & Hulme, E. (2006). What’s right with you: Helping students find and use their personal strengths. About Campus, 2(4), 2-8. http://doi.org/c7txmh St. John, E. P., Hu, S., & Fisher, A. S. (2011). Breaking through the access barrier: How academic capital formation can improve policy in higher education. Routledge. Tharp, J. L. (2017). Pathways to success for high-risk students: The role of academic determination and institutional integrity in the first semester of college [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Azusa Pacific University. Westrick, P. A., Le, H., Robbins, S. B., Radunzel, J. M., & Schmidt, F. L. (2015). College performance and retention: A meta-analysis of the predictive validities of ACT scores, high school grades, and SES. Educational Assessment, 20(1), 23-45. http://doi.org/gckfp3 Winkler, C., & Sriram, R. (2015). Development of a scale to measure academic capital in high-risk college students. The Review of Higher Education, 38(4), 565-587. http://doi.org/dqtc

127

CHAPTER SIX BEYOND SOPHOMORE SURVIVAL Laurie A. Schreiner, Tamera Pullins, and Eric J. McIntosh

The sophomore year represents an important transition for college students, as they have survived the first year of college and enter their second year confident they will be able to succeed using many of the same strategies that worked for them as first-year students. They also expect the same campus support in their second year; thus, sophomores experience surprise and a sense of abandonment when they notice that institutional attention has shifted from them to the next cohort of incoming students. Somewhat like middle children, students in their second year may feel they have not yet earned the privileges of their peers with more advanced standing yet are not getting the attention of the newest students on campus (Schreiner, 2018). Although the sophomore slump was first studied by Freedman in 1956, it was not until the work of Schreiner and Pattengale (2000) that researchers and practitioners alike agreed that the sophomore experience includes daunting transitions. Sophomore students continue in general education courses, yet they experience a reduction in targeted programs and services provided by the institution (Gahagan & Hunter, 2006). They face pressure to declare a major but report little interaction with faculty and peers in the classroom and lower levels of motivation and satisfaction than students of other class levels (Schreiner, 2009a). The increased pressure and decreased support evident during the second year of college combine to create a difficult transition, and it is apparent that many sophomore students are not thriving in the face of these challenges. National data collection on sophomore satisfaction began in 2000 (Juillerat, 2000), with regular data collection on the sophomore experience occurring only since 2007 (Schreiner, 2010a; Tobolowsky & Cox, 2007; Young et al., 2015). Since 2009, data collected through the Sophomore Experiences Survey (Schreiner, 2015) have demonstrated a steady increase in the percentage of sophomores who are struggling with aspects of the second-year experience that will be described in this chapter. In this chapter, we outline campus experiences that contribute significantly to the variation in student thriving during this key transitional year, based on two large-scale national studies of sophomores. Thriving is defined as being intellectually, socially, and psychologically engaged in the college experience—a goal that leads to persistence but is more holistic and far-reaching than whether a student persists to graduation. This chapter describes pathways to thriving in the sophomore year to provide a framework for suggested institutional interventions in support of sophomore success. 129

Thriving in Transitions

The Sophomore Experience: Current Research and Literature Early studies of the sophomore experience tended to be primarily descriptive in nature, summarizing the unique challenges of the second year (Pattengale, 2000) or institutional responses to those needs (Tobolowsky & Cox, 2007). Qualitative studies have deepened existing knowledge of students’ second-year experiences (Gansemer-Topf et al., 2007; Gohn et al., 2001; Packard, 2005; Schaller, 2005), and quantitative studies of the sophomore experience have focused on students’ satisfaction (Juillerat, 2000; Pullins, 2011) or predictors of their success (Graunke & Woosley, 2005; Schreiner, 2009a; Young et al., 2015). In subsequent studies of the sophomore year, up to 25% of sophomores reported experiencing “slumping” either academically, motivationally, or relationally (Schreiner, 2009a), with the most recent data indicating that one third of respondents reported that they are “barely surviving” their second year (Schreiner, 2018). Sophomores also reported declining satisfaction in almost every aspect of their campus experiences, a pattern Juillerat (2000) first identified and others have confirmed (Pullins, 2011; Schreiner & Nelson, 2013; Young et al., 2015). With the 2010 publication of Helping Sophomores Succeed: Understanding and Improving the Second-Year Experience (Hunter et al.) and its comprehensive approach to exploring and understanding the challenges of sophomores, there was the recognition that the second year of college poses as daunting a transition as the first and is deserving of renewed institutional attention and effort. Several barriers to success in the second year of college have consistently been noted in the research to date. As Schreiner (2018) has summarized, some of these barriers are internal and individual, such as (a) academic struggles, (b) lack of academic motivation, (c) identity confusion, (d) major and career indecision, and (e) difficulty selecting meaningful campus engagement that connects to their interests. Others, however, are external and institutional: (a) the campus run-around and a lack of attention to service excellence that particularly impacts sophomores; (b) difficulty connecting to faculty in meaningful ways; (c) inadequate academic advising to address meaning and purpose, which is the major developmental issue of the sophomore year; (d) campus systems and policies that hinder thriving among marginalized students, as well as among sophomores in general; and (e) the removal of almost all forms of campus support from the first year. (p. 11) Much of the reason for removing support that existed in the first year is the pervasive encouragement to frontload student success efforts because the highest rate of attrition occurs in the first year. For example, Braxton and colleagues (2014) note that a focus on the first year is likely to be the most critical for helping students succeed. Yet many institutions do not continue those supports and interventions into the second year. Whether the barriers 130

Beyond Sophomore Survival

to success are individual or systemic, researchers studying the sophomore experience have discovered that there are unique challenges to the transition from the first to the second year of college. These challenges are not only academic but also psychosocial in nature (Schaller, 2009a). Thriving in the midst of sophomore transitions requires effective strategies for addressing each of these challenges. Academic Challenges of the Sophomore Year Students who are thriving are not only succeeding academically but also are actively engaged in learning, investing effort to pursue their educational goals, and monitoring their own learning process (Schreiner, 2010a). Although each year of college presents a new set of academic challenges and increasing rigor in the classroom, many of the academic demands of the second year are unique. Three of these are particularly salient for thriving in the sophomore year: (a) the reduced motivation experienced when enrolling in general education courses that were avoided in the first year, (b) the challenge of engaging with faculty, and (c) the pressure to select an appropriate major. Reduced motivation. Students often begin college highly motivated to succeed and eager to engage in all that the college experience has to offer. Institutional support to navigate the demands of the first year is commonplace (Barefoot, 2005), and often students have been permitted to postpone challenging general education courses until the second year. However, about 20% of sophomores need to recapture the academic momentum they lost in their first year, as they enter the second year without having made sufficient progress to graduation (Adelman, 2006). As sophomores, students may find themselves taking courses they avoided in the first year or other courses that fulfill graduation requirements but hold little interest for them and for which they see no practical use. The resulting lack of motivation may be compounded by indecision about a major or by the realization that nothing has aroused their curiosity yet (Schreiner, 2009b). They also realize they have a long road ahead of them; as one sophomore reported in a national study, “We’re no longer the new kids on campus, but we’re not getting out anytime soon either” (Schreiner et al., 2012, p. 113). Student–faculty interaction. One of the clearest findings in previous research on the second year is that satisfaction with faculty interaction is a strong predictor of sophomores’ academic success and satisfaction with the total college experience (Graunke & Woosley, 2005; Keup, 2002; Schreiner, 2009a; Young et al., 2015). Yet such interactions can be more of a challenge in the second year because the small class sizes and intentional faculty interaction that often characterize the first-year experience are rarely continued into the sophomore year (Gahagan & Hunter, 2006). Too often, large introductory general education courses and courses taught by junior faculty or part-time instructors are the norm during this year (Schreiner, 2009b). In a study of predictors of persistence among 9,047 sophomores across the United States, sophomores who reported positive experiences with faculty in and 131

Thriving in Transitions

out of the classroom were 21% more likely to return as juniors than those who reported low satisfaction in this area (Schreiner & Nelson, 2013). However, sophomores were the least satisfied with faculty of any class level in that study. Other national studies confirm that sophomores are the least satisfied with the amount and quality of the interaction they have with faculty, as well as with their classroom experiences with faculty and faculty sensitivity to diverse learners (Young et al., 2015). Selecting a major. Choosing a major is one of the primary tasks of the sophomore year, as timely graduation often depends on this task being completed before the second year ends. Thus, sophomores report intensifying pressure about choosing an academic major that will ultimately lead to a fulfilling career (Gore & Hunter, 2010; Schaller, 2018). Those who have not yet connected with a major may grapple with identifying and clarifying their sense of purpose and identity (Schaller, 2005, 2009b, 2018). For secondyear students who have chosen a major, that decision may be revisited and questioned when they experience academic challenges in major courses or find that the courses are not what they expected (Gansemer-Topf et al., 2007). Interpersonal Challenges in the Sophomore Year Interpersonal thriving involves healthy and supportive relationships; it also entails openness to and the valuing of differences in others and confidence in one’s ability to make a contribution to the community (Schreiner, 2010b). Sophomores face particular challenges in interpersonal relationships because of the transition from carefully programmed social interactions provided during the first year to the more independently formed relationships characteristic of later stages of the college experience. A qualitative study of the sophomore experience found that second-year students were experiencing a change in their social relationships (Gansemer-Topf et al., 2007). These residential students characterized newly formed social relationships as friendships of choice rather than convenience, in contrast to the first-year experience of social relationships that centered on the proximity offered by residence hall floors. Schaller (2009b) confirms that the primary interpersonal challenge of the sophomore year is to self-select the relationships that best fit who the student is becoming as a person. She notes that although many sophomores navigate this change successfully, finding new and deeper relationships with others in their major, those who do not are often those who also experience other barriers. For example, the challenges are multiplied for second-year students with intersecting identities. Nontraditional-aged students, students of color, transfer students, and gender-nonconforming students face additional stressors as they navigate relationships on and off campus (Schaller, 2018). For some sophomores, the lack of institutional support in networking with other students in the second year comes as an unpleasant surprise; they report that they are unsure how to make connections with their peers without such institutional programming (Schreiner, 132

Beyond Sophomore Survival

2009a). Campus involvement that was pervasive throughout their first-year experience becomes more difficult to balance with work obligations and increasing academic demands. As a result, the best strategy for sophomores is to be more selective in their commitments, choosing campus activities and organizations that are congruent with their major or interests (Schaller, 2018). Emotional Challenges of the Sophomore Year Although emotional challenges occur throughout the college experience, the transition into the sophomore year presents the unique challenge of coping with university systems that continue to provide the most attention and support to first-year students, leaving sophomores bewildered by what they perceive to be a lack of support. As a result, sophomore satisfaction with university policies, services, and systems drops precipitously from the first year (Juillerat, 2000; Pullins, 2011). The positive perspective that characterizes thriving students serves as a buffer during stressful situations, enabling students to cope effectively with the demands of the second year. Thriving students have a positive outlook on life, view the world optimistically, and tend to be satisfied with their lives (Schreiner, 2010a). Secondyear students who are able to find new ways of navigating the system and reframe negative campus experiences are likely to be more successful. These strategies will be addressed later in the chapter.

Thriving in the Sophomore Year Thriving is conceptualized earlier in this book (see Schreiner, Chapter 1) as optimal functioning in three key areas that contribute to student success and persistence: academic engagement and performance, interpersonal relationships, and intrapersonal well-being. Thriving in the sophomore year necessitates an ability to meet the unique challenges of the second year: reduced motivation, increasing academic demands, less contact with faculty, the necessity of choosing a major, selecting appropriate relationships and campus involvements, and coping with diminished institutional support (Schaller, 2009b; Schreiner, 2018). The concept of thriving offers a framework for studying the sophomore year, as each aspect of the thriving model is comprised of malleable psychological qualities, meaning that these aspects of a student are amenable to change in response to a given situation or a specific intervention. Determining which aspects of the campus experience contribute most to sophomores’ thriving could guide institutions in their design of programming and services for the second year. Accordingly, two multi-institutional studies of the sophomore experience are described. The first is a large-scale quantitative study of the predictors of sophomore retention, whereas the second study examines the predictors of thriving. Two research questions guided the studies presented in this chapter: 133

Thriving in Transitions

1.

Which aspects of student satisfaction predict sophomore retention, given the type of institution in which students are enrolled?

2.

What are the significant contributors to the variation in thriving among sophomores at four-year institutions, after controlling for their demographic characteristics?

Each study and its findings are presented separately. Implications for practice and specific recommendations for institutions desiring to enhance thriving in the sophomore year are combined from these studies to conclude the chapter.

Study 1: Predicting Sophomore Retention A total of 9,078 college sophomores from 65 public and private four-year institutions across the United States participated in this first study to determine which aspects of student satisfaction predict sophomore retention, given the type of institution in which the student was enrolled (see Table 6.1). The study also examined whether these factors differed between students who lived on campus and those who did not. The sample was selected from those students who responded to the Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI; Schreiner & Juillerat, 1994) over a three-year period. The SSI measures students’ expectations about a variety of campus experiences in and out of the classroom, as well as the extent to which those expectations are being met. Using a 7-point Likert response scale, students rate the importance of and indicate their satisfaction with 73 different items that are clustered into 12 categories: student centeredness, campus life, instructional effectiveness, recruitment and financial aid effectiveness, campus support service, academic advising effectiveness, registration effectiveness, safety and security, concern for the individual, service excellence, responsiveness to diverse populations, and campus climate. A logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine the significant satisfaction factors that predicted persistence to the third year. The results indicated that sophomores’ overall satisfaction with their collegiate experience is significantly predictive of their persistence to the junior year. The study shows that both global and specific aspects of satisfaction predicted persistence. For example, students’ overall satisfaction with their collegiate experience, their willingness to reenroll at that institution, and a sense that their expectations were being met all predicted their continuing enrollment the following year. In fact, depending on which indicator was used, students were 25% to 38% more likely to persist for every point increase (on a 7-point scale) in satisfaction scores in these areas.

134

Beyond Sophomore Survival

Table 6.1 Demographic Characteristics of the Student Sample (N = 9,078) Characteristic

N

%

Female

6,048

66.6

Male

3,001

33.1

29

0.3

762

8.4

Gender

No response Ethnicity African American American Indian or Alaskan Native Asian or Pacific Islander Caucasian

68

0.7

411

4.5

6,549

72.1

Hispanic

526

5.8

Other

251

2.8

Prefer not to respond

458

5.0

53

0.6

No response Employment Full-time off campus

760

8.4

Part-time off campus

2,483

27.4

Full-time on campus

588

6.5

Part-time on campus

2,347

25.9

Not employed

2,851

31.4

49

0.2

On campus

5,593

61.6

Off campus

3,463

38.2

22

0.2

Associate degree

197

2.2

Bachelor’s degree

6,202

68.3

Master’s degree

1,471

16.2

Doctorate or professional degree

No response Residence

No response Educational goal

1,061

11.7

Certification

21

0.2

Self-improvement/pleasure

15

0.2

Table continues on page 136 135

Thriving in Transitions

Table continued from page 135 Characteristic

N

%

Job-related training

18

0.2

Other

63

0.7

No response

30

0.3

Age 18 and under

279

3.1

19-24

8,076

89.0

25-34

411

4.5

35-44

187

2.1

45 and over

93

1.0

No response

32

0.3

111

1.2

Grade point average 1.99 or below 2.00-2.49

739

8.1

2.50-2.99

1,748

19.3

3.00-3.49

3,116

34.3

3.50 or above

3,208

35.3

156

1.8

1st choice

5,913

65.1

2nd choice

2,166

23.9

936

10.3

63

0.7

No response Choice of institution at enrollment

3rd choice or lower No response

However, satisfaction with specific elements of the campus experience were better predictors of persistence than overall satisfaction ratings (see Table 6.2). Among those specific measures, satisfaction with campus climate was the most predictive measure of sophomore persistence. Campus climate is composed of items that measure a sense of community on campus, as well as perceptions of the institution’s commitment to academic excellence and racial harmony, and the approachability of faculty, staff, and administrators. Thus, these aspects of students’ experience are most important in their decisions to continue their academic work. Specifically, sophomores satisfied with the campus climate were 25% more likely to graduate than their dissatisfied peers. Likewise, another specific satisfaction factor, instructional effectiveness, also predicted retention for students at both private and public institutions regardless of whether they lived on or off campus. 136

Beyond Sophomore Survival

Table 6.2 Summary of Logistic Regression Analysis Predicting Persistence: Specific Satisfaction Model Variable

ß

SE

Odds Ratio

Gender (female)

-.16

.11

.85

Age

-.26

.15

.78

White

-.00

.13

1.00

Graduate school plans

-.00

.11

1.00

On campus job (part-time)

-.13

.11

.88

First choice of college

.08

.11

1.08

GPA

.38***

.11

1.08

Percent female

-.85

.74

.43

Percent White

.40

.27

1.50

Highest degree offered: Bachelor’s

-.19

.21

.83

Highest degree offered: Master’s

.16

.14

1.17

Size: less than 3,000 students

-.69***

.21

.50

Size: 3,000-10,000 students

-.58*

.23

.56

-1.59***

.35

.21

Step 1 – Student demographics

Nagelkerke R

.04

2

Step 2-Institutional characteristics

Percent admitted Change in Nagelkerke R

2

.03

Step 3 – Satisfaction variables Satisfaction with career services

.05

.05

1.05

Tuition is worthwhile investment

-.00

.04

1.00

Satisfaction with variety of courses

.11*

.04

1.11

Campus climate

.40***

.07

1.50

Instructional effectiveness

.09*

.09

1.09

Advising

.06

.05

1.06

Registration issues

-.25***

.07

.78

Student voice

-.13*

.06

.88

Change in Nagelkerke R

2

.04

*p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

137

Thriving in Transitions

Some of the predictors of sophomore retention differed across public and private institutions. For students attending private institutions, satisfaction with institutional responsiveness to their concerns was significantly predictive of their persistence to the junior year, whereas that was not a significant contributor to persistence for sophomores attending public colleges and universities. Another example is that the variety of courses offered was significantly predictive of sophomore-to-junior retention among private college students, but in public universities the significant predictor was satisfaction with academic advising. Finally, satisfaction with residence life was not predictive of persistence in sophomores, but differences in predictors did exist between residential and commuter students. For example, instructional effectiveness, the variety of classes offered, and academic advising were significant satisfaction factors for students who lived on campus. For commuter students, satisfaction with career services was the only unique predictor.

Study 2: Predicting Sophomore Thriving A study of 7,066 second-year students from four-year institutions across the United States forms the basis of our analysis of the predictors of thriving in the sophomore year. These sophomores represent those who responded to all items on the Sophomore Experiences Survey (Schreiner, 2015) that was distributed online by public and private four-year colleges and universities participating in the Thriving Project at Azusa Pacific University during 2017 and 2018. The web-based instrument was designed to measure various aspects of the sophomore experience including student thriving (Young et al., 2015). Sophomores also were asked to rate the extent to which they thought they were thriving and to provide open-ended comments about the events that had occurred that influenced their response to that question. They were also asked to name one thing they would change about their sophomore year. The sample consisted of 64.4% sophomores who identified as White, as well as 58.2% who identified as female. About 60% of the sophomores lived on campus, and 44% were first-generation students, defined as those whose parents did not attend college. Structural equation modeling was conducted to determine the interrelationships of all the variables and their direct and indirect contribution to the variation in sophomore thriving. This type of analysis allowed us to control statistically for demographic variables that may be related to the outcome of thriving but are not changeable once students arrive on campus, such as their gender, generation status, race/ethnicity, high school grades, household income, and whether or not the institution was their first choice at enrollment. Once these demographic characteristics are controlled, then the unique contribution of particular campus experiences or perceptions can be determined. Pervasive aspects of the students’ campus experience, such as whether they lived on campus, worked on or off campus, had transferred into the institution, were certain of 138

Beyond Sophomore Survival

their major, and their level of perceived difficulty paying for college were also part of the structural model. Levels of spirituality were included as a latent variable in the model, as previous research indicates that this aspect of a student’s life contributes meaningfully to psychological well-being and positive student outcomes (Astin et al., 2011). Spirituality is a particularly notable contributor to thriving among students of color (McIntosh, 2015). The amount and type of interaction with faculty, along with students’ satisfaction regarding such interactions, were additional latent variables. The satisfaction elements were separated from the frequency and type of student–faculty interaction, as previous research indicates that each contributes uniquely to student thriving. Specifically, satisfaction with the extent to which faculty included multiple perspectives in their curriculum, encouraged diverse perspectives in class discussions, and were sensitive to the needs of diverse learners were included in this latent variable. Frequency of involvement in campus activities was included in the model, along with students’ perceptions of institutional integrity and their psychological sense of community on campus. Frequency of involvement in campus activities and student organizations has long been a predictor of student success outcomes since Astin (1984) first articulated his student involvement theory. Institutional integrity was added to the model based on significant research connecting it to a student’s psychological sense of community (Schreiner, 2016; Young et al., 2015). Institutional integrity is a concept that originated with Braxton and colleagues (2004) and represents students’ perceptions that an institution is meeting their expectations, accurately portrayed itself during the admissions process, and is comprised of faculty and staff who embody the mission of the institution. A psychological sense of community has been found to be the most significant contributor to thriving in other studies (Schreiner, 2016; Young et al., 2015) and is conceptualized as feelings of belonging, ownership, relationship, and interdependence within the campus. Lounsbury and DeNeui’s (1995) research has connected this variable to college student retention and satisfaction, as well. The structural model represented in Figure 6.1 fit this sample data well (χ2 (307) = 6654.01; p = .000; CFI = .928, RMSEA = .054), explaining 70% of the variation in sophomore thriving. The largest direct effect on thriving was students’ sense of community on campus (β = .70). Students who experience a strong sense of community on campus feel a sense of belonging; they feel that they matter to the university and are part of a network of people who care about them, are committed to their growth and well-being, and are able to meet their needs (Lounsbury & DeNeui, 1995; Schreiner, 2010b). Cheng (2004) asserted that “what connects students with the community is not just small circles of friends who share personal interests; it is also effective programming and organized social opportunities” (p. 228). However, his research indicated that student involvement in campus activities and groups did not foster a sense of community. Rather, Cheng noted that the largest contributor to a sense of community is a campus ethos centered on engagement in learning, an environment in which 139

Thriving in Transitions

students feel accepted and valued and are encouraged to express their own opinions and beliefs. This finding is congruent with our additional result that perceptions of institutional integrity directly contributed to sense of community as well as indirectly to thriving. These two variables indicate that sophomores’ perceptions of whether they belong, heavily influenced by whether they perceive the institution as delivering on its promises, are vital to thriving in the second year.

Figure 6.1. Structural equation model of sophomore thriving.

How frequently students interacted with faculty about academic issues, career and graduate school planning, and socially outside of class was the second strongest direct contributor to sophomore thriving (see Figure 6.1), but what led to a greater frequency of interaction with faculty was how satisfied students were with faculty. Specifically, when students reported that their instructors were sensitive to the needs of diverse learners, presented multiple perspectives in their curriculum and teaching, and welcomed diverse perspectives in class discussions, students were highly satisfied with faculty and were more likely to interact with them outside of class as a result. In addition, when students were satisfied with faculty, they were more likely to have a positive perception of institutional integrity. Thus, satisfaction with faculty had a strong indirect effect on thriving by virtue of its contribution to frequency of faculty interaction as well as student perceptions of institutional integrity. In other words, sophomores who were satisfied with their interactions with faculty were more likely to seek out faculty for interaction outside of class and were more likely to perceive the institution as delivering on its promises. 140

Beyond Sophomore Survival

The final direct effect on thriving was sophomores’ levels of spirituality (see Figure 6.1), defined as having spiritual or religious beliefs that gave them a sense of meaning and purpose in life and were foundational for decision-making and during difficult times. Lindholm (2010) notes that the sophomore year is a time for reflection on questions of life purpose and meaning, which is the heart of spirituality. Spirituality can also function as a coping skill that sustains students and leads to a positive perspective on life. In our study, students with high levels of spirituality also reported high levels of optimism and life satisfaction, along with greater openness to others who were different and higher motivation to make a contribution to society, all of which are consistent with major religious teachings and with a sense of meaning and purpose in life (Lindholm, 2010). Particularly among Black students, spirituality appeared to function as a mediating variable for thriving, a lens through which other campus and life experiences were interpreted or reframed. Being certain of one’s major and intending to pursue an advanced degree at some point in life were indirect contributors to thriving among the sophomores in this study. Major certainty provides sophomores with a sense of purpose and direction, along with a potential network of friends who have similar academic interests and a connection to faculty who can guide them more specifically toward their future. Unlike previous studies of sophomore thriving that found a direct contribution to the variation in thriving (Schreiner et al., 2012; Young et al., 2015), the contribution of major certainty and degree aspirations to thriving in this sample of sophomores was mediated by their interaction with faculty. That is, sophomores who were certain of their major and had plans for grad school were more likely to interact with faculty and to experience those interactions as positive, which then affected their perceptions of institutional integrity and enhanced their sense of community on campus, ultimately leading to higher levels of thriving. Sophomores certain of their major were more likely to be White students who were not first-generation; they also were more likely to have plans for graduate school. Thus, a cycle of privilege appears to be operating that may systematically disadvantage first-generation students and students of color. Although we included students’ demographic characteristics such as generation status, gender, and race in the model we tested, none of these characteristics were significant predictors of the variation in sophomore thriving. Additionally, students’ reported level of financial difficulty was not a significant predictor of thriving, either. Other predictor variables that we included in the model but that were not significant predictors of sophomore thriving included their frequency of involvement in campus activities, living on campus, working on or off campus, and choosing the institution first at enrollment. These findings are in contrast to previous research, although our study in 2012 found campus involvement to only predict 3% of the variation in sophomore thriving. This large-scale quantitative study of sophomores across multiple four-year public and private institutions demonstrated that a significant amount of the variation in students’ 141

Thriving in Transitions

thriving during the second year of college can be explained by a model that includes their spirituality, degree aspirations and certainty of their major, satisfaction and frequency of interaction with faculty, perceptions of institutional integrity, and sense of community on campus. The features of the campus experience that contribute most to sophomore thriving are primarily those aspects that confirm a student’s perception of belonging: a sense of community, interaction with faculty, and institutional integrity.

Implications for Practice: Support for Sophomore Students Weaving the themes from the two large national studies of the second-year experience, there are two major implications of the findings. These implications lead to concrete recommendations for institutional policies and practices that affect sophomores. Connections Matter One of the clearest findings emerging from both studies in this chapter is that sophomores thrive when they are connected to others in meaningful ways. These connections provide not only a source of support during transition but also a way of moving forward and gaining maximum benefit from the second year of college. Sophomores who had significant and meaningful interactions with faculty were deeply impacted by those relationships and longed for them to continue; keen disappointment with the lack of opportunity to interact with faculty was evident in the open-ended comments that were part of the national survey. For example, one student commented: “This semester opened my eyes to a lot of systemic problems [at this university]… that I was previously ignorant of, but the access to faculty has been especially difficult.” Additionally, when faculty presented multiple perspectives in class and in their curriculum, welcoming diverse opinions in classroom discussions and being sensitive to diverse students, all students were able to thrive. That is, this perception of faculty openness to diverse perspectives set in motion a chain reaction of seeking out faculty for further interaction, which then positively affected their perceptions of the institution’s integrity and enhanced students’ feelings of belonging on campus. The sense of community that had the largest effect on student thriving indicates that connections to peers also contributes to sophomore thriving. Connecting to others in their major or through campus organizations and activities can help sophomores navigate this transitional year. As Schaller (2018) notes, these relationships are more self-selected in the sophomore year, but the institution can provide opportunities within majors and within sophomore-specific programs for students to connect to one another in meaningful ways. Connections can also be spiritual; that is, spirituality is often experienced as a connection to something larger than oneself that transcends one’s own experience and provides a sense of meaning and purpose in life (Astin et al., 2011). A spiritual connection appears 142

Beyond Sophomore Survival

to be instrumental to thriving among the sophomores in this study. The structural model indicated that spirituality had a direct effect on thriving. An implication of this finding is that the connections that matter to sophomore thriving are not only relational, but also spiritual in nature, connecting students’ inner lives and their search for meaning and purpose with their academic pursuits and the relationships they develop. Institutional Practices Affect Thriving Because sophomores’ sense of community was the major predictor of their thriving at the end of the second year of college and was so heavily influenced by perceptions of institutional integrity, all indicators point to thriving as a communal goal rather than simply an individual pursuit. Students’ interactions with faculty, as well as staff, influence their perceptions of institutional integrity that lead to the development of a sense of community. Thus, institutional policies and practices have both a direct and indirect effect on sophomores’ thriving. Students’ sense of community on campus is comprised of four aspects: (a) membership, or feelings of belonging; (b) ownership, or the ability to make a contribution and have a voice; (c) relationship, or positive interactions and shared emotional connections; and (d) partnership, or interdependence and commitment to a common goal (Sarason, 1974; Schreiner, 2010b). Specific institutional policies and practices can impact each of these aspects, communicating to students the institution’s commitment to their welfare, as well as the integrity of the institution, in the process. Equitable access to programs and services, transparency and fairness in administering policies and rules, including student voices on campus committees, and equal treatment and respect for students are examples of practices that can strengthen the sense of community on campus (Braxton et al., 2004). The connection through a campus sense of community was also evident in the first study that linked campus climate to retention. Campus climate was the most significant predictor of whether sophomores returned for their junior year; thus, feeling a sense of belonging is critical to sophomore success. As Strayhorn (2012) notes, when students do not feel a sense of belonging, it not only affects their persistence but also their ability to learn. Thus, attending to the campus climate is vital to sophomore success and thriving. Museus and colleagues (2017) have found that three specific variables reflective in the campus climate significantly influence the sense of belonging among students of color: (a) the extent to which campuses are characterized by values of teamwork and mutual success, rather than individualism and competition; (b) the extent to which students feel that their cultural knowledge, backgrounds, and identities are valued by their campus; and (c) the extent to which students have opportunities to physically connect with faculty, staff, and peers who understand their backgrounds and experiences.

143

Thriving in Transitions

Recommendations There are four specific recommendations that arise from the implication that connections matter and that institutional policies and practices can affect thriving. An institutional focus on any of these areas could significantly enhance sophomores’ ability to benefit from their second year in college. 1. Connect sophomores to faculty in intentional and meaningful ways. Student–faculty interaction has numerous benefits that extend to all students, not just to sophomores (Kim & Sax, 2017; Mayhew et al., 2016; Schreiner & Tobolowsky, 2018). Yet sophomores experience a distinct difference from the faculty interaction in their first year. Larger classes, classes outside their major interest area, and required courses for the general education curriculum that are taught by adjuncts and part-time faculty combine to produce the perception that there is significantly less opportunity to interact with full-time faculty. Thus, institutions desiring to enhance sophomore thriving might consider ways of intentionally connecting their sophomores with their faculty. Forming student–faculty research partnerships is one example of a meaningful and intentional connection. Wilson and Crowe (2010) note that the sophomore year is the ideal time for student–faculty research partnerships, as “an early start fosters higher retention and a higher likelihood of pursuing a post-baccalaureate degree” (p. 181). However, Kim and Sax’s (2011) study of student–faculty interaction and research engagement discovered that the impact of such interaction and research partnerships depended on the academic discipline. Their research is particularly instructive for institutional leaders and faculty developers, as it demonstrates that students are most likely to benefit from research with faculty in departments with a supportive and favorable faculty climate, clearly defined and communicated policies and expectations, and a well-organized curriculum with pedagogical practices that emphasize critical thinking and reasoning, integrating ideas from other courses, generating new ideas, and using facts and examples to support one’s viewpoints. From the extensive literature on the role of faculty in student success, it is evident that it is the quality of the interaction rather than the frequency alone that is predictive of successful outcomes (Kim & Sax, 2017). Although faculty interaction is not always positive for students of color, a certain quality of faculty interaction does benefit historically underrepresented students (Cole, 2007). Interactions in which faculty validate students (Rendón, 1994) and provide instructive, rather than evaluative, feedback to students appears to enhance intellectual self-concept and GPA, particularly among Black students. Faculty who include multiple perspectives in their texts, curricula, and class examples and then validate the contributions of students of color in class also tend to promote learning in students of color (Ash & Schreiner, 2016; Lundberg, 2010). Such inclusive pedagogy embraces student differences beyond race, with the goal to engage all learners meaningfully. For example, in one study of inclusive pedagogy in a sociology department, professors used a variety of strategies that 144

Beyond Sophomore Survival

created opportunities for students to enhance their understanding of the course content from engaging with and learning from their diverse peers (Castillo-Montoya, 2019). Some of their strategies included providing culturally and sociopolitically relevant examples, asking probing questions, and facilitating classroom discussions around personal, cultural, and sociopolitical topics that encouraged first-generation students, students of color, lowincome students, differently abled students, and religious minority students to contribute meaningfully to class discussions from their own experiences. Cole (2007) notes that the type of relationship that students develop with faculty affects their intellectual self-concept, as does the purpose for the interaction and the accessibility cues that faculty convey in class. In his study, students who developed mentoring relationships with faculty were more likely to report gains in their intellectual self-concept, while those whose interaction with faculty centered on a critique of their work were less likely to report gains. Cole also identified specific in-class faculty behaviors that resulted in more positive effects of student–faculty interaction: “enthusiastically engaging students in the learning process, …valuing students and their comments, …and allowing students the opportunity to constructively challenge professors’ ideas” (p. 276). Students are more likely to benefit from interactions with faculty when the classroom environment embodies active learning, includes cues that signal that interaction is desired, and engages students in the learning process. 2. Build community in and out of the classroom. At a time when commuting students represent almost 85% of all college students in the United States (NCES, 2018), the classroom is the primary place for building a sense of community. Equipping faculty to use active and collaborative learning techniques and to capitalize on students’ strengths and learning styles can ensure that the classroom becomes a place where sophomores feel a sense of belonging and connection. Forming learning communities, designing service-learning courses, and creating courses in the general education curriculum that target sophomores in smaller classes with approachable faculty can add to the likelihood that students will experience a sense of community in the academic environment (Schaller, 2018). Beyond the classroom, building community among sophomores can occur when we encourage students to participate in sophomore programs; design intentional opportunities for interaction among students and faculty in the major; and help sophomores select the type of campus involvement that aligns with their interests, goals, and values. Carefully attending to institutional communication with students can build a sense of community, as well. Messages of welcome, inclusion, seeking student feedback, and responding to student input convey that sophomores are valued members of the campus community. 3. Focus sophomore advising on connecting present and future identities. The most poignant comments from sophomores in the second study were about their desire for assistance in planning their future. Advising was also one of the areas where sophomores were least satisfied and was a significant contributor to the variation in student persistence to 145

Thriving in Transitions

the junior year. Sophomores who were confident of the major they had chosen were highly likely to be thriving at the end of their second year. Connecting advising and career services is a strategy that may be highly effective for sophomores, in particular. In the national study on retention (Pullins, 2011), career planning was particularly important for sophomores who commuted; thus, we recommend bringing career services to readily accessible locations and at convenient times for sophomores who commute. Gordon (2010) suggested that academic advising targeted to the sophomore year should focus on reviewing the previous year, as well as immediate and long-range planning for the future. At the beginning of the sophomore year, offering students a chance to reflect on their previous year’s experiences provides a foundation for the goal-setting that needs to occur in the second year. Immediate planning then focuses on the student’s academic progress and choice of courses and goals for the year, while long-range planning involves setting goals for the remainder of the college experience and beyond. Aligning students’ curricular and cocurricular goals with their life goals and career interests will enable sophomores to benefit most from the second year of college. Academic advising is one of the best vehicles for addressing thriving in the sophomore year. Advisors who have been trained in a strengths-based approach that focuses on identifying students’ assets, building hope, setting realistic goals, and helping students envision their future are best equipped to provide sophomores with the assistance they need (Schreiner, 2013). When students can envision the type of person they desire to become as a result of their college experience and see how their strengths are pathways toward becoming that person, they are motivated to engage in the behaviors necessary to succeed. As noted elsewhere, Appropriately delivered, academic advising can support most of the pathways to thriving by providing the opportunity for on-going dialogue about spirituality, meaning and purpose, perceptions of the institution, ways of becoming involved on campus, motivation to engage in classes and connect to faculty, and strategies for becoming increasingly connected to the campus community. (Schreiner, 2018, p. 17) 4. Recognize spirituality as a pathway to thriving in sophomores. One of the most salient issues for the sophomore year is the search for meaning and purpose, as the pressure to declare a major intensifies and financial concerns may lead to a pivotal moment when students must decide whether they can justify the cost of a college education if they have not yet decided what they are doing with their lives (Schaller, 2009a). Spirituality can be a vital pathway to thriving in the sophomore year, as it provides students with a lens through which to view their current circumstances as well as their future; this pathway is even stronger for many students of color (Young et al., 2015). Lindholm (2010) notes that the sophomore year is a time in which students are likely to begin thinking more holistically about their lives; 146

Beyond Sophomore Survival

thus, campus opportunities and support for examining meaning and purpose can provide students with the resources they need for this transition. Higher education, despite its avowed emphasis on the whole person, has tended to focus almost exclusively on the cognitive dimension of students’ lives, ignoring the inner life of the student and the important role that meaning and purpose play in a fulfilling life (Astin et al., 2011). Astin et al. (2011) assert that this fragmentation results in a lack of authenticity and depersonalization of the learning process that can have negative consequences for students and faculty alike. Their study found that most students wanted interaction with others on campus, including faculty, about issues of meaning and purpose. In our study, spirituality significantly contributed to the variation in sophomore thriving, particularly for students of color. Institutions can begin to recognize that helping students explore the spiritual issues in their lives can be a venue to thriving, especially among student populations for whom other venues, such as campus involvement, are not contributing to their overall well-being. Ways in which institutions can provide opportunities for sophomores’ spiritual development include both classroom strategies and cocurricular approaches. For example, faculty can open the classroom dialogue for an exploration of meaning and purpose, and advisors can include a reflection on students’ purpose as part of the process of goal-setting. Faculty development opportunities and new faculty orientation can provide training that equips professors to facilitate these dialogues. Cocurricular approaches can include creating times and spaces for spiritual reflection and meditation as part of an emphasis on wellness, hosting campus speakers and forums on spiritual issues, providing interfaith workshops on spirituality and religious diversity, and including discussions of spirituality in the residence life education programs and student leadership training programs. 5. Examine institutional policies and practices from a sophomore perspective. Even a cursory examination of institutional practices that affect sophomores leads to the conclusion that second-year students are not only last in line on campus, but also are often invisible. Course registration timing and access, housing policies, financial aid distribution, campus parking, and class schedules are examples of areas where an institution may be unintentionally disadvantaging the sophomore student without offering support to help them navigate these changes from the first to the second year. Including sophomores on campus committees, assessing sophomore satisfaction, and conducting sophomore focus groups about their experiences with campus services are ways the institution can communicate to sophomores that they matter to the institution— a practice that Braxton and colleagues (2004) noted is vital for student retention. Providing user-friendly mechanisms for sophomores to address the financial issues that may create a barrier to their success is also a step an institution can take to communicate concern for students’ welfare in the second year.

147

Thriving in Transitions

Finally, a culture of service excellence across the bureaucratic structures of the institution can also enhance sophomore thriving. Bean (2005) noted that students’ transactions with campus offices should be seen as learning opportunities that can enhance students’ academic and social integration, as well as their loyalty to the institution, yet too often serve to further alienate the student. For example, students who feel helped and that they learned how to navigate the system effectively in the process are more likely to feel positively about the institution, whereas students who feel powerless and treated like a number are likely to experience negative emotions and to share their dissatisfaction with others. Institutions concerned about the sophomore slump can encourage staff to see the key role they play in influencing student perceptions of the institution as well as in creating an environment conducive to student thriving.

Conclusion Despite the burgeoning research about the success of sophomore students, they remain in many ways the invisible students who feel abandoned by their institutions as the next wave of incoming students arrives (Schreiner, 2018). In this chapter, we have focused on large-scale national research to support recommendations that would enable a greater percentage of sophomores to not only return as juniors, but to thrive as well. A clear institutional focus on building a campus community where sophomores experience a sense of belonging and ownership in a context of healthy relationships and meaningful partnerships with faculty, staff, and other students is the foundation for addressing the needs of these students. Academic advising that connects the present to the future and helps sophomores set both educational and life goals equips students with pathways to success in the second year. As institutions enrich the connections available to sophomores and energetically support their progress toward a positive future, students experiencing the transitions of the sophomore year gain the visibility necessary to help them thrive.

References Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school through college. U.S. Department of Education. Ash, A., & Schreiner, L. A. (2016). Pathways to success in students of color on Christian campuses: The role of institutional integrity and sense of community. Christian Higher Education, 15(1-2), 38-61. http://doi.org/dqmg Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308. Astin, A. W., Astin, H. S., & Lindholm, J. A. (2011). Cultivating the spirit: How college can enhance students’ inner lives. Jossey-Bass.

148

Beyond Sophomore Survival

Barefoot, B. O. (2005). Current institutional practice in the first college year. In M. L. Upcraft, J. N. Gardner, & B. O. Barefoot (Eds.), Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college (pp.47-66). Jossey-Bass. Bean, J. P. (2005). Nine themes of college student retention. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College student retention: Formula for student success (pp. 215-244). Anker. Braxton, J. M., Doyle, W. R., Hartley, H. V., III, Hirschy, A. S., Jones, W. A., & McClendon, M. K.(2014). Rethinking college student retention. Jossey‐Bass. Braxton, J. M., Hirschy, A. S., & McClendon, S. A. (2004). Understanding and reducing college student departure (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report: Volume 30, Number 3). Wiley. Castillo-Montoya, M. (2019). Professors’ strategies for teaching through diversity. The Review of Higher Education, 42, 199-226. http://doi.org/dqmh Cheng, D. X. (2004). Students’ sense of campus community: What it means and what to do about it. NASPA Journal, 41, 216-232. http://doi.org/dqmj Cole, D. (2007). Do interracial interactions matter? An examination of student-faculty contact and intellectual self-concept. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(3), 249-281. http://doi.org/cnh52n Freedman, M. (1956). The passage through college. Journal of Social Issues, 12(4), 13-28. http://doi. org/dqmk Gahagan, J., & Hunter, M. S. (2006). The second-year experience: Turning attention to the academy’s middle children. About Campus, 11(3), 17-22. http://doi.org/drnqm5 Gansemer-Topf, A. M., Stern J., & Benjamin M. (2007). Examining the experiences of second-year students at a private liberal arts college. In B. F. Tobolowsky & B. E. Cox, (Eds.), Shedding light on sophomores: An exploration of the second college year (Monograph No. 47, pp. 31-48). University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition. Gohn, L., Swartz, J., & Donnelly, S. (2001). A case study of second year student persistence. Journal of College Student Retention, 2(4), 271-291. http://doi.org/fbv6fb Gordon, V. N. (2010). Academic advising: Helping sophomores succeed. In M. S. Hunter, B. F. Tobolowsky, J. N. Gardner, S. E. Evenbeck, J. A. Pattengale, M. Schaller, & L. A. Schreiner (Eds.), Helping sophomores succeed: Understanding and improving the second-year experience (pp. 83-98). Jossey-Bass. Gore, P., & Hunter, M. S. (2010). Promoting career success in the second year of college. In M. S. Hunter, B. F. Tobolowsky, J. N. Gardner, S. E. Evenbeck, J. A. Pattengale, M. Schaller, & L. A. Schreiner (Eds.), Helping sophomores succeed: Understanding and improving the second-year experience (pp. 99-113). Jossey-Bass. Graunke, S. & Woosley, S. A. (2005). An exploration of factors that affect the academic success of college sophomores. College Student Journal, 39(2), 367-376. http://doi.org/b3dqc8 Hunter, M. S., Tobolowsky, B. F., Gardner, J. N., Evenbeck, S. E., Pattengale, J., Schaller, M., & Schreiner, L. A. (Eds.). (2010). Helping sophomores succeed: Understanding and improving the second-year experience. Jossey-Bass. Juillerat, S. (2000). Assessing the expectations and satisfaction of sophomores. In L. A. Schreiner & J. Pattengale (Eds.), Visible solutions for invisible students: Helping sophomores succeed (Monograph No. 31, pp. 19-30). University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition. 149

Thriving in Transitions

Keup, J. R. (2002). The impact of curricular interventions on intended second-year enrollment. Journal of College Student Retention, 7(1-2), 61-89. http://doi.org/b3bx7b Kim, Y. K., & Sax, L. (2011). Are the effects of student-faculty interaction dependent on academic major? An examination using multilevel modeling. Research in Higher Education, 52(6), 589-615. http://doi.org/bd9vcd Kim, Y. K., & Sax, L. J. (2017). The impact of college students’ interactions with faculty: A review of general and conditional effects. In M. B. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research (Vol. 32, pp. 85-139). Springer. Lindholm, J. A. (2010). Spirituality, meaning making, and the sophomore-year experience. In M. S. Hunter, B. F. Tobolowsky, J. N. Gardner, S. E. Evenbeck, J. A. Pattengale, M. Schaller, & L. A. Schreiner (Eds.), Helping sophomores succeed: Understanding and improving the second-year experience (pp. 203-214). Jossey-Bass. Lounsbury, J., & DeNeui, D. (1995). Psychological sense of community on campus. College Student Journal, 29, 270-277. Lundberg, C. A. (2010). Institutional commitment to diversity, college involvement, and faculty relationships as predictors of learning for students of color. Journal of the Professoriate, 3(2), 50-74. Mayhew, M. J., Rockenbach, A. N., Bowman, N. A., Seifert, T. A., & Wolniak, G. C. (Eds.). (2016). How college affects students: 21st century evidence that higher education works (Vol. III). Wiley. McIntosh, E. J. (2015). Thriving and spirituality: Making meaning of meaning making for students of color. About Campus, 19(6), 16-23. http://doi.org/dqgv Museus, S. D., Yi, V., & Saelua, N. (2017). The impact of culturally engaging campus environments on sense of belonging. The Review of Higher Education, 40(2), 187-215. http://doi.org/gc6xs6 National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2018).The condition of education. https://nces. ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_csb.asp Packard, B. (2005). Mentoring and retention in college science: Reflections on the sophomore year. Journal of College Student Retention, 6(3), 290-300. http://doi.org/cbrpb7 Pattengale, J. (2000). Policies and practices to enhance sophomore success. In L. A. Schreiner & J. Pattengale (Eds.), Visible solutions for invisible students: Helping sophomores succeed (Monograph No. 31, pp. 31-46). University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition. Pullins, T. L. (2011). Predicting the retention of college sophomores: The importance of satisfaction [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Azusa Pacific University. Rendón, L. I. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a new model for learning and student development. Innovative Higher Education, 27(4), 235-252. http://doi.org/d5thqj Sarason, S. B. (1974). The psychological sense of community: Prospects for a community psychology. JosseyBass. Schaller, M. A. (2005). Wandering and wondering: Traversing the uneven terrain of the second college year. About Campus, 10(3), 17-24. http://doi.org/d2rv53 Schaller, M. A. (2009a). College sophomores: The journey into self. In M. S. Hunter, B. F. Tobolowsky, J. N. Gardner, S. E. Evenbeck, J. A. Pattengale, M. Schaller, & L. A. Schreiner (Eds.), Helping sophomores succeed: Understanding and improving the second-year experience (pp. 66-81). Jossey-Bass.

150

Beyond Sophomore Survival

Schaller, M. A. (2009b). Understanding the impact of the second year of college. In M. S. Hunter, B. F. Tobolowsky, J. N. Gardner, S. E. Evenbeck, J. A. Pattengale, M. Schaller, & L. A. Schreiner (Eds.), Helping sophomores succeed: Understanding and improving the second-year experience (pp. 13-29). Jossey-Bass. Schaller, M. A. (2018). Intentional design of the college sophomore year. In L. A. Schreiner (Ed.), Sophomore success: Making the most of the second year (New Directions for Higher Education No. 183, pp. 23-34). Wiley. Schreiner, L. A. (2009a). Factors that contribute to sophomore success and satisfaction. In M. S. Hunter, B. F. Tobolowsky, J. N. Gardner, S. E. Evenbeck, J. A. Pattengale, M. Schaller, & L. A. Schreiner (Eds.), Helping sophomores succeed: Understanding and improving the second-year experience (pp. 43-65). Jossey-Bass. Schreiner, L. A. (2009b). The critical role of faculty and faculty development in sophomore success. In M. S. Hunter, B. F. Tobolowsky, J. N. Gardner, S. E. Evenbeck, J. A. Pattengale, M. Schaller, & L. A. Schreiner (Eds.), Helping sophomores succeed: Understanding and improving the second-year experience (pp. 129-145). Jossey-Bass. Schreiner, L. A. (2010a). The “Thriving Quotient”: A new vision for student success. About Campus, 15(2), 2-10. http://doi.org/dgdbg2 Schreiner, L. A. (2010b). Thriving in community. About Campus, 15(4), 2-11. http://doi.org/dvqtxt Schreiner, L. A. (2013). Strengths-based advising. In J. K. Drake, P. Jordan, & M. A. Miller (Eds.), Academic advising approaches: Strategies that teach students to make the most of college (pp. 105-120). Jossey-Bass. http://doi.org/dqmm Schreiner, L. A. (2015). The Sophomore Experiences Survey [Online survey]. https://ThrivingInCollege. org/SES Schreiner, L. A. (2016). Thriving: Expanding the goal of higher education. In D. W. Harward (Ed.), Well-being and higher education: A strategy for change and the realization of education’s greater purpose (pp. 135-148). American Association of Colleges and Universities. Schreiner, L. A. (2018). Thriving in the second year of college: Pathways to success. In L. A. Schreiner (Ed.), Sophomore success: Making the most of the second year (New Directions for Higher Education No. 183, pp. 9-22). Wiley. Schreiner, L. A., & Juillerat, S. (1994). The Student Satisfaction Inventory. Noel/Levitz. Schreiner, L. A., & Nelson, D. D. (2013). The contribution of student satisfaction to persistence. Journal of College Student Retention, 15(1), 73-111. http://doi.org/ggchrn Schreiner, L. A., & Pattengale, J. (Eds.). (2000). Visible solutions for invisible students: Helping sophomores succeed (Monograph No. 31). University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition. Schreiner, L. A., Slavin Miller, S., Pullins, T L., & Seppelt, T. L. (2012). Beyond sophomore survival. In L. A. Schreiner, M. C. Louis, & D. D. Nelson (Eds.), Thriving in transitions: A research-based approach to college student success (pp. 111-136). University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition. Schreiner, L. A., & Tobolowsky, B. F. (2018). The role of faculty in sophomore success. In L. A. Schreiner (Ed.), Sophomore success: Making the most of the second year (New Directions for Higher Education No. 183, pp. 59-70). Wiley.

151

Thriving in Transitions

Strayhorn, T. L. (2012). College students’ sense of belonging: A key to educational success for all students. Routledge. Tobolowsky, B. F., & Cox, B. E. (2007). Findings from the 2005 national survey on sophomore initiatives. In B. F. Tobolowsky & B. E. Cox (Eds.), Shedding light on sophomores: An exploration of the second college year (Monograph No. 47, pp. 13-30). University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition. Wilson, K. J., & Crowe, M. (2010). Undergraduate research: A powerful pedagogy to engage sophomores. In M. S. Hunter, B. F. Tobolowsky, J. N. Gardner, S. E. Evenbeck, J. A. Pattengale, M. Schaller, & L. A. Schreiner (Eds.), Helping sophomores succeed: Understanding and improving the second-year experience (pp. 177-188). Jossey-Bass. Young, D. G., Schreiner, L. A., & McIntosh, E. J. (2015). Investigating sophomore student success: The National Survey of Sophomore-Year Initiatives and the Sophomore Experiences Survey – 2014 (Research Report No. 6). University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The FirstYear Experience & Students in Transition.

152

Thriving on a New Campus

CHAPTER SEVEN MAXIMIZING TRANSFER: THRIVING ON A NEW CAMPUS Eric J. McIntosh and Denise D. Nelson

Whether a student moves between two-year colleges, four-year institutions, or from a two-year college to a four-year college or university, transferring between institutions of higher learning is often tumultuous. Townsend (2008) described the experience of transfer students as a double transition during which they must first navigate the processes required to move from one institution to another and then adjust to the academic, social, and behavioral expectations of that new environment. Despite the enormity of such a transition, transfer students may seem uniquely positioned for collegiate success; after all, they have “already survived college life” (Townsend, 2008, p. 73), demonstrating some level of academic success by virtue of accumulated course credits. Research has demonstrated, however, that recent transfer students tend to lag in both academic performance (Xu et al., 2018) and engagement (Ishitani & McKitrick, 2010; National Survey of Student Engagement [NSSE], 2018). Given the challenges of the transfer experience, facilitating success for the students within this transitional population requires new, more informed efforts on the part of the institutions that serve them. A six-year cohort study of students entering college in 2011-2012 indicated that 38% of students in the cohort transferred from one institution to another at least once (Shapiro et al., 2018), demonstrating the prevalence of the transfer experience in U.S. higher education. This chapter describes that transitional experience, reports the results of a study regarding thriving within this population, offers several suggestions for equipping transfer students to thrive in their new institutions, and identifies three exemplar transfer student support and transition programs. Transfer students face a slower, more solitary path through college than their peers, and they face unique academic challenges. In comparison to native students (i.e., those who have been continuously enrolled at a single institution), transfer students take longer to complete a baccalaureate degree (Xu et al., 2018). They also report lower overall engagement scores than their counterparts (NSSE, 2008) and are significantly less likely than their peers to engage in academically productive activities such as research with faculty, study abroad programs, internships, and senior capstone projects (Kinzie & Gonyea, 2018; McCormick et al., 2009). Another unsettling consequence of the transition experienced by transfer students is commonly referred to as transfer shock. This phenomenon, which describes a dip in transfer students’ grades during their first semester at their receiving institution, was 153

Thriving in Transitions

first explored by Hills (1965). Contemporary research (Xu et al., 2018) has confirmed that transfer shock persists in current student populations. The numerous areas in which transfer students lag behind their native peers suggest that transferring between institutions is inherently challenging. Students who demonstrate lower engagement and involvement with the college environment and who suffer academically in the term following their transfer are unlikely to experience the academic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal well-being associated with thriving (Schreiner, 2016). Accordingly, as institutions aspire to equip all students to thrive, transfer students require particular attention.

Understanding the Transfer Challenge Practitioners and researchers in higher education have long recognized that the experiences of transfer students differ from those of students who enter an institution their first year and persist to graduation along a smooth trajectory, yet the diversity of experiences within the transfer population often remains unacknowledged and under-researched (Herzog, 2005). Transfer behavior includes several pathways: from a community college to a four-year institution, from one four-year institution to another, and even from one institution type to the other and back again in a pattern referred to as swirling (Townsend & Dever, 1999). Tracking the paths of transfer students through the American postsecondary system is difficult given the way the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) tracks student enrollment. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2019), which orchestrates IPEDS data collection, headcounts and demographics are reported for students who have transferred into or out of an institution; however, the institutions to and from which those students transferred are not tracked. Although the addition of new components to the IPEDS survey has expanded the cache of data available for some questions related to transfer students (Miller et al., 2018), the data remain limited and “cannot be used to describe the various pathways of transfer students” (NCES, 2019). Multiple entries into and exits from different institutions limit schools’ capacity to identify irregularities in academic progress that may signal a student’s need for intervention. Further, movement among institutions may inhibit transfer student engagement both academically and socially, ultimately impeding the ability of these students to thrive in the college environment. Transition from a two-year college to a four-year college or university, known as vertical or upward transfer, is perhaps the most easily recognized pattern of movement between institutions in undergraduate higher education. The National Student Clearinghouse Research Center (Shapiro et al., 2018) reported that 42% of the student cohort entering higher education in 2011-2012 enrolled at a two-year college. Over the course of the sixyear cohort study, 36.7% of those students transferred to another institution, demonstrating that the community college experience is an important component of the overall transfer landscape. Students enter higher education at a community college for a variety of reasons; 154

Thriving on a New Campus

however, the challenges often encountered by these students provide insight into the needs that transfer along with them as they transition to a four-year institution. One pressure that accompanies many community college students to their transfer destination is the need to progress efficiently toward completion of their bachelor’s degree. These students often face a protracted path to completing their academic program, accruing financial burden and opportunity costs in the process, which may well have negative implications for students’ ability to meet their original degree goal. A comprehensive review of research conducted by Mayhew et al. (2016) indicated that bachelor’s degree-seeking students who began college at a two-year institution were 15%-25% less likely to complete that degree than students who initially enrolled at four-year colleges. When focusing solely on the community college population, more detail becomes available regarding the relationship between psychosocial factors and success-related measures. In a meta-analysis examining persistence and academic achievement among community college students, Fong et al. (2017) evaluated the influence of self-perception, motivation, attribution patterns, self-regulated learning strategies, and anxiety on student success outcomes. Of the variables studied, students’ self-perceptions and motivation were the strongest predictors of both persistence and achievement, indicating that psychosocial factors have the power to help students at two-year institutions persist and succeed in their academic program. Although academic challenges certainly exist, tools to help meet those challenges exist, as well. Supporting community college students by helping them bolster the psychosocial resources needed for persistence and strong academic performance will serve them well in their current setting and equip them to transfer successfully to their next institution. Engagement, Involvement, and Social Connection Once transfer students arrive at their destination institution, a new set of challenges emerges that extends beyond motivation and academic performance. Transfer students are less engaged, less involved, and less socially connected than their native peers. For example, recent NSSE data (2018) indicated that transfer students are less likely than their non-transfer peers to engage in high-impact practices (Kuh, 2008), a group of purposeful learning experiences empirically linked with student success outcomes (Kilgo et al., 2015; Schreiner, 2018). The NSSE instrument focuses on engagement through involvement, and it questions participants regarding their involvement in areas previously correlated (Chickering & Gamson, 1987) with student achievement. Studies indicate that transfer students are less engaged on campus than their continuing peers (Ishitani & McKitrick, 2010; Lester et al., 2013; McCormick et al., 2009) and are also less likely to expect that they will participate in educationally effective off-campus experiences such as internships and study abroad 155

Thriving in Transitions

programs (Kinzie & Gonyea, 2018). Campus participation and engagement with faculty have been theoretically linked to student retention (Tinto, 1993), making lower transfer student scores on these and other high-impact practices (NSSE, 2018) cause for concern. One potential side effect of low involvement is the diminished opportunity for transfer students to form social bonds within their institution. From the outset of contemporary research regarding persistence and degree attainment (Tinto, 1975), social integration has been recognized as essential for success. NSSE data (2009) indicated that transfer students are less integrated socially than their native peers, suggesting that they are also less likely to experience the positive outcomes associated with integration. More recently, Mayhew et al. (2016) affirmed that the benefits of “quality interactions and relationships with college friends” (p. 398) for persistence and retention have remained evident for more than a decade, demonstrating the relevance of strong social engagement to academic success. Persistence and Degree Attainment By definition, transfer students have already experienced some measure of academic success. They have earned a number of academic units and may even have completed an associate degree. Even so, transfer students’ graduation rates fail to match those of their native peers. Six-year graduation rates for transfer sophomores are more than 20% lower than those of their continuing classmates. For students who transfer to a four-year institution as juniors, six-year graduation rates are higher, but they still trail native student graduation rates by nearly 16% (Mustafa & Compton, 2014). For students whose path from a two-year to a four-year institution is interrupted, graduation rates suffer further. Stopping out for more than one year between enrollments reduces the likelihood of completing a baccalaureate degree within six years of transfer by 26% (Shapiro & Dundar, 2013). Despite this comparative disadvantage, purposeful upward transfer from a two-year institution to a four-year institution is positively associated with degree attainment across the higher education landscape (Shapiro & Dundar, 2013). Unfortunately, transfer students of color experience other academic challenges. A study of transfer students throughout the North Carolina Community College System and the University of North Carolina System found that African American and Asian American transfer students had lower GPAs than their White transfer peers (Umbach et al., 2019). Although the students of color in Umbach et al.’s (2019) study were as likely as other students to attain a baccalaureate degree, other research has revealed more concerning degree attainment trends. For example, Shapiro et al. (2017) found in a six-year study of transfer student degree attainment that only 1 in 10 Hispanic students and 1 in 12 Black students completed a four-year degree during the duration of the study. In comparison, 1 in 5 White students completed a degree in the same timeframe. Research findings revealing that students of color who transfer may fare even worse than White transfer students on campus should compel institutions to act on their 156

Thriving on a New Campus

behalf, especially when considering the widespread desire to provide access and opportunity for underrepresented populations.

From Engaging to Thriving Although student engagement in the activities and behaviors associated with positive outcomes is undeniably worthy of study, researchers (Bean, 2005; Bean & Eaton, 2002) have called for a deeper investigation into the psychological processes that motivate students to engage. Understanding both outward student behavior and the internal factors that precede such behavior allows researchers and practitioners in higher education to more knowledgably facilitate holistic student success. This comprehensive approach includes academic factors, but it also acknowledges the importance of personal well-being and healthy relationships with others as vital components of a successful student experience. Accordingly, researchers interested in a variety of populations and contexts (e.g., Ash & Schreiner, 2016; McIntosh, 2012; Nelson, 2015; Vetter, 2018) have sought to explore these psychosocial factors through the construct of thriving (Schreiner, 2016). Thriving conceptualizes student behavior, including engagement and persistence, as psychologically motivated (Bean & Eaton, 2002) and may offer insight into the experiences of transfer students as a unique population. Linked conceptually with the positive psychology concept of flourishing (Keyes & Haidt, 2003), student thriving is indicative of a fulfilling university experience. Thriving students feel they belong within their institutional communities and are fully engaged intellectually, socially, and emotionally. All of these contributing factors facilitate students’ academic success and persistence, as well as their well-being as thriving individuals (Schreiner, 2016). A recent study provides a better understanding of the struggles that inhibit transfer student thriving and offers insight for practitioners who desire to create or revise programming to better meet the needs of this important student group.

The Thriving Project In the fall of 2017 and spring of 2018, undergraduate college students at 27 public and private colleges and universities across the United States participated in the Thriving Quotient research project. The Thriving Quotient is a reliable and valid 24-item instrument designed to measure thriving across five factors: Academic Determination, Engaged Learning, Positive Perspective, Social Connectedness, and Diverse Citizenship. The instrument was developed in an effort to measure malleable psychosocial processes that enable students to succeed in college (Schreiner, 2016; Schreiner et al., 2009) and is described more fully in Chapter 1. Among the 7,221 participants from 14 private and 12 public institutions who participated in this study, 1,133 (15.7%) were transfer students (see Table 7.1).

157

Thriving in Transitions

Table 7.1 Demographic Information of the Transfer Study Participants Nontransfers (n = 6,088) Characteristic

n

Transfers (n = 1,133)

%

n

%

Gender Male

1,456

23.9

306

27.0

Female

4,632

76.1

827

73.0

Yes

4,025

66.2

658

41.9

No

2,056

33.8

474

58.1

First-generation

1,648

27.1

433

38.2

Not first-generation

4,440

72.9

700

61.8

Mostly A’s

2,952

48.5

340

30.0

A’s and B’s

2,004

32.9

427

37.7

Mostly B’s

493

8.1

151

13.3

B’s and C’s

456

7.5

146

12.9

Mostly C’s

129

2.1

51

4.5

C’s and D’s

54

0.9

18

1.6

No

1,970

32.4

330

29.3

On campus

1,523

25.1

119

10.5

Off campus

1,852

30.5

576

51.1

726

12.0

103

9.1

Yes

3,958

28.6

324

68.9

No

1,583

71.4

717

31.1

442

7.3

86

7.6

32

0.5

11

1.0

347

5.7

59

5.2

Institution was first choice at enrollment

Generation

High school grades

Work for pay

Both on and off campus Live on Campus

Race / Ethnicity African American Native American / Alaskan Native Asian / Pacific Islander Caucasian

158

4,112

67.5

715

63.1

Latino

946

15.5

203

17.9

Multiracial

209

3.4

59

5.2

Thriving on a New Campus

Data Analysis and Results There were two phases of data analysis in this study of transfer students. First, using structural equation modeling, we assessed the data for fit in predicting thriving for the students in our sample, and confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that the thriving model was a good fit for the data (CMIN = 16,720.44, df = 655, CFI = .911, RMSEA = .041). Second, we performed multi-group analysis to determine if the pathways to thriving differed significantly in transfer students compared to their non-transfer peers. The results indicated that 64% of the variation in transfer students’ thriving could be explained by the model, and 66.3% of native students’ thriving could be explained by the model. The most significant predictor of transfer student thriving was their perception of institutional integrity, followed by their sense of community on campus, their sense of meaning making or spirituality, their interaction with faculty, and then their level of campus involvement. The model could account for 19%-52% of the variation in each of the scales of the Thriving Quotient; Diverse Citizenship and Academic Determination were the scales explained best by the model. The multi-group analysis examined key differences in the predictive pathways to thriving for transfer and non-transfer students in the sample. Although the variables used to predict thriving for both transfer and non-transfer students demonstrated statistically significant relationships, the strength of the relationships among the various components of the model differed between the two groups. Certainty of major was a significant predictor of faculty interaction for transfer students but not for native students. Institutional integrity was significantly more predictive of psychological sense of community among transfer students than it was for non-transfer students. For both student groups, however, the contribution of institutional integrity to the variation in thriving was mediated by faculty–student interaction. Despite having lower levels of campus involvement as a whole, when transfer students were actively involved on campus it contributed more to their sense of community than it did for native peers.

Discussion and Implications Transfer students face logistical challenges in the application of credits earned in one institution toward a degree in another institution, social challenges in the creation of connections with new peers, and academic challenges in a longer path toward graduation and a decreased likelihood of degree attainment. They are less satisfied than other students with their peer interaction and with the institution in general. To help address these disparities between transfer and non-transfer populations, colleges and universities must embrace transfer students as a valuable component of the student body, actively seeking to understand and meet their needs. 159

Thriving in Transitions

The findings from the transfer thriving study in this chapter highlight the importance of institutional integrity for students who transfer into an institution. Institutional integrity expresses the extent to which a student’s lived experience at the institution aligns with their expectations of the school (Braxton et al., 2004). These expectations are formed by the implicit promises made not only in public venues such as advertisements or the university website, but also in personal communication such as conversations with admissions counselors. In practical terms, the importance of institutional integrity for transfer student thriving demonstrates the need for transparency in the way institutions and their representatives portray their requirements, processes, and campus culture when recruiting or assisting transfer students. The picture of the transfer students in this sample describes students who are older, more likely to live off campus, less involved in campus activities and student organizations, and work more hours off campus than their non-transfer peers. When transfer students are able to participate in campus activities, they report higher levels of thriving and a stronger sense of community. Measures of psychological sense of community and interaction with faculty did not differ significantly between the two groups in this study. Even so, transfer students are often forced to divide their attention in ways that discourage the time investment required for building connections with individuals and organizations on their new campus. The unfortunate reality is that transfer students are often overlooked as a unique population in regard to their campus experiences, persistence, and other measures of student success. When campuses more intentionally examine the needs and behavior of their transfer students, they will be better equipped to identify and rectify gaps in programming or interventions directed toward this important population. The implications arising from the findings of this study are thus threefold: (a) well-designed programming for transfer students should offer opportunities for involvement and integration, not only with peers but also with faculty; (b) building a sense of community among transfer students can enhance their ability to thrive; and (c) productive programs should ease the academic transition between schools and provide structures that facilitate the logistical aspects of transfer. 1. Foster integration and involvement by emphasizing social connections and student–faculty interaction. Transfer students need accessible opportunities for involvement. Because transfer students report more off-campus commitments than their native peers, campuses should seek to offer a variety of opportunities more amenable to a busy student schedule. Although evidence suggests that too few transfer students are taking advantage of such opportunities, the literature is also overwhelmingly supportive of the role that campus involvement plays in enriching the student experience. Encouraging participation likely entails devising transferfriendly campus clubs, organizations, and activities by offering multiple options for meeting times or locations. Challenging administrators to better understand the transfer experience will assist in making necessary changes to existing organizations or programs in order to be certain that transfer students are not overlooked. 160

Thriving on a New Campus

Providing socialization venues is key for positive social integration of incoming transfer students (Laanan, 2007). Integration opportunities should involve not only other transfers, but non-transfer peers, as well. Student leaders on campus should be aware of the needs of transfer students and be prepared to assist in their integration. Whether campuses highlight transfer-specific student leaders or begin by raising the profile of the transfer student experience with existing student leaders, these individuals are socially and culturally integrated at the institution. They are therefore a valuable resource for including transfer students in the campus culture in meaningful ways. Such peer interaction and involvement in campus activities and organizations is likely to strengthen transfer students’ sense of community by building shared emotional connections and interdependent relationships among students. Connections with faculty are essential, as well. In fact, the contribution of student–faculty interaction to thriving among transfer students is even greater than the contribution of their campus involvement. Students who perceive that faculty are approachable may experience a less traumatic academic transition because they feel welcome to communicate with their professors both within and beyond the classroom (Laanan, 2007; Lester et al., 2013). The benefits of student–faculty interaction are well-established in the literature (Kim & Sax, 2017; Mayhew et al., 2016). In our study, this type of interaction was a significant predictor of transfer student thriving. For transfer students, greater certainty regarding their selected major was also a significant predictor of thriving. Helping transfer students connect to faculty, particularly in their major area of interest, shortly after their arrival to a new campus, as well as throughout the admissions and application process, could provide the foundation for both academic and social integration into the community. Providing an orientation to the major for transfer students each semester, encouraging faculty advisors to attend specifically to the needs of transfer students, and establishing student–faculty research teams that are accessible to transfer students could not only ease the transition to a new campus, but also encourage goal-setting, social connections, and a vision for the future that will enable more transfer students to thrive. 2. Cultivate a sense of community early. Previous chapters of this volume have highlighted sense of community as critical to all students’ perception that they are thriving in college. With transfer students, two particular aspects of sense of community—membership and ownership—can be fostered through intentional actions taken with transfer students upon arrival. Membership, which is foundational to a sense of community on campus, is the feeling that one belongs within that community. Ownership extends further, signifying confidence that one has a voice within the community and can contribute to it in meaningful ways (Sarason, 1974). Students with a strong sense of community feel they matter to the institution, believe that their opinion counts, and perceive the institution as responsive to their needs. 161

Thriving in Transitions

For students who follow a traditional enrollment path, particular rituals, symbols, and rites of passage such as orientation or convocation mark entrance to the institution and communicate that the first-year student has become an official member of the campus community. Orientation activities, for example, offer students an opportunity to make connections with peers and faculty and gain familiarity with the campus community. Although many campuses offer transfer student orientation (see Foote, 2018), such programming may be truncated or less comprehensive for this student group and therefore less effective in providing pathways to community membership. One simple way to facilitate transfers’ sense of membership is to enrich the common orientation activities that introduce them to campus gathering places such as the student union building, the library, and dining or recreational facilities. Frame these spaces as community-rich venues for connection rather than mere service locations. Creating opportunities for small group conversations with continuing students who can offer insight about informal rituals or behavioral norms that characterize the spaces may help transfer students adapt more quickly to the community. Ensuring that such connection efforts include as many transfer students as possible and revising orientation program goals to emphasize points of entry for community membership may meaningfully shift the focus of orientation programming for the benefit of transfer students. Much like first-year students, transfer students must be intentionally introduced to campus opportunities. Clubs and organizations should be clearly described, performing arts groups should advertise their willingness to accept new members, and available leadership roles should be promoted with a specific emphasis on welcoming and integrating transfer students and not just incoming first-year students. Institutions should find meaningful and intentional ways to integrate new transfers into the fabric of the university community. Encouraging transfer students to participate in decision-making processes and to give input to the institution about their needs builds a sense of ownership in relation to the university and supports their ability to thrive. 3. Ease the academic transition by creating structures to help with the logistical aspects of transferring. Any student who has transferred has likely experienced frustration with the complexity of moving academic credits from one institution to another. Helping students navigate these complexities will certainly ease their transition. In particular, providing knowledgeable advisors who are familiar with articulation agreements can help transfer students apply prior credit appropriately, choose a reasonable course load, and understand the requirements for timely degree completion. For most campuses, some modifications to existing programs could create more accessible opportunities for transfer students to use important services such as advising. Advising services could be offered during nontraditional times of the day (e.g., early morning or evening) or via telephone or nontraditional formats such as video or text chat. Such possibilities create opportunity for transfer students to meet their academic needs while honoring their personal commitments. 162

Thriving on a New Campus

Universities and colleges should focus on equipping advisors with the tools and training required not only to assist transfer students but also to evaluate their needs according to their unique prior experiences. Although academic experiences are of greatest concern, employment history and other life experience may also be relevant. In addition to supplying expert advisors for help with technical issues, providing students with mentors and cultural guides is both appropriate and instrumental to a successful transfer transition.

Programming for Transfer Thriving Transfer students are well positioned to thrive when they (a) feel they belong at their institutions, (b) interact more frequently with faculty, (c) perform well academically, and (d) feel their transferred credits are appropriately applied. As noted in Chapter 1, transitions can be facilitated by accurate information, social support, the perception that the transition is an opportunity for growth, and the use of proactive coping skills. Three institutions—the University of Michigan, Vassar College, and the University of North Texas—offer initiatives that meet transfer needs and assist in a successful transition. Examining these programs supplies concrete examples of programs worth emulating and allows practitioners to examine effective policies for transfer students. Enhancing Social Connections The College of Literature, Science, and Arts (LSA) at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor offers a mentoring program called Transfer Connections for incoming transfer students. Students who register for the Transfer Connections program are introduced to campus life by peer mentors, who are supervised by professional staff and matched with incoming transfer students to develop relationships and provide opportunities for conversation and other social connections or activities. Transfer Connections’ priorities are to help “make the University a smaller place, [provide] support and guidance, and [help] students build relationships on campus” (Office of New Student Programs, 2014). A program such as Transfer Connections provides students the opportunity to build the social connections that are the hallmarks of retention (Tinto, 1975, 1993). Mentor– mentee relationships for transfer students have been recommended for some time (Laanan, 1996); however, many institutions still lack such programs. Transfer Connections supports transfer students on campus by identifying key faculty and staff allies who are empathetic to the unique experience of the transfer population and are willing to supplement the peer mentoring system as needed. The program not only provides students an immediate social support network but also connects students with academic resources and services to equip them to succeed. The University of Michigan’s Transfer Connections program includes four features that could be easily employed at other institutions. First, transfer students are matched with peer 163

Thriving in Transitions

mentors who provide assistance as new students navigate the institution, its offices, and its social environment. Mentors could be drawn from either the native student population or from students who have successfully transferred to the institution. The important characteristic of peer mentors is their willingness to help familiarize transfer students with their new environment. Second, university personnel are given an opportunity to participate in the program by advertising their willingness to serve as resources for transfer students within their departments or work areas. In addition, the program can be promoted with relative ease because of its useful website. Online information about the program, staff, and events offers transfer students maximum opportunity to learn about the program’s mission and its benefits. Finally, the transfer student program is intentionally distinct from orientation programs for first-year students. This clear differentiation conveys to transfer students that the institution recognizes their prior college experience and seeks to support the application of that experience within a new social and learning environment. Easing Academic Transitions Vassar College in Poughkeepsie, New York, has a unique pre-transfer program called Exploring Transfer (Vassar College, 2019). For five weeks during the summer, Vassar College provides New England community college students the opportunity to enroll in six credits of university-level coursework as an introduction to pursuing studies at a four-year college. Courses in the program are co-taught by community college and Vassar faculty. Students live in campus housing at Vassar and are immersed in an intensive introduction to fouryear studies. All costs associated with this unique introductory program are covered by a scholarship, making participation entirely free for all accepted students. The program, which has been facilitating introductions for community college students for the past 35 years, focuses specifically on students from underrepresented populations. In addition to offering an opportunity for students to experience the academic level of four-year studies, Exploring Transfer helps address the challenges present for transfer students of color on campus by providing access to mentors and faculty who can assist with adjustment to a new campus. Students who participate in Exploring Transfer are not obligated to transfer to Vassar; program participants have transferred to four-year institutions of all types. The central lesson offered by Vassar College’s Exploring Transfer program is that there is no substitute for experience. Providing community college students with an opportunity to experience the academic environment of a four-year institution prior to enrollment enables them to better understand the level of preparation required for success within that environment. Even for schools that lack the resources to offer intensive learning experiences like Exploring Transfer, identifying opportunities for cooperative teaching arrangements between community college and university faculty could expose students at two-year 164

Thriving on a New Campus

colleges to the academic rigor characteristic of four-year institutions. The focus of the Vassar program on students from underrepresented populations suggests that institutions could consider offering support to transfer students of color beyond the services or programs offered to all transfer students. Articulation agreements are another strategy for easing the transition of transfer students to a new campus. The University of North Texas in Denton (University of North Texas, 2019) has developed an online tool for determining course transfer eligibility from other Texas institutions. This tool simplifies the process of identifying which courses will count toward transfer students’ degree goals at the University of North Texas, and the online nature of the program makes the necessary information convenient to access. A 2007 qualitative study (Alexander et al., 2007) found that Hispanic transfer students reported that familial involvement in the transfer process was crucial to campus adjustment. At an institution such as the University of North Texas, cultural sensitivity to the needs of minoritized student groups is important in effectively serving the campus constituency. Offering an online tool allows students to gather information early, discuss it with their families if they wish to do so, and interact with professional transfer counselors in the initial stages of their transfer plans. Successful transfer students are more likely to have taken courses specifically designated as suitable for transfer (Hagedorn & Cypers, 2008). The University of North Texas transfer program is an example of how effective articulation agreements, common course numbering, and common core curriculum can assist students in selecting courses—wherever they are enrolled—that will support their degree aspirations. Poorly defined articulation processes result in a loss of academic credit in the transition from one school to another. Repeating coursework at a four-year institution that has already been completed in a community college is not only frustrating to students, but it also represents wasted time and is likely to diminish students’ belief that their tuition dollars are well-spent. Accordingly, campuses should work to enable transfer of credit from feeder institutions whenever possible, even if specific articulation agreements are not in place. Developing tools such as the one in use at the University of North Texas is more straightforward for campus professionals working in states where legislated articulation agreements exist, but the lack of such agreements should not prevent colleges from easing the logistics of transfer. The University of North Texas offers important lessons, especially to institutions without extensive articulation agreements. First, four-year universities and colleges should provide easy online access to transfer requirements. Courses that transfer without difficulty should be listed, and courses that are unlikely to meet transfer requirements should be clearly identified, as well. Second, if transferability is judged on a case-by-case basis, criteria for transferability should be described in detail. Offering this information as early as possible allows students to interact with their personal support networks and to ask questions of institutional representatives. When campuses provide clear information, competent 165

Thriving in Transitions

professionals, and time to evaluate the best course of action, they demonstrate their high regard for the needs of transfer students.

Conclusion In order for transfer students to make a successful transition to a new institution and thrive within it, concerted effort is required on the part of the college or university that serves them. Given the growth in two-year college enrollment and the anticipated growth in vertical transfer and other transfer patterns, it seems wise for campuses to cultivate a transfer-friendly culture. The findings of the thriving study align with concerns in the literature (Lester et al., 2013; McCormick et al., 2009; NSSE, 2008) about the social engagement of transfer students, and with Tinto’s (1993) assertion that social connections, with faculty as well as peers, are critical to student retention. Despite the known challenges faced by transfer students as they attempt to integrate into campus culture (McCormick et al., 2009), it is important that they develop a sense of belonging and feel as though their new environment is a good fit for them (Schreiner, 2009). Transfers must know that their chosen institution believes them to be important and seeks to support their success. The campus environment must intentionally welcome this student population, ease the mechanics of their transition into the community, and successfully present opportunities for involvement. When campuses embrace a culture responsive to transfer student needs, the transfer population will inevitably benefit from the experience. Perhaps more importantly, the entire campus community can thrive as all of its populations are well served.

References Alexander, B. C., Garcia, V., Gonzalez, L., Grimes, G., & O’Brien, D. (2007). Barriers in the transfer process for Hispanic and Hispanic immigrant students. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 6(2), 174-184. http://doi.org/dfm8c3 Ash, A. N., & Schreiner, L. A. (2016). Pathways to success for students of color in Christian colleges: The role of institutional integrity and sense of community. Christian Higher Education, 15(1-2): 38-61. http://doi.org/gfvtfm Bean, J. P. (2005). Nine themes of college student retention. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College student retention (pp. 215-244). Praeger Publishers. Bean, J. P., & Eaton, S. B. (2002). A psychological model of college student retention. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 48-61). Vanderbilt University Press. Braxton, J. M., Hirschy, A. S., & McClendon, S. A. (2004). Understanding and reducing college student departure (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Volume 30, Number 3). Jossey-Bass. Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7. http://doi.org/b3nrkg

166

Thriving on a New Campus

Foote, S. M. (2018). Theories, research, and best practices related to transfer student orientation. In M. A. Poisel & S. Joseph (Eds.), Building transfer student pathways for college and career success. University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience & Students in Transition. Fong, C. J., Davis, C. W., Kim, Y., Kim, Y. W., Marriott, L., & Kim, S. (2017). Psychosocial factors and community college student success: A meta-analytic investigation. Review of Educational Research, 87(2), 388-424. http://doi.org/ggbtw4 Hagedorn, L. S., & Cypers, S. (2008). Looking in the review mirror: Factors affecting transfer for urban community college students. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 32(9), 643-664. http://doi.org/bnjp8j Herzog, S. (2005). Measuring determinants of student return vs. dropout/stopout vs. transfer: A firstto-second year analysis of new freshmen. Research in Higher Education, 46(8), 883-928. http:// doi.org/c53dn2 Hills, J. R. (1965). Transfer shock: The academic performance of the junior college transfer. Journal of Experimental Education, 33(3), 201-215. http://doi.org/dqmf Ishitani, T. T., & McKitrick, S. A. (2010). After transfer: The engagement of community college students at a four-year collegiate institution. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 34(7), 576-594. http://doi.org/d86jm2 Keyes, C. L. M., & Haidt, J. (2003). Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well-lived. American Psychological Association. Kilgo, C., Ezell Sheets, J., & Pascarella, E. (2015). The link between high-impact practices and student learning: Some longitudinal evidence. Higher Education, 69(4), 509-525. http://doi.org/f65vdc Kim, Y. K., & Sax, L. J. (2017). The impact of college students’ interactions with faculty: A review of general and conditional effects. In M. B. Paulsen(Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 32; pp. 85-139). Springer. Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R. M. (2018). The HIP landscape at public institutions: Exploring variation in intention and participation by student characteristics. Presentation at the High Impact Practices in the States Annual Conference, Dominguez Hills, CA. Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact practices: What are they, who has access to them, and why they matter. Association of American Colleges and Universities. Laanan, F. S. (1996). Making the transition: Understanding the adjustment process of community college transfer students. Community College Review, 23(4), 69-84. http://doi.org/cmf6k6 Laanan, F. S. (2007). Studying transfer students: Part II: Dimensions of transfer students’ adjustment. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 31(1), 37-59. http://doi.org/cbtn8c Lester, J., Leonard, J. B., & Mathias, D. (2013). Transfer student engagement: Blurring of social and academic engagement. Community College Review, 41(3), 202-222. http://doi.org/dqmb Mayhew, M. J., Rockenbach, A. B., Bowman, N. A., Seifert, T. A., & Wolniak, G. C. (2016). How College Affects Students: 21st Century Evidence that Higher Education Works. Jossey-Bass. McCormick, A. C., Sarraf, S. A., BrckaLorenz , A., & Haywood, A. M. (2009). Examining the transfer student experience: Interactions with faculty, campus relationships, & overall satisfaction. Paper presented at the Association for the Study of Higher Education Annual Conference, Vancouver, BC.

167

Thriving in Transitions

McIntosh, E. J. (2012). Thriving in college: The role of spirituality and psychological sense of community in students of color (Publication No. 3521901). [Doctoral dissertation, Azusa Pacific University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. Miller, A., Clery, S., & Topper, A. (2018). Assessing the capacity of IPEDS to collect transfer student data (NPEC 2018). U.S. Department of Education, National Postsecondary Education Cooperative. http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch Mustafa, S., & Compton, P. (2014). A comparison of graduation rates: Transfers and continuing students at 4-year university main campuses, University System of Ohio institutions. https://www.ohiohighered. org/sites/ohiohighered.org/files/uploads/transfer/research/Comparison-of-GraduationRates.pdf National Center for Education Statistics. (2019, February 8). Explore transfer student data from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). NCES Blog. https://nces.ed.gov/ blogs National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). (2008). Promoting engagement for all students: The imperative to look within. Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research. National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). (2009). Assessment for improvement: Tracking student engagement over time—annual results 2009. Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research. National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). (2018). Engagement insights: Survey findings on the quality of undergraduate education—annual results 2018. Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research. Nelson, D. D. (2015). The role of thriving in student satisfaction with college. (Publication No. 3703575) [Doctoral dissertation, Azusa Pacific University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. Office of New Student Programs. (2014). Transfer connections. http://www.onsp.umich.edu/transferconnections Sarason, S. B. (1974). The psychological sense of community: Prospects for a community psychology. JosseyBass. Schreiner, L. A. (2009). Linking student satisfaction and retention. Ruffalo Noel Levitz. Schreiner, L. A. (2010). Thriving in community. About Campus, 15(4), 2-11. http://doi.org/dvqtxt Schreiner, L. A. (2016). Thriving: Expanding the goal of higher education. In D. W. Harward (Ed.), Well-being and higher education: A strategy for change and the realization of education’s greater purpose (pp. 135-148). Bringing Theory to Practice, American Association of Colleges and Universities. Schreiner, L. A. (2018). Thriving in the second year of college: Pathways to success. In L. A. Schreiner (Ed.), Sophomore success: Making the most of the second year (New Directions for Higher Education No. 183, pp. 9-21). Wiley. http://doi.org/dqgz Schreiner, L. A., McIntosh, E. J., Nelson, D. D., & Pothoven, S. (2009). The Thriving Quotient: Advancing the assessment of student success. Paper presented at the Association for the Study of Higher Education Annual Conference, Vancouver, BC. Shapiro, D., & Dundar, A. (2013). Baccalaureate attainment: A national view of the postsecondary outcomes of students who transfer from two-year to four-year institutions (Signature Report No. 5). National Student Clearinghouse Research Center.

168

Thriving on a New Campus

Shapiro, D., Dundar, A., Huie, F., Wakhungu, P. K., Bhimdiwali, A., Nathan, A., & Youngsik, H. (2018). Transfer and mobility: A national view of student movement in postsecondary institutions, Fall 2011 cohort (Signature Report No. 15). National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. Shapiro, D., Dundar, A., Huie, F., Wakhungu, P. K., Yuan, X., Nathan, A. & Hwang, Y., A. (2017). A national view of student attainment rates by race and ethnicity, Fall 2010 cohort (Signature Report No. 12b). National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89-125. http://doi.org/b2kbj6 Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. Townsend, B. K. (2008). “Feeling like a freshman again”: The transfer student transition. In B. O. Barefoot (Ed.), The first year and beyond: Rethinking the challenge of collegiate transition (New Directions for Higher Education, No. 144, pp. 69-77). Wiley. http://doi.org/bf9d2k Townsend, B. K., & Dever, J. T. (1999). What do we know about reverse transfer students? New Directions for Community College, 106, 5-13. http://doi.org/b6wh4k Umbach, P. D., Tuchmayer, J. B., Clayton, A. B., & Smith, K. N. (2019). Transfer student success: Exploring community college, university, and individual predictors. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 43(9), 599-617. http://doi.org/dqmc University of North Texas. (2019). Transfer guides. https://registrar.unt.edu/transfer-guides Vassar College. (2019). Exploring transfer. http://eter.vassar.edu/ Vetter. M. K. (2018). Quality and quantity of co-curricular involvement as predictors of college student thriving (Publication No. 10829754). [Doctoral dissertation, Azusa Pacific University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. Xu, D., Jaggars, S. S., Fletcher, J., & Fink, J. E. (2018). Are community college transfer Students “a good bet” for 4-year admissions? Comparing academic and labor-market outcomes between transfer and native 4-year college students. Journal of Higher Education, 89(4), 478-502. http://doi.org/ dqmd

169

CHAPTER EIGHT THRIVING IN THE SENIOR-YEAR TRANSITION Michelle C. Louis and Eileen Hulme

The senior-year transition presents a significant opportunity to bring coherence and closure to the undergraduate experience and to be intentional about preparing for life beyond college. However, compared to the extensive body of literature that exists on first-year college students, research on college seniors is in relative infancy. There is a growing recognition of the importance of strengthening the educational value of the senior year by developing new programs, policies, and structures to prepare students for the roles and responsibilities they will assume upon graduation (Gardner & Van der Veer, 1998; Hunter et al., 2012). The most prominent subjects addressed in writings on the senior year are students’ thoughts and experiences regarding career-related issues (Hettich, 2010; Yazedjian et al., 2010) and post-graduation plans (Allen & Taylor, 2006). Another segment of the literature delineates the contours of seniors’ experiences by focusing on the ways in which the final year of college is laden with challenges, which differ according to race and socioeconomic status (Silver & Roksa, 2017; Sullenberger et al., 2015). One author notes that the senior year can be marked by grieving as peer relationships change and students lose the security of a familiar environment and perhaps their college identities (Vickio, 1990). The adjustments that are associated with the senior year transition—including changes in living arrangements, social networks, and support systems—can create heightened stress and ambiguity (Lane, 2016; Overton-Healy, 2010). To further describe the nature of some of these difficulties, researchers have studied the predictors of college senior attrition (Mohr et al., 1998); others have created instruments to determine the most salient concerns for this population (Pistilli et al., 2003; Taub et al., 2006). Faculty and administrators can leverage their understanding of the challenges inherent in the senior-year transition to design curricula and services that equip seniors for life beyond college. Gardner and Van der Veer (1998) emphasized the need for postsecondary leaders to strategically develop programmatic initiatives to enrich the senior year, using the term the senior-year experience to refer to the collective set of curricular and cocurricular experiences to which students are exposed during their final year of undergraduate education. These authors suggested that the fundamental needs of seniors are for “integration and closure, opportunities for reflection on the meaning of the college experience, and campus-provided holistic support for their transition to post-college life” (p. 288), which require greater cross-functional collaboration across the academy. Descriptive accounts and prescriptive 171

Thriving in Transitions

guidance regarding institutional practices that facilitate a positive student experience during the senior year and the transition to post-college life have informed educational leaders in their efforts (Gardner, 1999; Henscheid, 2008). As a complement to the descriptions of institutional characteristics and climates that are associated with a meaningful senior year, this chapter focuses on students themselves and the personal attributes that enable thriving throughout college and during the senior year in particular. Based upon the perspectives they have gained throughout their postsecondary years, seniors are poised to provide a more comprehensive and reflective picture of their college experiences than can be gained from students at other stages of the college experience. Although it is valuable to understand the concerns and challenges of senior students and how to address them effectively, a focus solely on challenges creates only a partial understanding of the senior-year experience and generates an incomplete set of strategies for enriching it. There is a need for research that explores strategies for enhancing the positive aspects of the senior year and highlights the qualities of students who thrive as seniors and beyond. This chapter provides a snapshot of the characteristics and perspectives of a sample of seniors who are thriving at exceptionally high levels. A focus on optimal human functioning and the conditions that promote it reflects Maslow’s (1965) advocacy for the increased use of growing-tip statistics in research, which is a sampling theory that examines the individuals who represent the highest levels of functioning for the variable under investigation. An enriched understanding of the attitudes and behaviors that accompany extraordinary thriving among seniors could provide insight for promoting thriving among a broader range of students. The participant characteristics that are the focus of this chapter are amenable to change, consistent with the conceptualization of thriving used throughout this volume.

Method Participants Participants were selected using a purposeful sampling method to gain relevant and information-rich perspectives from seniors who exemplified thriving at the highest levels. To attain an understanding that would transcend the culture of a single institution and that would be demographically diverse, a sample of students who were pursuing their undergraduate degrees in assorted fields at a variety of institutional types across the country was selected. To locate a national sample of students distinguished by academic achievement, leadership and contribution to their communities, and strong sense of purpose, we selected participants who were recent recipients of the Truman Scholarship, a prestigious award given annually to approximately 60 students nationwide in recognition of academic achievement and exceptional leadership. 172

Senior-Year Transition

The 22 traditionally aged college seniors in the sample included 17 women, five men, and one transgender student from a variety of institutional types, with nine participants enrolled in public universities and 13 attending private institutions. There were 15 White students, three who identified as multiracial, one African American, and one Asian American; two of the participants were first-generation students. Truman Scholarship recipients exhibit several shared characteristics: (a) cumulative collegiate GPA of 3.8 or higher; (b) demonstrated leadership potential as exhibited through campus or civic engagement and service; and (c) commitment to ongoing leadership through careers in government, the nonprofit or advocacy sectors, education, or elsewhere in public service. Our sample consisted of students who would graduate from college within a few weeks of our initial contact with them. This sample was fitting for the purpose of studying thriving, as it was national in scope and consisted of a diverse group of college seniors in transition who also scored exceptionally high on the Thriving Quotient (Schreiner et al., 2009). Procedures We adopted a grounded theory approach to understand the experiences and perspectives of thriving seniors and sought to construct a preliminary model describing thriving in the senior year of college. This approach was selected because it employs a systematic set of procedures to develop a model that is inductively derived from data (Creswell, 1998) and allows for an examination of the relationships that exist among relevant categories that emerge during research (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). In partnership with the Truman Scholarship Foundation, we emailed Truman Scholars to invite their participation in this research. Interested students engaged in two sets of interviews separated in time by approximately one year, which provided an understanding of the participants’ perspectives during their transition out of college. We conducted the first set of interviews in person using a semi-structured approach; they were 60 to 90 minutes in duration. We posed clarifying or probing questions as appropriate, and audio recorded the responses for subsequent transcription. We analyzed the data using grounded theory coding, a process that is systematic yet fluid (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Verbatim transcripts were the basis for content analysis as we grouped data according to codes and then identified themes that captured prevalent patterns or ideas shared by multiple participants, a process called convergent analysis (Patton, 2002). However, we were interested in divergence as well, which required an examination of data that differed from the common themes. By attending to similar and dissimilar perspectives, we were able to capture a comprehensive picture of how the participants experienced thriving. To enhance the trustworthiness of the study, we coded transcripts independently so that observations could be triangulated. Over several months, we discussed codes and themes identified in the data analyses, which generated a set of emerging themes for exploration 173

Thriving in Transitions

in follow-up interviews. The second interviews occurred via telephone or in written form, according to each participant’s preference, approximately one year after the initial interviews. These phone interviews were approximately 60 to 90 minutes in duration, and we asked participants who opted to provide written feedback to provide well-developed, detailed responses to the questions. Throughout data analysis, we sought to identify contextual or environmental antecedents as well as intrapersonal consequences of thriving among the sample.

Findings The findings of this study are reported as a series of central phenomena that emerged during data analysis. Although each participant articulated a unique background and perspective, this section highlights the prevalent beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors that characterized this sample of thriving seniors. Curiosity, drive, and passion constitute the central phenomena of our model of thriving in the senior-year transition. In the section that follows, each of these concepts is described through illustrative participant quotations. Curiosity The most striking and ubiquitous characteristic of the participants was their insatiable curiosity. This quality has been linked to deep information processing and retention and the tendency to persist in goal pursuits despite challenges (Silvia, 2006). Kashdan et al. (2009) posited that curiosity comprises two distinct factors: (a) stretching (seeking new experiences and information) and (b) embracing (a proclivity to appreciate and engage with novel, unpredictable facets of life). The participant sample articulated both of these components in describing their continual pursuit of novel learning experiences, willingness to place themselves in uncomfortable but growth-inducing situations, and inquisitive posture in dialogue with people who would challenge their thinking. In our model of thriving in the senior-year transition, these attitudes and behaviors are characterized as outcomes or consequences of participants’ curious inclinations. Many of the seniors described how they faced uncertainty and responded to failure in ways that supported their curiosity by enabling them to pursue new experiences and opportunities without being immobilized by fear or preoccupied with their performance. These contributors to thriving are described in greater detail in the following sections. Embracing uncertainty. Each of the participants identified goals that they intentionally chose to pursue even when success was not assured. When facing unknown outcomes, students described their common practice of focusing on the opportunities embedded within challenging situations. The attitude reflected in the interviews was not merely a tolerance of ambiguity; instead, it was the assertion that uncertainty is a valuable and universal part of the human experience. One participant reflected this perspective when she asked, “What 174

Senior-Year Transition

really is certain? I don’t feel like the issue is being leery of taking on something uncertain; the problem really is the notion that anything is certain … facing uncertainty is a daily task one just becomes accustomed to.” Another participant described how the unpredictable nature of life is part of what makes it a “beautiful journey,” noting that “even when you fail and bad things happen, it’s just part of the epic journey that you’re on … I think if we just all sat back in fear, nothing would ever happen in our world or country.” Students’ recognition that uncertainty is inevitable allowed them to respond to unpredictable situations by referring to these moments as “exciting” and “energizing.” Several students indicated that they were interesting and laden with opportunities for personal development, and that challenges presented an avenue for growth. One participant described why he often sought to place himself in such situations, explaining, “If I only did what I knew I would succeed at, my life would be much less rich and meaningful.” Another noted that part of her strategy for self-improvement was to proactively seek challenges, asserting that “uncertainty is an essential element in this task. I am not afraid of uncertainty; I believe taking measured risks is half the fun!” These quotations illustrate how these thriving seniors perceived challenges as opportunities instead of threats, and how this attitude translated into an ability to intentionally engage in situations that were deemed uncertain or risky. The students in the study were not preoccupied with achieving a predetermined outcome or with their success in the task at hand, but instead viewed the challenge as ripe with possibilities for learning. However, this attitude did not create an apathetic or careless approach to life; in fact, quite the opposite was true. Participants associated their embrace of uncertainty with the resulting ability to be unabashedly and relentlessly curious, a perspective that supported a rigorous pursuit of new knowledge through asking questions and critically reevaluating preconceived ideas: The most important secret to my success in college was living in inquiry. I was constantly asking how I could discover a more comprehensive view of any picture or lesson, or how I could become a better student, public speaker, community member, and person. Based upon these observations, students’ attitude of viewing uncertainty as something positive was classified as an antecedent to the development of curiosity in the emerging model of thriving during the senior-year transition. In addition to adopting this perspective in their approach to college, students often described how their curiosity had been fueled by faculty who modeled the value of asking questions and avoiding overconfidence in espoused perspectives. This inquisitive stance created a tone of productive uncertainty in the classroom, which augmented students’ engagement and curiosity regarding course topics. One student described a professor who 175

Thriving in Transitions

nurtured students’ curiosity by highlighting the complex and ambiguous nature of the subject matter: [H]e didn’t just give the answers. He said, “There are no answers, this is complex; this is a complex problem. You have to read; you have to think about these things.” … He never said, “This is how it is.” He said, “Maybe it’s like this, but I don’t know. What do you think?” And it was just so stimulating in the way he ran the class … I just loved that. I ended up reading more for this class than I ever read for any class in my entire life! Several other participants echoed the idea that they were more likely to engage in course material when they were challenged to find their own answers to questions embedded within the subject matter, because it allowed curiosity to drive their learning. Another student noted that the faculty who most inspired her curiosity invited students “not to just seek out more information, but to try to stimulate a curiosity of understanding the complexity … Not just embracing the material, but embracing the conflicting ideas that you get in the material.” Several participants described how important it is for faculty to develop a stance of thoughtful uncertainty and to model ongoing learning in their pedagogical practices. Many thriving seniors indicated that they were most impressed by faculty who valued good questions as much as profound answers, and who interacted with students and their field of expertise in a dynamic, fluid way. One student offered advice for faculty seeking to catalyze students’ curiosity: Be willing to change and seriously grapple with the issues your students care about and the ideas your students bring to the table. Professors who teach the same course with the same reading list and the same assignments and the same exams will not spark curiosity. Curiosity is contagious, and professors’ passions, whether they see it or not, will have an impact on students. Be interested in the material, keep it fresh for yourself, keep being curious and exploring and learning, and it will have a broader impact. These thriving seniors were invested in learning because they believed it was integral to their preparedness for making a substantive contribution to their communities. Their curiosity led them to become psychologically present in the learning process and to engage it in meaningful ways, which was an important aspect of their experience of thriving. Engaged learners ask questions, continue to think about course content outside of class, and connect what they are learning to what interests them (Schreiner & Louis, 2011), each of which imply an energized and proactive stance to learning. Acceptance of failure as a learning opportunity. Ironically, these thriving and successful students were also keenly aware of the role of failure in their lives, and they articulated a 176

Senior-Year Transition

distinct set of perceptions regarding its significance. Most notable was that these students framed setbacks as stepping-stones for learning and future achievement, valuing failure as propelling more informed action and decision-making in the future. For example, one student commented, Certainly [failure] affects me just like it would affect any other person. But the difference is that even as it’s affecting me, I’m already thinking, “Okay, so this failed. How can I move past it? How can I turn around what I’ve just learned and start moving forward again?” … For me, even though failures personally affect me just as they would affect anybody, there’s this sense of like, “Okay, now I have even more information about what is going to work next time.” The students we interviewed had succeeded in remarkably ambitious endeavors throughout college, yet they were also readily able to describe significant failures. One of the notable features of these thriving seniors was that their failures were not paralyzing, but instead were leveraged to inform new approaches, which facilitated the attainment of future goals. Brown (2015) notes that courage is not the willingness to risk failure; it is instead assuming that failure is inevitable and proceeding anyway. Our participants normalized failure as a part of the learning process and described how it informed the use of new approaches for achieving their goals. This stance aligns with Weiner’s (1985) attribution theory, which suggests that people who believe that their failures are due to situational factors such as the use of incorrect strategies are more likely to persevere when setbacks occur than are individuals who believe that failures can be ascribed to lack of ability. Students’ approach to learning through failure is also resonant with Dweck’s (1999) description of an incremental self-theory, which espouses the belief that people are capable of meaningful change through effort. Individuals who adopt this mindset pursue goals related to growth and increasing personal competence as opposed to focusing on merely demonstrating their abilities. People with a growth mindset actively seek challenging endeavors, even if those efforts may reveal personal deficiencies (Hong et al., 1999), and they attend to performance feedback because they believe it is instrumental in helping them improve (Dweck et al., 2004). Participants illustrated this concept with statements such as “if you fail, you have still gained some solid experience for next time” and “failing is okay. You are not defined by one event or one action, but all of them help define your perspectives and help make you stronger.” Another student explained how her perspective on failure enabled her to dispel the fear that often accompanies attempting challenging goals: I don’t even see failures as failures. I see them as such a good learning opportunity … Maybe at the time I thought it was a failure, but now I guess looking back I’m like, “Oh yeah, that was a piece of my big puzzle.” And the puzzle that’s making up 177

Thriving in Transitions

what my life now is out of those failures and there’s something kind of beautiful about that. So, I think if you look at failure as something that makes your life even more rich, then you don’t have a fear of it. The ability to attribute failures to factors that are under one’s control is the foundation of an optimistic explanatory style (Seligman, 1990) that is implicit in the Positive Perspective element of thriving. Several participants described failure in ways that resembled their perspectives on uncertainty, viewing both as inevitable and valuable parts of learning: Failure is in some sense just like a standard by-product of trial and error. … It’s sort of like a scientific method in that way or in the sense that you’ll have all of these failed experiments, but the information that you’re gathering from those failed experiments will be the drivers of your one successful experiment. I very much see [failure] as great information-gathering. … Success stories that we all love are stories of people who have failed and struggled and have emerged victorious at the end because they were so driven by whatever they had learned from their failures that they were able to then apply it and push past it and become successful. It was common for these thriving seniors to note that this attitude provided a buffer against discouragement when their efforts had not produced desired outcomes. Persisting in spite of setbacks is characteristic of the Academic Determination component of thriving (Schreiner et al., 2009). Moreover, many of the participants indicated that they fully expected failure, that it should not be feared, and that success is defined not by the absence of failure but instead by the ability to persevere when encountering obstacles. One student advised his peers that they “should not be afraid to fail, because you will fail; and when you fail, try to learn and use failure as a source of motivation for what you want to attain.” Another commented that: I’m not really that scared of failure … even when I fail, it’s not such a big deal. When I was growing up it was always like, “Yes, you’re going to fail. You’re going to fail tons. And you’re going to live with it and get on and you’re going to learn from it.” This approach not only emboldened these students’ attempts to realize ambitious goals by prescribing a positive, adaptive response to failure, but it also served as an engine driving their curiosity because it helped make performance considerations a more peripheral determinant of the activities in which they would engage. Deliberately facing fears and allowing oneself to experience discomfort. Although these students normalized failure and emphasized that it should not be feared, they also acknowledged challenges and opportunities in college that did make them feel intimidated or anxious. It was common for these thriving individuals to suggest, however, that such situations should 178

Senior-Year Transition

be pursued instead of avoided. Many of the students described how they deliberately sought opportunities that made them uncomfortable, believing that such occasions offered venues for acquiring new skills, improving performance, and learning new information. Emblematic of this perspective, one individual reflected, “I’ve pushed myself to do the things that scare me the most. I’ve pursued … all of the things that intimidate me because I realize I’ll only be satisfied if I jump into the fire and face my fears.” Another student advised that “if you go through college and you don’t find yourself in a situation where you are challenged or feel uncomfortable, then you’re really not getting a lot out of it … those specific times are when you really grow up.” Another participant described her decision to pursue a leadership position on campus for the sole reason that “many of the weaknesses that I had identified in myself would have to change if I were to be successful … so I was excited at the challenge.” One student suggested that others should “learn how to … engage in activities that overwhelm [them]” as a way to build personal capacity. The participants described how viewing challenges through a positive lens increased the likelihood that they would proactively engage unfamiliar situations instead of fearing them, which aligns with Elliot’s (1999) description of how approach and avoidance motivation prompt different behavioral tendencies. These students were more strongly driven by the approach motivation of imagining what they could possibly gain from participating in new experiences than they were by the avoidance motivation of eliminating discomfort. When paired with the propensity to perceive setbacks as learning tools, these seniors maximized their college experience and flourished in the post-college transition. Drive and Passion In addition to curiosity, other consistent characteristics among participants included drive and personal passion for specific pursuits. These two central phenomena, although conceptually distinct, were so strongly interconnected in participants’ responses that they have been grouped into one section of this chapter to reflect the nature of the findings most accurately. Responding to an inquiry about which personal characteristics had led to her success, one student responded enthusiastically, “Drive! It’s my drive. It’s like the elephant in the room; it’s waiting for me to say it!” Many participants described their ongoing efforts to achieve levels of optimal personal performance, which required working harder than many of their peers and persevering when others gave up. Another example of drive includes the large number of participants who had two academic majors or were engaged in significant acts of public service. One individual described how she successfully completed 27 credit hours of coursework in one semester at a highly selective university. For many participants, their drive to work hard increased their confidence in their ability to be successful. Several Truman Scholars emphasized that their academic success 179

Thriving in Transitions

was primarily a result of tenacious effort as opposed to exceptional ability. One female participant stated, “I don’t consider myself extremely intelligent, but I have confidence that I can work through anything that I have to.” Although drive was common to all the seniors interviewed, it was also inextricably linked to a deep sense of intrinsically motivated passion. Intrinsic motivation. During a period in American higher education in which many college students focus on course grades as the primary indicator of academic success, the thriving seniors in this study represented a divergent attitude in indicating a significant bias toward intrinsic motivation as prompting their actions. One student noted, “I never used to check my final grades. I didn’t know what my GPA was until my junior year when I was asked to apply for scholarships.” Several seniors indicated that although both internal and external factors affected their motivation, internal factors had the greatest lasting influence on their behaviors. The majority expressed an increase in internal motivation as they progressed through college years and discovered their interests. Although course grades, awards, and parental expectations all exerted a basic level of influence, their deep passions were the foundation for their intrinsically motivated drive. Passion behind the drive. The thriving students in our study were clearly people who held a coherent set of strong beliefs. Many believed that their college experience should be driven by their convictions and not by external factors: I think a lot of students that I saw coming through the honors program had this end goal of like, they were going to be a Rhodes scholar. I was like, “No! You have to do what you’re passionate about and if that leads you to wanting a degree from Oxford … then apply for a Rhodes scholarship.” When asked to give advice to incoming students, many were quick to offer counsel such as, “Try new things and pursue those that you are most passionate about. Passion is the driver for success, not the name of your degree.” The passionate convictions of the participants appeared to have two basic aims: service to the greater good and, to a lesser degree, fulfillment of personal potential. In describing the dual aims of personal passion, one participant asserted, “I am motivated to be the best person I can be and to make a positive difference.” Whether they were working to create a more sustainable campus or providing health care for underserved populations, these students believed in the power of their passions. The following statement is representative of this commitment expressed by the majority of the participants: “ ...the number one factor that has gotten me to where I am today is that I am driven about something that isn’t my own personal success … that mission, that goal, is much bigger than I am.” The desire to make a difference in others’ lives, to work toward goals other than personal success, and to enrich one’s community is integral to the Diverse Citizenship component of thriving (Schreiner et al., 2009). 180

Senior-Year Transition

Various participants also reported a passionate drive toward realizing their potential. We heard phrases such as “becoming the best person I can be,” “outdoing myself,” and “seeking opportunities to better myself ” repeatedly throughout the interviews. Many students mentioned a desire to “push” themselves and to invite others to challenge them toward their full capability. One student remarked, “I kind of wanted to be that person in the classroom … that wants the professor to push us harder and make us think more and write more and do more.” A desire to reach their capacity was a predominant contributor to participants’ intrinsic drive. Based upon this study, the directionality of the relationship between drive and passion is not clear. The question remains whether drive is a consequence of passion or whether existing internal drive is an antecedent of developing a sense of passion. The convergent analysis suggested that for most participants, innate drive was a catalyst for exploration and ultimately helped determine their passions and sense of purpose. However, the divergent analysis of the relationship between these two phenomena revealed that one student described an experience of having minimal drive until discovering a passion and noted that that her motivation and engagement increased once she could use them in the service of something that truly excited her. Regardless of the directionality, the passions of the Truman Scholars had four identifying characteristics: (a) they were enhanced through self-evaluation, (b) they generated a love of learning, (c) they became a filter for decision-making, and (d) they engendered a sense of purpose. In our model of thriving in the senior year, self-evaluation is conceptualized as an antecedent that contributes to the identification of students’ passions. In this model, consequences or outcomes of knowing one’s passion include a sense of purpose, having a filter for making decisions, and enjoyment of the learning process. Passions enhanced through self-awareness. The passions of several of the seniors we interviewed were in a state of flux during their collegiate careers. These students’ growing self-awareness enhanced their ability to harness their energies in the direction of their interests with greater precision as they progressed in their college experience. Many students described how taking the time to be personally reflective helped them discern their passions and helped them develop and maintain a sense of clarity related to their values and goals. This sentiment was expressed by one Truman scholar who noted, “I think constant selfevaluation is very important. In college, it is really easy to get stuck in tracks that actually deter one from what is most fulfilling.” It was common for participants to describe the value they attributed to relationships they cultivated with an advisor or professor who stimulated their increased self-awareness. Passions generated a love of learning. The love of learning was consistently linked to the passionate drive found within the students interviewed. One student discussed the dilemma of being in a major that was not aligned with her passions.

181

Thriving in Transitions

I just always sort of loved being in school and being a nerdy kid who loved all of that. But I was unhappy, not passionate about the topic, ultimately realizing that it wasn’t for me. And so when I had the opportunity to take some public health courses and realize that it was just this combination of everything that I loved from communications to science to thinking about social histories … that was a huge boon. One student indicated that learning was the focus of her ambition and motivation. She stated, “ ...ambition is what drives me to learn in the things that I’m doing … in my current job, I had a conversation with my boss and I said ‘I want this to be the hardest job that I’ve ever had,’” describing how her work became meaningful when she was offered new challenges, insight, or opportunities for personal growth that supported her efforts to contribute in her areas of passion. Passions provided a filter for decision-making. The awareness of their passions influenced the participants’ decisions regarding the use of their time. Several of these thriving students noted that they tended not to be involved in multiple campus organizations, but to instead invest great effort in a small number of deliberately selected commitments. One participant described how her passions guided her decisions about how to strategically allocate her time and determine her involvements throughout college: I think for me the biggest deciding factor was how passionate I was about something. I was never able to stay in an organization in college that really didn’t have a mission that I really felt aligned with my interests … For example, two hours I’d spend with a group I didn’t care as much about would not be nearly as productive as the two hours I’d spend with an organization where I was really into what they were doing and their mission and wanted to just put my whole self into that project. I think that really dictates how I choose where I’m going to spend my time. This participant’s response suggests that her clarity of passionate vision and growing selfknowledge provided the insight required to consciously select her commitments. Passions engendered a sense of purpose. The passion that appeared to drive these thriving seniors also provided many with a deeper sense of purpose in life. One student commented on his sense of purpose when he stated: I think people have certain callings in their life. Some are content to not be associated with others or to have no impact on other people. I think my calling, something that I’ve found to be residual with me, is an urge to engage others and to move other people and to be involved in things that shape other people’s lives.

182

Senior-Year Transition

This sense of purpose found in their passions shaped for many how they conceptualized their lives after college. The causes they championed in college informed the direction for their continued community involvement. Other researchers have observed similar trends: Involvement in particular causes or practices, such as being engaged in one’s community as an undergraduate, are often replicated in the post-college transition (Myers et al., 2019).

Reflections on Navigating the Transition Out of College The participants readily offered descriptions of how they grew throughout college. Their accounts underscore the reality that periods of transition are replete with teachable moments that educators can leverage for students’ benefit. Many of the same attributes that enabled students to thrive during their senior year of college were also integral to their successful transition beyond the undergraduate experience. Evident in these thriving seniors’ descriptions of their transition was an unmistakable excitement for future involvement in ongoing education, contribution to their communities, and service to the greater good. Their primary cognitive appraisal of the meaning of the transition was that it was a positive event that ushered in a new landscape of opportunities. These students therefore engaged the final months of college and the transition beyond it with approach coping skills (Bean & Eaton, 2000) such as investing energy in learning about possible jobs, exploring options for graduate education, networking, seeking advice from mentors, and reflecting on some of the important lessons from their undergraduate years. Many students also emphasized how a significant part of their transition was ensuring a personally meaningful conclusion to their undergraduate experience, whether that entailed compiling a well-crafted senior thesis or other type of capstone project, prioritizing time to invest in relationships with close peers or mentors, or devoting themselves to a project that would enrich their campus for the future. Another feature that enabled these students to make positive preparations for the transition beyond college was their emphasis on setting goals that related to their ongoing learning. Several researchers have noted that students who embrace learning goals are more likely than students whose goals focus solely on desired performance outcomes to adopt the self-regulatory strategies associated with academic success, such as time-management techniques, deep learning strategies, and deliberate efforts to sustain interest and motivation (Elliott et al., 1999; Grant, as cited in Dweck & Molden, 2005). These characteristics embody the Academic Determination aspect of thriving (Schreiner et al., 2009). In addition, the thriving seniors epitomized what Schreiner and associates (2009) refer to as Positive Perspective in their model of college student thriving. These students possessed a realistic optimism that enabled them to reframe setbacks as beneficial learning opportunities, a stance that supports the pursuit of ambitious goals and the cultivation of curiosity as previously described in this chapter. Perhaps one of the most notable aspects 183

Thriving in Transitions

of these students’ positive perspective was that it prompted them to be proactive in seeking opportunities as opposed to leaving their experiences to chance or allowing their circumstances to define their lives. One student summarized the importance he ascribes to initiative and effort in his life philosophy when he quipped a paraphrased version of Thomas Jefferson’s quote: “I believe in luck, and I find that the harder I work, the luckier I am.” A positive perspective heightened students’ college experience and prepared them to persevere during times of transition. Finally, these thriving seniors were committed to contributing to something more profound than mere self-promotion or self-preservation; they were focused on empowering other people and making meaningful contributions to society. This deeply embedded value reflects the Diverse Citizenship component of thriving (Schreiner et al., 2009) and foreshadows what is likely to be continued investment in the broader community beyond graduation. Students who invest their time and energy in helping others are more likely to form the supportive interpersonal connections that will help them thrive during the transition out of college.

Recommendations This study of high-thriving college seniors offers multiple implications for negotiating the transition to post-college life. The following recommendations describe some measures that institutions might consider taking to develop curiosity, drive, and passion within their students, three qualities that support student thriving during college and are essential for a successful transition from the university environment. 1. Recognize that preparation for a successful transition out of college begins during the first year with an institutional consideration of how to help all students thrive. Paradoxically, efforts to develop the personal qualities that facilitate a positive transition from college should commence as students are beginning their collegiate careers—an approach that begins with the end in mind. Many of the challenges that recent college graduates encounter are psychosocial in nature and pose an essential question for designers of first-year programs: What do we need to teach incoming students to enable them to thrive in their lives after college? This question raises deeper and more fundamental concerns regarding the purpose of a college degree. It positions the university to graduate individuals who are prepared to make significant contributions in their professional and personal lives and beckons educators responsible for the first-year experience to adopt a long view—one that extends even beyond their own campuses. One source suggests that supporting students’ epistemological development is particularly important and can be practically emphasized with pedagogy that moves students away from a mere task orientation to greater self-reflection and analysis (Allen & Taylor, 2006). Institutions committed to launching thriving alumni introduce 184

Senior-Year Transition

learning opportunities that build a foundation of psychological strengths such as curiosity and resilience from the beginning of students’ college experience. A diversifying student body requires that educational leaders ensure that practices designed to enhance thriving among seniors benefit all students in each cohort. In many cases, the strongest contributors to student success likely reside in institutional policies and practices and not in the characteristics of the students themselves. Kinzie and Kuh (2017) advocated for a critical examination of the prevalent assumption that achievement gaps and poor student outcomes can be attributed to students’ choices or behaviors. Thriving occurs because of a combination of institutional and student actions, and institutions therefore bear responsibility for examining whether their policies and practices establish a context for success among all students. 2. Focus on the development of curiosity through increasing students’ mindfulness. As our data indicate, students who are thoroughly engaged in their academic experience are those who exhibit high levels of curiosity. The drive for novel experiences, one component of curiosity, appears to mitigate the anxiety produced by change. Curious students experience anxiety in transitions; however, this apprehension is not immobilizing. Throughout the study, thriving seniors recounted stories that illustrated their ability to reframe fears into opportunities for greater learning. By increasing curiosity, institutions will enhance their graduating seniors’ ability to navigate difficult situations and manage the uncertainty of the transition. Improving a student’s level of mindfulness provides one avenue for curiosity enhancement. Langer (1997) defines mindfulness as “the continuous creation of new categories; openness to new information; and an implicit awareness of more than one category” (p. 4). Mindlessness, in contrast, is living in an unreflective and routine manner. Engaging academic environments teach a healthy skepticism of existing knowledge through dialogue that welcomes divergent opinions. If students have been taught to approach unfamiliar environments with the goal of creating new mental frameworks and experiencing the richness of unique people and perspectives, then they will develop greater levels of mindfulness and will be more likely to find the transition from college to be invigorating instead of overwhelming. Mindfulness is the foundational construct in the Focused Attention component of engaged learning (Schreiner & Louis, 2011) that characterizes thriving college students. Mindfulness is cultivated by focusing on the inner experience or on the outward conditions of the current moment. Mindful practices exist in sharp opposition to some of the cultural forces that create a distracted generation. Text messaging, online social networking, and mobile computing have created significant deterrents to a focus on the present moment. As opposed to disavowing current technologies, educators can use these tools to increase mindfulness. As an example, in a course on leadership, students could be asked to use mobile technology to communicate with other students in the class when they observe servant leadership occurring on campus. This type of activity may help students become 185

Thriving in Transitions

more aware of the leadership exhibited in the current moment which otherwise may go unnoticed. However, it is not enough to merely teach students to be more aware of their current circumstance. Kashdan (2009) notes that “it’s not about whether we pay attention, but how we pay attention to what is happening in the present” (p. 3). An openness to ideas, experiences, and current realities provides a strong mental and emotional foundation from which to approach change. Faculty who present course topics in ways that communicate a value for dialogue and exploration as opposed to outlining prescriptive or definitive conclusions offer students an opportunity to question assumptions inherent in the subject matter. When students are free to develop and articulate their own points of view, learn in a climate that encourages asking questions, and are given opportunities to explore topics of personal interest, they are more mindful because the learning becomes personally relevant. 3. Promote exploration and thoughtful risk-taking. During the transition from college, students ask many kinds of questions: Where will I live? Which career suits me, and will I find employment? Will I be successful in graduate school? How will I find a support system? How they cope with ambiguity may be the difference between a smooth or difficult transition. Curious individuals are able to mitigate the negative stress associated with college graduation by embracing the uncertainty found in a transition, viewing it as intriguing or energizing. Kashdan (2009) suggested that: When we experience curiosity, we are willing to leave the familiar and routine and take risks, even if it makes us feel anxious and uncomfortable. Those who deal better with novelty, who function more optimally in a world that is unpredictable, uncertain, and unstable, I call ‘curious explorers.’ Curious explorers are comfortable with the risks of taking on challenges. In fact, the most curious among us actually lust for the new. (p. 7) When seniors frame graduation as an opportunity for new exploration as opposed to primarily a period of loss or threat, they are poised to experience fewer negative emotions and lower levels of stress. Institutions may adopt several strategies for enhancing students’ propensity to take the kind of calculated, productive risks that exploration requires. Some possibilities include systematized support for study in cultures and countries that represent divergent values and customs and the promotion of cross-disciplinary study through program requirements and elective selection. Developing and modeling an ethos in student life and academic programming that prompts students to take educationally beneficial risks can be paired with formal opportunities for reflection. In addition, it can be beneficial to connect students with mentors who encourage movement beyond what is comfortable while providing the interpersonal support to complete and reflect on the undertaken risk. 186

Senior-Year Transition

4. Provide opportunities for appreciative advising to help students identify their passions. Many students depart from colleges and universities without a well-developed sense of their passions and aspirations. However, developing a sense of purpose is considered a major developmental task for students and one that becomes increasingly relevant over the course of students’ undergraduate careers (Astin et al., 2011). It is therefore important for educators to adopt a proactive approach to helping students define their passions and create a plan for making progress toward goals (Robinson, 2009). One method that may facilitate this outcome is appreciative advising, an approach based upon the tenets of appreciative inquiry, a paradigm using a constructivist model to identify and mobilize the assets and positive features of individuals and organizations through asking questions that focus on potential-building instead of problem solving (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2000). Described as a social-constructivist advising philosophy that uses openended questions to help students identify their strengths and interests, generate positive images of the future, and establish high personal standards for achievement (Bloom et al., 2013), appreciative inquiry prompts students to explore their individual passions and a sense of purpose that transcends a specific career. This six-step advising process described by Bloom and colleagues (2013) is outlined in Chapter 2. When students understand their unique strengths and passions, they are well-positioned to form personally relevant and authentic goals, which contribute to a sense of meaning and promote flourishing. The positive emotions associated with having a clear sense of purpose may facilitate thriving during the transition to post-college life because the anticipation of what lies ahead is most fully experienced by those who have a hopeful expectation of their future contributions. These positive emotions create a psychological climate for ongoing creativity and growth (Fredrickson, 2001) and establish a context for thriving beyond college. 5. Develop practices that encourage intrinsic motivation and reduce students’ dependence on extrinsic rewards. Intrinsic motivation is based on “active engagement with tasks that people find interesting and that, in turn, promote growth” (Deci & Ryan, 2000, p. 233) and is evident in people who are highly curious and pursue a wide range of interests. Research suggests that the pursuit of intrinsically motivated goals promotes well-being (Emmons, 2003). During a period of transition, intrinsically motivated graduates will take the initiative to explore their surroundings, discover novel interests in their new environments, and identify leisure pursuits that satisfy their need for belonging and accomplishment. Intrinsically motivated people may also be more likely to take initiative in their work environments and embrace the excitement of learning new skills. However, the current American educational system has often emphasized extrinsic rewards as an incentive for student learning. Despite decades of research indicating that the provision of such rewards can substantially undermine intrinsic motivation (Deci et al., 2001), postsecondary institutions continue to focus on external motivators for student 187

Thriving in Transitions

learning by emphasizing grades, academic awards, and the earning potential associated with particular academic majors or careers. A shift in focus from extrinsic to intrinsic motivation requires significant change in educational practice, most notably in curriculum design, pedagogy, and academic advising. An extensive body of research indicates that providing choice increases intrinsic motivation in most situations (see Patall et al., 2008 for a review). Research indicates that motivation among college seniors is related to their sense of having choices about their academic work (Van Etten et al., 2008), so educators could optimize the opportunities that students have to pursue their own interests. One implication for curriculum design is that students could be encouraged to explore various options before determining an academic major (Hettich & Helkowski, 2005). During an era in which policymakers and constituents are focused on timely degree completion, this exploration must occur within the context of providing a range of viable electives within each major and allowing margin in the degree requirements for minors and double majors. Pedagogically, intrinsic motivation can be bolstered by extending choice in assignments to enhance student autonomy and reconceptualizing the faculty role from a dispenser of knowledge to a designer of learning opportunities (Fink, 2013) that encourage meaningful processing. These actions foster what Ryan and Deci (2000) call authentic motivation, which details students’ needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, the fundamental drivers of self-determined behavior. Academic advising that supports intrinsic motivation would consistently expose students to opportunities to align their curricular and cocurricular choices with their interests and passions. Such advising would also encourage a fuller exploration of potential majors and careers in the context of life goals, personal values, and relevant skill sets (Hettich, 2010). The challenge to equip graduating students with the curiosity, passion, and intrinsic motivation to successfully navigate the transition from college into a world replete with choices demands a critical examination of existing educational practices.

Conclusion This study of students who are thriving at exceptionally high levels during the senior-year transition indicates that students who thrive during the final year of college are distinguished by their curiosity and passionate drive. These characteristics can be influenced by institutional efforts and although the strategies deemed most appropriate for a particular campus may vary, orchestrating an environment conducive to student thriving begins in the first year. A reconsideration of curricular design, pedagogical practices, and the nature of academic advising may be necessary to develop institutional practices that can better nurture intrinsic motivation. Creating a climate that fosters curiosity, promotes exploration and purposeful risk-taking, and helps students identify their passions throughout their college experience can equip students to thrive in their final year of college and beyond. 188

Senior-Year Transition

References Allen, J. K., & Taylor, K. (2006). The senior year transition: Women undergraduates search for a path. Journal of College Student Development, 47(6), 595-608. http://doi.org/cggzj5 Astin, A. W., Astin, H. S., & Lindholm, J. (2011). Cultivating the spirit: How college can enhance students’ inner lives. Jossey-Bass. Bean, J. P., & Eaton, S. B. (2000). A psychological model of college student retention. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 48-61). Vanderbilt University Press. Bloom, J., Hutson, B., & He, Y. (2013). Appreciative advising. In J. K. Drake, P. Jordan, & M. A. Miller (Eds.), Academic advising approaches: Strategies that teach students to make the most of college (pp. 83-104). Jossey-Bass. Brown, B. (2015). Rising strong. Spiegel & Grau. Cooperrider, D. L., & Whitney, D. (2000). A positive revolution in change: Appreciative inquiry. In D. L. Cooperrider, P. F. Sorensen, Jr., D. Whitney, & T. F. Yaeger (Eds.), Appreciative inquiry: Rethinking human organization toward a positive theory of change (pp. 3-27). Stipes Publishing. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Sage. Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., Ryan, R. M., & Cameron, J. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education: Reconsidered once again. Review of Educational Research, 71(1), 1-27. https://doi. org/cv9qch Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the selfdetermination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268. http://doi.org/bfn2hn Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Psychology Press. Dweck, C. S., Mangels, J. A., & Good, C. (2004). Motivational effects on attention, cognition, and performance. In D. Y. Dai & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, emotion, and cognition: Integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and development (pp. 41-55). Lawrence Erlbaum. Dweck, C. S., & Molden, D. C. (2005). Self-theories: Their impact on competence motivation and acquisition. In A. J. Elliott & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 122140). Guilford. Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34(3), 169-189. http://doi.org/g9c Elliot, A. J., McGregor, H. A., & Gable, S. L. (1999). Achievement goals, study strategies, and exam performance: A meditational analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(3), 549-563. http:// doi.org/d26hfk Emmons, R. A. (2003). Personal goals, life meaning, and virtue: Wellsprings of a positive life. In C. L. Keyes & J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well-lived (pp. 105-128). American Psychological Association. Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses (Rev. ed.). Jossey-Bass. Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-andbuild theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218-26. http://dpo.org/bqr58z Gardner, J. N. (1999, March/April). The senior year experience. About Campus, 5-11. http://doi.org/ dqkw 189

Thriving in Transitions

Gardner, J. N., & Van der Veer, G. (1998). The emerging movement to strengthen the senior experience. In J. N. Gardner & G. Van der Veer (Eds.) The senior year experience: Facilitating integration, reflection, closure, and transition (pp. 3-20). Jossey-Bass. Henscheid, J. M. (2008). Institutional efforts to move seniors through and beyond college. In B. O. Barefoot (Ed.), The first year and beyond: Rethinking the challenges of collegiate attrition (New Directions for Higher Education, No. 144, pp. 79-87). Wiley. Hettich, P. I. (2010). College-to-workplace transitions: Becoming a freshman again. In T. W. Miller (Ed.), Handbook of stressful transitions across the lifespan (pp. 87-109). Springer. Hettich, P. I., & Helkowski, C. (2005). Connect college to career: A student’s guide to work and life transitions. Thomson Wadsworth. Hong, Y., Chiu, C., Dweck, C. S., Lin, D., & Wan, W. (1999). Implicit theories, attributions, and coping: A meaning system approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(3), 588-599. http://doi.org/czmb3g Hunter, M. S., Keup, J. R., Kinzie, J., & Maietta, H. (Eds.) (2012). The senior year: Culminating experiences and transitions. University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition. Kashdan, T. B. (2009). Curious? Discover the missing ingredient to a fulfilling life. Harper Collins. Kashdan, T. B., Gallagher, M. W., Silvia, P. J., Winterstein, B. P., Breen, W. E., Terhar, D., & Steger, M. F. (2009). The curiosity and exploration inventory-II: Development, factor structure, and psychometrics. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(6), 987-998. http://doi.org/dbbxrx Kinzie, J., & Kuh, G., (2017). Reframing student success in college: Advancing know-what and knowhow. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning , 49(3), 19-27. http://doi.org/dqcm Lane, J. A. (2016, October). Attachment, well-being, and college senior concerns about the transition out of college. Journal of College Counseling , 19, 231-245. http://doi.org/dqk5 Langer, E. (1997). The power of mindful learning. Addison Wesley. Maslow, A. H. (1965). A philosophy of psychology: The need for a mature science of human nature. In F. T. Severin (Ed.), Humanistic viewpoints in psychology (pp. 17-33). McGraw-Hill. Myers, C. B., Myers, S. M., & Peters, M. (2019). The longitudinal connections between undergraduate high impact curriculum practices and civic engagement in adulthood. Research in Higher Education, 60(1), 83-110. http://doi.org/dqk7 Mohr, J. J., Eiche, K. D., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1998). So close, yet so far: Predictors of attrition in college seniors. Journal of College Student Development, 39(4), 343-354. http://doi.org/dqk8 Overton-Healy, J. (2010). First-generation college seniors: A phenomenological exploration of the transitional experience of the final college year. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., & Robinson, J. C. (2008). The effects of choice on intrinsic motivation and related outcomes: A meta-analysis of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 270-300. http://doi.org/d7vrmc Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage. Pistilli, M. D., Taub, D., & Bennett, D. E. (2003). Development of the Senior Concerns Survey: An exploratory factor analysis. Journal of The First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 15(1), 3952. Robinson, K. (2009). The element: How finding your passion changes everything. Penguin. 190

Senior-Year Transition

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. http://doi.org/c48g8h Schreiner, L. A., & Louis, M. C. (2011). The Engaged Learning Index: Implications for faculty development. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching , 22(1), 5-28. http://doi.org/dqk6 Schreiner, L. A., McIntosh, E. J., Nelson, D. D., & Pothoven, S. (2009, November). The Thriving Quotient: Advancing the assessment of student success. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education. Vancouver, BC. Seligman, M. E. P. (1990). Learned optimism. Knopf. Silver, B., R., & Roksa, J. (2017). Navigating uncertainty and responsibility: Understanding inequality in the senior-year transition. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 54(3), 248-260. http://doi.org/dqk4 Silvia, P. J. (2006). Exploring the psychology of interest. Oxford University Press. Strauss, A., & Corbin, A. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage Publishers. Sullenberger, S., Wood, L., Hostetter, C., & Bloomquist, K. R. (2015). “You really have to play the hand you’re dealt”: How traditional-age college seniors understand class mobility. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 25(8), 971-986. http://doi.org/dqk3 Taub, D. J., Servaty-Seib, H. L., & Cousins, C. (2006). On the brink of transition: The concerns of college seniors. Journal of The First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 18(2), 111-132. Van Etten, S., Pressley, M., McInerney, D. M., & Liem, A. D. (2008). College seniors’ theory of their academic motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 812-828. http://doi.org/b7bp66 Vickio, C. J. (1990). The good-bye brochure: Helping students to cope with transition and loss. Journal of Counseling and Development, 68(5), 575-577. http://doi.org/fzr9nc Weiner, B. (1985). An attribution theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548-573. http://doi.org/ccmnx4 Yazedjian, A., Kielaszek, B. J., & Toews, M. L. (2010). Students’ perceptions regarding their impending transition out of college. Journal of The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition, 22(2), 3348.

191

CHAPTER NINE THE ROLE OF FACULTY IN COLLEGE STUDENT THRIVING Laurie A. Schreiner, Tami K. Martinez, Jennifer Drumm, and Crystal Keetch

As students transition through the college experience, one constant they experience is an encounter with faculty. Every student has classroom experiences, even if the classroom is online, and all students interact with faculty to some degree in and out of class. Thus, the role of faculty in college student thriving is vital, particularly during transitions. Faculty have the potential to enhance or hinder college student success by their assumptions, attitudes, and actions as they interact with students and shape their learning experiences. In this chapter, we explore the role of faculty through the lens of the thriving in transitions framework that has shaped the other chapters in this book. We begin by offering research evidence that supports the significant impact of faculty on student success, highlighting in particular the latest study we conducted on the role of faculty in college student thriving. We then outline student needs during transition periods that faculty are particularly suited to meet, as well as the unique challenges students face during particular transitions. We conclude by providing specific practical recommendations for faculty and administrators. Our suggestions are grounded in the literature and aimed at strengthening the student– faculty relationships that enable students to thrive during transitions.

The Role of Faculty in Student Success and Thriving The vital role that faculty play in student success remains one of the most powerful conclusions from research on student outcomes (Kim & Sax, 2017; Mayhew et al., 2016). As Braxton (2008) has noted, “faculty members bear the primary responsibility for most forms of college student success” (p. 181). Supportive interactions between students and faculty are an important element of a positive campus climate (Kuh et al., 2010) and are associated with such student success outcomes as learning gains, academic self-concept, persistence to graduation, and satisfaction with the entire college experience (Mayhew et al., 2016). In Kim and Sax’s (2017) meta-analysis of the research on student–faculty interaction, they noted that faculty serve not only as facilitators of learning in the classroom, but also as advisors, mentors, role models, and sources of motivation, validation, support, and social capital. The power of student–faculty interaction simply cannot be overestimated. 193

Thriving in Transitions

Faculty as Learning Facilitators, Advisors, and Mentors What faculty do within the classroom has an impact on student learning and success. As Mayhew and associates (2016) noted in their encyclopedic evaluation of how college affects students, “Good teaching matters. It really matters. … good teaching is the primary means through which institutions affect students” (p. 592). What is taught and how it is presented, how discussions are facilitated, how students are motivated, and how and when faculty provide feedback can enable students to thrive in the learning environment. Effective instructors are able to actively engage students in the learning process and motivate them to participate during class, as well as come to class prepared and ready to learn. Creating a safe and inclusive classroom environment that incorporates diverse perspectives and affirms students’ voices and contributions can enable students who are not part of the dominant campus culture to engage and thrive (McLaren, 2009). When faculty are able to function not only as instructors but also as role models for students, the benefits to students increase (Kezar & Kinzie, 2006). Effective role models have similar backgrounds to students and articulate their educational journey in a way that signals to students possibilities for their own future (Cuseo, 2018). In their role as academic advisors and mentors, faculty can approach their craft in a manner similar to the best teachers: with careful planning, clear objectives, and a deep concern for the success of the student (Drake, 2011). During the many transitions of college life, academic advisors can assist by providing information, emotional support, feedback, and strategies for success. As mentors, faculty can deepen their interaction with students, conveying a belief in them and socializing them within the discipline. They can provide career guidance and information, psychological support, assistance with graduate school preparation and application, and feedback on their intellectual and personal development (Lunsford, 2011). Despite the numerous and well-documented benefits of student–faculty interaction (Kim & Sax, 2017), not all students benefit from such interactions. There is substantial evidence from the literature that it is the quality of the interaction rather than the frequency alone that is predictive of successful outcomes (Kim & Sax, 2017). Students of color, in particular, face challenges interacting with faculty. They interact less frequently with faculty outside the classroom and are less satisfied with the quality of those interactions (Kim & Lundberg, 2016), which can interfere with their learning. Students of color judge the approachability of faculty based on their tone and body language and tend to perceive White faculty as less approachable than faculty of color (Fries-Britt et al., 2010). Faculty who do not create safe and inclusive classrooms often allow microaggressions to occur—those subtle cumulative insults and slights that communicate a student’s place in a marginalized group and steadily erode one’s confidence and self-concept (Sue, 2010)—or can even be the source of those microaggressions (Casanova et al., 2018). Yet, a particular quality of interaction with White faculty does benefit students of color. Interactions in which faculty validate students (Rendón, 194

Role of Faculty

1994) and refrain from personal criticism when giving feedback appear to boost intellectual self-concept and grades, particularly among Black students (Cole, 2007). Faculty Role in Student Thriving Much of the literature on the role that faculty play in student success frames such success around academic performance and persistence to graduation (Kim & Sax, 2017), yet the concept of student thriving expands the definition of student success beyond grades and graduation rates to include the vital engagement of students in their college experience. Thriving students are “fully engaged intellectually, socially, and emotionally” (Schreiner, 2010a, p. 4). They are engaged in the learning process, invest quality effort to reach meaningful goals, apply their strengths to the challenges they face, are involved in healthy relationships, are open to difference and want to make a difference in their communities, and possess a realistic optimism about themselves and their future. Large-scale research on thriving over the past decade has documented that the quality and frequency of student–faculty interaction is one of the most significant contributors to the variation in student thriving (Schreiner, 2016). Similar to other student success outcomes, the contribution of interaction with faculty to thriving varies considerably across students’ racial and ethnic identities, particularly in dominantly1 white institutions (Schreiner, 2014). The most recent study of faculty’s role in student thriving (Schreiner et al., 2018) was a large-scale structural modeling of 2,724 college students’ perceptions of faculty across 13 public and private four-year institutions. Guided by an interest in the role that students’ perceptions of faculty attitudes and actions contributed to thriving, this study examined predictors of thriving within the total sample, with a specific interest in the 535 students of color in the sample. Because the authors of this chapter were also the authors of this study, the pronoun we will be used from this point forward to describe the research of this team. We included a measure of students’ frequency and type of interaction with faculty as one latent variable and created a separate latent variable, labeled faculty diverse perspectives, comprised of items that described students’ perception that faculty are sensitive to the needs of diverse learners, include multiple perspectives in their curricula, and are open to diverse perspectives in the classroom. In addition to demographic variables, we included in our structural model other campus experiences that had been previously established in empirical studies as predictive of college student thriving, but for which the experiences of students of color are often significantly different (Ash & Schreiner, 2016). These included students’ psychological sense of community, levels of campus involvement, spirituality, and perceptions of institutional integrity. We are intentional in using the term dominantly rather than predominantly to indicate legacy, leadership, and policies that continue to mirror and enact white culture despite greater compositional diversity among the student body. 1

195

Thriving in Transitions

The final structural model accounted for 65% of the variation in Thriving Quotient scores among all students and 73% of the variation among students of color. These findings indicate that almost three fourths of the fluctuation in thriving levels reported by students of color can be attributed to their experiences on campus, including their interactions with faculty. As can be seen in Figure 9.1, the largest direct effect on thriving was students’ psychological sense of community on campus, or their sense of belonging (Strayhorn, 2012). However, sense of community was influenced significantly by their perceptions of institutional integrity, a measure of whether students believe an institution is delivering on its implicit promises (Braxton et al., 2004). Faculty inclusion of diverse perspectives in class, combined with the frequency of student–faculty interaction, was the second largest direct contributor to thriving. More importantly, faculty members’ sensitivity and openness to diverse learners’ needs, as well as their inclusion of multiple perspectives in their curricula and classroom discussions, contributed directly to students’ perceptions of institutional integrity, as well as to more frequent interaction with faculty and greater involvement in campus activities.

Figure 9.1. Structural regression model of thriving for students of color.

The contribution of faculty attitudes and behaviors to the variation in thriving among the students of color in our sample was even stronger. The role of faculty accounted for greater total effects on thriving than did their psychological sense of community, important as that was for students of color. Our findings indicate that faculty members’ sensitivity and openness to diverse learners’ needs, as well as their inclusion of multiple perspectives in their curricula and classroom discussions, has a direct effect on the academic, interpersonal, and 196

Role of Faculty

psychological engagement and well-being of all students, but even more so for students of color. Through their interactions with students, faculty also have a significant influence on students’ perceptions of institutional integrity—the embodied mission of the university. Thus, faculty who are aware of not only the needs of diverse learners but also the ways in which power and privilege shape the curriculum and their classroom dynamics have a significant impact on multiple dimensions of student success among students of color, as well as their White counterparts.

Students’ Challenges and Needs During Transitions Because of the vital role of faculty in student thriving, faculty awareness of the needs and challenges of students during transitions can facilitate student success. Although transitions are a ubiquitous feature of college life, some students experience greater challenges and encounter more significant barriers to their success than others. Learning to navigate these transitions successfully is the heart of thriving in college. During any transition, students’ primary needs are for support, feedback, and strategies for success (Schlossberg, 1989). Appropriate social support functions as a buffer for stress reactions, alleviating stress, calming anxiety, and providing needed emotional and material resources (Taylor, 2011). Instructive feedback assures students they are on the right track or provides correction for necessary changes. Strategies for success during a transition are those that encourage a student toward greater engagement and problem solving (Bean & Eaton, 2000). When transitional challenges are compounded by aspects of a student’s prior experience or the way the educational system has erected barriers for students based on social class or race, it becomes even more important to meet students’ needs for support, feedback, and success strategies. Faculty are particularly well positioned to meet these student needs because of their ongoing authoritative presence in students’ lives in and out of the classroom. Although the most supportive campus environments that enhance student success are characterized by a network of people and programs designed to help students, the reality is that for some students, faculty are the only campus personnel with whom they interact on a regular basis. When these interactions are positive and rewarding, providing students with the support and strategies they need to succeed, students are able to thrive (Schreiner, 2010b). The first year of college is the transition period that is most anticipated and for which colleges and universities typically plan carefully. First-year students’ transition issues include navigating an unfamiliar collegiate environment with increased academic expectations, adjusting to the role of college student, making new friends, and managing time effectively (see Nelson et al., Chapter 3). Institutional actions often convey that these challenges end with a successful first year. As such, the focus often remains on the next incoming class. Sophomores who may still be struggling with some of these issues may be left feeling 197

Thriving in Transitions

abandoned and unprepared for the challenges of transitioning into their second year (see Schreiner et al., Chapter 6). For students whose identity is not part of the dominant culture of an institution, the challenges of the sophomore year are magnified, as less support and fewer resources are targeted toward them. Other types of students whose challenges are greater include those who have not been well served by the U.S. educational system. For example, students who enter college less prepared by their high schools often feel ill-equipped for the academic rigors of college. Facing low expectations for their success from those around them, these students are particularly vulnerable during transition periods (see Sriram & Tharp, Chapter 5). Likewise, students who are the first in their family to attend college, students who experience economic challenges, veterans returning to civilian life, differently abled students, students facing mental health challenges, commuter students, and transfer students tend to be under-resourced during transitions (see Nelson & McIntosh, Chapter 7; Sriram & Tharp, Chapter 5). The challenges thus are magnified for these students. Despite possessing significant community cultural wealth (Yosso, 2005) as well as the personal talents and strengths they bring to the college environment, such assets tend to go unrecognized by a system that was designed for more affluent students with a generational history of higher education experience. As those who have historically been underserved by higher education, students of color face significant challenges primarily because their “transition” is never-ending if they are on a dominantly white campus. Each day represents a shift from one cultural setting to another, trying to meet expectations and fit in, perhaps being expected to speak for their racial/ethnic group in class discussions or being questioned by campus security officers. For students whose identities intersect in multiple ways across race, generation status, income level, and academic preparation, the challenges are compounded.

Recommendations for Practice Based on the findings from our latest research on the role of faculty in student thriving, this section will highlight specific recommendations that we believe can make a significant difference in students’ ability to make the most of their college experience. The quote below, from Bain’s (2004) book What the Best College Teachers Do, captures our approach to these recommendations for practice: The key to understanding the best teaching can be found not in particular practices or rules but in the attitudes of the teachers, in their faith in their students’ abilities to achieve, in their willingness to take their students seriously and to let them assume control of their own education, and in their commitment to let all policies and practices flow from central learning objectives and from a mutual respect and agreement between students and teachers. (pp. 78-79) 198

Role of Faculty

Guided by these words, this section will explore specific assumptions, attitudes, and actions of faculty and administrators that can help or hinder student thriving, particularly during challenging transitions. Faculty Assumptions That Influence Student Thriving Assumptions refer to unexamined beliefs that people take for granted or accept as true without proof. They reflect the logic behind beliefs, providing meaning and purpose and forming the foundation for belief systems (Brookfield, 1995). Thus, assumptions guide the development of attitudes and affect the actions taken. For this reason, this set of recommendations is foundational to the subsequent recommendations we make about faculty attitudes and actions. One of our key findings, that faculty’s sensitivity to diverse learners and perspectives contributes significantly to student thriving, is likely grounded in faculty assumptions about students and how they learn. Faculty who enable students to thrive have great faith in students’ ability to achieve; they appear to subscribe to what Kuh and associates (2010) term a talent development approach: “the notion that every student can learn under the right conditions” (p. 77). Our findings confirm that when students perceive that faculty believe in them, they are more likely to engage in the learning process and to thrive during the college years. The following recommendations are targeted toward re-examining common assumptions of faculty. Adopt a growth mindset. A mindset is a set of assumptions, or what Dweck (2006) refers to as implicit self-theories. The assumptions inherent in self-theories about the extent to which change is possible create meaning systems that affect one’s goals, investment of effort, responses to failure and setbacks, and even the strategies employed to learn (Dweck & Yeager, 2019). Entity theorists exhibit a fixed mindset about intelligence, assuming that it is an innate aspect of human functioning unlikely to change significantly over one’s lifespan. When faculty hold an entity theory of intelligence, they tend to judge students’ ability based on their performance on the first exam or assignment in a class—and they communicate nonverbally and through their feedback that their opinion of students’ capacity in this area is not likely to change over the course of a term. Dweck (2006) demonstrated that faculty’s mindsets can have an even more significant effect on student performance in college than students’ own mindsets do. When low-achieving students were in classes with instructors who had a fixed mindset of intelligence, these students’ performance by the end of the term was significantly below that of their classmates. But when low-achieving students were in classes with instructors who had a growth mindset, believing that intelligence can change with practice and effort, these students’ performance at the end of the term was at or above the level of their classmates. This finding was not based on their grades as judged by the instructor; it was an independent assessment of their mastery of the 199

Thriving in Transitions

course objectives. When faculty have low expectations, they unconsciously communicate those expectations to students, as Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) noted decades ago and dubbed the Pygmalion Effect. Students often disengage as a result. High expectations and levels of challenge, along with a belief that students can meet those expectations, encourage students to invest greater energy and effort, which then results in better learning. Instructors can encourage a growth mindset in students the very first day of class. Simply providing students with information about how the brain changes during the learning process can foster a growth mindset (Dweck & Yeager, 2019). Communicating that students can master the course content when they invest high-quality effort and use the correct strategies—strategies the instructor will gladly share with them as part of the course learning—signals to students that learning is under their control and that there are specific actions they can take to succeed. Recognize that no one is immune from bias. A second assumption that can affect student thriving is the unexamined belief that faculty are immune from bias. Faculty, like all humans, not only have implicit self-theories of intelligence but also have implicit biases. Racial and gender biases are pervasive and implicit in U.S. culture (Greenwald et al., 2009), and faculty are not immune from these biases. Awareness of potential bias is an initial step toward becoming more sensitive and aware of others. A meta-analysis of more than 184 controlled research studies has established that a preference for European American (White) faces, as measured by response speed on the Implicit Association Test (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995), is exhibited in 70% of U.S. research participants and is predictive of hiring practices, medical treatment, mental health treatment, and voting for a political candidate. Implicit racial bias is more predictive of discriminatory behaviors than is one’s own self-awareness of racial bias (Greenwald et al., 2009). The unsettling conclusion from these controlled studies is that individuals’ own awareness of bias and racism is not an accurate indicator of how their behavior may negatively affect others. Psychologists are quick to note that although implicit bias is pervasive and unconscious, one’s choice about how to act is fully conscious. Becoming aware that almost everyone has implicit biases—including oneself—prepares individuals to take a breath when they are in interracial situations and stop to consider their next word or action. Being intentional about what they say and how they say it to students from cultural backgrounds unlike their own will enable faculty to provide the kind of inclusive environment in which all students can thrive. Faculty Attitudes That Influence Student Thriving Assumptions are the unexamined beliefs that underlie both attitudes and actions. Attitudes differ from assumptions in that they involve an evaluative component, a feeling of liking or disliking, and a tendency or intention to act in a way that is congruent with that emotional response (Ajzen, 2001). Although many faculty attitudes may influence student 200

Role of Faculty

thriving, this section will highlight three particular ones that are most connected to our findings, with recommendations for addressing each one. Examine attitudes toward teaching and students. The best faculty are those who fully engage in their role as instructors and who enjoy facilitating the learning process (Bain, 2004). In interviews conducted with high-thriving students of color (Watson et al., 2019), recurring themes that emerged were that faculty who enabled these students to thrive were those who seemed to enjoy teaching and were curious about what students experience in and out of the classroom, always looking for ways to connect those experiences to the learning process. Thriving students of color also described these faculty as compassionate toward the challenges that students face, particularly during transitions, and aware that many of those challenges are a function of the systemic barriers that exist in higher education or U.S. society. Congruent with Bain’s (2004) research, these were faculty who expected the best of students. Recognize the role of power and privilege in the classroom. Power, in and of itself, is not good or bad; it is how power is used that has an effect—and power is expressed in faculty’s language, interactions, curriculum, policies, and teaching strategies (Foucault, 1983). Faculty inherently hold a position of power in the classroom. When expressed as power over rather than power with students (Berger, 2005), faculty’s need for control and authority in the classroom can dampen student motivation, engagement, and learning. Faculty also hold a position of privilege—an “invisible package of unearned assets” (McIntosh, 1997, p. 291). Although all faculty hold a position of privilege simply by being faculty, White male faculty in particular bring a level of power and privilege into the classroom that, without conscious intentionality to act otherwise, can create a chilly classroom climate for women and persons of color, the two major groups of students we studied. Faculty power and privilege affects other students who are not part of the dominant campus culture, as well, such as differently abled students, LGBTQ+ students, first-generation students, and international students. Other chapters in this volume explore some of these student populations in greater depth. An initial step toward creating an inclusive classroom space where all students can thrive occurs when faculty acknowledge the role that power and privilege play in the classroom (McLaren, 2009). As a thriving student of color explained when interviewed, It was really, really great to hear them acknowledge their position of power just based upon the color of their skin. … It wasn’t them in a position of power over us as the knowledge-givers. It was acknowledging that we also have knowledge, and our knowledge was worth something as well. (Watson et al., 2019, p. 18) An attitude of intellectual and cultural humility that undergirds pedagogy and interaction with students can counteract the damage from misuses of power and denial that privilege exists (Davis, 2006). 201

Thriving in Transitions

Remain open to continual learning. In research on the faculty who influenced thriving among first-year students of color, Vetter et al. (2019) found that the most effective faculty tended to assess each class session and interaction with a student by considering opportunities for improvement. They were continually looking for ways to more effectively engage learners. Congruent with Bain’s (2004) research, they recognized that learning is a mutual process and that faculty learn from the students they teach. Faculty Actions That Enable Students to Thrive The groundwork of assumptions and attitudes is a vital precursor to taking actions that support student learning and enable thriving, as engaging superficially in actions that are not personally congruent with one’s values will be perceived by students as a lack of authenticity and trustworthiness. A number of actions strongly grounded in the literature on student learning and success have been confirmed in studies of thriving. We recommend that faculty: 1. Adopt inclusive pedagogy to foster intellectual thriving. What happens with and between faculty and students as they learn remains the heart of the educational enterprise. To close the pervasive racial gaps in college student success, therefore, pedagogy needs to be at the center of institutional efforts. Inclusive pedagogy is a method of teaching that focuses on creating a supportive environment that gives each student full access to meaningful learning and to the tools they need to be successful (McLaren, 2009). Because of a deeply held desire for all students to feel welcomed, supported, and valued as they learn, each aspect of the learning experience is designed to maximize students’ sense of belonging, which Strayhorn (2012) notes leads to deeper learning, as students find it difficult to learn in an environment in which they feel they do not belong. 2. Incorporate multiple perspectives in texts, assignments, and class discussions. A commitment to inclusive pedagogy is an invitation to consider choices regarding both the content and the means through which such content is delivered. The social identities of both student and teacher have a direct impact on the learning experience, so faculty committed to inclusive classrooms work to ensure that participation promotes thoughtfulness and mutual respect. Research demonstrates that students of all backgrounds—not just marginalized groups—learn better in more inclusive environments (McLaren, 2009). One powerful way to connect with students is to strategically integrate multiple perspectives in the classrooms. This process begins by considering the authorship of course materials to determine if diverse perspectives beyond those of the dominant culture are represented within the required textbooks or course materials. Incorporating a variety of teaching methods and modes of delivery facilitates learning in diverse learners, as well as learners from the dominant culture. 3. Provide timely, instructive feedback. Feedback is a vital component of inclusive pedagogy. Such feedback is timely, frequent, and instructive, focusing on what the student 202

Role of Faculty

can do specifically to improve the assignment. Research on human learning confirms there are few actions more powerful to learners than providing this type of instructive feedback in a timely manner (Lang, 2016). Because feedback is integral to the learning process, particularly during stressful transitions, it is essential for faculty to provide feedback that is most beneficial to students. When feedback is vague, personally critical, or not provided in time to make appropriate adjustments for the next assignment, student motivation and engagement in learning are both inhibited. The primacy of feedback is underscored by Nicol (2014): “there is no such thing as good teaching without good feedback” (p. 109). Instructive feedback is characterized by its specificity, timeliness, and focus on what the student can do differently next time. Highlighting what the student has done well and suggesting ways students can leverage their areas of strength to address areas of needed growth also motivates students to take action in response to the feedback (Lopez & Louis, 2009). Dweck (2006) has even shown that using the words “not yet” when delivering feedback that an assignment does not meet expectations can be highly motivating and can communicate the instructor’s own growth mindset and belief in the student’s ability to succeed with sufficient effort. For faculty who struggle to provide timely feedback, it can be reassuring to learn that feedback can also come from students’ peers or can be self-reflective in comparing one’s work to the instructor’s rubric. On the instructor’s part, feedback can be delivered through voice recordings, personal conversations or phone calls, or written comments throughout a paper. The delivery method is not as important as the timeliness and instructive nature of the feedback (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). 4. Employ active-learning strategies. Active, varied approaches to the learning process are at the heart of inclusive pedagogy and lead to significantly greater engagement in the learning process for all students. Active learning is simply when students do something with the material they are learning (Nelson Laird et al., 2008). These strategies may include written reflection, class discussions, small-group interaction, case studies, role plays, posing questions, or group projects. Creating learning teams in the classroom also can be a powerful way of connecting learners and course content. Such teams can learn to capitalize on the strengths each individual contributes to the group process and can foster multiple perspectives and a sense of community, while also holding individual learners accountable. Specific, structured tasks that require collaborative input from all group members tend to produce the greatest amount of learning (Michaelsen & Sweet, 2008). 5. Intentionally interact with students in and out of class to strengthen interpersonal thriving. Thriving in college is not just about academic success. Thriving students are also engaged in healthy, supportive relationships and desire to make a difference in their communities and the broader society. Key faculty actions that strengthen interpersonal thriving include validating students and creating a psychological sense of community in the classroom, as well as interacting with students outside of class. 203

Thriving in Transitions

6. Commit to validating students. Validation occurs when faculty communicate a belief in students’ ability to succeed and when they affirm that marginalized students deserve a place in their classroom (Rendón, 1994). Validation is not only central to a sense of belonging that leads to deeper engagement in learning, but it is integral to the ability of students of color to thrive on dominantly white campuses (Vetter et al., 2019). Recent research on thriving students of color highlights that even small actions—what Louis and colleagues (2020) refer to as microaffirmations—can signal belongingness and belief in a student’s abilities to contribute to the learning environment. Something as simple as calling students by their preferred name—and not confusing them with another student of their same racial identity—communicates to students that they are seen and known. Other examples of microaffirmations students reported in Louis and associates’ study included careful listening, noticing when a student had missed class, asking about an event they had told their instructor about, and inviting them for coffee. The power of these small actions is that they signal belonging and mattering, which paves the way for student learning. 7. Create a classroom environment that fosters a sense of community. Validation enhances a sense of belonging, which is one element of a psychological sense of community (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). Students who experience a sense of community in the classroom feel that they belong, have a contribution to make to the class, matter to others and enjoy interacting with others in class, and are engaged in learning partnerships to meet meaningful goals in the class. Feeling that one is welcome is only the first step in creating a sense of community, however (Strayhorn, 2012). Welcome signals that someone is a guest—a valued guest, perhaps, but a guest nonetheless. When that welcome expands to provide safety and a place where one is able to engage and contribute, then a sense of community develops. Our findings indicate that high-quality interactions with faculty in and out of the classroom significantly predicted levels of thriving among all students, but particularly among students of color. Meaningful and positive interactions with faculty also make a significant difference in students’ perceptions of the entire institution, according to our findings. Within the classroom, the way in which faculty respond to students—particularly those who experience institutional barriers to their success—can encourage students to seek faculty outside of class. Personal attention to students, calling them by name, asking about their family or interests outside of class, and providing a safe emotional space for classroom discussions are all ways that faculty can provide a foundation for the kind of interaction that enables students to thrive (Vetter et al., 2019). High-thriving students of color described these safe spaces in class as allowing all students to share their opinions without judgment from the instructor (Watson et al., 2019). Requiring students to attend office hours at least once in a term is another method some faculty use to normalize help-seeking and ensure they know their students at a deeper level (Schreiner et al., 2011).

204

Role of Faculty

8. Implement a strengths development approach in a context of meaning and purpose to enhance psychological thriving. Students who are thriving psychologically are optimistic and resilient, viewing mistakes as temporary setbacks that are a natural part of the learning process. When students know they possess assets within themselves they can apply to the challenges they face, they are more likely to continue to invest the effort they need to succeed academically and in their relationships (Louis, 2011). Strengths development as a philosophical approach to education encourages faculty to recognize and nurture students’ talents for optimal success (Lopez & Louis, 2009). Focusing on students’ positive attributes fuels student motivation and can mitigate the negative emotions that students may experience from a deficit-based approach that highlights areas where they are not yet proficient. Strengths-based classroom strategies include (a) providing feedback that highlights what students did right, as well as how to improve; (b) encouraging students to explore through journaling or other assignments how they might apply their talents to an upcoming assignment; and (c) creating learning teams whose initial assignment is to determine the strengths each team member will contribute to the group dynamic and the final product (Schreiner, 2014). Strengths development particularly flourishes in the context of an advising relationship, for that setting has the potential to focus on the meaning and purpose that students are deriving from their college experience. Because a sense of meaning and purpose is predictive of student thriving in college, providing relationships and opportunities to discuss students’ sense of purpose is a way that faculty advisors can help students thrive. When faculty advisors or mentors guide students to reflect on their experiences, students can begin to find their internal voice and understand their vocation and calling. Advisors and mentors can provide social capital to students, socialize students into the discipline, and assist students in their personal and social development, playing a major role in their success (Louis & Schreiner, Chapter 2). The Role of Administrators in Student Thriving Each of the above faculty actions that make a difference in student success and thriving requires time and energy. The reward structures of a university signal to faculty what matters most and where they should invest their time. When tenure and promotion processes emphasize research over teaching, or ignore the role of advising and mentoring, faculty are less likely to engage in the actions that can lead to higher levels of thriving in all students. Administrators desiring to enhance student thriving and success would be wise to consider the following recommendations: 1. Recognize and reward inclusive teaching at the same level as research productivity in the tenure and promotion process. Allow faculty to take risks with their teaching to create an

205

Thriving in Transitions

inclusive classroom by permitting evaluations of new courses to be set apart from the evaluation portfolio, so that faculty are not penalized for adopting new approaches in the classroom. 2. Provide resources that equip faculty for inclusive teaching and incentivize their interaction with students outside of class. Faculty-led workshops, faculty learning communities, coffee gift cards to be used only with students, and inviting culturally competent faculty as role models for training programs and presentations can raise faculty awareness and help faculty replace their current teaching strategies with more effective ones. 3. Design campus spaces that increase the likelihood of student–faculty interaction. Campus spaces that encourage students and faculty to engage with one another have a demonstrated effect on student–faculty interaction (Cotten & Wilson, 2006). Gathering places, tables and chairs within easy access of classroom space, and lounges outside faculty offices all cultivate a physical environment that encourages faculty and students to interact outside of class.

Conclusion Faculty who understand themselves and the unique challenges that students face as they transition into and through college will be equipped to facilitate the intellectual, interpersonal, and psychological vitality that will lead to the success of all students. Faculty are uniquely positioned to enhance student thriving through inclusive pedagogy and their interactions with students in and out of class, as well as in their roles as advisors and mentors. Attention to assumptions, attitudes, and actions will enable faculty to make a difference in students’ learning and success so that ultimately all students can thrive in college.

References Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 27-58. http://doi. org/cqp7jm Ash, A. N., & Schreiner, L. A. (2016). Pathways to success for students of color in Christian colleges: The role of institutional integrity and sense of community. Christian Higher Education, 15(1-2), 38-61. http://doi.org/gfvtfm Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Harvard University Press. Bean, J. P., & Eaton, S. B. (2000). A psychological model of college student retention. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the departure puzzle (pp. 48-61). Vanderbilt University Press. Berger, B. K. (2005). Power over, power with, and power to relations: Critical reflections on public relations, the dominant coalition, and activism. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17(1), 5-28. http://doi.org/br8tzf Braxton, J. M. (2008). Toward a theory of faculty professional choices in teaching that foster college student success. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 23, pp. 181-207). Springer. http://doi.org/bh7c36 Braxton, J. M., Hirschy, A. S., & McClendon, S. A. (2004). Understanding and reducing college student departure (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Volume 30, Number 3). Jossey-Bass. 206

Role of Faculty

Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. Jossey Bass. Casanova, S., McGuire, K. M., & Martin, M. (2018). “Why you throwing subs?”: An exploration of community college students’ immediate responses to microaggressions. Teachers College Record, 120(9), 1-48. Cole, D. (2007). Do interracial interactions matter? An examination of student-faculty contact and intellectual self-concept. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(3), 249-281. http://doi.org/dqhg Cotten, S., & Wilson, B. (2006). Student–faculty interactions: Dynamics and determinants. Higher Education, 51(4), 487-519. http://doi.org/djnvb5 Cuseo, J. (2018). Student–faculty engagement. In J. E. Groccia & W. Buskist (Eds.), Student engagement: A multidimensional perspective (New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 154, pp. 87-97). Wiley. Davis, B. M. (2006). How to teach students who don’t look like you: Culturally relevant teaching strategies. Corwin. Drake, J. K. (2011). The role of academic advising in student retention and persistence. About Campus, 16(3), 8-12. http://doi.org/btczvn Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House. Dweck, C. S., & Yeager, D. S. (2019). Mindsets: A view from two eras. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(3), 481-496. http://doi.org/gf4w8v Foucault, M. (1983). The subject and power. In H. Dreyfus & P. Rabinow (Eds.), Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (pp. 208-226). The University of Chicago Press. Fries-Britt, S. L., Younger, T. K., & Hall, W. D. (2010). Lessons from high-achieving students of color in physics. In S. Harper & C. B. Newman (Eds.), Students of color in STEM (New Directions for Institutional Research, No. 148, pp. 75-83). Wiley. Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4-27. http://doi.org/gmt Greenwald, A. G., Poehlman, T. A., Uhlmann, E., & Banaji, M. R. (2009). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 17-41. http://doi.org/c8c9rj Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81112. http://doi.org/bf4d36 Kezar, A., & Kinzie, J. (2006). Examining the ways institutions create student engagement: The role of mission. Journal of College Student Development, 47(2), 149-72. http://doi.org/b7z9jv Kim, Y., & Lundberg, C. (2016). A structural model of the relationship between student–faculty interaction and cognitive skills development among college students. Research in Higher Education, 57(3), 288-309. http://doi.org/dqhd Kim, Y. K., & Sax, L. J. (2017). The impact of college students’ interactions with faculty: A review of general and conditional effects. In M. B. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 85-139). Springer. Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J. (2010). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter (2nd ed.).Jossey-Bass. Lang, J. M. (2016). Small teaching: Everyday lessons from the science of learning. Wiley. Lopez, S. J., & Louis, M. C. (2009). The principles of strengths-based education. Journal of College and Character, 10(4), 1-8. http://doi.org/fkmvpg 207

Thriving in Transitions

Louis, M. C. (2011). Strengths interventions in higher education: The effect of identification versus development approaches on implicit self-theory. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 6(3), 204-215. Louis, M. C., Keetch, C., & Schreiner, L. A. (2020). Moments that matter: The role of microaffirmations in the ability of students of color to thrive [Manuscript in preparation]. Department of Higher Education, Azusa Pacific University. Lunsford, L. G. (2011). Psychology of mentoring: The case of talented college students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22(3), 474-498. http://doi.org/bhcvrd Mayhew, M. J., Rockenbach, A. N., Bowman, N. A., Seifert, T. A., & Wolniak, G. C. (2016). How college affects students: 21st century evidence that higher education works (Vol. III). Wiley. McIntosh, P. (1997). White privilege and male privilege: A personal account coming to see correspondences through work in Women’s Studies. In R. Delgado & J. Stefancic (Eds.), Critical White studies: Looking behind the mirror (pp. 291-299). Temple University Press. McLaren, P. (2009). Critical pedagogy: A look at the major concepts. In A. Darder, M. P. Naltodano, & R. D. Torres (Eds.), The critical pedagogy reader (pp. 61-83). Routledge. McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14(1), 6-23. http://doi.org/fvxz24 Michaelsen, L. K., & Sweet, M. (2008). The essential elements of team-based learning. In L. Michaelsen & L. D. Fink (Eds.), Team-based learning: Small group learning’s next big step (New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 116, pp. 7-27). Wiley. Nelson Laird, T. F., Chen, D., & Kuh, G. D. (2008). Classroom practices at institutions with higherthan-expected persistence rates: What student engagement data tell us. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.), The role of the classroom in college student persistence (New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 115, pp. 85-99). Wiley. Nicol, D. (2014). Good designs for written feedback. In W. J. McKeachie & M. D. Svinicki (Eds.), McKeachie’s teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers (14th ed., pp. 109-123). Cengage Learning. Rendón, L. I. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a new model for learning and student development. Innovative Higher Education, 27(4), 235-252. http://doi.org/d5thqj Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. The Urban Review, 3(1), 16-20. Schlossberg, N. K. (1989). Marginality and mattering: Key issues in building community. In D. C. Roberts (Ed.), Designing campus activities to foster a sense of community (New Directions for Student Services, No, 48, pp. 5-15). Jossey-Bass. Schreiner, L. A. (2010a). The Thriving Quotient: A new vision for student success. About Campus, 15(2), 2-10. http://doi.org/dgdbg2 Schreiner, L. A. (2010b). Thriving in the classroom. About Campus, 15(3), 2-10. http://doi.org/ c63d7j Schreiner, L. A. (2014). Different pathways to thriving among students of color: An untapped opportunity for success. About Campus, 19(5), 10-19. http://doi.org/gf6kcj Schreiner, L. A. (2016). Thriving: Expanding the goal of higher education. In D. W. Harward (Ed.), Well-Being and higher education: A strategy for change and the realization of education’s greater purpose (pp. 135-148). American Association of Colleges and Universities.

208

Role of Faculty

Schreiner, L. A., Martinez, T. M., Miller, A. E., Keetch, C., & Drumm, J. (2018, November). The role of “woke” faculty for thriving students of color. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Orlando, FL. Schreiner, L. A., Noel, P., Anderson, E., & Cantwell, L. (2011). The impact of faculty and staff on highrisk college student persistence. Journal of College Student Development, 52(3), 321-338. http:// doi.org/fktbr8 Strayhorn, T. L. (2012). College students’ sense of belonging: A key to educational success for all students. Routledge. Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orientation. Wiley. Taylor, S. E. (2011). Social support: A review. In M. S. Friedman (Ed.), The handbook of health psychology (pp. 189-214). Oxford University Press. Vetter, M. K., Schreiner, L. A., & Jaworski, B. (2019). Faculty attitudes and behaviors that contribute to thriving in first-year students of color. Journal of The First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 31(1), 9-28. Watson, C. J., Willmon, A. E., & Schreiner, L. A. (2019, November). Brick walls and staircases: Reimagining support for students of color to thrive. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Portland, OR. Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 8(11), 69-91. http://doi.org/ctqp52

209

CHAPTER TEN RECOMMENDATIONS TO PROMOTE THRIVING IN TRANSITIONS Laurie A. Schreiner, Denise D. Nelson, & Michelle C. Louis

Thriving in Transitions focuses on the many transitional experiences that college students encounter, beginning with the transition from high school to higher education and continuing through the transition from college to graduate school or the world of work. This volume has emphasized students’ ability to not merely survive these transitions but to thrive in the midst them. Thriving implies making the most of an experience, emerging from a transition stronger and better prepared for the next phase of life. Throughout the book, chapter authors have applied the construct of thriving, with its holistic perspective on student success, as a framework for helping students move successfully through transitions in college in ways that further their growth and enable them to benefit more fully from their college experience. What has emerged as a vital link to thriving in the years of research since the first edition of this book is the role of the campus environment. Throughout this new edition, the sense of community on campus is a major contributor to student thriving. Students’ perceptions of institutional integrity are a precursor to their sense of community, and the quality of their interaction with faculty in and out of the classroom is the dominant contributor to those perceptions of institutional integrity. These findings highlight that not only is student success a function of individual student effort and actions but also that institutions contribute more to student success than had previously been understood. As Kinzie and Kuh (2017) note, “a re-envisioned framework for student success incorporates greater attention to institutional responsibility for student success” (p. 24). In closing this book, we highlight the recommendations that are offered within each chapter, providing a blueprint for assisting students through the numerous transitions of college life. We have organized those recommendations into the three major elements of thriving: academic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal thriving. We end the chapter with campuswide recommendations that highlight the importance of a cohesive institutional framework for student thriving.

Recommendations to Enhance Academic Thriving Academic thriving encompasses student engagement in the learning process as well as students’ goal direction, investment of effort, and ability to manage life in a way that supports academic success. The following recommendations highlight specific ways that 211

Thriving in Transitions

institutions can foster academic thriving in students during transitions, based on findings reported in this volume. In the classroom:

212

1.

Give students a sense of control over the demands of their courses by teaching effective strategies for success in each class. Encourage students to set learning goals rather than exclusively performance goals.

2.

Use inclusive pedagogy in the classroom so that all students feel validated, experience a sense of belonging, and are able to contribute to as well as benefit from the learning environment.

3.

Encourage a growth mindset through ref lective writing, class discussion, or other exercises to help students frame academic performance as the result of appropriately applied effort rather than innate levels of intelligence. Help students view challenges or failures as building blocks for future success.

4.

Foster student–faculty interaction through undergraduate research opportunities.

5.

Fuel intellectual curiosity by modeling enthusiasm for the process of learning, examining multiple perspectives on a topic, and adopting an inquisitive stance toward course material.

6.

Support intrinsic motivation by offering students a range of alternative assignments or methods of evaluation.

7.

Connect transfer students with faculty in their major through small-group orientation sessions or faculty–student work groups.

8.

Explore each student’s strengths and their unique contributions to the shared learning experiences within a classroom, and help students consider how they can apply their strengths to the academic challenges they face.

9.

Acknowledge and discuss classroom power dynamics, especially as they relate to race/ethnicity, gender, ability, or other issues of privilege.

10.

Employ active-learning techniques to encourage high levels of engagement.

11.

Offer challenging assignments with clearly described expectations.

12.

Give students timely, instructive feedback regarding their work.

Recommendations

In advising: 1.

Expose students to the possibility of graduate education and encourage them to revisit their initial degree goals in light of their career aspirations and college experiences.

2.

Assign students’ first-year seminar instructors as their academic advisors throughout the first year.

3.

Teach students goal direction by using academic advising as the vehicle for hope building.

4.

Adopt strengths development advising practices that help students consider how their talents can be developed and mobilized during college.

In curricular and cocurricular programming: 1.

Offer learning communities built around a variety of social issues or intellectual topics to permit self-selection into immersive learning experiences that address issues of high personal interest.

2.

Educate faculty, student affairs personnel, and students about the harmful effects of expecting students of color to speak on behalf of their ethnic or cultural group.

3.

Publicize transfer policies, including articulation agreements and transferability requirements, to support the ongoing academic work of transfer students.

4.

Offer summer preview courses for students considering vertical transfer from a two-year college to a four-year institution.

5.

Encourage the kind of exploration and thoughtful risk-taking that prompts intellectual curiosity, and provide intentional opportunities for ref lection with peers and mentors.

Recommendations to Enhance Interpersonal Thriving Interpersonal thriving encompasses healthy relationships and social connections in students’ lives, but it also includes an openness to difference and desire to make an impact in the surrounding community. The following recommendations can help bolster students’ interpersonal thriving during key transition points: 1.

Link students not only to others who are experiencing the same transition, but also to peers who have successfully navigated that transition already.

2.

Include peer instructors within first-year seminars to offer relational, as well as academic, connections. 213

Thriving in Transitions

3.

Design peer mentorship programs and campus leadership opportunities specifically for transfer students, or encourage transfers to pursue existing opportunities by initiating transfer-friendly meeting schedules.

4.

Create supportive relationships for students of color, either one-on-one or in group settings, with peers who can mentor new students in the midst of daily intercultural transitions. Promote ethnic organizations across campus.

5.

Offer guidelines for selective involvement in campus activities and organizations to encourage participation without burnout.

6.

Design learning communities that permit students to bond with one another through shared living arrangements or linked courses as they learn together. Organize learning communities in ways that encourage commuter student involvement.

7.

Offer service-learning activities that encourage peer collaboration and allow students to work alongside those from unfamiliar cultures or circumstances.

8.

Include non-residential students, adult learners, and transfer students in cocurricular community-building activities that are often targeted solely to first-year residential students.

9.

Encourage student input and feedback regarding campus programming, especially from often-overlooked groups such as sophomores and transfer students.

10.

Help college seniors consider how the skills they developed through involvement in campus organizations can be translated to their areas of desired community contribution beyond college.

11.

Host a special campus welcome reception for transfer students to convey their importance to the institution; encourage a variety of student organizations to participate.

Recommendations to Enhance Intrapersonal Thriving Intrapersonal thriving refers to the positive perspective that thriving students possess. This perspective, comprised of realistic optimism and a strong sense of well-being, enables students to remain motivated and persist during difficult challenges. Foundational to all aspects of thriving, a positive perspective can be enhanced by the following institutional efforts during key transition periods in students’ lives: 1.

214

Communicate openly with students and their families about the growth opportunities associated with specific transitions.

Recommendations

2.

Teach students a growth mindset and an optimistic explanatory style to help them gain a sense of academic control.

3.

Equip students to understand and develop their unique strengths to support success in all aspects of their college lives. Validate the community cultural wealth that students bring to the collegiate environment.

4.

Create a spiritually supportive environment with opportunities for students to examine questions of meaning and purpose in their lives.

5.

Use advising appointments to help students set long-term personal and academic goals and plan for reaching them. Focus on students’ strengths and interests as pathways to their success.

6.

Support healthy exploration by designing activities in classroom or advising settings that urge students to consider numerous possible scenarios for their lives after graduation, including unfamiliar or daunting possibilities.

Campuswide Recommendations We close this book with a series of broad recommendations for institutional leaders to consider as they seek to enhance thriving among their students during the many seasons of transition that characterize the college years. The aforementioned specific recommendations for helping students thrive will be more easily implemented within a campus culture where student transitional issues are understood and where thriving is a valued goal for the undergraduate experience. The following recommendations address the campus ethos and shared institutional goals. 1. Create an institutional framework for student thriving and measure student thriving and its contributing factors at key transition points. This book articulates a robust vision for student success that extends beyond more common indices of success such as high levels of academic performance and persistence to graduation. Although these factors are important, seeking to produce thriving among students requires that educators’ scope of concern includes a consideration of students’ ability to form and maintain healthy relationships, their commitment to make a contribution to their community, and their response to challenging circumstances. Because students’ levels of thriving are closely tied to their perceptions regarding institutional integrity, institutions that purport to value these elements of students’ holistic well-being must follow through on their messages of care by not only implementing programming that supports thriving, but also evaluating their efforts regularly to ensure ongoing effectiveness. A coherent, integrated institutional framework that defines student success as intellectual, relational, and psychological thriving enables all campus partners to collaborate in the creation of cohesive programming that scaffolds students throughout the various transitions they 215

Thriving in Transitions

are likely to experience. Such programming will focus on creating an environment where students can experience a sense of community, with intentional efforts to validate students’ backgrounds and cultural assets and foster an inclusive learning environment where students feel a strong sense of belonging. Consistent messages of inclusion and care, faculty and staff who embody the mission of the institution, and practices that center student learning and meet students’ expectations are indicative of the institutional integrity that builds a sense of community and characterizes a thriving campus. When institutions embrace an integrated framework of student thriving, they will employ assessment techniques that reflect this value and that provide information on thriving-related indicators. In addition, because thriving is a dynamic state, we recommend that institutional leaders pay particular attention to high-stress transition points at which they can systematically measure and track student success by examining it from academic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal perspectives. Part of this assessment strategy may require the initiation of a comprehensive monitoring system designed to support students in transition and to identify opportunities to intervene on their behalf. In adopting this approach, we recommend a consideration of not only how to support those students who may be struggling, but also how to augment the positive experiences of those who are thriving. 2. Design all campus programs from a long-term perspective that includes life after college so that students perceive transition periods within the context of a bigger picture. Normalizing some of the challenges associated with transitions, helping students understand their current transitions within a broader context, and increasing students’ awareness of resources that are available to them during a transition are all strategies for facilitating smooth transitions throughout the college years. As postsecondary educational leaders identify the skills and attributes they hope their graduates will possess, we recommend that these desired endpoints inform the nature of the educational experience from the very beginning of students’ time on campus. Planning for success in post-collegiate life requires that educators consider how each aspect of the campus environment serves to advance or detract from their students’ ability to develop the personal qualities that will serve them well beyond college. 3. Assess students’ strengths at entrance, and design programs with ongoing development of those strengths as a goal. As students transition into college, having an understanding of the personal strengths they bring into that environment, as well as the community cultural wealth they possess (Yosso, 2005), may be a critical feature of a smooth transition in which students are able to gain a sense of confidence and competence in responding to some of the challenges they will encounter on campus. Students who are aware of their individual as well as communal and cultural strengths can more readily develop and apply them during their college years. In addition, students who are challenged to nurture their existing

216

Recommendations

strengths can be more intentional about leveraging them when they engage in coursework and cocurricular activities. A campuswide strategy of strengths development begins with personnel who are committed to bringing out the best in students, believing that each student admitted to the institution is capable of succeeding. An integrated web of advising or success coaching, first-year seminars, academic support services, career services, leadership development, and faculty whose teaching is grounded in a strengths philosophy forms a strong foundation for a thriving campus. In some situations, designing a comprehensive campus-wide strengths development strategy may require the addition of new initiatives. However, it is also likely that institutions may benefit considerably from infusing a strengths perspective into existing programs or services on campus.

Final Thoughts The overarching intention of this book is to present thriving as a holistic model of student success that is a viable institutional goal despite the challenges that confront students throughout their college years. By offering research-based recommendations for practice, we have sought to respond to the struggles inherent in specific transitions with helpful strategies for equipping students to overcome them. Creating an environment in which students can thrive requires a foundational commitment to holistic student wellness. Communicating that commitment to prospective and current students, their families, institutional alumni, faculty, and staff is the first step toward creating a thriving campus that facilitates positive student transitions. Our hope is that the ideas presented here will catalyze reflection, dialogue, and action among educators committed to creating campus climates that enable all students to thrive.

References Kinzie, J., & Kuh, G. (2017). Reframing student success in college: Advancing know-what and knowhow. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning , 49(3), 19-27. http://doi.org/dqcm Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 8(11), 69-91. http://doi.org/ctqp52

217

INDEX NOTE: Page references followed by f indicate figures; those followed by t indicate tables. A academic advising appreciative, 42, 187 encouraging intrinsic motivation, 188 second-year students and, 145–146 strengths-based, 42 strengths development and, 41–44 successful transitions and, 28–29 academically high-risk students, 98. See also high-risk students academic capital, 99 academic determination encouraging, 120 strengths development and, 37–41 Academic Determination, 21, 22 high-risk students and, 103, 106–107, 118, 119 academic integration, 4–5 academic thriving, 21–22 active learning high-impact practices and, 54 strengths development and, 38–39 active-learning strategies, 203 Adelman, C., 131 administrators, role in student thriving, 205–206 advanced degree aspirations of second-year students, 141 transition out of college and, 183

advising. See academic advising African American students. See students of color at PWIs Ajzen, I., 200 Alexander, B. C., 165 alienation, felt by students of color at PWIs, 81 Allan, B. A., 46 Allen, J. K., 171, 184 Allen, W., 83, 84 Amemiya, J., 41 Ancis, J. R., 84 Anderson, C. B., 84 Anderson, E. C., 34 appreciative advising, 42, 187 approach coping skills, 19 Arendale, D. R., 99, 101 Aronson, J., 102, 113, 115 articulation agreements, for transfer students, 165 Ash, A. N., 3, 60, 64, 68, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 144, 157, 195 Asian students. See students of color at PWIs Aspinwall, L. G., 34 Astin, A. W, 8, 9, 27, 33, 53, 58, 60, 61, 64, 65, 87, 97, 98, 99, 101, 103, 121, 139, 142, 147, 187 Attewell, P. A., 17, 97, 100 attitudes, of faculty, influencing student thriving, 200–202 attribution theory, 177 219

Thriving in Transitions

B Bailey, T., 121 Bain, K., 198, 201, 202 Banaji, M. R., 200 Bandura, A., 6 Barefoot, B. O, 131 Barnes, A. R., 81, 82 Baxter Magolda, M., 28 Bean, J. P., 2, 6, 19, 20, 27, 72, 148, 157, 183, 197 Bennett, C., 81 Bensimon, E. M., 10 Berger, B. K., 201 Berger, J. B., 4 Bettinger, E., 100, 101 bias, of faculty, 200 Bickerstaff, S., 100 Blackwell, L. S., 115 Bloom, J., 42, 43, 44, 187 Blumenstyk, G., 98 Boatman, A., 97, 100 Bok, D. C., 84 Bourke, B., 81 Bowen, W. G., 4, 20 Bowman, N. A., ix Boylan, H., 100 Bransford, J., 26 Braskamp, L. A., 29 Braxton, J. M., 4, 5, 11, 20, 21, 53, 60, 86, 103, 118, 119, 130, 139, 143, 147, 160, 193, 196 Brookfield, S. D., 38, 199 Brower, A. M., 56 Brown, B., 33, 38, 177 Buckingham, M., 34, 35, 36 Burnette, J. L., 113 C Cabrera, A. E., 5 220

Calcagno, J. C., 97, 100 campus climate second-year student satisfaction with, 136, 138, 143 students of color and, 143 campus involvement. See cocurricular involvement Canning, E. A., 107 Cantwell, L., 45 Carter, D. F., 81 Carver, C. S., 22, 23 Casanova, S., 81, 194 Castillo-Montoya, M., 145 Cataldi, E. F., 99 Cesar-Davis, N. M., 91 Chaney, B. W., 97 Chang, M., 83 Chavez, A. F., 33, 38, 39 Chavis, D. M., 61, 69, 86, 103, 204 Chemers, M. M., 40–41 Chen, X., 97 Cheng, D. X., 27, 139 Chickering, A. W., 9, 23, 38, 65, 155 Chiu, C., 115 Chung, K. Y., 23 classroom creating sense of community in, 37–38, 145 incorporating multiple perspectives in, 202 power and privilege in, 201 strengths development in, 37–41 Clifton, D. O., 34, 35, 36 CliftonStrengths assessment, 36, 42 Clifton StrengthsFinder, 36 cocurricular involvement for first-year students, 67, 68 of students of color at PWIs, 87–88 cocurriculum, diversity in, 84

Index

cognitive appraisal, 19 Cohen, G. L., 41 Cole, D., 82, 144, 145, 195 college environment, input-environmentoutput model and, 58 community college students transferring to four-year colleges, 155 . See also transfer students Vassar College pre-transfer program for, 164–165 community projects. See service-learning experiences Compton, P., 156 Consoli, M., 87 Constantine, M. G., 87 Cooperrider, D. L., 42, 187 coping skills, approach, 19 Corbin, A., 173 Corpus, J. H., 41 Cotten, S., 206 Cox, B. E., 129, 130 Credé, M., 120 Creswell, J. W., 173 Csikszentmihalyi, M., 20, 34 curiosity, in senior-year students, 174–179 institutional measures to develop, 184–188 curriculum design of, successful transitions and, 29 diversity in, 84 to encourage intrinsic motivation, 188 Cuseo, J., 194 Cypers, S., 165 D Davis, B. M., 201 Davis, J., 98 Deci, E. L., 39, 41, 187, 188 decision-making, passions as filter for, 182

Delgado Bernal, D., 84 DeNeui, D., 37, 139 Derrico, C., 102 Dever, J. T., 154 Diamond, K. K., 66 discomfort, allowing oneself to experience, 178–179 Diverse Citizenship, 23, 61 high-risk students and, 103 institutional interventions bolstering, 26–27 interventions to enhance, 27 in thriving seniors, 184 diversity, campus climate for, 82–85 behavioral dimension of, 84 compositional diversity and, 83–84 institutional change for, 88–91 majority student perception of, 82–83, 84 psychological dimension of, 84–85 Douthit, K. Z., 80, 81 Drake, J. K., 28, 194 drive, 179–183 institutional measures to develop, 184–188 Drumm, J., 85, 86, 87, 88 Dugan, J. P., 68 Duncheon, J., 102 Dundar, A., 156 Dweck, C. S., 29, 41, 45, 103, 107, 112, 113, 114, 121, 177, 183, 199, 200, 203 E Eaton, S., 2, 6, 19, 20, 27, 157, 183, 197 Eccles, J. S., 6, 61 economics, retention and, 5 Edmonson, A. C., 41 educational aspiration, 61 Elliot, A. J., 179, 183 221

Thriving in Transitions

embracing, curiosity and, 174 Emmons, R. A., 187 emotional challenges, faced by second-year students, 133 emotional connection, shared, psychological sense of community and, 71 engaged learning mindfulness and, 185–186 strengths development and, 37–41 Engaged Learning, 21–22, 61, 103 Ethington, C. A., 6 exploration, promotion of, 186 Exploring Transfer program, 164–165 extrinsic rewards, reducing dependence on, 187–188 Eyler, J., 57 F faculty academic advising by. See academic advising adoption of inclusive pedagogy by, 202 attitudes toward teaching and students, 201 feedback from. See feedback fostering of sense of community by, 204 inclusive teaching by, recognition of, 205–206 opportunities for continual improvement and, 202 power and privilege of, 201 relationships with students. See faculty interaction role in student thriving, 195–197, 196f as role models, 194 strengths development approach and, 205 student validation by, 204 White, interaction with students of 222

color, 194–195 faculty development demonstrating effective methods of engaging students in the learning process, 28 support of students’ perceptions of institutional integrity, 119–120 Faculty Diversity Satisfaction scale, 60 faculty interaction designing campus spaces increasing likelihood of, 205–206 with first-year students, 65, 66–67, 68 fostering curiosity, 175–176 quality vs. frequency of, 194–195 with second-year students, 131–132, 140, 142, 144–145 strengthening, 203 with students of color, 194–195, 196–197 with transfer students, facilitating, 161 Faculty Interaction, 60 faculty role in student success and thriving, 193–206 faculty actions enabling thriving and, 202–205 faculty assumptions influencing thriving and, 199–200 faculty attitudes influencing thriving and, 200–202 as learning facilitators, advisors, and mentors, 194–195 recommendations for, 198–206 students’ challenges and needs during transitions and, 197–198 faculty–student relationships. See faculty interaction failure, acceptance as learning opportunity, 176–178 fears, facing deliberately, 178–179

Index

feedback strengths development and, 40–41 timely and instructional, 202–203 Feldman, K. A., 11 Felten, P., 119 Fink, J. E., 29, 56 Fink, L. D., 188 Finley, A., 10, 54 first-generation students, 98–99 first-year seminars, 54–56, 66 first-year students, 53–73 career development and exploration for, 66–67 cocurricular involvement and, 67–68 first-year seminars for, 54–56, 66 learning communities for, 56–57 life-planning courses for, 66 predicting thriving in, 58–65 sense of community and, 69–72 service-learning for, 57–58 spirituality and, 67–68 successful, 53–58 transition issues of, 197 Fishbane, A., 102 Fletcher, E., 102 flourishing, 157 Folkman, S., 19, 25 Fong, C. J., 155 Foote, S. M., 162 Foucault, M., 201 Fox, J., 34 Fredrickson, B. L., 35, 43, 187 Fries-Britt, S. L., 194 G Gahagan, J., 129, 131 Gale, T., 19 Gallup, 36, 42 Gamson, Z. F., 38, 65, 155

Gansemer-Topf, A. M., 130, 132 Gardner, J. N., 33, 54, 171, 172 Ghielen, S., 46 goal setting, transition out of college and, 183 Goffman, E., 41 Gohn, L., 130 Gonyea, R. M., 54, 153, 156 Goodman, F. R., 34, 36 Goodman, J., 17, 19 Gordon, V. N., 146 Gore, P., 132 graduation rates failure to grow, 1 student success as degree completion and, 3–8 Graff, C. G., 120 Graunke, S., 130, 131 Graziano, J., 54 Greenfield, G. M., 26 Greenwald, A. G., 200 growth mindset faculty adoption of, 199–200 faculty encouragement of, 200 high-risk students and, 113–114, 115–117, 118–119, 121 Guiffrida, D. A., 80, 81 H Habley, W. R., 120 Hagedorn, L. S., 165 Haidt, J., 2, 6, 20, 157 Halmovitz, K., 41 Harper, S. R., 10, 34, 80 Harter, J. K., 34, 35 Hartman-Pickerill, B., 68 Harwood, S. A., 80, 81, 82, 83, 88 Hattie, J., 203 Hauptman, A. M., 4 223

Thriving in Transitions

Hausmann, L. R. M., 58 Heine, S. J., 101 Helkowski, C., 188 Herzog, S., 154 Hettich, P. I., 171, 188 high-impact practices, 54 high-risk students, 97–123 achievement gap and, 98 intersectionality in, 98–99 psychosocial factors in success of, 102– 103, 104t–107t, 106–107, 108t–112t remedial education and, 99–102 successful mindset and, 112–117, 114t, 116t, 117t transition issues of, 198 Hills, J. R., 154 Hirschy, A. S., 60 Hispanic students. See students of color at PWIs Holland, J. L., 11 Hong, Y., 177 hope building, strengths development and, 43 hostility, felt by students of color at PWIs, 81, 84–85 Howard, J. A., 6 Hu, L., 84 Hulme, E., 28–29, 35, 120, 122 Hunter, M. S., 129, 130, 131, 132, 171 Hurtado, S., 80, 81, 82, 83, 84 I

I-E-O (input-environment-output) model, 58, 61, 64 Implicit Association Test, 200 inclusive pedagogy active-learning strategies and, 203 faculty adoption of, 202 recognition of, 205–206

224

incremental self-theory, 177 influence, psychological sense of community and, 69–70 informational support, 26 Inkelas, K. K., 29, 56 input-environment-output (I-E-O) model, 58, 61, 64 institutional framework, for student thriving, creating, 215–216 institutional integrity faculty and staff support of students’ perceptions of, 119–120 students of color at PWIs and, 86–87 Institutional Integrity, 60 high-risk students and, 103, 107, 118, 119 institutional structures and processes retention and, 5 second-year students and, 147–148 institutions institutional change for campus climate for diversity and, 90–91 positive framing of transitions by, 25 programmatic change for campus climate for diversity and, 89–90 strengths development initiatives and, 45–46 support for transitions, 25–27 instructive feedback, 202–203 integration lack of, of students of color at PWIs, 81 psychological sense of community and, 70 of transfer students, 155–156, 160–161 interactionalist theory of retention, 4–5 interpersonal thriving, 23–24 second-year students’ challenges and, 132–133

Index

interventions academic advising as. See academic advising to bolster Social Connectedness, 26–27 curriculum design. See curriculum design to enhance Diverse Citizenship, 27 experimental, for developing a successful mindset, 112–117, 114t, 116t, 117t focusing on student thriving in the classroom, 28 intrinsic motivation, 180 encouraging, 187–188 strengths development and, 39–40 Ishitani, T. T., 99, 153, 155 J

Jacobson, L., 200 Jaggars, S. S., 100 Jimenez, L., 100, 122 Johnson, D. R., 84 Johnson, L. S., 87 Juillerat, S., 129, 130, 133, 134

K Kaiser, R. B., 37 Kaplan, R. E., 37 Kashdan, T. B., 174, 186 Keup, J. R., 54, 131 Keyes, C. L. M., 2, 6, 20, 157 Kezar, A., 45, 90, 194 Kilgo, C., 54, 155 Kim, Y. K., 27, 82, 144, 161, 193, 194 King, P., 28 Kinzie, J., 153, 156, 185, 194, 211 Koth, K., 27 Krutkowski, S., 46

Kuh, G. D., ix, 3, 6, 9, 10, 17, 26, 33, 34, 38, 41, 54, 55, 56, 57, 60, 65, 71, 84, 99, 120, 155, 185, 193, 199, 211 L Laanan, F. S., 161, 163 Lane, J. A., 171 Lang, J. M., 203 Langer, E., 185 Latino students. See students of color at PWIs Laufgraben, J. L., 56, 57 Lazarus, R. S., 18, 19, 25 Le, H., 115 learning, active active-learning strategies and, 203 high-impact practices and, 54 strengths development and, 38–39 learning communities for first-year students, 56–57 love of, generated by passions, 181–182 learning gains, student success as, 8 Lee, J. A., 81, 82 Lehnert, A. B., 46 Lester, J., 155, 161, 166 Liesveld, R., 34 life-planning courses, for first-year students, 66 Light, R. J., 42, 121 Lindholm, J. A., 141, 146 Linley, J. L., 81, 84 Linley, P. A., 34 living–learning communities (LLCs), 56–57 psychological sense of community and, 71 LLCs. See living-learning communities (LLCs) Locks, A. M., 84, 90 225

Thriving in Transitions

Lohfink, M. M., 60, 61 Long, B. T., 97, 100, 101 Longerbeam, S. D., 33, 38, 39 Lopez, S. J., 28, 34, 36, 37, 38, 43, 203, 205 Louis, M. C., 22, 28, 34, 36, 37, 38, 40, 43, 45, 46, 47, 97, 119, 176, 185, 203, 204, 205 Lounsbury, J., 139 Lowe, M. R., 81, 82, 84 low-income students, 98, 99 Lundberg, C. A., 88, 144 Lunsford, L. G., 194 M major certainty about, of second-year students, 141 certainty about, of students of color at PWIs, 88 certainty about, of transfer students, 161 selection of, by second-year students, 132 Margolis, E., 99 Markus, H., 43 Martorell, P., 97, 100 Maslow, A. H., 172 Mather, P., 44 Mayhew, M. J., 4, 5, 9, 53, 55, 56, 57, 65, 155, 156, 161, 193, 194 McCormick, A. C., 153, 155, 166 McFarlin, I., 97, 100 McIntosh, E. J., 59, 64, 85, 86, 87, 139, 198 McIntosh, P., 201 McKitrick, S. A., 153, 155 McLaren, P., 37, 194, 201, 202 McMillan, D. W., 61, 69, 86, 103, 204 membership fostering in transfer students, 161

226

psychological sense of community and, 69 mentoring program, for transfer students, 163–164 Mertler, C. A., 103 Michaelsen, L. K., 203 Milem, J. F., 4, 82, 83, 90 Miller, A., 154 Miller, J. A., 34 mindfulness, development of curiosity through increasing, 185 mindset fixed, 113 growth, 113–114, 115–117, 118–119 role in student success, 113–114 Mindset, high-risk students and, 103, 107 Mitchell, T. D., 67 Mohr, J. J., 171 Molden, D. C., 113, 183 motivation intrinsic. See intrinsic motivation persistence and, 6 reduced, in second-year students, 131 Museus, S. D., 82, 83, 143 Mustafa, S., 156 Myers, C. B., 183 N National Postsecondary Education Cooperative (NPEC), 10 National Resource Center for The FirstYear Experience and Students in Transition, 54–55 National Resource Center for The Freshman Year Experience, 54–55 National Study of Living-Learning Programs (NSLLP), 56 National Survey of First-Year Seminars (NSFYS), 54–55

Index

National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), 54 need fulfillment, psychological sense of community and, 70–71 Nelson, D. D., 130, 132, 197, 198 Nelson, P., 34 Nelson Laird, T. F., 39, 203 Newman, M. L., 81, 101 Nicol, D., 203 Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI), 134 Nora, A., 26 NPEC (National Postsecondary Education Cooperative), 10 NSFYS (National Survey of First-Year Seminars), 54–55 NSLLP (National Study of LivingLearning Programs), 56 NSSE (National Survey of Student Engagement), 54 Nurius, P., 43 O Okinaka, A. M., 81 optimistic explanatory style, 24, 178 orientation programs psychological sense of community and, 71 for transfer students, 162 output, input-environment-output model and, 58–59 Overton-Healy, J., 171 ownership, fostering in transfer students, 161 P Pace, C. R., 9 Padgett, R. D., 54 Pajares, F., 40

Pals, J. L., 113 Pancer, S. M., 67 Park, J. J., 82, 83, 143 Parker, S., 19 Pascarella, E. T., 55, 56, 98, 99 passion. See personal passion Patall, E. A., 188 Pattengale, J., 129, 130 Paulsen, M., 61, 120 pedagogy, inclusive. See inclusive pedagogy peer mentoring program, for transfer students, 163–164 Permzadian, V., 120 Perna, L. W., 11 Perry, R. P., 6, 19, 25, 26, 28, 40 persistence theories, 4–5 economic perspectives in, 5 organizational perspectives in, 5 psychological perspectives in, 5–6 sociological perspectives in, 4–5 personal passion, 180–183 drive and, 180–181 enhancing through self-awareness, 181 as filter for decision-making, 182 institutional measures to develop, 184–188 love of learning generated by, 181–182 sense of purpose and, 182–183 person-environment fit theory, student success and, 11 Peterson, C., 34, 36 Peterson, C. H., 115 Pike, G. R., 60, 99 Pintrich, P. R., 28 Pistilli, M. D., 171 Pizzolato, J. E., 98 positive perspective, successful transitions and, 24–26 Positive Perspective, 22–23, 61, 103 227

Thriving in Transitions

high-risk students and, 103 optimistic explanatory style and, 178 in thriving seniors, 183–184 possible selves, strengths development and, 43 post-collegiate life. See also advanced degree aspirations planning for success in, 216 power, in classroom, 201 predominantly White institutions (PWIs), students of color at. See students of color at PWIs “price-response theories,” 5 primary cognitive appraisal, 19 privilege, in classroom, 201 Psychological Sense of Community (PSC), 59, 61, 65 aspects of, 143 cultivating in transfer students, 161–162 elements contributing to, 69–71 faculty fostering of, 204 first-year students and, 71–72 second-year students and, 139–140, 142, 143, 145 students of color at PWIs and, 86, 196–197, 196f thriving as pathway to success for highrisk students and, 103 in transfer students, cultivating, 161–162 psychological theories retention and, 5–6 thriving and, 6–7 psychological thriving, 22–23 psychosocial factors, high-risk students’ success and, 102–103, 104t–107t, 106–107, 108t–112t Pullins, T. L., 130, 133, 146 228

purpose, sense of, passions and, 182–183 Pusser, B., 12 PWIs (predominantly White institutions), students of color at. See students of color at PWIs Pygmalion Effect, 200 Q Quality of Involvement scale, 59 Quaye, S. J., 10 R racial discrimination/tension, experienced by students of color at PWIs, 81, 84 Rankin, S. R., 80, 81, 82, 83, 84 Rayle, A. D., 23 Reason, R. D., 80, 81, 82, 83, 84 recommendations to promote thriving, 211–217 academic, 211–213 campuswide, 215–217 interpersonal, 213–214 intrapersonal, 214–215 of second-year students, 144–148 Reisser, L., 23 remedial education deficiency management vs. strengths development and, 34 for high-risk students, 99–102, 120, 121 thriving and, 100–102 Rendón, L. I., 144, 194–195, 204 research partnerships, student–faculty, with second-year students, 144 retention theories. See persistence theories risk-taking, thoughtful, promotion of, 186 Robbins, S. B., 28, 121 Roberts, C., 53 Robins, R. W., 113 Robinson, K., 187

Index

Rocconi, L. M., 29 Rockenbach, A. N., 68 Rodriguez, O., 100 Roksa, J., 171 role models, faculty as, 194 Rosenthal, R., 200 Rost-Banik, C., 67 Ryan, R. M., 39, 41, 187, 188 S Saenz, V. B., 98 Saleebey, D., 34 Sarason, S. B., 58, 65, 69, 86, 143, 161 Saw, G. K., 100 Sax, L. J., 27, 82, 144, 161, 193, 194 Saxon, D., 100 Schaller, M. A., 131, 132, 133, 142, 145, 146 Schilling, K. L., 29 Schilling, K. M., 29 Schlossberg, N. K., 18, 23, 24, 25, 41, 197 Schmidt, L. C., 54 Schneider, C. G., 20 Schreiner, L. A., 2, 3, 6, 13, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28–29, 35, 37, 38, 41, 42, 43, 44, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 64, 66, 68, 80, 83, 85–86, 87, 88, 97, 99, 102, 103, 118, 119, 120, 129, 130, 131, 132–133, 134, 138, 139, 141, 143, 144, 146, 148, 154, 155, 157, 166, 173, 176, 178, 180, 183, 184, 185, 195, 198, 204, 205 Schuh, J., 29 Scott-Clayton, J., 100 secondary cognitive appraisal, 19 second-year students, 129–148 academic challenges faced by, 131–132 barriers to success of, 130 emotional challenges faced by, 133 faculty advising and, 145–146 faculty interaction with, 142, 144–145

institutional factors affecting thriving of, 143 institutional policies and practices to foster thriving of, 147–148 interpersonal challenges faced by, 132–133 predicting retention of, 134, 135t–137t, 136, 138 predicting thriving in, 138–140, 140f recommendations to foster thriving of, 144–148 reduction of support for, 130–131, 133 sense of community and, 142, 143, 145 spirituality and, 142–143, 146–147 thriving and, 133–134 transition issues of, 197–198 self-awareness, enhancement of passions through, 181 self-concept, of second-year students, 145 self-determination, strengths development and, 39–40 self-efficacy, 6 Seligman, M. E. P., 6, 20, 24, 26, 34, 36, 37, 42, 178 Selye, H., 18 seminars, first-year, 54–56, 66 senior-year students, 171–188 curiosity in, 174–179 drive and, 179–183 failure as learning opportunity and, 176–178 fears and discomfort and, 178–179 grieving by, 171 intrinsic motivation and, 180 personal passion and, 180–184 recommendations for, 184–188 reflections on transition out of college and, 183–184 stress in, 171 229

Thriving in Transitions

uncertainty and, 171, 174–176 service-learning experiences, for first-year students, 57–58, 67 Shapiro, D., 153, 154, 156 shared emotional connection, psychological sense of community and, 71 Shushok, F., 35, 120, 122 Silberman, M., 38 Silver, B. R., 171 Silvia, P. J., 174 Skipper, T. L., 58 Smith, W. A., 80, 81 Snyder, C. R., 28, 43 Social Connectedness, 23, 61 high-risk students and, 103, 107 institutional interventions bolstering, 26–27 interventions to bolster, 26–27 social integration, 4, 156 socialization, for transfer students, facilitating, 161 sociological theories, retention and, 4–5 Soldner, M., 56–57 Solorzano, D., 81 Sophomore Experiences Survey, 129, 138 sophomores. See second-year students sophomore slump, 129 Soria, K. M., 46 Spirituality, 59–60, 64–65 first-year students and, 67–68 high-risk students and, 103, 107 second-year students and, 141, 142–143, 146–147 students of color at PWIs and, 68, 87, 139 Sriram, R., 99, 198 SSI (Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory), 134 St. John, E. P., 4, 5, 99 230

Stacey, G. W., 100 staff, support of students’ perceptions of institutional integrity, 119–120 Staudinger, U. M., 34 Stebleton, M. J., 66 Steele, C. M., 102 Steele, P. E., 84 stereotyping, students of color at PWIs and, 81 strategies, effective, to move through transitions, 27–29 Strauss, A., 173 Strauss, L. C., 9 Strayhorn, T. L., 143, 196, 202, 204 strengths-based advising, 42 strengths development, 33–48, 199 adopting approach of, 205 in advising relationships, 41–44 campuswide strategy of, 216–217 in the classroom, 37–41 conceptualizing and measuring strengths and, 36 deficiency management vs., 34 developmental perspective for, 47 guidelines for implementing initiative for, 45–47 institutional mission and, 45–46 nature of programs for, 36–37 specifying outcomes for, 46 in student affairs programs, 44–45 student success as, 8–9 support for implementers of initiative for, 46 thriving in transitions and, 35 stretching, curiosity and, 174 Stubblefield, R., 46 student affairs programs, strengths development in, 44–45 student engagement, 9–10, 13

Index

in strengths development initiatives, 47 of transfer students, 155–156, 160–161 Student–Faculty Interaction, high-risk students and, 103, 106, 107 student–faculty relationships. See faculty interaction student–faculty research partnerships, with second-year students, 144 student involvement meaningfulness of, 67 quality of, 61 student perceptions, student success and, 9 student satisfaction with faculty, 140 of second-year students, 134, 135t–137t, 136, 138 students of color at PWIs, 99 alienation of, 81 campus climate for diversity and, 82–85 daily transitions experienced by, 79–91 faculty effectiveness and, 201, 202 faculty interaction with, 194–195, 196–197, 204 hostility felt by, 81 institutional change and, 88–91 lack of integration of, 81 predictors of thriving of, 85–88 psychological sense of community and, 196–197, 196f racial discrimination experienced by, 81 spirituality and, 68, 87, 139 stereotyping and, 81 transferring, 156–157 transferring, University of North Texas articulation agreement for, 165–166 transferring, Vassar College program for, 164, 165 transition issues of, 198 student success

administrators’ role in, 205–206 definition of, 8–12, 13 as degree completion, 3–8, 12 dimensions of, 17–18 domains of, 11 faculty role in. See faculty role in student success and thriving frameworks for, 7–10 living–learning communities and, 56–57 mindset and, 113–114 psychosocial nature of, 21 student engagement and, 9–10 student perceptions and, 9 thriving as pathway to, for high-risk students, 102–103, 104t–107t, 106–107, 108t–112t thriving’s contribution to, 12–13, 18, 20 study skills, high-risk students and, 119 success. See student success Sue, D. W., 194 Sullenberger, S., 171 Suskie, L., 45 Sweet, M., 203 Swing, R. L., 58 swirling, 154 Szelényi, K., 56–57 T Tagg, J., 38 talent development. See strengths development Taub, D. J., 171 Taylor, K., 171, 184 Taylor, S. E., 197 teaching, inclusive, recognition of, 205–206 Terenzini, P. T., 55, 56 Tharp, J. L., 102, 198 Thomas, S. L., 11 231

thriving academic, 21–22 concept of, 2, 13, 20–21, 129, 133 contribution to student success, 12–13, 18, 20 cultivating climate for, 40 faculty role in. See faculty role in student success and thriving in first year, predicting, 58–65 interpersonal, 23–24 measurement of, 215–216 as pathway to success for high-risk students, 102–103, 104t–107t, 106–107, 108t–112t psychological, 22–23 recommendations to promote. See recommendations to promote thriving remedial education and, 100–102 of students of color, predictors of, 84 in transitions, 24–29 Thriving Project, 3, 157, 158t, 159–163 assisting with logistical aspects of transferring and, 162–163 cultivating a sense of community and, 161–162 fostering integration and involvement and, 160–161 institutional integrity and, 160 predictors of transfer student thriving and, 159 Thriving Quotient, 21–24, 22f, 23, 85, 157, 158t, 159–163 Academic Determination scale of, 21, 22 Diverse Citizenship scale of, 23 Engaged Learning scale of, 21–22 Faculty Diversity Satisfaction scale of, 60 Faculty Interaction scale of, 60

Institutional Integrity scale of, 60 Positive Perspective scale of, 22–23 predicting thriving in first-year students using, 59–61, 60t, 62t–63t Psychological Sense of Community scale of, 59, 61 Quality of Involvement scale of, 59 Social Connectedness scale of, 23 Spirituality scale of, 59–60 thriving as pathway to success for highrisk students and, 102–103, 104t–107t, 106–107, 108t–112t Tierney, W., 102 Tieu, T. T., 67 Timperley, H., 203 Tinto, V., 4, 5, 9, 12, 72, 156, 163, 166 Tobolowsky, B. F., 54, 129, 130 Townsend, B. K., 153, 154 Transfer Connections program, 163–164 transfer shock, 153–154 transfer students, 153–166 assisting with logistical aspects of transferring, 162–163 of color, 156–157, 164, 165–166 degree attainment by, 155, 156–157 easing academic transitions for, 164–166 engagement of, 155–156, 160–161 enhancing social connections for, 163–164 swirling and, 154 thriving of, 157 Thriving Quotient project and, 157, 158t, 159–163 University of Michigan mentoring program for, 163–164 University of North Texas articulation agreement for, 165–166

Index

Vassar College pre-transfer program for, 164–165 vertical (upward) transfer and, 154–155 transition, high-risk students’ issues involving, 198 transitions, 17–29 academic, easing for transfer students, 164–166 cognitive appraisal and, 19 first-year students’ issues involving, 197 nature of, 18–19 out of college, 183–184. See senior-year students as process, 19 strengths development and, 35 students’ challenges and needs during, 197–198 of students of color at PWIs, 79–91, 198 successful, components of, 24–29 successful vs. unsuccessful, 9 Trotter, E., 53 Truman Scholarship, 172, 173 Tukibayeva, M., 54 U Umbach, P. D., 156 uncertainty, embracing, 174–176 University of Michigan, mentoring program for transfer students at, 163–164 University of North Texas, articulation agreement for transfer students at, 165–166 Upcraft, M. L., 53, 55 upward transfer, 154–155 V Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS), 36, 42

Van der Veer, G., 171 Van Etten, S., 188 Vannatta, R. A., 103 Vassar College, pre-transfer program for transfer students at, 164–165 vertical transfer, 154–155 Vetter, M. K., 59, 64, 67, 68, 81, 85, 202, 204 VIA-IS (Values in Action Inventory of Strengths), 36, 42 Vickio, C. J., 171 Volkwein, J. F., 9 Von Robertson, R., 81 W Wang, M. T., 41 Watson, C. J., 201, 204 Weiner, B., 177 Weisman, J. L., 29 Westrick, P. A., 98 White faculty, interaction with students of color, 194–195 Whitney, D., 42, 187 Wigfield, A., 61 Wilson, B., 206 Winkler, C., 99 Winkle-Wagner, R., 90 Wolf-Wendel, L., 9, 64 Wood, A. M., 36–37 Woosley, S. A., 130, 131 X Xu, D., 153, 154 Y Yamamura, E. K., 27 Yazedjian, A., 171 Yeager, D. S., 38, 41, 199, 200 Yosso, T. J., 34, 42, 81, 198, 216

233

Thriving in Transitions

Young, D. G., 55, 129, 130, 131, 132, 138, 139, 141, 146 Z Zull, J. E., 39 Zusho, A., 28

234

ABOUT THE AUTHORS Jennifer Drumm is director of the Center for Academic Services & Advising (CASA) at Colorado School of Mines, an engineering and science public research university located in Golden, Colorado. Her professional expertise focuses on the intersection between academic and student affairs as she supports students through their transitions in college. She holds a bachelor’s in early childhood education from the University of Rhode Island, a master’s in higher education and student affairs, and is a doctoral student in higher education at Azusa Pacific University. Her research interests focus on higher education access, persistence, and equity and how students of color can thrive in the collegiate environment, especially women of color in STEM programs. Eileen Hulme, Ph.D., is a higher education consultant focused on leading change during disruptive circumstances. After 20 years as an executive leader at three different institutions and 15 years on the faculty at Azusa Pacific University, Hulme’s interest remains in strengthening curiosity in college students and developing courageous, innovative leaders. Crystal Keetch is the director of Registration & Academic Services on Indiana Wesleyan University’s Marion campus. She has been working in higher education for more than 10 years within the fields of student development and academic affairs. She leads an Advancing Women in Leadership program, along with a Student Thriving and Inclusive Excellence Initiative on campus. Keetch holds a bachelor’s in education from Spring Arbor University, a master’s in Higher Education and Student Development from Taylor University, and is a doctoral student at Azusa Pacific University conducting dissertation research on the role of academic advising in student thriving. She has also served on the Thriving Project Research Team for more than three years. Jillian Kinzie, Ph.D., is associate director at the Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research and the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Institute. She is also a senior scholar with the National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA) project. She is co-author of Assessment in Student Affairs (2016), Using Evidence of Student Learning to Improve Higher Education (2015), Student Success in College (2005/2010), One Size Does Not Fit All: Traditional and Innovative Models of Student Affairs Practice (2008/2014), 235

Thriving in Transitions

and numerous articles in prominent higher education journals. Kinzie is co-editor of New Directions in Higher Education and serves on the boards of the Washington Internship Institute and the Gardner Institute for Excellence in Undergraduate Education. She earned her Ph.D. from Indiana University in higher education with a minor in women’s studies. Michelle C. Louis, Ph.D., is a consultant in education and leadership development with 20 years of faculty and administrative roles in higher education. Following the completion of a doctorate in Higher Education at Azusa Pacific University, Louis was a faculty member in this same department for a decade. She has also held the role of associate editor at The Journal of Positive Psychology. Her research, publications, and consulting efforts are centered primarily on topics that exist at the intersection of education and psychology, including appreciative and strengths-based approaches to education and organizational development, courageous leadership, the psychological dimensions of learning and student success, and enhancing faculty growth. Eric J. McIntosh, Ph.D., lives in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. He spent 14 years working in higher education in various student affairs roles, serving as a chief student affairs officer at a western Canadian university. A quantitative researcher, he spent four years advising more than 100 colleges and universities about ways to integrate the use of predictive analytics to support student success on campus and now works as a higher education transformation consultant with Deloitte. A researcher of student thriving, McIntosh has published works focusing on the role of spirituality and thriving among students of color and was a co-author of a monograph on sophomore student thriving. He supports the ongoing data collection of the Thriving Project, a research initiative of Azusa Pacific University, and keeps busy as a father of three growing children. Tami K. Martinez is the assistant dean of the Ernestine M. Raclin School of the Arts and is a Senior Lecturer in Communication Studies at Indiana University South Bend. During her more than 25 years in higher education, she has taught a variety of communication courses, served as department chair of Communication Studies, director of the general education public speaking course, director of University Relations, and faculty advisor to the student newspaper. She holds a master’s and bachelor’s in communication from Andrews University (MI) where she also worked for 15 years. As a doctoral candidate in the higher education program at Azusa Pacific University, she has researched effective ways to nurture student success and thriving, and is co-author of The Faculty Thriving Quotient (2019), an instrument that assesses levels of thriving among full-time faculty at four-year colleges and universities.

236

About the Authors

Denise D. Nelson, Ph.D., is the director of Ryan Library at Point Loma Nazarene University (PLNU) in San Diego, California, where she has been a member of the library faculty since 2004. Her work has been published in the Journal of College Student Retention and in New Directions for Higher Education. Her recent scholarship addresses the expression of hospitality in the academic library and issues of faith and intellectual freedom among academic librarians. She holds a bachelor’s in literature from PLNU, a master’s in library and information science from Drexel University, and a doctorate in higher education with an emphasis in student success from Azusa Pacific University. Kristin Paredes-Collins, Ph.D., is the dean of enrollment management and associate provost of university financial assistance at Pepperdine University. She holds a bachelor’s in organizational psychology and a master’s in education from Pepperdine and a doctorate in higher education from Azusa Pacific University. Paredes-Collins’ scholarly research focuses on the intersection between spirituality and diversity in Christian higher education. ParedesCollins and her husband Chris live in Malibu, California, with Mateo and Adela, their two beautiful children. Tamera Pullins, Ph.D., is the associate vice president for Student Success Services at California State University, Fresno. In this role, she oversees academic advising, academic coaching services, tutoring, supplemental instruction, career services, and a money management center. She also leads seven retention programs for first-generation, low-income students and others who have been traditionally underrepresented in higher education. Three of those programs are federally funded. Her research interests include sophomore retention and student satisfaction. Pullins earned her bachelor’s from Kansas State University, master’s in education from Texas Christian University, and doctorate in higher education from Azusa Pacific University. Laurie A. Schreiner, Ph.D., is professor and chair of the Department of Higher Education at Azusa Pacific University in southern California, having spent 38 years in higher education as a psychology professor and associate academic dean after receiving her doctorate in psychology from the University of Tennessee. Co-author of The Student Satisfaction Inventory as well as Helping Sophomores Succeed (2009) and Investigating Sophomore Success (2015), the latest research monograph on sophomore success, she also is co-editor-in-chief of the journal Christian Higher Education and has served on the editorial board of About Campus. She has published numerous journal articles and book chapters on positive psychology, engaged learning, sophomore success, retention, faculty development, strengths-based teaching, and academic advising. She has been principal investigator on two federal grants to promote student success and retention and has directed national projects on retention and student satisfaction. Her work on college student thriving has studied more than 50,000 237

Thriving in Transitions

students from 150 universities across the United States, Canada, and Australia and has led to numerous publications. Rishi Sriram, Ph.D., is associate professor of Higher Education & Student Affairs, graduate program director for the Department of Educational Leadership, and faculty steward of Brooks Residential College at Baylor University. Sriram’s research interests include the development of talent and college student retention, engagement, achievement, and learning. His work has been published in respected venues such as the Edutopia, Scientific American, Journal of College Student Development, Review of Higher Education, Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, and Journal of College Student Retention. His first book, Student Affairs by the Numbers (Stylus Publishing), helps student affairs professionals understand and use quantitative research and statistics in their work. Jennifer Tharp, Ph.D., is the assistant dean of Student Academic Services and director of Student Success (OSS) at The King’s College in New York City. Tharp founded OSS in 2014 and serves students and faculty by leading academic advising, academic support, the first-year experience, and the campuswide retention strategy. She teaches design thinking for higher education and coaches students in vocational wayfinding. She also teaches at the graduate level and consults nationally in the area of student success. Deb Vetter has more than 40 years of experience working in higher education in various student affairs roles at small, private, liberal arts colleges and large universities. She holds a bachelor’s in psychology from Ohio Wesleyan University, a master’s in college student personnel from Bowling Green State University, and has completed doctoral coursework in higher education leadership at Azusa Pacific University. Her passion has been designing and implementing programs and services to help students succeed and thrive through new student mentor programs, first-year seminars, extended new student orientation programs, and individual student support services. Higher education conversations are never lacking in her family with a spouse and two grown children with careers in the field. She currently consults with universities and other organizations. Matthew K. Vetter, Ph.D., is the director of the Alford Community Leadership and Involvement Center at Denison University in Granville, Ohio. In that capacity, he develops and promotes cocurricular involvement experiences grounded in student learning and meaning making. He has also worked in the areas of leadership development, student activities, residence life, and fraternity and sorority life. Vetter’s research interests focus on understanding cocurricular involvement as a predictor of student success, as well as examining the undergraduate experiences of historically marginalized students who thrive in college. He holds a bachelor’s 238

About the Authors

from Transylvania University, a master’s in education from the University of Louisville, and a doctorate from Azusa Pacific University.

239