Student Support Services (University Development and Administration) 9811658501, 9789811658501

Citation preview

University Development and Administration Series Editor: Fernando F. Padró

Henk Huijser Megan Yih Chyn A. Kek Fernando F. Padró Editors

Student Support Services

University Development and Administration Series Editor Fernando F. Padró, USQ College, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD, Australia

It is a generational work designed to take a comprehensive and utilitarian look at higher education in the first decade of the twenty-first century and to provide a glimpse of potential developments as the century progresses. In this regard, it combines many of the intentions found in the three antecedent works previously described. This series provides basic and (per force) historical perspectives on topics covered that touch upon the impact and approach within universities regarding issues of social justice; designing and fostering a climate and structure that promotes the provision of high skills and new knowledge (transmitted and created); creating schema that ensure the quality and integrity of all programs across the campus; issues and approaches toward establishing and maintaining good external and internal governance; the effective management of financial and human resources; the importance of purpose in generating a viable university structure; the impact of changing paradigms in learning, teaching, and student engagement (the changing toward a learner-centered environment); capacities in relation to human and financial resources available to higher education; and the expectations from and performance of higher education institutions. More information about this series at https://link.springer.com/bookseries/14341

Henk Huijser • Megan Yih Chyn A. Kek • Fernando F. Padro´ Editors

Student Support Services With 55 Figures and 41 Tables

Editors Henk Huijser Learning and Teaching Unit, Queensland University of Technology Brisbane, QLD, Australia

Megan Yih Chyn A. Kek The Institute of International Studies Sydney, NSW, Australia

Fernando F. Padró USQ College, University of Southern Queensland Toowoomba, QLD, Australia

ISSN 2522-5626 ISSN 2522-5634 (electronic) ISBN 978-981-16-5850-1 ISBN 978-981-16-5852-5 (eBook) ISBN 978-981-16-5851-8 (print and electronic bundle) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5852-5 © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

Preface

Introduction This volume discusses the role of student support services within the higher education learning framework. These services sit outside academic units; yet, their role in facilitating student curriculum-based learning through ancillary programs and services is an essential part of the student experience and their environment. As Press and Padró note in this volume, these programs and services can work side by side with academic units to provide and extend learning experiences and opportunities through co- and extra-curricular activities and programming that provide a desired value-add to skills acquisition, understanding of subject matter, and personal development, helping mold a better prepared citizen and professional. From the end of the twentieth century until the time of this writing, learner-centered learning has allowed student support service professionals and units to reshape their educational role and influence (Baxter-Magolda 2001). Their effectiveness, however, depends on their ability to be recognized as partners in the teaching of students within higher education institutions (HEIs). Learner-centered learning supports the notion that an individual student is a co-creator in that person’s learning experience along with the academic unit (Press 2017). Student support service staff and units should also be recognized as partners in the individual’s learning journey. Staff in many of these units serve as educators as well as specialists in their role and/or managers (Creamer et al. 2001). Most staff within student support services are not academics; most are professional staff and thus their status as educators and contributors to the student learning experience is less clear and often seen as being of less value (Padró 2018). Nonetheless, their expertise in providing services and/or support to a student adds to the richness of the learning environment surrounding the student. In the USA, for example, these professionals have an established professional identity, with their own set of ethics and standards. Kruger’s chapter in this volume provides a current perspective of the maturing profession of student services through the perspective of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA). There are leadership concerns regarding scoping and visioning; some of these concerns are picked up in Stevenson and Zagala’s chapter which analyzes future challenges. The co-editors of this volume used the lens of consumerism as a means to look at what student services can provide the current-day student. Consumerism, for many, v

vi

Preface

is part of what for many is the deleterious “lamentable spread” of neoliberalism (Thorsen 2010, p. 188). Neoliberalism is an ill-described concept that can be defined from both left- and right-wing sides of the political spectrum (Padró and Green 2018; Thorsen 2010). Thorsen’s (2010) definition of neoliberalism serves as a good point of reference. His definition places neoliberalism as a concept that should be “understood as a sort of mercantile liberty for individuals and corporations” (p. 203). Therefore, under Thorsen’s definition, government (the state) should be as small as possible, and its only legitimate purpose is the safeguarding of individual liberty. Consumerism, globalization, individualism, and practices promoted by the New Public Management (NPM) school have been influenced by the neoliberal perspectives (Nafstad et al. 2007). Practices promoted by the NPM school of thought, based on disaggregation, competition, and incentivization, have been linked to neoliberalism as well (Padró et al. 2020). del Cerro Santamaría (2020) recently linked neoliberalism with the pursuit of innovation, embracing constant change and renewal and continuous improvement, three elements of total quality management (TQM) that constitute key elements of institutional external and/or self-accreditation of courses or equivalent processes. This link creates an impression of a potential for, or even paradoxical mismatch between, the ability to ensure and assure that an HEI is providing a quality education, educational experience, and credentials. The mismatch is principally one of competing cultures bringing to mind the tensions first discussed by C.P. Snow (1959) in his famous Rede Lecture, The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. Embedded institutional practice (e.g., accreditation, formation of the curriculum, pedagogical practice, policy steering, and regulatory compliance) has to work alongside traditional academic values based on ill-defined and little understood notions of so-called academic freedom that are deemed to be the basis of academic integrity in learning and research. As Padró notes in his chapter in this volume, there is a relationship shaped through legislation and/or policy that limits the extent of academic freedom for staff and students that is embedded in institutional managerial practice, which is a result of what Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (1995, 1998) termed a triple-helix relationship between universities, industry, and government(s). The impact of this triple-helix or additional helices that could help explain the external–internal interrelationships between universities and their external environments (Cai and Lattu 2021; Leydesdorff 2012) are the basis for Kek, Padró, and Huijser’s concluding chapter to this volume. Some of these points are also addressed in Maloshonok and Shcheglova’s chapter. There does not seem to be a direct connection (most of the connection seems indirect or illusory) in the literature between neoliberalism and the triple helix (or n-tuple helices used to describe the various nexuses between the HEI and the outside world). One connection between the two is the impetus to generate innovation. Seaden and Manseau (2001) looked at the definitions of innovation in the literature at the time and concluded that it was based on enhancing competitive position “through the implementation of a large spectrum of new ideas” (p. 186). Taylor’s (2017) later literature review provides a more comprehensive definition that, in my opinion, has interesting implications for higher education sectors

Preface

vii

regarding what is more important, innovation or the creativity leading to innovation: “the creative process whereby new or improved ideas are successfully developed and applied to produce outcomes that are practical and of value” (p. 131). For the decriers of the influence of neoliberalism on higher education, the effect has been one of establishing an environment where “narcissistic consumerism” is countering the pursuit of social justice through what Harvey (2005) stated was “the construction of a neoliberal market-based populist culture of differentiated consumerism and individual libertarianism” (p. 41). Innovation is a driver of this consumerism, which is reflected in how scientific research has been shifted by economyrelated political concerns, which, as a consequence, has created an asymmetric triple-helix relationship between HEIs and external environments (Berman 2014). This asymmetry reflects the devaluation of non-economic values like public good and academic freedom. The asymmetry also highlights a paradox: the greater the importance a society and its governments place on HEIs, the more they want to regulate them in the name of accountability. Bok’s (2003) comment about the effect of commercialization – which arguably is an extension of consumerism within the higher education context, due to the triple-helix asymmetry in knowledge exchange resulting from teaching and research (cf. Perkmann et al. 2013) – applies as well because both threaten “to impair the university’s reputation for objective for objective, disinterested teaching and research. . . [with the] university’s reputation for scholarly integrity. . . [becoming] the most costly casualty of all” (p. 117). Desierto and De Maio’s chapter in this volume addresses this challenge in values by proposing how some of the more traditional academic values should be highlighted as worthwhile alternatives, rather than merely juxtaposing or minimizing them vis à vis commercialization within the institutional cultural makeup or campus policies and procedures.

General Effect of Consumerism on the Recent and Current Higher Education Experience Miles (1998) pointed out that consumerism is not coterminous with consumption because consumerism is more than acquisition of something. For him, consumerism is a consequential cultural expression of a way of life. For Lister (2015), consumerism represents a cultural perspective, based on the commodification of human values, and individual actions are perceived to be marketplace driven instead of the actions of “citizens in the political realm” (Lister 2015, p. 9). For many, consumerism represents what Yngfalk and Ynfalk (2020) saw as the cultural discourse based on consumer sovereignty and choice. This discourse has morphed into its own value construct, one which is deemed relevant to higher education students. The concern, however, is that the values on which consumerism is based can and do “marginalise and trivialise core academic principles” (Woodall et al. 2014, p. 51). Both Seidman’s and Bunce’s chapters in this volume point out a number of key points about the clash of values between the consumer-based “real world” and academia. Seidman notes that the philosophy on which many academic values are based does not connect with

viii

Preface

the reality of financing higher education. The divide between the two, and how to navigate this divide to improve student learning and the student learning experience within HEIs, is the reason for this volume. Bunce, in a similar vein, reminds readers that one side effect of this neoliberal-based (using Thorsen’s definition from above) consumerism is that it is the individual student who shoulders the brunt of the costs of attaining a degree from an HEI because it has primarily a personal rather than societal benefit. This reality underpins the asymmetrical paradox between the value of a higher education credential (alas, sometimes its attainment and the process to earn the credential is devalued or treated from minimaxing or minimizing the potential loss of time and cost, i.e., utility – a basis for satisfaction – by the student; cf. Savage 1972) and institutional practices of accountability. More to the point, the clash of values challenges academic traditions, power distributions, and authority (Fairchild and Crage 2014). Consumerism has been mediating learner identity and performance for some time (Bunce, Baird, and Jones 2017). This mediation has been directly and indirectly encouraged by the prevailing logics of the current triple-helix relationship between higher education, industry, and governments (cf. Cai and Etzkowitz 2020), which support students being treated as commodities, consumers, and customers (Bunce 2019; Levin 2005). This brings into play an implied view of the classical notion of diminishing marginal utility, highlighting the risk element that is part of the learning process: failure, which impacts on persistence, retention, and graduation rates. Bentham (2000/1781) defined utility as “that property in any object, whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness, . . . or . . . to prevent the happening of mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness to the party whose interest is considered” (pp. 14–15). Going back to Jevons (1874), utility exists when someone wants an object or the provision of something (a commodity). Marginal utility implies that a person compares the differences of utility or satisfaction received or potentially received from the commodity by that individual, who then acts according to their preference, particularly when a risk factor is considered to be involved (Friedman and Savage 1948). Diminishing marginal utility or satisfaction suggests that the more a person consumes something, the less interested the individual becomes in getting more of that something. Galbraith (1998) discussed the theory as a reflection of diminishing importance of the object as affluence increases. Another way of looking at diminishing marginal utility is a decrease in satisfaction from having more (Lin and Peng 2019), in this case higher education. Once enrolled, the new student values the learning and teaching to the extent the engagement and experience engendered by the connections with the campus environment meets expectations of desired and/or perceived personal benefit. Not surprisingly, what consumerism has been doing is establishing a culture of “having,” in which students see ideas and skills as artifacts to be bought rather than considering ideas and skills as means of understanding the world and enhancing personal agency (Molesworth et al. 2009). This “having” culture is underpinned by a craving for instant gratification. Personal identity under these conditions de-emphasizes and inhibits a student’s willingness to perform the complicated and lengthy processes that are the basis of learning (Nixon et al. 2011). Finney and

Preface

ix

Finney (2010) found that the “student as customer” attitude, resulting from the rise of this culture, has led to a student attitude that is potentially detrimental to student success due to less involvement with their educational experience. This culture has also put pressure on HEIs and academics to be deferential to external demands from students and triple-helix logic (Naidoo and Jamieson 2005), which in effect cede professional authority over curriculum, pedagogical practices, and learning outcomes.

Identity Formation and Enactive Responses: Becoming a . . .? The language used so far resides within the epistemological realm because of its focus on acquiring knowledge, in this case knowledge aligned with different and competing perspectives. Nevertheless, there is also an ontological aspect within the language being used because of the effect of change on who the person is (Dewey 2001). There is an expectation that a person entering an HEI is not the same as the one leaving it (hopefully as a graduate) because of the learning experiences afforded to the student (Keeling 2009). Learning, as an agent of change, is built on processes of prior interpretation of experience, formulating new or revised meanings to guide future actions (Mezirow 1991). Change in HEIs ultimately comes from changing a person’s frames of reference. According to Mezirow (1997), Frames of reference are the structures of assumptions through which we understand our experiences. They selectively shape and delimit expectations, perceptions, cognition, and feelings. They set our “line of action.” Once set, we automatically move from one specific activity (mental or behavioral) to another. . . A frame of reference encompasses cognitive, conative, and emotional components, and is composed of two dimensions: habits of mind and a point of view. Habits of mind are broad, abstract, orienting, habitual ways of thinking, feeling, and acting influenced by assumptions that constitute a set of codes. These codes may be cultural, social, educational, economic, political, or psychological. Habits of mind become articulated in a specific point of view— the constellation of belief, value judgment, attitude, and feeling that shapes a particular interpretation. (pp. 5–6)

Conversely, there is a limitation to the extent to which transformation can occur based on how an HEI views and treats learning. Dewey (2001) believed that traditional education schemes do not facilitate transformation of self through lived experiences (English 2013). This limitation occurs when the HEI focuses on learning as correction of error rather than as “transformation of self and world” (p. 115). Kift’s chapter in this volume looks at some of the implications from a first-year perspective. A lack of awareness of and accounting for the negative impact that new insights have on a person’s identity and expectations of the programmatic and learning environment aspects of an HEI can lead to more than dissatisfaction (Skolimowski 1994). This deficit perspective based on institutional expectations of students can contribute

x

Preface

to transferring to another HEI, slower progression, or simply leaving higher education. Erich Fromm’s (1976) argument that there is a distinction between having and being resonates with the clash of cultures between consumerism and traditional academic values within higher education. To him, the difference between having and being is social focus. A having society is one centered around things, while one focused on being is centered around people. These are “two fundamental roles of experience, the respective strengths of which determine the differences between the characters of individuals and various types of social character” (p. 16). Learning in the having mode of existence is similar to surface learning, i.e., reproducing content through rote learning and memorization (Dolmans et al. 2016). According to Fromm (1976), “[s]tudents in the having mode have but one aim: to hold onto what they ‘learned’. . . In fact, the having-type individuals feel rather disturbed by new thoughts or ideas about a subject. . .” (p. 28, italics in the original). In contrast, learners in a being mode are fully engaged and interested in a manner associated with deep learning, as described by Dolmans et al. (2016): “Instead of being passive receptacles of words and ideas, they listen, they hear, and most important, they receive and they respond in an active, productive way” (p. 28, italics in the original). For a being-type learner, the turn-off is the quality of the approach taken toward the learning experience. Fromm’s (1976) view was that change occurs more readily for the being-type learner, effectively suggesting that the extent of transformation that a student accrues is limited by the approach taken by that person. Thus, one aim that should be pursued when providing different learning experiences is to generate an environment where a student can transform, one in which the transformation is neither superficial nor trivial (Samples 1999). Viktor Frankl (2011) suggested that attention had to be paid to the individual’s meaning-making processes. Rather than focusing on the individual’s being, it seems that the becoming process is what educators can help form and influence. This processual flow of experiences is representative of Heidegger’s (2001/1962) existential ontology. Within this ontology, the term “being-in-the-world” embodies the formative aspect of activities of existence. The most basic form of being is involvement because a person is entwined with the world (Sandberg and Pinnington 2009). Being-in-the-world is about understanding, through self-disclosure of the possibilities of involvements, what a person is capable of: “The totality of involvements is revealed as the categorial whole of a possible interconnection of the ready-to-hand” (Heidegger 2001/196, p. 184). Heidegger’s Dasein represents being-human, contrasting with other non-human forms of being that represent availableness and occurrentness (Dreyfuss 1995). The distinctions allow for an understanding of how a person interprets surroundings through “the structural moments of forehaving, foresight, and foreconception from the emic perspective” (Horrigan-Kelly et al. 2016, p. 4). Involvement, however, is not uniformly structured. Involvement is aligned with and dependent on instrumentality (with-which), context (in-which), aim (toward-this), potentiality (in-order-to), and reason for being/doing the involvement (for-the-sake-of-which; Heidegger 2001/1962, pp. 118–119). According to Wheeler (2020):

Preface

xi

The final involvement here, the for-the-sake-of-which, is crucial, because according to Heidegger all totalities of involvements have a link of this type at their base. This forges a connection between (i) the idea that each moment in Dasein’s existence constitutes a branchpoint at which it chooses a way to be, and (ii) the claim that Dasein’s projects and possibilities are essentially bound up with the ways in which other entities may become intelligible. This is because every for-the-sake-of-which is the base structure of an equipment-defining totality of involvements and reflects a possible way for Dasein to be (an academic, a carpenter, a parent, or whatever).

According to Frankl (2011), being an individual denotes both individualized and integrated components that form a unity. There are three different dimensions of being: physical, psychological, and spiritual. Acquiring personal meaning is therefore an exercise in connectedness (Frankl 2011). The search for meaning is the responsibility of the person because, as Shantall (2020) wrote, establishing meaning provides a person with a sense of order, harmony, and peace. Searching for meaning is primarily an unconscious proposition, although it can occur in the preconscious and conscious parts of the self. As Frankl concluded: Existence thus may well be authentic even when it is unconscious, but . . . [a person] exists authentically only when . . . [the individual] is not driven but, rather, responsible. Authentic existence is present where a self is deciding for itself, but not where an id is driving it. (p. 29/ 152)

Like Heidegger, Frankl believed that a person’s existence “cannot be reflected upon by itself, it cannot be fully analyzed either” (p. 31/152). Action rather than reflection characterizes human existence for Frankl. Meaning is derived from (1) doing a deed, (2) experiencing something, and/or (3) forming or changing an attitude from actions and contexts, positive or negative (Frankl 1992, pp. 146–147). But meaning is transitory and personal, which is why Frankl (2011) warned about what he called reductionism, the “tendency to want to explain everything from just a certain perspective, to make [a personal] truth out to be the whole truth” (Shantall 2020, p. 41). Frankl’s views on meaning are consonant with Skolimowski’s (1994) claim that a person’s mind is interactive and co-creative, allowing for evolution of thought through transformation. Instinct and intuitive hunches may be part of this evolutionary process; yet, “explicit discursive knowledge expressed through intersubjective language is much superior” (p. 11). Skolimowski (1994) considered this evolution as part of the process of becoming, a different trail from being. Becoming is circumspective of being (Heidegger 2001/1962), with becoming as a living developmental and hence transitory process leading to self-discovery over a period of time. Alfred North Whitehead’s (1929) notion of concrescence provides insights into how becoming works as a change process, explaining how the disparate elements of a person’s environment come together as a conceptualized “unity” to help shape that meaning. Concrescence, in effect, is a process of shaping a person’s frame of reference and how it continues to change. Change, in this sense, is about putting effort into understanding their personal framework, especially when routine is

xii

Preface

interrupted, surprise is encountered, or the person is in a crisis situation (Weick 1988). Whitehead (1929) provided 27 categorical explanations of concrescence. In summary, he began by indicating that the “actual world is a process, and that the process is the becoming of actual entities” (p. 33). Concrescence represents the potential unity of many potentials. Becoming an actual entity is the bringing together of “novel prehensions, nexus, subjective forms, propositions, multiplicities, and contrasts” (p. 33). It is the bringing together of the different potentials involved in each concrescence that is the basis of “becoming” through the nexus (bringing together) of different actual entities correlated to determine an established specific perspective. This occurs by looking at something from an “objectified” perspective as part of the analytical process and thus making it part of the becoming proposition in terms of attainment and personal development. This approach, the “principle of process,” brings together becoming and, later on, being. Analysis is based on breaking down propositions to their concrete, irreducible elements, which are similar to Wittgenstein’s (1998/1922) elemental propositions (the most basic forms of distinct datum points) in order to prehend (grasp) the meaning of the proposition(s) being analyzed. Although not necessarily a conscious process, “prehension consists of three factors: (a) the ‘subject’ . . ., the actual entity in which that prehension is a concrete element; (b) the ‘datum’ which is prehended; (c) the ‘subjective form’ which is how. . . [the person] prehends that datum” (p. 35). Prehensions can include “emotions, valuations, purposes, adversions, aversions, consciousness, etc.” (p. 35). The nexus represents the constituted relationship of the complex prehensions of the actual entities to each other and the person. “[U]nity is constituted by the fact that all its constituent entities severally satisfy at least one condition which no other entity satisfied” (p. 36) and can be expressed in such a way that these multiple elements can be accounted for. Unity is therefore felt rather than factual. Becoming is founded on the character of the established concrescence or in the process of developing concrescence. Whitehead termed this the “ontological principle” (p. 36), the only reasons through which final causation is reached. “[T]o ‘function’ means to contribute determination to the actual entities in the nexus of some actual world” (p. 38). Determination can be analyzed into “definiteness” and “position” that are illustrative of the relative status between the actual entities making up the concrescent processes. Entities become actual when they achieve significance vis à vis an observable reason for doing something, thus becoming part of self-identity. Actual entities have diverse roles in self-formation. Because they are self-creative and transformative, they can establish a coherent role in what a person believes and does. Becoming “is the transformation of incoherence into coherence” (p. 38), bringing together the personal with the actual propositions making up a person’s sense of being. The final phase of concrescence is satisfaction. Satisfaction “is fully determinate (a) as to its genesis, (b) as to its objective character for the transcendent creativity, and (c) as to its prehension – positive or negative – of every item in its universe” (p. 38). Achieving satisfaction through concrescence is an additive proposition in the sense that all of these elements have one self-consistent function in getting to this point. Whitehead concluded his explanation by indicating that this is a repeating process:

Preface

xiii

In a process of concrescence, there is a succession of phases through which new prehensions arise by integration of prehensions in antecedent phases. In these integrations ‘feelings’ contribute their ‘subjective forms’ and their ‘data’ to the formation of novel integral prehensions; but ‘negative prehensions [‘eliminate from feelings’] contribute only their ‘subjective forms.’ The process continues till all prehensions are components in the one determinate integral satisfaction. (p. 39)

Sen (1997) links the process of becoming with his notion of “capability” as a developmental process. His capability approach focuses on well-being (conceived as a personal value) and its achievement (Robeyns 2017), a more applied view of being and becoming. Capability for Sen (1999, 2003) refers to a person being able to do those things that the individual wants to access, achieve, or do (Robeyns 2005), i.e., to achieve a desired quality of life “functionings” through doing and being. Functionings are constituent elements of living. These represent a person’s ability to choose/select between different combinations of ways of living to achieve a desired outcome. “The claim is that the functionings are constitutive of a person’s being, and an evaluation of a person’s well-being has to take the form of an assessment of these constituent elements” (Sen 2003, p. 44). Capability can be treated from an instrumental (best alternative available) or intrinsic (opportunity of choice itself) perspective, which affects the values placed by the person as well as others regarding the person’s developmental choices, resulting actions, and outcomes. Functionings by themselves should not be confused as a utility (benefit); instead, they are a by-product of sorts because functionings occur prior to achieving utility (Basu and López-Calva 2011). Sen (2007) did point out that the evaluation of the rationality behind functionings should consider sustainability of reason, along with when the person notes the presence of more information when it becomes available or accessible apropos choice, action, and attainment. The social aspect of capability provides an “outside-in” perspective consistent with Heidegger’s Dasein and the paradoxical tensions present in the being–becoming dichotomy on which ontological identity is based. “The tension between being and becoming is a fundamental one in all evolution, and in . . . individual lives as well” (Skolimowski 1994, p. 226). Evaluation under Sen’s notion of capability is normative and social in perspective, although as used here, evaluation is also personal. Robeyns (2005) indicated that evaluation can be done for the purposes of individual well-being, social arrangements, cost-benefit analysis, and policy impact on quality of life. The “plurality of functionings and capabilities . . . [serve] as the evaluative space . . . [that] take into account those personal and socioenvironmental conversion factors of commodities into functionings, and on the whole social and institutional context that affects the conversion factors and also the capability set directly” (p. 99). Assessment and evaluation of achievement and success are both personal and external and liked to personal change (Sen 1999), stemming from decisions made in the interaction of what Mills (2000/1959) called private troubles (when values cherished by an individual are deemed to be threatened) and public issues (when values cherished in the public arena are seen to be under threat). Capacity, as a form of action, and the response repertoire an individual

xiv

Preface

has from prior and current learning experiences, affects perception and choices made – predominantly when the situation is perceived as problematic (indeterminate), troublesome, or even critical (Dewey 1938; Weick 1988). Effectively, in capability, personal agency and social arrangements are key variables in determining the extent of perceived available choices that can be perceived, and change, development, and outcomes. Walker (2005) noted that Sen’s capability approach is deliberately incomplete to recognize and allow for personal decision-making grounded in self-identity and what Karl Weick (1995) termed sensemaking. For more detail, Kek, Padró, and Huijser’s last chapter talks about the steps in Weick’s sensemaking concept.

There Is a Spatial Aspect to Personal Identity that Impacts Learning Skolimowski (1994) wrote that discussing and investigating becoming provides a means of making sense of the nature of experience, the notion of knowledge, and transitions of one reality to another. Different perspectives are implicitly partially parsed into divergent space-like aspects. In this regard, he is following the path of other scholars, as will be noted below. Defining space depends on what is meant by the term. There is a topological, physical aspect to space, which is how the term “space” is usually used. As a point of reference, space represents a place, but one that can generate special meaning based on what the space/location’s practices performed therein symbolically represent to individuals and society (Foucault 1986). This approach suggests that interconnectivity through networking influences personal and group frames of reference by shaping experience. These frames of reference have a historical significance (meaning) attached to them in Western culture. Time acts as a catalyst for the interconnections and resulting experiences between these spaces that allow changes in frames of reference to happen (cf. Massey 2005). Returning to Heidegger’s Dasein, because of its worldliness, space and time can be structured through Dasein’s concerns, but they are independent of Dasein (Dreyfus 1995). Space can also be phenomenological: an abstract, based on concepts and concept formation. “All concepts are connected to problems without which they would have no meaning and which can themselves only be isolated or understood as their solution emerges” (Deleuze and Guattari 1994, p. 16). Space and time are repetitive within a person’s environment. Repetition is part of the personal definition process, allowing a person to revisit frames of reference to maintain, enhance, modify, or change/differentiate the self (Deleuze 2001). For Deleuze (2001), the dynamics of repetition allow for an idea to develop a corresponding space. There is a degree of consonance with Kurt Lewin’s (1936, 1939) view of a person’s life-space. He stated that a person’s life-space encapsulates that individual’s subjective psychological world influenced by social facts and social relations. Lewin’s life-space is the sum total of the psychological world, based on how the person perceives the actual environment in addition to traits, and the external co-existing facts influencing the individual at any given point in time. All elements are interdependent and dynamic.

Preface

xv

Resulting behaviors are the result of resolving the multiple tensions, with the behaviors reflecting an equilibrium (Rogers 2010) of the resolution of these tensions. Lefebvre (1991/1974) provided a phenomenological approach to space worth considering in this discussion, even if from this limited perspective of higher education learning environments (in-class, out-of-class). In his analysis of a body, Lefebvre argued that there can be a connection between these two types of spaces: “the moment the body is envisioned as a practico-sensory totality, a decentring and recentring of knowledge occurs” (p. 62). These spaces are double determinants (Lefebvre 1991/1974). The lived experience allows for a person’s body to be both a destination and a point of departure, biomorphic as well as anthropomorphic (Simonsen 2005). One of the spaces is concrete while also being imaginary, creating a mirror effect. However, the interplay between the concrete and imaginary forms a third space that is both real and “fictitious,” mediated by experience, implying a representation and conception of what is/should be (Lefebvre 1991/1974). Lefebvre (1991/1974) in his book The Production of Space called these three spaces the perceived space, conceived space, and lived space. These three dimensions are interlinked and identifiable in all social exchange processes, producing and resulting from interconnections (Schmid 2008). However, these are independent spaces representing “three dialectically interconnected processes of production” (p. 42). This view is different than the one described so far in this writing, which is more limited in scope due to a desire to converge on issues related to the clash between consumerism and traditional academic values inherent in the knowledge production process. Instead, the view I am taking is more akin to Soja’s (1996) interpretation of thirdspace, a more common narrative in educational circles. Lefebvre’s conceptualization of space is very different and potentially incompatible with that of Soja (Kipfer et al. 2008) in that Soja sees these spaces as connected spatialities – “space as socially constituted and constituting” (Vatansever 2021, p. 2). Soja (1996) views thirdspace as “a constantly shifting and changing milieu of ideas, events, appearances, and meanings” (p. 2). This view is more in line with Deleuze and Guattari’s (1994) argument that reality, representation, and subjectivity are seen as divided considerations (Massey 2005). Lefevre’s spaces do not neatly line up with Soja’s spaces, as Merrifield (1999) argued, but there are similarities. Both Lefebvre’s and Soja’s trialectics share similarities with Popper’s (1972) third world of objective contents of thought, which includes theoretical systems, problems, and problem situations (Kosari and Amoori 2018). Popper’s three worlds consist of the physical (objects or states) and consciousness (mental state or behavioral dispositions) as well as content of thought. This pluralism of worlds represents the relationship between a person’s thoughts and the mental subjective processes that act as the vehicle for these thoughts (Carr 1977). However, for this author, Lefebvre’s conception of the three spaces provides a better vessel to discuss some of the underlying transdisciplinary theories that help explain the topography, as it were, of the complex processual loops that generate personal meaning and thoughts. For Lefebvre, differentiation in the third space was transformational-dialectical, not affirmative or deconstructive (Kipfer et al. 2012). The approach taken here may be seen by some as in line with Kipfer, Saberi, and Wieditz’s (2012) criticism of academics using Lefebvre as a

xvi

Preface

general inspiration to be limiting or misleading. Part of the challenge here is to avoid entering the structuralism versus post-structuralism debates and the superimposition of these within postmodernist discourse. Pursuing Bohr’s (1963) Theory of Complementarity to concentrate on similarities, rather than oppositional views, provides me with a means of navigating through the issues to construct desired key points for consideration. For Lefebvre (1991/1974), perceived space is grasped by the senses and is made up of social practice. He saw this space as paradoxical because it links private and work life, lives that are often seen as separated from each other. This space cannot be homogeneous because this would render this space imperceptible as “[I]t would lack the conflictual component. . . of the contrast between symmetry and asymmetry” (Lefebvre 1991/1974, p. 200). This suggests an inherent degree of uncertainty existing in this space (Schmid 2008); however, the space provides a feedback loop capacity to the individual’s exchanges with the external environment, providing a capacity for confirming or disconfirming what Argyris and Schön (1974) called a personal theory of action. Justus Buchler’s (1951, 1955) concept of proception helps articulate the formation of this perceived space from a philosopher’s standpoint, using constructivist language to explain his theory of judgment (Ryder 2013). The language Buchler used seems to be more epistemic in approach than ontological, but as Wallace (1999) suggested, ontology “resides in the wings” because it is not “the specific motivating principle” of proceptual processes (p. 304). Buchler’s proception “is the process in which a. . . [person’s] whole self is summed up or represented” (1951, p. 5). A natural process, its characteristic is propulsive, cumulative, and self-reproductive. “To some extent it is constantly modified by the larger natural complexes of which. . . [the person] is part: events push. . . [the individual] in one path rather than another” (1955, p. 112), which is the proceptive direction. In line with Lewin’s conception of life-space, the proceptive direction is the outcome, partly actual and partly potential, representative of any configuration of facts. That any number of diverse facts and traits fit into some identifiable structure is a truism; if they did not, it would not be possible to speak of “an individual” at all. (p. 113)

Essentially, a person is a network of complex plural relationships. Repetition and creativity are part of the proceptual processes, with the effect also similar to that espoused by Weick (1995) in his sensemaking model, where identity mixes with awareness of a person’s surrounding environment to figure things out and respond to situations. Proception requires manipulation and assimilation from which meaning is derived (Buchler 1955). It is essentially an ongoing social process not dissimilar to Weick’s sensemaking, and while neither Buchler nor Weick provides details, there are implicit continually ongoing feedback loops and simultaneous processing based on confirmation and disconfirmation of ideas, based on what a person extracts from surroundings (locus, other people, social structures, dominant value systems, and

Preface

xvii

perceptions of what generates success). Change, as a result, is the effect of proception transforming the person’s frame of reference prior to action/behavior. Lefebvre’s conceived space is the location of previous ideas a person has regarding events, ideas, surroundings, and what these represent. This space represents the preeminent, dominant social discourses influencing and shaping ideas, values, and notions of appropriateness (Simonsen 2005). In other words, this space is the characterization of Bordieu’s (1993; Bordieu and Passeron 1990) concepts of cultural capital and habits (habitus) on which normative referencing is based. These are the so-called truths that a person has to navigate in terms of acceptance, rejection, or modification. Realizability is the decision-making lens, which is why personal judgment regarding acceptance, rejection, or modification can be premised from a lens of risk, especially in terms of benefit or loss. When risk appears, not complying with accepted norms can become a zero-sum game based on what is safe for the individual when a person takes a worst-case view of the situation (Padró 2013). “Decision making under risk can be viewed as a choice between prospects or gambles” (Kahneman and Tversky 1979, p. 263). Under this scenario, the minimax principle suggests that the person’s choices are made with the idea of minimizing maximal loss resulting from the action generated by the choice (Savage 1951). Prospect Theory from behavioral economics suggests that there are two phases in the choice-making process: an editing phase based on a preliminary analysis, and an evaluation phase where the edited prospects are evaluated and the prospect with the highest value is selected (Kahneman and Tversky 1979). When there are alternative choices, a person focuses on the differences rather than the similarities, with differences potentially leading to differing preferences and outcomes perceived as gains or losses, as envisioned from a frame of reference (Kahneman and Tversky 1979). Editing places prospects into two components: those that are riskless and those that are risky. Value is adjudged based on perception of the effects of change rather than the outcome itself. Decisions regarding value and choice of prospects are subjectively weighted based on biases, ambiguity, and/or vagueness (Kahneman and Tversky 1979). Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model of human development (e.g., Bronfenbrenner and Ceci; Bronfenbrenner and Morris 2006) provides a rich description of how social facts and relations help shape an individual. Bronfenbrenner (1977) used Lewin’s ideas to guide the development of his model. Rosa and Tudge (2013) have described Lewin’s influence on Bronfenbrenner over the years as the model evolved. This model expands on both Lewin and Buchler in providing a more detailed description of the process of what is in effect the becoming of a person between the individual and the environment. Bronfenbrenner termed the interaction between an organism and the environment proximal processes. These interactive processes are the primary mechanism behind personal development (Bronfenbrenner and Morris 2006). Important to this volume are the four defining properties of the bioecological model that results from the interplay of both propositions: (1) process, (2) person, (3) context, and (4) time. The model is driven by two interdependent propositions. Proposition I explains proximal processes:

xviii

Preface

Especially in its early phases, but also throughout the life course, human development takes place through processes of progressively more complex reciprocal interaction between an active, evolving biopsychological human organism and the persons, objects, and symbols in its immediate external environment. To be effective, the interaction must occur on a fairly regular basis over extended periods of time. . .. (p. 797)

Proposition II discusses the effects of proximal processes. Proposition II treats development as an outcome occurring later in time, predicated on the characteristics of the person, the “face-to-face” environmental context of that individual, and the frequency and time interval at which the person has been exposed to the processes and what is involved within the processes (Bronfenbrenner and Evans 2000, p. 119). The outcomes, according to Bronfenbrenner, can be those exhibiting either competence or dysfunction (Bronfenbrenner and Evans 2000). The form, power, content, and direction of the proximal processes effecting development vary systematically as a joint function of the characteristics of the developing person, the environment—both immediate and more remote—in which the processes are taking place, the nature of the developmental outcomes under consideration, and the social continuities and changes occurring over time through the life course and the historical period during which the person has lived. (Bronfenbrenner and Morris 2006, p. 798)

Lefebvre’s lived space is the lived experience of the person. This is the realm in which the external norms, what a person perceives and values and the intrinsic deontic aspects of decision-making pertaining to permissibility and impermissibility, come together (von Wright 1951). This lived space is a space where mediation forms a person’s mental picture of the interactions between the self, the environment, and preconceived values (and preferences). It is in a state of flux, which is why he stated: “Lived space bears the stamp of the conflict between an inevitable, if long and difficult, maturation process and a failure to mature that leaves particular original resources and reserves untouched” (Lefebvre 1991/1974, p. 362). As he also pointed out a few sentences later, this is where the “private” aspects of selfdom assert themselves over the “public” (social) in a sometimes-conflicting manner, reflecting the maturation process the individual has undergone in life. The implication suggests Bhabha’s (1994) concept of hybridity, without going there, while Soja (1996) did. For Bhabha, the third space is where it all comes together. It is an in-between reality, a threshold (liminal) space where the symbolic representations of form and content are renewed or replaced in a continual becoming (self-identification) process that provides scope for personal maneuvering and negotiation with the environment (Bhabha 1994). As Bhabha wrote, The production of meaning requires that these two places be mobilized . . . through a Third Space, which represents both the general conditions of language and the specific implication of the utterance in a performative and institutional strategy of which it cannot ‘in itself’ be conscious. What this unconscious relation introduces is an ambivalence in the act of interpretation. (p. 36)

Preface

xix

Problematic for the discourse of this narrative, and the volume in general, is that as Bhabha pointed out, the results of this identification process and the meanings generated leading to this identity “produces a subversive strategy of subaltern agency that negotiates its own authority through a process of iterative ‘unpicking’ and incommensurable, insurgent relinking” (p. 185). As I have stated previously, there is an autopoietic aspect to the movement between these symbolic spaces (Padró 2018) that results from the meaning-making constructed in the third space: The movement itself is nonlinear based on how change impacts the reproduction of expectations (Leydesdorff 2008), in this case the shifting of expectations from the lived space to the conceptual space that redefines the work space and networks. When it works, the exchange facilitates the conceptual change, but when it does not it creates resistance because agreement/recognition has not been achieved. (p. xiii)

What is proposed in this narrative, regarding the lived space as a third space, aligns with Lefebvre’s (1991/1974) view of consonance and dissonance found within the contradiction between alienation that can occur as a result of identity and meaning formation – note the last sentence above – and the resulting freedom of action that accompanies the perception of certainty of action based on the prospects a person determines through experience and knowledge formation. Personal choice is often weighted toward upholding the establishment (Lefebvre 1991/1974). The issue regarding this potential bias is the assignation of priority based on which experiences have been the most fruitful to the person over time (Padró 2018). Soja saw this trialectic as “thirding-as-othering” (Simonsen 2005). Soja’s thirdspace is about the creation of “another mode of thinking” (p. 10). It is “a creative recombination and extension, one that builds on a Firstspace [concrete] perspective that is focused on the ‘real’ material world and a Secondspace [conceived] perspective that interprets this reality through ‘imagined’ representations of spatiality” (Soja 1996, p. 6). The key point of Soja’s thirdworld is that it is: . . . a knowable and unknowable, real and imagined lifeworld of experiences, emotions, events, and political choices that is existentially shaped by the generative and problematic interplay between centers and peripheries, the abstract and concrete, the impassioned spaces of the conceptual and the lived, marked out materially and metaphorically in spatial praxis, the transformation of (spatial) knowledge into (spatial) action in a field of unevenly developed (spatial) power. (p. 31)

While power is not a direct part of this narrative, it is manifest in the effect personal choices represent within the challenge between consumerism and traditional academic values within HEIs. Dahl’s (1957) attempt at defining the term power contended that it is relational (between two agents, with agents being single individuals or two or more) and mediational, its basis consisting “of all the resources – opportunities, acts, objects, etc. – that that [can be exploited] in order to effect the behavior of another” (p. 203). Personal (student) identity and agency regarding choices are shaped in context of rights and obligations. Power in this instance is the ability to make changes in the relationship the student has with and within the

xx

Preface

HEI (Lindahl 1977). Power is about agency and the ability to do something (Lukes 2021), especially in the context of this narrative. The outcome of power is utility vis à vis meeting wants, particularly when there is uncertainty about what a situation is or what action(s) can be taken (Knight 1964/1921), but the extent of utility is limited by other factors affecting choice, as noted in, for example, the Allais paradox (van de Kuilen and Wakker 2006). The HEI represents and is an agent for/of the normative values and expectations that sit within the aforementioned triple-helix and the Kek, Padró, and Huijser proposed quadruple-helix, and the duties and obligations these impose on the student – normally seen in terms of limitations or prescriptions. Power in this case is of a social nature. Two questions come to the fore: (1) Who holds the power? and (2) What is the extent of dependence (Emerson 1962)? Holding power is analogous to liberty to do something, to have the ability to act (Lindahl 1977). This is different from agency, which is more the motivation to want to do something. On the plus side, together, these two are a gateway to achieving Sen’s (1979, 2003) conception of capability. On the not-so-positive side, a person believing they have power may generate riskier personal behavior, all the more so when the individual feels that power cannot be taken away (Maner et al. 2007). Similarly, there is evidence that a person who feels or is recognized socially as having a “low” level of power can be prone to riskier behavior (Anderson and Galinsky 2006). If “[r]isk decision making is the process of making decisions in which one’s choices can result in either positive or negative consequences” (Maner et al. 2007, p. 452), the effect of power on risk decisions depends on personal and contextual factors (Anderson and Galinsky 2006) and the degree of uncertainty built into these factors associated with the ability (prospect) to achieve a favorable outcome (Knight 1964/1921; Kahneman and Tversky 1979). One of Ashmore’s two chapters in this volume develops this discussion further in its determination of whether institutional programming is empowerment or a form of power.

Visualizing the Bricolage Figure 1 provides a diagram of the “third space” view of personal learning described above. The emphasis of this conceptual framework is on transformation and formation of personal identity: meanings (procepts) leading to value formation and motivation, perceptual lens driving sensemaking and choice/decision-making, and expectations. Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model helps flesh out the myriad of background interactions that are both intentionally and unintentionally connected to personal identity formation. For example, Kek and Huijser (2017) took Bronfenbrenner’s model to explain how the formal learning environment generally found in HEIs creates interconnections that add to a person’s social network system in a figurative and literal sense. Niklas Luhmann’s (1995) social system insists that there needs to be a clear conceptual distinction between what a person thinks and what the individual communicates (King and Schütz 1994) and enacts vis à vis intended or unintended autonomy and differentiation – personalization – due to the person’s educational

Preface

xxi

Fig. 1 Learning within the “Third space”

experience (Luhmann 1995; Vanderstraeten 2002, 2021). The dynamics of the interactions between these three spaces in Fig. 1 are based on explaining the distinction through the lens of the challenges that a consumerist outlook has on higher education learning, practices, and outcomes. One key observation worth making is that the reflexive interactions represented in Fig. 1 have similarities with Luhmann’s (1995) systemic-based conceptualization of double contingency and interpenetration in the structural aspects of the model. “Contingency means that being depends on selection which, in turn, implies the possibility of not being and the being of other possibilities” (Luhmann 1976, p. 509, as quoted in Vanderstraeten 2002). Luhmann (1995) defines double contingency as: . . . something given (something experienced, expected, remembered, fantasized) in the light of its possibly being otherwise; it describes objects within the horizon of possible variations. It presupposes the world as it is given, yet it does not describe the possible in general, but what is otherwise possible from the viewpoint of reality. (p. 106)

Double contingency allows for personalization through interpretation of the social dimension (environment). In Luhmann’s (1995) book Social Systems reciprocity is not part of the personal reflection process of meaning-making. This perspective applies to an educational environment such as that found within an HEI because, as can be seen from the sectoral concerns regarding the effect of consumerism, the two entities – the person as a student and the HEI – may use “[h] ighly complex meaning-using systems that are opaque and incalculable to one another” (p. 109). What Luhmann termed two “black boxes” – because the two may not understand each other – thus have to figure out a way to deal with each other in order to resolve any problems that arise from the two (Vanderstraten 2002). It is also important to note that within double contingency, expectations “acquire a

xxii

Preface

Fig. 2 The learning that happens within the “lived” space: an active personal transformation in becoming the person the student wants to be within the lived space

structural value” (Luhmann 1995, p. 110) in building the personal reality and the interactive, autopoietic system where both the student and HEI are constituent parts. “[D]ouble contingency works here as an accelerator of system construction” (p. 131). The presence of double contingency allows for a form of connectivity emanating from a perceived need to act within the lived space between the two, based on the interpreted knowledges from the perceived and conceived spaces. Interpenetration refers to the convergence between the three spaces and how the connections between the perceived and conceived space co-evolve. Both spaces and the processes these represent reciprocally help each other. This is a slight variation on Luhmann’s (1995) view of interpenetration, which is also applicable here, namely that of the co-evolution between the person and, in this case, the HEI. Interpenetration is a recognition of the complexities existing intrapsychically as proposed in this conceptual framework (Figs. 1 and 2), and in the relationship between a person and another entity (in this case, the HEI): [I]nterpenetration exists when this occurs reciprocally, that is, when both systems enable each other by introducing their own already-constituted complexity into each other. In penetration, one can observe how the behavior of the penetrating system is co-determined by the receiving system (and eventually proceeds aimlessly and erratically outside this system, just like ants that have lost their ant hill). In interpenetration, the receiving system also reacts to the structural formation of the penetrating system, and it does so in a twofold way, internally and externally. This means that greater degrees of freedom are possible in spite (better: because!) of increased dependencies. This also means that, in the course of evolution, interpenetration individualizes behavior more than penetration does. (p. 213)

Personal development as described by Chickering and Reisser (1993) is more than merely disciplinary or professional competence. Managing emotions and the self is also part of personal development and identity formation. The juxtaposition

Preface

xxiii

between personal agency, interdependency, and the formation of mature personal relationships is also part of identity formation. The interconnections that are an endemic part of the proception process and the new ones created through the HEI learning experiences highlight the importance of the interplay and development of these aspects of social behavior. Knowledge creation and meaning formation emanating from these Chickering and Reisser (1993) vectors are key contributors to the last three vectors, which are identity formation, the sense of self, and integrity. Integrity, the final vector, is where everything comes together. Personal values are affirmed and provide the basis of characterization of the person’s decisions and actions. Traversing and developing through these vectors occurs in a dynamic, non-linear, non-discrete, non-incremental manner in accordance with individual context, needs, and/or preferences. Nonetheless, in the integrity vector there is a three-step chronological process. Per Chickering and Reisser (1993), the first step is the alignment of personal values with those of others. The second step is constructing – or reconstructing – the core set of the person’s values. These core values, while firmly held, are not antagonistic to those held by others. One goal is for the person to consider and respect those values held by other individuals. The final step is aligning personal values with action. Arendale’s chapter talks about how leadership skills can and should be part of the student’s personal development process. More important, however, is his argument that programming to provide this type of development needs to be purposely designed as part of the HEI experience, both in the classroom and outside it, rather than occurring through happenstance. HEIs serve as places where transformation of meaning occurs (Mezirow 1991). They provide the schema through which transformative change can occur. Transformation, however, can only occur if these frames of reference are acknowledged and become part of the learning process within the classroom and outside it, as part of the overall student experience environment. The key word in what has been said so far is can. Learning, according to Bateson (2002), has a stochastic characteristic to it, with formal education acting as a governor shaping what a person learns and makes concrete within the personal frame of reference. This makes Tinto’s comment, in his chapter, about any student needing to want to persist important because, as he also observed, the person as a student needs to feel that they belong. It can be argued this is part of the personal identity creation process. Arising from this conceptual framework is the question of where learning and the meaning-making processes, in terms of geographical space (schools, HEIs, non-HEI private providers) and psychically, occur. Astin’s (1985, 1993) Input-EnvironmentOutcome (I-E-O) framework provides a means of understanding the nexus that leads to this transformation by encouraging or allowing for the student’s different phases of concrescence. The I-E-O framework deconstructs what a student experiences into three areas: input (demographics characteristics, extent of academic preparedness, and predispositions a student brings to the campus), environment (institutional cultures, climates, and “specific educational experiences designed to shape [the student] in some meaningful way”), and outcomes (attitudes like satisfaction, aptitudes such as critical thinking, and behaviors a student exhibits as a result of the HEI

xxiv

Preface

experience; Mayhew et al. 2016, p. 2). The degree of effectiveness or success depends on how these three elements of the framework connect to provide the knowledge (awareness of specific information) and understanding (comprehension and formation of personal meaning) expected by both, the individual student and the HEI. Most of the chapters in this volume discuss broad pedagogical points and some praxis-based concepts that are part of the conceived space, mainly from a Western systems perspective (Liu and Li provide a viewpoint from the Chinese higher education sector in their chapter). The perspective is the out-of-class student services units or auxiliary units of an HEI. This is especially the case in Part 2 – Applied Practice, although some of the chapters in Part 1 – Conceptual Section cover these points as well, but from a more conceptual point of view. The chapter by Nonnarens, Moons, De Pelmsmacker, Lievens, and Keignaert, for example, provides an analysis of student engagement with various non-academic units. Ashmore’s chapter on different but coexisting approaches to academic support provides an overview of what these programs can look like. An example of a more specific analysis is Ghosal, Worsham, and Miller’s chapter on career identity and choice of major. Other examples of chapters with a specific focus are Kek, Chan, Slater, Chependchikj, Delesclefs, and Wang’s chapter, which focuses on what HEIs do for future-readiness; Coulson, Loddick, and Rice’s chapter on the impact of learning development on student engagement, experience, and learning; Erck and Sriram’s chapter on residential learning community as a way of bridging the gap between customer, consumer, and learner; and Lauridsen and Waast Nielsen’s chapter on how to manage consumerism through the lens of autonomy, meaning, and sense of comfort. Furthermore, there are two chapters devoted to student mental health and well-being by Hughes and Hughes and Bowers-Brown. Some of these chapters expand the breadth of discussions through analyses of student services to diverse students like higher degree by research/postgraduate students in non-course post-bachelor’s degree programs, by Anderson, Pham, Blue, and Fox, as well as Xie and Huijser; international students (Nguyen and Bretag; Chng and Lee); Pacific Island student support (Bentley-Gray); specialized contexts of STEM (Devine, Wilson, and Moody) and conservatoire (Jackson and Bothma); language support and feedback (Synnott, McDonald, and Oh; Barnier, Rathnayaka, and Medland; Wu and Tilakaratna; Brodie, Tisdell, and Sachs); and the use of technology in learning assistance and online presence (Faragher; Dale, Loh, Poretti, Nicholls, and Pearsall; Babacan and Thurgood; Lane, Raya, Kelly, Castellano, Ward, Lawrence, Hooper, and Loane; Morin, Palakal, and Hansen). Figure 2 presents a more detailed aspect of the conceptual framework being proposed to look at the importance of student services in the student’s knowledge production that occurs within the lived space as shown in Fig. 1. Scott makes the point in his chapter that the student’s engagement and the subsequent learning that happens should be purposeful and that the purpose should be appropriate, i.e., that there is fitness of purpose behind the programming as well as the program itself being fit for purpose (Padró et al. 2019). Bunnell’s chapter in the volume picks up on similar points from the whole person perspective, as does Wai-Cook’s chapter about

Preface

xxv

best practices for the twenty-first century. Figure 2 illustrates the interactions and interconnections between the epistemological and ontological aspects of experience, learning, personal knowledge formation, personal meaning-making, and proceptual (temporal) influences on personal identity. These layers of personal identity formation are anything but discrete and they are dynamic, non-linear, reflexive loops a person uses as needed, consciously or tacitly (this unto itself is a discussion that is outside the intended scope of this writing), based on contextual awareness. Figure 2 specifically focuses on the personal autopoietic processes of personal identity formation, illustrating how learning and sensemaking provide the functionings of becoming what the person wants to be. Fritz Machlup (1962), one of the first economists looking into the value of knowledge production, classified knowledge into five types based on the philosopher Max Scheler’s own classification of knowledge, which are consistent with the arguments made so far regarding the representational spaces that make up the transformation of knowledge into a personal Weltanschauung or worldview (Becker and Dahlke 1942). Scheler believed in the ontological aspects of knowledge, from the perspective of knowledge as a relation between beings, built on discovery rather than construction (Davis and Steinbock 2021): for the record, this author’s argument is that learning is both a discovery and construction proposition based on what a person learns from a personal sensemaking capacity. Machlup (1962) identified the types of knowledge as (1) practical knowledge, (2) intellectual knowledge, (3) smalltalk and pastime knowledge, (4) spiritual knowledge, and (5) unwanted knowledge. The importance of Scott’s fitness of purpose concern can be aligned with what an HEI emphasizes regarding in-class and outside-the-classroom programming, learning environment, ability to foment a strong sense of student identity and belonging, and personal development, leading to better employability opportunity through enhanced employability and societal capabilities. This topic is further discussed in chapters by Wallbank along with Millard and Talliss-Foster in this volume. Not surprisingly, all HEIs focus on practical knowledge (emphasized now through employability concerns) and intellectual knowledge (exploration of personal interests along with the deeper disciplinary and cultural interests affecting the understanding of personal knowledge production). However, what they do not account for is the possibility of a student placing some, most, or all personal knowledge creation into the unwanted knowledge bin as shown in Fig. 1. In fairness, Machlup was not thinking of learning acquired through formal education. Instead, his view was that this information was accidentally or randomly acquired through different forms of media or their Bronfenbrennian-type social experiences. Unwanted information is also valued as such because the person does not care (p. 27). The point worth noting, which differs from Machlup’s view of unwanted knowledge, is that pedagogical practice and program design can have this effect on students. This relates to how an HEI positions itself in relation to practical, intellectual, and unwanted knowledge, where issues of institution-induced personal failure, as described earlier by Glasser (1969), become a critical concern and therefore a risk proposition, as shown in Fig. 1. Another consequence of institutional perspective on these concerns is the notion of variability of success in terms of retention, progression, completion, and

xxvi

Preface

graduate attractiveness to employers in terms of not only work-related competence but the extent of expertise, creativity, independence and collaborative capability, and innovation. O’Shea, Delahunty, and Gigliotti’s chapter talks about collaboration and student as partners in this respect. Figure 2 helps explain how some of the categorization of information and the value represented by these categories, as expressed through actions, comes to pass.

And Yet, There Is Variability in Achieving Institutional Success W.E. Deming (2000), one of the leading gurus in the world of quality in the twentieth century, was adamant about the importance of understanding variability. This is different from pedagogical practice variability to enhance learning, which Entwistle talks about in his chapter. Deming’s variability was concerned with reducing error in production to ensure the same product met all of its specifications. In one sense, this applies to education, but only to the extent of making sure that graduating students meet the requirements set forth in programs and their curricula within the discipline, as well as other designed learning opportunities provided outside the classroom. It does not apply, however, to embracing variability of learning to achieve desired personal and institutional outcomes (Padró 2009), a key point reinforced in this writing, because all HEIs should embrace how variability impacts the learning process in every which way and create a way to use variability as a strength rather than a weakness. The variability of achieving desired results and the expectation of success, in terms of what these achievements mean to educators, educational institutions, employers, and governments, has been equated with a growing sense that formal education at all levels has not worked out as desired (Dreyfus 1995). This is a reason why governments keep intruding, through legislation, regulatory policy, and professional recognition requirements, to ensure the curriculum – the learning experience is of minimal interest outside social justice issues of access or equity, safety, and welfare concerns like abuse and/or harassment, employment regulations, or personal freedom concerns like freedom or religion (these are highlighted by politization of these freedoms in the broader society) – meets economic, political, and social needs governments ostensibly represent. The reason why success – in terms of maximizing learning capacity, timely progression, and completion/graduation – is not a given, and why effectiveness is a variable in formal educational settings from the student perspective, is that learning is arguably dependent on prior learning (Marton and Säljö 2005), and because of the valuational aspects that personal concrescence constructs. Formal education itself represents a process of bringing experiences together; yet these learning experiences focus on the internal environment within the campus, which do not always recognize and/or account for the impact that prior learning (experiential/informal or prior formal learning) can have in achieving desired outcomes. Variability of success at the individual level reflects the interaction between the three spaces, as it comes together in the lived experience. The proceptual aspect of the perceived space is the combination of the concrescent activities from prior times and experiences, as made aware through sensemaking. Personal meaning derived from sensemaking and concrescence occurring in the present time in the lived

Preface

xxvii

experience, as manifested through consistent characterization of actions (behavior), makes for a unique personal identity. The person’s identity may reflect similarities to that of others, but there will be variations based on different experiential and sensorial input received/achieved by the individual. Variability of success and effectiveness can thus be linked to how personal sensemaking, concrescence, and proceptual processes affect capability, especially from the perspective of personal agency and choice-making (Walker 2005). From the institutional perspective, the extent of alignment between programs and services, their epistemic foundations and pedagogical practices, and the minimization of epistemic drift (Elzinga 1997) in the provision of learning experiences impact on success and effectiveness in achieving personal and institutional outcomes. Of major importance is the ability of the HEI to generate an environment within and outside of the classroom that encourages and engenders a capacity for deep learning – to understand what is taught (Biggs and Tang 2011). To quote Chickering (2006): We need to learn how to recognize, respect, and respond to the wide-ranging individual differences among our diverse learners. If we do this—and it is a big if—then many more of our students will achieve learning that lasts. (p. 11)

The end-goal of post-secondary education is more than competency development, skillset acquisition, and employment for the individual person enrolled. Personal development and identity, from ontological, psychological, and social perspectives, need to be acknowledged outcomes that are recognized through graduate attributes and embedded within curricular, co-curricular, extra-curricular, ancillary and support programs, and activities offered by an HEI. Acquisition of knowledge and development of identity converge with formal education (Kaplan and Flum 2012). Chickering and Reisser (1993) argued that identity development for traditional cohorts (18–22) is at the forefront during the college or university years. Eccles (2009) argued that there are two types of personal identities: personal and social. In each instance, identity formation takes on different dimensions, reflecting choices a person makes from perceived alternatives, inclusive of domains such as race, gender, and sexual orientation, among others (Erikson 1968; Mayhew et al. 2016). Choices are not made neatly (Marcia 1980). Marcia’s (1980) definition of identity places choices within a process of establishing a self-structure predicated on “an internal, self-constructed, dynamic organization of drives, abilities, beliefs, and individual history” (p. 159). Vroom’s (1964) Valence-Instrumentality–Expectancy (VIE) Model suggests that expectancy, a motivator based on a subjective probability of action, is linked to the extent of effort given to accomplish something. Weighting of actions is representative of different personal valuation of alternative functionings possible for an individual to achieve a desired result (Sen 1999). Motivation, according to Dweck (2017), derives from basic human needs that include the psychological, shaping personal development and goal accomplishment means. An individual sets goals to meet these needs, and in so doing develops mental representations to guide future goals consisting “of beliefs, representations of emotions, and representations of action tendencies,” which are “at the core of personality and personality development” (p. 689).

xxviii

Preface

Likewise, this end-goal of knowledge acquisition and personal development to enhance acquisition skills for HEIs, governments, and employers, triple-helix’s various logics (Cai and Etzkowitz 2020; Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff 1998), should be more than workforce development, increase of labor skill sets, innovation for commercialization of fungible goods, and overall economic development. Increasing a person’s capability through formal education constitutes the basis of development and freedom because education encapsulates personal and social aspirations, social relationships, educational schemes, and specific types of skills and understandings (Sen 1999; Unterhalter 2003). John Dewey’s (2001) connection between education and democratic society remains relevant: “social organization means utilization of the specific and variable qualities of individuals” (p. 95). Citizenship, a sense of community and responsibility for the betterment of the community, should be recognized and encouraged through policy-steering mechanisms in governments and workplaces. A well-rounded citizen contributes more than skills to the broader community. This individual has a better opportunity to achieve a desired personal quality of life that also enhances community and workplace well-being and productivity. However, improved access to personal and occupational opportunities requires the triple-helix relation agreement, framing social expectations at the local, regional, national, and ostensibly international levels (Padró et al. 2021) to adopt a logic/perspective where the limitations of cultural capital, as expounded by Bordieu and Passeron (1990), need to be overcome to ensure personal and occupational access to opportunities leading any person to achieve desired results. Otherwise, there is a major risk that the paradoxical situation of formal education becoming a barrier to access to enrolment and occupation opportunities becomes pronounced, limiting the effects the triplehelix wants to promote. As Fuller (2011) stated, “the power of unwritten guides for action should not be underestimated when it comes to making sense of decisionmaking about educational participation” (p. 72).

Final Thoughts Entwistle’s chapter in this volume provides a historical backdrop to the research of learning and teaching. A number of the scholars and approaches used in this narrative are found here. This transdisciplinary attempt to provide a conceptual framework of learning – really from a praxis perspective according to a colleague – is more expansive, if for no other reason than looking at the ontological aspects that exist alongside the epistemological aspects of learning. This has been done as a means to explain why the clash between consumerism and traditional academic values has become, and is, a more challenging proposition than many think. A remedy is not simple, because of the many variables involved in a person’s value complex and characterization of that complex. Many interconnections come into play. Some of these interconnections are partially responsible for the consumerist approach some students take. The quadruple-helix, which is ultimately identified at the end of the volume as currently existing, is in part responsible, which means that HEIs themselves are part of the challenge, either in a direct manner through policies

Preface

xxix

and procedures that willingly or unwittingly reinforce a consumer view of higher education – think in terms of recruitment, retention, and completion rates; even the use of student feedback like that achieved from SET evaluations – or indirectly, through the organizational culture that espouses managerialism over the historical and hopefully expanded views (to student-facing staff performing quasi-academic roles) of academic freedom. Overall, what has been said here argues for the student to be treated as a co-creator, a partner in the learning process. There is a fair bit of construction that occurs in the learning experiences any HEI provides. The partnership should not be one similar to what Mommsen called a foedus inequum, an unequal alliance between the student and the HEI. The dynamics are too different for that. A person becoming a student to be employed in the workforce, and successful in both workforce and personal settings, places this partnership on a somewhat different plane. Students are not fully dependent on disciplinary or professional masters. Although there may be aspects of apprenticeship in the relationship between the student, the staff providing the learning opportunities, and the HEI itself, the triadic component of the relationship indicates that it is more than that. It is just simpler to think in master–subject relationships that legally do not stand in many countries legal systems, because this reinforces the derivative element that many educators believe student status represents. On the other hand, students not only have expectations and their own values and experiences but the capacity to choose whether to pursue higher education or not, simply because it is not mandatory. Trying to avoid the personal versus public benefit argument regarding who gains from a higher education, the point to be made is that labeling, considering, and/or treating students as consumers is a misnomer because it cannot and does not capture the essence of the relationship within the triad of student-learning opportunity provider-university. Terms like client or even mentee miss the mark, although it can be argued that a mentoring relationship may be a better description. But this implies treating a student as more than a dependent subordinate. This is ultimately a major conundrum driving the tension that the clash between consumerism and traditional academic values represents. I do not have an answer as to what terms to use when describing the role of student from this perspective. Instead, what is proposed is that student services, and the different support programs, activities, and other out-of-class learning opportunities available to students, need to be recognized as the value-add learning proposition they are, and should not be devalued. Staff in these areas should also be accorded more professional respect than they often do, and within the administrative hierarchy, these units should be listened to and be allowed to work alongside academic programs and units to provide an optimal learning experience. Toowoomba, Australia April 2022

Fernando F. Padró

xxx

Preface

References Anderson, C., and A.D. Galinsky. 2006. Power, optimism, and risk-taking. European Journal of Social Psychology 36: 511–536. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.324. Argyris, C., and D.A. Schön. 1974. Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Astin, A.W. 1985. Achieving educational excellence. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Astin, A.W. 1993. What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Basu, K., and L.F. López-Calvo. 2011. Functionings and capabilities. In Handbook of social choice and change. Vol. II, ed. Arrow, K.J., A. Sen, and K. Suzumura, 153–187. Elsevier, Amsterdam. Bateson, G. 2002. Mind and nature: A necessary unity. New York: Hampton Press, Inc. Baxter-Magolda, M.B. 2001. Enhancing learning. In The professional student affairs administrator: Educator, leader, and manager, ed. Winston, R.B., Jr., D.G. Creamer, and T.K. Miller, 287–307. New York: Brunner-Routledge. Becker, H., and H.O. Dahlke. 1942. Max Scheler’s sociology of knowledge. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 2 (3): 310–322. https://doi.org/10. 2307/2103163. Bentham, J. 2000/1781. An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Kitchener, Ontario: Batoche Books. Berman, R.P. 2014. Not just neoliberalism: Economization in the US science and technology policy. Science, Technology, & Human Values 39 (3): 397–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243913509123. Bhabha, H. 1994. The location of culture. London & New York: Routledge. Biggs, J.B., and C.S. Tang. 2011. Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Education. Bohr, N. 1963. Essays 1958–1962: Atomic physics and human knowledge. Cambridge: Richard Clay and Company. Bok, D. 2003. Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Bordieu, P., and J.-C. Passeron. 1990. Reproduction in education, society and culture. 2nd ed. London: SAGE. Bourdieu, P. 1993. The Field of Cultural Production. New York: Columbia University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U., and G.W. Evans. 2000. Developmental science in the 21st century: Emerging questions, theoretical models, research designs and empirical findings. Social Development 9 (1): 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507. 00114. Bronfenbrenner, U. 1977. Lewian space and ecological substance. Journal of Social Issues 33: 199–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1977.tb02533.x. Bronfenbrenner, U., and S.J. Ceci. 1994. Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological Review 101 (4): 568–586. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.568.

Preface

xxxi

Bronfenbrenner, U., and P.A. Morris. 2006. The bioecological model of human development. In Handbook of child psychology, ed. Eisenberg, N., W. Damon, and R.M. Lerner, 793–828. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/ 9780470147658.chpsy0114. Buchler, J. 1951. Toward a general theory of human judgment. New York: Columbia University Press. Buchler, J. 1955. Nature and judgment. New York: Columbia University Press. Bunce, L. 2019. The voice of the student as a ‘consumer’. In Engaging student voices in higher education: Diverse perspectives and expectations in partnership, ed. Lygo-Baker, S., I.M. Kinchin, and N.E. Winstone, 55–70. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Bunce, L., A. Baird, and S.E. Jones. 2017. The student-as-consumer approach in higher education and its effects on academic performance. Studies in Higher Education 42 (11): 1958–1978. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015. 1127908. Cai, Y., and H. Etzkowitz. 2020. Theorizing the triple-helix model: Past, present, and future. Triple Helix 7 (2–3): 189–226. https://doi.org/10.1163/21971927bja10003. Cai, Y., and A. Lattu. 2021. Triple helix or quadruple helix: Which model of innovation to choose for empirical studies? Minerva. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11024-021-09453-6. Carr, B. 1977. Popper’s Third World. The Philosophical Quarterly 27 (108): 214–226. https://doi.org/10.2307/2218780. Chickering, A.W. 2006. Every student can learn – if . . . About Campus 11 (2): 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/abc.161. Chickering, A.W., and L. Reisser. 1993. Education and identity. 2nd ed. JosseyBass. Creamer, D.G., R.B. Winston, Jr., and T.K. Miller. 2001. The professional student affairs administrator. In The professional student affairs administrator: Educator, leader, and manager, ed. Winston, R.B., Jr., D.G. Creamer, and T.K. Miller, 3–38. Brunner-Routledge. Dahl, R.A. 1957. The concept of power. Behavioral Science 2 (3): 201–215. https:// doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830020303. Davis, Z., and A. Steinbock. 2021. Max Scheler. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, ed. Zalta, E.N. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/ scheler/ del Cerro Santamaría, G. 2020. Challenges and drawbacks in the marketisation of higher education within neoliberalism. Review of European Studies 12 (1): 22–38. https://doi.org/10.5539/res.v12n1p22. Deleuze, G. 2001. Difference and repetition. Trans. P. Patton. London: Continuum. Deleuze, G., and F. Guattari. 1994. What is philosophy? New York: Columbia University Press. Deming, W.E. 2000. The new economics for industry, government, education. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Dewey, J. 1938. Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

xxxii

Preface

Dewey, J. 2001. Democracy and education. (electronic edition). The Pennsylvania State University. https://nsee.memberclicks.net/assets/docs/KnowledgeCenter/ BuildingExpEduc/BooksReports/10.%20democracy%20and%20education% 20by%20dewey.pdf Dolmans, D.H.J.M., S.M.M., Loyens, H., Marcq, and D. Gijbels. 2016. Deep and surface learning in problem-based learning: a review of the literature. Advances in Health Science Education 21: 1087–1112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-0159645-6. Dreyfus, H.L. 1995. Being-in-the-world: A commentary on Heidegger’s being and time, division I. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Dweck, C.S. 2017. From needs to goals and representations: Foundations for a unified theory of motivation, personality, and development. Psychological Review 124 (6): 689–719. Eccles, J. 2009. Who am I and what am I going to do with my life? Personal and collective identities as motivators of action. Educational Psychologist 44 (2): 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520902832368. Elzinga, A. 1997. The science-society contract in historical transformations: With special reference to ‘epistemic drift.’ Social Science Information 36 (3): 411–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901897036003002. Emerson, R.M. 1962. Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review 27 (1): 31–41. https://doi.org/10.2307/2089716. English, A.R. 2013. Discontinuity in learning: Dewey, Herbart, and education as transformation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Erikson, E.H. 1968. Identity: Youth and crisis. Norton. Etzkowitz, H., and L. Leydesdorff. 1995. The triple helix – University-IndustryGovernment relations: A laboratory for knowledge based economic development. European Association for the Study of Science and Technology (EASST) 14 (1): 14–19. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id¼2480085 Etzkowitz, H., and L. Leydesdorff. 1998. The endless transition: A “triple-helix” of university-industry-government relations. Minerva 36 (3): 203–208. Etzkowitz, H., and L. Leydesdorff. 1998. The endless transition: A “triple-helix” of university-industry-government relations. Minerva 36 (3): 203–208. https://doi. org/10.1177/095042229801200402. Finney, T.G., and R.Z. Finney. 2010. Are students their universities’ customers? An exploratory study. Education and Training 52 (4): 276–291. https://doi.org/10. 1108/00400911011050954. Foucault, M. 1986. Of other spaces. Diacritics 16 (1): 22–27. https://doi.org/10. 2307/464648. Frankl, V.E. 1992. Man’s search for meaning. 4th ed. Boston: Beacon Press. Frankl, V.E. 2011. Man’s search for ultimate meaning. London: Rider. Friedman, M., and L.J. Savage. 1948. The utility analysis of choices involving risk. Journal of Political Economy 56 (4): 279–304. http://www.jstor.org/stable/ 1826045 Fromm, E. 1976. To have or to be? New York: Harper & Row.

Preface

xxxiii

Fuller, A. 2011. The relevance of social capital to understanding decision-making in networks. In Rethinking widening participation in higher education: The role of social networks, ed. Fuller, A., S. Heath, and B. Johnston, 68–87. London: Routledge. Galbraith, J.K. 1998. The affluent society. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Glasser, W. 1969. Schools without failure. New York: Harper & Row. Harvey, D. 2005. A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Heidegger, M. 2001/1962. Being and time. Trans. J. Macquarrie, and E. Robinson. Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell. Horrigan-Kelly, M., M. Millar, and Dowling, M. 2016. Understanding the key tenets of Heidegger’s philosophy for interpretive phenomenological research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 15: 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1609406916680634. Jevons, W.S. 1874. The mathematical theory of political economy. Journal of the Statistical Society of London 37 (4): 478–488. https://doi.org/10.2307/2338697. Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47 (2): 263–292. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185. Kaplan, A., and H. Flum. 2012. Identity formation in educational settings: A critical focus for education in the 21st century. Contemporary Educational Psychology 37: 171–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2012.01.005. Kek, M.Y.C.A., and H. Huijser. 2017. Problem-based learning into the future: Imagining an agile PBL ecology for learning. Springer Science+Business Media Singapore. Keeling, R.P. 2009. Learning as transformation: Resourcefulness and renewal in higher education. Journal of College & Character 10 (3): 1–4. https://doi.org/10. 2202/1940-1639.1081. Kipfer, S., K. Goonewardena, C. Schmid, and R. Milgrom. 2008. On the production of Henry Lefebvre. In Space, difference, everyday life: Reading Henry Lefebvre, ed. Goonewardena, K., S. Kipfer, R. Milgrom, and C. Schmid, 1–23. London & New York: Routledge. Kipfer, S., P. Saberi, and T. Wieditz. 2012. Henri Lefebvre: Debates and controversies. Progress in Human Geography 37 (1): 115–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0309132512446718. Knight, F.H. 1964/1921. Risk, uncertainty and profit. Tallahassee, FL: Sentry Press. Kosari, M., and A. Amoori. 2018. Thirdspace: The trialectics of the real, virtual and blended spaces. Journal of Cyberspace Studies 2 (2): 163–185. https://doi.org/10. 22059/JCSS.2018.258274.1019. Lefebvre, H. 1991/1974. The production of space. Trans. D. Nicholson-Smith. Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell. Levin, J.S. 2005. The business culture of the community college: Students as consumers; students as commodities. New Directions for Higher Education 129: 11–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.169. Lewin, K. 1936. Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lewin, K. 1939. Field theory and experiment in social psychology: Concepts and methods. American Journal of Sociology 44 (6): 868–896. https://doi.org/10. 1086/218177.

xxxiv

Preface

Leydesdorff, L. 2012. The triple helix, quadruple helix, . . ., and an N-tuple of helices: Explanatory models for analyzing the knowledge-based economy? Journal of the Knowledge Economy 3 (1): 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-011-0049-4. Lin, C-C, and Peng, S-S. 2019. The role of diminishing marginal utility in the ordinal and cardinal utility theories. Australian Economic Papers 58: 233–246. https:// doi.org/10.1111/1467-8454.12151. Lindahl, L. 1977. Position and change. D. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company. Lister, J. 2015. Consumerism. In Encyclopedia of global environmental governance and politics, ed. Pattberg, P.H. and F. Zelli, 9–16. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Luhmann, N. 1976. Generalized media and the problem of contingency. In Explorations in general theory in social science: Essays in honor of Talcott Parsons, ed. Loubser, J.J., R.C. Baum, A. Effrat, and V.M. Lidz, 507–532. New York: Free Press. Luhmann, N. 1995. Social systems. Trans. J. Bodnarz and D. Baecker. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press. Lukes, S. 2021. Power and rational choice. Journal of Political Power 14 (2): 281–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2021.1900494. Machlup, F. 1962. The production and distribution of knowledge in the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Maner, J.K., M.T. Gailliot, D.A. Butz, and B.M. Peruche. 2007. Power, risk, and the status quo: does power promote riskier or more conservative decision making? Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin 33 (4): 451–462. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0146167206297405. Marcia, J.E. 1980. Identity in adolescence. In Handbook of adolescent psychology, ed. J. Adelson, 159–187. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Marton, F., and R. Säljö. 2005. Approaches to learning. In The experience of learning: Implications for teaching and studying in higher education, ed. Marton, F., D. Hounsell, and N. Entwistle. 3rd Internet ed., 39–58. University of Edinburgh, Centre for Teaching, Learning and Assessment. https://www.ed.ac. uk/institute-academic-development/learning-teaching/research/experience-oflearning Massey, D. 2005. For space. London: SAGE. Mayhew, M.J., A.N. Rockenbach, N.A. Bowman, T.A. Seifert, G.C. Wolniak, E.T. Pascarella, and P.T. Terenzini. 2016. How college affects students. 21st Century evidence that higher education works. Vol. 3. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Merrifield, A. 1999. Review: The extraordinary voyages of Ed Soja: Inside the “Trialectics of Spatiality”. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 89 (2): 345–348. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2564262 Mezirow, J. 1991. Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Mezirow, J. 1997. Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 74: 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.7401. Miles, S. 1998. Consumerism as a way of life. London: SAGE. Mills, C.W. 2000/1959. The sociological imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Preface

xxxv

Molesworth, M., E. Nixon, and R. Scullion. 2009. Having, being and higher education: the marketisation of the university and the transformation of the student into consumer. Teaching in Higher Education 14 (3): 277–287. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13562510902898841. Nafstad, H.E., R.M. Blakar, W. Carlquist, J.M. Phelps, and K. Rand-Hendriksen. 2007. Ideology and power: The influence of current neo-liberalism in society. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 17: 313–327. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/casp.931. Naidoo, R., and I. Jamieson. 2005. Empowering participants or corroding learning? Towards a research agenda on the impact of student consumerism in higher education. Journal of education policy 20 (3): 267–281. https://doi.org/10. 1080/02680930500108585. Nixon, E., R. Scullion, and M. Molesworth. 2011. How choice in higher education can create conservative learners. In The marketisation of higher education and the student as consumer, ed. Molesworth, M., R. Scullion and E. Nixon, 196–208. London: Routledge. Padró, F.F. 2009. Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge and its application to higher education institutions. Journal for Quality Progress 32 (1): 10–14. https:// www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/applicability-demings-system-profoundknowledge/docview/219110830/se-2?accountid¼14647 Padró, F.F. 2013. Accreditation and institutional learning: A stochastic proposition because it is the cornerstone to an effective quality assurance system in higher education often pursued from the perspective of a minimaxing regime. In External quality audits: Has it improved quality assurance in universities?, ed. Shah, M., and C.S. Nair, 247–268. Cambridge: Chandos Publishing. Padró, F.F. 2018. Preface. In Professional and support staff in higher education, ed. Bossu, C., and N. Brown, v–xxii. Springer Nature Singapore. Padró, F.F., and J.H. Green. 2018. Education administrators in Wonderland: Figuring out how policy-making and regulatory compliance when making decisions. In Education and the law: Considering the legal context of schools, ed. Trimmer, K., R. Dixon, and Y. Findlay, 141–166. Cham: Springer International Publishing AG. Padró, F.F., M.Y.C.A. Kek, N. Press, K. Trimmer, J.H. Green, M. Hawke, and L. Hawke. 2019. How about professionalism, professions and standards: The creation of acculturated professionals. In Ensuring quality in professional education: Engineering pedagogy and international knowledge structures. Vol. 2, ed. Trimmer, K., T. Newman, and F.F. Padró, 1–28. London: Palgrave McMillan. Padró, F.F., K. Trimmer, H. Chang, and J.H. Green. 2020. TQM’s presence within legal systems: Example of impact on Australian higher education. The TQM Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-12-2019-0307. Padró, F.F., A.M. Mohsin, and K. Trimmer. 2021. Using a Kano-QFD analysis to understand what makes enrolling at a particular university an attractive prospect: How a case study from Australia demonstrates the impact of world university rankings on international student selection of universities. Proceedings of the 24th EISIC Conference, University of Salerno, 3–4 October 2021. https://www. researchgate.net/publication/356110025_Using_a_Kano-QFD_analysis_to_

xxxvi

Preface

understand_what_makes_enrolling_at_a_particular_university_and_attractive_ prospect_How_a_case_study_from_Australia_demonstrates_the_impact_of_ world_university_rankings_on_ Perkmann, M., V. Tartari, M. McKelvey, E. Autio, A. Broström, P. D’Este, R. Fini, A. Geuna, R. Grimaldi, A. Hughes, S. Krabel, M. Kitson, P. Llerena, F. Lissoni, A. Salter, and M. Sobrero. 2013. Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy 42: 423–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.007. Popper, K.R. 1972. Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Press, N. 2017. Educating for a profession: a phenomenological case study of professional practice preparation for nursing from a sociocultural perspective. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Southern Queensland. Robeyns, I. 2005. The capability approach: a theoretical survey. Journal of Human Development 6 (1): 93–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/146498805200034266. Robeyns, I. 2017. Wellbeing, freedom, and social justice. OpenBooks Publishing. https://books.openbookpublishers.com/10.11647/obp.0130.pdf Rogers, B. 2010. Life space mapping: developing a visual method for investigating the outcomes of counselling and psychotherapy from the client’s frame of reference. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Abertay Dundee. Rosa, E.M., and J. Tudge. 2013. Urie Bronfenbrenner’s theory of human development: Its evolution from ecology to bioecology. Journal of Family Theory & Review 5 (4): 243–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12022. Ryder, J. 2013. The things in heaven and earth: An essay in pragmatic naturalism. New York: Fordham University Press. Samples, B. 1999. Learning as transformation. Journal of Science Education and Technology 8 (2): 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018661215359. Sandberg, J., and A.H. Pinnington. 2009. Professional competence as ways of being: An existential ontological perspective. Journal of Management Studies 46 (7): 1138–1170. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00845.x. Savage, L.J. 1951. The theory of statistical decision. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 46, 55–67. https://doi.org/10.2307/2280094. Savage, L.J. 1972. The foundations of statistics. (Revised 2nd ed.). Mineola, NY: Dover Publications. Schmid, C. 2008. Henri Lefebvre’s theory of the production of space: Towards a three-dimensional dialectic. (K. Goonerwardena, trans.). In Space, difference, everyday time: Reading Henri Lefebvre, ed. Goonerwardena, K., S. Kipfer, R. Milgron, and C. Schmid 27–45. London & New York: Routledge. Seaden, G., and A. Manseau. 2001. Public policy and construction innovation. Building Research & Information 29 (3): 182–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09613210010027701. Sen, A. 1997. Editorial: Human capital and human capability. World Development 25 (12): 1959–1961. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(97)10014-6. Sen, A. 1999. Development as freedom. Alfred A. New York: Knopf.

Preface

xxxvii

Sen, A. 2003. Development as capability expansion. In Readings in human development concepts, measures and policies for a development paradigm, ed. Fukuda-Parr, S., and A.K.S. Kumar 41–58. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sen, A. 2007. Rational choice: Discipline, brand name, and substance. In Rationality and commitment, ed. Peter, F. and H.B. Schmid, 339–361. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shantall, T. 2020. The life-changing impact of Viktor Frankl’s Logotherapy. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. Simonsen, K. 2005. Bodies, sensations, space and time: the contribution from Henri Lefebvre. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 87 (1): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0435-3684.2005.00174.x. Skolimowski, H. 1994. The participatory mind: A new theory of knowledge and of the universe. London: Arkana. Snow, C.P. 1959. The two cultures and the scientific revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Soja, E.W. 1996. Thirdspace: Journey to Los Angeles and other real-and-imagined spaces. Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell. Taylor, S.P. 2017. What is innovation? A study of the definitions, academic models and applicability of innovation to an example of social housing in England. Open Journal of Social Sciences 5: 128–146. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2017.511010. Thorsen, D.E. 2010. The neoliberal challenge: What is neoliberalism? Readings in Law and Social Justice 2(2): 188–214. https://heinonline.org/HOL/PrintRequest? collection¼journals&h andle ¼hein.journals/conreadlsj2 &div¼28& print¼section&format¼PDFsearchable&submit¼Print%2FDownload&id¼372 Unterhalter, E. 2003. The capabilities approach and gendered education: An examination of South African complexities. Theory and Research in Education 1 (1): 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878503001001002. Van de Kuilen, G., and P.P. Wakker. 2006. Learning in the Allais paradox. Journal of Risk Uncertainty 33: 155–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-006-0390-3. Vanderstraeten, R. 2002. Parsons, Luhmann and the theorem of double contingency. Journal of Classical Sociology 2 (1): 78–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1468795X02002001684. Vanderstraeten, R. 2021. How does education function? European Educational Research Journal 20 (6): 729–739. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904120948979. Vatansever, F. 2021. From space to spatiality: critical spatial discourse analysis as a framework for the geo-graphing of media texts. Critical Discourse Studies, 18 pp. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2021.1968451. Vroom, V.H. 1964. Work and motivation. New York: Wiley. Walker, M. 2005. Amartya Sen’s capability approach and education. Educational Action Research 13 (1): 103–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790500200279. Wallace, K. 1999. Ontological parity and/or ordinality? Metaphilosophy 30 (4): 302–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9973.00140. Weick, K.E. 1988. Enacted sensemaking in crisis situations. Journal of Management Studies 25 (4): 305–317. Weick, K.E. 1995. Sensemaking in organizations. London: SAGE Publications.

xxxviii

Preface

Weick, K.E., K.M. Sutcliffe, and D. Obstfeld. 2005. Organizing and the process of sensemaking, Organization Science 16: 409–421. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc. 1050.0133. Wheeler, M. 2020. Martin Heidegger. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophyed. Zalta, E.N. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/heidegger/ Whitehead, A.N. 1929. Process and reality. New York: The Macmillan Company. Wittgenstein, L. 1998/1922. Tractacus logico-philosophicus. London & New York: Routledge. Woodall, T., A. Hiller, and S. Resnick. 2014. Making sense of higher education: students as consumers and the value of the university experience. Studies in Higher Education 39 (1): 48–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011. 648373. Von Wright, G.H. 1951. Deontic logic. Mind 60 (237): 1–15. https://doi.org/10. 2307/2266264. Yngfalk, A.F., and C. Yngfalk. 2020. Modifying markets: Consumerism and institutional work in nonprofit marketing. Marketing Theory 20 (3): 343–362. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1470593119885169.

Acknowledgments

Our ideas for this book are in part born out of the challenges and failures that we have experienced. Most of all, this book is a collection of thousands of years of unwavering passion and focus of all the authors in this book teaching and supporting students. Our collective dreams of a better university, a better society. We don’t believe we have reached the destination yet with this book, and indeed we never will. However, based on what we have seen when the world came together (literally and metaphorically) to teach and support students and defeat the battles that the Covid19 pandemic has brought, we have much to be hopeful for and confident about. The challenges in the student support and services space might have been significant, but judging from the case studies in this book, they are passionately confronting those challenges. In fact, Covid-19 has brought higher education a reprieve of sorts and afforded it an opportunity to pause and reimagine what higher education’s purpose is, can be, or indeed should be. We must acknowledge all former students who have taught each of us to be better teachers. We acknowledge every student who aspires to enter higher education. We acknowledge every academic teacher and all the professional support staff who authentically work to support them in being the best they can be. Henk would like to acknowledge the many colleagues, both current and in the past, who have contributed to this volume with their ideas, critiques, and engagement; some literally, in the form of the many excellent chapters in this book, and some indirectly in the form of the many discussions and conversations about the role of student support services in universities. As always, Henk would also like to thank Trish for both inspiring him and grounding him; love and gratitude always. Megan would like to remember the late Professor Howard Barrows, father, and founder of authentic problem-based learning. He was a truly disruptive teacher, mentor, and friend who encouraged and gave her the confidence to “march to her own tune” in everything academia. She also would like to remember the late Professor Kevin Marjoribanks, her PhD supervisor, who taught her about humanizing education, which has since guided her work with students. Finally, Megan thanks Jesus Christ, her husband Takashi, and beloved families for their unconditional love, support, encouragement, and space to dream. Fernando would like to thank the editorial team and staff at Springer for all of their assistance and support in bringing together this volume as well as the others in xxxix

xl

Acknowledgments

this series, which has proven more challenging than usual due to the challenges Covid-19 has presented them as well as the editorial team and the contributors to this volume. I also want to thank all of the contributors to this volume whose contributions, goodwill, and insights have made it possible. But most of all, I want to thank my wife Trudy and my daughter Rainee for their support and belief in the project. I also want to take this opportunity to remember my mother Helen who passed away during the latter part of bringing this volume to fruition. A very erudite woman who was grateful for the education she received at Kalamazoo College and whose views about the opportunities and benefits higher education institutions provide learners reflect much of what has been written in this volume. Tribute to Professor Tracey Bretag As the Editors of this volume, we are honored to include a chapter by Tracey Bretag (co-written with Katherine Nguyen), who sadly passed away in 2020. A book about student support services would not be complete without a contribution by Professor Bretag. While her primary focus was on academic integrity, this chapter reflects her broader and deep commitment to social justice, with its focus on socio-cultural and settlement support services for international students. As a founding editor of the International Journal for Educational Integrity and Editor-in-Chief of the highly influential Handbook of Academic Integrity (2016), Tracey leaves a huge academic legacy, and again we are proud and honored to include some of her work in this volume. She is already greatly missed.

Contents

Part I 1

.......................................

1

Introduction: Student Support Services in an Overall Ecology for Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Henk Huijser, Megan Yih Chyn A. Kek, and Fernando F. Padró

3

Part II

Introduction

Conceptualizing Student Support Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

2

Research into Learning and Teaching in Universities Noel Entwistle

..........

13

3

The Student “Experience” in Commercialized Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louise Taylor Bunce

35

4

Increasing Student Persistence: Wanting and Doing . . . . . . . . . . . Vincent Tinto

5

Whole-of-Institution Transformation for First Year Learning and Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sally Kift

53

71

6

How to Increase Retention and Graduation Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alan Seidman

7

Student Support and Services in Chinese Higher Education Institutions: Practices and Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fei Guo, Juanjuan Liu, and Liang Li

113

Working Towards Best Teaching and Learning Practices in a Holistic Curriculum for the Twenty-First Century . . . . . . . . . . . Misty So-Sum Wai-Cook

145

A Whole Person Model of Student Success Advising in the Liberal Arts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sarah L. Bunnell

167

8

9

93

xli

xlii

10

11

Contents

A View of the Contents of the Typical First-Year Virtual Uni Bag: Helping Staff and Students Develop a Pedagogy for Successful Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lynette Faragher Academic Writing and Student Identity: Helping Learners Write in an Age of Massification, Metrics and Consumerism Adrian J. Wallbank

183

....

203

12

Incubators for Student Leader Identity Emergence . . . . . . . . . . . . David Arendale

223

13

A Digital Student Journey: Supporting Students in an Age of Super Complexity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Naomi F. Dale, Jennifer Loh, Laurie Poretti, Scott Nichols, and Scott Pearsall

14

241

Learner Support Services in an Online Learning Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alperhan Babacan and Matthew Thurgood

257

15

Neoliberalism and “Resistance” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anibeth Desierto and Carmela De Maio

273

16

From “Customer” to “Partner”: Approaches to Conceptualization of Student-University Relationships . . . . . . . . . Natalia Maloshonok and Irina Shcheglova

291

17

18

19

20

21

Creating Collaborative Spaces: Applying a “Students as Partner” Approach to University Peer Mentoring Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sarah O’Shea, Janine Delahunty, and Amanda Gigliotti “Remedial,” Development, and Business: Three Opposing but Coexisting Approaches to Academic Student Support . . . . . . . Tracey Ashmore Future Institutional and Student Services Leadership Challenges: Implementing a Holistic Whare Tapa Rima – Five-Sided Home Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Susan F. Stevenson and Kristyl C. Zagala

309

329

349

Empowerment Versus Power: The Learning and Performativity Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tracey Ashmore

367

......

387

Engaging and Retaining Students in Productive Learning Geoff Scott

Contents

22

23

Student Academic Freedom: Chimera or Realpolitik Requiring Serious Attention in an Era of Student Consumerism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fernando F. Padró Student Affairs: One Hundred Years in the Making . . . . . . . . . . . Kevin Kruger

Part III 24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

xliii

Applied Practice for Student Support Services

.........

419 445

463

Supporting Indigenous Higher Degree by Research Students in Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Peter Anderson, Thu Pham, Levon Blue, and Ashley Fox

465

Pacific Student Engagement, Experience, and Learning in Tertiary Education: Factors That Impact Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . Daisy Bentley-Gray

479

The Challenge of Student Mental Well-Being: Reconnecting Students Services with the Academic Universe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gareth Hughes

497

Developing Students’ Career Identity from Choice of Major to a Values-Driven Career Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lori Nero Ghosal, Rachel Worsham, and Chester Miller

519

UTS HELPS U:Connect: Developing Confidence and Making Connections Through Informal Conversation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ashleigh Synnott, MaryAnn McDonald, and Sang-Eun Oh

537

A Case-Study of Partnership in Practice: Engaging Students to Shape Support for Learning in Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . Alex Barnier, Charith Rathnayaka, and Richard Medland

551

Exploring the Impact of Learning Development on Student Engagement, Experience, and Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kathryn Coulson, Alison Loddick, and Paul Rice

567

Residential Learning Communities as Coalitions: Bridging the Gap Between Customer, Consumer, and Learner . . . . . . . . . . Ryan W. Erck and Rishi R. Sriram

583

Student Services, Personal Tutors, and Student Mental Health: A Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gareth Hughes and Tamsin Bowers-Brown

601

Developing an Engagement-Focused Learning Support Service Within a Conservatoire Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louise H. Jackson and Hazel Bothma

617

xliv

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

Contents

Networked Narratives in Facebook: A Case Study of Students Supporting and Inspiring One Another . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Murray Lane, Ramisa Raya, Nick Kelly, Anthea Castellano, Rachel Ward, Elise Lawrence, Louise Hooper, and Corinne Loane Being a Student Colleague and the Impact on Student Learning and Belonging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Luke Millard and Stephanie Talliss-Foster

647

Supporting Underrepresented Information Technology Students Through High Impact Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Molly F. Morin, Mathew J. Palakal, and Michele J. Hansen

663

[Expert] Guide on the Side: One University’s Response to Support for Learning in STEM-Based Disciplines . . . . . . . . . . . . . Christine Devine, Therese Wilson, and Hayley Moody

677

One Singapore Institution’s Evolution from Service to Partnership: A Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Huang Hoon Chng and Kooi Cheng Lee

691

Socio-cultural and Settlement Support Services for International Students: A ‘Home Away from Home’ Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Katherine Huyen Nguyen and Tracey Bretag

721

Designing an Intercultural Postgraduate Research Development Program in a Transnational University in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jianmei Xie and Henk Huijser

735

Online Writing Feedback: A Service and Learning Experience . . . Maxine Brodie, Christopher Tisdell, and Judyth Sachs

43

When Education Is a Right: How to Deal with Educational Consumerism Through Focusing on Autonomy, Meaning, and Sense of Comfort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rune Mastrup Lauridsen and Tine Waast Nielsen

45

703

A Continuum of Language Support Services for Undergraduate Students: Case Studies of Integrating Academic Literacy . . . . . . . Siew Mei Wu and Namala Lakshmi Tilakaratna

42

44

631

Experiences of Students with Auxiliary Services Journeys in Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Liesbet Bonnarens, Ingrid Moons, Patrick De Pelsmacker, Annouk Lievens, and Koenraad Keignaert Building Learning Ventures for Students’ Future-Readiness . . . . . Megan Yih Chyn A. Kek, Eva Chan, Blair Slater, Neda Chepinchikj, Davina Delesclefs, and Raymond Wang

755

773

791

819

Contents

46

47

48

Making the Case That the Co-curricular Is Not the Same Thing as the Extra-curricular and That the Difference Makes a Difference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nona Press and Fernando F. Padró Student Academic Appeals Committees: The “Canary in the Mine” – Part of the Quality Assurance Processes of Higher Education Institutions in Their Own Right . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fernando F. Padró and Jerry S. Collins

xlv

839

857

Towards an Interconnected University Ecology for a Hypercomplex World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Megan Yih Chyn A. Kek, Fernando F. Padró, and Henk Huijser

871

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

885

About the Editors

Henk Huijser holds a PhD in Screen and Media Studies, and has been an academic developer involved in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education since 2005. Between 2010 and 2012 he was responsible for the institution-wide implementation of Problem Based Learning at Bahrain Polytechnic in the Arabian Gulf, followed by a 3-year stint at the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education in Australia’s Northern Territory, where he was Senior Lecturer, Flexible Learning and Innovation. He continues to be an adjunct researcher and postgraduate supervisor at Batchelor Institute. After 2 years as an educational developer at Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University (XJTLU) in Suzhou, China, Henk has been a senior lecturer, Curriculum and Learning Design, in the Learning and Teaching Unit at Queensland University of Technology, Australia, since 2017. Henk has published extensively in the field of learning and teaching in higher education, including (with Megan Kek) Problem-based Learning into the Future: Imagining an Agile PBL Ecology for Learning (2017, Springer). He is an associate editor of the International Journal for Academic Development, the Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, and the Journal of Peer Learning. More information at: https:// orcid.org/0000-0001-9699-4940 Megan Yih Chyn A. Kek holds a PhD in Education focusing on student development and higher education, an MBA majoring in Marketing, a Bachelor of Science in Business Information Management, and a Bachelor of Arts in Social Science and Humanities. She started her early career in the Malaysian banking sector, at the back end as an organizational analyst improving business processes, and at the front line serving clients as a senior xlvii

xlviii

About the Editors

bank officer. Before being attracted to academia, she applied her keen interest in consumer behavior while working in the banking sector to researching entrepreneurship and innovation of the SME sector in Singapore. Her interests in how consumers behave and what industries lack motivated her to enter academia with the vision to build meaningful interconnected educational environments that develop skills, knowledge, attitudes, and values that students would need to fulfill their capabilities, so that they know who they are and possess the agency to reach their potential and contribute to the well-being of themselves and families, communities, nations, and, ultimately, the planet. She has published papers in influential and high-ranking journals. In 2017, she co-authored a forward-oriented book (with Henk Huijser), Problem-based Learning into the Future: Imagining an Agile PBL Ecology for Learning (2017, Springer), arguing for an interconnected educational environment for student development and learning that can be more humane, agile, and responsive to overcoming complacency, contradictions, and dilemmas. She is most proud of her contribution to educating students for a supercomplex world with the Singapore Prime Minister’s Enterprise Award for Innovation in Education. The award recognized her team which she co-led as the most outstanding team whose work created the highest new value to public service. Fernando Padró has a double major PhD in the areas of academic administration and curriculum and instruction. After having served as Associate Professor in the Doctoral Program and Interim Director of Educational Leadership at Cambridge College, he is currently an associate professor (Pathways) at USQ College (Pathways) and before this he was Director of Learning and Teaching at the University of Southern Queensland (USQ). He is also actively involved in academic governance at USQ, serving as Deputy Chair of Academic Board, Chair of the Student Appeals Committee, and Deputy Chair of the Academic Programs Committee, while also serving similar leadership roles in governance at Monmouth University and the American Association of University Professors. He was on Australia’s Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency’s

About the Editors

xlix

(TEQSA) Registry of Experts (2013–2018), was Chair of the American Society for Quality Education Committee (ASQ – 2013 through 2014) and E.L. Grant Medal Selection Panel (2018–2021), and was Faculty Fellow with the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA – 2009–2013). He has also been Editor of the e-journal Quality Approaches in Higher Education (ASQ Education Division), a member of the International Network of Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education’s (INQAAHE) Best Practice QA Review Team, and member of the International Standards Organization (ISO) ISO/TC 176 Working Group. He is a member of the Editorial Board of The TQM Journal (Emerald) and an occasional reviewer for the Total Quality Management & Business Excellence Journal (Routledge). Orcid #: https://orcid.org/00000001-8763-912X

Contributors

Peter Anderson Carumba Institute, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia David Arendale University of Minnesota – Twin Cities, Minneapolis, MN, USA Tracey Ashmore University of Kent, Kent, UK Alperhan Babacan Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Victoria and High Court of Australia, Melbourne, VIC, Australia Alex Barnier Student Success Group, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia Daisy Bentley-Gray Pacific Centre, Unitec New Zealand Limited, Auckland, New Zealand Levon Blue Carumba Institute, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia Liesbet Bonnarens Department of Marketing, Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium Hazel Bothma Trinity Laban Conservatoire of Music and Dance, London, UK Tamsin Bowers-Brown Centre of Excellence for Learning and Teaching, University of Derby, Derby, UK Tracey Bretag The University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia Maxine Brodie University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia Sarah L. Bunnell Center for Teaching and Learning, Amherst College, Amherst, MA, USA Anthea Castellano Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia Eva Chan University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia Neda Chepinchikj University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia li

lii

Contributors

Huang Hoon Chng Department of English Language and Literature, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore Jerry S. Collins Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ, USA Kathryn Coulson Library and Learning Services, University of Northampton, Northampton, UK Naomi F. Dale University of Canberra, Canberra, ACT, Australia Carmela De Maio Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia Patrick De Pelsmacker Department of Marketing, Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium Janine Delahunty University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia Davina Delesclefs University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia Anibeth Desierto Curtin University, Perth, Australia Christine Devine Student Success Group, Learning and Teaching Unit, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia Noel Entwistle University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK Ryan W. Erck School of Education, Baylor University, Waco, TX, USA Lynette Faragher University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD, Australia Ashley Fox Carumba Institute, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia Lori Nero Ghosal Career Development Center, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA Amanda Gigliotti University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia Fei Guo Institute of Education, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China Michele J. Hansen Institutional Research and Decision Support, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN, USA Louise Hooper Student Success Group, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia Gareth Hughes Student Services, University of Derby, Derby, UK Henk Huijser Learning and Teaching Unit, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia Louise H. Jackson Institute of Contemporary Music Performance, London, UK Koenraad Keignaert Department of Social Services, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium

Contributors

liii

Megan Yih Chyn A. Kek The Institute of International Studies, Sydney, NSW, Australia Nick Kelly School of Design, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia Sally Kift Faculty of Business and Law, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia Kevin Kruger NASPA – Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education, Washington, DC, USA Murray Lane Graduate Research Education and Development, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia Rune Mastrup Lauridsen The Student Guidance Service at the Faculty of Humanities, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark Elise Lawrence Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia Kooi Cheng Lee Centre for English Language Communication, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore Liang Li Institute of Education, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China Annouk Lievens Department of Marketing, Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium Juanjuan Liu Institute of Education, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China Corinne Loane Student Success Group, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia Alison Loddick Library and Learning Services, University of Northampton, Northampton, UK Jennifer Loh University of Canberra, Canberra, ACT, Australia Natalia Maloshonok Centre for Sociology of Higher Education, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russian Federation MaryAnn McDonald University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia Richard Medland Student Success Group, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia Luke Millard AbLE Academy, Abertay University, Dundee, UK Chester Miller Living and Learning Initiatives, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA Hayley Moody Student Success Group, Learning and Teaching Unit, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

liv

Contributors

Ingrid Moons Department of Marketing, Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium Molly F. Morin School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN, USA Katherine Huyen Nguyen Business School, The University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia Scott Nichols University of Canberra, Canberra, ACT, Australia Tine Waast Nielsen The Student Guidance Service at the Faculty of Humanities, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark Sarah O’Shea National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia Sang-Eun Oh Higher Education Language and Presentation Support, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia Fernando F. Padró USQ College, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD, Australia Mathew J. Palakal School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana UniversityPurdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN, USA Scott Pearsall University of Canberra, Canberra, ACT, Australia Thu Pham Carumba Institute, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia Laurie Poretti University of Canberra, Canberra, ACT, Australia Nona Press Learning and Teaching Unit, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia Charith Rathnayaka Student Success Group, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia School of Science, Technology and Engineering, University of the Sunshine Coast, Petrie, QLD, Australia Ramisa Raya Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia Paul Rice Library and Learning Services, University of Northampton, Northampton, UK Judyth Sachs Studiosity, Sydney, NSW, Australia Geoff Scott Western Sydney University, Sydney, NSW, Australia Alan Seidman Center for the Study of College Student Retention (cscsr.org), Walden University, Bedford, NH, USA

Contributors

lv

Irina Shcheglova Centre for Sociology of Higher Education, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russian Federation Blair Slater University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia Rishi R. Sriram School of Education, Baylor University, Waco, TX, USA Susan F. Stevenson Registry, FREEDOM Institute of Higher Education (Te Wānanga O Rangatiratanga), Hamilton, New Zealand Ashleigh Synnott University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia Stephanie Talliss-Foster Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, Birmingham, UK Louise Taylor Bunce Department of Sport, Health Sciences, and Social Work, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK Matthew Thurgood Discipline of Criminology and Justice, Australian College of Applied Psychology, Melbourne, VIC, Australia Namala Lakshmi Tilakaratna Centre for English Language Communication, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore Vincent Tinto Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA Christopher Tisdell University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia Misty So-Sum Wai-Cook Centre for English Language Communication and College of Alice & Peter Tan (CAPT), National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore Adrian J. Wallbank Educational Development, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK Raymond Wang University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia Rachel Ward Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia Therese Wilson Student Success Group, Learning and Teaching Unit, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia Rachel Worsham North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA Siew Mei Wu Centre for English Language Communication, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore Jianmei Xie School of Foreign Languages, Guangdong Polytechnic Normal University, Guangzhou, China Kristyl C. Zagala Registry, FREEDOM Institute of Higher Education (Te Wānanga O Rangatiratanga), Hamilton, New Zealand

Part I Introduction

1

Introduction: Student Support Services in an Overall Ecology for Learning Henk Huijser, Megan Yih Chyn A. Kek, and Fernando F. Padro´

Contents Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Abstract

This is the overall introduction to the volume, in which we outline the rationale behind the volume and its conceptualization. It poses the central question that was part of the initial call for chapters: are students customers of higher education, or are they learning in higher education? The authors of the more than 40 chapters in this volume all address this question to varying degrees. In this introduction we draw on our previous work in that we conceptualize learning as part of an overall ecology for learning. This is attractive in a book about student support services as it allows us to map such services into an ecology for learning, thereby focusing on the wide range of elements involved, and thus the role of student support services in an overall ecology for learning. We argue here that student support services are a crucial element in this ecology for learning and the more than 40 chapters in this book together reinforce their importance, albeit from a range of different angles.

H. Huijser (*) Learning and Teaching Unit, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia e-mail: [email protected] M. Y. C. A. Kek The Institute of International Studies, Sydney, NSW, Australia e-mail: [email protected] F. F. Padró USQ College, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 H. Huijser et al. (eds.), Student Support Services, University Development and Administration, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5852-5_49

3

4

H. Huijser et al.

Keywords

Student support services · Ecology for learning · Co-curriculum · Extra-curricular services · Student as customers · Students as learners · COVID-19

In the initial conceptualization of this volume, or rather two volumes, we asked ourselves the question of whether students were customers of higher education, or whether they were learning in higher education. This is also a question we have asked the contributing authors to address since it relates to a profound and fundamental question about the role of universities and higher education in general (Barnett 2018; Barnett and Peters 2018). There is of course no easy answer as higher education institutions are highly complex organizations. Learning itself, and by extension teaching, is even more complex and it occurs in what we have termed an ecology for learning (Kek and Huijser 2017). We have further argued that the ecology for learning must be “agile” and be ever ready to adapt to these complexities that are constantly evolving and shaped internally within the higher education environments and/or by external factors that are impacting on the enterprise itself, as COVID-19 has shown rather explicitly. Conceptualizing learning as part of an overall ecology for learning – or indeed, an agile ecology for learning – is attractive in that it not only allows for the recognition that there are many factors that impact on learning, and that go well beyond just formal learning environments, but it also draws attention to the potential fragility of an ecology in which everything is related in a holistic manner. In other words, each element has a potential impact on the other elements and vice versa. This is an attractive proposition as an underlying principle of a volume about student support services, because it allows us to map such services (and individual parts of it) into an agile ecology for learning, and thus demonstrate their importance of being adaptive and part of the whole. This is important because in the context of the neoliberal university (Enright et al. 2017; Taylor and Lahad 2018), cocurricular or extracurricular services can be easy prey in an accounting exercise that is often presented as a restructure or a rationalization. This in turn has the potential to throw the higher education ecology out balance, with significant impacts for those students who rely to varying degrees on support services. Again, the impact of COVID-19 and the resulting response have of course laid bare some of the fault lines in this respect. Prior to COVID-19, and in the context of widening participation agendas and an increasingly demand-driven higher education sector, combined with ever tighter public funding streams, the higher education sector has had to step up its game in attracting students and diversify its approaches and strategies. As part of recruitment strategies and marketing campaigns, it has become common to approach potential students as “customers.” Transaction as a form of two-way (beneficial) engagement has given way to transaction as an exchange for a service or a good. As noted, this is in keeping with an increasing slide toward a neoliberal model for higher education. As Giroux (2015, p. 196) has noted, “the mantras of neoliberalism are now well known: government is the problem; society is a fiction; sovereignty is market-driven; deregulation and

1

Introduction: Student Support Services in an Overall Ecology for Learning

5

commodification are vehicles for freedom; and higher education should serve corporate interests rather than the public good.” In this context, widening participation agendas are not primarily about providing citizens with an opportunity to empower themselves but rather about increasing the number of fee-paying customers. It can be tempting to adopt an either/or argument about whether students should be seen as customers or learners, but while valid to some extent, the reality is often a lot more complex and grey. Again, the concept of an agile ecology for learning is useful in this respect, as it helps us to see learning as being situated in people’s lives, rather than being neatly contained in a university, a degree, or a curriculum, the latter fitting the utilitarian view of higher education as a means of churning out students for employment. Student support services seem to fit quite nicely in a market-driven model, in which the student is the customer and the university, or rather specific organizational units in universities, deliver services based on demand. But is this an effective way of approaching it? It might be efficient from a fiscal perspective, but the impact on the students, in terms of effectiveness, may be a more important consideration to be taken into account and acted upon, rather than simply being espoused as rhetoric. This is one of the key questions that is being addressed by many authors in this book. A recent empirical study by Bunce, Baird, and Jones (2017) reported that consumer-orientated educational institutions are mediating traditional relationships between learner identity, grade goals, and academic performance. Their findings suggest that a higher consumer orientation is associated with lower academic performance in higher education institutions. This is interesting in that it relates to the way students are positioned by the university, which in turn is a result of the way universities are positioned in society through political processes and funding structures. One of the authors of that study (Louise Bunce) discusses this further in her chapter in this book (▶ Chap. 3, “The Student “Experience” in Commercialized Higher Education”), by focusing on the implications of approaching students as customers for the student experience. At the same time, Shea, Li, and Pickett’s (2006) research has shown that community plays a role in student learning and they used measures like persistence. This recognizes the importance of learning communities and recognizes (with Vygotsky) that a crucial part of learning consists of engaging with other people, rather than being an individual pursuit or activity that can be neatly packaged like a material consumer product. The creation of a student community has been an important aspect of higher education for some time, and the challenge of creating that sense of community, sense of belonging, personal identity, and engagement within the university environment remains for those not habitually and constantly on-campus, and even for some who are. The difficulty of commuter students more fully engaging with university curricular and cocurricular programs remains, especially as students have to spend more of their time working to meet direct and indirect costs of partaking in university studies. Much more concerning today are student identity, in terms of being (or becoming) an integral member of the university community, and cocurricular engagement that enhances the learning of online students. Again, an agile ecology for learning concept is useful in this respect, because it allows us to recognize the multitude of elements (and people) that together make up the learning environment for students, which is dynamic, complex, and difficult to pin down with

6

H. Huijser et al.

a standardized approach. This means that for student support services to be effective, they need to be a responsive and adaptive part of a higher education ecology for learning. They need to be integrated into that learning ecology, either as part of the curriculum, as a provider of cocurricular services, or as a facilitator or initiator of extracurricular initiatives that contribute to a sense of community. Such initiatives are not confined to on-campus students or online students, or those who combine different modes, or at least they should not be. In a sense then, higher education finds itself at a crossroads, and in this context, the issue of student identity is also being questioned, and indeed the purpose of a university education itself (Bengtsen and Barnett 2018; Marshall 2018). Since Chickering’s seminal text Education and Identity (Chickering 1969) and his introduction of the Seven Vectors of Development, as well as the follow-up edition (Chickering and Reisser 1993), discussion around the question and concept of student identity have remained largely confined to relatively isolated pockets of interested parties. However, with the rise and proliferation of consumer-oriented higher education institutions, the concept of student identity has recently gained in urgency. This is not a coincidence as identity is at the core of how students see themselves and how they are being positioned and approached by, for example by higher education providers. Meens et al. (2018) studied the association between student identity and motivation on the one hand, and their academic achievement on the other. Interestingly, they found that motivation was associated with academic achievement, whereas identity was not. However, the two do not exist in isolation, which is reflected in their finding that motivation and identity combined predicted students’ academic achievement. In other words, if your identity as a learner is reinforced in your interactions with a higher education institution, you are more likely to be motivated and persist in your studies, which is echoed by Vincent Tinto in his chapter in this book (▶ Chap. 4, “Increasing Student Persistence: Wanting and Doing”). According to Sonnenberg (2017), positioning students as customers or consumers is likely to alienate them from the learning process “as it places them at the receiving end of educational instruction rather than at the centre of it” (p. 258). However, while this is an often-voiced concern, a recent study by Tomlinson (2017) showed that “consumer” is “not an all-encompassing categorization through which students think of themselves, their role within their institutions and their general attitude towards the higher education experience” (p. 464), which relates to identity. Yet, at the same time, students in his study were highly aware of being positioned as “consumers,” and accordingly the equation of teaching time to monetary value by many of his study’s participants seems to increasingly frame students’ expectations of how universities are performing, which would include expectations around how student support services are performing. Thus, learner identity is highly complex and has been in development over many years across the different systems of the ecology for learning by the time students begin to engage with the university. Moreover, learner identity is dynamic within the ecology for learning and impacted by various part of that ecology. As outlined by Kek and Huijser (2017), and as can be seen in Fig. 1, the agile ecology for learning consists of four different systems: microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem. The boundaries between these systems are porous, and each system

1

Introduction: Student Support Services in an Overall Ecology for Learning

7

Fig. 1 Agile ecology for learning

impacts on the others. Like a biological ecology, a change in one system impacts not only on that particular system but on the ecology as a whole. The key point to make here is that the university is only a part of this ecology, and that there are many other factors that impact on the learner and thus, on learner identity. Conceptualizing learning in this way allows the recognition and identification of the complexity of both learning and learner identity, and it thus helps us to go beyond the earlier mentioned binaries associated with the neoliberal university and the student as consumer. Furthermore, it allows us to position and analyze student support services in the complex higher education environments – the academic, the support services, the leaders, the students, the government, the labor markets – in which they operate and attempt to add value. In the ecology for learning, student support is situated in the exosystem where students are first impacted by the decisions, policies, processes, and procedures created by and for them. Hence, activating reciprocal and consequential impacts on the other elements of the higher education ecology, including elements in the micro, meso, and macro-systems, ultimately impact on the person – the students, the teachers, the student support providers, the leaders, the employers, the funding bodies – and ultimately on the nation more broadly. The many different

8

H. Huijser et al.

chapters in this book focus on different elements of student support services, but this ecology for learning serves as a reference point or map throughout both Part 1 and Part 2 of this book. This organizing structure allows the readers to experience and engage in depth with the complexities of providing student support services in contemporary universities and allows them to show how they have adapted and/or adapting to managing these complexities. Rodgers (1990a, b) argued almost three decades ago that student development has taken on different layers of meaning beyond an individual’s increase in developmental capacity due to a university education: a body of research, a philosophy, and programs. The combination has led student services in becoming a part of an institution’s strategic efforts to demonstrate performance quality. Unfortunately, in this complex higher education environment, student support services find themselves in an interesting, yet often contradictory, position of having to provide a “customer service” while also developing a student identity and lifelong learning disposition in students. For example, the research stream led by George Kuh and his associates (Kuh et al. 2005, 2007, 2011) in the USA and elsewhere, from the 1990s onwards, links engagement and satisfaction with student learning. Yet studies such as those by Finney and Finney (2010) and Svensson and Wood (2007) have shown that a paradigm favoring customer service-transactions changes the relationships of actors in the university in ways that can be counter-productive to student development. The rapid growth of online learning and teaching environments, which has been accelerated by COVID-19 lockdowns, adds to the challenges faced by student support services because of mixed results relating to engagement, critical thinking/ reflexivity, persistence, and retention (e.g., Kahn et al. 2017). Within this context, many interesting questions and themes arise, some of which include: • • • • • • • • •

Should (or can) we consider students as customers? If not, then as what? How should (or can) universities approach student learning and development? What is the purpose of universities? Has this changed, or should it change? What should the philosophy of student support services be? Should (or can) student support services be based on a student development approach to student engagement with a whole-of-university community? If not, then as what? To what extent should there be interconnections between student support services (the co- and/or extra-curriculum) and the academic curriculum (courses and programs)? What is the most effective model in this respect? What is the role of student learning and development? What is the role of teaching? What is the role of student support services? Have these roles changed, or are they changing? Where does student development and student identity fit into all of this? Indeed, have conceptualizations of student identity changed under the influence of an increasingly inclusive higher education agenda? What is the impact of positioning students as “consumers” for increasingly diverse student populations?

1

Introduction: Student Support Services in an Overall Ecology for Learning

9

• How should (or can) a university be organized to support its students in the age of supercomplexity? • How can universities best provide student support services in an online environment to online students? This is just a sample of the questions this volume aims to address. While ambitious, we believe these are important discussions to engage in. Student support services provide an interesting focus because they occupy a space of both vulnerability (in the context of cost-cutting exercises) and high potential value (in the context of increasingly diverse student cohorts). As we argue here, student support services are a crucial element in an overall ecology for learning and the more than 40 chapters in this book together reinforce their importance, albeit from a range of different angles. This volume is prestructured to include two sections, as we engage both in conceptual and theoretical discussion (in Part 1), and in practice-based contributions (in Part 2). Together, these sections provide a comprehensive global perspective on the state of play of student support services in a challenging higher education environment that is subjected to rapid and profound changes. In this way, this volume can be seen as providing, via the vehicle of student support services, a litmus test of the health of the overall sector. We hope these chapters provide readers with a rich repertoire of lived and/or living experiences, to be shared, to be reflected upon, and to ultimately serve as building blocks for the readers’ own journeys in creating and sustaining effective, yet efficient, student support services, in a supercomplex ever-evolving ecology for learning.

Cross-References ▶ Increasing Student Persistence: Wanting and Doing ▶ The Student “Experience” in Commercialized Higher Education ▶ Towards an Interconnected University Ecology for a Hypercomplex World

References Barnett, R. 2018. The ecological university: A feasible utopia. Oxon: Routledge. Barnett, R., and M.A. Peters, eds. 2018. The idea of the university: Contemporary perspectives. Vol. 2. New York: Peter Lang. Bengtsen, S.S.E., and R. Barnett, eds. 2018. The thinking university: A philosophical examination of thought and higher education. Vol. 1. Cham: Springer. Bunce, L., A. Baird, and S.E. Jones. 2017. The student-as-consumer approach in higher education and its effects on academic performance. Studies in Higher Education 42 (11): 1958–1978. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1127908. Chickering, A.W. 1969. Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Chickering, A.W., and L. Reisser. 1993. Education and identity. 2nd ed. San Francisco: JosseyBass.

10

H. Huijser et al.

Enright, E., L. Coll, D. Ní Chróinín, and M. Fitzpatrick 2017. Student voice as risky praxis: democratising physical education teacher education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 22 (5): 459–472. Finney, G.T., and Z.R. Finney. 2010. Are students their universities’ customers? An exploration study. Education + Training 52 (4): 276–291. Giroux, H. A. 2015. Democracy in crisis, the specter of authoritarianism, and the future of higher education. Journal of Critical Scholarship on Higher Education and Student Affairs 1 (1): 101– 113. Kahn, P., L. Everington, K. Kelm, I. Reid, and F. Watkins. 2017. Understanding student engagement in online learning environments: The role of reflexivity. Educational Technology Research & Development 65 (1): 203–218. Kek, M. Y. C. A., and H. Huijser 2017. Problem-based learning into the future: Imagining an agile PBL ecology for learning. Singapore: Springer. Kuh, G.D., J. Kinzie, J.A. Buckley, B.K. Bridges, and J.C. Hayek. 2007. Special Issue: Piecing together the student success puzzle: Research, propositions and recommendations. ASHE Higher Education Report 32 (5). Kuh, G.D., J. Kinzie, J.H. Schuh, and E.J. Whitt. 2011. Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. New Jersey: Wiley. Kuh, G.D., J. Kinzie, J.H. Schuh, E.J. Whitt, et al. 2005. Student success in college. Wiley: JosseyBass. Marshall, S.J. 2018. Shaping the university of the future: Using technology to catalyse change in university learning and teaching. Singapore: Springer. Meens, E.E., A.W. Bakx, T.A. Klimstra, and J.J. Denissen. 2018. The association of identity and motivation with students’ academic achievement in higher education. Learning and Individual Differences 64: 54–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.04.006. Rodgers, R.F. 1990a. Recent theories and research underlying student development. In College student development: Theory and practice for the 1990s, ed. D.G. Creamer, 27–79. Alexandria: American College Personnel Association Media Publication No. 49. Rodgers, R.F. 1990b. Student development. In Student services: A handbook for the profession, ed. U. Delworth, G.R. Hanson, and Associates, vol. 2. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Shea, P., C.S. Li, and A. Pickett. 2006. A study of teaching presence and student sense of learning community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. The Internet and Higher Education 9 (3): 175–190. Sonnenberg, S.J. 2017. Student identity and the marketization of higher education. In Self and social identity in educational contexts, ed. K.I. Mavor, M.J. Platow, and B. Bizumic, 257–274. Abingdon: Routledge. Svensson, G., and G. Wood. 2007. Are university students really customers? When illusion may lead to delusion for all! International Journal of Educational Management 21 (1): 17–28. Taylor, Y., and K. Lahad eds. 2018. Feeling academic in the neoliberal university: Feminist flights, fights and failures. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Tomlinson, M. 2017. Student perceptions of themselves as ‘consumers’ of higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education 38 (4): 450–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2015. 1113856.

Part II Conceptualizing Student Support Services

This part presents a wide range of different perspectives and conceptualizations of the rationale behind student support services and their role in contemporary universities. Importantly however, it also has a strong focus on conceptualizations of student support services into the future, and by extension the role of universities in a more general sense. This covers the impact of student support services on student engagement, experience, and learning. A central theme in all of these chapters is the tension between students as learners and students as consumers and the implications of that tension for student support services. This part includes a range of chapters by well-established and very well-known experts in the field, as well as new voices from a wide variety of national contexts. The topics range from the student experience and student learning in general sense to the place of curriculum and student retention strategies; from models of student success to whole-of-institution approaches to the first year experience; from student identity to supporting students in digital learning environments; from students as partner models to student leadership and discussions around students as consumers or collaborators; and from debates around remedial support or student development to academic freedom. While some of the chapters discuss student support services in general, many are couched in specific national contexts, including the UK, Australia, the USA, China, Singapore, Russia, and Aotearoa New Zealand.

2

Research into Learning and Teaching in Universities A View from the Past Towards an Uncertain Future Noel Entwistle

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Developing Research into Student Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Thinking Processes Directed Towards Personal Academic Understanding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Teaching Approaches to Encourage Understanding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Designing Supportive Teaching-Learning Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Describing Teaching-Learning Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Congruence of Aims with Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Towards an Uncertain Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Curriculum Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Encouraging “Good Teaching” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Supporting Student Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14 14 17 19 21 22 24 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Abstract

This chapter describes the origins and development of research into both student learning and the influences of teaching on studying, providing a rationale for many of the research and development studies described in this book. The research is traced back to the emergence of cognitive psychology, with its distinction between meaningful and rote learning and its emphasis on generalized psychological ideas, like intelligence and motivation. Such concepts were initially used in research on student learning, but more specific, contextualized, concepts were subsequently identified that provided stronger evidence to explain differences in student learning outcomes. Involving students more directly in the research process provided descriptions of student learning and studying more N. Entwistle (*) University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 H. Huijser et al. (eds.), Student Support Services, University Development and Administration, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5852-5_37

13

14

N. Entwistle

readily recognized and valued by university teachers. Students’ learning processes were found to be influenced by departmental policies and teachers’ distinctive ways of teaching, with subsequent research focusing more directly on the effects of the whole teaching-learning environment on students’ learning outcomes. The concepts developed by educational researchers have stimulated university teachers’ ways of thinking about their practice and are still relevant in planning for an uncertain future. The value of this research depends crucially on its impact on practice, with studies increasingly taking account of the crucial variations in the implications of research across different subject areas and institutional contexts. This process is leading to a greater involvement of subject teaching staff and study advisers in considering and using research findings. Keywords

Student learning and studying · University teaching · Teaching-learning environments · Conceptualizing university teaching and learning · Impact of research on university teaching

Introduction The contexts of teaching and learning in universities have been changing as the functions and objectives of universities have become increasingly diverse and online learning has increased. The current COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated this effect and has created new challenges for university teachers and students. In this chapter, we consider to what extent earlier research on student learning might contribute to designing new approaches to teaching and learning. Many of the fundamental concepts used in describing student learning were identified in the 1970s and 1980s, and yet are still relevant to current thinking. This chapter uses a selection of studies and theories to indicate conclusions that are largely consistent across different research approaches and illustrated here through interview extracts from students and academics. It then considers, from the author’s perspective, in what ways these basic constructs can still be useful for university teachers and students, facing an uncertain future.

Developing Research into Student Learning The majority of the early research into learning and studying was carried out in the USA by mainstream psychologists, with McKeachie (1954) being foremost in driving forward this research. Although he focused on university teaching, he also recognized the importance of understanding how students went about their learning. Some of the most influential publications came later with Ausubel et al. (1968) providing a theoretical basis for describing academic learning, contrasting the distinction between meaningful and rote learning. He criticized the tendency for

2

Research into Learning and Teaching in Universities

15

teachers to concentrate on facts and knowledge, rather than encouraging students to think for themselves. Bruner (1960, 1974), from his own research, also became critical of the education system, with its focus on accumulating knowledge. It is an epistemological mystery why traditional education has so often emphasized extensiveness and coverage over intensiveness and depth. . . Memorizing was usually perceived by [students] as one of the high priority tasks, but rarely did [they] sense an emphasis upon ratiocination, with a view toward redefining what had been encountered, reshaping it, reordering it. The cultivation of reflectiveness, or whatever you choose to call it, is one of the great problems one faces in devising curricula: how to lead [students] to discover the powers and pleasures that await the exercise of retrospection. The cultivation of a sense of interconnectedness is surely the heart of the matter. (Bruner 1974, pp. 447, 449; 1960, p. 20 – emphasis added)

Interest in this line of thinking led to a range of studies into student learning but focusing mainly on influences of personality and academic motivation on students’ learning (e.g., McKeachie and Carney 1966; Atkinson and Feather 1966). Elsewhere in the USA, however, there was already an interest in the activity of learning and a recognition that a totally different research approach was needed. As a result, individual interviews with students were used to explore how they went about their learning and studying. Heath (1964) found that the most successful students could be described as reasonable adventurers, who used both logical reasoning and openness to ideas in tandem. And Perry (1970) identified a series of positions, or stages, through which most students progressed in developing their conceptions of knowledge, moving from a dualistic position in the first year, looking for “right” answers, to the use of relativistic reasoning later on, with evidence being critically examined to reach defensible conclusions. Perry’s study, in particular, had a profound influence on later thinking about the difficulties faced by students as they faced the critical shift towards relativistic reasoning (Hofer and Pintrich 2002). Research in the 1970s, in Australia, Britain, and Sweden, in particular, followed similar methodological trends to those in the USA, using questionnaire techniques, but also introducing new ways of analyzing interviews with students. For example, Biggs (1970) developed a questionnaire which distinguished meaningful learning from fact-rote learning, and also indicated the extent of well-organized study skills. Entwistle and Brennan (1971) used cluster analysis of published tests and a questionnaire about motivation and studying, to identify the characteristics of students with differing levels of academic performance. Among the fourteen clusters were successful students who, as expected, were stable, confident, and highly motivated, but there was also a group of highly anxious students with good study methods who were also performing well. And across the whole range of clusters, there were very different sets of characteristics, only some of which related to academic achievement. Bringing together the questionnaire analyses with additional interview data indicated that: Students of differing personality and motivational types not only tackle their academic work in different ways but, from their descriptions of their university experience, they evidently

16

N. Entwistle perceive themselves to be in differing environments. Complementary approaches – inventories and exploratory interviews – offer explanations within alternative frameworks, which may help us understand more fully the educational processes involved in universities and colleges. (Entwistle et al. 1974, p. 393)

Around the same time, Marton (1975; Marton and Säljö 1976) identified the important distinction between deep and surface approaches to learning, which depended on the crucial influence of the student’s own intention in affecting the learning process. Students differed markedly in the extent to which they intended to understand for themselves or to memorize in anticipation of expected questions. Marton’s ideas were translated into questionnaire format by Entwistle and his colleagues (1979) who used students’ own comments to produce items describing approaches to learning and studying. Factor analysis of these items led to an Approaches to Studying Inventory (Entwistle and Ramsden 1983), with three main orientations to studying involving meaning, reproducing, and achieving strategies. Looking at students’ perceptions of the teaching they had experienced, Ramsden (1979) used interviews and a course perceptions questionnaire (Entwistle and Ramsden 1983) to show how differences in perceived teaching within departments appeared to affect the levels of deep and surface approaches reported by the students. Biggs (1987) developed a study process questionnaire, based on his previous instrument, but using Marton’s ideas to contextualize the distinction between meaningful learning and fact-rote learning found earlier. He found three main factors, closely similar to those mentioned above, but separated into two aspects – motives and strategies – which distinguished students’ intentions from their subsequent learning processes. This separation was valuable as it made clear that a deep approach had to go beyond an intention to carry out the learning processes necessary for achieving understanding. These inventories have been used in a large number of studies in many countries with the findings mainly showing the level of academic achievement to be associated with a deep strategic approach combined with low scores on the surface approach, as would be expected (Entwistle 2018). In some more recent studies, however, the influence of the deep approach has been much weaker (Trigwell and Prosser 2020). Clearly, the extent to which a deep approach will be influencing attainment depends on the emphasis being given to understanding in both teaching and assessment, which will vary between institutions with differing intakes and priorities. Recent interview studies have explored actual study activities and have highlighted the very different ways in which students go about their academic work. For example, Öhrstedt and Scheja (2018) found that ways of studying change over time in relation to several aspects: previous experiences of studying; formal recommendations about studying given at the start of a course; grades received on submitted work; perceived assessment demands; and the time and effort required by differing study activities. Students were also influenced by teachers’ informal advice about studying given during class, and by discussions with other students. From such discussions it became clear that certain study activities had a greater “pay-off” in relation to grades awarded than others. And this recognition led to an apparent

2

Research into Learning and Teaching in Universities

17

“homogenization” of study activities across the group of students, with a pattern that differed markedly from the formal recommendations on studying. This study showed the importance of departmental advice on studying being designed to fit in with the norms established among students, both for time to be spent on independent studying and the relative importance of differing academic tasks and topics. We need to think about the quality of learning, not just in terms of the main learning processes being adopted, but also how students perceive the teaching they experience, how teachers believe students should be studying, and the feasibility of what is being recommended. The range of studies describing the deep/surface dichotomy, stemming from Marton’s ideas, alerted university teachers to a new way of thinking about student learning and the influences of teaching on it. And Eizenberg (1988), working in an anatomy department, explored the possibilities of testing these ideas in practice. He interviewed his students about their ways of studying and found clear evidence of deep and surface approaches to anatomy among these students, but with the surface approach being disturbingly prevalent. He therefore worked with colleagues to devise a revised curriculum in which the teaching and assessment approaches focused directly on encouraging a deep approach. The results showed clear improvement in students’ understanding, but Eizenberg warned that, more generally, there could be considerable difficulty in shifting students’ studying away from the surface approach. Since the interaction between the learner and the learning environment depends on perceptions, . . . the challenge in any educational programme is to prevent misperception and mismatch [of the aims of teaching with its practice]. . . Inappropriate approaches to learning are simply induced by teaching: just one piece of the ‘jigsaw’ that is out of place . . . may interfere with the relation between the learner and the content. . . Encouraging students to adopt deep approaches and to employ them holistically is [thus]. . . difficult because . . . all the pieces need to fit together. (Eizenberg 1988, pp. 196–197, author’s emphasis)

Evidence of this difficulty has often been found in more recent research studies (e.g., Baeten et al. 2014; Gijbels et al. 2008). The main reason seems to be the uncertainty created in students’ minds by introducing novel teaching arrangements in just one section of the course, while other courses remain traditional. Students may often lack the self-confidence to change ways of learning that have worked well enough for them previously.

Thinking Processes Directed Towards Personal Academic Understanding The research described so far led to a good deal of agreement about the existence of a deep approach to learning, although with the use of differing terminology. The problem with this type of research is, however, that the terms used to describe the scales are too vague to give a clear idea of the specific thinking processes involved in developing an understanding.

18

N. Entwistle

An important step forward again came from Marton (2015) with his variation theory of learning. Learning, of course, has to start with a topic – a “target understanding.” According to variation theory students have to discern for themselves the critical features of that target (concept or theory), with the term “discern” implying a particularly strong focus of attention on those critical features. These have to be explored to establish the relationships and the variations among them, which requires imagination and may also involve visualization in thinking about the patterns involved. Finally, students need, simultaneously, to integrate those interrelations among critical features to construct their own personal understanding. For some students, this feeling of success may produce a sense of ownership of the understanding reached, creating confidence about using the same strategy subsequently. Of course, students themselves are unlikely to be aware of the processes specified in variation theory, but they can report how they go about constructing and using their own understandings. Where there are many different components involved in a topic or theory, some students find it useful to draw mind maps to visualize their emerging understanding and to remind themselves how they had reached it. The map then provides the structure for any explanation needed for an essay or an examination answer. Two students (of neurology and zoology) were able to explain the mysterious process through which their understanding had developed and been used. What I try to do [in reading] is to unravel the structure that the author made, and I search and scan for things that help me to see the arguments and data they have drawn together. When I do this, I have in my mind all the things I have read before and the things that I know my lecturers think are important. I always make [mind] maps when I’m reading. Usually the lectures or papers that I have to study are very complicated, so I have to pull out key words and try and fit them together myself. I use mapping to re-arrange the information in the work and to sketch it on the page. [You also] have to recognise the views of the author. [With] reading and re-reading and going to different sources of information, patterns become familiar and they start to help you make sense of new things that you haven’t met before. . . . Then in the end I come to realise how everything is really related and I’m able to connect everything together - but this cannot happen until much later and, when it comes, it is not as if I were looking for it - it just happens! (Hay 2010, pp. 272–279) My mind map keeps me going with the structure - a pictorial representation of what I want the whole answer to have in it - it stops me wandering off track. As I wrote, it was almost as though I could see it all fitting into an overall picture - you’re developing what you know and playing it in a slightly different way to fit the question set. Following the logic through, it pulls in pictures and facts, as it needs them. Each time I describe a particular topic, it’s likely to be different. Well, you start with evolution, say, and suddenly you know where you’re going next. Then, you might have a choice to go in that direction or that direction and follow it through various options it’s offering. Hopefully, you’ll make the right choice, and so this goes to this, goes to this - and you’ve explained it to the level you’ve got to. Then, it says “OK, you can go on to talk about further criticisms in the time you’ve got left”. (Entwistle and Entwistle 1991, p. 221)

These descriptions of learning processes suggest ways of encouraging other students to use similar strategies. Students can, for example, be asked to draw their

2

Research into Learning and Teaching in Universities

19

own concept map – a more formalized form of mind map. In traditional concept mapping, the links between concepts are described in just a few words (Novak 1998), but such maps cannot do justice to complex academic understandings. For this reason, a new approach was developed – dialogical concept mapping in which the meanings of the connections have to be more fully explained (Hay 2008; Entwistle 2009). This technique has been used effectively at university level by asking students to produce concept maps of their understanding of a topic at the start of a course, and again later on. By comparing the two maps and discussing the differences with other students and with the teacher, understandings appear to be broadened and deepened (see Entwistle 2009, p. 99). At university level, the importance of students understanding the main ideas they meet can hardly be overemphasized. “When students reach a deep personal understanding, it has a holistic quality for them, and brings together related ideas along with the supportive detail that also makes it academically acceptable. This type of understanding is not just integrated, it becomes actively integrative, as it pulls in additional related ideas to create an enlarged understanding”(Entwistle 2009, p. 56). At university, however, the understanding cannot just be “personal” in the sense of idiosyncratic, it has to be constructed within the conceptual frameworks of a discipline or group of disciplines. These frameworks bring together concepts that have proved to have powerful explanatory value and bring with them ways of thinking that involve the use of evidence in reaching academically acceptable conclusions.

Teaching Approaches to Encourage Understanding As we have seen, approaches to learning depend not just on the students’ past experiences and the study skills previously developed, but also on their perceptions of the teaching they experience. An early contribution to ideas about different approaches to teaching was made by Fox (1983), who interviewed lecturers about what they meant by “teaching.” Four basic categories emerged: There is the transfer theory which treats knowledge as a commodity to be transferred from one vessel to another. There is the shaping theory . . . moulding students to a predetermined pattern. Thirdly, there is the travelling theory . . . where there are hills to be climbed for better viewpoints, with the teacher as . . . an expert guide. Finally, there is the growing theory which focuses attention on the intellectual and emotional development of the learner. (Fox 1983, p. 151)

A variety of concepts has since been used in describing the different ways in which academics go about their teaching. For example, Prosser and his colleagues (1994) also interviewed lecturers and found two contrasting approaches to teaching. One of these focused on presenting structured information without much consideration about how suitable the level and presentation was for the students – echoing to some extent Fox’s “transfer theory.” The other approach, in sharp contrast,

20

N. Entwistle

encouraged the development of conceptual understanding, with an ongoing awareness of student perspective, rather like the “growing theory.” In a more complex conceptualization (Trigwell and Prosser 2020), the teachers’ choice of approach is seen to depend on their perceptions of the content and context of the course, stemming from their prior experiences and beliefs about teaching. It is important to recognize, however, that this dichotomy does not set out to describe a stable characteristic of the teachers themselves. Rather, it indicates the ways in which teaching is carried out in a particular course and on a certain occasion, reflecting a relativistic view of teaching and learning. Two qualitatively different approaches to teaching are used - a conceptual change/studentfocused approach and an information transmission/teacher-focused approach. [In the first] the teacher provokes debate, . . . [allows] time to question students’ ideas and develops a ‘conversation’ with students in teaching sessions, including lectures. [In the other approach] the intention is the transmission of facts and skills, through the use of well-planned teaching material, as it is assumed that the students will learn from the received material and a good set of notes. (Trigwell and Prosser 2020, p. 7)

Prosser and Trigwell subsequently developed a questionnaire to capture this distinction – the Approaches to Teaching Inventory (Prosser and Trigwell 1999). Using this along with an approaches to studying inventory, they were able to show a clear relationship between the approach to teaching and the way the students carried out their learning, with the conceptual change dimension being associated with a deep approach in students. Ballantyne and his colleagues (1997) also interviewed university teachers, asking them to explain, from their own experience, what constituted “good teaching” and found three main themes running through their descriptions. Recognizing the student perspective by pitching material in accessible language, combining humanistic qualities with academic rigor; and showing relevance to students’ everyday experience and making links to professional contexts. Creating a learning ethos by teaching for learning and discussing what is involved and accepting that learning can be difficult; and also talking to students about their emerging understanding and fostering generic and lifelong skills. Conveying feelings and arousing interest by showing enthusiasm for the subject; and planning teaching to create and maintain student interest. (Adapted from Ballantyne et al. 1997) These aspects of teaching introduce personal characteristics of the teachers, as well as their ideas about teaching and learning, and complement Prosser and Trigwell’s description of a conceptual change/student-focused approach to teaching. Similar ideas about “good teaching” were also found by Óllafsdóttir (2014) in a study that combined interviews and questionnaires, designed to explore not only what academics believed to be “good teaching,” but also what aspects of their own teaching environment they considered were interfering with their ability to carry out such teaching. These were found to involve: “restricted time for preparation”;

2

Research into Learning and Teaching in Universities

21

“inappropriate teaching room allocation”; “large class sizes”; “inadequate staffing levels”; “limited financial allocations for additional staff and learning materials”; and “the relative emphasis on research and teaching in the department and institution.” Such obstacles to high-quality teaching are often not taken into account in discussions about “good teaching,” even though they are crucial in curricular planning. University teachers, of course, do not become “good teachers” overnight, their approaches to teaching depend on their conceptions – what they believe is involved in teaching and student learning – and these inevitably change over time, based on their experiences with students and on ideas drawn both from their colleagues and the research literature. This progression can be seen as an expanding awareness of the nature of teaching and learning and the corresponding changes in approaches to teaching and relationships with students (Entwistle and Walker 2000). This progression can be seen in a narrative account provided by an outstanding physics lecturer who explained how his teaching had changed over time. My early teaching experiences were something of an act, in being the authoritative source of knowledge. . . . The learning outcome I sought, as a matter of traditional expectation, was students' knowledge of the curriculum material. . . . The approach to teaching was primarily a matter of presenting curriculum material in a factually correct (and hopefully interesting) way, with ancillary activity designed to reinforce the intake of knowledge and its retention. [Subsequently] I began, increasingly, to question the way I had been teaching, and to try to focus more on encouraging students to reflect on their own learning. My lectures thus began to be less a matter of delivering students the facts handed down from higher authority, and more a conversation designed to stimulate their engagement. . . . Over time, I have developed a teaching approach which begins to satisfy, simultaneously, a tacit demand for content, for understanding of content, and for relevance and applicability of that content. . . . Within this multipli-inclusive approach, information is provided in logical order for those who want it, but . . . for students who need to relate to other course content or to the world, there is [also] a thread of conversation in making such links. (Entwistle and Walker 2000, p. 348)

This description of teaching is drawn mainly from experiences of lecturing, without explicit recognition of other aspects of the whole teaching-learning environment, which are now illustrated through findings from one large-scale British study.

Designing Supportive Teaching-Learning Environments In the Enhancing Teaching and Learning Project (ETL 2005), researchers worked with both university teachers and their students, using interviews and questionnaires to explore ways of improving the educational experience of students. Two cohorts of students in specific course units were drawn from four contrasting subject areas in 11 universities, with data from the first cohort used to suggest changes in teaching for the following cohort. Discussions with course leaders were used to establish the content of the course unit and the rationale for the teaching methods being used, while students completed questionnaires about their approaches to studying, their experiences of teaching, and the knowledge and skills they felt they had acquired.

22

N. Entwistle

Groups of students also discussed with a researcher their experiences of the teaching, explained any difficulties and suggested how the course might be improved. Separate reports of the research process and the outcomes were then prepared for each of the subject areas: electrical engineering; biological sciences; economics; and history (ETL project 2005).

Describing Teaching-Learning Environments The focus of this study was not on any specific methods of teaching, but how the whole inner teaching-learning environment affected student learning (“inner” refers to those aspects of the teaching environment experienced directly by the students). Such an environment is illustrated in Fig. 1 for a department of electronic engineering, showing the various activities involved, and their function in supporting student learning. The wider environment is indicated through external and institutional influences shown outside the encircling ellipse. A current outline of a teaching-learning environment might look rather different from this, with the greater range of provision being available, such as on-line learning, blended learning, and technology-supported learning, but the idea still remains valid. The project looked at the relationships that existed between approaches to learning and studying and several aspects of the teaching-learning environment (to be explained later). Extended versions of earlier inventories were used to look at

Fig. 1 A teaching-learning environment experienced in electronic engineering. (Source: Entwistle et al. (2003))

2

Research into Learning and Teaching in Universities

23

relationships among a sample of over 4500 students from both cohorts. One analysis, shown in Table 1, reported the correlations of “approaches to learning” and “experiences of teaching” with students’ ratings of their present level of achievement (outcome measures), based on the feedback received from teachers. Students with high scores on “deep approach” felt they had acquired “knowledge” and had more “interest and enjoyment” than students with lower scores, while those with high scores on “surface approach” had lower scores than other students on all three of the outcome measures. “Organized effort” (strategic approach) also had positive outcomes and appeared to be the best predictor of perceived academic progress, particularly in combination with low levels of “surface approach.” “Experiences of teaching” showed the highest correlations with the student ratings in “teaching for understanding” and “course design congruent with aims.” “Student support” was least influential, probably because “support” from other students could take quite different forms, for example, simply copying from other students or having useful discussions with them. Similar analyses within a single subject area showed slightly different values and somewhat higher correlations, but the overall pattern was consistent. In considering the impact of teaching-learning environments in each of the selected course units, the researchers developed additional concepts that were needed to describe the effectiveness of teaching in relation to the experiences of students. These findings were then communicated to subject area organizations in each subject area (ETL project 2005). By the end of the project, it became clear that one of the main contributions of the project would be to provide additional ideas for academics to use in thinking about their own teaching and the learning of their students (Hounsell and Entwistle 2005; Entwistle 2018). Table 1 Correlations between students’ ratings of attainment and experiences of teaching and learning

Scale scores Approaches to studying Deep approach Organized effort (strategic) Surface approach Experiences of teaching Course design congruent with aims Teaching for understanding Staff enthusiasm and support Set work with supportive feedback Student support Source: Entwistle (2018, p. 221) Correlations >0.30 in bold

Student ratings Knowledge acquired

Academic progress

Interest and enjoyment

0.38 0.29 - 0.33

0.29 0.33 - 0.39

0.39 0.28 - 0.37

0.46

0.29

0.47

0.48 0.36 0.45

0.27 0.18 0.28

0.54 0.45 0.39

0.23

0.07

0.23

24

N. Entwistle

Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge Students find some concepts and theories particularly difficult to understand (Perkins 2006), and these are often ones that were crucially important in developing the discipline. Meyer and Land (2005) introduced the term threshold concepts to represent ideas and theories of this kind, such as “evolution” in biology and “energy” in physics. Such concepts serve as “portals” or “conceptual gateways” within the structure of the discipline, and yet with meanings that often elude students at first. Threshold concepts. . . focus [teachers’] attention on the relationship between big shifts in thinking in the subject and transformative changes that learners have to experience in their thinking. These changes are transformative in the sense that learners are not simply making connections between new learning and ideas they have already acquired: in order to truly understand the new idea – if it is a threshold concept - they must re-work [their] prior understanding. (Davies and Mangan 2007, p. 721)

Further development in these ideas has come from many academic fields (Land et al. 2008). For example, in biology, Taylor (2006) found that introducing the idea of threshold concepts and discussing it with colleagues led to a different way of thinking about the curriculum and teaching methods in their department. And in economics Davies and Mangan (2007) found three distinguishable types of threshold to exist at different stages of a degree course. First came the necessary grasping of the technical meanings of basic concepts, then seeing how these become integrated within overarching threshold theories, and finally understanding how the interacting webs of higher-order concepts and theories mapped the whole knowledge domain.

Congruence of Aims with Teaching Another construct involved the need, in any curriculum design, to ensure congruence among the teachers’ aims and the various components of the teaching-learning environment they provide for students. Biggs (1996) had introduced the idea of constructive alignment. The sense of “constructive” came from the psychological theory of constructivism, in which teaching is expected to focus predominantly on the development of student understanding. “Alignment” is more straightforward – the idea that the main aims in each course unit should directly reflect the way teaching, learning, and assessment were being carried out in practice. By the end of the ETL project, this idea had been broadened to include six forms of what was then called congruence to reflect a wider set of aspects, including course organization and management; curriculum aims, scope, and structure; teaching-learning activities; learning support; assessment and feedback; and students’ backgrounds and aspirations, all of which needed to be congruent with the aims and also with each other (Hounsell and Hounsell 2007, p. 101). The extent of congruence within a teaching programme proved to be one of the most valuable ways of judging its effectiveness, and yet it is probably one of the most difficult demands to meet.

2

Research into Learning and Teaching in Universities

25

The final construct introduced within the ETL project emphasized the need to take account of the crucial variations of teaching and learning across disciplines, encapsulated within the phrase the inner logic of the subject and its pedagogy (Entwistle 2009). Although the other concepts from the project involve ideas that can be applied across disciplines, the insights they may provide for teachers depend, inevitably, on the nature of the discipline, or group of disciplines, being taught.

Towards an Uncertain Future It is already clear that the impact of the current global COVID-19 pandemic is likely to affect profoundly how we expect students to learn, at least for the next year or two. It seems that students will have to take more responsibility for their own learning with a greater proportion of time being spent working online and studying with a regular group of other students, perhaps in “bubbles” within residences. The increasing power of technology to support student learning may also require additional skills to be developed in using the technology appropriately and with a critical awareness of the limitations in the data it provides. There have also been suggestions, even before the pandemic, that students’ ways of thinking need to change fundamentally to meet the demands of a future society (Barnett 2007). This is an age that is replete with multiplying and contradictory interpretations of the world; it is a world that is discursively open. If complexity is a term that we may apply to the open-endedness of systems, super-complexity is a term that we may apply to the open-endedness of ideas, perspectives, values, beliefs and interpretations. This is the world with which students struggle to come to a new relationship [and where] the student’s being has to reside within a felt sense of complexity, and, in turn, that being has to become complex (pp. 36–37). While it is true that there are clear examples of super-complexity, whether these are as threatening to the individual as Barnett suggests is less clear. The main thinking skills that will be required are likely to involve flexibility and adaptability, and an awareness of ways of tackling novel situations and problems. To achieve this, teachers will have to explore ways in which knowledge and skills can apply, not just within their own academic discipline, but also to the world of work and to the wider society. The earlier review of research into university teaching and learning drew on a limited selection of studies and provided just one perspective on a complex field. Nevertheless, this line of thinking continues to be relevant to at least some of the challenges facing university education in the future. It represents fundamental ways of defining high-quality learning and good teaching, as well as establishing a coherent way of conceptualizing aspects of university education. The concepts highlighted earlier can be used to guide thinking about future developments in teaching and learning, at least in relation to certain aspects of the current situation. In the following sections three aspects will be discussed, drawn

26

N. Entwistle

mainly from the research discussed earlier. These accounts will necessarily be presented in very general terms; the importance of recognizing the inner logic of the subject and its pedagogy leaves specific implications to be drawn by academics themselves in their own specializations.

Curriculum Review If there is to be a new look to teaching and learning in the future, departments may have to review their existing curriculum and ways of implementing it within their teaching-learning environments. Table 2 updates the range of aspects considered by Eizenberg (1988) when identifying ways of encouraging students to adopt a deep approach to learning. In reviewing a whole curriculum, the additional ways of thinking described above – flexibility, adaptability, and awareness of the wider world – need to be kept in mind. The notion of threshold concepts may contribute to thinking about the relative importance and difficulty of various theories or fundamental ideas being presented to students. And the idea of congruence might be used in planning the teachinglearning environment, perhaps using a diagrammatic representation (see Fig. 1 shown earlier) to indicate the functions of the differing teaching modes. Table 2 Aspects to consider in a curriculum review Aspects to consider Course content and structure Linking to faculty or departmental goals explicitly Identifying threshold concepts and implications Ensuring congruence across the curriculum Incorporating professional applications in syllabus Selecting textbooks and learning materials Teaching Identifying essential knowledge explicitly Explaining principles and concepts thoroughly Exemplifying ways of thinking and practicing Encouraging problem-based thinking Using postgraduates or senior students as tutors Assessment Arranging progressive course work with feedback Providing regular tests with diagnostic feedback Including assessments of problem-based learning

With the purpose of Making the aims clear to staff and students Ensuring time to explain ideas thoroughly Keeping components in line with aims Making the subject matter explicitly relevant Being readable and encourage understanding Allowing study time to be used efficiently To make critical features and linkages clear Showing how professionals think and act Actively engaging students in the issues Reducing authority and distance Encouraging developing understanding Indicating level of academic progress Develop openness and problem-solving skills

Source: Adapted from Entwistle (2009, p. 107) and Eizenberg (1988, p. 186)

2

Research into Learning and Teaching in Universities

27

One of the worrying features of teaching in recent years is how increased student numbers have led to very large lecture audiences, increased tutorial sizes, and reduced set work containing enough adequate and timely feedback for students to see how to improve their thinking and writing. Limited feedback was seen as a serious problem in the ETL project, as it militates against high-quality student learning (Anderson 2014; Hounsell 2017). Other concerns are the narrowness of some specialist degrees, at a time when students are being encouraged to think more openly and broadly. Basing curricula to a greater extent on the ways of thinking in the discipline might provide time to explain and discuss the origins and thinking behind influential threshold concepts. Earlier research found that discussion of historical elements in the discipline increased the use of a deep approach among students (Sheppard and Gilbert 1991).

Encouraging “Good Teaching” The essence of “good teaching” seems to be the extent to which it effectively supports learning among students with a range of abilities, knowledge bases, and social and cultural backgrounds. Student learning can be seen as necessarily involving a series of phases leading up to the acquisition of thorough conceptual understanding, namely, preparing to tackle the course material, acquiring the necessary information, relating it to previous knowledge, and so transforming it through establishing personally meaningful organizational and interpretative frameworks. If this process is to work effectively, these phases of learning need to be supported by appropriate teaching functions which to some extent parallel, but also overlap, those phases. In considering “good teaching” in more detail, a starting point is to look at the basic requirements of teaching, in its traditional form, through looking at the support needed by students as they seek to comprehend and understand the learning material. There is a series of activities that teachers need to carry out if they are to guide students through successive phases of learning (see Table 3 overleaf). Once students become confident in this form of guided learning, they will increasingly take over the process through self-regulated learning (Entwistle and Tait 1992), a skill which is likely to become increasingly necessary as face-to-face teaching becomes less available to them. The general descriptions of “good teaching,” provided earlier, identified a distinction between teaching that focused on either “providing information” or “developing understanding,” but these functions are needed for different purposes and with different groups of students. Getting the balance right between the two can only be decided by individual teachers within their own specializations, while also ensuring that they are giving appropriate emphasis to the activities that support learning, shown in Table 3. Encouraging, more specifically, a deep approach to learning means giving particular stress to the “4Es” – explanation, exemplification, enthusiasm, and empathy, all of which have been shown to affect students’ attitudes and willingness to adopt a deep approach (Entwistle 2018).

28

N. Entwistle

Table 3 Phases in teaching supporting student learning Learning phases Orientating Structuring Motivating Presenting Explaining Clarifying Elaborating Guiding Stimulating Consolidating Commenting Supporting Confirming

Teaching functions Setting the scene and explaining what is required Providing a “map” of the knowledge within the subject domain Pointing up relevance, evoking interest, and encouraging effort Introducing new knowledge in a clear logical progression Defining and showing the importance of key concepts or ideas Using a range of examples and providing remedial support if needed Introducing additional material to broaden and deepen understanding Making clear how to use that material to develop understanding Encouraging individual reflection, along with group discussion Providing opportunities to develop and test personal understanding Offering clear and timely advice about completed work Giving encouragement and bolstering confidence whenever needed Ensuring the adequacy of the knowledge and understanding reached

Source: Entwistle (2018, p. 262, based on Committee of Scottish University Principals 1992, p. 56)

The idea of “exemplifying” indicates the importance of students hearing academics explain how ideas develop in the discipline or how evidence has been used in reaching new theories. Exposure to academic debate has a powerful influence on students’ thinking but is now more limited. One of the current dilemmas for higher education is how the feeling of support can be provided for students where the conventional methods of face-to-face teaching become more difficult to arrange. It may well be possible to do this, up to a point, through virtual arrangements, but a lack of individual contact with staff could continue to be an issue. If, as Barnett argues, future higher education has to provide training in a range of problem-solving skills, it is likely that the research into problem-based learning will provide valuable insights. A recent review of this topic, with specific reference to an “agile PBL” for the future, has recently been provided by Kek and Huijser (2017).

Supporting Student Learning Support for students developed markedly during the 1980s and has steadily expanded. Students come into university with very different experiences of learning, with some already familiar with the basic requirements, but for others an induction process is crucial. The initial few weeks are formative, building up confidence in how to go about a new and much more independent form of learning. It seems likely that current experiences will be even more demanding on students to organize their study activities and balance study time with other demands and interests. As a result, closer monitoring of student progress will be needed, with different forms of provision being required. One form of monitoring is through study strategy inventories, most of which provide indications of the balance between deep and surface approaches, and also

2

Research into Learning and Teaching in Universities

29

indicate important aspects of motivation and study strategies. In the University of Helsinki, as part of an institution-wide move to encourage student-centered teaching, a short inventory was used online to alert students to their current study strategies, with their pattern of scores being recorded routinely in their record of work (Parpala and Lindblom-Ylänne 2012). The instrument used was an adapted version of the inventory developed for the ETL project, which also provided an indication of students’ experiences of teaching and how they judged their own progress in learning (Entwistle et al. 2003; Entwistle 2018-Appendix A2 (which provides a shortened version which is free to use). Obtaining feedback from students on their experiences of learning provides valuable information for academics in considering the effectiveness of their teaching, which can become part of ongoing review processes in departments. Although these inventories provide useful general information, within individual courses it is often necessary to have more detailed feedback on the effectiveness of particular aspects of the teaching and learning, using questionnaires specially designed for that purpose. While the use of questionnaires provides a useful picture of how students are learning and how they feel about the teaching, many students who are struggling need individual support, and this is increasingly being provided in universities, either within departments or at special drop-in facilities. As Power et al. (2019) explained: Integrated student support services can together facilitate student success . . . [But these require]: (a) comprehensive professional development to foster essential staff support skills and knowledge; (b) informal and formal communication channels created and maintained to ensure collaboration between services; and (c) effective collaboration and referrals between services, formalised through professional learning and procedures. (p. 15 of online version)

The increasingly widespread professional development courses provided for university teachers mean that academics are much more capable of providing research-based study advice to students themselves. There are also several recent research studies, using interviewing of individual students, that have implications for improving practice (e.g., Öhrstedt and Scheja 2018; Lindblom-Ylänne et al. 2015, 2017).

Conclusion The intention of this review of research has been to show the continuing relevance of more than 30 years of research into student learning that paved the way for changed attitudes and teaching approaches in universities. The research does not provide direct answers to ongoing dilemmas, but it does indicate some basic fundamentals underlying “good teaching” that need to be kept in mind when developing new ways of teaching and learning. Table 4 summarizes some of the ways, suggested earlier, in which university teachers may encourage deep approaches in their students.

30

N. Entwistle

Table 4 Ways of encouraging deep levels of learning and understanding Identify the main threshold concepts which open up the subject for students and explain the critical features within the topic and provide varied examples to help students to see how to develop a thorough understanding Provide students with an integrative overview of the subject, perhaps using a concept map to illustrate their value, and provide ongoing reminders of the purpose of the differing learning materials provided Make explicit the ways of thinking and practicing students are expected to acquire and exemplify them, whenever possible, within the teaching Use evaluation questionnaires, occasionally, to identify any lack of congruence within the teaching-learning environment that might be interfering with students’ ability to understand for themselves

Too often, it seems, new technologies develop without a full recognition of what is already known about university teaching and student learning. As these technologies emerge, it will be important to evaluate not just their immediate effects, but also possible side effects, particularly with the likely reduction of face-to-face teaching. The ability of the technologies to communicate ways of thinking and practicing, for example, are yet to be explored, as are possible problems created by virtual learning. Recent studies have suggested, during the pandemic, that students report feelings of the “sameness of the learning material,” boredom, loneliness, and anxiety, when they face screens for lengthy periods, without a variety of experiences alongside other people. The ideas presented in this chapter have focused mainly on the knowledge and skills that students are expected to develop at university, and on the approaches to learning and study strategies it is helpful for them to develop. The central idea of a university still seems to me to lie in the development of an intellectual core of knowledge, supported by professional ways of thinking and practicing, which provides students with a lasting benefit within a changing world. As the economics lecturer commented earlier (slightly amended): [Students should] have acquired a way of looking at the world, which is indelible, and even though they may not find themselves in a position where they can use their analytical techniques very consciously, in fact their whole way of treating questions is affected by this kind of training.

Cross-References ▶ A Case-Study of Partnership in Practice: Engaging Students to Shape Support for Learning in Higher Education ▶ Exploring the Impact of Learning Development on Student Engagement, Experience, and Learning ▶ Increasing Student Persistence: Wanting and Doing ▶ Whole-of-Institution Transformation for First Year Learning and Success

2

Research into Learning and Teaching in Universities

31

References Anderson, C. 2014. Only connect? Communicating meaning through feedback. In Advances and innovations in university assessment and feedback, ed. C. Kreber, C. Anderson, N.J. Entwistle, and J. McArthur, 131–151. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Atkinson, J.W., and N.T. Feather. 1966. A theory of achievement motivation. New York: Wiley. Ausubel, D.P., J.D. Novak, and H. Hanesian. 1968. Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Baeten, M., K. Struyven, and F. Dochy. 2014. Do case-based learning environments matter? Research into their effects on learning, motivation and achievement. In Learning patterns in higher education: Dimensions and research perspectives, ed. D. Gijbels, V. Donche, J.T.E. Richardson, and J.D. Vermunt, 273–294. Abingdon: Routledge. Ballantyne, R., J. Bain, and J. Packer. 1997. Reflecting on university teaching: Academic stories. Canberra: Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Barnett, R. 2007. A will to learn: Being a student in an age of uncertainty. Berkshire: Open University Press and Society for Research into Higher Education. Biggs, J.B. 1970. Faculty patterns of study behaviour. Australian Journal of Psychology 22: 161–174. Biggs, J.B. 1987. Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research. Biggs, J.B. 1996. Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education 32: 1–18. Bruner, J.S. 1960. The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bruner, J.S. 1974. Beyond the information given. London: Unwin Bros. Committee of Scottish University Principals. 1992. Teaching and learning in an expanding higher education system. Lasswade: Polton House Press. Davies, P., and J. Mangan. 2007. Threshold concepts and the integration of understanding in economics. Studies in Higher Education 32: 711–726. Eizenberg, N. 1988. Approaches to learning anatomy: Developing a programme for preclinical medical students. In Improving learning: New perspectives, ed. P. Ramsden, 178–198. London: Kogan Page. Entwistle, N.J. 2009. Teaching for understanding at university. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Entwistle, N.J. 2018. Student learning and academic understanding. London/Cambridge, MA: Academic. Entwistle, N.J., and T. Brennan. 1971. The academic performance of students. II-types of successful students. British Journal of Educational Psychology 41: 268–276. Entwistle, N.J., and A.C. Entwistle. 1991. Contrasting forms of understanding for degree examinations: The student experience and its implications. Higher Education 22: 205–227. Entwistle, N.J., and P. Ramsden. 1983. Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm. (Reissued in 2015 by Routledge). Entwistle, N.J., and H. Tait. 1992. Promoting effective study skills. Module 8, Block A. In Effective learning and teaching in higher education. Sheffield: CVCP Universities Staff Development and Training Unit. Entwistle, N.J., and P. Walker. 2000. Strategic alertness and expanded awareness within sophisticated conceptions of teaching. Instructional Science 28: 335–361. Entwistle, N.J., J.B. Thompson, and J.D. Wilson. 1974. Motivation and study habits. Higher Education 3: 379–395. Entwistle, N.J., M. Hanley, and D.J. Hounsell. 1979. Identifying distinctive approaches to studying. Higher Education 8: 365–380. Entwistle, N.J., V. McCune, and J. Hounsell. 2003. Approaches to studying and perceptions of university teaching-learning environments: Concepts, inventory design and preliminary findings. In Powerful learning environments: Unravelling basic components, ed. E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle, and J. van Merriënboer, 89–108. Oxford, UK: Elsevier. ETL project. 2005. At www.etl.tla.ed.ac.uk/publications.html. Accessed 30 Aug 20. Fox, D. 1983. Theories of teaching. Studies in Higher Education 8: 151–163.

32

N. Entwistle

Gijbels, D., M. Segers, and E. Struyf. 2008. Constructivist learning environments and the (im) possibility to change students’ perceptions of assessment demands and approaches to learning. Instructional Science 36: 431–443. Hay, D.B. 2008. Developing dialogical concept mapping as an e-learning technology. British Journal of Educational Technology 39: 1057–1060. Hay, D.B. 2010. The imaginative function in student learning: Theory and case study data from third year neuroscience. The Journal of the Hellenic Psychological Society 17: 259–289. Heath, R. 1964. The reasonable adventurer. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Hofer, B.K., and P.R. Pintrich. 2002. Personal epistemology. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hounsell, D.J. 2017. Towards more sustainable feedback to students. In Rethinking assessment on higher education: Learning for the longer term, ed. D. Boud and N. Falchikov, 101–113. London/New York: Routledge. Hounsell, D., and N.J. Entwistle. 2005. Enhancing teaching-learning environments in undergraduate courses. Final report to the Economic and Social Research Council on TLRP project L139251099. At www.etl.tla.ed.ac.uk/publications.html. Accessed 30 Aug 20. Hounsell, D., and J. Hounsell. 2007. Teaching-learning environments in contemporary mass higher education. In Student learning and university teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology monograph, series II, no. 4, ed. N.J. Entwistle, and P. Tomlinson. Leicester: British Psychological Society. Kek, M.Y.C.A., and H. Huijser. 2017. Problem-based learning into the future: Imagining an agile PBL ecology for learning. Singapore: Springer Science+Business Media. Land, R., J.H.F. Meyer, and J. Smith, eds. 2008. Threshold concepts within the disciplines. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Lindblom-Ylänne, S., E. Saariaho, M. Inkinen, A. Haarala-Muhonen, and T. Hailikari. 2015. Academic procrastinators, strategic delayers and something betwixt and between: An interview study. Frontline Learning Research 3 (2): 27–42. Lindblom-Ylänne, S., A. Haarala-Muhonen, L. Postareff, and T. Hailikari. 2017. Exploration of individual study paths of successful first-year students: An interview study. European Journal of Educational Psychology 32: 689–701. Marton, F. 1975. What does it take to learn? In How students learn, ed. N.J. Entwistle and D.J. Hounsell. Lancaster: University of Lancaster. Reprinted in Entwistle (2018) Appendix A3. Marton, F. 2015. Necessary conditions of learning. New York/London: Routledge. Marton, F., and R. Säljö. 1976. On qualitative differences in learning: I. Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology 46: 4–11. McKeachie, W.J. 1954. Student-centred vs. instructor-centred instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology 45: 143–150. McKeachie, W.J., and R.W. Carney. 1966. Personality, sex, subject matter, and student ratings. Psychologocal Record 16: 137–144. Meyer, J.H.F., and R. Land. 2005. Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2); epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning. Higher Education 49: 373–388. Novak, J.D. 1998. Learning, creating and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. Öhrstedt, M., and M. Scheja. 2018. Targeting efficient studying – First-semester psychology students’ experiences. Educational Research 60(1) online. Ólafsdóttir, A. 2014. Conceptions of ‘good university teaching’ and perceived institutional and external effects on its implementation. Doctoral thesis. Reykjavík: University of Iceland. Parpala, A., and S. Lindblom-Ylänne. 2012. Using a research instrument for developing quality at the university. Quality in Higher Education 18: 313–328. Perkins, D.N. 2006. Constructivism and troublesome knowledge. In Overcoming barriers to student understanding: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge, ed. J.H.F. Meyer and R. Land, 33–47. London: Routledge.

2

Research into Learning and Teaching in Universities

33

Perry, W.G. 1970. Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Power, E., H. Partridge, C. O’Sullivan, and M.Y.C.A. Kek. 2019. Integrated ‘one-stop’ support for student success: Recommendations from a regional university case study. Higher Education Research & Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1676703. Prosser, M., and K. Trigwell. 1999. Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in higher education. McGraw-Hill Education (UK). Ramsden, P. 1979. Student learning and perceptions of the academic environment. Higher Education 8: 411–428. Sheppard, C., and J. Gilbert. 1991. Course design, teaching method, and student epistemology. Higher Education 22: 229–250. Taylor, C.E. 2006. Threshold concepts in biology: Do they fit the definition? In Overcoming barriers to student understanding: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge, ed. J.H.F. Meyer and R. Land, 185–197. London: Routledge. Trigwell, K., and P. Prosser. 2020. Exploring university teaching and learning: Experience and context. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

The Student “Experience” in Commercialized Higher Education

3

A Psychological Needs Perspective Louise Taylor Bunce

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Academic Performance in a Commercialized Higher Education Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Motivation for Learning in a Commercialized Higher Education Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Psychological Needs Perspective on Motivation for Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Academics’ Perspectives on the Effects of Commercialization on Psychological need Fulfillment Among Their Students and Themselves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Experiences of Students from Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) Backgrounds in a Commercialized Higher Education Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion and Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

36 37 39 41 43 46 48 49

Abstract

The socio-political context in which learning takes place has a significant impact on students’ “experience” in higher education. In England, UK, and other countries such as Australia and the United States, the influence of neoliberalism has extended to higher education; as a result, individual students, not the state, have become responsible for its cost. This act of commercialization transforms students into consumers and universities into service providers. It challenges the traditional roles of students and academics by placing different emphases and new demands on learning and teaching. Within this context, this chapter discusses research examining how commercialization may impact some aspects of the student experience, including academic performance, motivation for learning, and how academics perceive the effects of commercialization on students and themselves. This chapter also considers the experience of a specific group of students – those from Black and minority ethnic backgrounds. Much of the research discussed is underpinned by a theory of motivation, self-determination L. Taylor Bunce (*) Department of Sport, Health Sciences, and Social Work, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 H. Huijser et al. (eds.), Student Support Services, University Development and Administration, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5852-5_36

35

36

L. Taylor Bunce

theory. This theory is supported by empirical research showing that when our psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are met, we experience optimal forms of motivation to achieve our goals and have greater well-being. Unfortunately, the environment created by the commercialization of higher education may cause conflict between what students think they want as consumers with what they need as learners, which undermines motivation for learning and academic success. These findings are discussed in light of implications for facilitating student engagement, experience, and learning, with resources provided at www.brookes.ac.uk/SIIP. Keywords

Marketization · Students as consumers · Intrinsic motivation · Self-determination theory · Black and minority ethnic students

Introduction Following the model for higher education funding in the United States, and England, UK, provides the most extreme recent example of “abandoning” higher education to market dogma (Anderson 2016). Unlike some European countries that provide statefunded degrees, such as Germany and Norway, higher education in England is now funded by the individual student. Although the cost is not an up-front fee, it is payable by the graduate through income-contingent loans. The application of market principles to higher education in England was first laid out in the British government’s White Paper titled “Students at the heart of the system” (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills 2011). The rationale for the paper was partly based on the argument that higher education had become increasingly perceived as an individual benefit over a societal benefit, placing increased earning potential for the student above their traditional contribution to social development and economic advancement (McMahon 2009). The White Paper contended that marketization would provide students with more choice of provider, increase competition among providers, drive down prices for students, and improve quality. In reality, it served to sanction the roles of students as consumers and universities as service providers. Its success in achieving its aims is debatable: The notion of choice is arguably illusory because many higher education institutions (HEIs) are highly selective; metrics of quality, such as student satisfaction scores, have questionable reliability (Lenton 2015); and competition did not drive down prices. The first year (2012) in which HEIs were able to charge students the maximum cost of £9000 for tuition (equivalent to approx. US11,600, AU16,300, or €9,900), almost all of them charged the maximum fee level (Bolton 2018). By commercializing higher education, learning has become aligned with earning power. HEIs in England now find themselves overly concerned with providing an education for students that translates directly into high-earning employment (Daniels and Brooker 2014). They are in a position whereby (consciously or not) they treat

3

The Student “Experience” in Commercialized Higher Education

37

students as consumers, and are concerned with the quality of the student “experience” rather than education per se (Williams 2013). The student voice in this context is often given precedence above other factors in decision-making (Bunce 2019). For example, HEIs seek regular feedback from students about their experience and then act on that feedback to improve student (or consumer) satisfaction. This occurs both at the microlevel, such as individual classes, and at the macrolevel, such as library services and catering. Staff may inadvertently have started to engage in so-called “safe teaching” (Naidoo and Jamieson 2005, p. 275), that is, a straightforward transmission of prespecified content and simplistic assessment of knowledge. This is thought to serve satisfaction metrics because it avoids placing intellectual demands on students, in order to reduce the risk of student complaints about difficult content. If students are treated as consumers by their HEI, they may be more likely to view their education as a product rather than as a process of intellectual development, and expect to be “served” a degree rather than challenged to study for their degree (Delucchi and Korgen 2002). They may also feel a sense of entitlement to a “good” degree, that is, a first-class or upper second-class degree, while also feeling a lack of responsibility for the outcomes of their education (Naidoo and Jamieson 2005). Within this context, there is evidence that some students now explicitly identify as consumers, making statements such as, “if we’re paying for it that’s like you are a consumer more or less. So you know I am paying for education therefore I am a consumer of education” (Tomlinson 2017, p. 458). Thus, a consumer identity is largely believed to be unhelpful when it comes to the nature of engagement that is required of students to benefit from a high quality education (Bunce and Bennett 2019; King and Bunce 2020). These potential impacts of treating students as consumers appear to conflict with the methods of effective pedagogy that require students to be engaged and take a meaningful or “deep” approach to learning (Marton and Säljö 1976; Bunce and Bennett 2019). This chapter will now consider recent empirical research that speaks to the potential impacts of identifying students as consumers on academic performance and motivation for learning. It subsequently considers the perceptions of academic teaching staff on the impact of marketization on students, as well as its effects on their interactions with students and on their own teaching practice. This chapter will then consider the experience of students from Black and minority ethnic (BME) backgrounds within a commercialized higher education context (Although many campaigners argue against the use of the acronym ‘BME’, it is used in this chapter because it is widely used in the UK education system to understand racial inequalities).

Academic Performance in a Commercialized Higher Education Context The first study in England, UK, to examine levels of consumer orientation and its impact on students’ academic performance and learner identity was conducted by Bunce et al. (2017). This study provides some support for those concerned about the

38

L. Taylor Bunce

impact of identifying students as consumers on their educational experience. Over 600 students studying at several different universities in England, UK, completed a questionnaire to assess their consumer orientation, learner identity, and academic performance. Consumer orientation was assessed using items based on a scale developed for use in the United States by Saunders (2015). Students rated their level of agreement on a five-point scale with statements such as, “It is solely the lecturer’s responsibility to educate me at university,” “As long as I complete all of my assignments, I deserve a good grade,” “I think of my university degree as a product I am purchasing,” and “If I cannot earn a lot of money after I graduate, I will have wasted my time at university.” Learner identity was assessed by asking students to rate their level of agreement on a five-point scale with statements including, “I would choose to study even if I didn’t achieve a degree from it,” “I discuss my subject with my lecturer,” “I always try my best in assessments,” and “I want to expand my intellectual ability.” Although overall agreement with the consumer statements was weak and agreement with the learner statements was strong, Bunce et al. (2017) found a negative correlation between consumer orientation and learner identity. In other words, the more that students agreed with the consumer statements, the less they agreed with the learner statements. In terms of academic performance, this was assessed by asking students to report their most recent grade expressed as a percentage. The researchers found that a stronger consumer orientation was negatively correlated with academic performance, meaning that students with a stronger consumer orientation had poorer academic performance. This was the first study to show evidence of a link between students’ identification as consumers and academic performance. Although the measure of academic performance was based on self-report, the finding supports concerns that a consumer orientation conflicts with the behaviors required for effective learning. Bunce et al. (2017) also examined other factors that could be associated with a stronger consumer orientation. These included subject type and grade goal, because these may influence study behaviors and academic performance, which may in turn interact with a consumer orientation. They also examined whether there was a difference in consumer orientation between students who were personally funding their education, for example, through a government loan, compared with students who were not personally responsible for the cost of their education, for example, by having a scholarship or grant. The researchers found, unsurprisingly, that students with loans as opposed to grants expressed a higher consumer orientation. Students studying a science, technology, engineering, or maths (STEM) subject also expressed a higher consumer orientation. This may be because STEM subjects can provide a route into more professional, highly paid roles (Higher Education Statistics Agency 2020), thus potentially emphasizing the link between attending university and future earning potential. In relation to grade goal, students with a first-class grade goal had a higher consumer orientation than those with a lower grade goal. This may be because student consumers are overly preoccupied with obtaining good grades, which are perceived as necessary for securing well-paid future employment (Tomlinson 2017).

3

The Student “Experience” in Commercialized Higher Education

39

In addition, Bunce et al. (2017) examined the extent to which a consumer orientation interacts with, or mediates, other factors traditionally associated with academic performance. These factors included stronger learner identity and higher grade goal. Typically, these are both positive predictors of academic performance; however, the study found that consumer orientation mediated these relations: A stronger consumer orientation resulted in negative relations between both learner identity and academic performance, and grade goal and academic performance. Overall, the findings from this study support concerns raised by educators, who are worried about the effects of marketization on academic standards, and call into question the capabilities of graduates who have experienced their education as a product. There is an irony in the fact that the marketized higher education context emphasizes the need for students to obtain good grades (albeit with the external goal of securing a graduate-level career rather than internal goals relating to expanding the mind) while simultaneously seeming to hamper students’ ability to achieve good grades. This suggests that an optimal student education is not best served within a commercialized higher education context that has transformed education into an “experience” at the expense of academic excellence.

Motivation for Learning in a Commercialized Higher Education Context How might the findings of Bunce et al. (2017) be explained? Motivation for learning has received a lot of empirical attention as a way of attempting to understand differences in student behaviors and performance (Entwistle and Ramsden 1983; Prat-Sala and Redford 2010). According to self-determination theory, there are two dominant forms of motivation: intrinsic and extrinsic (Ryan and Deci 2000). Intrinsic motivation is defined as our innate need to gain motivation from within and is experienced when engaging in a task for its own sake because it is inherently satisfying. According to this theory, a good education should nurture students’ intrinsic motivation for learning so that the learning process is experienced as inherently enjoyable. Treating education as a commercial product may, instead, emphasize extrinsic motivation for learning. Extrinsic motivation is experienced when engaging in a task in order to achieve a specific outcome or reward, such as good grades in order to secure a well-paid job. Thus it seems plausible that students who have a higher consumer orientation are more likely to experience extrinsic motivation than intrinsic motivation for studying. These two forms of motivation could be argued to align with two dominant approaches to learning: deep and surface (Biggs 1987; Entwistle and Tait 1995; Entwistle and Ramsden 1983; Marton and Säljö 1976). The concept of approaches to learning concerns differences among students in their intentions, motivations, and processing strategies in a learning situation. A surface approach to learning involves treating the task as an external imposition, and thus applying superficial strategies such as memorization or reproduction of content in the absence of reflection and critical thinking. The motivation behind it involves the desire to simply avoid failure

40

L. Taylor Bunce

by putting in the minimum amount of effort thought necessary to meet task requirements. Conversely, a deep approach to learning involves studying with the goal of understanding, critically appraising, and synthesizing material in order to make meaning. It is motivated by an inherent interest in the subject and a genuine wish to learn for the sake of learning, as opposed to merely achieving an external goal. When taking a deep approach to learning, concepts are related to everyday experience rather than being processed in the abstract. An additional approach to learning, which is more closely aligned with a deep approach than a surface approach, is a strategic approach (Entwistle and Ramsden 1983). Although achievement motivation (i.e., wanting to achieve the best possible grades) drives this approach, it is associated with good study skills such as being highly organized, having good time management, and being acutely aware of assessment demands. While students may adopt different approaches to learning according to specific learning and assessment demands (Lindblom-Ylänne et al. 2018), deep and strategic approaches to learning have generally been associated with higher levels of academic performance than a surface approach (Duff et al. 2004; Marton and Säljö 1984; Richardson et al. 2012). Different motivations for studying, as operationalized by the concept of approaches to learning, may therefore provide some explanation for why Bunce et al. (2017) found that a consumer orientation relates to poorer academic performance. This possibility was examined in a study by Bunce and Bennett (2019). They tested the hypotheses that (a) students who identify more strongly as consumers would take a more surface approach to learning, (b) students who identify more strongly as consumers would take a less deep and less strategic approach to learning, and (c) approaches to learning would mediate or explain why identifying as a consumer is related to poorer academic performance. Over 500 students studying a variety of subjects at different universities in England, UK, completed a questionnaire to assess their approaches to learning, consumer orientation, and academic performance. Approaches to learning (deep and surface approaches) were assessed using the 20item revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire (Biggs et al. 2001). Students rated their level of agreement with statements such as, “I find that at times studying gives me a feeling of deep personal satisfaction” (deep), and “My aim is to pass the course while doing as little work as possible” (surface). Strategic approach was assessed using 12 relevant items from the Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory (Entwistle et al. 2013; Entwistle and Tait 1995). Students rated their level of agreement with statements such as, “I organise my study time carefully to make the best use of it” and “I put a lot of effort into studying because I’m determined to do well.” Consumer orientation and academic performance were assessed in the same way as in Bunce et al. (2017), that is, by using an adapted version of the consumer orientation questionnaire developed by Saunders (2015), and requesting students to provide a grade expressed as a percentage for their most recent piece of assessed work. The results partly supported the hypotheses. As found in Bunce et al. (2017), a stronger consumer identity was correlated with poorer academic performance. In addition, the more that students identified as consumers, the more likely they were to

3

The Student “Experience” in Commercialized Higher Education

41

adopt a surface approach to learning and the less likely they were to adopt a deep approach. However, there was no relation with a strategic approach. Furthermore, a deep approach to learning mediated the relation between consumer identity and academic performance, meaning that students who identified more strongly as consumers had poorer academic performance because it reduced the extent to which they adopted a deep approach to learning (surface and strategic approach did not have a mediating impact). Again, the findings from this study support the argument that the commercialization of higher education may undermine students’ ability to achieve their potential, in this case by affecting the attitudes and behaviors that underpin their approaches to learning and subsequent academic performance. Commercialization seems to be associated with extrinsic motivation to achieve an end goal as shown by students taking a more surface approach to learning if they identify more strongly as consumers. Again, the irony is that student consumers may experience extrinsic motivation by focusing on grade goal, but high grades are not served by consumerist attitudes that discourage deep approaches to learning that underpin higher grades.

A Psychological Needs Perspective on Motivation for Learning This raises an important question: What can educators do to support student achievement in a commercialized teaching environment, without promoting extrinsic motivation for studying? Aside from structuring the learning environment to foster creative and critical engagement that is characteristic of a deep approach, it is also important to consider the psychological factors that support learners’ intrinsic motivation for studying. Self-determination theory provides a broad framework for understanding individuals’ experiences of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Ryan and Deci 2000). This theory proposes that everyone has an innate desire to engage, grow, and master challenges, but that external factors (e.g., social or cultural contexts) can be enabling or inhibitive (Ryan and Deci 2000). The requirements for healthy development are specified using the concept of basic psychological needs. Self-determination theory proposes that there are three universal basic psychological needs that need to be fulfilled in order for an individual to experience intrinsic motivation: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. These three needs have been defined by Vansteenkiste, Ryan, and Soenens (2020, p. 3) as follows: Autonomy refers to the experience of volition and willingness. When satisfied, one experiences a sense of integrity as when one’s actions, thoughts, and feelings are self-endorsed and authentic. When frustrated, one experiences a sense of pressure and often conflict, such as feeling pushed in an unwanted direction. Competence concerns the experience of effectiveness and mastery. It becomes satisfied as one capably engages in activities and experiences opportunities for using and extending skills and expertise. When frustrated, one experiences a sense of ineffectiveness or even failure and helplessness.

42

L. Taylor Bunce Relatedness denotes the experience of warmth, bonding, and care and is satisfied by connecting to and feeling significant to others. Relatedness frustration comes with a sense of social alienation, exclusion, and loneliness.

All three needs are considered essential, and if any one of them is thwarted, this will have a negative impact on an individual’s motivation and well-being. The experience of psychological need satisfaction has been researched extensively within the context of students’ experiences of learning. Students who experience fulfillment of their needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are more likely to have intrinsic motivation for learning, meaning that they are likely to put in more effort, use more fruitful approaches (in some situations, this may be a deep approach), be more actively engaged in their education, and ultimately perform to a higher academic standard (Deci et al. 1991; Niemiec and Ryan 2009; Ryan and Deci 2002). Autonomy supportive teaching has received particular research attention. This type of teaching involves providing as much choice as possible within situational constraints (choice provision), explaining the extent to which choice is/is not available (meaningful rationale provision), and acknowledging and caring about the point of view of the student (perspective taking) (Deci et al. 1994). In support of this theory, a longitudinal study of students studying law (Sheldon and Krieger 2007), a subject known for being exceptionally stressful, found that students who experienced an autonomy supportive teaching environment not only experienced greater levels of autonomy, but also competence and relatedness, over the 3 years of their degrees. As a result, they also experienced greater subjective well-being. Perceptions of autonomy support also positively predicted graded performance and intrinsic motivation for pursuing a career in law. The authors noted that this is important because an individual’s initial motivation within a new context can predict whether or not they will succeed over time. An individual’s experience of basic psychological need satisfaction is also differentially supported by the presence of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Intrinsic goals, such as personal growth or close relationships, are associated with greater well-being and healthier functioning than extrinsic goals, such as wealth creation or external recognition. The pursuit of extrinsic goals is often believed to bring psychological benefits, but it actually relates to the experience of reduced need satisfaction and increased distress (Vansteenkiste et al. 2004). In a recent study of university students, Holding et al. (2020) tested this idea to explore whether students sacrificed their three basic needs in pursuit of extrinsic career goals. A sacrifice of autonomy may relate to neglecting a basic need for freedom if students oblige themselves to study; a sacrifice of competence may result from students deciding only to learn about concepts perceived as contributing to their career; and a sacrifice of relatedness may result from self-isolating in order to study, thereby missing out on fostering a sense of connection and belonging. At the beginning of two 3-year longitudinal studies, students were asked to state their career goal. They also completed an aspirations index that measured the importance of intrinsic aspirations, e.g., “to grow and learn new things,” and extrinsic aspirations, e.g., “to have enough money to buy everything you want.” They were then asked why they were pursuing their career goal by responding to items that assessed reasons relating to

3

The Student “Experience” in Commercialized Higher Education

43

intrinsic motivation, e.g., “Because of the fun and enjoyment which the goal will provide you—the primary reason is simply your interest in the experience itself,” or extrinsic reasons, e.g., “Because you would feel ashamed, guilty, or anxious if you didn’t—you feel that you ought to strive for this.” Midway through the year, students were asked about their motivation for making sacrifices to achieve their career goal (career-related sacrifices). This rating was done on a 100-point slider scale, with one end described as “because I want to, it feels personally meaningful to do so” (autonomous motivation) and the other end as “because I feel like I ought to, other people want me to” (controlled motivation). Once the academic year had finished, students rated the extent to which they agreed that they had progressed toward their career goal, and the extent to which each of their three psychological needs had been thwarted. The analysis revealed that students who had more extrinsic life aspirations were more likely to report that their career goal was supported by extrinsic or controlled reasons. This subsequently translated into sacrificing their own basic psychological need fulfillment, and experiencing controlled motivation for doing so. Furthermore, sacrificing these needs in order to progress toward a career goal seemed to “backfire”: A year later, career goal progress was less likely to have been achieved by students who had sacrificed need fulfillment, and they experienced increased levels of depressive symptoms and negative mood. The authors concluded that universities should “discourage the prioritization of career goal pursuit above needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness” (Holding et al. 2020, p. 111). They further proposed that teaching should be designed to support students’ fulfillment of their basic psychological needs, which will improve students’ progress toward their career goals.

Academics’ Perspectives on the Effects of Commercialization on Psychological need Fulfillment Among Their Students and Themselves Another study reveals more about whether students, as well as academics, may experience less fulfillment of their psychological needs in learning and teaching activities in a commercialized higher education context. King and Bunce (2020) analyzed data from in-depth interviews with academics to explore their views on the impact of marketization on students’ and their own experiences of psychological need fulfillment. The participants were ten academics from five teaching-focused universities in England, UK, who had a range of 3–35 years of teaching experience. In the interviews, the academics were asked a series of questions covering a range of topics, including the perceived effects of marketization on students’ approaches to higher education, their students’ motivation for attending university, and their own sense of control over their work. Their responses were analyzed to explore the extent to which they thought the marketization of higher education had supported or undermined their students’ and their own fulfillment of the needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness.

44

L. Taylor Bunce

Overall, the analysis revealed that the majority of academics perceived many of their students as displaying consumer-like attitudes and behaviors. They reported that these students seemed to want an “easy ride,” expected to be given not “knowledge” but “information [. . .] something that doesn’t really need to be extended upon, or digested,” and sometimes described how such students made explicit comments such as, “I pay your wages,” and “I’m paying for my degree” (King and Bunce 2020, p. 798). Importantly, the analysis also revealed that the academics perceived these student “consumers” as lacking fulfillment of their needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. The majority of academics (7 out of 10) also felt that most of their students did not experience fulfillment of the need for autonomy: I think they’ve lost [. . .] the fact that they should be studying themselves, and developing themselves, and reading around subjects. [. . .] A number of times I get a student write to me and say, “Can you not just give me the answers?” (King and Bunce 2020, p. 800)

Although the academics discussed multiple ways in which they tried to support students to engage in self-directed learning, the majority felt that the commercialized environment meant that they had limited control over their teaching, and that their own autonomy had been eroded as market pressure increased. One academic explained: “I feel I’m being [. . .] steered, forced, coerced [. . .] into designing my activities, my learning modules. [. . .] I don’t feel I have the control of how I plan and design [compared to] [. . .] four, five years ago” (King and Bunce 2020, p. 801). The corporate approach was seen as instrumentalist and stressful, diminishing academic freedom: “We obviously are target-driven. [. . .] We have inquests and enquiries into why x, y, and z module didn’t go well. [. . .] It is very stressful. [. . .] That is chipping away at my professionalism” (King and Bunce 2020, p. 801). In terms of competence, most academics (six out of ten) felt that many of their students did not experience fulfillment of this basic psychological need. This manifested in various ways, including a lack of confidence, a desire to do the minimum amount of work needed to pass their course, and an unwillingness to engage in academic challenges: “I think they’re, you know, they’re quite scared of these activities where they have to sort of look at the literature themselves” (King and Bunce 2020, p. 798). The academics also felt that a target-driven culture undermined their own experience of competence: “In some ways it’s very stressful. [. . .] We are increasingly being given targets that I think are unrealistic [. . .] and more often than not, we are not meeting” (King and Bunce 2020, p. 799). This in turn affected the academics’ ability to help students to feel competent: I do not think [students] are improving because there are so many controls that stop us from improving them. I would push my students far more if I didn’t have the cost of the National Student Survey behind me the whole time. (King and Bunce 2020, p. 799)

Finally, the majority of academics (six out of ten) felt that most students did not experience fulfillment of the need for relatedness and often attributed this to the

3

The Student “Experience” in Commercialized Higher Education

45

marketization of higher education. They reported how many students now appeared to view academics as “service providers” instead of partners or mentors: “[As academics] we’ve always prided [. . .] ourselves [. . .] to try and be as approachable as possible. But I think unfortunately, what has superseded that is this new model, the student-as-consumer, [. . .] ‘I’m demanding that you help me’” (King and Bunce 2020, p. 802). This lack of positive, reciprocal interaction was seen to erode trust and empathy, and to obstruct the development of genuine collaborative relationships between students and academics. This left the academics feeling distanced and undervalued. However, some (four out of ten) academics explained that students experienced good rapport with academics, and provided support and encouragement to their peers. In turn, this contributed toward fulfilling the academics’ own experience of relatedness because they felt that they could make a valuable contribution to students’ experience: They do learn from each other and they say, “Wow, have you seen that?” [. . .] so there’s lots of that, so sometimes I [say], “Where did you get that from, can you teach me that?” [. . .] So they teach me as well, which is great. (King and Bunce 2020, p. 802)

The importance of the need for relatedness for supporting a deep approach to learning, and potentially weakening consumer identities, is supported by data from another study by Bunce et al. (under review). In this study, relatedness was measured by the extent to which students felt a sense of belonging with other students in their study discipline (herein referred to as discipline identity). The study examined links between students’ discipline identity, their approaches to learning, and academic performance. It also looked at how discipline identity affected student – or consumer – dissatisfaction. The strength of an individual’s identity with a group will influence the extent to which they adopt the norms of that group. In England, UK, the group norm is consistently one of satisfaction with university, according to several years of the annual National Student Survey (Higher Education Funding Council for England, 2013–2017). Therefore, it follows that students with a strong discipline identity are more likely to be satisfied and students with a weak discipline identity are more likely to be dissatisfied. Dissatisfaction was measured by asking participants to report the frequency with which they complained about their course. Complaining would risk exclusion from their discipline group; thus, to maintain in-group identity, members may minimize their level of complaining and focus on satisfying elements of their experience. With this in mind, Bunce, Bennett, and Jones hypothesized that a stronger discipline identity would relate to less complaining. Previous research has also found that students with a strong discipline identity are more likely to express attitudes that support a deep approach to learning (Smyth et al. 2015). Thus, Bunce, Bennett, and Jones also hypothesized that stronger discipline identity would have a positive effect on approaches to learning and academic performance. Data from almost 700 students studying in England, UK, supported these hypotheses. Frequency of complaining affected approaches to learning and was influenced by

46

L. Taylor Bunce

discipline identification: A stronger discipline identity was related to less complaining, and this subsequently related to taking more deep approaches and less surface approaches to learning, and higher academic performance. Therefore, fulfillment of the need for relatedness, defined here as a sense of closeness to other students in their discipline, appears to have an indirect but positive impact on academic performance through its relation to (dis)satisfaction, and approaches to learning. In summary, the research presented thus far supports concerns raised by those who fear the detrimental impacts of the marketization of higher education, specifically with regard to students’ motivation for learning and academic performance. The commodification of education appears to undermine students’ intrinsic motivation for achieving academic excellence by supporting an environment that potentially encourages surface approaches to learning. Furthermore, it appears to promote extrinsic motivation for studying, such as the view that university attendance is a means to a well-paid career. Research discussed in this chapter has shown that we can address these issues by understanding the impact of marketization on both students and academic staff in terms of psychological need fulfillment. If the psychological needs that provide the foundation for intrinsic motivation are undermined, then learning and teaching among students and staff will not flourish.

Experiences of Students from Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) Backgrounds in a Commercialized Higher Education Context In the final part of this chapter, the experience of psychological need fulfillment in a marketized higher education context will be discussed by drawing on a recent study that has explored the perspectives of students from BME backgrounds. These students are a particularly important disadvantaged group to consider because there is an inequitable attainment gap in the UK between the proportion of BME students who graduate with a “good” degree, that is, a first-class or upper second-class degree, compared with white students (Equality Challenge Unit 2017). In a study by Bunce et al. (2021), BME students studying health and social care subjects at one teaching-focused university in England, UK, participated in one of three focus groups. The aim of the study was to understand their experiences of basic psychological need fulfillment within the learning and teaching environment. The students were all female (reflecting the fact that most students who were studying this discipline were female) with a mean age of 32 years, and most described themselves as Black African. In general, the focus groups revealed that the basic needs of these students were not being met by the learning and teaching environment. In relation to these students’ experiences of the need for autonomy, in all three focus groups, students felt that they could not be themselves and felt pressure to conform to white norms of behavior:

3

The Student “Experience” in Commercialized Higher Education

47

I know that when I’m out in public [. . .] I get a bit like. . . like it’s Queen’s English. [. . .] We have to put on the acceptable front, you know, the package. . . to prove yourself to fit into white society. [. . .] You can’t be yourself. (Bunce et al. 2021, p. 541)

They also noted the lack of diversity in the content of their curriculum, feeling that it lacked relevance and served to reinforce negative stereotypes associated with their minority group status. Although they did not experience explicitly controlling styles of teaching, they felt that the learning and teaching environment limited their freedom to express themselves and their identity as BME students. This created internal tension and, for some, ultimately diminished their intrinsic motivation for studying: We came with high expectations, everybody wants. . . well it’s human nature to want to do well. [. . .] But everything has been such a struggle, and we’re just like, we can’t be bothered now. [. . .] I’ve gone through life, and I have had to shout and fight and challenge and raise and re-raise and re-challenge [. . .] and that is bloody tiring. I’m knackered, I am tired, I am fed up. (Bunce et al. 2021, p. 541)

In relation to the need for competence, some students reported how their families had often made them aware that they would have to be “twice as good” to achieve the same outcomes as a white student: If you are of a minority, in order for you to achieve something that a white person achieves, you have to be twice as good, yeah, you can’t just be on the same level as a white person. (Bunce et al. 2021, p. 540)

Despite their attempts to achieve this, however, many students experienced disappointment at not getting the grades that they felt capable of, and believed that their level of effort was not commensurate with the outcomes. They attributed this to a learning and teaching environment that failed to develop their potential, partly due to the existence of underlying racist stereotypes relating to their intellectual ability, and a lack of understanding of diversity among other students and staff. This often made them feel ignored or dismissed. Finally, in terms of relatedness, some students were disappointed with the level of interaction and support that they received from other students and staff, thus undermining their experience of relatedness. It has been recognized that international BME students who were not born in the UK may require guidance to understand pedagogic practices and expectations, and are more likely to be first-generation university attenders (Dhanda 2009). For example, one student explained: Some of the stuff I grew up with is not what’s reflected here. [. . .] My upbringing and how things are done over here, it’s quite different. [. . .] It was kind of like, I had to learn [to adapt to the UK higher education system] by myself. (Bunce et al. 2021, p. 540)

Other students described their feelings of isolation, which they felt may have been due to their accent or skin color, which made them be perceived or treated as other.

48

L. Taylor Bunce

For example, two students explained: “I have an African accent. [. . .] I didn’t have anyone to turn to. [. . .] I was isolated, it was like no one wanted to be with me,” and “I know that the first thing that someone’s going to see me as is a ‘black woman’. [. . .] I’m more than that [. . .] but you can’t change people and their perception of you” (Bunce et al. 2021, pp. 538–539). Overall, this study revealed that their experiences as BME students had a predominantly negative impact on the extent to which their three psychological needs were fulfilled. Specific issues also arose for these students within the context of the commercialized nature of higher education (this information comes from unpublished data from that study). There was a reasonable amount of discussion about future career goals and employability, but this was in the context of using their degree to develop a fulfilling and meaningful career by making a positive difference in the health and social care workplace. Many students actually demonstrated a high level of intrinsic motivation by discussing how hard they were studying due to a genuine passion for their subject: I find I put, when I’m doing my work I put in more than I’m supposed to, because I’m trying, trying to, you know, reach my potential and try and get as high as I can. (Bunce, King, et al., unpublished data)

In one focus group, however, students explicitly discussed their concerns about the nature of the learning and teaching environment in consumerist terms: I was still expecting that that amount of money that I had to pay, I had to get something, I had to get something from lecturers. [. . .] Basic tutorials where we can discus more these issues that we’ve learned about [. . .] Plus we should feel comfortable to be students, we should feel comfortable to ask questions in the classroom, like that’s. . . but we don’t feel safe to. So that’s. . . not really. So if I’m to be honest, I need some refunds. (Bunce, King, et al., unpublished data)

This consumerist sentiment is perhaps unsurprising given that they had not experienced an environment that nurtured their psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. It is particularly disappointing given the high levels of intrinsic motivation that they described experiencing at the beginning of their student journeys. However, it is insufficient to consider the dissatisfaction of these BME students purely in consumerist terms, that is, as customers dissatisfied with poor service provision. To fully address the needs of these students, the institutional and structural causes of racism that underpin their negative experiences urgently need to be tackled (see Universities UK and National Union of Students 2019).

Conclusion and Future Directions This chapter has summarized recent research that has explored some of the impacts of the commercialization of higher education on students’ education and their wider “experience” at university. Unfortunately, a commercialized learning and teaching environment, in which concepts such as satisfaction and value for money are

3

The Student “Experience” in Commercialized Higher Education

49

emphasized over other forms of educational value, seems to undermine students’ motivation for learning and academic performance. It also seems to have a negative impact on academic teaching staff by compromising their intrinsic motivation for teaching and affecting their relations with students. The experiences of BME students also do not seem to be met by the commercialization of higher education, which may compound structural and institutional causes of racism that they already face. The perspective provided by self-determination theory offers a useful way to understand and address some of these issues in order to mitigate the negative impact of commercialization. Commercializing higher education appears to undermine satisfaction of the three psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. In part, this may be because it propels the view that higher education is an “experience” involving teaching that is entertaining rather than challenging, and the view that a graduate degree is a means to an end, with that end being wealth creation or status. Consequently, this affects students’ experience of intrinsic motivation for learning, which is the type of motivation that supports optimal performance and well-being. Further research is needed to examine how marketization may differentially affect the needs of different groups of students, both in terms of students studying different disciplines and students from disadvantaged backgrounds. We also need to know more about how different functions within the university (e.g., academic, library, and careers) can support students to experience fulfillment of their needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness within a commercialized learning and teaching environment. Resources to enable students to reflect on their identities as learners or consumers, and to support students who experience discrimination, can be found at the Student Identity and Inclusion project website, available here: www.brookes.ac. uk/SIIP. This resource enables students, either individually or within a group tutorial setting, to assess the extent to which they hold attitudes commensurate with being a consumer and/or learner of their higher education, and provides questions for reflection and discussion. This website also provides information about how to hold discussion groups for students who experience discrimination to help them work with universities to support their psychological needs in the learning environment. Ultimately, universities need to help to reduce the tension created by commercialization between the role of students as learners and the new role of students as consumers of a service provided by their university. Students need to identify with the more traditional role of learner for a truly meaningful university experience, in which learning is enjoyed for its own sake and not done to fulfil an external imposition. It is clear that having students’ and academics’ needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness at the forefront of practice within higher education institutions will go a long way toward achieving this aim.

References Anderson, R. 2016, February 8. University fees in historical perspective. Accessed from http:// www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/university-fees-in-historical-perspective

50

L. Taylor Bunce

Biggs, J.B. 1987. Student approaches to learning and studying. Hawthorn: Australian Council for Educational Research. Biggs, J.B., D. Kember, and D.Y.P. Leung. 2001. The revised two-factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology 71: 133–149. Bolton, P. 2018, February 19. Tuition fee statistics (House of Commons Research Briefing SN00917). https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn00917/ Bunce, L. 2019. The voice of the student as a ‘consumer’. In Engaging student voices in higher education: Diverse perspectives and expectations in partnership, ed. S. Lygo-Baker, I.M. Kinchin, and N.E. Winstone. Palgrave Macmillan. Bunce, L., and M. Bennett. 2019. A degree of studying? Approaches to learning and academic performance among student ‘consumers’. Active learning in higher education. Accessed from https://journals.sagepub.com/eprint/U9Y7R6PUQ7GRPG69NWTM/full#articleCitationDown loadContainer Bunce, L., A. Baird, and S.E. Jones. 2017. The student-as-consumer approach in higher education and its effects on academic performance. Studies in Higher Education 43 (11): 1958–1978. Bunce, L., N. King, S. Saran, and N. Talib. 2021. Experiences of black and minority ethnic (BME) students in higher education: Applying self-determination theory to understand the BME attainment gap. Studies in Higher Education, 46(3), 534–547. Bunce, L., M. Bennett, and S. E. Jones. (under review). Social identity processes in undergraduates’ course (dis)satisfaction, approaches to learning, and academic performance. Daniels, J., and J. Brooker. 2014. Student identity development in higher education: Implications for graduate attributes and work-readiness. Educational Research 56: 65–76. Deci, E.L., R.J. Vallerand, L.G. Pelletier, and R.M. Ryan. 1991. Motivation and education: The selfdetermination perspective. Educational Psychologist 26: 325–346. Deci, E.L., H. Eghrari, B.C. Patrick, and D.R. Leone. 1994. Facilitating internalization: The selfdetermination theory perspective. Journal of Personality 62: 119–142. Delucchi, M., and K. Korgen. 2002. “We’re the customer-we pay the tuition”: Student consumerism among undergraduate sociology majors. Teaching Sociology 30 (1): 100–107. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. 2011. Students at the Heart of the System. Accessed from http://discuss.bis.gov.uk/hereform/all-documents/ Dhanda, M. 2009 Understanding Disparities in Student Attainment: Black and Minority Ethnic Students’ Experience. Accessed from http://www2.wlv.ac.uk/equalopps/mdsummary.pdf Duff, A., E. Boyle, K. Dunleavy, and J. Ferguson. 2004. The relationship between personality, approach to learning and academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences 36: 1907–1920. Entwistle, N.J., and P. Ramsden. 1983. Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm. Entwistle, N.J., and H. Tait. 1995. The revised approaches to studying inventory. Edinburgh: Centre for Research on Learning and Instruction, University of Edinburgh. Entwistle, N. J., V. McCune, and H. Tait. 2013. Report of the Development and Use of the Inventories. Accessed from https://tinyurl.com/yb97thg8 Equality Challenge Unit. 2017. Equality in higher education: Statistical report. Accessed from https://www.ecu.ac.uk/publications/equality-in-higher-education-statistical-report-2017/ Higher Education Funding Council for England. 2013–2017. National Student Survey Results. Accessed from http://www.hefce.ac.uk/lt/nss/results/ Higher Education Statistics Agency. 2020. Higher Education Graduate Outcomes Statistics: UK, 2017/18 – Salary and location of leavers in employment. Accessed from https://www.hesa.ac. uk/news/18-06-2020/sb257-higher-education-graduate-outcomes-statistics/salary Holding, A.C., A. St-Jacques, J. Verner-Filion, F. Kachanoff, and R. Koestner. 2020. Sacrifice – But at what price? A longitudinal study of young adults’ sacrifice of basic psychological needs in pursuit of career goals. Motivation and Emotion 44 (1): 99–115. King, N., and L. Bunce. 2020. Academics’ perceptions of students’ motivation for learning and their own motivation for teaching in a marketized higher education context. British Journal of Educational Psychology 90: 790–808.

3

The Student “Experience” in Commercialized Higher Education

51

Lenton, P. 2015. Determining student satisfaction: An economic analysis of the National Student Survey. Economics of Education Review 47: 118–127. Lindblom-Ylänne, A., A. Parpala, and L. Postareff. 2018. What constitutes the surface approach to learning in the light of new empirical evidence? Studies in Higher Education 44: 2183–2195. Marton, F., and R. Säljö. 1976. On qualitative differences in learning: I – Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology 46: 4–11. Marton, F., and R. Säljö. 1984. Approaches to learning. In The experience of learning, ed. F. Marton, D. Hounsell, and N. Entwistle. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic. McMahon, W.W. 2009. The private and social benefits of higher education. Maryland: The John Hopkins University Press. Naidoo, R., and I. Jamieson. 2005. Empowering participants or corroding learning? Towards a research agenda on the impact of student consumerism in higher education. Journal of Education Policy 20: 267–281. Niemiec, C.P., and R.M. Ryan. 2009. Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and Research in Education 7: 133–144. Prat-Sala, M., and P. Redford. 2010. The interplay between motivation, self-efficacy, and approaches to studying. British Journal of Educational Psychology 80 (2): 283–305. Richardson, M., C. Abraham, and R. Bond. 2012. Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 138 (2): 353–387. Ryan, R.M., and E.L. Deci. 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist 55: 68–78. Ryan, R.M., and E.L. Deci. 2002. Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic dialectical perspective. In Handbook of self-determination research, ed. E.L. Deci and R.M. Ryan, 3–33. Rochester: University of Rochester Press. Saunders, D.B. 2015. They do not buy it: Exploring the extent to which entering first-year students view themselves as customers. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 25 (5): 1–24. Sheldon, K.M., and L.S. Krieger. 2007. Understanding the negative effects of legal education on law students: A longitudinal test of self-determination theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 33 (6): 883–897. Smyth, L., K.I. Mavor, M.J. Platow, D.M. Grace, and K.J. Reynolds. 2015. Discipline social identification, study norms and learning approach in university students. Educational Psychology 35: 53–72. Tomlinson, M. 2017. Student perceptions of themselves as ‘consumers’ of higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education 38: 450–467. Universities UK & National Union of Students. 2019. Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic Student Attainment at UK Universities: #closing the gap. Accessed from https://www.universitiesuk.ac. uk/policy-and-analysis/reports/Documents/2019/bame-student-attainment-uk-universities-clos ing-the-gap.pdf Vansteenkiste, M., J. Simons, W. Lens, K.M. Sheldon, and E.L. Deci. 2004. Motivating learning, performance, and persistence: The synergistic effects of intrinsic goal contents and autonomysupportive contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87: 246–260. Vansteenkiste, M., R.M. Ryan, and B. Soenens. 2020. Basic psychological need theory: Advancements, critical themes, and future directions. Motivation and Emotion 44: 1–31. Williams, J. 2013. Consuming higher education: Why learning can’t be bought. London: Bloomsbury.

4

Increasing Student Persistence: Wanting and Doing Vincent Tinto

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wanting to Persist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Student Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Self Efficacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sense of Belonging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Perceptions of Curricular Relevance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Being Able to Persist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clarifying Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Providing Academic Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Providing Social Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Promoting Sense of Belonging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Supporting Curricular Relevance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organization of Student Support Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Persistence as Journey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Closing Thoughts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

54 54 54 55 56 58 59 59 60 60 62 63 65 65 65 66 68 68

Abstract

When one strips away all the elaborate language used to explain student persistence, theories of persistence can be reduced to two simple ideas. First, students have to want to persist to completion. Second, they have to be able to do so. As the term wanting to persist is but another way of describing student motivation, the chapter first turns to an exploration of what is known about the forces shaping student motivation to persist, in particular those that are within the ability of institutions to influence, namely, student self-efficacy, sense of belonging, and V. Tinto (*) Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 H. Huijser et al. (eds.), Student Support Services, University Development and Administration, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5852-5_33

53

54

V. Tinto

perceptions of the relevance of their studies. Then it turns to discussion of what influences students’ ability to persist, again emphasizing those issues that are within the capacity of institutions to reasonably influence. Having done so, the chapter then explores the many ways students support services can promote student motivation and ability to persist to completion. In doing so, it argues that student services need to recognize not only the importance of student perceptions of support, but also that persistence is a longitudinal process that, for traditional age students in particular, is marked by the developmental stages that calls for differing actions to be carefully coordinated and scaffolded over time. The chapter concludes with a plea for institutions to heed the importance of institutional culture in shaping student perceptions and, in turn, persistence and act to build a culture of inclusion and validation that moves us closer to ensuring that all students, not just some, are motivated and able to persist to completion. Keywords

Student persistence · Student motivation · Completion · Institutional culture · Shaping student perceptions

Introduction After all is said and done, theories of student persistence can be reduced to two simple ideas. First, students have to want to persist to completion. Second, they have to be able to do so.

Wanting to Persist Let’s take each idea in turn. First, students have to want to persist. Understood more broadly, the term wanting to persist is but another way of talking about student goals and student motivation. Students have to want to go to university and complete their degrees and be motivated to invest the time and energies to do so.

Student Goals Not all students are equally committed to the goal of completion or clear in their goals for attending the university. Some students may intend only to earn enough credit hours to improve their employability and will leave once they acquire those hours. (Even though the individual may perceive their behavior as successfully meeting their goals, it will not be recognized as such in accountability measures that take institutional completion rates as an indicator of institutional effectiveness.) Others may intend to complete their studies, but are only weakly committed to that goal. They will often leave when difficulties arise. Still others, while committed to the goal of completion, are only weakly committed to do so at their initial institution

4

Increasing Student Persistence: Wanting and Doing

55

of enrollment. Indeed, more than a few students begin their studies planning to transfer to another institution to complete their studies. (This is especially common in the United States among students who begin their studies in two-year colleges and, in some cases, among students in four-year institutions who were unable to gain admission to their “first choice” institution. Many of these students will reapply to that institution at the end of their first year in the hope of gaining entry at the start of the second year when additional slots become available.) Even among students who are committed to university, many are undecided about the focus of their studies. Still others change their major at least once in the first several years of study. In the United States, for instance, more than a third of entering students begin undecided and almost a third will change their field of study one or more times in the first 3 years. Being undecided, whether at the outset of university study or during it, matters because a lack of clarity as to the goals of attending can undermine completion if only because it leads students to question why they should expend time and effort, and sometimes considerable resources, on a goal whose purpose is unclear. Having goals is one thing. Being motivated to attain those goals is another. Students have to want to persist and be willing to invest the time and energies to do so. Simply put, motivation drives student persistence. Motivation to persist is, in turn, shaped by a variety of forces, none more important than student experiences in the university following entry, if not before (Prasad et al. 2017). They do so in three distinct ways. First, they influence students’ perception of their abilities to succeed in their studies, or what is referred to as self-efficacy. Second, they affect students’ sense of belonging in the institution. Third, they impact students’ perceptions of the relevance of their studies to the attainment of their goals (Tinto 2015).

Self Efficacy Self-efficacy refers to a person’s belief in their ability to succeed at a particular task or in a specific situation (Bandura 1977). (It should be noted that self-efficacy is not generalizable in that it applies to all tasks and situations but can vary depending on the particular task or situation at hand. A person may feel capable of succeeding at one task but not another.) In this case, it refers to a students’ belief in their ability to succeed in the pursuit of their university degree. While student self-efficacy has both academic and social dimensions, each of which can influence persistence, it is one’s perception of their ability to succeed academically that most directly impacts motivation and in turn persistence. This does not mean that social self-efficacy does not matter. It does. But as regards university action, it is less amenable to university intervention than is academic self-efficacy. Furthermore, while it is entirely possible for students to succeed in the university when they feel socially insecure, it is less likely that they will succeed when they see themselves as academically unqualified. Students’ belief in their ability to succeed in education is learned, not inherited. It is the cumulative impact of past educational experiences on their view of their abilities. What matters for the present conversation is not only that academic

56

V. Tinto

self-efficacy is malleable, but that students believe it can be changed by their actions (Dweck 2006). Positive experiences, especially in the classroom, can enhance selfefficacy and in turn increase the likelihood of persistence. Negative experiences can have the opposite effect. This is the case because self-efficacy influences how students attend to academic tasks. Students who feel confident in their ability to succeed in university will engage more readily in an academic task, spend more time on it, and expend more effort on its completion even when encountering difficulties. Conversely, students who question their ability to succeed or who feel it is unlikely that they can, will tend to become discouraged when difficulties arise and not expend either the time or effort needed to successfully complete an academic task. Doing so further undermines their performance. As such, self-efficacy, especially academic self-efficacy, is the foundation upon which student success in the university is built (Chemers et al. 2001). Students have to believe they can succeed in their studies. Otherwise, there is little reason for them to invest their time and effort in their studies to do so. A strong sense of academic self-efficacy among beginning university students cannot be taken for granted. Though it is not surprising that most students begin their studies confident in their ability to succeed, some do not. This is particularly true for those students, especially of low-income and minority backgrounds, whose past educational experiences may have led them to doubt their ability to succeed in the university. It is also true for students who experience stereotype threats that label them as less likely to succeed at a particular task or in a particular field of study as is too often the case for women and students of color (Steele 1997). But even among students who enter university confident in their ability to succeed, some will encounter difficulties that weaken their confidence. This is most common during the first year as students struggle to adjust to the heightened demands of university study. Success in the university depends, however, not so much on students entering the university believing in their capacity to succeed or whether they question their ability to do so during that year as it is that they continue to believe or come to believe that they can succeed as a result of their first-year experiences (Gore 2006). This does not mean that academic ability does not matter. Rather it is to argue that expectational forces are at play that can influence students’ perceptions of their ability to succeed and, in turn, the likelihood of their persistence. (Students’ belief in their ability to succeed is not just an academic issue. It can also reflect their perception of their ability to manage the larger task of going to university while trying to manage other responsibilities. That is one reason why students with responsibilities beyond the campus (e.g., working students and those with families) are, on average, less likely to complete their programs of study than most other students.)

Sense of Belonging Persistence is also influenced by students’ sense of belonging; their feeling of being accepted as a valued member of a community comprised of administrators, academic and support staff, and students. It is an outcome of students’ engagements with

4

Increasing Student Persistence: Wanting and Doing

57

others on and off campus that are informed by the cultural context in which they occur. But it is not engagement per se that matters in shaping students’ sense of belonging, though some engagement with others is generally better than none, but their perception of those engagements and the meanings they derive from them as to their mattering and belonging (Hurtado and Carter 1966). Engagements that are seen by students as supportive, inclusive, and validating of their participation in the university, that they matter, lead to a sense of belonging and in turn, a commitment to the university community that promotes persistence (Rendón 1994; Schlossberg 1989; Strayhorn 2019). Conversely, engagements that are seen by students as not supportive, inclusive, or validating can lead to the opposite outcome. Students’ sense of belonging has both academic and social dimensions. The former speaks to students’ perception that they are a valued member of the academic life of the institution; that their academic participation matters and their voice is validated by other members of the institution, in particular the academic staff. The latter, social belonging, refers to the students’ perception of being a valued member of the social community of the university comprised of other students and staff. In both cases, sense of belonging can refer to the university generally or to one of a number of smaller academic and social communities that comprise the institution more broadly. Universities are rarely homogeneous. They are typically comprised of a range of smaller academic and social communities of students, academic staff, and support staff, each with its own set of norms and cultural preferences. Sense of belonging, academic or social, can refer to smaller communities within the institution as, for instance, with students with whom one shares a common interest or background (e.g., students of similar academic interests, ethnic background, or cultural orientation) or more broadly to the institution generally. (Such smaller communities depend on having a critical mass of students with whom they can affiliate. For minority students, having a critical mass of students from similar minority backgrounds can play an important role in their success (Hagedorn et al. 2007).) Although the former can facilitate persistence, as it may help anchor the student to other students or academic programs on campus, it is the latter that is most directly related to student motivations to persist within the institution. This is the case because the former does not ensure the latter as a smaller community of students may see itself as an outcast from the larger institution. Thus, the term “enclave” to describe such groups (Sidanius et al. 2004). In both cases, students who perceive themselves as belonging are more likely to persist because it leads not only to enhanced motivation, but also a willingness to become academically and socially involved with others in ways that further promote persistence. By contrast, a student’s sense of not belonging, of being out of place, leads to a withdrawal from contact with others that further undermines motivation to persist. While both forms of belonging influence persistence, academic belonging has the most direct impact on persistence if only because of its effect on learning. Students who perceive themselves as belonging, as being valued and validated, will tend to expend more effort and, other things being equal, learn more. By contrast, students who perceive themselves as not belonging, of not being valued and validated, will

58

V. Tinto

tend to have the opposite outcome (Rendón 1994). Of the various experiences that shape a student’s sense of academic belonging, and there are many, none are more important than those that occur within the classrooms and laboratories of the university (Booker 2016; Tinto 1997). These experiences, especially with those who teach, send powerful messages to students not only of their abilities, but also of their belonging in the academic life of the institution. That is not to say that classroom experience does not influence students’ sense of social belonging. Rather it is to say that sense of social belonging is primarily shaped by the student experiences and affiliations with other students outside the classroom. But the character of those affiliations may themselves reflect the network of affiliations that are formed within the classroom (Smith and Vonhoff 2019). Networks, especially in the first-year classrooms, frequently extend beyond the classroom and lead to affiliations during that year that may not have otherwise formed. These networks are not random. They are shaped not only by individual preferences but also by the pedagogical choices academic staff make about how classroom learning is organized. The impact of pedagogical practices within diverse classrooms, for instance, that promote inclusive cooperative engagement among students may have non-trivial impacts on inclusive affiliations beyond the classroom. (For a discussion of the use of network analysis in the study of classrooms see Grunspan et al. (2014).) Sense of belonging can be particularly problematic students who commute. This is especially true for those who are part-time and/or have obligations beyond the campus. For them, the classroom may be the only place on campus where they engage with others, the only place where sense of belonging may arise. If they do not engage there, other opportunities to engage elsewhere are few. Though absence of belonging does not in itself lead commuting students to leave the university, it weakens their connection to the university and makes them more susceptible to forces beyond the campus. The experience of commuting students who live at home suggests that the way it does depends on a number of factors not the least of which reflect the cultural norms of their family (Pokorny et al. 2017).

Perceptions of Curricular Relevance A third factor shaping motivation is students’ perception of the relevance of their studies. Though what constitutes relevance is much debated, what is not in debate is the need for students to see some connection between what they are asked to study and what they want to achieve as a result of attending the university. Only then will students be willing to continue their studies and engage the material in ways that promote both learning and persistence. But not all students attend the university with the same goals, that is if they are clear of their goals. Broadly speaking, students’ interests or goals in attending university can be categorized into two broad groups; those who attend university for the intrinsic rewards of attendance (e.g., learning, selfdevelopment) and those whose interests are primarily in its perceived extrinsic rewards (e.g., occupation, income). Generally, one would expect the former to be more sensitive to the perceived relevance of their studies to learning and developmental

4

Increasing Student Persistence: Wanting and Doing

59

outcomes and, by extension to their perception of the quality of their learning experiences, while it is likely that the latter group would be more sensitive to the perceived relevance of their studies to their advancement in their intended occupation. The relevance of what students are asked to study, however, is not always apparent, at least not to the students. Students are often left to wonder why they are required to study material when they see little reason for its relevance. Take for instance the general courses in the first year. Though the material may be relevant, academic staff often fail to make explicit the ways it is. They provide little context that would lead a student to understand why the course content matters. Yet it is clear that students’ perceptions of the relevance of specific course content is enhanced when it is clearly linked to a meaningful problem and/or application (Owen 2017). One of the most effective ways of doing so is through the utilization of problem or project-based learning strategies that require students to apply course content to solve a meaningful problem or complete a meaningful project (Allen et al. 2011; Flegg et al. 2011). When done well, these methods have a range of benefits not the least of which are the development of critical thinking skills and the increase in longterm retention of knowledge (Brodie 2009; Kek and Huijser 2011; Lin 2017; Strobel and van Barnevald 2009). Furthermore, when utilized together with cooperative learning techniques, they enhance student social and academic engagement and, in turn, learning and persistence (Severiens and Schmidt 2009).

Being Able to Persist Wanting to persist is one thing. Being able to persist is another. It is to this second part of the equation of persistence that we now turn. In doing so, we ask what student support services can do to enable more students to persist to completion.

Barriers Student support services can impact students’ ability to persist by removing barriers that would otherwise block or at least hinder their persistence. These typically have to do with finances, food and residential security. Though providing financial aid is typically not the domain of student support services, there are times when small, stopgap aid can help students deal with unexpected expenses such as those that might arise from family responsibilities or medical emergencies. Student support services can also help students who are struggling with food and/or residential security. In the United States, for instance, many two and four-year institutions have established food pantries that enable needy students to gain access to food that is donated or that would otherwise be discarded. (In the United States, one of the largest programs is the College and University Food Bank Alliance (www.cufba.org).) Though they do not often provide residential facilities, institutions will sometimes set aside safe places where homeless students can sleep. At the same time, there are more than a few students who leave because they are pulled away from the university by obligations

60

V. Tinto

beyond the campus (e.g., occupational, familial, financial). Some of these students will return once those obligations are met. Others may also do so if support services reaches out to them and provides support to facilitate their return.

Clarifying Goals Helping students clarify their educational and career goals is another way in which support services, in particular advisors and career counselors, can promote persistence. In many cases, this involves having students complete an occupational interest inventory that helps them identify their interests and in turn possible fields of study appropriate to their interests. Increasingly these are completed on web-based systems that not only help students choose a program of study but also enable them to select their courses to meet program requirements. In more than a few cases, it is not that students do not know about possible areas of study as it is they lack decision-making skills that enable them to make informed choices among those areas of study. Here is another area where student support services can help. One way of doing so is through the use of group career counselling sessions (Egner and Jackson 1978; Rowell et al. 2014). A different approach to helping students make informed decisions about field of study is the development of what are referred to as “meta majors.” In this case, students are not required to select a specific program of study when they begin their studies but are asked instead to identify a broad field of study in which they are interested such as engineering or science. In response, institutions construct a first semester or, in some cases, a first-year curriculum designed to help students identify a specific program within their field of interest. Doing so not only increases student satisfaction with their choice of major, it also reduces change of major in the years that follow. Both improve persistence and completion. Some institutions go even further by developing curricular pathways that students enter through structured and intentional “on-ramps” designed to accelerate their ability to choose, initiate and complete a program of study. (In the United States, these are typically referred to as Guided or Structured Pathways.) Yet another way in which support services can help students make informed choice about a future career is to expand their opportunities for experiential learning as might occur in internships, mentored research practicums and field-based learning experiences, such as service-learning, that provide students with an opportunity to discover their interests. As one student in a service-learning class told me “I did not know I wanted to become a community organizer until I did it in my service-learning class.”

Providing Academic Support Goals aside, more than a few students struggle in the first year to adjust to the academic demands of the university. Here there is much student support can do to help. But how they do depends on the underlying causes of student struggles. Some

4

Increasing Student Persistence: Wanting and Doing

61

students have difficulty balancing their studies with the demands of family and work. Their need is as much social support as academic. Others may underestimate the amount of study time needed to succeed in their classes. They have little understanding of the difference between the demands of secondary education and those of university study. Though orientation can help establish student expectations regarding university study, too many students dismiss orientation as little more than show and tell. For most students, however, their struggles reflect the fact that their academic skills are either limited or, in the case of many adult students, in need of updating. Though many universities offer academic support services such as on-campus tutoring and study counseling, these services are often plagued by low uptake. Some students who are struggling or experience early failure erroneously view helpseeking behavior as an admission that they are not “cut out” for university; that they are the only students in class who are struggling. They attribute their struggles to their own perceived shortcomings, not that of the situation in which they are placed. (There is a long history of research on attribution theory and its effects on educational performance. As regards the transition to university, even relatively small interventions can have a significant impact on how students view their struggles (Wilson et al. 2002; Yeager and Walton 2011).) To counter such feelings, it is important for universities to make clear that academic struggles are the norm, not the exception, among first-year students; that they are part and parcel of the first-year experience (e.g., Wilson and Linville 1982). (A number of studies have also looked at how students’ implicit theories of intelligence shape their interpretation of and response to academic struggles (Dweck and Leggett 1988; Dweck 2006).) Still other students seek out support too late in the semester to improve their grades. Often they do so as final exams approach. This is why academic support in the first year must be early before student struggles undermine student motivation to persist. To provide support, institutions need to know not only which students need support, but know early enough to make a difference in their performance. Midterm grades will not do. To do so, institutions have employed early warning systems that, when properly implemented, alert academic and student support staff to early student struggles and trigger support when needed. These frequently depend on web-based applications that rely either on the input of academic staff or more recently on the results of predictive analytic systems that employ student attributes together with classroom performance measures to gauge student struggles (National Forum for Education Statistics 2018). Even then, student uptake of support often remains low. This is but one reason why institutions are moving away from sole reliance on standalone academic support services, such as a learning or tutoring center, that require students to seek out support. Increasingly they are connecting and/or embedding support within the courses students take in ways that brings support to the student. This is particularly true in the first-year as students struggle to adjust to the heightened academic demands of university study. They are doing so in at least two ways. First, they are connecting academic support to the courses students take such that the nature of support is adjusted to the particular demands of the course. This is the

62

V. Tinto

case, for instance, in the use of supplemental instruction in which smaller support sections are attached to the course (See https://info.umkc.edu/si/ and https://www.sipass.lu.se/en/about-si-pass). These supplemental sections are taught either by support staff or by students who have excelled in the course in a prior year. In such courses, students are more likely to access support because of the clear linkage between support and performance in the course. Attendance in the supplemental sections is further enhanced when they are scheduled just before or just after class. This is especially true for commuting students whose time on campus is often constrained by obligations beyond the campus. Beyond issues of scheduling, the success of supplemental instruction depends both on the skills of the section instructor and the coordination between the section instructor and course instructor to ensure that the activities in the supplemental sections are aligned with the demands of the course. Second, some institutions are embedding support within the course as is the case in the United States in the I-Best program in the two-year colleges in the state of Washington (See https://www.sbctc.edu/colleges-staff/programs-services/i-best/). In this way, academic support becomes part and parcel of the course experience. Embedded support is achieved, in some cases, by support staff and instructors coteaching the course, or in other cases, by support staff training instructors on the methods of embedding support within their classes. Again, coordination between instructors and support staff is essential. Whether it is, connected or embedded, the evidence indicates that support is most effective in improving course performance when the course employs problem-based learning strategies that require students to apply their skills to solve course problems. It should be observed that while the provision of academic support can have a direct impact on the ability of students to persist, it can also indirectly affect persistence via its impact on student academic self-efficacy. To the degree that providing academic support improves students’ academic performance, so too does it impact students’ perceptions of their ability to succeed. That, in turn, enhances motivation to persist.

Providing Social Support Even when students are doing well academically, more than a few first-year students struggle to adjust to the social demands of university life. For most new students, it reflects the challenges they face decoding the social mores of campus life and making new friends. For some, especially from immigrant and/or minority backgrounds, decoding is often far from smooth and making friends difficult. For other students, it may reflect the difficulty they have managing the social and emotional toll of making the journey to degree completion when external obligations such as family and work pressures exist. Whether it involves the actions of individual advisors, counsellors, or student support service staff, the support they provide can often make the difference between staying and leaving especially during the first year; a year of transition that more than a few students find difficult to navigate on their own without the support of an

4

Increasing Student Persistence: Wanting and Doing

63

advisor (Strayhorn 2015). But as with academic struggles, students are often reluctant to seek out help dealing with the social struggles they often experience, especially during the first year. This is why many universities require first-year students to meet with their advisors or counsellors at least twice in the first year; advisors who are professionally trained especially as it pertains to the developmental issues facing traditional age students. Many universities also develop peer mentor programs for students, especially for those from under-represented groups or those who are first in their families to attend university (Cooper 2018; Yomtov et al. 2015). The most effective of these programs tend to be those that select peer mentors who are like those who they mentor and have been successful in navigating the choppy waters to persistence. The point of doing so is that they can serve as role models whose experiences provide meaningful examples that success of “students like myself” is possible. Their experiences can reshape new students’ perception of the possibility of their success in the university; “If they can do it, so can I.” At the same time, they can provide advice to students that is often difficult for university staff to provide. In any case, it is critically important that peer mentors are carefully selected and trained, and are able to communicate with professional advisors and counsellors when the need arise (Douglass et al. 2013). In this way, they become part of the broader network of early warning systems that enables the university to identify students who may need social as well as academic assistance.

Promoting Sense of Belonging Another action student support services can take to promote persistence are those that promote students’ sense of belonging. It is important to recall that sense of belonging mirrors students’ perceptions of their engagements and the meanings they draw from them, not simply from quantitative measures of engagement. Consequently while it is important for student support services to promote as many venues for student engagement beyond the classroom as possible (e.g., co-curricular activities) and do so in ways that respond to the diversity of students on campus, it is equally important that they work together with others on campus to ensure as best they can that the values that inform the broader culture of the institution and its settings are inclusive, validating and supportive of all students. This applies as well to many of the messages students receive from various sources on campus (Walton and Cohen 2007). This is especially important early in the first-year, as early as orientation, when initial perceptions are being formed. The goal of such actions is, on one hand, to promote as many communities of inclusion that enable all students to find some community to which they feel they belong and are valued, and, on the other hand, to work with others to ensure that all students, especially those who identify with smaller communities on campus do not see themselves as outcasts from the wider university community. Persistence, however, is not just a matter of social belonging. It is also one of academic belonging which by its very nature is necessarily social, indeed cultural, in character. In the same way that students need to feel they socially belong, they also have to feel a sense of belonging in various academic settings; that their academic

64

V. Tinto

participation is valued and their voices validated in those settings. Though academic belonging is primarily a reflection of student experiences in the classrooms and laboratories of the campus and, in turn, the actions of those who teach those classrooms and laboratories, there are still spaces where support services can help. These can often be found on the borders of academic and social life where the two intersect. It is for this reason that I have long advocated the development of learning communities, especially in the first-year. When properly implemented, learning communities lead students to extend their classroom engagements beyond the classroom in ways that cross academic and social borders (Tinto 1997, 2019). The very structure of the learning community, namely, the sharing of courses over a semester or year, provides a space in which social support can emerge. As one student we interviewed who was a participant in a learning community serving lowincome students that employed collaborative learning techniques told us “It (the learning community) was like a raft running the rapids of my life.”(Tinto 2003, 2019). One of the many benefits of such support is that it enhances student resilience. In a very real sense, the supportive community forms a web of supportive belonging that helps students manage challenges that arise, especially during the often-bumpy transition to university (Haktanir et al. 2018). Some institutions have established first-year learning communities that are residential in nature. These are typically referred to as living-learning communities (Brower and Inkelas 2010). Taking courses together and living together serves to blend the academic and social worlds in ways that is difficult to achieve in the classroom. In such communities, the staff of the learning communities includes not only academic staff, but also residential advisors and student support services who are partners in the social and intellectual development of the students in the community. It should be observed, however, that one of the dangers of residential learning communities is hyper-bonding among students. Students in the residential learning community tend to exclude anyone who is not a member of the community, thereby, limiting their inclusion into the broader university community. That is why it is recommended that at least one of the courses students take not be part of the learning community. What then about the many students who commute? What can support services do to promote their sense of belonging? The answer to that questions reflects what we know about their more common patterns of behavior on campus. For adult students who have other obligations beyond campus to which they must attend, it is typically the case that the only time they are on campus is when they attend classes. Once those classes are over, most leave to attend to their obligations. As such, their sense of belonging is primarily shaped by their experience in those classrooms and laboratories and, for some, their interactions with academic support staff who work with these places of learning. It follows, on one hand, that support staff have to work closely with the instructors of those classes and laboratories, especially in the first-year of study and, on the other, move to interact with those students beyond campus via virtual technology. Emails alone will not suffice. Even then there are other ways in which support services can help (Biddix 2015). One that is often overlooked is the development of places on campus designed to serve commuting students such as student unions (Guzman 2019).

4

Increasing Student Persistence: Wanting and Doing

65

Supporting Curricular Relevance As to the issue of curricular relevance, one that is normally seen as an academic matter that falls within the purview of the academic staff, there is also a role for student support services. Specifically, it can, and I might add should, work with academic staff to construct internships and service-learning opportunities for students. For the latter, this is not just a matter of selecting service sites, but of carefully coordinating the service provided at those sites with the instructor in ways that contextualize the learning within the course and give it relevance. An important component of service learning is the reflective journals students write that provide them an opportunity to reflect not only on their experience but also on the ways in which the course and service activities are intertwined. For many students it is a powerful learning experience (Tannenbaum and Berrett 2005).

Organization of Student Support Services There is still more that student support services can do to enable student success. But it is less about what they can do for students as it is what it can do for themselves. Specifically, they should organize itself on campus to become a “one-stop” shop (Powers et al. 2019). Rather than having students hunt for different services on campus, thereby decreasing the likelihood that they will access those services, a “one-stop” student support center increases the likelihood that students will not only access a particular service, but also discover other services that would also help them persist. Achieving that goal, however, requires that different services collaborate and share information to ensure the seamless movement of students in a support center. It also requires student support services carefully consider issues of naming, location, timing of services, technology (e.g., websites, mobile app, on-line scheduling), marketing, and professional development for center staff including cross-training. But it is not enough to simply re-organize its services if a center does not take account of how students perceive the center and the values that inform their experiences in it. As should be the case for other parts of the campus, the center should be seen as inclusive, supportive, and welcoming. Of course, it would not hurt to have a supply of healthy snacks on hand.

Persistence as Journey We have one last issue to consider. While we have discussed wanting and being able to persist and have explored what student support services can do to promote both, we have not yet discussed the when of support. When should different support services be provided to best promote persistence? The answer to this question lies in what we mean by persistence, or to be more precise, the process of persistence. The process of persistence is not static, unchanging over time. Rather it is a dynamic process that evolves over time from entry to degree completion. In a very real sense, it is a journey of becoming; a longitudinal process

66

V. Tinto

during which students become increasingly knowledgeable and skilled and, with support, increasingly confident in their ability to succeed in the university and beyond. For traditional age students it is also a period during which they undergo a range of intellectual and moral developmental changes that call for support services to be attentive to the challenges young people face at different stages of their journey to completion (London 1989; Elkins et al. 2000; Blair 2017). Not the least of these are the developmental challenges of becoming an independent adult; a period of developmental growth and adjustment that some refer to as emerging adulthood (Arnett 2000). Finally, it is a journey one of the outcomes of which is employment in one’s chosen occupation. What does this mean for the work of student support services? As regards the first year, it means that issues of goal clarification, student self-efficacy, sense of belonging, and acquisition of foundational knowledge and skills should be the primary focus of its actions. Students need to be clear in their goals, become confident in their ability to succeed, begin seeing themselves as members of academic and social communities that values their participation, and become increasingly knowledgeable and skilled in ways that enhances the likelihood of success in their chosen fields of study. Achieving those goals provide the foundation upon which subsequent success in university is built. For traditional age students, it also means that in the first year and those that follow, student support services need to be sensitive to the developmental changes students experience during their journey through the university and how these changes may differ among students of different attributes such as race, ethnicity, gender and first-generation (e.g., Gilligan 1982; Patton et al. 2007). (Though theories of student development have evolved over time, much of our understanding reflects the early work of Chickering (1969), Chickering and Reisser (1993), Kohlberg (1969) and Perry (1970).) In those years, student support services also need to provide continuing academic support for some and, in some cases, social support and career counselling (e.g., change of majors). In the latter years, as issues shift to those of curricular relevance and preparation for the world of work, the role of student support services becomes less direct and more in concert with the instructional staff of the departments in which students are enrolled (e.g., service learning and internships). Finally, an understanding of persistence as a developmental journey of becoming means that student support services have to carefully consider how their various actions should be phased in, blended and coordinated over the course of students’ journey to completion such that together they lead progressively to successful degree completion (Kezar and Holcombe 2017). (Kezar and Holcombe’s (2017) multi-institutional study of opportunity programs in STEM found that coordination among program initiatives was the primary distinguishing attribute of successful STEM programs.)

Closing Thoughts One can ask how our discussion applies to the increasing use of online classes, especially in a post-covid-19 world. While there are benefits to these technologies, evidence tells us that course performance and institutional retention has thus far suffered (Bettinger et al. 2017). Whether that finding will apply as well to the

4

Increasing Student Persistence: Wanting and Doing

67

increasingly sophisticated use of virtual classrooms remains to be seen. But one thing is clear. There is no substitute for face to face interactions among and between students, academic staff, and support service personnel. While those engagements can happen virtually, they do not convey the subtle messages that provide meaning to engagements that come about through face-to-face interaction since so much of the communication of meaning is colored not only by students’ particular lens but also by the posture, the look, and the way it is phrased. This should not be seen as an either-or situation, virtual or face-to-face, but part of a broader learning ecology where for some, in particular working adults, the virtual classroom may be the only option, while others the face-to-face environment may be preferred, and for others still, a blending of both, such as in hybrid classrooms, best serves their interests (Kek and Huijser 2017). The question then is not which mode of learning serves our students best, but how we can shape an agile learning ecology that enhances the opportunity for all students to learn while continuing to address the digital divide that disadvantages many students. How that plays out, however, will no doubt be different for graduate students than for traditional-age undergraduate students. The same can be said of the development of virtual campuses. They should become one component of a more agile higher education ecology that allows a wide range of students, both undergraduate and graduate, to engage with others on campus and in the classrooms in ways that reflect their changing individual circumstances. Such a “campus” would help make real the possibility of life-long and personalized learning for all, not just some, students. How such a campus evolves is to be determined. Safe to say that we will learn much from the experiences of universities across the globe as they adjust to the effects of the covid-19 pandemic. One thing seems clear. Higher education will look different than it does today. What does this mean for the work of student services? Though its work will remain largely unchanged, as it will still need to attend to issues that impact student motivation and ability to persist, the environment and the way in which it works will change. It too will have to develop an agile support services ecology that enables students to access support in ways that best suit their circumstances. As Huijser points out, any campus that relies solely on face-to-face support services potentially disadvantages large sections of their students (H. Huijser, June 7, 2020, personal communication). Conversely, any campus that relies solely on virtual support services potentially weakens the effectiveness of personal support as so much depends on the quality of human engagement that is not easily replicated in a virtual setting. That being said, a virtual campus allows for the development of a virtual “onestop” shop that enables students, in particular commuting students, ready access to support services that are otherwise difficult to access. Moreover, it can be a virtual meeting place that serves not only as an organizing framework that facilitates the shared actions of student support services, but also as a vehicle for the streamlining and integration of services in which are embedded a range of tools and resources. Together with targeted messaging, a virtual campus can also serve as an important component of a campus retention program, one that can provide real-time data on student needs and proactively reach out to students especially during the first year of university study.

68

V. Tinto

Conclusion While we have spoken of the ways in which student support services can help students persist, the task of improving student persistence is necessarily everyone’s responsibility. It takes people, especially academic and support staff, working together to construct settings, whether on campus or online, that seamlessly blend teaching and support to ensure that all students, not just some, are able to learn and persist to completion. Lest one forget, the object of our shared efforts is not merely that students persist and graduate, but are educated in doing so. Finally, we cannot overstate the importance of institutional culture. The willingness and ability of students to persist to completion reflects not just the actions of individuals and programs. It also reflects the culture they help establish that give meaning to student experiences. That culture must be one of empowering all students to want and be able to persist. Only then will the journey to completion be fully realized for all our students.

References Allen, D., R.S. Donham, and S.A. Bernhardt. 2011. Problem-based learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 28: 21–29. Arnett, J. 2000. Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist 55 (5): 469–480. Bandura, A. 1977. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review 84: 191–215. Bettinger, E., L. Fox, S. Loeb, and E. Taylor. 2017. Virtual classrooms: How online college courses affect student success. American Economic Review 107 (9): 2855–2875. Biddix, J.P. 2015. Understanding and addressing commuter student needs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Blair, A. 2017. Understanding first-year students’ transition to university: A pilot study with implications for student engagement, assessment, and feedback. Politics 37 (2): 215–228. Booker, K. 2016. Connection and commitment: How sense of belonging and classroom community influence degree persistence for African American undergraduate women. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 28 (2): 218–229. Brodie, L. 2009. eProblem-based learning: Problem-based learning using virtual teams. European Journal of Engineering Education 34 (6): 497–509. Brower, A.M., and K.K. Inkelas. 2010. Living-learning programs: One high-impact educational practice we now know a lot about. Liberal Education 96 (2): 36–43. Chemers, M.M., L. Hu, and B.F. Garcia. 2001. Academic self-efficacy and first-year college student performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology 93 (1): 55–64. Chickering, A.W. 1969. Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Chickering, A.W., and L. Reisser. 1993. Education and identity. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cooper, R. 2018. Connecting embedded and stand-alone peer mentoring models to enhance student engagement. Student Success 9 (2): 87–93. Douglass, A.G., D.L. Smith, and L.J. Smith. 2013. An exploration of the characteristics of effective undergraduate peer-mentoring relationships. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning 21 (2): 219–234. Dweck, C.S. 2006. Mindset. New York: Random House. Dweck, C.S., and E.L. Leggett. 1988. A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review 95 (2): 256–273. Egner, J.R., and D.J. Jackson. 1978. Effectiveness of a counseling intervention program for teaching career decision-making skills. Journal of Counseling Psychology 25 (1): 45–52.

4

Increasing Student Persistence: Wanting and Doing

69

Elkins, S.A., J.M. Braxton, and G.W. James. 2000. Tinto’s separation stage and its influence on first-semester college student persistence. Research in Higher Education 41 (2): 251–268. Flegg, J., D. Mallet, and M. Lupton. 2011. Students’ perceptions of the relevance of mathematics in engineering. International Journal of Mathematics in Engineering 43 (6): 717–732. Gilligan, C. 1982. In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gore, P., Jr. 2006. Academic self-efficacy as a predictor of college outcomes: Two incremental validity studies. Journal of Career Assessment 14 (1): 92–111. Grunspan, D.Z., B.L. Wiggins, and S.M. Goodreau. 2014. Understanding classrooms through social network analysis: A primer for social network analysis in education research. CBE-Life Sciences Education 13 (2): 167–178. Guzman, J.J. 2019. Student involvement and student unions: A case study of commuter students at a California State University. Unpublished master’s thesis, California State University, Fresno. Hagedorn, L.S., W. Chi, R.M. Cepeda, and M. McLain. 2007. An investigation of critical mass: The role of Latino representation in the success of urban community college students. Research in Higher Education 48 (1): 73–91. Haktanir, A., J.C. Watson, H. Ermis-Demirtas, M.A. Karaman, P.D. Freeman, A. Kumaran, and A. Streeter. 2018. Resilience, academic concept, and college adjustment among first-year students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1521025118810666. Hurtado, S., and D. Carter. 1966. Latino students’ sense of belonging in the college community: Rethinking the concept of integration on campus. In College students: Evolving nature of research, ed. F.K. Stage, G.L. Anaya, J.P. Bean, D. Hossler, and G. Kuh, 123–136. Needham Heights: Simon & Schuster Custom Publishing. Kek, M.Y.C.A., and H. Huijser. 2011. The power of problem-based learning in developing critical thinking skills: Preparing students for tomorrow’s digital futures in today’s classrooms. Higher Education Research and Development 30 (30): 329–341. Kek, M.Y.C.A., and H. Huijser. 2017. Problem-based learning into the future: Imaging an agile PBL ecology for learning. Singapore: Springer Nature. Kezar, A., and E. Holcombe. 2017. Creating a unified community of support: Increasing success of underrepresented students in STEM. The California State University STEM Collaboratives. Kohlberg, L. 1969. Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive-developmental approach. In Moral development and behavior: Theory, research and social issues, ed. T. Lickona. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Lin, L. 2017. Integrating the problem-based learning approach into a web-based English reading course. Journal of Educational Computing Research 56 (1): 105–133. London, H.B. 1989. Breaking away: A study of first-generation college students and their families. American Journal of Education 97 (2): 144–170. National Forum for Education Statistics. 2018. Forum guide to early warning systems. Publication Number NFES 2019035. National Center for Education Statistics. Owen, L. 2017. Student perceptions of relevance in a research methods course. Journal of Applied Research in Education 9 (3): 394–406. Patton, L.D., M. McEwen, L. Rendon, and M.F. Howard-Hamilton. 2007. Critical race perspectives on theory in student affairs. New Directions for Student Services 2007 (120): 39–53. Perry, W.G. 1970. Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Pokorny, H., D. Holley, and S. Kane. 2017. Commuting, transitions and belonging: The experiences of students living at home in their first year at university. Higher Education 74 (3): 543–558. Powers, E., H. Partridge, C. O’Sullivan, and M.Y.C.A. Kek. 2019. Integrated ‘one-stop’ support for student success: Recommendations from a regional university case study. Higher Education Research & Development 39 (3): 1–16. Prasad, J.J., M.B. Showler, A.M. Ryan, N. Schmitt, and C.A. Nye. 2017. When belief precedes being: How attitudes and motivation before matriculation lead to fit and academic performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior 41 (1): 27–42.

70

V. Tinto

Rendón, L.I. 1994. Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a new model of learning and student development. Innovative Higher Education 19 (1): 33–51. Rowell, P.C., A.K. Mobley, A.L. Giordano, and G. Kemer. 2014. Examination of group counseling model of career decision-making for college students. Journal of College Counseling 17 (1): 163–174. Schlossberg, N.K. 1989. Marginality and mattering: Key issues in building community. New Directions for Student Services 48: 5–15. Severiens, S.E., and H.G. Schmidt. 2009. Academic and social integration and study progress in problem-based learning. Higher Education 58 (1): 56–69. Sidanius, J., C. Van Laar, S. Levin, and S. Sinclair. 2004. Ethnic enclaves and the dynamics of social identity on the college campus: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87 (1): 96–110. Smith, R.A., and C. Vonhoff. 2019. Problematizing community: A network approach to conceptualizing campus communities. Journal of College Student Development 60 (3): 255–270. Steele, C. 1997. A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape the intellectual identities and performance of women and African-Americans. American Psychologist 52 (6): 613–629. Strayhorn, T. 2015. Reframing academic advising for student success: From advisor to cultural navigator. NACADA Journal 35 (1): 56–63. Strayhorn, T. 2019. College students’ sense of belonging: A key to educational success for all students. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge. Strobel, J., and A. van Barnevald. 2009. When is PBL more effective: A meta-synthesis of metaanalyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of ProblemBased Learning 3 (10): 44–58. Tannenbaum, S.C., and R.D. Berrett. 2005. Relevance of service-learning in college courses. Academic Exchange Quarterly 9 (1): 1096–1453. Tinto, V. 1997. Classrooms as communities: Exploring the educational character of student persistence. Journal of Higher Education 68 (6): 599–623. Tinto, V. 2003. Learning better together: The impact of learning communities on student success. Higher educational monograph series. Syracuse: Syracuse University. Tinto, V. 2015. Through the eyes of students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice 19 (3): 254–269. Tinto, V. 2019. Learning better together. In Transitioning students in higher education: Philosophy, pedagogy and practice, ed. A. Jones, A. Olds, and J. Lisciandro. London: Routledge. Walton, G.M., and G.L. Cohen. 2007. A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92 (1): 82–96. Wilson, T.D., and P.W. Linville. 1982. Improving the academic performance of college freshmen with attributional techniques. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42 (2): 367–376. Wilson, T.D., M. Damiani, and N. Shelton. 2002. Improving the academic performance of college students with brief attributional interventions. In Improving academic achievement: Impact of psychological factors on education, ed. J. Aronson, 89–108. New York: Academic. Yeager, D.S., and G.W. Walton. 2011. Social psychological intervention in education: They’re not magic. Review of Educational Research 81 (2): 267–301. Yomtov, D., S. Plunkett, R. Efrat, and A.G. Marin. 2015. Can peer mentors improve first-year experience of university students? Journal of College Student Retention: Research Theory & Practice 19 (1): 25–44.

5

Whole-of-Institution Transformation for First Year Learning and Success Sally Kift

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Student-Institution Relationship: It’s Complicated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Students as Customers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Students and Consumer Protection Guarantees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Students as Partners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Student Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Institutional Ecosystem and First Year Student Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transition Pedagogy: An Integrative, Whole-of-Institution Success Framework . . . . . . . . . . . Transformative Whole-of-Institution Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Student Support Services Transformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Whole-of-Institution Case Study: The Sector’s COVID-19 Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Partnering with Students Beyond the Pandemic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion and Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

72 73 74 76 77 78 79 80 82 83 85 86 87 88 89

Abstract

This chapter discusses the transformative potential of whole-of-institution approaches to the first year student experience, having specific regard to the enabling role of coordinated student support services. The complexity of the student-institution relationship is canvassed, through the lenses of metaphor and identity, and the shifting context that frames these discussions will be explicated, particularly: the reality that the future of work now requires a lifetime of learner engagement; and that the massification of participation and the diversification of the student body demand mainstream attention to mediating disadvantage. In considering the efficacy of large-scale institutional change and how that might be operationalized, the integrative framework of a “Transition Pedagogy” is examined. The distinctive features of Transition Pedagogy’s integrative S. Kift (*) Faculty of Business and Law, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 H. Huijser et al. (eds.), Student Support Services, University Development and Administration, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5852-5_34

71

72

S. Kift

potential are threefold: first, an intentional and foundational focus on curriculum to mediate the coherence and quality of the student experience cumulatively over the student lifecycle; secondly, a whole-of-institution and whole-of-student-life emphasis that delivers coordinated and integrated engagement and proactively intervenes to assure just-in-time, just-for-me support and a sense of belonging; and, thirdly, the enabling capacity of academic and professional staff working with students in cross-institutional partnerships with shared language, understanding and focus. The chapter concludes with a case study of recent wholeof-institution responses to the COVID-19 pandemic from the support services perspective and highlights the enhancement possibilities of working with students as partners as a harmonizing process to coalesce disparate agendas and co-create value for institutions and their students. Keywords

Transition pedagogy · Whole-of-institution · First year experience (FYE) · Student support services · Student identity

Introduction Students’ successful transition to higher education and a positive first year experience (FYE) are significant issues for higher education. The cost and impact of student departure remain highest in the first year – for institutions, individuals, their communities, and society at large – across a spectrum of reputational, ethical, personal, economic, and legal dimensions. In the context of a longstanding international agenda to widen participation for diverse underserved cohorts, the careful mediation of the FYE to support student outcomes has seen a dedicated focus on assuring and personalizing the quality of that experience, nudged by regulatory imposition of sector-wide standards and increasing public accountability measures. Decades of research nationally and internationally tell us that students consider leaving for many, often inter-related, reasons: a “complex combination of student characteristics, external pressures and institution-related factors” (Harvey et al. 2006: 16). This chapter will argue that what works best for diverse cohorts’ early learning success and retention is the assumption of whole-of-institution responsibility for changing, both culturally and structurally, the fundamental character of the FYE. When students are engaged and supported as active members of an inclusive and welcoming learning community that values and respects their individual motivations for, and expectations of, their university studies, and acknowledges their frequently complicated circumstances, a critical sense of academic and social belonging is activated. This chapter discusses the transformative potential of whole-of-institution approaches to the FYE, having specific regard to the enabling role of coordinated student support services. The complexity of the student-institution relationship will be canvassed, through the lenses of metaphor and identity, and the shifting context

5

Whole-of-Institution Transformation for First Year Learning and Success

73

that frames these discussions will be explicated, particularly: the reality that the future of work now requires a lifetime of learner engagement; and that the massification of participation and the diversification of the student body demand mainstream attention to mediating disadvantage. In considering the efficacy of largescale institutional change and how that might be operationalized, the integrative framework of a “Transition Pedagogy” will be examined. The chapter concludes with a case study of recent whole-of-institution responses to the COVID-19 pandemic from the support services perspective and highlights the enhancement possibilities of working with students as partners as a harmonizing process to coalesce disparate agendas and co-create value for institutions and their students.

The Student-Institution Relationship: It’s Complicated The relationship between a student and their institution over the course of the student lifecycle is complex and multifaceted, especially in these times of intense national and international competition for enrolments and given the demographic diversity of the student population. The relationship has become increasingly dynamic due to: the ascendancy of neoliberal ideology over recent decades (Zepke 2017); steady cost shifting from public to private funding; recent attempts to incentivize student choice for particular workforce outcomes; the publication of comparative institutional performance data to inform prospective student choice; increased focus on quality assurance and regulation; and a fractious relationship between government and higher education. The changing world of work is also affecting the learning relationship. Industry 4.0 workforce disruption – technological change wrought by automation, digitization, artificial intelligence, and robotics – has added life-wide and life-long dimensions to the education and training imperative. COVID-19 has served to further accelerate labor market uncertainty and workforce precarity. Workers now need to adapt continually to changes in industries and job tasks and to undertake additional learning over their working lives (AlphaBeta 2019). Questions are being asked about the value of formal tertiary qualifications, which are compared with on-the-job training, free online courses, and other short, flexible micro-credentials. Demand for better recognition of prior learning and experience, both formal and informal, has increased and adult learners say they want greater flexibility and choice in their study options (Universities UK 2020 January). For continuing relevance, our sector must look to reimagine its role and contribution in a connected post-compulsory education system that assures “all people, whoever and wherever they are, are enabled to successfully engage in beneficial lifelong learning” (Zacharias and Brett 2019: 7). In these challenging and changing circumstances, a single point-in-time characterization of “the” student-institution relationship, which ignores both the lived experience of diverse student populations and the reality of iterative up- and re-skilling needs, seems reductionist and ill-conceived. Nevertheless, as Tight (2013: 304) suggests, metaphors for students and their experience may be used to simplify, clarify and focus analysis and can “contribute to our understanding of

74

S. Kift

higher education policy.” And perhaps this is particularly the case when the sector is being increasingly conceptualized as a transactional industry governed by market processes: “an input–output system which can be reduced to an economic production function” (Olssen and Peters 2005: 324).

Students as Customers The broad conceptualization of student as “customer” or “consumer,” which has gained some prominence in contemporary higher education, including among students themselves, has been examined and problematized through many lenses. Tight (2013: 302) reviewed and critiqued various old and new metaphors for students: “student as customer or consumer, the student as client or co-producer, the student as child, employer or apprentice, and the student as pawn. . . the student as citizen or the student as pearl-seeker or pearl-maker (as in ‘the world’s your oyster’).” He settled, somewhat playfully, on “student as pawn” but decided, as must be true, that no single metaphor could be of universal application. Few commentators have disagreed and other examinations of the customer/ consumer metaphor have served, in their own ways, to elucidate how the student experience might (or might not) be positioned, commodified, or transacted as “education services” across the range of pedagogic, support, administrative, cultural, and environmental relationships that come into being between a specific institution and an individual student. Business and marketing analyses dominate the literature, as might be expected. The customer/ consumer metaphor has been considered from the point of view of management theory (Calma and Dickson-Deane 2020), higher education marketing (Guilbault 2018), and services marketing (Ng and Forbes 2009). Pitman (2016) has traced its evolution from a policy perspective, while Baldwin and James (2000) ask whether an Australian market in higher education, in a predominately public system, can operate effectively on its own terms when student choice is not particularly wellinformed or rational, despite various disparate efforts to inform and educate prospective students as “consumers” of higher education services. Tomlinson (2017: 464) interrogated students’ perceptions of themselves as consumers and found varying attitudes, though shared concerns around “getting a beneficial and equitable ‘return’ and value from higher education.” In Tomlinson’s study, students’ views ranged from those with strong consumerist alignment to those who equally strongly resisted the categorization as devaluing their active role and agency. In between, he found those who “[straddle] the boundaries between their rights as higher fee-payers and their responsibilities as individuals who need to succeed in higher-stakes markets” (Tomlinson 2017: 464). Matthews (2018) speaks for many when she observes that treating students like customers is perilous; a consumerist approach influences both how academics teach – fearfully in the shadow of bad teaching evaluations – and how students learn – poorly if passive and non-agentic in their own learning. When considering the role of student support services in the “marketplace,” opinions are also divided, though students seem more accepting of the relationship

5

Whole-of-Institution Transformation for First Year Learning and Success

75

as one of “service” provision with a customer/ consumer/ client, or at least a student satisfaction, remit. (Categorization of the intra-university relationship between disciplines and support service areas is more vexed and beyond the scope of this discussion, though frequently the subject of “service level agreements.”) A student-centered philosophy may be expressed with goodwill and care in consumerist language. For example in a study by Power et al., a participant said “across the board; customer service has to be paramount. Simply because the focus is on the student. . .” (Power et al. 2020: 569). Helpfully in this context, Koris and Nokelainen (2015: 128) interrogated various aspects – “categories” – of the student educational experience in a validated student-customer orientation questionnaire (SCOQ) “to identify the categories in which students expect [an institution] to be studentcustomer oriented.” They found that, even given intense competition in an international marketplace that commercialized education services, students were discerning across categories and . . .expect to be treated as customers in terms of student feedback, classroom studies, and to some extent also in terms of communication with administrative staff, individual studies, course design and teaching methods. However, they do not view themselves as customers when it comes to curriculum design, rigour, classroom behaviour and graduation. Regarding the category of grading, students did not display specific expectations. (Koris and Nokelainen 2015: 128)

Such findings suggest that institutions could mediate their relationship with students through language choice, consistency of communications, and the setting and management of student expectations. When thinking more broadly about these various “categories” of the educational experience, and students’ expectations of them, it is important to note in the Australian context that the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2015 (HESF) applies to all higher education institutions (HEIs) and is monitored by the sector regulator, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA). The HESF imposes minimum accountability standards for HEIs to assure the quality of the student experience and student outcomes for Australia’s approximately 1.5 million students. Specifically, the HESF sets out clearly the regulatory expectations of educational provision, including support services, in order to protect student interests and the sector’s reputation. The standards include requirements regarding, for example: student participation and attainment; the learning environment; wellbeing and safety; student grievances and complaints; staff and teaching quality; course design; learning resources; educational support provision; research training; internal quality assurance; student feedback opportunities; governance and accountability; policies; and representation and information provision. The HESF makes plain that all students are to have equivalent opportunities for success “irrespective of their educational background, entry pathway, mode or place of study” (HESF Standard 1.3.6). The reputational consequences of regulatory breach and subsequent imposition of public conditions on provider registration, regardless of whether students are considered to be consumers, are not insignificant.

76

S. Kift

Beyond this, the HESF sets the legislative benchmark for the standard of educational delivery and service provision. The import of this was exampled pre-pandemic in 2017, when the Higher Education Standards Panel (HESP) recommended, in light of evidence of lower completion rates for “external students,” that “Institutions should pay particular attention to ensuring their support services are meeting the needs of external students who are not regularly attending campus because these students are identified as at risk of not completing their studies” (Higher Education Standards Panel 2017a: 9, Recommendation 7). In a related recommendation, the HESP also called for every institution to develop its own retention strategy (2017a: 9, Recommendation 5). It is interesting to observe that the COVID-19 shift to online learning has led to numerous reports of students in other jurisdictions (for example, United States, United Kingdom and New Zealand) seeking redress and/or refunds for perceived shortfalls in online delivery relative to face-to-face expectations. Australian consumer protection guarantees for students will be addressed next.

Students and Consumer Protection Guarantees The question whether tertiary “educational services” are subject to the consumer protection guarantees set out in the Australian Consumer Law (“ACL”) under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) raises significant risk management and compliance issues for HEIs. Detailed consideration of this issue is beyond the scope of this chapter, and there is little legal precedent to assist with determining the extent of potential liability, but the possibility of legal action by a student consumer for the provision of poor quality educational services has been actively discussed by legal experts and considered by the Productivity Commission (2017). For example University compliance programs generally take account of their potential liability in this regard, especially in relation to their promotional and marketing activities. What is less well understood is that from 1 January 2011, the consumer guarantees regime which forms part of the ACL. . . applies to the supply of educational services by higher education providers. This new law could potentially have a significant effect on the university–student relationship and the student of today as ‘consumer’ (Corones 2012: 2).

Corones (2012) examined whether there had been breaches of the ACL consumer guarantees in the context of a 2011 Victorian Ombudsman’s investigation into the adequacy of universities’ English language support provision to international students. He concluded breaches had likely occurred and went on to say that, in the context of the demand driven system and educational services supplied to full-fee and part-fee paying students “in trade or commerce” . . .failure to comply with the consumer guarantees strengthen[s] the hand of students as consumers of educational services. While it can be difficult for students to prove that any loss they have suffered is not their own fault, it is now possible for a student admitted into

5

Whole-of-Institution Transformation for First Year Learning and Success

77

university with a low ATAR or less academic preparation to argue that the university was obligated to provide additional support to compensate, and that the lack of such support is a breach of the consumer guarantees. Higher education providers need to manage student expectations and to put in place risk management programs to limit their potential liability. (Corones 2012: 4)

It has been observed in this context that a failure to meet the regulatory requirements of the HESF could provide benchmark evidence that the “educational service” had not been supplied in conformity with the ACL guarantees of due care and skill and fitness for purpose (Productivity Commission 2017).

Students as Partners A much more sustaining conceptualization of student identity is that of “student as partner” (SaP) (Cook-Sather et al. 2014; sparqs 2011) and, relatedly, “active citizen” (Zepke 2017). This framing acknowledges that students participate fully in their own learning and can shape their experience and institutional communities with moral purpose, agency and honed criticality. Partnership is said to entail “a collaborative, reciprocal process through which all participants have the opportunity to contribute equally, although not necessarily in the same ways, to curricular or pedagogical conceptualization, decision-making, implementation, investigation, or analysis” (Cook-Sather et al. 2014: 6–7). Institutional engagement with SaP is positioned as transcending a neo-liberal, students-as-customers mindset: “SaP practice lies at the core of the mutual learning model and [is] viewed by practitioners as a powerful counter-narrative to the traditional teacher-student and consumer models” (Matthews et al. 2018a: 960). In the Matthews et al. study, research participants posited SaP as “a counter-narrative to perceived neoliberal agendas. . . [they] conceptualised SaP practices as reciprocal and collaborative and stressed the need for respect, trust, and communication. . . both as a concept and in practice [SaP] resonated with notions of liminal space and suggested an ethic of care” (Matthews et al. 2018a: 965; see also sparqs 2011). This process of engagement is explicitly relational and empowers students to feel part of a supportive institutional culture that values and collaborates with students for students’ institutional enhancement of their experience. As Dollinger and Vanderlelie (2020: 2) note, SaP methods and approaches vary considerably, allowing for extensive opportunities for students and staff “to co-govern, co-inform, co-research, and co-lead various opportunities and programs that underpin the university experience. . . to jointly co-create value.” While a great deal of SaP attention is focused on co-design in and for curriculum to improve learning and teaching (for example, Cook-Sather et al. 2014; Matthews et al. 2018a), it is clear that student support services and activities can also benefit from being student led and/or student shaped (Dollinger and Vanderlelie 2020; sparqs 2011). In the pandemic wash-up, the co-design of an institution’s digital environment and experience, broadly and for learning engagement specifically, would seem a fertile area for SaP engagement (Killen and Chatterton 2015).

78

S. Kift

Student Identity The discussion so far has canvassed metaphors for students, legislative and regulatory perspectives of the student-institution relationship and student identity as partners in or co-creators of educational value. While an extensive examination of student identity formation is beyond this scope of this chapter, it might be observed that the construction of student identity in higher education, in light of this background and the contemporary diversity of student populations, is complex, multifaceted and sometimes contradictory. While metaphors and statements of standards may perhaps assist with understanding aspects of student identity and its formation, one-dimensional conceptualizations fail to account for the multifaceted influence that various dispositional, situational and institutional factors, which interrelate in idiosyncratic and changeable ways for individual learners, have on identity construction, especially over time and during critical transitions. For example, transitioning into university can involve “a complex negotiation between existing, expected and desired identities” (O’Shea 2014: 138). Respecting and valuing our students requires that we do not carelessly decontextualize them and the nuances of their circumstances within an idealized straightjacket of “one-size-fits-all” identity. Rather, we should acknowledge and facilitate the reality of their multiple, and sometimes competing, identities, as they move between their various work-life-study roles, and strive to support the development of a sense of meaningful belonging at an individual level of relatedness or connection. The scaffolded development of self-efficacy and discipline agency within supportive institutional structures, can assist with building familiarity with, and ultimate mastery of, the tertiary student role for a learner persona, but “Identity is not unitary in nature, nor is its development a linear process” (Taylor et al. 2007: 548). Thomas (2012) refers to students being supported to identify concurrently as successful higher education learners and for cohort identity within disciplines. O’Shea (2014: 145) explores the complex lived experience of first-in-family, female students’ changes in identity and their self-perceptions as learners, as they transition into their first year and “become” university students; “the emerging learning identity perhaps having to sit uncomfortably alongside others.” Further to this, Taylor et al. (2007) draw on the work of Bridges (2003) to conceptualize a sequence of identities, which co-exist with varying emphases over three phases of transition (separation, transition, and reincorporation) as students move from their pre-admission state, into and through university life, and out into the post-graduation world of work. In naming the identity foci – “pre-enrolment identity; a tertiary student identity; and, a professional identity” (2007: 549) – in workshops with students and discussions with sessional staff, the researchers found that they had given expression to, and normalized, the emotional as well as the intellectual demands of student transition. As we move to consider next what works for early student engagement and success, we do well to recall the complexity of the student-institution relationship, and the very individual experience of it, to ensure our responses are sufficiently inclusive of all students.

5

Whole-of-Institution Transformation for First Year Learning and Success

79

The Institutional Ecosystem and First Year Student Success The first section of this chapter examined the complexity of the student-institution relationship and considered student identity formation for diverse student cohorts who transition to university with multiple, and sometimes competing, identities. It canvassed briefly the current policy context for higher education, COVID-19’s acceleration of the future of work as already impacted by Industry 4.0 disruption, and the contemporary reality of iterative up- and re-skilling education needs over a working lifespan. This wicked combination of contemporary challenges asks big questions of our sector, not the least of which is how do we assure student success and the quality of the FYE in the midst of such tumult and upheaval? This section explores what works best for early student engagement and success and the role of student support services in that conceptualization. The starting proposition, taken from the What Works? Project investigating retention and success in the United Kingdom (Thomas 2012: 15), is that, for all students “effective interventions are situated in the academic sphere. . .[they] start pre-entry, and have an emphasis on engagement and an overt academic purpose.” Specifically, as regards student support services . . .professional services make an important contribution to the development of some students’ knowledge, confidence and identity as successful HE learners, both pre- and postentry. This includes, for example, enabling students to make informed choices about institutions, subjects and courses, and to have realistic expectations of HE study. Many students, however, are not aware of the services and/or do not use them. Professional services can be particularly effective when they are delivered via the academic sphere, rather than relying on students accessing these services autonomously, due to constraints of time on campus. (Thomas 2012: 18).

Tinto (2009: 2) exhorts universities to “stop tinkering at the margins of institutional academic life and . . . establish those educational conditions on campus that promote the retention of students, in particular those of low-income backgrounds.” Deficit approaches to student inclusion blame students for their lack of understanding, integration, aspirations and academic preparation (Lawrence 2005; Naylor and Mifsud 2019; Thomas 2012). Research, however, suggests that focusing on institutions, rather than on student characteristics, has far greater predictive power for attrition and retention. When the HESP (2017b) conducted its analysis of cohort completion rates, it found that only 22.55% of the variation in first year attrition could be explained by demographic variables at the individual student level (for example, mode of study, type of attendance, age, socioeconomic status and cultural background). In a complementary piece of work, TEQSA (2017) examined the relationship between institutional characteristics and first year attrition and found that institutional characteristics account for 41% of variation in attrition at the whole-of-sector level (all HEIs) and 86% for universities. These analyses provide strong grounds for focusing student success attention on institutional responses, culture and structures, rather than on purported student “remediation”; what Naylor and Mifsud call “internal structural inequalities” (2019: 47).

80

S. Kift

When considering what matters to first year students’ sense of belonging, persistence, and consequent retention and success, it has been said that it is “students’ total experience of university – not just what happens in the traditional classroom – that shapes their judgments of quality, promotes retention and engages them in productive learning” (Scott 2006: vii). The leading first year proponents in the United States who were instrumental in the development of the First-Year Focus – Foundational Dimensions ® (John Gardner Institute for Excellence in Undergraduate Education 2005: n.p.) have long advocated for institutional assumption of responsibility to assure and sustain “comprehensive, integrated, and coordinated approaches” to the FYE. The aspiration is for an institutional ecosystem that: prioritizes and values an inclusive FYE; embraces an ethic of care in the delivery of relationship-rich experiences for an authentic sense of welcome and belonging; proactively facilitates the successful meditation of desirable competency development; and respects the embodied nature of individual engagement. The imperative to get this right is urgent. In Australia, annual national Student Experience Survey (SES) data highlight that the top reasons for considering early departure over the last five years of reporting (2015–2019) have been: health or stress; study life balance; workload difficulties; need to do paid work; financial difficulties; expectations not met; and personal reasons (Social Research Centre 2020). In New Zealand, “Too much going on in my life” was the top reason for students considering early departure (Zepke et al. 2005a). How the interplay of student and institutional factors might be better managed at the “educational interface” of the institutional ecosystem to build students’ psychosocial and mediating capabilities of self-efficacy, emotion, belonging and well-being (Kahu and Nelson 2018: 63) is discussed next, utilizing Transition Pedagogy as the early engagement integrator.

Transition Pedagogy: An Integrative, Whole-of-Institution Success Framework Transitioning to university is challenging. First year students face unique challenges as they make very individual transitions to university study; particularly academically and socially, but also culturally, administratively, and environmentally. In Australia, Transition Pedagogy (TP) (Kift 2009, 2015; Kift et al. 2010) has emphasized the importance of implementing whole-of-institution, whole-of-student-life approaches strategically across the entirety of a student’s institutional interactions and engagements to “control for the vagaries at the student-institution interface” (Kift 2015: 60). TP’s underpinning philosophy is relatively simple: an integrative framework, enabled by institution-wide partnerships of academics, professional staff (for example: language and learning advisors, careers and employability experts, librarians, equity practitioners) and students, working together to focus on what learners have in common – their educational experience mediated through curriculum – rather than problematizing diversity and positioning its “remediation” outside the curriculum via siloed, inequitable, and de-contextualized support.

5

Whole-of-Institution Transformation for First Year Learning and Success

81

To facilitate a quantum leap from deficit thinking to positive policy and action, TP’s implementation is underpinned by six first year curriculum principles that harness inclusive curriculum as the academic and social organizing device (McInnis 2001) and engagement integrator. The six principles – Transition; Diversity; Design; Engagement; Assessment; and Evaluation and Monitoring – provide a common language for galvanizing whole-of-institution focus and collaborative endeavor. TP’s integrative potential is what defines TP as a “third generation” FYE approach; one that combines first generation (co-curriculum) and second generation (inclusive curriculum) approaches for mature, seamless and scalable institution-wide implementation. It provides the framing for institutions to deploy just-in-time, just-for-me interventions proactively embedded in scaffolded curriculum design for the contextualized development of discipline skills and literacies. Moreover, in the context of the student mental health crisis, well-designed first year curriculum provides the foundations for student mental wellbeing when it is: aligned; optimally organized, and sequenced; affords choice and flexibility in approach; creates social connections; builds competence through self-efficacy; and fosters intrinsic motivation (Baik et al. 2016). Simply put, if we drive everything that matters for student success through the curriculum – make the administration of learning easy, triage access to timely support, ensure connection and belonging to a learning community – and if we anticipate and pre-empt the inevitable peaks and troughs of the first year lifecycle, then we free students up to focus their energy on learning engagement. Such an integrated and holistic model is effective, efficient, and, critically, sustainable once it becomes enmeshed perennially in core curriculum development and delivery. At each level of the education ecosystem, macro (sector), meso (institutional), and micro (course) levels, TP particularly eschews the positioning of students as being largely responsible for their own academic integration and success. Rather, TP encourages institutions to “adapt their administrative and academic cultures to meet the diverse interests of their students” (Zepke et al. 2005b: 5), across all policy, process and practice interactions. As Zepke et al. observe (2005b: 5): “A strong theme in the adaptation literature is that all students bring cultural capital to their learning. Where this is valued, they are more likely to succeed.” Similarly, an Australian national project on effective teaching and support for low socioeconomic status (LSES) student success, argued that, “Rather than being the primary responsibility of solely the student or the institution to change to ensure LSES student success, . . . adjustments would be most usefully conceptualised as a ‘joint venture’ toward bridging sociocultural incongruity” (Devlin et al. 2012: 7). The sector-wide influence of TP’s 2009 integrative principles is now evident in HESF Standard 1.3: Orientation and Progression which refers to: strategies to support transition; assessing the needs and preparedness of individual students and cohorts; early assessment and formative feedback; access to informed advice and timely referral; and identifying and supporting students at risk. What the various observations in this section demonstrate is that the student experience, transacted over the daily, weekly, monthly, yearly ebb and flow of the student lifecycle, can be impacted by many factors, which the institution as “expert

82

S. Kift

facilitator” is usually better placed to acknowledge and mediate than the individual student. The recent experience of the pandemic has served to further underscore the potential fragility of early learning engagement as educational disadvantage became largely mainstreamed. In 2020, many students were newly disadvantaged by the rapid shift to online, off-campus delivery enacted in response to COVID-19, while other students had their existing disadvantage exacerbated. The impact of COVID19 disadvantage has been pervasive and frequently cumulative – academically, psychosocially, financially, health-wise, personally (due to caring, home-schooling and work commitments) and logistically (for example, as regards digital poverty). A not-unwelcome consequence has been that dedicated attention to inclusion has quickly become a macro, whole system, imperative, rather than a cohort specific one. By April 2020, the World Bank (Bassett and Arnhold 2020: n.p.) had already identified three major equity challenges for tertiary education arising from the pandemic: “students’ lives, not just their academic programs, have been disrupted”; the digital divide has exposed the inequity of online learning; and there is “a disproportionate likelihood that under-served and at-risk students will not return when campuses reopen.” These are all (further) matters beyond the mediation of individual students and institutions have been encouraged to consider their position as “first responders” to mitigate inequities and devise interventions for persistence and retention (Bassett and Arnhold 2020: n.p.). Tinto has said (2008: 9) “access without support is not opportunity.” Gale (2009: 9) adds that “opportunity confined to support is not equity” and says Like Kift, I too argue that the most effective site to engage in changing higher education is from the centre. Student support services are important and essential but. . . they are largely peripheral to the mainstream of higher education. A student equity agenda for higher education must centre on the student learning environment and experience if it is to challenge the exclusion of certain bodies and what they embody. (Kift 2009: 10)

It is within this frame that this chapter now proceeds to consider how whole-ofinstitution approaches might facilitate the integration and interconnection between student support services and the broader student learning experience to support first year success.

Transformative Whole-of-Institution Approaches Effective and sustainable whole-of-institution approaches for the FYE are founded in shared vision and values and operationalized through the collective assumption of responsibility, culturally and structurally, for norms of systemic inclusion across the institution and all of its constituent parts, students and staff. Concurrently with the conceptualization of TP in Australia, Jones and Thomas (2005) in the UK identified three paradigms to categorize and understand potential meso level (institutional) approaches in response to the macro level (government) agenda of widening participation:

5

Whole-of-Institution Transformation for First Year Learning and Success

83

• The “academic” model that supports the “cream” of equity cohorts to assimilate into the existing student body with little or no institutional reform • The “utilitarian” approach of differential provision that “bolts on” support provision for under-represented students, leaving other parts of the institution unaffected • The rarely embraced (at that time) “transformative” paradigm where “all of an institution’s activities are to be underpinned and informed by valuing and learning from difference and diversity,” which are viewed as positive assets (Jones and Thomas 2005: 619) Large-scale transformation can be progressed within a facilitative institutional ecosystem characterized by key enablers: distributed learning leadership (all staff and students); partnerships between academic and professional staff and students; the explicit adoption of a strengths-based success focus; building institutional and staff capability; and a data-intelligent ethos that commits to the use of evidence and criticality to inform iterative improvement and enhancement (Jones and Thomas 2005; Kift 2015; Thomas 2012). Transformation requires cohesion and alignment across otherwise disparate foci of institutional action; across prioritization and planning, policy and practices, systems and processes, course design and development, service provision and infrastructure management. HEIs are complex organizations and delivering a comprehensive process of change at scale, that cuts across culture, structures, processes, and governance, is no easy task. Naylor and Mifsud (2019: 3) suggest that “the ‘problem’ of enacting structurally enabling change can be [better] accomplished by continuous, modular transformation (that is, focusing on relatively small changes in specific areas at a time), rather than attempting sweeping organisational change.” This is good advice if the overarching institutional vision is strongly enunciated and led “top-down, bottom-up” (Kift 2008) to interweave cultural and structural elements. This is demanding hearts’ and minds’ work; it requires a sustained focus and the nurturing of patient capital. Building the social justice and ‘corporate social responsibility’ business case for such a transformative approach, Shaw et al. (2007: 48) have encouragingly observed that focusing on the “the changes to curriculum provision and learning, teaching and assessment, which have occurred alongside the transition from an elite to a mass participation HE sector, benefit all students and can have a positive impact on higher level and critical thinking skills.”

Student Support Services Transformation Kift’s third generation TP provides an example of a transformative, whole-ofinstitution approach to the FYE. Though intentionally focused on curriculum as the success integrator, TP’s efficacy depends on a facilitative institutional ecosystem and works actively to “bridg[e] the gaps between academic, administrative and support programs” (McInnis 2003: 13) for student-facing coherence and visibility. In this context, support services have a dual responsibility: holistic coordination

84

S. Kift

across their discrete remits; and their contextualized integration with the student learning experience at critical intervention points (Naylor et al. 2013), desirably with warm handovers between points (for example, from outreach to marketing, to conversion pipeline, to course advising and enrolment, to orientation, to first teaching week, to census date, etc.). The first of these dual responsibilities is well exampled by the “one-stop” integration of student support services described by Power et al. (2020), which emphasizes a philosophy of student-centeredness supported by: a shared understanding of all services’ capabilities and scope; continuing professional development; and formal and informal communications within and between teams for effective collaboration and referrals across services. Naylor and Mifsud (2019) caution that centralization of services essentially remains a passive solution – students are still required to “actively seek out help” (2019: 38). Many institutions have developed student portals and AI “chatbot” functionality for student advising purposes to assist in this regard, with great potential for iterative improvement as the accessibility of search terms is enhanced. As this coordination work proceeds, opportunities for improvement will doubtless present, as evidence of fragmentation and potential for integration are detected. When clarity of coordinated provision is achieved, student communications messaging can normalize access to support services as an integral component of the broader student experience (for example, positioned as “what successful students do”). As an institution’s digital transformation is progressed across functions, information and processes (managing the privacy, security and ethical challenges), datadriven leadership can harness the use of evidence and criticality to inform further institutional improvement across the (now) fully integrated support services suite – administration, advising and degree planning, early alerts and proactive success interventions, degree tracking, uptake of support services, and for teaching, learning and assessment enhancement (Brown et al. 2020). By way of further example, students frequently report early difficulty in navigating university support services and systems (Lawrence 2005). These first negative interactions “can strongly influence a student’s sense of capacity and belonging to the institution” (Naylor and Mifsud 2019: 19). Negotiating the strictures of learning’s administration can be particularly fraught. Students find university jargon, bureaucracy, impenetrable websites, lack of co-ordination and administrative inflexibility particularly jarring and alienating. This has led researchers to observe that student administration services are “particularly likely to present opportunities for transitioning to structurally enabling approaches” and should be a dedicated focus of leadership attention (Naylor and Mifsud 2019: 49). In their examination of university support services for regional, rural, and remote students transitioning to university, Matthews et al. (2018b) identified the importance of targeted and timely communications about support services, especially for students with differing needs and expectations. In circumstances where, despite best efforts, many students remain unaware of services’ existence and how to access them, Matthews et al. developed a framework for support provision that included: resourcing of services for academic and non-academic needs; development of a sense of belonging through support provision;

5

Whole-of-Institution Transformation for First Year Learning and Success

85

proactive and specialized communication about service availability; and usage and effectiveness monitoring of services for relevance and helpfulness. A case study of the sector’s COVID-19 response from the whole-of-institution perspective is discussed next.

Whole-of-Institution Case Study: The Sector’s COVID-19 Response Higher education’s response to COVID-19 has ably demonstrated that significant enhancements are possible in the whole-of-institution coordination of, and collaboration for, integrated responses. Not to understate the effort involved, nor the likely toll taken on staff in the urgency of its delivery, new institution-wide partnerships between professional and academic colleagues were rapidly activated. Working in ways, and with respect and compassion that we may not have seen before, staff assumed individual and collective responsibility to do what was required to upscale and pivot to online learning, teaching and support delivery. For example, technology enhanced learning advisors worked with academics to deliver digital learning resources and curated content in new synchronous and asynchronous formats. They liaised with equity and accessibility teams to assure the delivery of online environments with maximum inclusiveness. And they worked with academic developers to produce quick, “how-to” learning design guides for resource and courseware development. Information Technology departments coordinated whole-of-institution acquisition and rollout of new and/or modified platforms for rapid uptake, seeking also to manage and assure data privacy and cyber security in that process. Librarians, language and learning advisors and educational designers coordinated their efforts to develop key resources to support students in the move online, while many students developed their own advice and resources for both peers and teachers. Student services professionals worked hard to co-ordinate “single-point-of-truth” web-based hubs, enhanced chatbot functionality (for plain language searching) and other pandemic messaging to mediate 24/7 consistency and coherence in information flow and expectation management. Critical student support services rapidly transformed their service delivery to off-campus/ online environments in areas such as student well-being, online mentoring, learning support, and the day-to-day crisis management of coping with change. Policy guardians and managers anticipated inevitable requests for policy relaxations and administrative flexibility around issues such as: assessment extensions; accommodations for extenuating circumstances; withdrawals and leaves of absence; recording of fails; financial support; and admissions for the next academic term. Whole sector responses and coordination were also evident. For example, there was a global movement to rapidly reframe assessment away from invigilated closed book exams (for example, Deneen 2020; Sambell and Brown 2020) and to leverage the contemporary focus on academic integrity and contract cheating (see, for example, the TEQSA website curation of assessment integrity resources during COVID-19 https://www.teqsa.gov. au/assessment-integrity).

86

S. Kift

Hopefully, these positive cultural and structural shifts in institutional cohesiveness and co-ordination will be sustained post-pandemic and for business as usual in the longer term. The culture piece is particularly important: it seems that, perhaps for the first time, institutions (and the sector as a whole) better understood the complex interrelationship between diversity, disadvantage, and engagement, beyond the dominant, on-campus paradigm, and saw the necessity and value in initiating and implementing equitable (to be compared with equality-based) interventions. This is a significant step-change in values, attitudes, and practices that played out very visibly over the course of the pandemic response.

Partnering with Students Beyond the Pandemic It has been suggested that many pandemic decisions that profoundly affected students, including changes to assessment practices and remote proctoring, were made by HEIs at speed without widespread (or any) student consultation (Schwartz and Pisacreta 2020). There is every reason to expect that, moving into the next phase of crisis review for future planning, engagement with SaP for complex institutional decision-making will resume. It would be valuable now also to establish processes with SaP for inclusive management of future crises. Reflection on lessons learnt from COVID-19 responses, in collaborative partnership with students, presents a singular opportunity for the sector to re-examine and re-set long espoused beliefs and practices across the breadth of the student experience, and particularly as regards what works for, and has potential to influence more inclusively, success in the digital environment (Killen and Chatterton 2015). By way of final example, Dollinger and Vanderlelie (2020) bring the various threads discussed in this chapter together in their recent account of a whole-ofinstitution approach to facilitating student-staff partnerships using co-design workshops –“CoLabs” – to improve university performance and student-informed market orientation. The authors outline various techniques and two case studies (library refurbishment and student volunteering) that have led to tangible service improvements and innovations. They observe that more than one purpose may be served by such engagement when students are positioned as “sources of knowledge or experts” rather than as “consumers” or “customers” (2020: 1). They argue cogently “that the implementation of co-design can be both a benefit to the marketization of higher education as well as support quality educational outcomes and social equity” (2020: 4). Writing a decade earlier in the context of the marketisation of UK higher education, Ng and Forbes (2009: 58) similarly observed that . . .good marketing and a student orientation do not need to be at the expense of good education. The two are allies, not adversaries. Marketing can help universities reach out and genuinely develop insights into student needs and communicate their ideologies.

Just as many student-institution interactions include elements of both service provision and learner engagement as aspects of an integrated whole, so too here: dual

5

Whole-of-Institution Transformation for First Year Learning and Success

87

and complementary foci can be beneficial, not necessarily detrimental, especially when there is a perception gap between students’ expectations and needs and the institutional view of what is required (Ng and Forbes 2009). These are productive conversations that can only serve to enhance the student experience, whatever other (consumerist) uses might be otherwise made of them.

Conclusion and Future Directions Responsibility for student engagement and learning success does not reside solely with commencing students; the whole of an institution – its culture, structures, systems, curriculum, policies, practices, infrastructure, support services, academics, professional staff, SaP, managers, and governing body – carries the primary responsibility to adapt iteratively and assure constantly that the necessary conditions and opportunities exist so that student success is not left to chance. In pursuing this challenging change agenda, it is important to understand that the relationship between institution and individual student is complex, multifaceted, and changeable over time, now further exacerbated by COVID-19’s universalizing of disadvantage and renewed focus on a pervasive digital student experience. But its core positioning must be respect for and valuing of the reality of individual students’ differentiated experiences of learning and their embodied understandings of success. This chapter has canvassed the transformative potential of a whole-of-institution approach to first year student success, with a focus on the enabling role of student support services. Recognizing the complexity and interconnectedness of this cultural and structural reimagining, the integrative framework of a “Transition Pedagogy” has been suggested to operationalize such large-scale institutional change. From a strengths-base perspective, TP leverages what students have in common – their learning experiences mediated through curriculum – and values, rather than problematizes, diversity and difference. Critically, TP offers a shared language, a strategic focus and the triggering enabler of broad-based partnership capability to move from rhetoric to action for student success activation. A case study of the sector’s response to COVID-19 shines a light on the promise of what could be, if all institutional actors are willing and able to put individuals’ student success at the center of the educational enterprise. As we embark on the next iteration of our internal rendering of seamless integration of the sum of our institutional parts, the external stakes could not be higher. And herein lies the challenge for our sector’s future. In 2021, we renew our educational efforts, not only under severe financial strain, but in an environment where the very value of higher education is being challenged and we are exhorted to better align our courseware with national economic and social needs. As universities respond to the combined employability pressures of Industry 4.0 and COVID-19, as they look to move into new markets for education and training for diverse second chance learners, and as they seek to re-negotiate higher education’s social contract with society to regain public and political trust and empathy, our continued relevance demands attention to learner-centered innovation and renewal for a better

88

S. Kift

normal (Kift 2020). Our considered response must transcend the traditional and clumsy atomization of the learning remit that has characterized our business as usual work to date. In the face of cogent calls for a connected post-secondary ecosystem, we must activate our students’ life-long and life-wide capabilities for learning, criticality, and active citizenship. Crucially, we must shift our conceptualization of learner identity to one that spans all sectors – schooling, tertiary (vocational and higher) education, and beyond to continuing professional development – and articulate our role within that paradigm. And we must engage with students and industry as partners and co-creators to develop innovative courses that explicitly connect higher education to the future workplace for the greater educational common good. These are significant challenges (and opportunities) for our sector, which will only be met (and realized) once we are confident of our institutional capacity and capability for integrated responses to our current educational remit. To use the consumerist language of the ACL – we must develop and deliver courseware and supported learning experiences with due care and skill, that are fit-for-purpose and capable of achieving the desired (future-focused education) result within a reasonable (course) time frame. As our sector emerges and regroups from the COVID-19 health, economic, and educational crisis with greater empathy for, and understanding of, the stultifying effect of disadvantage on student retention and success, it is to be hoped that the significant gains made in our capability for whole-of-institution collaboration across academic and professional silos will be sustained. Working with our agentic students in a new era of institution-wide and sector-wide solidarity augurs well for a bright educational future that will benefit our nation and all of its citizens and their communities.

Cross-References ▶ A Continuum of Language Support Services for Undergraduate Students: Case Studies of Integrating Academic Literacy ▶ A Digital Student Journey: Supporting Students in an Age of Super Complexity ▶ A View of the Contents of the Typical First-Year Virtual Uni Bag: Helping Staff and Students Develop a Pedagogy for Successful Transition ▶ Exploring the Impact of Learning Development on Student Engagement, Experience, and Learning ▶ From “Customer” to “Partner”: Approaches to Conceptualization of StudentUniversity Relationships ▶ How to Increase Retention and Graduation Rates ▶ Learner Support Services in an Online Learning Environment ▶ The Challenge of Student Mental Well-Being: Reconnecting Students Services with the Academic Universe ▶ The Student “Experience” in Commercialized Higher Education

5

Whole-of-Institution Transformation for First Year Learning and Success

89

References AlphaBeta. 2019. Future skills. Available at: https://www.alphabeta.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/ 01/google-skills-report.pdf. Accessed Aug 2020. Baik, C., W. Larcombe, J. Wyn, L. Allen, M. Brett, R. Field, R. James, and A. Brooker. 2016. A framework for promoting student mental wellbeing in universities. Canberra: Australian Government Department of Education and Training. Available at: http://unistudentwellbeing. edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/MCSHE-Student-Wellbeing-Framework_FINAL.pdf. Accessed Aug 2020. Baldwin, G., and R. James. 2000. The market in Australian higher education and the concept of student as informed consumer. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 22 (2): 139–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/713678146. Bassett, R.M., and N. Arnhold. 2020 April. COVID-19’s immense impact on equity in tertiary education. World Bank Blogs. Available at: https://blogs.worldbank.org/education/covid-19simmense-impact-equity-tertiary-education. Accessed Aug 2020. Bridges, W. 2003. Managing transitions. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Pereseus Publishing. Brown, M., M. McCormack, J. Reeves, D.C. Brooks, and S. Grajek with B. Alexander, M. Bali, . . . . N. Weber. 2020. 2020 EDUCAUSE horizon report, teaching and learning edition. Louisville: EDUCAUSE. Available at: https://library.educause.edu/resources/2020/3/2020-educausehorizon-report-teaching-and-learning-edition. Accessed Aug 2020. Calma, A., and C. Dickson-Deane. 2020. The student as customer and quality in higher education. International Journal of Educational Management 34 (8): 1221–1235. https://doi.org/10.1108/ IJEM-03-2019-0093. Cook-Sather, A., C. Bovill, and P. Felten. 2014. In Engaging students as partners in learning and teaching: A guide for faculty, ed. Maryellen Weimer. San Francisco: Josey-Bass. Corones, S. 2012. Consumer guarantees and the supply of educational services by higher education providers. University of New South Wales Law Journal 35 (1): 1–30. Deneen, C. 2020 May. Assessment considerations in moving from closed-book to open-book exams. Melbourne CSHE teaching and learning short guide series. Melbourne: Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education. Devlin, M., S. Kift, K. Nelson, L. Smith, and J. Mackay. 2012. Effective teaching and support of students from low socioeconomic status backgrounds: Resources for Australian Higher Education. Final report 2012. Sydney: Office for Learning and Teaching. Available at: http://www. lowses.edu.au/assets/ALTC%20LSES%20Final%20Report%202012.pdf. Accessed Aug 2020. Dollinger, M., and J. Vanderlelie. 2020. Closing the loop: Co-designing with students for greater market orientation. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 08841241.2020.1757557. Gale, T. 2009 June–July. Towards a southern theory of higher education. Keynote address presented at the 12th Pacific Rim first year in higher education conference, Townsville, Australia. Available at: http://transitionpedagogy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Trevor_Gale_paper. pdf. Accessed Aug 2020. Guilbault, M. 2018. Students as customers in higher education: The (controversial) debate needs to end. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 40: 295–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jretconser.2017.03.006. Harvey, L., Drew, S. and Smith, M. 2006. The first year experience: A literature review for the Higher Education Academy. York: Higher Education Academy. Available at: http://www. qualityresearchinternational.com/Harvey%20papers/Harvey%20and%20Drew%202006.pdf. Accessed Aug 2020. Higher Education Standards Panel. 2017a. Final report – Improving retention, completion and success in higher education. June 2018. Available at: https://docs.education.gov.au/node/50816. Accessed Aug 2020.

90

S. Kift

Higher Education Standards Panel. 2017b. Improving retention, completion and success in higher education. Discussion paper, June 2017. Available at: https://docs.education.gov.au/system/ files/doc/other/final_discussion_paper.pdf. Accessed Aug 2020. John N., Gardner Institute for Excellence in Undergraduate Education. 2005. First-year focus – Foundational dimensions ® (Four-year college version). Available at: https://www.jngi.org/firstyear-focus-foundational-dimensions. Accessed Aug 2020. Jones, R., and L. Thomas. 2005. The 2003 UK government higher education white paper: A critical assessment of its implications for the access and widening participation agenda. Journal of Education Policy 20 (5): 615–630. Kahu, E., and K. Nelson. 2018. Student engagement in the educational interface: Understanding the mechanisms of student success. Higher Education Research & Development 37 (1): 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1344197. Kift, S. 2008 July. The next, great first year challenge: Sustaining, coordinating and embedding coherent institution-wide approaches to enact the FYE as “everybody’s business”. Keynote presented at 11th Pacific Rim first year in higher education conference. Available at: http://fyhe.com.au/past_papers/ papers08/FYHE2008/content/pdfs/Keynote%20-%20Kift.pdf. Accessed Aug 2020. Kift, S. 2009. Articulating a transition pedagogy to scaffold and to enhance the first year student learning experience in Australian higher education. Final report for ALTC Senior Fellowship Program. Strawberry Hills: Australian Learning and Teaching Council. Available at: http:// transitionpedagogy.com/reports-andresources/fellowship-report/. Accessed Aug 2020. Kift, S. 2015. A decade of transition pedagogy: A quantum leap in conceptualising the first-year experience. HERDSA Review of Higher Education 2: 51–86. Kift, S. 2020 June. Keeping clam in the face of disruptive innovation. Keynote presentation at QAA Scotland enhancement theme conference (Online). Glasgow: Scottish Quality Assurance Agency. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v¼fwg17iZncNk&feature¼emb_title. Accessed Aug 2020. Kift, S., K. Nelson, and J. Clarke. 2010. Transition pedagogy: A third generation approach to FYE – A case study of policy and practice for the higher education sector. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education 1 (1): 1–20. Killen, C., and P. Chatterton. 2015. Developing successful student-staff partnerships: Supporting you to work with students to develop your institution’s digital environment and create engaging learning experiences. JISC. Available at: https://www.jisc.ac.uk/full-guide/developing-success ful-student-staff-partnerships. Accessed Aug 2020. Koris, R., and P. Nokelainen. 2015. The student-customer orientation questionnaire (SCOQ): Application of customer metaphor to higher education. International Journal of Educational Management 29 (1): 115–138. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-10-2013-0152. Lawrence, J. 2005. Re-conceptualising attrition and retention: Integrating theoretical, research and student perspectives. Studies in Learning, Evaluation, Innovation and Development 2 (3): 16–33. Matthews, K. 2018 April. Stop treating students like customers and start working with them as partners in learning. The Conversation. Available at: https://theconversation.com/stop-treatingstudents-like-customers-and-start-working-with-them-as-partners-in-learning-93276. Accessed Aug 2020. Matthews, K.E., A. Dwyer, L. Hine, and J. Turner. 2018a. Conceptions of students as partners. Higher Education 76 (6): 957–971. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0257-y. Matthews, D., G. Milgate, and L. Clarke. 2018b. Assessment of university support services for regional and remote students on transition to university. Final report. Melbourne: ACER. Available at: https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/deidentified_final_report_ framework_uss_rrr_250219.pdf. Accessed Aug 2020. McInnis, C. 2001. Signs of disengagement? The changing undergraduate experience in Australian universities. Melbourne: CSHE. Available at: http://repository.unimelb.edu.au/10187/1331. Accessed Aug 2020.

5

Whole-of-Institution Transformation for First Year Learning and Success

91

McInnis, C. 2003 August. New realities of the student experience: How should universities respond? Paper presented at 25th annual conference European Association for Institutional Research, Limerick. Naylor, R., and N. Mifsud. 2019. Structural inequality in higher education: Creating institutional cultures that enable all students. Perth: The National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education (NCSEHE), Curtin University. Available at: https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/wp-content/ uploads/2019/09/NaylorMifsud-FINAL.pdf. Accessed Aug 2020. Naylor, R., C. Baik, and R. James. 2013. A critical interventions framework for advancing equity in Australian higher education. Melbourne: Centre for the Study of Higher Education The University of Melbourne. Available at: https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/ 09/Critical-Interventions-Framework-20-August-2013.pdf. Accessed Aug 2020. Ng, I.C., and J. Forbes. 2009. Education as service: The understanding of university experience through the service logic. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 19 (1): 38–64. https://doi. org/10.1080/08841240902904703. O’Shea, S. 2014. Transitions and turning points: Exploring how first-in-family female students story their transition to university and student identity formation. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 27 (2): 135–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2013.771226. Olssen, M., and M.A. Peters. 2005. Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge economy: From the free market to knowledge capitalism. Journal of Education Policy 20 (3): 313–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930500108718. Pitman, T. 2016. The evolution of the student as a customer in Australian higher education: A policy perspective. Australian Educational Researcher 43: 345–359. Power, E., H. Partridge, C. O’Sullivan, and M. Kek. 2020. Integrated ‘one-stop’ support for student success: Recommendations from a regional university case study. Higher Education Research & Development 39 (3): 561–576. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1676703. Productivity Commission. 2017. University education, shifting the dial: 5 year productivity review, supporting paper no. 7, Canberra. Available at: https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/ productivity-review/report. Accessed Aug 2020. Sambell, K., and S. Brown. 2020 June. The changing landscape of assessment: Some possible replacements for unseen, time-constrained, face-to-face invigilated exams. Available at: https:// sally-brown.net/kay-sambell-and-sally-brown-covid-19-assessment-collection/. Accessed Aug 2020. Schwartz, E., and E.D. Pisacreta. 2020. COVID-19: Incorporating the student perspective into institutional decision-making. Ithaca: S+R. Available at: https://sr.ithaka.org/blog/covid-19incorporating-the-student-perspective-into-institutional-decision-making. Accessed Aug 2020. Scott, G. 2006. Accessing the student voice: Using CEQuery to identify what retains students and promotes engagement in productive learning in Australian higher education. Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training. Available at: http://www.uws.edu.au/__data/assets/ pdf_file/0010/63955/HEIPCEQueryFinal_v2_1st_Feb_06.pdf. Accessed Aug 2020. Shaw, J., Brain, K., Bridger, K., Foreman, J. and Reid, I. 2007. Embedding widening participation and promoting student diversity: What can be learned from a business case approach? Heslington: The Higher Education Academy. Available at: https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/ sites/default/files/resources/embedding_wp_business_case_approach_july07_0.pdf. Accessed Aug 2020. Social Research Centre. 2020. 2019 student experience survey: National report. Quality Indicators for Learning and Teaching Survey Program. Available at: https://www.qilt.edu.au/docs/defaultsource/ses/ses-2019/2019-ses-national-report.pdf?sfvrsn¼6486ec3c_10. Accessed Aug 2020. sparqs. 2011. A student engagement framework for Scotland. Edinburgh: sparqs. Available at: https://www.sparqs.ac.uk/upfiles/SEFScotland.pdf. Accessed Aug 2020. Taylor, P., J. Millwater, and R. Nash. 2007 July. Talking about transitions: The value of a conceptual approach. In Enhancing higher education, theory and scholarship, proceedings of the 30th HERDSA annual conference, Adelaide, 8–11 July 2007, 547. Available at: https://www.herdsa.

92

S. Kift

org.au/publications/conference-proceedings/research-and-development-higher-educationenhancing-higher-34. Accessed Aug 2020. Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency. 2017. Characteristics of Australian higher education providers and their relation to first-year student attrition. Available at: https:// www.teqsa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net2046/f/attrition-report-june-2017-19dec2017.pdf? v¼1513650539. Accessed Aug 2020. Thomas, L. 2012. Building student engagement and belonging in higher education at a time of change. Final report from the what works? Student retention and success programme. London: Paul Hamlyn Foundation. Available at: https://www.phf.org.uk/publications/works-studentretention-success-final-report/. Accessed Aug 2020. Tight, M. 2013. Students: Customers, clients or pawns? Higher Education Policy 26 (3): 291–307. Tinto, V. 2008 November. Access without support is not opportunity. Keynote presentation at 36th annual institute for chief academic officers, The Council of Independent Colleges. Tinto, V. 2009. Taking student retention seriously: Rethinking the first year of university. Keynote presentation at the ALTC FYE curriculum design symposium, Brisbane, Australia. Available at: https://web.archive.org/web/20170218144541/ http://www.fyecd2009.qut.edu.au/resources/ SPE_VincentTinto_5Feb09.pdf. Accessed Aug 2020. Tomlinson, M. 2017. Student perceptions of themselves as ‘consumers’ of higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education 38 (4): 450–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2015. 1113856. Universities UK. 2020 January. Skills, jobs and opportunity: A vision for higher education. London: Universities UK. Available at: https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and-analysis/reports/ Pages/vision-higher-education.aspx. Accessed Aug 2020. Zacharias, N., and M. Brett. 2019. The best chance for all: Student equity 2030 – A long-term strategic vision for student equity in higher education. Perth: The National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education (NCSEHE), Curtin University. Available at: https://www.ncsehe. edu.au/publications/the-best-chance-for-all/. Accessed Aug 2020. Zepke, N. 2017. Student engagement in neoliberal times: Theories and practices for learning and teaching in higher education. Singapore: Springer. Zepke, N., L. Leach, and T. Prebble. 2005a. Now you’ve got them, can you expect to keep them? Factors that influence student departure and persistence. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies 40 (1&2): 181–199. Zepke, N., L. Leach, T. Prebble, A. Campbell, D. Coltman, B. Dewart, . . ., and S. Wilson. 2005b. Improving tertiary student outcomes in the first year of study. Final Report. Wellington: New Zealand, Teaching and Learning Research Initiative. Available at: http://www.tlri.org.nz/ sites/default/files/projects/9209_finalreport.pdf. Accessed Aug 2020.

6

How to Increase Retention and Graduation Rates Turning Theory into Practice Alan Seidman

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Why We Should Care About Retention? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Why Do Colleges Make Retaining Students Complicated? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Retention Theoretical Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Services to Enhance Retention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . So Many Theoretical Paradigms: What to Do? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . There Has Got to Be A Better Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Colleges Are Using Assessment Incorrectly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Linking Courses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Teaching Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concluding Thoughts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

94 95 96 97 98 100 102 104 107 108 109 110 111

Abstract

This chapter is not your typical scholarly theoretically derived chapter. Indeed, it will set out a retention formula and student success model which derives a new theoretical framework. Most importantly, it will provide the higher educational community with actual steps institutions can take to increase student retention and graduation rates. If the five steps presented are adopted and carefully followed, students will be able to meet their academic and personal goals. There will be references made to seminal theoretical foundations, but most importantly, the reader will be introduced to an easy and cost-effective way to retain and graduate their students. Since the Covid-19 virus has struck worldwide, many higher

A. Seidman (*) Center for the Study of College Student Retention (cscsr.org), Walden University, Bedford, NH, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 H. Huijser et al. (eds.), Student Support Services, University Development and Administration, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5852-5_35

93

94

A. Seidman

educational institutions have moved to online or limited on-campus classes. Regardless, the five steps covered in this chapter can be applied to any type or mixed type of college course delivery system. Keywords

Retention formula · Student success model · Graduation rates · Theory to practice

Introduction All colleges want to retain and graduate the students they enroll. US colleges spend millions of dollars each year to recruit and enroll students. According to Ruffalo/Noel Levit (2018), private colleges on average spent $2,357 to recruit each student while public colleges spent on average $536 to recruit each student. Federal and state dollars help students afford college. Different types of colleges enroll different types of students based on their program offerings, location, and especially their missions. Students apply to colleges with the programs and careers they are initially interested in pursuing. Although there is no data available to estimate career changes throughout a lifetime, the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2019) states that the baby boomers who were “. . .born from 1957 to 1964 held an average of 12.3 jobs from ages 18 to 52.” No doubt some of these job changes constituted career changes as well. Hence the importance of lifelong learning and a higher educational certificate or degree for job or career enhancement or changing purposes. Most students, 84%, apply to and attend colleges within 500 miles of their home (Almanac 2019). College attendance can be dictated by college mission and program offerings. The mission of some colleges is to help minority, low socioeconomic, and academically deficient students develop the skills and knowledge necessary to attend and be successful at college. Other colleges pride themselves on admitting only the top students nationally. So, attending a college is a mixed bag. On the one hand, a student attends a college to gain the skills and knowledge necessary to attain a job or career. On the other hand, a student attends college to learn new concepts, knowledge, and perspectives that will be useful for lifelong learning opportunities or to advance in a career or learn a new one. Still, too many students who begin at a college do not survive the first term and do not graduate in large numbers. Retention and graduation rates will vary with the type of college – public, private, for profit – and selectivity. Shapiro et al. (2018), using data from the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, found for the 4-year sector, private 4-year nonprofit college 6-year graduation rate was 74% and for public 4-year colleges 62.3%. Note that there is a percentage of students who were still enrolled after 6 years. Naturally with any data there will be differences in interpretation, so look at the national norms and compare them with your college’s data. However, a better indicator of your retention and graduation rates is comparative data with your peer institutions. Keep in mind that there are multiple factors that affect the overall retention and graduation data such as college mission and types of students enrolled, to name a few.

6

How to Increase Retention and Graduation Rates

95

Why We Should Care About Retention? So why should we care about college student retention? If a student is not “college material” and we give them a chance at a college education, and they do not succeed then so be it. Let us examine that premise. Decisions about student suitability to your institution should be made during the application process, not after they are accepted. After a student is accepted to your institution, in my view, colleges have a moral obligation to provide them with programs and services to help them be successful. Thus, do not accept the student in the first place except if it is your mission to accept and enroll a specific type of student. Remember that a college’s mission statement should drive the type of student you recruit and enroll (Seidman 2018). Philosophy does not have to follow finance as it has at many colleges. That is, the college takes its overall yearly budget, puts in returning student tuition and fees, and then projects the number of new students and transfers necessary to balance the budget. With Covid-19, balancing college budgets will be a challenge now and into the future. College mission statements are very important and accepted students should match your specific mission. It tells why your college exists and what you provide for the public good. I have challenged audiences consisting of college administrators and faculty to recite their college missions statement word for word. Only twice in over 20 years has anyone been able to do this. Do you know your college mission statement and why your college exists and enrolls the types of students it does? Hopefully with enrollment uncertainties, colleges will continue to recruit and enroll students according to their mission statements. Finance should follow college philosophy, not the other way around. Additionally, if a student is not retained at your college, the time they have spent in their educational endeavor has been for the most part lost. There are 168 hours in a week and spending 15 weeks in a college and getting nothing for it (attrition) has wasted a great deal of time. Remember that time is an nonrenewable resource. Once it is gone, it is gone. A student who leaves a college prior to academic and personal goal attainment may not be able to upgrade their skills for job advancement or for another job opportunity. An unsuccessful student may also be turned off to future educational opportunities and not have the thirst for lifelong learning (Seidman 2018). Students who drop out and who are unhappy with their college experience will tell others and that can harm the chances of the college to recruit students. Colleges also loose tuition and fee revenue when a student leaves prematurely. If tuition and fees are $5,000 per term, the revenue loss per term from only 10 students who leave is $50,000. The loss for seven terms for a 4-year college is $350,000. Multiply that number by 25 or 50 students and we are talking about some serious money for colleges. This does not count the money derived from auxiliary services such as resident halls, bookstore purchases, etc. Also, the surrounding college town loses revenue when a student leaves prematurely through lost rent, restaurant usage, and so on. And if the student took out a loan to pay for the $5,000 tuition and fees, simply not completing a term successfully and leaving the college prematurely does not

96

A. Seidman

absolve the student from that debt. The money needs to be repaid regardless. This can affect the type of job a person has to take without a higher education degree, hurt their credit rating, delay marriage, and so on. Sure, students leave college after graduation with large amounts of debt, but they have obtained the skills and knowledge, we hope, to get good paying jobs that will enable them to pay off the debt over time. Additionally, the cost to society is substantial in that students who are undereducated may need housing, food assistance, etc.

Why Do Colleges Make Retaining Students Complicated? Colleges collect and use many different statistics and metrics about their students. They know their gender, financial status, where they live, how they performed in high school, their standardized test scores, whether they are an athlete or have an artistic talent, or whether they are the first in their family to attend college, amongst other data. They slice and dice the data in the hope of identifying the magic solution to their retention and graduation issues. Colleges have poured enormous sums of money into programs and services over the years to help retain their students. Still, about 35% of students who start at a 4-year college in the United States will not have completed a degree after 6 years (Shapiro et al. 2018). Can you imagine if Apple or Samsung relegated 35 out of 100 cellphones they built to the scrap heap? They would go bankrupt like Takata with its faulty airbags. Yet today, colleges continue to thrive even in the face of declining college going demographics, which is similar to what occurred in the 1980s (Thompson 1984). To stem the tide of the projections of fewer U.S. students graduating from high school in the 1980s, colleges took two basic tacks. Some colleges loosened already liberal admission standards and accepted more students. The thought was that in taking more students, even if more would leave prematurely, the college would still have enough students, or at least receive the first-term tuition revenue to balance their budget. Other colleges, to help stem the enrollment tide, tightened admissions requirements and accepted fewer students in the hope that taking fewer, but with higher academic ability, would lead to increased retention and would help insulate them from downturns in student high school graduates. In many instances, taking fewer students of higher quality worked. Other colleges eased course requirements, asked professors to be more lenient in their grading practices, and passed students who in more abundant times would have failed the course as was predicted by Centra’s study back in 1978. It appears that the decline in high school student graduates will again decline. Colleges will have to make financial decisions to stay viable. With Covid-19, this muddles an already complicated situation. But what about those colleges whose mission it is to recruit and enroll an economically and academically diverse student population? Remember up until just after World War II and the Veterans Adjustment Act, college attendance was a privilege not a right. If you came from a prosperous family or had the money you could enroll at a college. If they were a state-supported school in lean times of student graduations from high schools, colleges with diverse missions would ask for

6

How to Increase Retention and Graduation Rates

97

additional funding from the state. Private colleges and universities with similar missions of taking economically and academically diverse students had to make drastic cuts, which can still be felt today. It was a good thing that the United States government recognized Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and Historically Hispanic serving Colleges and Universities (HHCUs) and provided additional special federal funding for these institutions. Without it, many would not have survived, and they do serve a critical function. Today, with a college going rate that is dropping similar to that of the 1980s, we have, as the famous “philosopher” Yogi Barra said, “déjà vu all over again.”

Retention Theoretical Foundations Most researchers use a theory that grounds their research. This is particularly true for doctoral dissertations, scholarly discourse, journal articles, and books, such as this one. Over the years, there have been many theories and studies that have attempted to theorize or explain why students leave an institution prior to academic or personal goal attainment, or to be blunter, do not graduate within a designated period of time. Each new theory builds upon earlier theories, especially those that can be replicated and researched. There seems to always be a theory-of-the-day when it comes to college student retention. Berger and Lyons (2005); Berger et al. (2021) and Braxton and Hirschy (2005), in Seidman’s (2005, 2012) book College Student Retention: Formula for Student Success, wrote a chapter titled “Past to present: A historical look at retention,” and Theoretical developments in the study of college student departure in which they identified numerous theoretical developments and foundations. What follows is a synopsis of their work. As early as 1937, McNeely from the United States Department of Education studied “College Student Mortality.” He examined many factors in college student retention, including time to degree, when attrition was most prevalent in a student’s education, and impact of college size. Unfortunately, there was no follow-up research since World War II interceded, and interest waned. But the most prevalent reasons for leaving college, McNeely’s researcher found, was by far dismissal for academic failure, followed by dismissal for discipline reasons and then financial reasons. In 1962, Summerskill looked at personality attributes of students and determined that they were the main reasons for persistence or leaving. The focus of his research was maturity, motivation, and dispositions. The more mature and motivated the student, the higher the likelihood of college success. Spady’s Model, published in 1971, stated that the interaction between student characteristics and campus environment was the cause for student attrition. He used Durkeim’s suicide model, which is similar to McNeely’s mortality model, to frame his model of student departure. If a student could not adjust to the campus environment due to non-congruence of student personal characteristics, that student would leave the institution prematurely (Berger and Lyons 2005; Berger et al. 2021). Also, in 1971, Kamens used multi-institutional data to demonstrate how colleges of greater size and complexity had lower attrition rates. The Tinto Model, first

98

A. Seidman

published in 1975 and revised in 1993, maintained that academic and social integration with the formal and informal academic and social systems of a college influenced retention. Subsequently, research has found that the formal and informal academic systems of a college influence student retention to a larger degree then the formal and informal social systems of the college (Berger and Lyons 2005; Berger et al. 2021). The Tinto Model is currently the most cited retention model. In 1977, Astin’s Theory of Involvement stated that the more involved a student is with the college, the higher the likelihood of student retention. That is, the more a student involves her or himself into everyday life of a college, both academically and socially, the greater chance of retention. This of course assumes that the student has the academic ability to be successful in academic courses. Bean’s Model of “Work Turnover to Student Attrition” in 1980 used concepts from organizational studies of worker turnover. His work examined how organizational attributes and reward structures affect student satisfaction and persistence. A student who receives good grades and platitudes for activities is more likely to stay. Bean and Metzner’s 1985 Nontraditional Student Attrition said that environmental factors have a greater impact on departure decisions of adult students than academic variables. Nontraditional students started to enroll in greater numbers in the 1980s. They have unique situations which affect their enrollment status and completion. These include working full or part-time, childcare, monetary issues, years since taking an academic course, etc. (Berger and Lyons 2005; Berger e al. 2021). Seidman (2005, 2012, 2018) developed a retention formula and student success model. The Seidman student success model (S3M) integrates with the Seidman retention formula; R ¼ E Id + (E + In + C) In. That is, retention equals early identification along with early, intensive, and continuous intervention. Using the formula and model as the theoretical foundation, five steps to enhance college student retention have been developed. Following these five steps will enable colleges to easily develop a cost-effective system to retain students whom they recruit and enroll. College student retention does not have to be complicated or cost a lot of precious money. This will be explained in more detail later in the chapter. As one can see, over the years there have been many attempts to theorize student leaving behavior from college. Most, if not all, seem to have a specific theme in common, namely the sufficient academic ability of a student to complete college-level work and becoming a part of the college educational community. It does not matter how socially integrated a student is to the formal and informal systems of a college, if they do not have the academic ability to complete course work, they will not be successful at the college. So, colleges have adopted one or more of these theories and have developed programs and services to help stem the attrition of students from their institutions.

Services to Enhance Retention To try to increase retention and graduation rates, colleges have enhanced counseling services, both general and therapeutic. Faculty or professional counselors academically advise students. There has been the development of curriculum clubs and activities so

6

How to Increase Retention and Graduation Rates

99

students can get a feel for their potential chosen profession. Colleges have taken student psychological needs into account and are now offering targeted services. Group and individual psychological services have been extended from the private sector into the college community to help students overcome barriers to their success (Means and Pyne 2017). Colleges have developed peer mentoring programs. Upper-level students in the same and similar majors take lower-level students under their wings to help them adapt to college life and their program of study. Colleges have developed early alert programs. Faculty are to alert a specific office if they believe that a student in their class has an academic or personal problem. These referrals are followed up by a professional intervention system to try to ascertain the student’s problem and provide a fix, albeit within the term of discovery. Since the data indicates that first-generation students leave college at a greater rate than non-first-generation students, colleges have developed programs specifically for first-generation students. Colleges have developed precollege programs for special groups of students. Not only are these programs for first-generation students but also for minority students and identified students from low socioeconomic status as well as those needing remedial work prior to attendance (Conefrey 2018). Colleges have developed communities in resident halls for discipline-based students. A floor can be designated for engineering or accounting students. Colleges have developed classroom communities as well and have adjusted seating arrangements to some extent to try to better serve students with different learning styles such as the visual, auditory, or group learner. With the Covid-19 virus, individual learner style may become the norm for the foreseeable future. Yet, at least in the United States, retention and graduation statistics have not significantly improved in the last 20 plus years. This is in spite of all the programs and services that have been introduced throughout the years. Most of these programs have been modeled on past theoretical constructs, which point in the direction of how colleges should treat different types of students to ensure college success. So, if these programs and services have not appreciably increased student retention and graduation rates, what gives? It can be argued that without these enhanced and new programs and services, the retention and graduation numbers would have been worse particularly since more minority, economically disadvantaged, and academically deficient, and first-generation students are attending college (Cataldi et al. 2018). These students, some would further argue, come unprepared for the rigors of college course curriculum offerings, and do not fit in with the colleges’ ethnic majority. This is despite precollege programs that strive to provide students with the academic skills to be successful college students. It is easy to point fingers and to rationalize why a college has been unable to increase student retention and graduation rates over time. Even so, many colleges assess a student’s academic abilities at entry and provide remediation for their deficiencies before they can take college-level courses. This is a good thing if assessment and remediation are done correctly. Colleges also make efforts to mitigate against ethnic disparities by recruiting a more diverse economic and ethnically representative class. Yet in spite of all this, the fact remains that retention and graduation rates have barely moved in a positive direction over time.

100

A. Seidman

Have we reached a statistical anomaly that has reached its plateau? Is there a specific range of first-year attrition for each type of college that will never change? Is this something colleges have to accept? Should we as a society be concerned that our less formally educated future policy makers are not educated enough to cope with complicated decision-making needs? Overall, then, is there a solution to the retention and graduation dilemma facing many colleges? With Covid-19, or post-Covid-19, is it online education? Do we stay put and hope for the best that sooner or later one of our interventions will provide the silver bullet colleges have been waiting for? I believe there is a silver bullet, and it is not as complicated or expensive as colleges may think. There are so many companies that claim to have that “silver bullet” for college retention, and they charge thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars for their services. They tout that they will use their data filters, surveys, programs, and services “designed just for your college to live happily ever after!” Buy our computer program or software and it will identify students who need assistance. Unfortunately, the silver lining is short lived and after an initial bounce, the retention and graduation numbers return to what they were. This is evident by the lack of significantly increased retention and graduation numbers over the past 20 plus years (National Center for Educational Statistics 2020). It also conforms to the business concept of the Law of Diminishing Marginal Productivity. The law of diminishing marginal productivity “. . . states that advantages gained from slight improvement on the input side of the production equation will only advance marginally per unit and may level off or even decrease after a specific point” (Young 2019, para 1). You decide if you agree with this concept looking at your own retention and graduation data over time. Initially retention may increase, but in the long term, it will fall back to near what it was prior to the investment. As those expensive companies will tell the college administration: you did not do what we told you to do, or it was too late when you started the program we designed for you, or you took the least expensive option, etc. Should colleges accept that no matter what they do to help students persist, their effects are for naught? I do not think so.

So Many Theoretical Paradigms: What to Do? There have been many competing theories of student attrition/retention over the years as briefly outlined earlier. This became of paramount concern when the traditional college going group declined and colleges’ financial health was at stake. In addition, the federal and state governments started to question why so many students who started college did not complete a degree. The federal and state governments after all gave the colleges and students money to be educated and subsequently acquire employable skills and knowledge.

6

How to Increase Retention and Graduation Rates

101

Educational philosophers continue to argue about whose theory is the best or which one can solve the retention and graduation problem. Lots of money is at stake for assessment developers of those items deemed necessary for retention and degree completion. But why have we not figured out the retention and graduation puzzle after all these years? Retention and graduation rates have not significantly improved over time. Why is that? If one really looks into the theories and the college and student data, one thing stands out among all others: the academic ability and achievement of entering students. The number one reason for college success has been and continues to be the challenging courses a student takes in high school. The more challenging the course is, such as advanced English, mathematics, and science, the higher the likelihood of being successful in college. This is very evident when you look at the elite colleges which admit and enroll only the top students in the United States. These students have taken numerous advanced placement courses and have achieved a high level of academic success. These students have also participated in many different types of in and out of school activities and volunteer activities in their respective communities. They graduate college at high rates. It should become evident at this point that academic preparation is the key to successful college completion. We know that not all colleges can recruit and enroll the top students in the United States. That is a given fact. Most colleges accept more than 50% of those that apply. Many of these students have backgrounds and dispositions that are not conducive to academic success even though colleges try to identify academic weaknesses and provide the necessary remediation to help students overcome those deficiencies. If a student does not have the ability to read a college-level textbook, write a coherent paragraph, use computational skills, and critically think at a college level they will not be successful. Now colleges will argue that this is indeed the case and that is why they provide assessment of student skills at entry and provide remediation to overcome deficiencies. This is why special programs for special groups of students are implemented, as the students who come knocking on their doors did not acquire the skills they needed to be successful in high school. High schools teachers then complain that the middle schools are at fault. Middle schools then blame the elementary schools who blame the kindergarten teachers who blame parents. While all of this may have some merit, it is an unsustainable argument which will get us nowhere in our effort to retain and graduate college students. There is a reason that the few colleges and universities that enroll students who are academically in the top 10% nationally have few retention issues and excellent graduation rates. These students are academically prepared for the rigors of college-level course work in reading, writing, mathematics, and critical thinking. Why do theorists and educators continue to argue this point? Instead of arguing, let us do something to overcome student deficiencies! It is evident from the retention and graduation data that our current extraordinary efforts and enhanced programs and services for students have not worked or made marked improvements to the retention rates over time.

102

A. Seidman

There Has Got to Be A Better Way Seidman (2005, 2012, 2018) has postulated that: R ¼ EId þ ðE þ In þ CÞIn That is, retention equals early identification along with early, intensive, and continuous intervention. Early identification of skills in reading, writing, critical thinking, mathematics, and others decided upon by the college/university is key to student success. If there is skills deficiency, then early, intensive, and continuous intervention will help the student master the skills necessary for success in foundation courses. Once a skills deficiency is identified at the earliest possible time, remediation should begin. One reason I do not think early alert programs work is that identification of the lack of a skill occurs too late in the term to be effective. If a student is reading at the ninth-grade level, it would be a miracle, but I suppose possible, that it can be remediated and improved to a college level starting in week 4 of a 15-week term. I also believe this would be the case for writing, critical thinking, and mathematical deficiencies. The formula starts with the premise that the student comes first. The teaching/ learning process is essential for student academic and personal growth and development. The student enters the institution to acquire academic and personal skills necessary to achieve academic and personal goals. Assessment and interventions are a longitudinal process commencing at the time of acceptance and continuing throughout the student’s career at the institution and perhaps beyond. Although the “Seidman Student Success Model” (S3M) appears to be for one term, it is in essence for all of the terms that a student is at the institution. Figure 1 illustrates the model. But the retention of students all starts with the assessment of entry-level skills linked to foundation courses. Assessment of entry-level skills needs to occur prior to student enrollment, at the point of acceptance. This is the early identification step in the S3M. Once any deficiencies are identified, then the student can be placed in remediation modules which will help them acquire the necessary skills to be successful in foundation courses. So, the way that skills are assessed against foundation course skills and the delivery of remediation will influence retention. But aren’t colleges already assessing students at entry level and providing remediation, as necessary? They are but. . .. Colleges are assessing student skills at entry, but the assessment may or may not be assessing the actual skills necessary for a student to be successful in a foundation course. Remediation may or may not be remediating the skills that a student needs to be successful. Simply assessing and assuming the assessment covers what is needed to be successful in a foundation course does not mean the college is assessing the correct skills. Simply remediating and assuming the remediation covers what is needed to be successful in a foundation course does not mean the college is remediating the right skills.

Fig. 1 Seidman student success model (S3M). (Source: Seidman (2005))

6 How to Increase Retention and Graduation Rates 103

104

A. Seidman

Colleges Are Using Assessment Incorrectly Currently, colleges are assessing student skills backwards. They assume that their foundation courses are first-term, college-level courses. That is, foundation courses are the first college-level courses a student would take if they are at the college level in reading, writing, critical thinking skills, and mathematics. Foundation courses include, for example, Introduction to Business for a business major, Psychology 101, or Sociology 101 for a liberal art major, or Introduction to Teaching Methods for a teacher program, etc. Colleges first need to identify all of their foundation courses. See Step 1 in Fig. 2. Once all foundation courses have been identified, then faculty need to identify the SKILLS necessary to be successful in each foundation course. This needs to occur prior to assessing students to ascertain whether or not they possess the skills. This is to make certain that student skills being assessed are the correct ones at the correct level. Sounds easy, and it is, but it does not currently happen. Next, colleges need to identify the most common skills for each course identified in Step #1 of Fig. 2. There will be considerable commonality in skills identified in all foundation courses. For example, the reading level of a textbook or reading material being used should be age and grade appropriate for a first-year college course. Therefore, the reading level of foundation textbooks and auxiliary reading material needs to be identified. Are the textbook and auxiliary reading material skill-level appropriate for a first-year college student? Those textbooks that are above first-year college student reading level and comprehension should be retired and substituted with an age and grade appropriate text. It may amaze administrators and faculty that many cannot tell the reading level of the textbook they have been using for years. The expectation is that if a textbook publisher is marketing a textbook for a foundation course text, it must be at the first-year college reading level. I have given numerous retention presentations throughout the years. At almost every presentation I ask the audience, which usually includes college faculty, administrators, and staff, if they can tell me the reading level of their textbook they use in class. I receive blank looks from most; only those faculty who teach remedial reading know the level of the textbook they use. Are faculty using the reading level appropriate text for their course? Who knows, but reading remediation may provide the student with a beginning college-level reading skill only to bump up against a textbook at the master’s level. Case in point. When giving a presentation and mentioning the possibility of misuse of textbook level for students, I was told the following by a member of the audience. Their community college required all students to take a student success course or how to be a student. About 80% were failing the course. A readability index was performed on the textbook and was found to be at the master’s level. The textbook was changed to an appropriate reading level and now about 80% passed the course. No surprise there! There are formulas for figuring out the readability of a book. MS Word gives a readability level of a document. This chapter has a Flesch-Kincade Grade Level of 11.3 so most should be able to read and comprehend its contents. Also asking the

Student placed into appropriate level either college level or remedial module. Can be both. College level for mathematics remedial for writing. Example: 1. College level 2. Remedial a) modules

College/university identify course module student takes according to test/assessment results.

Example: 1. Reading level test result a) 0–3 Reading 001 b) 4–6 Reading 002 c) 7–9 Reading 003 d) 10+ College level 2. Writing skills test results a) Grammar i. 0–3 Writing 001 ii. 4–6 Writing 003 3. Critical thinking scores 4. Mathematical scores

College/University Identify testing/assessment for each skill with result levels. Preferably nationally normed assessment.

Example: 1. Reading level of text. 2. Writing skills a) ABC test/assessment i) Grammar Scores from 0 to 10 ii) Noun/verb agree Scores from 0 to 10 3. Critical thinking i) Skills 4. Mathematical skills i) Skills

College/university identify common skills for each course identified in #1 in specific areas listed below or other areas as specified by the college/university.

Example: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

College/university identifies foundation/initial courses.

Example: Art 101 Bio 101 Bus 101 Psy 101 Soc 101

Fig. 2 Seidman student success steps: five steps to increasing retention. (Source: Seidman (2018))

Reading level of text Writing skills Critical thinking skills Mathematical skills Other common skills

Step 5

Step 4

Step 3

Step 2

Step 1

6 How to Increase Retention and Graduation Rates 105

106

A. Seidman

textbook companies, who supply the books, would be interesting to see if they even know the readability level of their own textbooks. Should faculty and administrators even care about the readiness level of course reading material? I would think they would, if they want the students who they recruit to their campuses to be successful. Consequently, if a student cannot read and comprehend the course reading material because it is at a higher skill level than their reading level, the student will not be successful in that course. Faculty will also be able to identify the type of writing skills necessary in their respective foundation courses. Certainly, some foundation courses may not have written assignments. That is fine. But in most foundation courses, a paper or papers have to be researched and written. What is the length of the paper(s)? Naturally, a written paper would engender proper sentence structure, grammar, noun-verb agreement, and logical progression as the paper is developed, etc. If the college reviews all of the writing skills necessary to be successful in its foundation course, there will be many commonalities. The majority of the commonalities are the ones that need to be assessed to ascertain students’ knowledge of them. Of course, there will be some very specific terminology or writing requirements for a few foundation courses, but the assessment of those skills can be incorporated for those students only. Critical thinking skills are important when a student is developing a course assignment. Being able to read a written piece critically and then express one’s thoughts with supporting material is necessary for student success. So, the assessment of critical thinking skills is an important factor when assessing student skills at entry. Mathematical skills are also important for many college majors and foundation courses. The ability to perform mathematical calculations for some foundation courses is essential for student success. Many colleges require a specific mathematical threshold that a student is expected to master in order to earn a degree. So mathematical skills need to be assessed to determine student need in this area as well. There may be other common skill areas that are identified by faculty during the skill identification process. Those skills need to be added to the list. It is essential that all common skills be identified from reading, writing, critical thinking, mathematics, and any other essential common skills. Without the identification of the skills necessary for a student to be successful in a foundation course, it will not be possible to properly assess and remediate those deficiencies. Since Covid-19, many colleges closed and sent student home to complete the term through electronic means. Some will reopen their campuses for the following term while others will continue with online classes or a combination of the two. Regardless, whether a college will reopen with formal classes or conduct classes online, another skill that needs be evaluated is digital literacy. The older generation assumes that our current crop of students are technologically savvy. Yet although they can manipulate a phone keyboard with ease, do they know how to navigate an online platform such as Blackboard or efficiently utilize and manipulate MS Word or similar product a college uses? Do they know how to set MS Word margins, spacing, respond to track changes, etc.? A mandatory tutorial prior to college attendance, with downloadable instructions for future use, should be instituted with an easy to follow online platform and MS Word instructions. During the term, students should be

6

How to Increase Retention and Graduation Rates

107

encouraged to review instructions for other typical programs they will use during their college career such as MS Excel and MS PowerPoint. Do not simply assume that the younger generation is adept at technology manipulation necessary to write papers and do calculations. Most students grew up with WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) programs where all the manipulation gyrations are provided. From time to time, I find myself going into the HTML code to tweak a web page since the first web programs I used were HTML codes period. I doubt many of today’s students have the knowledge to do that. I am sure that colleges can determine which digital literacy skills their students should know and require. I cannot emphasize this enough. Colleges currently assess students at entry and place students into what they feel, or think, are the appropriate remedial courses. But if the skills are not the ones that match up with the actual foundation course skills, students will be wasting time, a nonrenewable resource, taking remediation which will not be helpful. So, it is imperative to identify foundation courses, and the skills necessary in each, for a student to be successful. Remember that each area for assessment may have many component parts. Step 3 in Fig. 2 is the identification of assessments to assess skills identified in Step 2. Now that the specific skills have been identified in Step 2, appropriate assessments can be created and put into place. Ideally, assessments should be nationally normed and widely used. They may even be current assessment tools being used but with different scores and foci. In Step 4 in Fig. 2, colleges identify course modules (to be explained further), and a student will be assigned according to assessment results. In Step 5 in Fig. 2, the actual placement is performed. As is the case with writing and critical thinking skills, there are a lot of pieces to the puzzle. For instance, faculty may have identified 10 necessary written skills a student needs to possess to write properly. Seven skills may have been identified in the critical thinking area. For each skill identified, a module should be developed that teaches that specific skill. A module is a unit that is specific to a particular skill. A module can be for as little as a week or more, depending on the skill. It can be taken online or in a classroom setting. What does that mean? If we assess a student as having already mastered 6 of the 10 writing skills, then have the student take the 4 modules that they need. Currently we place students at the beginning of a course even though they may not get to the missing skills until mid-term or later. No wonder students complain that they are being placed in remediation, that they already know the work, are paying for the course and receive no college credit. Only teach the student the skills that are lacking. Skill modules may be completed in 2 or 10 weeks depending on student motivation and faculty interventions.

Implementation It should be noted with Covid-19 that the recruitment, enrollment, and retention of students has changed drastically. Traditional on-campus teaching in many colleges has changed to online teaching. Those keeping the on-campus teaching are taking many precautions such as social distancing within and outside the classroom. The whole

108

A. Seidman

dynamics of what it is like to attend a college has and will continue to evolve. Colleges will have to allow students to combine different types of learning to cobble together a full-time course load, which of course has financial aid consequences. They could and should include, for example, two on-campus courses, one online course taught by the college of entry, and maybe a course at a community college on-campus or online. These types of decisions will have to be made on the fly in real time. However, whatever the teaching mode used at a college, following the five steps in the S3M will provide students, in my opinion, with the best possible chance of being successful and ensure that colleges fulfill their missions. Once foundation courses, common skills, assessments, placement scores, and remedial modules are developed, assessment of students at acceptance to the college could begin. Assessment must take place prior to enrollment and just after acceptance. Does this mean that some students may opt to go elsewhere, and the tuition deposit is not paid? Yes, but it is better to let a student go to another college then not take assessment and suffer the attrition consequences. Assessment can be completed over the web on a rolling basis as students are accepted into the college. Students would sign a pledge of authenticity that in fact they were the person taking the assessment. If the pledge is breached the student’s acceptance would be withdrawn or if after enrollment, withdrawn from the college. This can be discovered if a student is not preforming as indicated in the initial assessment and was given another assessment with a significant difference in results. If a student balks at taking the assessment and indicates she or he will attend another college that does not require assessment, let them do that. They will become the attrition statistic at that other college. You want students who have a thirst for knowledge and acknowledge deficiencies in specific areas and are willing to strengthen those areas to be successful. In the long run, these students will complete their studies in a reasonable amount of time and provide the college with a steady stream of income. Another idea is that those students who need extensive remediation should not be formally admitted to the college until they acquire the skills necessary to be successful. There can be different pathways, one for college ready, the formal route, and an informal route for the student who needs extensive remediation. However, this can be problematic since in the United States financial aid is provided to students enrolled in college-level courses. Colleges can offer the remediation modules at a discount demonstrating to the student that the teaching learning process is alive and well at the college and that the college will do whatever it takes to help the student succeed. As stated earlier, philosophy does not have to follow finance. Once students are placed properly into courses and are successful, they will become your best ambassadors and serve as examples to their peers and those coming of college age. Do right by students and they will do right by you.

Linking Courses Once a student completes a foundation course, they usually take the next level course in a sequence or program of study. Does the foundation course prepare the student for the next level course in a sequence or program? Do courses in a sequence or

6

How to Increase Retention and Graduation Rates

109

program link to the next appropriate course? How do you determine if this is happening? Let us examine this scenario. Most majors or curricula at a college follow specific progressions. That is, one course builds upon a previous course such as Accounting 101 should prepare a student for Accounting 102 and prepare a student for Accounting 201 and so on. Introduction to Business should prepare a student for the next course in the business program. So, courses should scaffold to provide a coherent progression culminating in a degree of completion, that is, a bachelor’s degree for an undergraduate. It is important that colleges look at all of their courses to make sure that they link in a seamless progression. How do you do this? You review the foundation course and see how many students passed with an acceptable grade. After the next term, look at the next progressive course to see if indeed those students enrolled were prepared and passed the next course in the sequence. Case in point. At a community college, a remedial math course was designed to prepare students for the first college-level algebra course. The administration, as it routinely did, examined the grades of those enrolled in the next level, the algebra course. Although students were scattered among a number of professors, the administration found that students who were in the same remedial course prior to enrollment in the algebra course failed it at a higher than normal rate. Not wanting to be punitive and make unwarranted accusations, the administration asked the remedial professor if there was a reason many students in her class failed the next progressive course, algebra. To the administrators’ surprise, the professor indicated yes, she knew the reason students were not successful in the algebra class. This college was located in a north-eastern state. That particular term there were a number of snow days, but the makeup days never coincided with the remedial math course. So, the professor said she was unable to complete the course material and therefore the students lacked some important foundational skills for the algebra course. This prompted the administration to change its snow day makeup plan to ensure that classes were made up equitably. The moral of the story? Colleges should review the grades of students in progressive courses to ascertain if there is an issue with the preceding course. It could be as simple as revising make up days due to weather or other conditions. It could also indicate that a specific instructor is not covering what is supposed to be covered in a course to prepare students for the next course in a sequence. Departments should periodically review all courses in their programs to ensure that they are indeed linking to each other. When a new textbook is employed, the progression review is particularly important since the subsequent course could be based on the skills and knowledge provided in the previous textbook.

Teaching Practice The literature reveals that faculty interaction with students outside the formal classroom setting is important for student success (Seidman 2018). Colleges should encourage and promote faculty and student interaction outside the formal classroom

110

A. Seidman

setting. Faculty can be encouraged to invite students to lunch where they can simply talk about the events of the day. This can even be done remotely and synchronously if necessary. Colleges need to value faculty involvement with students in the evaluation and promotion process. Faculty can keep logs of their formal and informal interaction with students to be presented during the evaluation and/or promotion process. Colleges also need to realize that faculty have competing interests: research, publishing, committees. If a faculty member is up for tenure or promotion and is working on an important publication which is due in 2 days’ time and a number of students are in need of assistance, guess what would take priority. Also remember that faculty are not trained to be teachers, rather they are trained to be experts in their chosen field. They do not have to be certified or pass any tests, and once they receive tenure, they are usually not observed by the administration for teaching effectiveness. This is very different than those who are trained to be pre-K through high school teachers. They have to partake in practicum, student teaching, and in many cases pass a state or national examination to be certified and eligible to teach. Not so for college professors. That is the reason colleges need to have Centers of Teaching Excellence. These centers can be mandatory for new faculty and should teach faculty members modalities of student learning and how to maximize faculty teaching practice. Faculty need to know what teaching practices and/or methodologies can be used to accommodate different student learning styles. There are many different types of learners which can includes the visual learner, auditory learner, tactile or kinesthetic learner, group learner and individual learner. Throw in personality styles like introvert and extravert and we can see that there is a lot faculty need to understand to be effective classroom teachers.

Concluding Thoughts We all want students we recruit and enroll to succeed. This is not only good for the college and student but our society as well. We need an educated populace which can critically think to help move their communities and countries forward and provide for the common good. Helping most students attain their academic and personal goals is doable. Colleges need not spend a lot of money to help students succeed, rather they need to look at the retention issue from a different perspective. Hence the need to identify foundation courses, skills necessary to be successful, assessment tools, assessing students, and placing students properly, giving those who need help only the skills and knowledge that they are missing. The money spent upfront will be returned many times over with higher student retention and graduation rates and positive contributions to society. Happy alumni may contribute money to the college as well. It takes a commitment on the part of the administration, faculty, students, and staff to effect change. We all know how hard it is to make change in academia. But it is possible!

6

How to Increase Retention and Graduation Rates

111

References Almanac of Higher Education. 2019. The Chronicle of higher education, LXV (40), p. 29, Washington, DC. Berger, J.B., and S. Lyons. 2005. Past to present: A historical look at retention. In College student retention: Formula for student success, ed. A. Seidman. Praeger Press. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, DC. Berger, J.B., Ramirez, G.B. and Lyons, S. (2021). Past to present. A historical look at retention. In A. Seidman. 2nd ed. College student retention: Formula for Student Success. Rowman & Littlefield. Braxton, J.M., and A.S. Hirschy. 2005. Theoretical developments in the study of college student departure. In College student retention: Formula for student success, ed. A. Seidman. Westport: Praeger Press. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2019, August 22. Number of jobs, labor market experience, and earnings growth: Results from a national longitudinal survey. Washington, DC. Cataldi, E.F., C.T. Bennett, and X. Chen. 2018. First-generation students: College access, persistence, and postbachelor’s outcomes. National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed. gov/pubs2018/2018421.pdf Centra, J.A. 1978, September. College enrollment in the 1980s: Projections and possibilities. Princeton: Educational Testing Service. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.1978.tb01165.x. Conefrey, T. 2018. Supporting first-generation students’ adjustment to college with high-impact practices. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory, & Practice, 20(3):1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025118807402. McNeely, J.H. 1937. College student mortality. U.S. Office of Education, bulletin 1937, no. 11. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. Means, D.R., and K.B. Pyne. 2017. Belonging in low-income, first-generation, first-year college students. Journal of College Student Development 58 (6): 907–924. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd. 2017.0071. National Center for Educational Statistics 2020. The condition of Education Undergraduate retention and graduation rates. U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/ coe/indicator_ctr.asp. Ruffalo Noel Levitz. 2018. 2018 Cost of recruiting an undergraduate student report. Cedar Rapids: Ruffalo Noel Levitz. Seidman, A., ed. 2005. College student retention: Formula for student success. Westport: ACE/ Praeger. Seidman, A., ed. 2012. College student retention: Formula for student success. 2nd ed. New York: ACE/Rowman & Littlefield. Seidman, A. 2018. Crossing the finish line: How to retain and graduate your students. Lanham: Roman & Littlefield. Shapiro, D., A. Dundar, F. Huie, P.K. Wakhungu, A. Bhimdiwali, and S.E. Wilson 2018, December. Completing college: A national view of student completion rates – Fall 2012 Cohort. Signature report no. 16. Herndon: National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. Thompson, R. 1984. Colleges in the 1980s. Editorial research reports 1984 (Vol. II). http://library. cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre1984072700 Young, J. 2019, Nov 7. Law of diminishing marginal productivity. Investopedia. https://www. investopedia.com/terms/l/law-diminishing-marginal-productivity.asp

7

Student Support and Services in Chinese Higher Education Institutions: Practices and Impacts Fei Guo, Juanjuan Liu, and Liang Li

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Development of Student Services in Chinese Higher Education Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Context of Chinese Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Changing Role of Student Work in Chinese Higher Education Institutions . . . . . . . . . . Institutional Practices: The Experience of Four Universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Financial Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Career Development Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Psychological Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Academic Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Student Experience with Institutional Support in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current Status of Institutional Support in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group Comparison of Institutional Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Impact of Institutional Support on Student Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion and Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

114 114 115 116 119 120 123 126 129 132 133 133 135 137 138 140 140

Abstract

This chapter presents an analysis of the practices and effectiveness of student support and services in Chinese higher education institutions. Using examples from four institutions of different types, it finds that Chinese higher education institutions are placing increasing emphasis on promoting student development through student support and services. With data from a national survey of college students, the chapter further shows that institutional services and support are well

F. Guo (*) · J. Liu · L. Li Institute of Education, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 H. Huijser et al. (eds.), Student Support Services, University Development and Administration, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5852-5_45

113

114

F. Guo et al.

perceived by students in most 4-year higher education institutions and are positively correlated with better academic outcomes and higher satisfaction of overall college experience. However, it also finds that the availability and quality of support vary across student backgrounds and institution types. Chinese higher education institutions need to deepen the understanding of students’ needs to provide targeted support and services for students in different academic levels and development stages. Keywords

Student support and services · Chinese higher education institutions · Student development

Introduction Student development in higher education occurs not only inside but also outside the classrooms. A supportive campus environment facilitates students’ integration with the institution and promotes their holistic development in college (e.g., Kuh et al. 2011; Lundberg 2012). In China, as the concept of “student-centered education” has become more and more prevalent in higher education institutions (HEIs) in recent decades, student support and services have received increasing attention from both researchers and practitioners. This chapter presents an analysis of the practices and effectiveness of student support and services in Chinese HEIs. Because of data limitation, the analysis is based on 4-year universities and colleges, but the discussion is situated in the context of the whole Chinese higher education system. The chapter is organized as following: It first briefly introduces the development of student services in Chinese HEIs through a synthesis of the literature, discusses practices taken by four sample institutions in providing financial, career development, psychological, and academic support to students, examines the level of support perceived by students using data from a national college student survey, and then explores the effects of institutional support on students’ development and satisfaction levels. The chapter concludes with implications and suggestions for future practices.

Development of Student Services in Chinese Higher Education Institutions Before examining the current situation of student support and services in Chinese HEIs, it is necessary to understand the structure of the Chinese higher education system as well as the development of the student work ecology in Chinese HEIs. This section provides a brief background of the context.

7

Student Support and Services in Chinese Higher Education Institutions:. . .

115

The Context of Chinese Higher Education China’s higher education system has experienced accelerated development in the past 70 years since the People’s Republic of China’s foundation in 1949. As shown in Fig. 1, the total enrollment in higher education increased slowly in the first 40 years and then expanded rapidly from 1990 to 2010. Though the expansion has slowed down since 2015, the gross enrollment rate has kept climbing and reached 51.6% in 2019. Higher education, which was only accessible to an elite group 30 years ago, is now open to half of China’s relevant age group. With the development of the Chinese economy and society, the context of Chinese higher education has also changed significantly. Before the 1980s, when higher education’s gross enrollment rate was below 5%, the HEIs were all public and free of charge. The government provided living stipends to students attending higher education, and assigned them to relevant employers upon graduation according to their academic majors and the government’s employment plan. Therefore, though higher education students lacked autonomy in employment placement, they did not face a financial burden and did not need to worry about employment after graduation. Starting in the late 1980s, as the Chinese economy transited from the planned economy to the market economy and the higher education system kept expanding, the government stopped the planned allocation of university and college graduates. In addition, public HEIs began to charge tuition and fees, and private (or the so-called “Minban(民办)”) HEIs developed rapidly. The higher education system has become more diverse in terms of size, academic concentration, level, source of finance, and enrollment selectivity.

Fig. 1 Enrollment and gross enrollment ratio in Chinese tertiary education (1949–2019). (Source: http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_sjzl/sjzl_fztjgb/202005/t20200520_456751.html)

116

F. Guo et al.

According to the statistics by the Ministry of Education (Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China 2020), there are 2688 regular HEIs (as opposite to Adult HEIs) by year 2019, among which 1265 are offering four-year Bachelors’ degree programs (hereafter referred to as 4-year HEIs) and 1423 are higher vocational colleges. In terms of finance sources, there are 1932 public regular HEIs and 756 private ones. Among the public HEIs, 117 are funded by the central governments and they are all 4-year HEIs. The others are funded by provincial and local governments. Among the private HEIs, 434 are 4-year HEIs, 257 of which are affiliated to comprehensive public universities but financed and run by the private sector. 322 private HEIs are higher vocational colleges. In terms of size and academic concentration, 4-year HEIs are divided into two groups by name: those with at least three out of the 13 Ministry of Education-defined categories of disciplines are named as “university (大学),” while those with fewer discipline categories are named as “college (学院).” The discipline categories include: Philosophy, Economics, Law, Education, Literature, History, Science, Engineering, Agriculture, Medicine, Military Science, Management Science, and Art Science (in 2021, the Ministry of Education announced the 14th discipline category: Interdisciplinary Sciences). Therefore, 4-year universities are more comprehensive and usually larger in size than 4-year colleges by definition. Higher vocational colleges are all named as “college (学院).” The private HEIs are mostly named as “college (学院),” and 434 of them are offering 4-year degree programs. Conventionally, the 4-year universities and colleges are collectively referred to as “universities (大学)” by the public regardless of their types. The rest of this chapter uses “4-year HEIs” for the sake of preciseness and uses “college students” and “college graduates” to refer to students in or graduates from 4-year HEIs for the sake of simplicity. The enrollment selectivity of a HEI is reflected by its minimum requirement of the National College Entrance Examination score (or the so-called Gaokao (高考) score). In China, almost all students who apply to higher education are required to take Gaokao and are recruited based on their scores in the exam. Better HEIs require higher scores. In general, public HEIs are more selective than private ones, and HEIs affiliated to the central governments are more selective than other HEIs. In addition, the Chinese government carried out a series of “world-class” university construct projects since mid-1990s to provide additional resource and policy support to selected HEIs, that is, the “Project 211” from 1995 to 2015 (116 HEIs), the “Project 985” from 1998 to 2015 (39 HEIs, all in the Project 211), and the Double-world Class Construction Project (DWC Project) from 2015 to present (140 HEIs). HEIs in these projects are considered as the elite ones in China and are the most selective ones in student recruitment.

The Changing Role of Student Work in Chinese Higher Education Institutions In almost all Chinese HEIs, student affairs are dealt with by a specific office, the Department of Student Work (学生处). Along with the changing context of Chinese

7

Student Support and Services in Chinese Higher Education Institutions:. . .

117

higher education, the responsibilities of the office have also changed in the past decades. In the earlier years, student affairs in Chinese HEIs were organized in a top-down supervision style. The institution was the authority that promulgated policies, rules, and codes of conduct that the students were expected to obey. The Department of Student Work’s primary function was to “control, regulate, and discipline students” (Cai 2000). The office was in charge of all student-related issues outside the classroom, from registration and academic record, living and safety on campus, to moral and civil education. Since the mid-1990s, with the rapid development of the Chinese economy, society, and higher education itself, new forms of student-related issues emerged on campus, including but not limited to academic pressure, psychological health, financial stress, and career development. These issues in HEIs gradually became the core responsibilities of the Department of Student Work. As China enters the new century, the idea of pedagogy shifts from “teacher-centered” to “student-centered,” the Department of Student Work’s duty gradually moved from mainly supervision to a combination of management and services, with a major goal to support and promote student success in college. A brief examination of the literature on this topic exemplifies the developing trend. By searching in China’s largest academic publication database, the CNKI (中国知网), with the keywords of “学生服务(student services),” “学生支持(student support),” and “大学/高校(university/higher education institution),” 3400 academic papers were retrieved. Figure 2 shows the number of publications by year. It shows a significant and rapidly rising trend in the number of publications in related fields during the first 15 years of the twenty-first century. Before the year 2000, the major topics were library services (e.g., Li 1987), logistics services (e.g., Shi and Xu 1996), introductions of the experience of other countries (e.g., Cheng 1997; Ou 1995; Bi 1992), and student support and services in distance education (e.g., Fan et al. 1999; Salma and Xu 1999). Figure 3 presents a keyword co-occurrence network of the academic articles to further examine the topics under discussion in this field. It shows that a large group of studies still focused on library services. Other major thematic clusters include (in descending order of frequency): services (the ginger green cluster), including management, service quality, student-related work, logistics services, etc.; career and employment guidance (the green cluster), service learning, and practical training

Fig. 2 Number of Chinese publications in the field of student support and services since 1949

118

F. Guo et al.

Fig. 3 Keyword co-occurrence network of Chinese publications in the field of student support and services since 1949

activities (the red cluster) which are critical duties of the Department of Student Work; and the functions of student services such as talent cultivation through student support and services (“服务育人” the purple cluster) and serviceoriented student administration (the aqua-blue cluster). Though relatively brief, rather than specific, these topics reveal that Chinese HEIs are becoming aware of the importance of student services in education. The concepts of student-centered services and student satisfaction are becoming more prevalent in Chinese HEIs. In addition, educational researchers, influenced by the leading theories of college impact models and student engagement (e.g., Astin 1984; Pascarella 2005; Kuh 2009), have paid increasing attention to explore the influences of the college environment and activities on student development. Many empirical Chinese studies reported about the school environment’s positive influence (Shi et al. 2011; Zhou and Zhou 2012; Bai 2016; Lu and Liu 2017). In a recent study with data from a national student survey in China, Lian and Shi (2020) found that institutional support has a direct and positive impact on students’ learning behavior, learning interest, and student development, as well as an indirect and positive impact on students’ growth through their learning behavior and learning interest. Specifically, employment support, students’ mutual assistance, teachers’ teaching, and students’ communication support from teachers have large effects on student development. In practice, to provide students with better services and support, separate centers and divisions were established under the Department of Student Work to take care of

7

Student Support and Services in Chinese Higher Education Institutions:. . .

119

different issues. For instance, under the Department of Student Work at Tsinghua University, there are five distinct centers regarding psychological development, academic development, global competency development, financial aids, and workstudy programs. These are in addition to the three original offices organizing moral education, general student affairs, and routine administrative work. The division of responsibilities allows these centers and offices to concentrate on their own tasks, enhance staff professionalism, and improve the overall quality of student services and support. However, the varied nature of higher education institutions in China may require an extension from the Department of Student Work at Tsinghua University to understand similar student service centers’ functions in other institutions. The following section presents student service centers in four sample institutions in China.

Institutional Practices: The Experience of Four Universities To illustrate practices employed by 4-year HEIs to support student development, this section analyzes policies and activities implemented by the Departments of Student Work in four sample institutions that vary on location, size, academic concentration, and enrollment selectivity. Specifically, the institutions are: Tsinghua University (清华大学, THU), a top elite research-oriented comprehensive university in China; Shandong University (山东大学, SDU), an elite research-oriented comprehensive university with a large enrollment of undergraduate students; Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications (重庆邮电大学, CUPT), a provincial public university focused on engineering; and Xi’an Eurasia University (西安欧亚学院, EU), a private undergraduate college with a focus on business. THU and SDU are considered elite universities in China, while the other two are nonelite universities. A brief description of each institution is shown in Table 1. Specifically, the analysis focuses on four aspects that were most relevant to student development: 1. Financial support, referring to the measures provided by the university to help students cope with their expenses of attending college, including scholarships, grants, or work-study jobs. 2. Career development support, referring to the university’s services and resources for the sake of students’ better career development in the future, such as offering courses on employment/entrepreneurship, providing internship experiences, establishing venture funds, etc. 3. Psychological health support, referring to activities, services, and resources provided by the university to promote students’ psychological and mental health, including psychological counseling provided by the mental health guidance centers. 4. Academic support, including resources and services provided by the university to facilitate student learning, such as academic tutoring, writing guidance, etc.

120

F. Guo et al.

Table 1 General information on the four institutions

Founding year Location

Type Total enrollment Number of faculty and staff

Tsinghua University 1911

Shandong University 1901

Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications 1950

Xi’an Eurasia University 1995

Beijing, Northern China

Shandong, Eastern China

Chongqing, Southwest China

Comprehensive & Public 50,394a

Comprehensive & Public 70,646b

Engineering concentrated & Public Over 25,000c

15,401a

4530b

Over 1,900c

Shaanxi, Northwest China Vocational & Private About 20,000d 1427d

a

By December 31, 2019. (Data source: https://www.tsinghua.edu.cn/xxgk/tjzl.htm) Undated. (Data source: https://www.sdu.edu.cn/sdgk/sdjj.htm) c By June 2020. (Data source http://www.cqupt.edu.cn/xxgk.htm) d The academic year 2018–2019. (Data source: http://xxgk.eurasia.edu//bkjxzlbg/31403.htm) b

Financial Support Financial support to students from low-income families has been one of the top concerns of higher education policymakers and institutions since the Chinese public universities started to charge tuition and fees. At the national level, a financial support system was established by the Minister of Education and the Minister of Finance to provide merit-based scholarships, need-based grants, loans, work-study stipends, and reduction of tuition and fees to students (Li and Shen 2004; Yu 2010; Zhang 2003a). The central government established a Center of National Student Loans (全国学生贷 款管理中心) in 1999 to manage the national student loans, which was renamed to Center of National Student Financial Aid (全国学生资助管理中心) in 2006 to promote the implementation of various national policies and measures on financial aid for students at all levels. The provincial Bureau of Education also organizes provincial-level centers to deal with student financial support issues. At the institutional level, most HEIs have set up specific centers/offices for student financial aid. In addition to national support, they also provide various scholarships from other funding sources. As shown in Table 2, the four institutions in our sample all have a center to manage different financial aid programs and workstudy programs. Besides increasing students’ affordability and promoting opportunities for access, these centers have paid increasing attention to “cultivating talents through the financial aid” in recent years. Recent empirical studies find that institutional financial support is not only beneficial for student academic performance (Yang 2009; Li et al. 2015) but also for development in other aspects such as social engagement, psychological health, academic interests, and employment outcomes (Bao and Chen 2015; Qu and Wang 2018; Li 2007).

7

Student Support and Services in Chinese Higher Education Institutions:. . .

121

Table 2 Financial support practices in sample universities Institution Tsinghua University

Organization(s) Student Financial Aid Centera Center on Student Workstudy Programsb

Shandong University

Student Financial Aid Centerb

Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications

Center on Student Financial Aid and Management; Center of Work-study Programc

Xi’an Eurasia University

Student Financial Assistance Management Centerd

Duties “Double strengthening”: strengthening the institution’s responsibility in providing financial aid and strengthening the role of financial aid in talent cultivation “Double increasing”: increasing the funding and direct financial investment, and increasing the quantity and quality of work-study programs “Two ‘All’s” refers to providing support to all students from low-income families and covering all of their basic college expenses The organization and management of the university’s undergraduate students’ work-study assistance The management of national student loans The financial support for students with financial difficulties The development of skills training The cultivation of the selfreliance spirit of students with financial difficulties Establishing moral education and cultivating talents Aims to promote the all-round growth and success of students Help students with financial difficulties to grow and become successful

To ensure that no student will drop out due to financial difficulties

Types of financial aid Merit-based scholarships Need-based study grants Work-study grants National student loans The “Greenchannel” (temporary loans) Grants to overcome temporary hardship Funding for overseas exchange projects

Tuition stipends Living expense stipends Emergency assistance Work-study programs The “Greenchannel” The “Add wings” Project

Merit-based scholarships Needs-based study grants Work-study grants National student loans Compensation and tuition exemption The “Greenchannel” Merit-based scholarships Need-based study grants Work-study grants (continued)

122

F. Guo et al.

Table 2 (continued) Institution

Organization(s)

Duties

Types of financial aid National student loans Compensation and tuition exemption The “Greenchannel” National subsidies for the compulsory soldier and retired soldiers Scholarships for internships, certification exams, and overseas studies

a

http://career.tsinghua.edu.cn/index.htm (in Chinese) http://zizhu.tsinghua.edu.cn/zxjs/zxjj/index.htm (in Chinese) c http://cqupt.cuepa.cn/show_more.php?tkey¼&bkey¼&doc_id¼2312921 (in Chinese) d http://xsc.eurasia.edu/university/17284.htm (in Chinese) e https://www.tsinghua.edu.cn/xsb/jgsz/qgzxzdzx.htm (in Chinese) b

For instance, the Student Financial Aid Center of THU emphasized “Double strengthening,” “Double increasing,” and “Two ‘All’s” in providing economic support. The “Double strengthening” refers to strengthening the institution’s responsibility in providing financial aid and strengthening the role of financial aid in talent cultivation. The “Double increasing” refers to increasing the funding and direct financial investment and increasing the quantity and quality of work-study programs. The “Two ‘All’s” refers to providing support to all students from low-income families and covering all of their basic college expenses. To achieve these goals, the Center offers a variety of scholarships and grants, from needs-based to meritbased, from essential tuition subsidies to grants for overseas studies, and from yearly support for students from low-income families to one-time support for students who suffer from sudden temporary difficulties (Student Financial Aid Center of Tsinghua University n.d.). Similarly, SDU has established a “four-dimension” system of financial assistance to “help the needy, encourage learning, promote virtue and strengthen ability” (Student Financial Aid Center of Shandong University n.d.). In addition to conventional means of financial aid, the Center of Students Financial Aid at SDU proposed an “Add Wings Project (添翼工程)” aiming at improving the comprehensive quality of students from low-income families and cultivating comprehensive talents with all-around development, that is, to add “wings” to students from a disadvantaged background. The project carried out more than 40 training programs in four modules: comprehensive ability training module, professional skills improvement module, cultural and sports talent development module, and new career guidance module. The employment rate of graduates from the “Add Wings Project” has

7

Student Support and Services in Chinese Higher Education Institutions:. . .

123

been 2–3 percentage points higher than the average of graduates of the same cohort for three consecutive years. In addition, the Center also carried out gratitude education and guided students to devote to public welfare. The other two universities, CUPT and EU, also have specific centers on financial aid. In addition, CUPT has a separate Center of Work-study Programs to promote the all-around growth and success of students through well-designed work-study programs. These programs not only provide students with monetary compensations but also cultivate honesty and a sense of responsibility through labor work (Introduction of student financial aid in Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications. n.d.). EU, as a private university charging relatively high tuition fees, has established a comprehensive financial system to support students in need. In addition to grants, scholarships, and loans, the university also cooperates with the government to provide subsidies to students who have served or are about to serve in the military. It further provides scholarships set up by social philanthropists (Xi’an Eurasia University Student Office n.d.). Overall, as exemplified by the sample universities, 4-year HEIs in China have a well-established financial support system. The effort is not only made to relieve the financial burden of students from low-income families to attend college, but also to support their learning development in college.

Career Development Support As the Chinese government gradually abandoned the planned employment placement of college graduates, college graduates’ employment has turned into a primary government concern, and the Chinese government has enacted a number of employment policies to address the issue. With the expansion of higher education, the job market is more competitive, making career development service a top concern of Chinese higher education. As early as in the late 1980s, scholars and university administrators started to realize the importance of employment guidance (e.g., Hu 1988) and learn from the experience of other countries to establish employment support services (e.g., Bi 1992; Ji 1993; Lin 1989; Long 1990; Wang 1992). At the national level, the Minister of Education set up the National Employment Guidance Center for Graduates of Higher Education in 1991 and renamed it to the China Higher Education Student Information and Career Center (CHESICC) in 1998. In the same year, the Higher Education Law of the People’s Republic of China was promulgated, which clearly stipulates that HEIs are responsible for providing employment guidance and services for graduates. In 2008, a national college students’ employment public service platform was launched by the CHESICC to better serve college students’ employment needs. Provincial-level centers were also established by provincial bureaus. Following governments’ acts and policies, 4-year universities and colleges have actively implemented employment policies and provided students with comprehensive employment services. Most HEIs have established centres providing student

124

F. Guo et al.

employment and career development services. The responsibilities of these centers have gradually expanded from employment guidance for senior students, such as providing job information and training on interview skills, to career development guidance for students in all grades, including helping students understand their strengths and shortcomings in the labor market and developing a clear vision for their career choices. Table 3 presents the missions and activities of the centers of career development in the four sample universities. For example, at the Career Development Center (CDC) at THU, it provides students with a comprehensive range of career guidance through the “Beidou Plan.” It organizes various activities, including assessments of professional potential, one-on-one general counseling on self-awareness and career development, industry-specialized career counseling studios run by experienced faculty members, credited courses on career planning and development, and workshops and lectures to improve students’ understanding of the job market and job-seeking skills (Career Development Center of Tsinghua University n.d.). In addition, the CDC has launched a Career Coaching Program which invites wellknown enterprise representatives and senior professionals to assume the role of career coaches for students at THU (Career Coaching Program of Tsinghua University n.d.), and a “Let’s (Life Experience, Tailor-made Sharing)” Plan, which invites Tsinghua alumni with specific professional experience and industry experience to serve as career mentors (Alumni Mentoring Program of Tsinghua University n.d.). These two programs provide students with opportunities to connect with professionals in industry, deepen their understanding of industry, and get real-world experience in the workplace. In recent years, in order to develop students’ global competency, the CDC established a Department on International Organizations to carry out consulting, counseling, coaching, and courses in relevant areas and recommend students to internships and job opportunities in international organizations (Career Development Center of Tsinghua University n.d.). Through all these activities, the CDC at THU creates a broad platform for students to develop self-identity, improve workplace competency, gain real-world working experience, and plan their careers according to their characteristics. To enhance the quality of services, the CDC has formed a teaching and research team to conduct research on college student employment and career development and design courses and programs for the CDC. The other universities in our analysis also have centers taking similar roles through similar types of activities. However, there are deviations in the concentration of career guidance. Students from different kinds of institutions have varied expectations of future job destinations. For example, most of the research universities graduates prefer to go to research institutes, government, and other organizations for employment. In contrast, most of the graduates from teaching and applied institutions have a desire to go to private enterprises for employment. Institutions tend to develop career support policies and development programs based on the students’ actual expectations. Overall, these centers work proactively to help students deal with difficulties in job-seeking practices and career development planning.

7

Student Support and Services in Chinese Higher Education Institutions:. . .

125

Table 3 Career development support practices in sample universities Institution Tsinghua University

Organization Career Development Centera

Shandong University

Student Career Guidance centerb

Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications

Student Career Service Centerc

Duties Formulate measures to facilitate graduate employment Collect and disseminate information on employers’ needs for graduates Contact employers to organize campus talks and recruitment activities Organize and carry out employment counseling and guidance Help graduates to fully understand themselves and establish a correct outlook on choosing a career Guide and recommend outstanding graduates to critical national units and enterprises for employment Help students with career planning Education of students in full career planning Construction of students’ career assessment and career profiles Plan and carry out various employment guidance activities Construction of students’ vocational clubs Bridge the connection between personnel training and students’ career development advisory committees Construction of employment guidance courses Research on career development guidance Implement the national employment policy Guide graduates to establish a correct outlook on choosing a career Regulate their employment behavior

Programs and activities Provide a full range and depth of career counseling services to students through the “Beidou Project” Individual career counseling Specialized career counseling studios Courses on employment and career plan Workshops and lectures Coaching programs Internship and practice opportunities

Launch an employment information website Create the “Shanda Employment” newspaper Offer employment guidance courses for university students Launch employment counseling services

Establish an employment service platform and a graduate employment information platform, including an employer management module, a (continued)

126

F. Guo et al.

Table 3 (continued) Institution

Xi’an Eurasia University

Organization

Employment Services and Career Development Centerd

Duties

Programs and activities

Carry out employment guidance and consultation Provide graduates with employment information Job-seek skills Practical skills training and other services Cultivate the on-campus job market for graduates

graduate employment management module, and an employment statistics analysis module Establish four-way interaction of school managers, college managers, students, and employers Set-up three departments: the Research and Information Center, the Innovation and Incubation Center, and the Cooperative Development Center to promote the integration of employment, industry, and learning

Establish a system for evaluating students’ career development and employment quality Organize courses and activities for students’ career planning Manage students’ entrepreneurship practice Formulate enterprise development plans Establish resource platforms Publish employment information

a

http://career.tsinghua.edu.cn/index.htm (in Chinese) https://job.sdu.edu.cn/ (in Chinese) c http://job.cqupt.edu.cn/portal/home.html (in Chinese) d http://www.eurasia.edu/content/details_22_15319.html (in Chinese) b

Psychological Support The psychological health and mental development of college students has received increasing attention from universities and colleges in recent decades. As early as 1994, the central government formally used the word “mental health education” in an official document for the first time, placing mental health education as a critical aspect of moral education. In 1995, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2004, and 2005, the central government successively promulgated a series of documents, making specific policies and regulations on psychological health education and support of college students. Responding to these policies, universities, and colleges gradually set up a psychological education and support system, offering relevant courses and professional psychological counseling to students. Scholars pointed out the responsibilities of such systems: offering formal mental education through well-designed courses, providing group and individual counseling and guidance, identifying students under potential crisis and making in-time interventions, and working with families and communities to better support students (Yu and Zhao 2013). In most HEIs, these functions are carried out by psychological counseling centers.

7

Student Support and Services in Chinese Higher Education Institutions:. . .

127

According to an investigation of psychological counseling centers in 20 HEIs in Beijing, Wuhan, and Xi’an in 2010 (Liu and Shi 2010), most univeristies and colleges have begun to increase their human and material investment in psychological counseling. College students’ recognition and satisfaction with psychological counseling has been improved. Yet the study provided also some suggestions for such centers: (1) improving the size and capacity of the professional teams in these centers, (2) strengthening the coordination between the psychological counseling centers and other departments, and (3) exploring a reliable and efficient model of psychological counseling in colleges and universities. After 10 years of development, despite a lack of further empirical investigations, our sample universities’ practices demonstrate some improvement. As shown in Table 4, each of the sample universities has set up a specialized psychological counseling center that provides psychological assessments, individual and group counseling, and relevant courses and lectures to students. They all employ full-time and part-time psychologists to provide services to students. Some universities also invite senior students and alumni to offer peer support, as research suggests that peer counseling is effective in improving student mental health (Li 2011). Most universities have built up professional and comprehensive platforms. For instance, CUPT has built a mental health education base of nearly 600 square meters, setting up psychological vent rooms, psychological sand table rooms, group activity rooms, psychological evaluation rooms, and other facilities with advanced equipment. They have also established a configurable video system of psychological counseling supervision and a crisis alarm system (Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications n.d.). To better support students and provide timely intervention to students in crisis, these centers work closely with other departments and schools of the university. For instance, the Student Counseling Center at SDU has established a three-level management system of “university-college-class” to deliver mental health education and a five-level early alarm system of “university-college-class-dormitory-individual” to screen and intervene in a mental crisis (Student Counseling Center Of Shandong University n.d.). Special attention is paid to students in the first year. Most universities give first-year students psychological assessments at the beginning of the school year to evaluate their psychological status and set up profiles for students at risk. Some centers also organize activities to help students adapt to college life. Yet, though similar in function and practices, the mission of these centers seem to differ a little: while CUPT and EU focus more on the intervention of psychological crises to prevent extreme events (such as suicidal accidents), THU and SDU place more emphasis on stimulating students’ potential and promoting their personalized development. Universities’ efforts in psychological education have proven to be effective in empirical studies. According to a meta-analysis of college students’ mental health from 1986 to 2010, Chinese college students’ psychological problems have decreased through the period (Xin et al. 2012). More recent studies have shown that courses on mental health not only reduced the degree of psychological distress but also improved positive psychological quality and a sense of life meaning (Zheng

128

F. Guo et al.

Table 4 Psychological support practices in sample universities Institution Tsinghua University

Organization Student Psychological Development Guidance Center

Shandong University

Student Counseling Center

Chongqing University of Posts

Center for Mental Health

Duties Improve the psychological quality and social adaptability of students Solve the problems and psychological obstacles students encounter in the course of study, life, or growth Reduce the maladjustment caused by psychological contradictions or conflicts Help students to explore their personal potential and promote the development of personalities Cultivate highlevel talents who are optimistic, confident, good at communication, with a good personality, and achieve harmonious development Investigates students’ mental health to provide a basis for school decision-making Conducts scientific research on mental health education Explores effective ways of mental health education Provide counseling services and

Staff composition Full-time and part-time psychologists Expert professors Peer tutors Teaching assistants Alumni

Activities Individual counseling Group counseling Psychological assessments Course and workshops on mental and psychological development

Full-time and part-time psychologists Expert professors

Individual counseling Group counseling Psychological assessments Courses on mental health

Full-time and part-time psychologists

Individual counseling Group (continued)

7

Student Support and Services in Chinese Higher Education Institutions:. . .

129

Table 4 (continued) Institution

Organization

Duties

and Telecommunications

Education and Counseling

Xi’an Eurasia University

Psychological Counseling center

mental education to students Screen and intervene students in psychological crises Work with other departments to improve students’ mental health Promote peer support between students Increasing individual’s psychological strengths Enhance a sense of hope and wellbeing

Staff composition

Activities

Expert professors

counseling Psychological assessments Courses and lectures on mental health

Full-time and part-time psychologists

Specialist counseling Peer counseling Psychological assessment

a

http://career.cic.tsinghua.edu.cn/xsglxt/loginXlfzzx (in Chinese) https://www.xljk.sdu.edu.cn/ (in Chinese) c http://xsc.cqupt.edu.cn/xinliweb (in Chinese) d http://www.eurasia.edu/phone/content/details_41_1479.html (in Chinese) b

and Lu 2014; Yang 2017). However, various studies have also pointed out that students in nonkey and private universities, students in the freshman year, male students, and students from urban areas still required more attention (Zhang 2003b; Xin et al. 2012). In addition, entering the information age, students of a younger generation face different problems than previous generations (Xu et al. 2019). More work is necessary to better understand the characteristics of students from different backgrounds to protect and promote their psychological health and mental development.

Academic Support Academic support was considered for a long time to be part of a faculty member’s duty inside the classroom and was only for “left-behind” students who needed additional tutoring on course learning (Zhang and Yao 2016). By the end of 2015, only 6 of the 39 universities in the “Project 985” had established academic support centers (Zhang and Yao 2016). As China’s higher education kept expanding in quantity, the quality of education became the top concern of HEIs. Governments and HEIs started to pay more attention to student learning and development in college. Academic development centers, with their responsibilities expanding from

130

F. Guo et al.

academic remediation to further educational development, and their customers expanding from “left-behind” students to all students, emerged in more and more HEIs. As for the sample universities in our analysis, THU and CUPT have established specific academic support centers. THU established the first Center of this kind in China in 2009. CUPT started a Peer Assisted Study Sessions (PASS) program in 2014 and later on established an Academic Mutual Assistance Center in 2017. SDU and EU, though they do not have an institutional-level center, offer various programs to support student learning. For instance, SDU has expanded the “Add Wings Project” by their Student Financial Aid Center to serve students with learning difficulties. Carrying out new academic support activities such as the “Skinfire Alliance (星火联盟)” and “Learn to Break the Cocoon (破茧成蝶),” the Center invites professors and senior students to facilitate online and off-line “Question & Answer” sessions as well as individualized counseling and tutorials (Shandong University News Network n.d.). EU, with an aim to cultivate talents in business, places particular attention on student development of practical skills. They offer students assistance in taking exams for professional certifications and more advanced degrees. In addition, the School of Accounting has established a Student Learning Support Center, providing students with counseling on academic, psychological, and career development issues (Student Learning Support Center at the College of Accounting n.d.). Table 5 presents the basic information about, and responsibilities of, the centers and programs. Learning from the experience of world top universities in student learning and counseling, the Center for Student Learning and Development at THU aims to build a professional guidance and service system to facilitate the development of top innovative talents. It provides three types of academic support: tutoring and remediation services for students with learning difficulties, learning capability development programs for all students (e.g., quantitative clubs, writing assistance), and individualized advanced development programs (e.g., development in research capacity, leadership, global competency) for outstanding students (Geng and Zhan 2012). By doing so, the Center meets the demands of different types of students and supports students’ holistic development beyond the classroom. CUPT is a teaching-oriented university whose students are relatively less prepared for higher education. Its Academic Mutual Assistance Center’s primary goal is to enhance students’ learning ability and improve their performance with coursework (Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications n.d.). As indicated by the title of the Center, it encourages students to help each other. Its primary program, the PASS program, focuses on traditionally difficult courses rather than students with academic difficulties, to avoid labeling students as “left-behind” students and protect and improve their motivation. It recruits senior students with outstanding academic records to provide structured seminars that integrate the course content and learning methods for lower grade students. The seniors are required to take training of 16 h and take the course they are going to tutor so they

7

Student Support and Services in Chinese Higher Education Institutions:. . .

131

Table 5 Academic support practices in sample universities Institution Tsinghua University

Organization Center for Student Learning and Developmenta

Duties To provide professional guidance, consultation, and support services for the learning and development of all students To improve students’ learning effectiveness.

Shandong Universityb

No specific center on academic support (Support is offered by the Center on Student Financial Aid through the “Add Wings” Project)

N/A

Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications

Academic Mutual Assistance Centerc

Motivate students to learn Provide advice on learning methods and management Provide tutorials on coursework

Xi’an Eurasia University

No institutional level organization; Student Learning Support Center at the College of Accountingd

Provide all-round guidance for students’ personal growth Help students with career planning and

Programs and activities One-on-one counseling Q&A workshops Lectures Workshops Small group tutoring Writing assistance Buddy programs Quantitative clubs and other programs Group remediation for students who fail courses Online and on-site Q & A sessions Individualized tutoring for students with special needs The PASS program The “inote” academic resource library Online academic Q&A Small class tutoring One-on-one counseling for career planning Scholars’ forums Expert lectures Group counseling (continued)

132

F. Guo et al.

Table 5 (continued) Institution

Organization

Duties guidance Promote students’ workplace skills

Programs and activities Job search skills training

a

https://www.tsinghua.edu.cn/xsb/jgsz/xsxxyfzzdzx.htm (in Chinese) https://www.view.sdu.edu.cn/info/1022/120790.htm (in Chinese) c http://cqupt.cuepa.cn/show_more.php?tkey¼&bkey¼&doc_id¼2301012 (in Chinese) d http://kj.eurasia.edu/xxzczxalone/index.htm (in Chinese) b

can play a demonstration role and communicate effectively with the course teachers. There is also a systematic evaluation system of the project to ensure the quality of the seminars. Along with the tutorial sessions, they have also established an “iNote” academic resource library, allowing senior students to share their lecture notes with lower grade students. (Peer Assisted Study Sessions (PASS) program of Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications n.d.) The PASS program has significantly improved students’ academic performance. According to a newspaper report by CUPT, the average score of students who regularly participate in the program is generally more than 5 points higher than that of other students in the final exam (Peer Assisted Study Sessions (PASS) program of Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications n.d.). The make-up and retake rates of students who regularly participate in the program are significantly lower than those of other students. In addition, the program provides senior students with an opportunity to improve their studies and other abilities. After several years of operation, the PASS program has proven to be a mutually beneficial program for both senior and lower grade students. Overall, though the support and programs offered by the sample universities vary in their emphases and formats, they all share the common goal to support students’ academic development. Recognizing the importance of student-faculty and studentstudent interactions, most programs take the form of small group tutoring, one-toone counseling, and peer-support schemes offered by faculty members and senior students. However, compared to the other three types of services, the academic support service is less professionalized and needs further development in the future.

Student Experience with Institutional Support in China Though HEIs in China are carrying out various student support policies and practices, the effectiveness of such approaches to promote student development depends on the extent to which students are aware of and fully use the support. This section uses data from a national student survey to explore students’ experience with institutional support and examines the impact of student perceived institutional support on their performance and growth in college.

7

Student Support and Services in Chinese Higher Education Institutions:. . .

133

Data Description The data used in this section is from the China College Student Survey (CCSS) from 2011 to 2019, which was a national annual survey conducted by THU. Accumulatively about 726,000 students were randomly selected from 115 four-year HEIs across the country, and 622,040 valid questionnaires were returned. It should be noted that this was a pooled cross-sectional sample. Participants were not tracked through years. Instead, an representative sample of students was selected from each participating institution with stratified sampling strategy by grade each year. 77 of HEIs in the sample participated in at least two waives of the survey, and three participated in all nine waives. Among the 115 HEIs, there were 50 elite universities and 65 nonelite provincial HEIs. The elite universities refer to universities in the DWC Project, which is divided into two tracks: Track I (including 42 universities) is aimed at constructing world-class universities, while Track II (including 95 universities and colleges) is aimed at building world-class disciplines. Eighteen universities in the sample are in Track I (hereafter referred to as DWC-I) and 32 are in the Track II (hereafter referred to as DWC-II). The sample distribution, in terms of gender (male/female), ethnicity (Han/ethnic minority), family background (from city/town or rural area), grade, academic major category, and institution type, is shown in Table 6 below. Sampling weights are applied in analysis to adjust for the oversampling of elite universities in the survey.

Current Status of Institutional Support in China Support and services provided by the university are meaningful only if students have access to it. In other words, what matters more is the level of support perceived by Table 6 Description of the sample composition (N ¼ 622,040) Characteristic Gender Male Female Missing Ethnicity Han Minority Missing Grade Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Missing

Frequency

Percent (%)

320,679 300,590 771

51.55 48.32 0.12

482,996 39,963 99,081

77.65 6.42 15.93

176,815 171,534 167,949 105,742 0

28.43 27.58 27.00 17.00 0

Characteristic Household location Urban Rural Missing Academic major Humanities Social Sciences Sciences Engineering Missing Institution type DWC-I institutions DWC-II institutions Other institutions

Frequency

Percent (%)

305,517 307,304 9219

49.12 49.40 1.48

80,057 152,173 103,892 283,299 2,619

12.87 24.46 16.70 45.54 0.42

99,331 194,903 327,806

15.97 31.33 52.70

134

F. Guo et al.

students. The CCSS survey asks about students’ perception of the accessibility of academic, psychological, financial, and career support and their satisfaction with such services. The items are on 4-point and 7-point Likert scales in the questionnaire and standardized to 0–100 scales in the analysis. A score of “000 indicates that the student does not feel any support in the relevant aspect from the institution, and a “10000 means that the student feels strong support from the institution. Figure 4 presents the trend of students’ perceived availability of institutional support on academic development, psychological development, career development, and financial aid during 2011–2019, while Figure 5 presents student satisfaction on related aspects. (Note: The CCSS questionnaire did not ask about student’s satisfaction on academic and psychological services directly. Instead, it asked student’s satisfaction on academic facilities and social interactions. Figure 5 presents the average score on these two items.) The wording of the items on the availability in the survey questionnaire changed in 2016, resulting in a systematic jump in the scores that year. Therefore, the scores before and after 2015 are not directly comparable. These 2 years are separated in the figures to avoid misleading presentations. As suggested by Figure 4, there is a slight improvement in students’ perceived availability of all services through the years, despite some fluctuations. Among the four types of support, career support received the highest score before 2015, which was surpassed by financial support since 2016. Academic support scored the lowest in most years. Figure 5 shows, however, that student satisfaction with career support kept scoring the lowest through all the years, while their satisfaction with financial

80.00 75.00 70.00 65.00 60.00 55.00 50.00 45.00 40.00

Year Year Year Year Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Year Year Year Year 2016 2017 2018 2019

Aacademic support

Psychological support

Career support

Financial support

Fig. 4 Students’ perceived availability of services by year

7

Student Support and Services in Chinese Higher Education Institutions:. . .

135

80.00 75.00 70.00 65.00 60.00 55.00 50.00 45.00 40.00 Year 2011

Year 2012

Year 2013

Year 2014

Year 2015

Year 2016

Year 2017

Year 2018

SF_academic facility

SF_social support

SF_career support

SF_financial support

Year 2019

Fig. 5 Student satisfaction with college support by year

support kept scoring the highest. Overall, student satisfaction with student support and services has increased through the years. Though not a piece of representative evidence of the development of student services in China, these figures provide some insights into the overall situation. First, students consistently perceived more career services and financial support than psychological and academic support in Chinese HEIs. This is consistent with the development of student services in China described in the previous section. Second, students perceived more and better financial support through the years, indicating that HEIs did put more effort into student financial aids in the past years. Third, there is still a gap between students’ need for career support and the services provided by HEIs. Fourth, psychological support is getting more attention from universities, yet students’ needs for social support have not been met. Fifth, student satisfaction with academic facilities tends to increase through the years, but the academic support was perceived to be the least available service in all the years. Overall, the differences between students’ perceived availability and satisfaction with different types of service suggest that there is still much to do by the HEIs to better support students.

Group Comparison of Institutional Support To take a more in-depth look, the level of student perceived institutional support has been compared across different student groups. For simplicity, a new indicator has been constructed for each aspect by taking the average of the scores on availability and satisfaction on that aspect. As shown in Fig. 6, after controlling for social

136

F. Guo et al.

Fig. 6 Comparison of student perceived support between different groups. (Note: 1. The regression-adjusted mean differences are presented with 95% confidence intervals; 2. survey year fixed effects are included in the model; 3. sampling weights are applied in analysis; 4. missing values in ethnicity, family income, and social desirability are treated with the dummy flag method; the missing rate of the other variables are below 5% and treated with pairwise deletion method)

desirability, students of different gender, family background, grade, institution type differed significantly in their perceived level of support from institutions. Yet, students of different ethnic groups and disciplines showed little difference in perceived support. (Regression results are available upon request.) Specifically, female students perceived significantly higher levels of support from the institutions than males in all aspects. In terms of family background, students from rural areas experienced higher levels of support than those from urban areas on academic issues, career guidance, and especially on economic matters. Students from lower-income families received higher levels of financial support but lower career guidance than those from middle and upper-income families, while those from middle-income families perceived more academic and psychological support than the other two groups. First-generation students perceived significantly higher levels of support in all aspects. These findings suggest that government and institutional policies are tilted towards the disadvantaged students, especially the financial support policies, and are effective and well-perceived by the targeted students. Regarding grade groups, relative to freshmen, upper-grade students, especially the sophomore and junior students, tended to perceive significantly less support from the institution in all four areas. The senior students perceived a similar level of support as the first-year students in all aspects but psychological support, which was

7

Student Support and Services in Chinese Higher Education Institutions:. . .

137

also significantly lower than that received by the freshman students. This suggests that institutions pay more attention to first-year students and students in the graduating class and somehow “neglect” students in the middle years. As for psychological support, most of the institution’s attention is given to students in the freshman year. Comparing across different types of institutions, students of the DWC-I universities perceived significantly higher institutional support in all aspects than those from DWC-II universities and nonelite HEIs. The magnitudes ranged from 0.21 to 0.30 standard deviations, making institution type the most significant contributor to the differences in students’ perceived support across institutions. This, on the one hand, suggests that the DWC-I universities place more emphasis on student services and support, while on the other hand it indicates that the DWC-I universities have more resources than other types of universities.

The Impact of Institutional Support on Student Development In order to understand the effectiveness of institutional support on student development, this section examines the correlations between institutional support and student outcomes. Specifically, multiple regression models are employed to estimate the correlations, where student perceived levels of financial, career development, psychological, and academic support are treated as the key explanatory variables, and student outcomes are used as dependent variables separately. Student outcomes refer to learning motivation, academic record (as measured by the average course score), self-reported gains in knowledge, skills, and self-understanding, employability, and overall satisfaction with the college experience and individual growth. Student demographic information, academic ability as measured by the Gaokao score National College Entrance Examination score, and institution characteristics are controlled for as covariates. The results are presented in Fig. 7. (Regression results are available upon request.) The results suggest that, after controlling for the covariates, students’ perceived institutional support in academic affairs, psychological health, career development, and economic issues were all statistically significantly associated with higher motivation, better academic performance, more self-perceived learning gains, and higher satisfaction of overall college experience and growth. In addition, career guidance and psychological support were also positively correlated with higher employability. Comparatively, psychological (the yellow bars) and career support (the gray bars) exerted greater influence on student development than academic (the blue bars) and financial support (the green bars). Psychological support is especially important for self-reported gains and overall satisfaction with college experience and personal growth. Career guidance is crucial for employability. Yet, student academic performance was least influenced by institutional support. Though the coefficients on academic, psychological, and financial support were all statistically significant, the effect sizes were very small in magnitude.

138

F. Guo et al.

Fig. 7 The influence of different types of support on student development and satisfaction. (Note: 1. The standardized coefficients (the beta coefficients) from the regression analysis are presented in bars for easier comparison. Coefficients along with 95% confidence intervals are presented to show the significance of the estimated association; 2. survey year fixed effects are included in the model; 3. sampling weights are applied in analysis; 4. missing values in ethnicity, family income, Gaokao scores, and social desirability are treated with the dummy flag method; the missing rate of the other variables are below 5% and treated with pairwise deletion method)

Conclusion and Future Directions This chapter has presented an overview of student support and services in Chinese HEIs using examples from four universities of different types and data from a national student survey known as the Chinese College Student Survey (CCSS). As the Chinese higher education has transformed from an elite education system to mass education, the obligations and people’s expectations of HEIs have also changed, as have the function and responsibilities of the Departments of Student Work. Previously an authoritative office to regulate student behaviors, the Departments of Student Work in most Chinese HEIs are now taking the role of a supporter and facilitator of student development. This is not only shown in the tones of academic publications but also in the practices of such offices. Following the shift of national policies on providing quality higher education, most HEIs have established a comprehensive system to provide financial support to

7

Student Support and Services in Chinese Higher Education Institutions:. . .

139

students in need. “Never let a student drop out from college because of poverty”; this is the promise of the Chinese government and all the HEIs. Even private institutions, which charge relatively higher tuition (such as the Xi’an Eurasia University), provide adequate financial support in various forms to reduce students’ economic burden. Data from the CCSS survey show that such effort is well perceived by students, especially by those from lower socio-economic groups. Student satisfaction with institutions’ financial support has remained high through recent years, and financial support plays a positive role in improving student development. Guidance on employment and career development has also received constant attention from the central government and HEIs. Helping students set up a clear career goal and preparing them for the job market are the primary obligation of the career development centers in HEIs. In addition to employment skills, many centers aim to help students develop a better self-understanding and achieve their full potential through career counseling and workshops. These centers are also responsible for bridging students with potential employers and providing students with internships and employment information. As suggested by the CCSS data, career guidance has a significant and positive influence on student employability while positively influencing students’ overall satisfaction with their college experience and self-growth. Yet, the data also shows that student satisfaction with career support is the lowest among the four types of support, suggesting that universities need to do more in meeting students’ actual demand of career guidance. The psychological and mental health and development of college students is an essential outcome of college education. Though professional psychological counseling centers are relatively new in HEIs, moral and mental education is one of the primary responsibilities of the Department of Student Work from the beginning. On the one hand, they offer credited courses on moral and mental development. On the other hand, they provide counseling to students at risk. By establishing psychological centers, many universities are now able to offer more types of activities to support students, including personal and group counseling on more general issues and other activities to promote the development of positive and mature characteristics. As shown by the CCSS data, psychological support plays a significant role in improving students’ sense of gain in college and overall satisfaction with the college. However, many psychological development centers face a common problem: the lack of professional counselors, which may limit the quality of services provided to students. Academic support centers have a relatively short history in Chinese HEIs. In many institutions, academic support is provided by peer students and professors, and most of such support focuses on the mastery of course content. In comparison, as shown by the CCSS data, students’ academic performance is only slightly influenced by institutional support. This is in line with the Department of Student Work’s responsibilities, which concentrates more on student development outside the classroom. Yet, the data also suggests that institutional academic support positively influences student satisfaction with the overall learning experience. HEIs need to be more proactive in providing professional and comprehensive academic support to students. Finally, the CCSS data points out some problems in student services and support in China. First, though students receive close attention and a range of support from

140

F. Guo et al.

the institution in their first year in college, they tend to be “forgotten” in the second and third year. Only until they face the pressure of graduating and finding a job will they receive attention again from the institution. This is understandable given that student service departments in many institutions have limited resources in terms of funding and personnel. This is related to the second problem shown in the data. Students from different levels of universities receive different amounts of institutional support. Those from the top elite universities, that is, the DWC-I universities, perceive much more support. The availability of institutional support, on the one hand, is limited by resources, while on the other hand it reveals institutional awareness of the importance of such services. Having said this, the analysis of the development of student services and support in Chinese institutions reveals a unique characteristic: as a centralized education system, government policies have been thoroughly carried out by HEIs. The Ministry of Education held the “National Conference on Undergraduate Education in the New Era” in 2018, which sounded the clarion call for a comprehensive revitalization of undergraduate education in China. As an essential complement to curriculum development and teaching, student services and support also play an increasingly prominent role. Beyond the essential financial support and employment preparation, more and more emphasis has been placed on facilitating higher education students’ holistic development. To better fulfill the task, HEIs must increase resources allocated to the student work ecology, establish a more professional staff team, deepen the understanding of students’ needs, and provide students of different study level and developmental stages with targeted support and services.

Cross-References ▶ A Case-Study of Partnership in Practice: Engaging Students to Shape Support for Learning in Higher Education ▶ A Digital Student Journey: Supporting Students in an Age of Super Complexity ▶ From “Customer” to “Partner”: Approaches to Conceptualization of StudentUniversity Relationships ▶ Learner Support Services in an Online Learning Environment ▶ Neoliberalism and “Resistance” ▶ One Singapore Institution’s Evolution from Service to Partnership: A Case Study ▶ “Remedial,” Development, and Business: Three Opposing but Coexisting Approaches to Academic Student Support ▶ Student Services, Personal Tutors, and Student Mental Health: A Case Study

References Alumni Mentoring Program of Tsinghua University. n.d. Retrieved 5 May 2021 from http://career. tsinghua.edu.cn/info/1008/2427.htm

7

Student Support and Services in Chinese Higher Education Institutions:. . .

141

Astin, A.W. 1984. Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development 40 (4): 297–308. Bai, W. 2016. A study of correlation between campus environment support and deep learning – A case study of Ocean University of China in 2014. Journal of Chengdu Normal University 32 (10): 62–68. Bao, W., and Y. Chen. 2015. The effects of different financial aid patterns on the academic development of rural first-generation college students. Peking University Education Review 2: 80–96, 190. Bi, J. 1992. Student counseling in Australian universities. Research in Educational Development 3: 105–108. Cai, G. 2000. Concepts and definitions in student affairs administration. Journal of Yangzhou University (Higher Education Research Edition) 2: 56–59. Career Coaching Program of Tsinghua University. n.d. Retrieved 5 May 2021 from http://career. tsinghua.edu.cn/info/1008/2431.htm Career Development Center of Tsinghua University. n.d. Retrieved 5 May 2021 from http://career. tsinghua.edu.cn/xs/zyfd.htm, http://career.cic.tsinghua.edu.cn/xsglxt/loginZyfzzx, http://career. tsinghua.edu.cn/gywm/zzjg.htm Cheng, J. 1997. Theoretical basis of student affairs management in European and American universities. International and Comparative Education 2: 16–20. Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications. n.d. Retrieved 5 May 2021 from http:// xsc.cqupt.edu.cn/xinliweb Fan, X., S. Ma, S. Chen, Z. Ren, J. Xie, and T. Kuang. 1999. Effective student support service: A study of academic achievement orientation. Distance Education in China Z1: 36–39. Geng, R., and Y. Zhan. 2012. Research on the construction of Chinese college students’ learning and development guidance system – A case study of Tsinghua University Students’ learning and development guidance center. Jiangsu Higher Education 6: 71–73. Hu, S. 1988. Employment guidance is an unshirkable task for colleges and universities. China Higher Education 10: 27–29. Introduction of student financial aid in Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications. n.d. Retrieved 5 May 2021 from http://cqupt.cuepa.cn/show_more.php?tkey¼&bkey¼&doc_ id¼2312921 Ji, X. 1993. Comparison and reflection on employment guidance system between Chinese and Japanese universities. Jiangsu Higher Education 4: 71–73. Kuh, G.D. 2009. The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual and empirical foundations. New Directions for Institutional Research 2009: 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.283 Kuh, G.D., J. Kinzie, J.H. Schuh and E.J. Whitt. 2011. Fostering student success in hard times. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 43: 4, 13–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383. 2011.585311. Li, X. 1987. University library should focus on improving the service level for students. Library Work in Colleges and Universities 4: 51–53. Li, Z. 2007. Mental health problems and educational strategies of poor college students. China Higher Education Research 1: 77–78. Li, M. 2011. Peer counseling model and the improvement of the effectiveness of College Students’ mental health education. Heilongjiang Research in Higher Education 8: 4–8. Li, Q., and H. Shen. 2004. Optimization and reconstruct of college student financial support policies in China. Tsinghua Journal of Education 3: 84–89. Li, F., H. Xiang, and X. Liu. 2015. Effects of scholarships and grants on college students’ academic achievement: Taking Tsinghua University as an example. Tsinghua Journal of Education 6: 112–119. Lian, Z., and J. Shi. 2020. Research on the effect mechanism of college support on students' learning and development:Exploration based on the data from “China College Student Survey” (CCSS). Exploring Education Development 40 (23): 1–8. Lin, Z. 1989. On the employment guidance of university students – From the experience of Hong Kong universities. Modern Education Science 2: 59–62.

142

F. Guo et al.

Liu, R., and L. Shi. 2010. Investigation on the development of psychological counseling in colleges and universities. Social Sciences of Beijing 3: 88–91. Long, J. 1990. Employment guidance in developed countries. Chinese talents 5: 45–46. Lu, G., and X. Liu. 2017. On college student competence development and its influencing factors – Based on the survey from Xi’an Jiaotong University. Research in Higher Education 2017 (8): 60–68. Lundberg, C.A. 2012. Predictors of learning for students from five different racial/ethnic groups. Journal of College Student Development 53(5): 636–655. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2012. 0071 Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. 2020. Educational statistics of year 2019. Retrieved 5 May 2021 from http://www.moe.gov.cn/s78/A03/moe_560/jytjsj_2019/qg/ Ou, C. 1995. University student service center in Germany. China Higher Education 3: 42–43. Pascarella, Trenzini. 2005. How college affects students: A third decade of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Peer Assisted Study Sessions (PASS) program of Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications. n.d.. Retrieved 5 May 2021 from http://cqupt.cuepa.cn/show_more.php? tkey¼&bkey¼&doc_id¼2301012 Qu, S., and Y. Wang. 2018. The promotion of College Students’ financial aid on moral education, academic achievement and employment quality. China Higher Education 5: 24–26. Salma, K., and D. Xu. 1999. Student support services and distance learner satisfaction. Distance Education in China Z1: 53–56. School to carry out “wings project” academic support activities – Shandong University News Network. n.d. Retrieved 5 May 2021 from https://www.view.sdu.edu.cn/info/1022/120790.htm Shi, B., and P. Xu. 1996. Serving students and helping them grow up – Also on the reform of logistics system in Colleges and universities. Higher Education Development and Evaluation 1996 (1): 93–94. Shi, J., D. Tu, S. Wang, et al. 2011. Annual report of National College Education Survey 2009. Tsinghua Journal of Education 32 (4): 9–23. Student Counseling Center of Shandong University. n.d. Retrieved 5 May 2021 from https://www. xljk.sdu.edu.cn/ Student Financial Aid Center of Shandong University. n.d. Retrieved 5 May 2021 from http://zzzx. sdu.edu.cn/zxjj.htm Student Financial Aid Center of Tsinghua University. n.d.. Retrieved 5 May 2021, from http://zizhu. tsinghua.edu.cn/zxjs/zxjj/index.htm Student Learning Support Center at the College of Accounting. n.d. Retrieved 5 May 2021 from http://kj.eurasia.edu/xxzczxalone/index.htm Wang, J. 1992. Overview of vocational guidance in foreign schools. International and Comparative Education 02: 22–27. Xi’an Eurasia University Student Office. n.d. Retrieved 5 May 2021 from http://xsc.eurasia.edu/ university/17284.htm#. Xin, Z., M. Zhang, and L. He. 2012. A cross-sectional historical study on the changes of college students’ mental health. Acta Psychologica Sinica 5: 664–679. Xu, T., D. Wei, and Y. Liu. 2019. Research on the countermeasures of Ideological and political education and psychological counseling for the psychological characteristics of Post-00 college students. In Proceedings of labor security research conference (2), 18–20. Chengdu: Sichuan Labor Security Magazine Publishing Co. Ltd. Yang, P. 2009. The impact of financial aid on student learning. Tsinghua Journal of Education 30 (5): 101–108. Yang, X. 2017. The effect of mental health course teaching on improving college students’ mental health. China Journal of Health Psychology 8: 1209–1213. Yu, X. 2010. 60 years’ exploration in China: analyzing the financial aid policies for undergraduates since 1949. Peking University Education Review 1: 151–163, 192.

7

Student Support and Services in Chinese Higher Education Institutions:. . .

143

Yu, G., and J. Zhao. 2013. On the construction of school psychological counseling system. Educational Research 8: 90–95, 116. Zhang, J. 2003a. The evolution of college student financial aid in China since 1983. Modern University Education 1: 69–72. Zhang, X. 2003b. A comparative study on the mental health status of private college students and ordinary college students. China Journal of Health Psychology 4: 260–261. Zhang, H., and J. Yao. 2016. A comparative study on academic support of Chinese and British college students. Studies in Ideological Education 3: 111–114. Zheng, H., and Q. Lu. 2014. The effect of mental health curriculum and its influence on College Students’ sense of meaning in life. China Journal of Health Psychology 9: 1395–1398. Zhou, T., and Z. Zhou. 2012. An exploratory study on factors influencing the development of college students. Fudan Education Forum 10 (3): 48–55, 86.

8

Working Towards Best Teaching and Learning Practices in a Holistic Curriculum for the Twenty-First Century Misty So-Sum Wai-Cook

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Twenty-First Century Holistic Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Twenty-First Century Competencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Twenty-First Century Holistic Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implementation of a Holistic Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Integrated Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cocurricular Activities on Campus and Community Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proposed Solutions for the Implementation of a Holistic Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recalibrate Teachers’ and Students’ Curriculum Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Support Teachers in Learning (Inter)disciplinary Expertise and Pedagogical Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adopt Consistency in Pedagogical Approach and Assessments Across the Curriculum at University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Redesign Assessments for a Holistic Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion and Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

146 148 148 148 151 151 152 155 156 157 159 159 162 163 164

Abstract

To equip millennial students with twenty-first century competencies, universities around the globe have designed a holistic curriculum that aims to teach students the necessary disciplinary and twenty-first century knowledge/skills. Substantial research reveals that the successful teaching and learning of twenty-first century competencies must be scaffolded in a holistic curriculum that includes two strands of programs: multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary courses and cocurricular activities. The courses in this curriculum should be reinforced by effective evidencebased learning theories and pedagogies. The idea of creating a staff-student M. S.-S. Wai-Cook (*) Centre for English Language Communication and College of Alice & Peter Tan (CAPT), National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 H. Huijser et al. (eds.), Student Support Services, University Development and Administration, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5852-5_1

145

146

M. S.-S. Wai-Cook

partnership in co-designing a curriculum and co-assessing students’ work has been suggested as an effective way to facilitate learning because it can raise students’ meta-cognitive awareness and increase students’ engagement in the learning. Though effective, the implementation of such a program has imposed challenges on both teachers and students in terms of time constraints, insufficient required disciplinary expertise and pedagogical knowledge, and assessments of students’ disciplinary and twenty-first century knowledge/skills. This chapter argues that the successful adoption of teacher-student partnerships in co-creating tasks and assessments requires the university management to re-evaluate teachers’ and students’ workload; assist teachers in acquiring interdisciplinary and pedagogical knowledge; and support teachers and students in co-designing the learning objectives/tasks in a curriculum, and co-construction and co-assessment of students’ disciplinary and twenty-first century knowledge/ skills. Keywords

Twenty-first century tertiary holistic curriculum · Twenty-first century competencies · Staff-student partnership in co-designing the learning objectives/ tasks in a curriculum · Staff-student partnership in co-assessing students’ work within a curriculum

Introduction As our world becomes more interconnected, a twenty-first century tertiary education should nurture a community of well-rounded global citizens who go far beyond achieving academic excellence in their own disciplines. Students must also be equipped with a range of core twenty-first century competencies (Mohr and Welker 2017). To achieve this, a university must adopt a holistic curriculum that equips students with the knowledge/skills that meet the societal demands in global and local contexts, and teach students how to learn to survive in a world characterized by constant economic, sociological, and epistemological changes (Tan et al. 2017). A twenty-first century tertiary education curriculum must implement a holistic program that matches the teaching and learning of twenty-first century competencies beyond disciplinary content knowledge by including (Fig. 1): 1. Multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary courses that can teach students disciplinaryspecific (Carter et al. 2016) and general education knowledge/skills that challenge students to see the values/relevance of their taught knowledge/skills in local and global contexts (Nababan 2014), and let students explore learning and see possible real-world applications of knowledge/skills in research. 2. Cocurricular activities that engage students to learn beyond their disciplinaryspecific courses and educate them by giving students ample experiential learning opportunities to explore their learning, take on leadership and team-work

8

Working Towards Best Teaching and Learning Practices in a Holistic. . .

147

Holistic Curriculum

Integrated programme

Multidisciplinary and Interdisciplinary

Co-curricular activities

General education

Demonstration of knowledge/skills: Research (Guided by teachers/stakeholders)

On-campus activities

Community engagement

Demonstration of knowledge/skills: Studentled projects (Guided by teachers/ stakeholders)

21 st-Century Core competencies (skills and knowledge): Creativity Critical thinking Problem solving skills Social and cultural skills Communication skills Digital literacy skills Civil citizenship Collaboration and leadership Self-directed/regulated learning

Fig. 1 Proposed holistic curriculum for the teaching and learning of twenty-first century competencies

opportunities (Suskie 2015). This can be implemented in on-campus and community engagement activities. This chapter posits that the most appropriate pedagogical approach for teaching and learning in a holistic curriculum is the co-construction of knowledge/skills in teacher-student partnerships. Teachers play a crucial role in providing space for students to voice ideas in teaching and learning practices and explore their learning, and guiding students through the learning journey. However, the successful implementation of teacher-student partnerships in co-creating tasks and assessments in a holistic curriculum requires the university management to provide resources and support to equip teachers with the necessary pedagogical knowledge, and create communities for teachers to share teaching practices and assessment practices of interdisciplinary knowledge and twenty-first century competencies. Section “Twenty-First Century Holistic Curriculum” of this chapter summarizes the core twenty-first century competencies, describes an appropriate holistic curriculum for the teaching and learning of the core twenty-first century competencies, and presents the relevant learning theories and pedagogical approach for

148

M. S.-S. Wai-Cook

scaffolding learning. Section “Implementation of a Holistic Program” describes the existing integrated program and cocurricular activities in a holistic curriculum that universities have implemented across the globe. It also highlights four key challenges that teachers and students face in a holistic curriculum: time constraints, concerns for disciplinary expertise and pedagogical knowledge, inconsistencies in pedagogical approaches, and assessments across the curriculum. Finally, section “Proposed Solutions for the Implementation of a Holistic Curriculum” proposes solutions to address these challenges.

Twenty-First Century Holistic Curriculum This section begins with an overview of the core twenty-first century competencies and proposes an appropriate holistic curriculum for the teaching and learning of disciplinary and twenty-first century knowledge/skills.

Twenty-First Century Competencies Twenty-first century competencies comprise a range of skills, attitudes, and knowledge (Tan et al. 2017; Voogt and Roblin 2012). Outlined below is the consensus of the core knowledge/skills in the twenty-first century competencies from various international organizations such as Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2009, in Voogt and Roblin 2012; Woodward 2009), and the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization and the European Commission (Cedefop 2008, in Voogt and Roblin 2012): • • • • • • • •

Collaboration: Can work with others to reach a group goal. Creativity: Can inquire, design, and be resilient in given new opportunities. Critical thinking: Can question and understand, reflect, and formulate ideas. Problem-solving: Can identify problems and apply a variety of strategies to solve them. Communication: Can use appropriate strategies to communicate with a variety of audiences for an intended purpose. Digital literacy: Can employ basic skills and computational thinking to effectively search, select, process, use, and present information. Social and cultural skills: Can be empathetic and have self-awareness to facilitate learning, working, living with a diverse population. Self-directed learning: Can take on responsibility for one’s own learning, who questions, reflects, and perseveres in the pursuit of learning.

Twenty-First Century Holistic Curriculum This section describes core twenty-first century competencies and proposes an appropriate holistic curriculum for the teaching and learning of these core twenty-

8

Working Towards Best Teaching and Learning Practices in a Holistic. . .

149

first century competencies, and the learning theories and pedagogical approaches to scaffold learning.

Overview of the Twenty-First Century Holistic Curriculum To instill disciplinary and twenty-first century knowledge/skills in students, a university must implement a holistic curriculum that strikes a balance between an integrated academic program with cross-disciplinary and general education courses, which include cocurricular activities (CCAs) on-campus and engagement in the community that address real societal issues (Drake and Reid 2018). In each course, students must be given opportunities to work with teachers as partners to co-design the course and assessments so as to engage them and empower them to take responsibility for their learning (Deeley and Bovill 2017; Healey et al. 2014), and demonstrate understanding and application of taught concepts/theories and twentyfirst century competencies (Fig. 1). However, the implementation of holistic curriculum is challenging because it requires teachers to have expertise in disciplinary and pedagogical knowledge/skills, and the pedagogical approaches and assessments of twenty-first century knowledge/skills must be consistent in courses across university departments and faculties. Learning Theories and Pedagogical Practices Learning Theories The proposed holistic curriculum should be underpinned by an intertwining of relevant learning theories and evidenced-based effective pedagogical approaches (Fig. 2). Fundamentally, for any learning to take place initially, input must first be comprehensible and learners must “notice” the input (Krashen 1992; Schmidt 1990). Input becomes knowledge if learners can experience by observing and modeling behaviors within the context of social interactions (Bandura 1986). According to social cognitive theory (Bandura 1986), observational learning occurs through a sequence of four processes: learners must observe real-life models in the environment, remember what they learn, apply/reconstruct the learned behavior later in appropriate situations, and (re)perform the behavior if there are positive effects. Ultimately, the desired deep learning/transfer of knowledge is more likely to occur if the environment is inducive for learning, and this means learners should “learn by

Production: Comprehensible input + Attention

Retention

learn by (re)reconstructing behaviour/ knowledge

Fig. 2 Process of deep learning and knowledge transfer

Positive outcome

Deep learning/ transfer of knowledge

150

M. S.-S. Wai-Cook

doing” (Bloom 1956 cited in Forehand 2010). If learners can understand the taught disciplinary knowledge and skills and are cognitively engaged with their learning, they could gain greater achievement in their academic outcomes (Wilhite 1990). The essence of learning described by these learning theories should underpin teaching pedagogies that impact on student learning in a holistic curriculum. It is precisely the inducive social cognitive environment that Bandura (1986) proposed, which teachers need to provide students in a twenty-first century tertiary curriculum. Pedagogical Approach to Co-create Tasks and Assessments Based on the notion that “telling” does not necessarily lead to comprehensible input for students and that only noticed and comprehensible input leads students to higher order learning/thinking (Forehand 2010; Krashen 1992), teachers should provide more space in the curriculum to allow students to learn through inquiry or problemsolving (Tan et al. 2017). Within this curriculum, teachers and students coconstructing knowledge to address an inquiry or solve a problem using inquiry/ problem-based projects. This approach of teaching and learning disciplinary and twenty-first century knowledge/skills is effective because enquiry-based learning leads to increased engagement and motivation; enhanced students’ meta-cognitive awareness and a stronger sense of identity; and better teacher-student relationships (Bovill et al. 2016; Cook-Sather et al. 2014). Furthermore, research has reported on the benefits of adopting teacher-student partnerships to co-create assessment tasks and criteria in a dialogic relationship with mutual trust and respect (Healey et al. 2014). Such a partnership can further engage students in the learning “process” in formative and summative assessments (Healey et al. 2014, 7). In this partnership, the teachers should inform students of the course objectives and learning outcomes, and give students a safe space that promotes deep approaches to learning and peer interactions inside and outside the classroom (Biggs and Tang 2011). Students should also be given the autonomy to “voice” their opinions in making decisions for, say, the course schedule, the scaffolding of materials, the assessment tasks, and the assessment criteria. The decisions teachers and students reach should be grounded in evidence-based effective teaching and learning practices. Students must take responsibility in their empowered status as partners in and outside the classroom and take ownership for their own learning (Deeley and Bovill 2017). Students are required to conduct research and draw on knowledge from multiple disciplines to address and solve real-world complex issues which do not have clear-cut answers (Drake and Reid 2018). In this process, they have to learn to evaluate the information gathered and critically evaluate the validity and reliability of the information and sources, and may even be creative in solving problems. Teachers must reinforce taught skills by providing feedback to help students see the strengths and gaps in their knowledge/skills after each practice, and help students reach their full potential performance. Students are more likely to develop a range of twenty-first century skills such as communication, leadership and teamwork skills from conversations, discussions, and negotiations in this learning process.

8

Working Towards Best Teaching and Learning Practices in a Holistic. . .

151

Implementation of a Holistic Program This section describes a holistic curriculum that should include integrated programs that provide academic discipline-specific and general education courses, as well cocurricular activities on campus and involvement in the community. Students in their undergraduate degree should take modules in the integrated programs and participate in the cocurricular activities.

Integrated Programs The integrated program includes two strands of courses: multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary content-specific courses and general education courses. These two strands provide opportunities for students to study a discipline from different perspectives, and see the relevance and application of what they learn in local and global contexts (Fig. 3). In a multidisciplinary program, students study and discuss a field in courses with input from different disciplinary concepts/theories/approaches (Klaassen 2018). For example, a multidisciplinary program in Architecture could include Civil Engineering and Environmental Engineering courses so that students can learn design aesthetics with knowledge of physical force, structural safety requirements, and environmental considerations. These courses combined with, for example, a general education course on society and culture will allow students to learn building design principles that may/may not be accepted in certain cultures or societies.

Interdisciplinary Subjects Subject 1 (e.g. Maths) Subject 2 (e.g. Physics) Subject 3 (e.g. Material Science) Subject 1 (e.g. Laws and regulations) Subject 2 (e.g. asethetics of designing) Subject 3 (e.g. Urban planning) Subject 1 (Psychology) Discipline 2 (e.g. Local/global popular culture)

Multidisciplinary programme modules

Module 1 (e.g. Civil Engineering)

Module 2 (e.g. Design Principles)

General Education Module (e.g. relevant modules: Human cultures)

Fig. 3 Integrated program in a holistic curriculum

Integrated programme (e.g. Architecture)

152

M. S.-S. Wai-Cook

In each course of a multidisciplinary program, students should learn the depth of a particular topic by understanding concepts/theories/approaches across different disciplines (Odeh 2018). For example, students in an architecture design course should study the design of a building by drawing upon and synthesizing knowledge from Mathematics, Physics, and Material Science. In order for students to develop twenty-first century knowledge/skill competencies, students should learn sufficient knowledge to appreciate the complexities of a subject from different perspectives, by drawing on connections across disciplines simultaneously or at different times (Drake and Reid 2018) in an undergraduate degree, and see how the knowledge/ skills can relate to their society. Both the teachers and students should play pivotal roles in the partnership to create the learning objectives and schedule, design tasks, construct interdisciplinary knowledge, define assessment criteria, especially in formative assessments, and evaluate tasks. The teachers must provide a safe space inside and outside of the classroom for learners to take risks and be creative in solving problems, while they independently explore and monitor their progress (Naimpally et al. 2012). Students should be required to demonstrate self-regulated/directed interdisciplinary inquiry/problem-based undergraduate research as it gives them first-hand experience of research and they learn by “doing.” Students who conduct research will often learn new methodological techniques, collect their own data, interpret findings, and formulate new research questions (Linn et al. 2015). Thus, teachers must conduct regular meetings with students so they can support, and encourage peer interactions to promote students’ twenty-first century skills such as communication, collaborative and leadership skills, as well as social and cultural skills (Walkington 2015).

Cocurricular Activities on Campus and Community Engagement Cocurricular activities on campus and community outreach engagement are also critical in engaging students to learn, and to further develop their twenty-first century knowledge/skill competencies (Storey 2010; Suskie 2015). Hence, on-campus and community engagement activities should be based on the needs of students and the society (Fig. 4).

On-Campus Activities and Teacher/Student Partner Roles in Co-creating Tasks and Assessments A holistic cocurricular curriculum should include both academic and nonacademic activities to promote all-round development of students (Mehmood et al. 2012). Students’ participation in academic cocurricular activities (for example, servicelearning experiences, internships, study abroad, and undergraduate research) and nonacademic recreational cocurricular activities (for example, special interest clubs, performing arts clubs, sports and athletes) can promote academic success (Dugan et al. 2013) and increase persistence through their undergraduate studies (Storey

8

Working Towards Best Teaching and Learning Practices in a Holistic. . .

153

Co-curricular Activities

On-campus activities Sports & athletics

Special interest clubs

Community engagement

Performing arts

Peer support communities

Outreach: local and global issues

Outreach: societies

Fig. 4 Inclusions of cocurricular activities

2010), as well as intellectual development, emotional development, social development, moral development, and aesthetic development (Muñoz-Bullón et al. 2017). The teachers and students should play important roles in the partnership in cocurricular activities. Based on the course learning objectives, both parties should design schedule, set goals, co-design tasks, co-construct knowledge and skills, and define assessment criteria for co-assessment. The designed tasks should enable students to explore learning through inquiry-based/problem-based projects. Although the activities may not be academically oriented, students should still be expected to self-regulate/self-direct their learning by (co)constructing knowledge and skills individually or in a community of practice through inquiry-based/problem-based tasks via participation in social interactions (Marais 2011). The teachers’ must ensure they teach students the value of what they learn, the transferability of knowledge/skills in their career and/or personal life, and the importance of developing communication, collaborative, and leadership skills, social skills, as well as cultural/cross-cultural awareness (Chan 2016).

Community Engagement and Teacher/Community Partner/Student Partner Roles in Co-creating Tasks and Assessments Community engagement can also strengthen students’ involvement in the community by incorporating content in courses that extend to community-based civicfocused learning activities (Marais 2011). Community engagements with different groups of people in the community, such as young and elderly, poor, homeless, and people with special needs, provides opportunities for students to conduct interdisciplinary analyses of problems and think of possible solutions to address authentic social issues in a local community (Furco 2010). This is indeed a valuable platform for students to develop civil citizenship, and social and cultural skills, among other twenty-first century competencies. The teachers and students should choose the relevant meaningful community for engagement so that all parties can benefit from the initiatives (Furco 2010), and they should decide in partnership on the learning objectives, outcomes, activities, and schedule; how learning should take place; actions to be taken to address problems; and define assessment criteria for assess tasks.

154

M. S.-S. Wai-Cook

Teachers must provide structured settings for students to explore the intersections between relevant interdisciplinary theories/concepts/principles/practices provided in the course materials and societal issues, as well as their possible job scopes and roles as learners/researchers/service-providers who can benefit a society. If teachers are able to guide students in drawing these connections, students will gain direct exposure to the activities to understand their positive effects and students will see the value in the course materials, and will therefore be able to transfer and apply their learning to new situations (Eyler and Giles 1999). Students should be expected to take ownership of their learning by designing appropriate research questions of enquiry, narrow the scope of projects, and determine the most appropriate measures for the project. Throughout this process, the teachers and community partners should provide feedback on the scope and feasibility of the project, data collection and analyses, and work toward ways to address/ solve problems and improve situation, if possible. In this learning process, students will be able to develop their digital literacy, creativity, critical thinking, and problemsolving skills, as well as communication, collaborative, and leadership skills, and social skills (Chan 2016).

Challenges with the Implementation of a Holistic Program Research so far shows the implementation of holistic programs has presented key challenges. This section reports on four key challenges faced by teachers and students: time constraints, varying degrees of disciplinary expertise and pedagogical knowledge, inconsistencies in pedagogical approaches and assessments across the curriculum, and difficulty in achieving best practices to assess content knowledge and twenty-first century competencies. Time Constraints (i) Teachers’ perspectives about time: The teachers’ roles in co-designing a curriculum and assessments require additional contact hours beyond classroom teaching hours. Understandably, teachers may be concerned about how they could manage large class sizes, as well as additional work and student contact hours in addition to their already heavy workloads (Bovill et al. 2016). The increased teaching hours and class sizes add demands onto teachers as they have to juggle between teaching, administration, and research, especially in researchintensive universities. (ii) Students’ perspectives about time: In a holistic curriculum, students are required to juggle between their content courses and cocurricular activities. Research shows students’ involvement in activities that require longer hours could have a negative effect on their academic performance (Chan 2016; Storey 2010). This is not surprising as students lead busy lives and often have difficulty balancing between their studies and other activities/work commitment (Curran 2017). Disciplinary Expertise and Pedagogical Knowledge (i) Teachers’ perceived ability as “partners in learning”: After years of having full control of teaching in a traditional curriculum at university in the past, some

8

Working Towards Best Teaching and Learning Practices in a Holistic. . .

155

teachers may now be reluctant to work with students to design a curriculum in their course because they do not believe students have sufficient relevant knowledge/skills to design a course and evaluate their own work, and therefore could not contribute meaningfully to the curriculum (Bovill et al. 2016; Curran 2017). Furthermore, teachers who are experts in their academic field may lack the relevant interdisciplinary knowledge and skills and pedagogical knowledge to design tasks and assess students’ twenty-first century competencies (Healey et al. 2014). (ii) Students’ perceived ability as “partners in learning”: Some students may not wish to partake in the teacher-student partnership or lack confidence in expressing their opinions as it could be difficult for them to judge whether their ideas are correct as they feel pressured to do well academically (Curran 2017). Inconsistencies in Pedagogical Approaches and Assessments Across the Curriculum As some teachers at universities may not adopt a teacher-student partnership approach in their courses, students may miss out on learning using this approach. Assessments (i) Students’ Perceived Ability to Co-assess Themselves: While there is an increasing amount of research published in support of teacher-student partnerships in co-designing a curriculum, how such a partnership should best be applied to assessment practices is less evident. As a result, students’ level of engagement in assessments varies, as some students believe teachers should assess them and the teachers’ judgment mattered most (Deeley and Bovill 2017). (ii) Measuring twenty-first century skills: Research has also reported concerns about teachers’ evaluation of students’ academic disciplinary knowledge/skills, together with twenty-first century skills, in students’ work. For example, engineering students would be required to demonstrate academic knowledge/skills, problem-solving and creative skills to do well, as well as other essential twentyfirst century skills, such as computer and information literacy and collaborative communication skills, to complete a project. It could be difficult to assess these key twenty-first century competencies independently (Fraillon et al. 2014).

Proposed Solutions for the Implementation of a Holistic Curriculum The implementation of such an elaborate holistic program requires a lot of time and effort from both teachers and students. This section proposes solutions that should be considered by both the university management and teachers to facilitate the teaching and learning of disciplinary and twenty-first century knowledge/skills in an interdisciplinary curriculum.

156

M. S.-S. Wai-Cook

Recalibrate Teachers’ and Students’ Curriculum Time (i) Teachers’ perspectives about time: The successful implementation of a holistic curriculum requires the university management to consider teachers’ workload as they juggle between doing research, carrying administration duties, and teaching. To ensure teachers’ teaching workload is calculated correctly, the university management must work with heads and teachers in departments/ faculties to calculate the contact hours teachers have with students, both inside and outside the classroom. It may not be possible to compensate teachers for the exact number of hours spent teaching, but the offloading calculations should account for the actual classroom hours and class size, as well as the extent to which teachers partner with students to co-design a curriculum, and the amount of guidance teachers need to provide as stipulated by the department and course requirements. Students should not be left entirely to complete their work. Teachers must limit the number of hours students should spend on co-designing and co-assessing tasks in a course. Furthermore, students are often overly ambitious in what they set out to achieve in a project – perhaps because they lack expert knowledge and are not aware of what is feasible to achieve in a given timeframe. Therefore, once students choose the research topic, teachers must work with students to narrow the scope and develop a feasible schedule to ensure the set projects are achievable within the given time. (ii) Students’ perspectives about time: University management must also fairly calculate the number of hours students are expected to spend inside and outside the classroom when they award the number of modular credits for a course, and the level of ownership students are required to take to complete the course. Currently, university students are required to complete a certain number of modular credits in a Bachelor’s degree. For example, at the National University of Singapore (Singapore), 120 modular credit points are required for a 3-year Bachelor’s degree and 160 modular credit points are required for a 4-year Bachelor’s degree with honors. One credit is equivalent to about 2.5 h of study and preparation per week. Thus, a 4-modular-credit course would require 10 h of work a week, including lectures, tutorials, laboratory sessions, assignments, and independent or group study (National University of Singapore Registrar’s Office n.d.). The modular credits take into account the number of contact hours in lectures, tutorials, and laboratory, number of hours for hours for project work, independent studies that contribute towards the final grades, and the number of hours to do preparatory work for lectures and tutorials. A typical 4 modular-credit course would include 10 h (with 4 h of contact time, 3 h of project work, and 3 h of preparatory work). On average, students are required to take 20 modular credits per semester. This is a fair way to award modular credits. However, as we move toward the teacher-student partnerships in co-designing modules, both administrators and teachers must take into account the number of hours students use outside the curriculum time to work with the teachers, and recalibrate the number of modular credits awarded for courses if necessary.

8

Working Towards Best Teaching and Learning Practices in a Holistic. . .

157

The undergraduate curriculum comprises three components: University Level Requirements (ULR), Program Requirements, and Unrestricted Elective Modules (UEM) (National University of Singapore Registrar’s Office n.d.). However, like many universities, cocurricular activities are not counted as modular credits in the Bachelor’s degree. If universities believe the academic curriculum and all cocurricular activities are of paramount importance in a holistic curriculum, modular credits must also be awarded to all cocurricular activities and community engagement. This will ensure students’ academic performance is not affected negatively, the university must impose regulations about number of courses (and modular credits) and cocurricular activities they take in one semester.

Support Teachers in Learning (Inter)disciplinary Expertise and Pedagogical Knowledge (i) Teachers’ perceived ability as “partners in learning”: Though getting a full “buy-in” for teachers to adopt the teacher-student partnership in the curriculum should not be based purely on senior management’s decision, the university management must provide full support to teachers. At the programmatic level, the university management team must work with teachers across the different departments/faculties to (Holley 2017): • Ensure the common goals and objectives are achieved across the different departments/faculties. Some programs may be more technical and discipline-specific than others, but the core goals and objectives must help students understand and integrate different twenty-first century knowledge/skills. • The implementation of interdisciplinary courses requires students to study topics that are beyond one teacher’s content expertise. The university management cannot assume teachers are able to connect with other disciplinary experts from different departments and faculties. The university must consider providing a platform for different faculty/department colleagues to share experiences, knowledge/skills, and identify possible content for interdisciplinary programs. • Formalize the extracurricular and community engagement activities as courses in the curriculum, and ensure there is a clear and coherent insideoutside classroom continuum. This will enhance student learning, and students will see the meaning of the theories/concepts/skills taught, and the applications and implications of what is taught in society. • Offer support (e.g., workshops/training) to increase teachers’ awareness of learning theories, as well as evidence-based effective pedagogical approaches and teaching practices that undergird the implementation of a holistic curriculum. This is where university teaching support centers can provide training, resources, and financial support to teachers from different departments/faculties to raise concerns, and share successes and failures in teaching practices in smaller communities.

158

M. S.-S. Wai-Cook

• Ensure the activities meet the needs of community partners/stakeholders and help students develop disciplinary content and twenty-first century knowledge/skills. The university management and teachers must also partner with relevant stakeholders in the course design of outreach programs. • The teaching and evaluation of twenty-first century knowledge/skill competencies are crucial in all the courses in a holistic curriculum. Therefore, the university management must ensure teachers are given training on best practices in forming partnerships with students, designing tasks, and evaluating students’ twenty-first century knowledge/skill competencies. (ii) Students’ perceived ability as “partners in learning”: Teachers take on pivotal roles in facilitating student research as students progress through the curriculum, take more responsibility in learning with less instruction, and be more involved in learning from “doing” (Holley 2017). Thus, the teacher must: • Provide a safe environment for student learning. As students may not be confident to express ideas or feel it is not their job to co-create a curriculum, teachers must inform students that the purpose of the partnership in co-creating a curriculum is not to train them as “teachers” (Bovill et al. 2016). The focus should be for the teachers to explain to students the objectives and the intended learning outcomes of the tasks created, and the reasons for having to learn the required content and twenty-first century knowledge/skills in the teacher-student partnership, and the importance of taking ownership of their own learning in completing their research work. • Give students space and time to explore their learning in the teacher-student partnership. The teachers’ role is to advise students on how to narrow their focus in a project and critically think about issues or problems from interdisciplinary perspectives. In guiding students, the teachers must recognize students’ ability and the level of potential development (Vygotsky 1978). Students may have trouble understanding the core (threshold) knowledge before they can move on to apply the knowledge, so the teachers must support students through this process (Meyer and Land 2005). Thus, learning can take place if teachers provide timely and constructive feedback to students in the learning process, and help students connect concepts/theories to application. • Engage students in the feedback process because having an active role in learning throughout the feedback process can provide them with an opportunity to clarify any misunderstanding/reinforce their understanding of taught skills. This likely results in an improvement in students’ performance. Therefore, the biggest impact teachers could make in students’ learning is through the implementation of both tutor-guided peer feedback, tutor feedback, and the tutor’s interaction with students in the feedback process (Adachi et al. 2018; Carless 2020). Such a feedback process provides students with a chance to think about the best ways to evaluate and correct their mistakes for the set tasks, apply evaluative skills and, very importantly, transfer the learned skills to other courses at university and beyond. This direct experience is likely to promote deep learning.

8

Working Towards Best Teaching and Learning Practices in a Holistic. . .

159

• Monitor student participation in additional activities. Since many cocurricular activities require a lot of student involvement, teachers overseeing the activities must still monitor student participation and ensure there is balance between their studies and activities. This requires the instructors and students to set achievable learning outcomes and goals according to the time allowed for a particular cocurricular activity, and break down the end goals into small bite-size tasks within a set time for each week or fortnight. The students should also report the number of hours required to complete tasks, and reasons for not being able to complete tasks if they exceed the number of hours. With this feedback loop, the instructors could then finetune learning outcomes and goals of cocurricular activities for subsequent cohorts. • Let students take control and respect their voice in the decision-making process. A very important aspect of community engagement programs is that teachers organize program activities that allow students to voice their opinions and make decisions about the directions of the project work and possible implementations of initiatives/solutions. This level of student engagement motivates and empowers students to learn from teachers and community partners (Zeldin et al. 2015).

Adopt Consistency in Pedagogical Approach and Assessments Across the Curriculum at University University management must work with department and faculty heads and teachers to ensure there are consistencies in the pedagogical approaches adopted within and across courses in different departments and faculties at a university. It is possible to consider increasing the level of students’ ownership in the co-creation and co-assessments of tasks in a curriculum based on the course level in an undergraduate degree. As students advance through the curriculum, the level of co-creation and co-assessment of tasks in a curriculum increases (Fig. 5, adapted from Hart 1992, in Holley 2017). For instance, students in Year 1 (Level 1) are given more teacher guidance on co-creation and co-assessment of the tasks, as well as their research projects. As students progress through to the later years in Year 3/4 curriculum (Level 5), they would receive less guidance and more freedom to take ownership in co-designing and co-assessing tasks in the curriculum, and take more control in deciding and leading their own research topic and carry out research in Years 3/4 courses/capstone projects (Holley 2017).

Redesign Assessments for a Holistic Curriculum Students’ Perceived Ability to Co-assess Themselves To ensure both teachers and students could contribute meaningfully in the co-assessment of students’ work, it is important to go beyond assessing students’ summative assessments, such as final report submissions and examinations.

160

M. S.-S. Wai-Cook

Levels of research involvement

5

4

3

2

1 Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Years in the curriculum Fig. 5 Five levels of student participation in research. (Adapted from Hart 1992, in Holley 2017)

Formative evaluated by students themselves, peers, and teachers are important in engaging and promoting student learning throughout the course. Formative assessments, such as reflections, project report/essay drafts, and oral presentations, which take place progressively during a course, must require students to demonstrate their understanding, as well as evaluation and application of content and twenty-first century knowledge/skills in alignment with the course learning objectives and outcomes. For instance, in a co-designed curriculum, teachers and students can co-construct knowledge to address an inquiry or solve a problem using inquiry/problem-based projects. It is equally important for teachers to provide opportunities for students to demonstrate a range of twenty-first century skills such as critical thinking, creativity, digital literacy, communication, collaboration, and social skills. During the project, teachers should then advise students about the scope of the project and accuracy of disciplinary content/knowledge/skills; teachers should not assume their students are able to work together as a team. Instead, they should monitor and discuss with students their communication, collaboration, and social skills and offer advice on ways to improve. Students should also be trained and given practice in how they should provide feedback based on the assessment criteria around conducting research in project work, accuracy of their content knowledge and skills, and progress made based on self-reflections. Students should be rewarded for their effort for giving self- and peer feedback throughout the course, and how to improve their work based on the feedback provided before the final submission of their work. With appropriate mutual respect given by teachers and students, and teachers’ guidance in the selfand peer feedback process, students should be confident that they can meaningfully contribute to the self- and peer assessment of their own and others’ work. This teaching and learning practice shifts the focus from primarily teachers’ assessment of students’ work at the end of a course to evaluation of student learning based on self- and peer assessments of students’ ability to think about their own

8

Working Towards Best Teaching and Learning Practices in a Holistic. . .

161

strengths and weaknesses and make improvements progressively throughout the course. However, the increased focus on teachers’ role in helping students outside stipulated class time does mean that teachers have to monitor students’ progress and evaluate how students are giving and acting on feedback, and give students opportunities to improve on the way they give feedback if teachers find errors in the given feedback.

Measuring twenty-First Century Competencies Research shows teacher-student partners promoted in a learning environment is effective because it gives students the main responsibility for their own learning, as they report and evaluate their own attitude, experiences, knowledge, and skills (Bruno and Dell’Aversana 2017). Therefore, in addition to students reporting on their progress on the content, they should also be required to reflect on their attitudes and actions during the learning process. Using reflections at the end of a course is not a novel idea. However, teachers should formally adopt reflective practice throughout the course so that students could make meaning of what they are learning in a safe environment as they learn, and improve on their performance, based on awareness of their own performance. It is also a way for teachers to find out how students make sense of their learning, as well as their attitudes about the course and their progress. In a reflection, students should be required to demonstrate learning through “reflection in action,” where they evaluate their emotions and attitude in particular situations; and “reflection on action,” where they analyze their behavior, attitude, and performance after the situation (Schön 1983 in Cowan and Peacock 2017), and perhaps suggest ways to improve by engaging with a problem and making sense of what has occurred, and actively question their own emotions, thoughts, and actions (Kirkwood et al. 2016). The quality of reflections can be measured by the use of mental language – that is, language that reflects the depth of their cognition, volition, and emotion (Bruno and Dell’Aversana 2017) on five levels (Bruno and Gilardi 2014): Cat. 0: Nonreflective practice: Students report occurrence of events without mental reflection. For example, they would report only on performance such as “I worked in a team.” Cat. 1: Declarative reflective practice: Students express emotions and thoughts when describing events, but do not question the reason of the occurrence. For example, students are limited in reporting the level of difficulty of a task such as “It’s hard for me to work in a team” without trying to understand the reason. Cat. 2: Relational reflective practice: Students express emotions and thoughts of an event, but also compare thinking related to other events over time. For example, students would write statements such as “before I thought so, now . . . I think . . .” and “At first it was hard for me to work in a team, but now it is different” without reporting the possible underlying reasons. Cat. 3: Interpretative reflective practice: Students explain the thoughts, emotions, and desires that underlie their own and others’ behaviors in an event. For example, students are more able to provide possible reasons for actions in a statement such as “I left the room because it’s hard for me to work in a group.”

162

M. S.-S. Wai-Cook

Cat. 4: Critical reflective practice: Students express limitations or inadequacies for an action/thinking and explain the reasons, take action to improve or change, and understand the possible benefits of taking action. Students are able to develop ideas, articulate their beliefs and emotions, and understand the reasons for the transformations. For example, students are able to compare changes in thoughts and actions, provide explanations for the changes, and reflect on progress made in detailed statements such as “At first I thought that working in a team was too hard for me, but now I realise that working with several members of the group allows me to gain more confidence in myself and understand that my contribution may be important for the development of the project. Working in this way I felt more motivation than I would have doing individual work. Thanks to teamwork, learning is easier for me as I play an active role.” Though students’ development in learning reported in a reflection does not need to be linear, teachers should work with students to ensure they are able to develop from writing a basic reflection (Cat. 0) to critically reflect on their own behaviors and understand the reasons (Cat. 4). With peers’ and teachers’ guidance and feedback, reflective practice engages students’ active involvement in learning meaningfully and increases their social participation because they take ownership of their learning which may, in turn, lessen teachers’ heavy workload (Threlfall 2014). To ensure the success of the co-assessments, teachers must provide criteria of co-designed assessments, and give students examples of how to meet each criterion in all work. This will empower students to assess their performance and make improvement in their learning.

Conclusion and Future Directions As noted in the chapter, the implementation of such an extensive holistic curriculum in courses across all departments and faculties at a university can only be successful if university management, teachers, students, and relevant community stakeholders/ partners work together to design an extensive multidisciplinary-interdisciplinary integrated program and extracurricular activities. It is clear that the university management must play an essential role in orchestrating the implementation of a holistic curriculum across the different departments and faculties, and to ensure all programs are scaffolded using consistent pedagogical approaches, and that all the courses meet the university’s goals and objectives. The successful implementation of a holistic curriculum requires the university management and teachers to plan teachers’ and students’ workload outside the classroom contact hours, promote Communities of Practice across the university for teachers to share experiences and practices, and provide support for teachers and students to work as partners to co-create the curriculum by designing tasks and assessment criteria. Very importantly, too, as there is increasing emphasis on the balance between the teaching and learning of disciplinary content and twenty-first century knowledge/skills, assessments should no longer be primarily on the accuracy

8

Working Towards Best Teaching and Learning Practices in a Holistic. . .

163

of content knowledge and skills demonstrated by students. It is just as important for teachers and students to monitor and co-assess twenty-first century knowledge/skills within the academic disciplines. To date, researchers have theorized and measured the effectiveness of different components of a holistic curriculum in a piecemeal fashion. Further research is required to measure the effectiveness of a holistic curriculum in its entirety. This is crucial because universities must understand more fully the impact of a holistic curriculum that encompasses an integrated multidisciplinary-interdisciplinary program that scaffolds learning using student research, plus cocurricular activities conducted on campus and in the community. In principle, each course/program and each pedagogy adopted can increase students’ academic success and should develop their twenty-first century knowledge/skills. As highlighted in this chapter, one of the essential teaching practices is for teachers to promote teacher-student partnerships to co-create a curriculum, and co-create and co-evaluate assessments. This means teachers have to guide students through the projects to ensure students acquire accurate content knowledge and skills, develop twenty-first century knowledge/skills, and offer students the best practices in co-designing a curriculum and co-assessments for a course. Further research must be done to identify teachers’ needs and support teachers who are trained in their academic field but lack of interdisciplinary knowledge to guide students through interdisciplinary projects, awareness of twenty-first century knowledge/skills to help prepare students fully for the workplace, and sufficient pedagogical knowledge to effectively co-facilitate teaching and learning in teacher-student partnerships. The fundamental objective of the holistic curriculum is to instill in students essential disciplinary knowledge and twenty-first century knowledge/skills beyond academic disciplinary training, so that students can be well-prepared to cope with the life and work demands in the twenty-first century. Further research must be conducted to measure how much and how well students learn the twenty-first century knowledge/skills through the various courses and activities in an integrated program and extracurricular activities, and measure whether students actually transfer the acquired knowledge/skills in different contexts beyond tertiary institutions.

Cross-References ▶ Creating Collaborative Spaces: Applying a “Students as Partner” Approach to University Peer Mentoring Programs ▶ Engaging and Retaining Students in Productive Learning ▶ Exploring the Impact of Learning Development on Student Engagement, Experience, and Learning ▶ Increasing Student Persistence: Wanting and Doing ▶ Learner Support Services in an Online Learning Environment ▶ Online Writing Feedback: A Service and Learning Experience ▶ Student Support and Services in Chinese Higher Education Institutions: Practices and Impacts

164

M. S.-S. Wai-Cook

References Adachi, Chie, Joanna Hong-Meng Tai, and Phillip Dawson. 2018. Academics’ perceptions of the benefits and challenges of self and peer assessment in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 43 (2): 294–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1339775. Bandura, Albert. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall series in social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. https://doi.org/ 10.1017/S0813483900008238. Biggs, John, and Catherine So-Kum Tang. 2011. Teaching for quality learning at university. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill. https://doi.org/10.1111/teth.12173. Bovill, Catherine, Alison Cook-Sather, Peter Felten, Luke Millard, and Niamh Moore-Cherry. 2016. Addressing potential challenges in co-creating learning and teaching: Overcoming resistance, navigating institutional norms and ensuring inclusivity in student–staff partnerships. Higher Education 71 (2): 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9896-4. Bruno, Andreina, and Giuseppina Dell’Aversana. 2017. Reflective practice for psychology students: The use of reflective journal feedback in higher education. Psychology Learning & Teaching 16 (2): 248–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725716686288. Bruno, Andreina, and Silvia Gilardi. 2014. Assessing reflective competence through students’ journals. Reflexivity in Higher Education: Research and Models of Intervention for Underachieving Students 179–190. https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/50216142/Students_with_learning_difficul ties20161109-21676-z9spje.pdf?1478721317¼&response-content-disposition¼inline%3B +filename%3DStudents_with_learning_difficulties.pdf&Expires¼1601788979&Signature ¼KIt~No7oFYxuwf6c7lc9DCtBVJlyUyKokXx5wTBLwtIXaxlZrTgbwNjal8SqMxJ1zwvQn9 G085TZv1tKJQXI-O19CtzqM70eD8pCmTp9PRw7yNElbKMT8ruhqlTqKngMPw9WP1 clezChF3wso01yhBwSMfcXg~ioUYVXymKxjyjRhpB4-qea1Gb1ys4y8-oGzucauGdxtwD5Z3i seTSKhvRH3Wc0vi4KYQlOAeJL9h5PCFaEocsGMOATIlVRUtAftKUQ5jegtjv7zeHkdZ30h TYEwZXdxmoCel445UyYkDG19cEgaOFrrLYVu1XDJAaUBvc4z8FXpmQtdlA8zzMKng__& Key-Pair-Id¼APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA#page¼180 Carless, David. 2020. Longitudinal perspectives on students’ experiences of feedback: A need for teacher–student partnerships. Higher Education Research & Development 39 (2): 425–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1684455. Carter, Deborah Faye, Hyun Kyoung Ro, Benjamin Alcott, and Lisa R. Lattuca. 2016. Co-curricular connections: The role of undergraduate research experiences in promoting engineering students’ communication, teamwork, and leadership skills. Research in Higher Education 57 (3): 363–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-015-9386-7. Chan, Yiu-Kong. 2016. Investigating the relationship among extracurricular activities, learning approach and academic outcomes: A case study. Active Learning in Higher Education 17 (3): 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787416654795. Cook-Sather, Alison, Catherine Bovill, and Peter Felten. 2014. Engaging students as partners in learning and teaching: A guide for faculty. Wiley. Cowan, John, and Susi Peacock. 2017. Integrating reflective activities in eportfolios to support the development of abilities in self-managed experiential learning. Reflective Practice 18 (5): 655–672. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2017.1307723. Curran, Roisín. 2017. A framework for student staff partnership in higher education. PhD dissertation. University of Westminster. https://westminsterresearch.westminster.ac.uk/download/ a1285bcbec4e456e985c14b2d25054acd3d540496b7c4a32adac0e7d37413694/2539456/ Curran_Roisin_thesis.pdf Deeley, Susan J., and Catherine Bovill. 2017. Staff student partnership in assessment: Enhancing assessment literacy through democratic practices. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 42 (3): 463–477. Drake, Susan M., and Joanne Louise Reid. 2018. Integrated curriculum as an effective way to teach 21st century capabilities. Asia Pacific Journal of Educational Research 1 (1): 31–50. https:// pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4dc9/bcb2e9c75912a756842c74b2335c09cdcab6.pdf

8

Working Towards Best Teaching and Learning Practices in a Holistic. . .

165

Dugan, John P., Kimberly Q. Fath, Shannon D. Howes, Kathryn R. Lavelle, and Joshua R. Polanin. 2013. Developing the leadership capacity and leader efficacy of college women in science, technology, engineering, and math fields. Journal of Leadership Studies 7 (3): 6–23. Eyler, Janet, and Dwight E. Giles Jr. 1999. Where’s the learning in service-learning? Jossey-Bass higher and adult education series. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Forehand, Mary. 2010. Bloom’s taxonomy. Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching, and Technology 41 (4): 47–56. https://www.d41.org/cms/lib/IL01904672/Centricity/Domain/422/ BloomsTaxonomy.pdf Fraillon, Julian, John Ainley, Wolfram Schulz, Tim Friedman, and Eveline Gebhardt. 2014. Preparing for life in a digital age: The IEA international computer and information literacy study international report. Melbourne: Springer Open. https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/ viewcontent.cgi?article¼1009&context¼ict_literacy Furco, Andrew. 2010. The engaged campus: Toward a comprehensive approach to public engagement. British Journal of Educational Studies 58 (4): 375–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00071005.2010.527656. Healey, M., Abbi Flint, and Kathy Harrington. 2014. Engagement through partnership: Students as Partners in Learning and Teaching in higher education. York: The Higher Education Academy. https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/resources/engagement_through_partnership. pdf Holley, Karri. 2017. Interdisciplinary curriculum and learning in higher education. In Oxford research encyclopedia of education. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/ acrefore/9780190264093.013.138. Kirkwood, Steve, Bethany Jennings, Eric Laurier, Viviene Cree, and Bill Whyte. 2016. Towards an interactional approach to reflective practice in social work. European Journal of Social Work 19 (3–4): 484–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2015.1126558. Klaassen, Renate G. 2018. Interdisciplinary education: A case study. European Journal of Engineering Education 43 (6): 842–859. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2018.1442417. Krashen, Stephen. 1992. The input hypothesis: An update. In Linguistics and language pedagogy: The state of the art, ed. James E. Alatis, 409–431. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/555484/GURT_1991. pdf?sequence¼1&isAllowed¼y Linn, Marcia C., Erin Palmer, Anne Baranger, Elizabeth Gerard, and Elisa Stone. 2015. Undergraduate research experiences: Impacts and opportunities. Science 347 (6222): 627–634. https:// doi.org/10.1126/science.1261757. Marais, Petro. 2011. The significance of student teachers’ involvement in co-curricular activities. International Journal for E-learning Security 1 (2): 81–88. Mehmood, Tahir, Tariq Hussain, Mubashira Khalid, and R. Azam. 2012. Impact of co-curricular activities on personality development of secondary school students. International Journal of Humanities and Science 2 (18): 139–145. http://ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_2_No_18_October_ 2012/16.pdf Meyer, Jan H.F., and Ray Land. 2005. Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2): Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning. Higher Education 49 (3): 373–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6779-5. Mohr, Kimberly, and Robert W. Welker. 2017. The role of integrated curriculum in the 21st century school. PhD dissertation, 688. https://irl.umsl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article¼1688& context¼dissertation Muñoz-Bullón, Fernando, Maria J. Sanchez-Bueno, and Antonio Vos-Saz. 2017. The influence of sports participation on academic performance among students in higher education. Sport Management Review 20 (4): 365–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2016.10.006. Nababan, Tongam Sihol. 2014. The importance of understanding the general education in strengthening the higher education system. International Seminar on Global Education II Indonesia & Malaysia at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Kuala Lumpur 1: 776–785. https://papers. ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id¼2645292

166

M. S.-S. Wai-Cook

Naimpally, Ashok, Hema Ramachandran, and Caroline Smith. 2012. Lifelong learning for engineers and scientists in the information age. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2010-0-67009-X. National University of Singapore Registrar’s Office. n.d. Modular system. http://www.nus.edu.sg/ registrar/academic-information-policies/undergraduate-students/degree-requirements Odeh, Saad. 2018. Multidisciplinary teaching: An approach to active learning. Learning and Teaching at Navitas. https://learningandteaching-navitas.com/multidisciplinary-teachingapproach-active-learning/ Schmidt, Richard W. 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11 (2): 129–158. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129. Storey, Katie Lauren. 2010. Bridging the gap: Linking co-curricular activities to student learning outcomes in community college students. PhD dissertation. https://digitalcommons.nl.edu/diss/30/ Suskie, Linda. 2015. Introduction to measuring co-curricular learning. New Directions for Institutional Research 164: 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.20111. Tan, Jennifer Pei-Ling, Suzanne S. Choo, Trivina Kang, and Gregory Arief D. Liem. 2017. Educating for twenty-first century competencies and future-ready learners: Research perspectives from Singapore. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 37 (4): 425–436. https://doi.org/10. 1080/02188791.2017.1405475. Threlfall, Scott John. 2014. E-journals: Towards critical and independent reflective practice for students in higher education. Reflective Practice 15 (3): 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14623943.2014.900012. Voogt, Joke, and Natalie Pareja Roblin. 2012. A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies 44 (4): 299–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2012.668938. Vygotsky, Lev S. 1978. Interaction between learning and development. Reprinted in Readings on the development of children, 2nd edition, ed. Mary Gauvain, and Michael Cole, 29–36. New York: W. H. Freeman. https://innovation.umn.edu/igdi/wp-content/uploads/sites/37/2018/ 08/Interaction_Between_Learning_and_Development.pdf Walkington, Helen. 2015. Students as researchers: Supporting undergraduate research in the disciplines in higher education. York: The Higher Education Academy. https://www. heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/resources/Students%20as%20researchers_1.pdf Wilhite, Stephen C. 1990. Self-efficacy, locus of control, self-assessment of memory ability, and study activities as predictors of college course achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology 82 (4): 696–700. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.4.696. Woodward, Richard. 2009. The Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203875773. Zeldin, Shepherd, Josset Gauley, Steven Eric Krauss, Mariah Kornbluh, and Jessica Collura. 2015. Youth–adult partnership and youth civic development: Cross-national analyses for scholars and field professionals. Youth & Society 49 (7): 851–878. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X15595153.

9

A Whole Person Model of Student Success Advising in the Liberal Arts Sarah L. Bunnell

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dominant Model of Student Success Services in the Liberal Arts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Whole Person Model of Student Success in the Liberal Arts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implementing the Whole Person Model of Student Success in a SLAC Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion and Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

168 169 173 176 178 179 179

Abstract

Supporting students as whole persons is critical to creating productive learning in our classroom and across our campuses. The literature has well-documented the ways in which the small liberal arts college (SLAC) approach to liberal education helps students to develop the skills of life-long learning, such as critical and integrative thinking, written and oral communication, quantitative literacy, and collaborative learning and teamwork. What has received less attention, however, is how the dominant model for the structure and provision of student success services in the liberal arts aligns with the educational and student development mission of these institutions. In this chapter, therefore, an overview of the traditional SLAC educational model will be provided, review the common approach to providing student success services in this setting, and discuss the challenges and benefits of this approach. An alternative framework for student success advising in the liberal arts, one which employs a proactive approach to whole student wellness and inclusive student support using mental contrasting and implementation intention, in order to aid graduates in becoming the lifelong learners and engaged citizens that SLACs seek to develop. Through a whole person approach to student success, students learn that ongoing reflection upon how well they are meeting their S. L. Bunnell (*) Center for Teaching and Learning, Amherst College, Amherst, MA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 H. Huijser et al. (eds.), Student Support Services, University Development and Administration, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5852-5_14

167

168

S. L. Bunnell

own goals for each aspect of themselves (their mental wellness, physical wellness, ongoing academic skill development, mentoring relationships, and level of belonging within a community) best positions them to maximize the power of their liberal arts education. While the focus is on the liberal arts context, this approach could be generalizable across educational contexts, if resources permit. Keywords

Whole person · Student success advising · Proactive · Mental contrasting and implementation intention · Small liberal arts college

Introduction The small liberal arts college (SLAC) model of education is one that is primarily employed in the United States (but see the Global Liberal Arts Alliance, founded by the Great Lakes Colleges Association, and the Maple League, a four-university liberal arts partnership in Eastern Canada, as examples of recent adoptions of the liberal arts model outside of the US context). There are about 460 private, non-profit SLACs across the country (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics 2017). The majority of SLACs in the United States enroll between 1,000 and 2,499 students are structured as residential, 4-year undergraduate institutions, and are generally located in rural or suburban settings, with the greatest density of SLACs located in the northeastern region of the United States. At its core, the liberal arts college mission of education focuses on preparing students to be engaged, selfdirected learners (e.g., Hammond and Collins 1991; Tait and Knight 1996), through the completion of coursework across the social sciences, sciences, arts, and humanities. This intentionally broad nature of study, coupled with a student’s completion of a declared major, is designed to introduce students to a range of disciplinary and interdisciplinary ways of thinking and perspectives and facilitate their development of high level, domain-general cognitive skills and abilities (Hill and Pisacreta 2019; Kleinman 2016). Additionally, the residential and generally small footprint of these campuses, which includes educational buildings, residential spaces, dining spaces, athletic facilities, and student support offices all housed in close proximity, intentionally aligns with the liberal arts mission of creating a close-knit community of learners (e.g., Kobik and Graubard 2000; Kuh et al. 2011), such that the additional liberal arts goals of developing citizenry and broadening of perspectives occurs not only in classrooms but in close community. As an example of this liberal arts emphasis on whole person education and citizenship, my institution’s mission statement states that the College “educates students of exceptional potential from all backgrounds so that they may seek, value, and advance knowledge, engage the world around them, and lead principled lives of consequence.” The liberal arts educational mission is often perceived to be in stark contrast to higher educational approaches that emphasize specific skill development and vocational training (e.g., Ferrall 2012; Kobik and Graubard 2000). In particular,

9

A Whole Person Model of Student Success Advising in the Liberal Arts

169

individuals who endorse a liberal arts higher education model argue that its emphasis on developing domain-general higher level skills, such as critical analysis, oral and written communication, analysis and problem-solving, and personal responsibility (Hutner and Mohamed 2016; Roth 2014; Zakaria 2016) serves to disrupt the narrative of students as consumers and higher education as providers of certification of skill attainment. Instead, some research suggests that students educated in a liberal arts setting, by developing the domain-general skills listed above, gain the ability to flexibly navigate an ever-changing workforce and careers (Hill and Pisacreta 2019; Rozier and Scharff 2013; Zakaria 2016) because they have developed metacognitive skills that allow them to be life-long learners, with and from others, regardless of the precise nature of their work. For instance, in Fareed Zakaria’s 2016 book, In Defense of a Liberal Education, the author describes a skill that is emphasized in liberal education – writing – as being not only important for the communication of ideas but also for prompting the thinking about, organizing, and critical engagement with those ideas. In this way, Zakaria notes, you are learning how to learn through the process of learning to write in the liberal arts. And, he states, “Learning and relearning, tooling and retooling are at the heart of the modern economy” (38). Given the unpredictable nature of the future of work, and the specific skills and abilities that these new fields will require, many individuals argue that the liberal arts education prepares students more responsibility for the workforce that will be, rather than the workforce as it currently exists (e.g., Dorman and Brown 2018; Riegelman 2008; Watson and McConnell 2018). While it is critical to consider the values and intellectual skills that are emphasized within the liberal arts setting, I would argue that it is equally important to reflect on how students are developing interpersonally and intrapersonally through their membership in these residential learning communities (Kuh et al. 2005, 2007), so that they may maximize the potential of their liberal arts education during their studies and perhaps even more importantly, after they graduate. Specifically, although the academic structures may endorse a whole-person, liberal arts focus to the curriculum, these same institutions often default into a consumer-focused model of student support that may be inconsistent with their educational mission. How might this consumer-focused model of student support be disrupted in a liberal arts context? And what would be the benefits to students in their quest to develop into lifelong learners if we were to prioritize that mission in our approach to advising around student success? The next sections of this chapter, therefore, will describe the current, dominant model of student support in the liberal arts before discussing an alternative approach that may allow all students to more fully realize the potential of their liberal arts education.

Dominant Model of Student Success Services in the Liberal Arts The provision of a comprehensive suite of student success services demands extensive personnel, structural, and financial resources. In order to construct an understanding of the common student support services provided at small liberal arts

170

S. L. Bunnell

colleges, I conducted an analysis of the student success services provided by the current top 10 liberal arts colleges in the United States (U.S. News and World Report rankings 2019), which are: • • • • • • • • • •

Williams College (Williamstown, Massachusetts) Amherst College (Amherst, Massachusetts) Swarthmore College (Swarthmore, Pennsylvania) Wellesley College (Wellesley College) Bowdoin College (Brunswick, Maine) Carleton College (Northfield, Minnesota) Middlebury College (Middlebury, Vermont) Pomona College (Claremont, California) Claremont McKenna College (Claremont, California) Davidson College (Davidson, North Carolina)

The analysis was focused on this portion of elite small liberal arts because these schools spend up to five times more money per student compared to less elite small liberal arts colleges (Astin 1999; Astin and Lee 1972); therefore, they serve as examples of a SLAC model that invest heavily in serving and supporting students. While the organizational structure of the following offices and services varied by campus, and not all services are identically structured, student support services at all 10 of these small liberal arts colleges address the following categories of student needs (see Fig. 1): (a) Academic Skills and Development Support. These support services include academic advising, individual tutoring services, research support services, quantitative skills support, accessibility and disability services, writing support (which may also include support for multilingual writers), and public speaking and rhetoric support. (b) Physical Wellness Support. These services include dining services, athletics and gym resources, health centers, and health education programs. (c) Mental Wellness Support. These services commonly include psychological counseling services and religious and spiritual life offices. While these resources are commendable in their scope and investment in student well-being, the ways in which students access these services and resources only serves to reinforce the consumer model, or transactional model, of education (Bunce et al. 2017; Finney and Finney 2010). In this unidirectional approach, a student has identified a particular need for a service, and that service is then sought and obtained from an individual office or subset of offices. To demonstrate this consumerist model of student support, let’s consider the common sequence through which students access support services (Fig. 2). In this way, student support parallels the biomedical model of treatment (Engel 1977), in that it is prompted by the identification of a specific challenge or area of additional needed support (i.e., symptoms), and at that point, the symptoms are the

9

A Whole Person Model of Student Success Advising in the Liberal Arts

171

Fig. 1 Dominant model of student success services

principal prompt for, and focus of, treatment. There are several limitations to the dominant model, not the least being that this approach to student support requires highly attentive and engaged faculty, advisors, deans, and other persons in residence life, as it is commonly those individuals who are in the primary position of identifying student needs and challenges. This kind of attention to student needs demands the development of close relationships between faculty, staff, and students, and it is well-documented that students commonly also seek out mentorship and feel more

172

S. L. Bunnell

Fig. 2 Traditional sequence through which students access support services

comfortable disclosing personal information to faculty and instructional staff who have similar backgrounds and identities as themselves (Social Sciences Feminist Network Research Interest Group 2017). As small liberal arts colleges attempt to increase the diversity of their student bodies, the demand placed upon women and persons of color to serve in this critical first line of defense for students is only intensifying. While critical to student success and often quite personally fulfilling, this heavier and often invisible workload around student success can be psychologically draining, career-limiting, and burn-out-inducing for the faculty and staff working in this domain (Misra et al. 2011). An additional, related limitation of the dominant model of student support is the reactive nature of the support provided. This approach is understandable, perhaps, given the limited resources available on an individual campus relative to the number of students enrolled, but this just-in-time approach requires that if a student has not entered campus with a documented academic, physical, or psychological support need, the development of one’s symptoms must progress to such a level to be observed and noted by others or the student themselves prior to support service onset. In this way, the student’s struggles may have progressed across multiple semesters in which their psychological, cognitive, and social well-being were impaired before they were identified by someone on campus as an individual who might qualify for a specific support service. Depending upon the nature of a students’ set of challenges, social withdrawal and avoidance may be symptoms indicative of struggle that concurrently make it less likely that a faculty or staff member on campus will notice the student’s need for support (e.g., Kupferberg et al. 2016). Finally, the dominant model of student support services is limited because of the overarching framing that it provides to these aspects of student life. Through adopting a reactive, isolated approach to student support services that focuses on the treatment of a specific set of “symptoms,” we are communicating to students that each of the aspects of self that are described in Fig. 1 (psychological wellness, physical wellness, and ongoing academic skill development) are important areas to treat when problems arise, rather than indicating that constant, iterative engagement with and reflection upon each of these aspects of oneself is critical for healthy, whole person development. Therefore, I would argue that the dominant model of student support is in stark contrast to the mission of liberal arts education to educate life-long

9

A Whole Person Model of Student Success Advising in the Liberal Arts

173

learners. In the next section, I suggest an alternative approach to student success services. While I focus on the liberal arts context, this approach is readily generalizable across educational contexts, if resources permit.

The Whole Person Model of Student Success in the Liberal Arts In contrast to the dominant, consumerist model of student success services, which addresses the narrow range of skills or attributes that are impeding a students’ ability to graduate successfully from college, the small liberal arts college may be perfectly positioned to provide integrative, whole person student success support for all students. In this approach to student success, each student would proactively engage in planful, forward-facing reflection upon how they will navigate their undergraduate collegiate experience, not just in terms of successful development as an academic being, but also in terms of successful development as an individual writ large. Thus, the lines of support that students would planfully navigate would include: (a) (b) (c) (d)

Academic skills and development support (described in Fig. 1). Physical wellness support (described in Fig. 1). Mental wellness support (described in Fig. 1). Community belongingness. These resources include multicultural resource centers, affinity groups and/or housing options, community engagement offices, queer resource centers, and residential life offices. (e) Mentorship relationships and leadership skills. Finally, these resources typically include career services, peer mentoring programs, alumni programs, and leadership development programs (often offered through career services and athletics programs). In this model, each conversation with an advisor, dean, and/or mentor about academic coursework would occur in parallel with equal consideration of how the student is meeting their own goals for physical wellness, mental wellness, and ongoing academic skill development, in addition to their motivations towards developing a sense of community and belongingness, leadership skills, and the establishment and/or strengthening of mentoring relationships. Critical to this approach is the idea that students should individually define what success would look like for them in each of these domains. Ideally, this approach to supporting students in the liberal arts would be structured in a highly scaffolded way (Vygotsky 1978) in which students engage in a mentored process of developing self-awareness and the ability to articulate their own development needs, access resources, and engage in self-advocacy across their undergraduate career (see Fig. 3), ready to individually engage in this level of proactive planning and reflection by graduation. Therefore, it is a set of transferrable skills (metacognition, self-knowledge, and agency) that this approach would seek to develop in all students; these skills are critical for life-long learning and engaged, impactful citizenship, and they are also the hallmarks of the liberal arts mission. The overarching goal of adopting this

174

S. L. Bunnell

Fig. 3 Whole person model of student success advising with mental contrasting and implementation intentions (MCII)

approach is for students to be able to enter into their new, postgraduate environments ready to reflect upon, and seek out support for, their ongoing and lifelong needs for intellectual skill development, mentorship, belongingness, physical wellness, and mental and spiritual health (see Table 1 for an comparison of the dominant and whole-person models of student success advising). There are several existing advising, student development, and/or educational programs that inform this proposed model. In terms of advising, the Holistic Advising program at Davidson College is an intensive program for first- and second-year students (see the “Student Resilience and Well-Being Project,” James B. Duke Endowment). Across their first 2 years at the College, Davidson students

9

A Whole Person Model of Student Success Advising in the Liberal Arts

175

Table 1 Comparison of the dominant and whole person models of student success Dominant model Reactive response Subset of student population Addresses specific support need College/university-driven approach Treatment ends at graduation or symptom abatement

Whole person model Proactive response All students Addresses multiple domains of wellbeing Transitions to student-driven approach Encourages lifelong reflection

engage in a series of meetings each semester with their holistic advisor; in these meetings, they discuss their academic course selections, areas of academic skills that are current strengths and those that are areas for growth, and cocurricular experiences that will support them in their development as a student, such as internships, summer research experiences, and study abroad opportunities. Holistic Advisors, drawn from both staff and faculty positions, receive extensive preparatory training, and students only transition to a department-specific major after declaring their major area of study in the end of their second year of study. While this program does not attend explicitly to mental wellness, physical wellness, and community, it does orient students to think about the ways in which they may proactive plan for educational experiences that would enhance their classroom learning and intellectual development. Another curricular and cocurricular initiative that encourages students to develop reflective practices and engage in intentional life planning is the Personal Narrative and Professional Discernment course (https://futures.georgetown.edu/ professional-narrative-and-career-discernment/), a project that is part of the Designing the Future(s) Program at Georgetown University (see “Uncharted Territory: A Guide for Reimagining Education” by Stanford 2025 for a description of this program). The emphasis of this program is on students’ development of self-awareness of their values and vocational goals. In this sophomore-level course, students engage in oral presentations, mock interviews, reflections, and other exercises to critically examine their own identities and how they may influence future decisionmaking and planning. What unites these example programs is the recognition that student success depends upon more than a focus on academic course planning and wrap-around support for students who demonstrably struggle to accomplish academic milestones. Yet neither of these programs by themselves provide a framework for students to proactively consider their academic, social, psychological, physical, and mentorship needs. How might students learn to do this kind of reflection and forward planning? There is a growing body of work examining the Mental Contrasting with Implementation Intentions (MCII) metacognitive therapy as a tool for proactively supporting student development at the college and precollegiate level (Duckworth et al. 2013; Oettingen et al. 2015; Wang and Gai 2016), and this strategy holds great promise for implementing a whole person model of student success through advising. In the MCII program, individuals are encouraged to self-identify goals, envision how they will feel if they meet those goals, consider the most likely barriers that

176

S. L. Bunnell

might impede their accomplishment of those goals, and proactively identify strategies for overcoming those barriers if/when encountered. The literature indicates that training students in MCII results in improvements in student academic success and well-being in early-adolescence (Duckworth et al. 2013) and improved time management, attendance, and self-control in college-aged students (Oettingen et al. 2015; Wang and Gai 2016). How and why should the MCII approach be applied in a liberal arts student success setting? This proactive, anticipatory approach provides a compelling framework for conversations with students about their success in college (e.g., “What is your goal for creating a sense of belonging for yourself on campus? How will you feel when you accomplish that goal? What do you envision as the most likely stumbling block or series of stumbling blocks that would keep you from meeting your belongingness goals? What strategy or set or strategies will you employ to overcome those stumbling blocks, if they emerge as realities for you?”). When advising students, I have used the MCII approach to great effect, and there are two aspects of this approach that have proved most influential: (1) Students identify their own goals for themselves, across multiple domains of their life, which supports their progress towards self-directed learning and (2) Students identify strategies for overcoming obstacles prior to encountering them. We know that individuals become less able to engage in flexible problem-solving when under higher cognitive loads, such as occurs under times of stress (Kalyuga et al. 2010; Sweller and Sweller 2006); thus, this approach allows for a facilitated discussion with the student to identify strategies for resetting their own course before the challenge occurs. If the challenge or barrier is encountered, then it is the role of the advisor or mentor to remind the student of their agency in bettering their trajectory, as well as connecting them to relevant support sources and centers as appropriate.

Implementing the Whole Person Model of Student Success in a SLAC Setting How might the whole person model of student success and advising be implemented? Structurally, this approach would benefit from a digital repository, accessible to both the student and the student’s advisor(s). As students transition between advisors, the full repository would be made available to the new advisor, so that they could learn about how their advisee’s goals and challenges have evolved across their course of study. Within this digital repository, the following set of (modifiable) MCII prompts would be made available to students to complete at the start of each academic period: (A) Academic Skills. “What are your goals for the academic skills or ways of thinking that you want to focus on this semester? How do you think you will you feel when you achieve these academic goals? What do you envision as the most likely stumbling block or series of stumbling blocks that would keep you from achieving your academic goals? What strategy or set or strategies will you

9

A Whole Person Model of Student Success Advising in the Liberal Arts

(B)

(C)

(D)

(E)

177

employ to overcome those stumbling blocks, if they emerge as realities for you?” Physical Health and Well-Being. “What are your goals for your physical health and well-being this semester? How do you think you’ll feel when you achieve your physical goals this semester? What do you envision as the most likely stumbling block or series of stumbling blocks that would keep you from achieving your physical health goals? What strategy or set or strategies will you employ to overcome those stumbling blocks, if they emerge as realities for you?” Mental Wellness. “What are your goals for your mental health and well-being this semester? How do you think you’ll feel when you achieve your mental health goals this semester? What do you envision as the most likely stumbling block or series of stumbling blocks that would keep you from achieving your mental wellness goals? What strategy or set or strategies will you employ to overcome those stumbling blocks, if they emerge as realities for you?” Community Belonging. “What are your goals for creating and/or maintaining a sense of belonging for yourself on campus this semester? How do you think you’ll feel when you develop and/or maintain a sense of community belonging? What do you envision as the most likely stumbling block or series of stumbling blocks that would keep you from meeting your belongingness goals? What strategy or set or strategies will you employ to overcome those stumbling blocks, if they emerge as realities for you?” Mentoring and Leadership. “What are your goals for enhancing your mentorship relationships and expanding your leadership skills this semester? How do you think you’ll feel when you achieve these mentorship and leadership goals? What do you envision as the most likely stumbling block or series of stumbling blocks that would keep you from achieving your goals for mentorship and leadership? What strategy or set or strategies will you employ to overcome those stumbling blocks, if they emerge as realities for you?”

In order to facilitate students’ self-reflection and to best support student success in conversations between student and advisor, the student would complete these prompts prior to the first advising meeting of each semester. At a minimum, the advisor would again meet with the student at the middle of the semester to help their advisee self-evaluate how well they are currently meeting their goals for the semester and, if challenges to goal attainment have emerged, to help their advisee implement the strategies they identified in their earlier reflective writing. Finally, at the end of each semester, the advisor and advisee would again meet to reflect on the student’s goals, across each domain of development. Were the goals reasonable? How well were they accomplished? If barriers emerged, how effective were the identified strategies? What lessons have been learned this semester, and how will these lessons inform your goals for next semester? Implementing a whole person model of student success in a liberal arts college setting would not come without challenges and institutional reprioritization of resources. While the SLAC context may be particularly well suited for implementing this

178

S. L. Bunnell

framework, because of its emphasis on self-directed learning, living and learning in close community, and intensive mentorship, this educational structure may concurrently present particular challenges to fostering student success. First, the rural or suburban location of most liberal arts colleges, which intentionally creates a sense of co-dependence, also creates a situation that depends heavily on the time, energy, and knowledge of its isolated campus members to fully provide the community, leadership, mentorship, physical and mental wellness, and academic skills support services that students need to thrive. The financial and psychological demands of this model are quite heavy. A related, critical issue with a whole person model for student success is one of trying to create community and opportunities for belongingness for all students in a SLAC context. Colleges and universities in the United States have worked, with varying levels of success, to increase the diverse profile of their student body, and substantial research indicates that diversity among the collegiate student body is associated with improved civic engagement, critical thinking, cultural awareness, and level of enjoyment of college (e.g., Astin 1993; Hurtado et al. 1998). With the goal of creating a strong sense of belonging for the wide range of students on campus, colleges and universities have established additional affinity groups, cultural centers, and ethnic-oriented student organizations. However, while some students report a great sense of belongingness through membership with such groups, research into intergroup relations on college campuses suggests that ethnic-specific organizations may further promote subgroup formation and disrupt attempts at broader connections (Sidanius et al. 2009; Tatum 2003). Given this trend, it may be beneficial to encourage students, especially those who hold underrepresented identities on campus, to engage in community building activities both in ethnic-specific organizations and other personally relevant groups. Finally, the approach to thinking of advising as the locus of proactive, extensive student success support is a potential strength of the liberal arts college model. With course enrollments that are, on average, small and an expectation of close relationships between faculty and students, faculty may be well placed to provide student support and mentoring around academic skill development and leadership development. That being said, many of these same faculty are not well versed in advising students in these domains (Klug 2016), let alone in areas related to physical wellness, mental wellness, and community building, and the majority of these faculty received their graduate training from large institutions where student success services were primarily the responsibility of “wrap around” support offices. How, then, do we shift faculty development and reward structures to value and help faculty succeed in this type of work with students? The Holistic Advising model may provide an example for faculty development and training, but institutional reward structures would need to change to make whole person student success through advising an institutional and departmental priority.

Conclusion and Future Directions There is a strong argument for the benefits of the small liberal arts educational model for student learning and career outcomes, due in large part to the emphasis of liberal education on interdisciplinary thinking, critical analysis, and life-long, self-directed

9

A Whole Person Model of Student Success Advising in the Liberal Arts

179

learning. The dominant model of student success, however, may limit the impact of that education by undermining self-directed integrative learning about oneself in place of a consumer model of student services. The whole person model of student success, which draws inspiration from multiple converging examples of programs that attempt to support students beyond merely successfully navigating their academic demands, attempts to scaffold self-directed self-learning and reflective practice to help students prepare for well-being across the lifespan. In doing so, the whole person approach to student success reframes student success services from a cluster of offices that you encounter if you are struggling to graduate from college to a framework that all students engage with in order to think intentionally about how they will prepare for a full, healthy life during and after college. Adopting such an approach, which the small liberal arts college may be best positioned to do, would require rethinking the institutional value systems placed on faculty and staff as well as the allocation of resources across the college. In response, however, the mission of liberal arts education would more fully extend beyond the classroom and inform all aspects of student success support.

Cross-References ▶ Creating Collaborative Spaces: Applying a “Students as Partner” Approach to University Peer Mentoring Programs ▶ The Challenge of Student Mental Well-Being: Reconnecting Students Services with the Academic Universe ▶ Whole-of-Institution Transformation for First Year Learning and Success

References Astin, Alexander W. 1993. What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Astin, Alexander W. 1999. How the liberal arts college affects students. Daedalus 128 (1): 77–100. Astin, Alexander W., and Calvin B.T. Lee. 1972. The invisible colleges. New York, NY: McGrawHill. Bunce, Louise, Amy Baird, and Sian E. Jones. 2017. The student-as-consumer approach in higher education and its effects on academic performance. Studies in Higher Education 42 (11): 1958–1978. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1127908. Dorman, Steve, and Kelli Brown. 2018. The liberal arts: Preparing the workforce of the future. Liberal Education 104 (4). https://www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/2018/fall/dorman_brown Duckworth, Angela Lee, Teri Kirby, Anton Gollwitzer, and Gabriele Oettingen. 2013. From fantasy to action: Mental contrasting to implementation intentions (MCII) improves academic performance in children. Social Psychological and Personality Science 4 (6): 745–753. Engel, G.L. 1977. The need for a new medical model: A challenge for biomedicine. Science 196: 769–773. Ferrall, Victor E., Jr. 2012. Liberal arts at the brink. Boston: Harvard University Press. Finney, Treena Gillespie, and R. Zachary Finney. 2010. Are students their universities’ customers? An exploration study. Education and Training 52 (4): 276–291. Hammond, Merryl, and Rob Collins. 1991. Self-directed learning: Critical practice. London: Routledge.

180

S. L. Bunnell

Hill, Catherine B., and Elizabeth Davidson Pisacreta. 2019. The economic benefits and costs of a liberal arts education. Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. https://mellon.org/news-blog/articles/ economic-benefits-and-costs-liberal-arts-education/ Hurtado, Sylvia, Jeffrey F. Milem, Alma R. Clayton-Pedersen, and Walter R. Allen. 1998. Enacting diverse learning environments: Improving the climate for racial/ethnic diversity in higher education. Washington, DC: The George Washington University. Hutner, Gordon, and Feisal G. Mohamed. 2016. A new deal for the humanities: Liberal arts and the future of public higher education. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Kalyuga, Slava, Alexander Renkl, and Fred Paas. 2010. Facilitating flexible problem solving: A cognitive load perspective. Educational Psychology Review 22 (2): 175–186. Kleinman, Daniel Lee. 2016. Sticking up for Liberal arts and humanities education. In A new deal for the humanities: Liberal arts and the future of public higher education, 86–100. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Klug, Patricia. 2016. Coaching for diversity: A model of academic support for a liberal arts college. Headwaters: The Faculty Journal of the College of Saint Benedict and Saint John’s University 29: 118–137. Kobik, Steven, and Stephen R. Graubard. 2000. Distinctly American: The residential liberal arts college. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Kuh, George D., Jillian Kinzie, John J. Schuh, Elizabeth J. Whitt, and Associates. 2005. Student success in college. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kuh, George D., Jillian Kinzie, Jennifer A. Buckley, Brian K. Bridges, and John C. Hayek. 2007. Special issue: Piecing together the student success puzzle: Research, propositions and recommendations. ASHE Higher Education Report 32 (5), 1–182. Kuh, George D., Jillian Kinzie, John J. Schuh, and Elizabeth J. Whitt. 2011. Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons. Kupferberg, Aleksandra, Lucy Bicks, and Gregor Hasler. 2016. Social functioning in major depressive disorder. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 69: 313–332. https://doi.org/10. 1016/jneubiorev.2016.07.002. Misra, Joya, Jennifer Hickes Lundquist, Elissa Holmes, and Stephanie Agiomavritis. 2011. The ivory ceiling of service work. Academe 97: 22. Oettingen, Gabriele, Heather Barry Kappes, Katie B. Guttenberg, and Peter M. Gollwitzer. 2015. Self-regulation of time management: Mental contrasting with implementation intentions. European Journal of Social Psychology 45: 218–229. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2090. Riegelman, Richard K. 2008. Undergraduate public health education: Past, present, and future. American Journal of Preventative Medicine 35 (3): 258–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre. 2008.06.008 Roth, Michael S. 2014. Beyond the university: Why liberal education matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Rozier, Michael, and Darcell Scharff. 2013. The value of liberal arts and practice in an undergraduate public health curriculum. Public Health Reports 128 (5): 416–421. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 003335491312800515. Sidanius, James, Shana Levin, Colette Van Laar, and David O. Sears. 2009. The diversity challenge: Social identity and intergroup relations on the college campus. New York: Russell Sage Press. Social Sciences Feminist Network Research Interest Group. 2017. The burden of invisible work in academia: social inequalities and time use in five university departments. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations 39 (Special Issue: Diversity and Social Justice in Higher Education): 228–245. Stanford 2025. 2019. Georgetown University. In Uncharted Territory: A Guide for Reimagining Education, 124–137. Retrieved from https://dschool.stanford.edu/unchartedterritory. “Student Resilience and Well-Being Project.” James B. Duke Endowment. Retrieved from https:// dukeendowment.org/story/learning-more-about-student-resilience. Sweller, John, and Susan Sweller. 2006. Natural information processing systems. Evolutionary Psychology 4: 434–458.

9

A Whole Person Model of Student Success Advising in the Liberal Arts

181

Tait, Jo, and Peter Cory Knight. 1996. The management of independent learning. London: Routledge. Tatum, Beverly D. 2003. Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria: And other conversations about race. 5th anniversary, revised edition. New York: Basic Books. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 2017. Retrieved from: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_317.40.asp. U.S. News and World Report. 2019. 2019 Best National Liberal Arts Colleges. https://www. usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-liberal-arts-colleges Vygotsky, Lev Semenovich. 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wang, Guoxia, and Xiaosong Gai. 2016. Combined effect of mental contrasting and implementation intention on college students’ book reading. Social Behavior and Personality 44 (5): 767–784. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2016.44.5.767. Watson, C. Edward, and Kathryne Drezek McConnell. 2018. What really matters for employment? Liberal Education 104 (4). https://www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/2018/fall/watson_mcconnell Zakaria, Fareed Rafiq. 2016. In defense of a liberal arts education. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.

A View of the Contents of the Typical First-Year Virtual Uni Bag: Helping Staff and Students Develop a Pedagogy for Successful Transition

10

Lynette Faragher

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Who Are the Students? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What Is in the VUBs? (Analysis Outcomes) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Higher Order Thinking Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Academic Discourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Academic Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What Was Not in the VUBs? How to Address the Gaps? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HOTS: Level 6 – Self-System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sense of Importance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Emotional Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HOTS: Level 4 – Knowledge Utilisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Decision-Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Problem-Solving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Experimental Inquiry: Generate and Test Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HOTS Level 2 Comprehension: Symbolising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Academic Discourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Academic Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Roles of Learning Advisers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion and Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

184 185 186 187 187 188 189 189 189 190 190 191 192 192 193 193 194 195 195 196 197 198 199

Abstract

In this chapter, attrition among first-year students, especially those students who have not been groomed for university, also known as equity students, is addressed. Recommendations for focusing on what they can already do when they start their studies are made. Ways to enhance the transition process are L. Faragher (*) University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD, Australia © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 H. Huijser et al. (eds.), Student Support Services, University Development and Administration, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5852-5_21

183

184

L. Faragher

recommended, including mandatory collaboration between academic advisers and academic subject teachers who tend to function separately. Case study research is presented that shows that new students, including equity students, already have some academic literacy skills such as higher order thinking skills, academic writing skills, and academic discourse skills when they commence. These skills are contained in their virtual uni bags – a construct used to suggest that all students have skills as well as life experience when they start their studies. This chapter discusses existing skills and missing skills and suggests ways in which they can be developed and enhanced in co-curricular activities, created in collaboration between academic advisors and academic subject teachers. This process is explored by using the constructs of the virtual uni bag and pedagogy for transition. The emphasis is on ways in which academic advisers can collaborate with academic subject teachers to embed development of the missing skills in the first-year curriculum in the classroom (which includes face-to-face and online teaching) and in co-curricular activities. Keywords

Higher order thinking skills · Learning advisers · Co-curricular activities · Firstyear equity students · Pedagogy for transition

Introduction All teachers, including those in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), want to do their jobs as well as possible. However, notwithstanding their best efforts, the attrition rates among first-year university students in Australia, as well as internationally, continue to be a matter of concern (Jackson 2016; James et al. 2010; Martin and Koob 2017). Partly based on my work as a learning adviser for many first-year students (including equity students), and through my PhD research into what they can already do when they start (Faragher 2018), I argue that attrition rates can be lowered through a change of perspective and emphasis in mainstream student support. Instead of focusing strongly on remediation (i.e., what they cannot do) and perpetuating a deficit attitude to students’ (in)abilities, a focus on what they can do when they join the university, as a basis for improving progression, is suggested. This shift in emphasis follows constructivist precepts suggesting we should aim to enhance their existing skills and provide ways to build on those. In this chapter, insights are offered into what students can do, as represented in the contents of their virtual uni bags (VUBs) (Thomson and Hall 2008). In the case of all first-year students, their VUBs “contain,” in addition to their rich life experiences, academic literacies, which in this context are considered to consist of higher order thinking skills (HOTS), academic discourse, and academic writing skills. The main argument concerns how learning advisers, who generally function in isolation from faculty teaching staff, could have a key role to play in assisting

10

A View of the Contents of the Typical First-Year Virtual Uni Bag: Helping. . .

185

university academic subject teachers to support the development of academic literacies within their subject courses. The Covid 19 crisis has changed the world as we know it and brought into sharp focus the need for effective online pedagogical practices by both academics and students. Without internet connectivity and expertise in its use, the educational process will, more than ever, be compromised. Learning advisers are well placed to support teachers, specifically in terms of online development, in a variety of ways that could include embedding academic literacies in the curriculum or in co-curricular activities, such as workshops, generic seminars, social events, or tutorials, delivered online or face-to-face or outside the regular teaching spaces. The curriculum, delivered in various modes – face-to-face, online, or blended – needs to include an emphasis on academic literacies as these are critical to effective learning at university. There is also a role for co-curricular activities, and there are studies that support this and provide evidence of their effectiveness in various contexts (Kahu and Nelson 2018; Rionosia and Kutotto 2017). However, given the size of the current HEIs’ student numbers, and budget constraints on staff and resources, not all students will benefit from this. These budget constraints are exacerbated by the Covid-19 context. Support staff are often responsible for co-curricular activities and individual student support, and they also tend to be the most vulnerable when it comes to budget cuts. In turn, this then affects the students in most need of support (i.e., equity groups) disproportionally, as it erodes their support structure. It is suggested that university leadership should adopt policies that promote co-curricular activities that lead to the embedding of academic literacies development in all courses, face-to-face and online, and thereby reach most students. Learning advisers are well suited to support teachers to do this because of their specialised training in learning processes and academic literacies. If the use of their expertise in this way was mandatory, it would be to the benefit of all students and not just the few who access the co-curricular activities. Recommendations are made in this chapter for university teachers to embed strategies to enhance the development of academic literacies in their course design, and ways in which learning advisers might support them. Recommendations are also made for more focus on HOTS and reading skills, rather than just academic writing skills, in co-curricular activities. The first step will be to identify the contents of the students’ VUBs and then ascertain where gaps occur. A whole-of-institution approach will be recommended for universities in line with transition pedagogy (TP) Kift, Nelson, and Clarke (2010) or pedagogy for transition (PFT), as conceptualized by Faragher (2018).

Who Are the Students? In January 2017, statistics were published showing that one-third of students enrolled at university in Australia will not complete their courses within six years (Martin and Koob 2017). This suggests that there are increasing numbers of students at Australian universities who might benefit from support (Norton 2019b). Many students are part-time students who can now study online because of technology and

186

L. Faragher

greater access to online courses and material, which allows for study flexibility. This factor, among others, has increased enrolments across the board (Norton and Cakitaki 2016), without proportional increases in staff complements. The first-year student cohort often includes students who have not been groomed for university study by their schools and homes (Jackson 2016). Those students are a varied group and include many students from identified equity groups. Included within this group are ethnic minorities, [the] academically disadvantaged, students with disabilities, students with low socioeconomic status, and probationary students (O’Keeffe (2013). McMillan and Western (2000, p. 225) note that “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, women in non-traditional areas, people from non-English speaking backgrounds . . ., rural and isolated students” are also included under the equity umbrella (Norton and Cakitaki 2016). In other research, the issue of mature age students has been raised. For example, Heagney and Benson (2017) have stated that by 2010, 28% of all Australian first-time entrants were aged 25 years and over. Another group of equity students consists of first in family to attend university, who Collier and Morgan (2007, p. 426) define as “first-generation students,” neither of whose parents have completed a university degree. They cite one of the issues sometimes associated with their lack of success as not having a family context to develop the “cultural capital” needed for persistence, unlike students from professional homes, who Norton (2019a) argues have an advantage. Yet, the students described above all bring a range of life experiences and other knowledge with them that is contained in their VUBs and that can be drawn upon and developed in their academic studies.

Case Study A group of 18 first-year education students at a regional university in Australia volunteered to participate in the case study that explored the contents of their VUBs. Fifteen of them self-identified as equity students in the introductory questionnaire which supplied guidelines as to the definitions of “equity.” They identified in the categories first in family, mature age, low socioeconomic status and low OP (schoolleaving qualification), and disability. They volunteered on the understanding that their identities would remain anonymous and their confidentiality has always been maintained. Their essays were analysed using a mixed methods approach (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie 2004), with some emphasis on bricolage (Kincheloe 2001, 2005; McLaren 2001). Data from the essays and interviews were selected subjectively and then analyzed numerically. Nvivo qualitative software was used to sort, categorise, and analyse the data. Five women students ranging in age from late teens to mid-fifties responded to invitations to a follow up interview, as well as three lecturers. The analysed written texts were students’ critical, comparative essays in a first-year literacy course, written in the persuasive genre. Their essay task was to compare two transcripts of teacher talk according to the theories taught in the course. In the analysis, their

10

A View of the Contents of the Typical First-Year Virtual Uni Bag: Helping. . .

187

academic literacies were measured in terms of their HOTS, using Marzano and Kendall’s new taxonomy of educational objectives (Marzano and Kendall 2007); evidence of academic discourse (Wallace et al. 1999); and academic writing skills (Bailey and Huang 2011; Coxhead and Byrd 2007; Donesch-Jezo 2010; Hyland 2003; Knoch 2008). The essays were analysed and the evidence of the various academic literacies was categorised in Nvivo. Similarly, the transcripts of the interviews, staff, and students were analysed and results included in the final analysis, which was taken to constitute the contents of the VUBs.

What Is in the VUBs? (Analysis Outcomes) Knowing the contents of students’ VUBs improves the possibility that learning advisers, teachers, and students can build on those existing skills and enhance them. In the process, it would enable students better to develop the disciplinary knowledge contained in their courses and programs as well as adding to their existing skills. Some of the outcomes of the analysis of the essays are summarised in Tables 1, 2, and 3. They show the HOTS, academic discourse skills, and academic writing skills that were present in the students’ VUBs in the case study.

Higher Order Thinking Skills Marzano (2001) designed a new taxonomy using Bloom’s taxonomy, which he developed by reversing the order of levels and including additional dimensions, as shown in Fig. 1. Table 1 The HOTS present in the VUBs – essays and interviews HOTS already in place Level 1 – Retrieval Level 2 – Comprehension Level 3 – Analysis

HOTS still to be developed Level 2 – Symbolizing Level 4 – Knowledge utilisation (decisionmaking, problem-solving, experimental inquiry, and investigation)

Level 5 – Metacognition (goal specification, process monitoring, monitoring clarity, and accuracy) Level 6 – Self system – efficacy

Level 6 – Sense of importance Level 6 – Emotional response

Note: Within Level 4 knowledge utilisation, only five students showed evidence of all the components of this skill, but all, with two exceptions, showed evidence of at least one of the subskills. This was an unexpected result in terms of the structure of Marzano’s hierarchy because the next level, Level 5, metacognition, showed mostly positive results

188

L. Faragher

Table 2 Academic discourse skills in the VUBs (Wallace et al. 1999) Academic discourse skills in the VUBs The ability to read academic texts interactively The ability to demonstrate subject knowledge The ability to select and synthesise information into arguments The ability to demonstrate professional expertise in their subject area The ability to use referencing conventions The ability to understand academic genres

Academic discourse skills to be addressed Interest in knowledge for its own sake Openness Disputation Tolerance Reflection Skepticism Honesty Respect for intellectual property Collegiality Critique Academic freedom

Note: The six academic discourse skills in the VUBs were recognisable in all the data. Those identified as still to be addressed were not recognisable. This is problematised in the next section, and suggestions are made for remediation where necessary

Table 3 Academic writing skills in the VUBs based on (Bailey and Huang 2011; Coxhead and Byrd 2007; Donesch-Jezo 2010; Hyland 2003; Knoch 2008) Academic writing skills evident in the VUBs Present Tense Discipline jargon Boosters Demonstrations of attitude Transition markers Evidentials Code glosses

Academic writing skills needing to be developed Academic language vocabulary – word count Varied vocabulary Passive Voice Hedges Frame Engagement

Note: The most significant shortcoming was in their vocabularies. When the word count was analysed, participants were shown to have used only 50% of the words included in the Academic Word List (Coxhead 2000a, b; Nation and Coxhead 2014). The data showed ability to write adequately but needing development to reach a description of “academic” writing in terms of the literature consulted

Academic Discourse Academic discourse and academic writing skills are closely related but are distinct skills. Table 2 contains lists of the academic discourse skills analysed in the case study and those not addressed but still important. They are based on the work of Wallace et al. (1999).

10

A View of the Contents of the Typical First-Year Virtual Uni Bag: Helping. . .

189

Fig. 1 Marzano’s Taxonomy of Higher Order Thinking Skills reproduced from Marzano (2001, p. 60) Psychomotor Procedures

Level 4: Knowledge Utilization

Information

Level 5: Metacognition

Mental Procedures

Level 6: Self-System Thinking

Level 2: Comprehension Level 1: Retrieval

D Kn om ow ain le s o dg f e

Level 3: Analysis

Levels of Processing

Academic Writing What Was Not in the VUBs? How to Address the Gaps? In this section, the gaps in the VUBs are addressed with suggestions on how to fill them. The suggestions apply to co-curricular activities that learning advisers would be involved in (e.g. generic workshops), as well as in working with teachers in their curriculum design, preparation and delivery. The gaps in the VUBs were analysed using the following tools: HOTS and academic writing and academic discourse. Each subsection was structured in two parts. The first part reflects the case study analysis, while the second part recommends interventions.

HOTS: Level 6 – Self-System According to the descriptors applied in the case study, the greatest need for support is within Level 6. The skills within this level include students’ sense of efficacy and importance as well as their emotional response. Those three constitute a “trinity,” which can be described as overall motivation (Marzano and Kendall 2008), but they must all be present and only five essays in the case study qualified. The sense of efficacy was represented reasonably well (thirteen), but the sense of the

190

L. Faragher

importance of what they were learning only scored ten, while their emotional engagement with their studies scored six. Emotional engagement with their studies is the area that has been identified as critical to success, most recently by Kahu and Nelson (2018), but prior to that by others (Coates and McCormick 2014; Gibson 2011; Hare 2015; Kahn et al. 2017; Kahu 2011; Kahu and Nelson 2018; Kahu et al. 2013; Nelson et al. 2012; Oliver 2008; Zepke 2013).

Sense of Importance Another area specifically needing attention in the self-system, apart from emotional engagement with their studies, is sense of importance, and being weak in either affects students’ overall sense of motivation. Marzano and Kendall (2008, p. 143) have provided useful guidelines on how to assess and develop a sense of importance and emotional engagement. The self-system process of examining importance involves analysing the extent to which one believes that learning specific knowledge is important and then examining one’s beliefs relative to that issue. . . . It goes beyond simply identifying how important learning specific knowledge is perceived to be. It also involves examining and defending the logic underlying one’s thinking.

They then suggest ways in which students can be invited to articulate what it is about their course that they find important. In this way, they will be highlighting specific issues and avoid engaging in bland generic conversations. Marzano and Kendall (2008) suggest asking guiding questions: How important is it to you? Why do you think it might be important? Can you provide some reasons why it is important? How logical is your thinking? (p. 148). The objective here is to alert the student/s to the issue of importance and to assist the teacher to discover what students find important about their course or program. Depending on the mode of delivery and the specific requirements of the course, this might be an important part of the introductory lectures or tutorials and could happen in an online quiz, with instant response tools like Kahoot, or in pair/group discussions; technology provides a range of other options. Moreover, this could be something to emphasise and return to throughout the course. In addition, some universities, in their professional degrees, encourage students to see themselves as professionals in training, e.g., nurses in training, to enhance their sense of importance.

Emotional Engagement The emotional response to students’ studies is less straightforward and may be best explored in personal written or spoken texts addressed to the teacher or in selfreflection exercises. The process involves the following: . . .identifying what emotions, if any, are associated with specific knowledge, whether these emotions interfere with learning, and the logic behind those associations. . . negative affect

10

A View of the Contents of the Typical First-Year Virtual Uni Bag: Helping. . .

How important is this to me ?

Do I think I can do this?

What emotions do I associate with this?

Why?

Why?

Why

191

My overall motivation Explain ……………………………………… ……..……………………………… ……………………………………… ……………………………………..

Fig. 2 Graphic organiser for showing overall motivation (Marzano and Kendall 2007, p. 163)

can dampen a student’s motivation to learn or improve at something, even if the student believes that the knowledge is important and that he or she has the requisite ability and resources. . . The key feature is the identification of the logic underlying emotional responses. There is no necessary attempt to change these associations – only to understand them. This said, an argument can be made that awareness of one’s emotional associations provides the opportunity for some control over them. . . (Marzano and Kendall 2008, p. 154)

They suggest asking questions: What are your feelings about . . .? What is the logic underlying these feelings? How reasonable is your thinking? (p. 154). Marzano and Kendall (2007, p. 163) provide a simple graphic organizer which students, teachers, and learning advisers could use to examine overall motivation, and which they would be able to refer to later to assess progress (Fig. 2). All the above recommendations assume interaction between student, teacher, and/or learning adviser; however, it is equally possible for students to use the questions and answers for themselves in a follow-up extra-curricular activity, to identify their own qualities and think about how to enhance them for themselves once they understand the “whys” and “wherefores.” Applying knowledge and information to writing and thinking, or knowledge utilisation, is next.

HOTS: Level 4 – Knowledge Utilisation This is arguably a vital skill for most undergraduate students when they are responding to written assignments. It provides evidence of their ability to think

192

L. Faragher

independently and create hypotheses using knowledge they acquire in class, from study notes or independent research. In terms of knowledge utilization Level 4, the areas that fell short were as follows: decision-making (ten students), problemsolving (eight students), and generating hypothesis (nine students).

Decision-Making “Decision making involves selecting among alternatives that initially appear equal” (Marzano and Kendall 2008, p. 93). This speaks directly to the essay task in the case study, which asked students to distinguish between the most effective learning processes and environments depicted in two transcripts of teacher talk. Hence, it is significant that only ten student essays showed evidence of them using their own thinking. Students need encouragement to find their own “voice” when writing at university, so that they can make assertions and decisions, backed up by their own research, that reflect their personal thinking and decisions. In Bakhtin’s words (cited in Daniels 2001, p. 64): Voice and its utterances always express a point of view, always enact particular values. They are also social in still a third meaning: taking account of the voices being addressed, whether in speech or writing.

Decision-making often requires the use of details, and to allow students to practise this, Marzano and Kendall (2008 p. 98) suggest using a structured matrix so that they can sort out their alternatives in tabular form. In subject classrooms, this would provide a focus on the discipline or course, while in the co-curricular context, exercises could be devised using hypothetical life situations. Teachers could be consulted to provide a range of potential scenarios for learning advisers to use in their sessions. Potentially problem-solving and experimental inquiry could be managed in the same way.

Problem-Solving The process of problem solving is used when an individual attempts to accomplish a goal for which an obstacle exists (Rowe 1985). (. . .) At its core, then, a defining characteristic of a problem is an obstacle or limiting condition. (Marzano 2001, p. 46)

In the essay assignments that form part of the case study data, the students had to identify the obstacles or limiting conditions to the success of teachers enabling children to learn. They also had to identify strategies for overcoming those obstacles or limiting conditions. While they did identify the problems, they tended to link the situation to a theory only, without substantial explanations or recommendations. Marzano and Kendall (2008, p. 99) therefore suggest using the following questions to provoke the desirable responses: How would you overcome. . .? Develop a strategy to. . . Figure out a way to . . . How will you reach your goal under these conditions?

10

A View of the Contents of the Typical First-Year Virtual Uni Bag: Helping. . .

193

These questions could be built into activities related to the content to be learnt or to hypothetical scenarios in co-curricular activities.

Experimental Inquiry: Generate and Test Hypothesis Marzano (2001, p. 47) explains that “metaphorically, experimental enquiry might be described as the process used when answering questions such as: How can this be explained? or: Based on this explanation, what can be predicted?” According to Marzano and Kendall (2008, p. 104, 109), “a critical feature of experimenting is that the data be newly collected by the student.” In the essay in the case study, the student writers were not expected to collect data and test hypotheses, but if they did, it was credited under this descriptor and could have been introduced by the subjunctives – “could” or “might have.” Only nine students did this. To enhance the skill or give it focus, instructions like the following might be used: Generate and test. . . Test the idea that. . .What would happen if . . .? How would you determine if . . .? How can this be explained? Based on the experiment, what can be predicted? Like decision-making, the questions would be used in the context of the subject content to be learnt or in hypothetical situations in a co-curricular situation.

HOTS Level 2 Comprehension: Symbolising Symbolising and metaphors are often placed together as the same “skill,” but they are not, and in the case study, the students showed ability in the use of metaphor but not in symbolizing. Therefore, the focus in this chapter is on symbolising. According to Marzano and Kendall (2008, p. 17): Symbolising is the comprehension process of creating a symbolic analog of the knowledge that has been produced via a process of integrating. The symbolic analysis is typically in the form of images. A popular form of symbolising . . . is graphic organisers, which combine language and symbols.

Only one student showed any evidence of ever having used a graphic organizer, thereby showing evidence of symbolising. According to Gelder (2005), the value of the use of graphic organisers, in promoting critical thinking, is uncontroversial. However, the analysis of the data in this research suggests that the use of graphic organisers, showing critical thinking, metaphorical thinking, and symbolising, is not common among undergraduate students. In addition, Davies (2013) has argued persuasively for the teaching of critical thinking by using argument mapping. He cites research showing that a lack of critical thinking skills is evident for many students in HEIs, even though it is a highly prized graduate attribute by both universities and employers. However, argument mapping is not the only possible graphic organizer. Buzan (1998) has described how to develop a mind map that develops “radiant thinking”

194

L. Faragher

and helps organise ideas. López, Ponce, and Quezada (2010, p. 67) have contended that the use of graphic organisers “significantly improved the involved cognitive skills and the assessed disciplinary content.” Symbolisation is related to the practice of critical thinking and is something that course developers could build into their courses in the early stages. It is also a skill that should be taught by learning advisers as part of co-curricular activities. Symbolising tasks could be introduced with instructions that include terms: Depict. . . Represent. . . Illustrate. . . Draw. . . Show. . . Use models. . . Diagram, Chart (Marzano and Kendall 2008 p. 48; see also Pugh et al. 1997). Important skills in all disciplines are symbolisation and using metaphors. They show the ability to think abstractly and figuratively when dealing with new and sometimes alien concepts. Raising awareness of this way of thinking across the disciplines should be an important part of course development and assessment.

Academic Discourse Academic discourse is a contested terrain, and it is assumed that some of the behaviors reflected in the second part of Table 2 as “still to be developed” will be alien to new students. They are behaviors that identify the university as a place of higher learning. However, ways of relating them to the lives and understanding of new students are challenging. HEIs are dynamic institutions, and wanting to include the world views and voices of new and especially of equity students in the curriculum is born out of a desire to remove their likely experience of alienation. The “behaviors” of critical thinking, exhaustive enquiry, disputation, openness, tolerance, reflection, skepticism, honesty, respect for intellectual property, collegiality, critique, and academic freedom thus become important to be practised explicitly by both teachers and students. It is also an area where co-curricular activities could assist transition. Building Pathways (Faragher 2012; McIntyre and Todd 2012; McIntyre et al. 2012) is an example of extra co-curricular activity in which a session focusing on the above issues is included. It is especially the “values, attitudes and perspectives” that embody an academic worldview which might be unfamiliar and alienating for equity students. Bizzell (1992, p. 168) problematised the issue of academic discourse by suggesting that beginning students often have a different world view from the one required. She asked the question: “What world views do basic writers bring . . .?” Haggis (2006, p. 523) argued for a change of perspective that relates to creating a curriculum that is more closely aligned to what the students already know and can do, thus supporting their existing worldview. Faragher (2018, p. 216) found that equity students find the discourse of the academy “daunting.” Krause (2006, p. 4) has mentioned that one of the challenges new students face is the learning of a “new language,” as well as some of the practices and traditions of the institution. Priest (2009, p. A73) has discussed the alienation experienced by low SES students who do not have mastery of the language and discourse of the university. She claims that low SES students are at a disadvantage because they lack the familiarity with academic discourse that other students might have and are more likely to find it “remote and unfamiliar” because it is “allied with the language of cultural privilege.”

10

A View of the Contents of the Typical First-Year Virtual Uni Bag: Helping. . .

195

Course developers could consider this issue and explicitly include the practice of the behaviors relating to academic discourse. This applies equally to co-curricular activities. Another possibility is that informal communities of practice, online as well as on campus, would help equity students counter feelings of alienation (O’Donnell and Tobbell 2007).

Academic Writing The academic writing skills needing to be developed, as listed in Table 3, all require students to read more academic texts in order to develop the appropriate vocabulary and linguistic structures. It is up to all subject teachers and learning advisers to assist and insist on this. It is a challenging problem as students are notoriously time-poor and, according to the data in the case study, tend to read only the essential texts (Faragher 2018). More exposure to the written discourse of the academy will inevitably lead to improvements in writing skills. Context informs recommendations, and they will therefore not apply to all disciplines or all equity and/or new students. However, some general guidelines and ideas were articulated in the previous sections that could be valuable to all teachers. They might be able to use recommendations outlined here in collaboration with learning advisors in each other’s Vygotskyan zones of proximal development, to add to their existing collections of strategies and techniques. It is expected that doing this will provide additional insights and applications toward building a relevant pedagogy for transition (PFT). It is also expected that like-minded staff will strategise around ways to implement the changes required if the following ideas are to be put in practice.

The Roles of Learning Advisers Throughout this latter part of the chapter, suggestions and recommendations are deliberately targeted mainly at teachers, because the classroom should be the primary focus for pedagogical change. Tinto (2005)‘s criticism of student support services being an “add on” outside the classroom resonates strongly here, and it puts the onus on teachers in accordance with Tinto’s (2005) recommendation that “faculty” should be active in appropriately supporting and educating their students, and that student support should be integrated in the “community of learning.” PFT is best practiced in the classroom with auxiliary co-curricular activities for individual cases. However, the current practice in most HEIs is still to place learning advisers in separate systems away from the classrooms where subject learning and teaching take place. This leaves three options for the role of learning advisers: co-creation, separation, or a combination of the two. First, the co-creation of curriculum and programs involves a close working relationship between learning advisers and teachers in curriculum and program design. For this to be effective, learning advisers need to be a permanent part of the team that develops and designs course materials (Green et al. 2005; Tinto 2005).

196

L. Faragher

Norman and Newham (2018) address the issue of making the curriculum accessible to all students, and their study reports on ways in which they were able to collaborate with subject teachers and embed skills development in courses. Then there is the most common model in which learning advisers are positioned in student support services, separated from faculties, or third, a combination of both of the two. The last option is preferred as it benefits most students via both embedded and additional co-curricular activity in the teaching and learning materials, and specific cases and issues can be addressed in a co-curricular context by learning advisers. The balance in how this is achieved most effectively is crucial and requires a strong engagement with the students’ VUBs. The core issue is the thinking that changes the emphasis on academic writing in general (a deficit view prevalent in most HEIs) to areas of most need in academic literacies, viz. specific HOTS and in specific writing and discourse issues that are more urgent. Norman and Newham (2018) refer specifically to students with disabilities. However, their recommendations for the application of the principles of Universal Design for Learning, which are aimed at “reducing barriers to full participation by all learners” (2018, p. A135), should be incorporated into all curriculum design exercises. They include such strategies as including pictures, videos, role-plays, and the digitization of all materials. As part of a critically reflective account, two practical examples of co-curricular activity are first a situation where a teacher in human sciences invited me, as a member of the learning support team, to co-teach an introductory class on the first assignment of the academic year. During the lecture, we each led the students through the requirements of the assignment, at the same time working with the students’ sense of importance and emotional response as well as the basics of academic writing and discourse skills. The response from the students in class was positive, and the teacher involved built academic literacies into the course materials after that. On another occasion, as a learning support person, I was invited to observe a lecture given by a senior teacher. In the feedback session, useful knowledge concerning his teaching style and classroom management was exchanged, and ways to change the course in the future to include support for academic literacies, especially as related to academic discourse behaviors, were agreed upon.

Recommendations Many first-year students, including from equity groups, find their early experiences of university overwhelming (James et al. 2010, p. 28). Lots of reading is required and lots of time, and they find the language used challenging. The curriculum needs to be sensitive to the needs of these students and balance their needs with the academic agenda of the university. This would relieve some pressure on student services who, in their various identities (psychological counseling, academic counseling, disability services, or peer mentoring), would be more able to provide support for specific cases/areas of need. Academic teachers could provide learning experiences that

10

A View of the Contents of the Typical First-Year Virtual Uni Bag: Helping. . .

197

support the contents of the VUBs while “covering the content” of their programs, thus minimising some of the need for learning support from student services. An example of this, relevant to strengthening the self-system might be in an English literature class in the study of a poem requiring the student/s to respond on a personal emotional level and then get them to consider why they reacted like that. This would develop their emotional connection to their studies and cause them to think in depth about how the writer achieved this response and also develop their self-knowledge. This exercise could be conducted online in a group or individually, or in class. Another possibility might be in a civil engineering class, where students, studying the strength of concrete, could view media coverage of the structural issues in the apartment buildings in Sydney NSW where residents were forced to evacuate. They would relate this event to their studies. This might be an opportunity to use a graphic organiser (use of metaphor and visualizing) and would remind them of the importance of their studies. Furthermore, all HEIs undergo restructuring from time to time, often in response to funding cuts (Croucher 2017, May 9). Such restructuring can lead to the reorganisation of student services and the subsuming of specific academic support units into other areas. This can diminish the effect of the services and create a situation where students are less likely to find academic support when they need it. For PFT to become a potent force, there would need to be support from the top levels of the university leadership for changes leading to the empowerment of student support services to work with teachers in implementing a curriculum that combines the development of students’ VUBs and academic excellence, or in other words, a curriculum that starts from where students are actually at, rather than where academics want them to be. Every institution has its own model, and there is much piecemeal research that supports a range of ways in which the support services and academic staff interact and intersect. However, the research relating to academic literacies, as contained in students’ VUBs, indicates some specific areas needing work as detailed above. Some of this could be provided by co-curricular learning support services, for example, in orientation programs such as Building Pathways (McIntyre and Todd 2012; McIntyre et al. 2012), mentioned previously, separate workshops, or in the classroom in tandem with the academics, online counseling, online workshops, online and face-to-face tutorials, and so on, according to the particular institution’s structures. The recommendation here though is for courses to have built-in, co-curricular exercises and experiences that will promote the enhancement of students’ individual strengths and address their weak areas. In this way, an evidence base could be developed to support further and deeper changes, which could appropriately be driven by learning advisers in collaboration with teachers.

Conclusion and Future Directions When students start at university, they bring a range of capabilities with them in their VUBs. A significant proportion of them consists of equity students, and they deserve to have a chance of success. Curriculum-based support for their existing skills will enhance

198

L. Faragher

that chance. They have some academic literacies in place, which can be developed without a lot of additional effort on the part of the teachers and learning advisers. A focus on HOTS has been identified in this chapter, and ways in which skills gaps can be developed have been suggested. Another area not frequently targeted is the development of appropriate vocabulary and related to that, reading. Many students can write coherently but need additional encouragement and pressure to read much more in order to develop their academic vocabularies. If they are to become full members of the academic community they also need to be inducted into academic discourse explicitly and sensitively, always acknowledging their own worldviews. All first-year students, and especially those in equity groups, can benefit from support in the development of their HOTS and academic writing and discourse skills. Specific areas of need are the students’ self-system: their sense of the importance of their work and their emotional engagement with it, as well as their knowledge utilization, their ability to show independent thinking, and personal voice. In terms of their academic discourse skills, the areas of need are most likely to be those reflecting appropriate academic behavior and accommodation of their worldview in a format that aligns with university expectations. Finally, in terms of academic writing, the most important issue is the need to develop an appropriate academic vocabulary and writing style which can best be achieved by increased reading of academic texts. Support for the development of HOTS, academic writing, and discourse will best be provided by collaboration between teaching academics and learning advisers through PFT in co-curricular activities embedded in the curriculum. Co-curricular activities outside the classroom have value but can only reach limited numbers of students. What will be essential to bring about awareness, and successfully implement inclusion of the ideas outlined in this chapter, is for university leadership to acknowledge their importance of learning advisers, promote the research and researchers who are working in this field, and mandate ways for academics to use the learning support teams in their curriculum design, teaching, planning, and delivery.

Cross-References ▶ A Case-Study of Partnership in Practice: Engaging Students to Shape Support for Learning in Higher Education ▶ Future Institutional and Student Services Leadership Challenges: Implementing a Holistic Whare Tapa Rima – Five-Sided Home Model ▶ How to Increase Retention and Graduation Rates ▶ Increasing Student Persistence: Wanting and Doing ▶ Supporting Indigenous Higher Degree by Research Students in Higher Education ▶ The Challenge of Student Mental Well-Being: Reconnecting Students Services with the Academic Universe ▶ Whole-of-Institution Transformation for First Year Learning and Success

10

A View of the Contents of the Typical First-Year Virtual Uni Bag: Helping. . .

199

References Bailey, A.L., and B.H. Huang. 2011. Do current English language development/proficiency standards reflect the English needed for success in school? Language Testing 28 (3): 343–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532211404187. Bizzell, P. 1992. Academic discourse and critical consciousness. Pittsburgh/London: University of Pittsburgh Press. Buzan, T. 1998. The Mindmap Book. Reprinted paperback ed. London: BBC Books. Coates, H., and A.C. McCormick. 2014. Introduction: Student engagement – A window into undergraduate education. In Engaging university students, ed. H. Coates and A.C. McCormick, 1–12. Singapore: Springer. Collier, P.J., and D.L. Morgan. 2007. “Is that paper really due today?”: differences in firstgeneration and traditional college students’ understandings of faculty expectations: Higher Education, 55 (4): 425–446 Coxhead, A. 2000a. The Academic Word List. Retrieved from http://www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/ resources/academicwordlist Coxhead, A. 2000b. A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly 34 (2): 213–238. https://doi.org/ 10.2307/3587951. Coxhead, A., and P. Byrd. 2007. Preparing writing teachers to teach the vocabulary and grammar of academic prose. Journal of Second Language Writing 16 (3): 129–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jslw.2007.07.002. Croucher, G. 2017, May 9. University fees and cuts, Opinion piece. The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/federal-budget-2017-whats-changing-in-education-77177 Daniels, H. 2001. Vygotsky and Pedagogy. USA/Canada: Routledge. Davies, M. 2013. Critical thinking and the disciplines reconsidered. Higher Education Research and Development 32 (4): 529–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.697878. Donesch-Jezo, E. 2010. Teaching academic discourse writing in ESP courses for medical students and professionals. US-China Foreign Language 8 (1): 32–39. Faragher, L. 2012. Building Pathways to Academic Success - Transitions. Poster presented at the Community Engaged Research Evening. University of Southern Queensland. Faragher, L. 2018. Exploring transition pedagogy at the tertiary level: a case study of newly enrolled first year education students’ experience in writing and thinking within the genre of the persuasive essay in a comparative analysis of literacy pedagogy. PhD Dissertation, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba. Gelder, T.v. 2005. Teaching critical thinking: Some lessons from cognitive science. College Teaching 53 (1): 41–48. https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.53.1.41-48. Gibson, L. 2011. Student-directed learning: An exercise in student engagement. College Teaching 59 (3): 95–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2010.550957. Green, W. J., S. Hammer, and R. Stephens. 2005. Locating learning advisers in the new university: What should be our role? Paper presented at the Language and Academic Skills in Higher Education Conference. Haggis, T. 2006. Pedagogies for diversity: Retaining critical challenge amidst fears of ‘dumbing down’. Studies in Higher Education 31 (5): 521–535. Hare, J. 2015. First-year uni dropouts: Swinburne, UTAS led spike in 2013. Retrieved from http:// www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/first-year-uni-dropouts-swinburne-utas-led-spikein-2013/story-e6frgcjx-1227470038183 Heagney, M., and R. Benson. 2017. How mature-age students succeed in higher education: Implications for institutional support. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 39 (3): 216–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2017.1300986. Hyland, K. 2003. Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (1): 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(02)00124-8.

200

L. Faragher

Jackson, C. 2016. Let’s be guided by the facts on attrition [Press release]. Retrieved from https:// www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/Media-and-Events/media-releases/Let-s-be-guided-by-thefacts-on-attrition%2D%2D-Catriona-Jackson-oped#.WMMBxDuGPcs James, R., K.-L. Krause, and C. Jennings. 2010. The First Year Experience in Australian Universities: Findings from 1994–2009. Retrieved from Melbourne and Brisbane: http:// www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/research/experience/docs/FYE_Report_1994_to_2009.pdf Johnson, R.B., and A.J. Onwuegbuzie. 2004. Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher 33 (7): 14–26. https://doi.org/10.3102/ 0013189X033007014. Kahn, P., L. Everington, K. Kelm, I. Reid, and F. Watkins. 2017. Understanding student engagement in online learning environments: The role of reflexivity. Educational Technology Research and Development 65 (1): 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9484-z. Kahu, E.R. 2011. Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education 38 (5): 758–773. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.598505. Kahu, E.R., and K. Nelson. 2018. Student engagement in the educational interface: Understanding the mechanisms of student success. Higher Education Research and Development 37 (1): 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1344197. Kahu, E.R., C. Stephens, L. Leach, and N. Zepke. 2013. The engagement of mature distance students. Higher Education Research and Development 32 (5): 791–804. https://doi.org/10. 1080/07294360.2013.777036. Kift, S., K. Nelson, and J. Clarke. 2010. Transition pedagogy: A third generation approach to FYE – A case study of policy and practice for the higher education sector. The International Journal Of The First Year In Higher Education 1 (1): 1–20. Retrieved from https://fyhejournal.com/article/ view/13. https://doi.org/10.5204/intjfyhe.v1i1.13. Kincheloe, J.L. 2001. Describing the bricolage: Conceptualizing a new rigor in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry 7 (6): 679–692. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780040100700601. Kincheloe, J.L. 2005. On to the next level: Continuing the conceptualization of the bricolage. Qualitative Inquiry 11 (3): 323–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405275056. Knoch, U. 2008. The assessment of academic style in EAP writing: The case of the rating scale. Melbourne Papers in Language Testing (MPLT) 13 (1): 34. Krause, K. 2006. Accommodating diverse approaches to student engagement. Paper presented at the New Zealand Quality Enhancement Meeting 11, Wellington, New Zealand. López, M., H. Ponce, and R. Quezada. 2010. Use of interactive graphic organisers for dveloping cognitive skills in higher education. International Journal of Digital Societ 1 (2): 67–75. Martin, S., and S.F. Koob. 2017, January 18. Third of university students failing to complete course. The Australian. Marzano. 2001. Designing a new taxonomy of educational objectives. 1st ed. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press. Marzano, and J.S. Kendall. 2007. The new taxonomy of educational objectives. Thousand Oaks: Corwin. Marzano, and J.S. Kendall. 2008. Designing and assessing educational objectives: Applying the new taxonomy. Thousand Oaks: Corwin. McIntyre, J., and N. Todd. 2012, 26–29 June. Building pathways to higher education success: a longitudinal case study. Paper presented at the 15th International First Year in Higher Education Conference: New Horizon (FYHE 2012), Brisbane. McIntyre, J., N. Todd, H. Huijser, and G. Tehan. 2012. Building pathways to academic success. A Practice Report. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education 3 (1): 109–118. https://doi.org/10.5204/intjfyhe.v3i1.110. McLaren, P. 2001. Bricklayers and Bricoleurs: A Marxist Addendum. Qualitative Inquiry 7 (6): 700–705. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780040100700604. McMillan, J., and J. Western. 2000. Measurement of the socio-economic status of Australian higher education students. Higher Education 39 (2): 223–247.

10

A View of the Contents of the Typical First-Year Virtual Uni Bag: Helping. . .

201

Nation, P., and A. Coxhead. 2014. Vocabulary size research at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. Language Teaching 47 (03): 398–403. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0261444814000111. Nelson, K., C. Quinn, A. Marrington, and J. Clarke. 2012. Good practice for enhancing the engagement and success of commencing students. Higher Education 63 (1): 83–96. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011-9426-y. Norman, E., and E. Newham. 2018. The role of learning advisors and support staff within an increasingly differentiated student community. Journal of Academic Language & Learning 12 (1): A128–A140. Norton, A. 2019a, May 2. Labor wants to restore ‘demand driven’ funding to universities: what does this mean? Explainer. The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/ more-students-are-going-to-university-than-before-but-those-at-risk-of-dropping-out-needmore-help-118764 Norton, A. 2019b, June 17. More students are going to university than before, but those at risk of dropping out need more help, Research. The Conversation. Retrieved from https:// theconversation.com/more-students-are-going-to-university-than-before-but-those-at-risk-ofdropping-out-need-more-help-118764 Norton, A., and B. Cakitaki. 2016. Mapping Australian higher education 2016, Grattan Institute Report. O’Donnell, V.L., and J. Tobbell. 2007. The transition of adult students to higher education: Legitimate peripheral participation in a community of practice? Adult Education Quarterly 57 (4): 312–328. O’Keeffe, P. 2013. A sense of belonging: Improving student retention. College Student Journal 47 (4): 605–613. Oliver, R. 2008. Engaging first year students using a Web-supported inquiry-based learning setting. Higher Education 55 (3): 285–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-007-9055-7. Priest, A.-M. 2009. “I have understanding as well as you”: Supporting the language and learning needs of students from low socio-economic status backgrounds. Journal of Academic Language and Learning 3 (2): A1–A12. Pugh, S.L., J.W. Hicks, and M. Davis. 1997. Metaphorical ways of knowing. Urbana Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English. Rionosia, P.K., and P.L. Kutotto. 2017. Determinants of academic performance in public secondary schools in Kapenguria Division-Kenya: Assessing the effect of participation in selected co-curricular activities. African Journal of Education, Science and Technology 4 (2): 164–174. Thomson, P., and C. Hall. 2008. Opportunities missed and/or thwarted? ‘Funds of knowledge’ meet the English national curriculum. Curriculum Journal 19 (2): 87–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09585170802079488. Tinto, V. 2005. Student Retention: What Next?*. Paper presented at the National Conference on Student Recruitment, Marketing, and Retention. Washington, DC. http://hr.fhda.edu/_ downloads/Student-Retention-What-Next_.pdf Wallace, A., T. Schirato, and P. Bright. 1999. Beginning university: Thinking, researching and writing for success. Sydney: Allen and Unwin. Zepke, N. 2013. Student engagement: A complex business supporting the first year experience in tertiary education. International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education 4 (2): 1.

Academic Writing and Student Identity: Helping Learners Write in an Age of Massification, Metrics and Consumerism

11

Adrian J. Wallbank

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Why Is Academic Writing a “Challenge”? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Why Is It a Challenge for Students to Write Their Identity? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Why Is It a Challenge for Students to Develop Arguments in Their Writing? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Student Support Services, Transition Pedagogies, and Academic Enculturation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . How Can We Help Learners to Write? Conclusion and Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . End Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

204 206 207 209 212 215 219 219 219

Abstract

This chapter aims to investigate notions of student-writer identity, assessment and support in an age of metrics, consumer orientation, and the massification of Higher Education (Giannakis (2016). The traditional, primarily liberal notions of education as functioning as a means of fostering “critical engagement” (Barnett, Higher education: a critical business. Open University Press, Buckingham, 1997) has increasingly been supplanted by an emphasis upon neoconservative measurability, consumerism, attainment, and employability. As such, this chapter argues that student identity and agency has been severely curtailed. This situation raises fundamental questions about how we support students as they transition into and through Higher Education with a particular emphasis upon academic writing. This chapter focuses on academic writing as both a barometer and microcosm of these issues, not only because of its centrality as a mode of assessment in higher education, but because the writing process is demonstrably an “act of identity” (Ivanic, Writing and identity: the discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. John Benjamins Publishing A. J. Wallbank (*) Educational Development, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 H. Huijser et al. (eds.), Student Support Services, University Development and Administration, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5852-5_10

203

204

A. J. Wallbank

Company, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, 1998), an “act of confession. . .or expressing identity” (Docherty, Confessions: the philosophy of transparency. Bloomsbury, London, 2012), and “enacts and contains a theory of its own agency” (Lucaites 2003). This chapter explores the extent to which student writers can articulate a stance, argument, and perhaps even an “identity” given the difficulties not only associated with Bakhtin’s well-known theory of heteroglossia (1992), but the fascinating implications of Baudrillard’s conceptions of simulacra and simulation (1981), Docherty’s more recent investigation of confession (2012), and contemporary debates about “post-truth.” By way of conclusion, this chapter argues that our existing pedagogical strategies and approaches to student writing support are clearly at a crossroads and that now is an apt time to adopt a different, more dialogic, more inclusive mode of assessment which seeks to not only liberate the intellectual development of our students, but provides a more humanistic platform for embedding student support within the writing process. Keywords

Academic writing · Voice · Agency · Identity · Transition · Academic enculturation · Argumentation

Introduction The introduction of student fees and market forces into today’s Higher Education sector has fundamentally changed the experience and identity of our students. Students are increasingly being “perceived” as “a customer shopping for learner services” (Haggis 2006, p. 1. See also Gibbs 2001 in Stierer and Antoniou 2004) – a situation which in the UK at least, is arguably being exacerbated by the recent focus on metrics, the introduction of the Teaching Excellence Framework with its emphasis upon student “satisfaction,” and the increased emphasis upon “value” in monetary terms (Augar 2019). It is hardly surprising, then, that a 2017 ComRes survey for Universities UK revealed that 47% of students now “regard themselves as a customer of their university.” The notion of student as “customer,” coupled with the drive toward the massification of Higher Education, has had profound implications for pedagogy, but curiously the same poll found that 80% of students also want “personalized advice and support.” What is especially interesting here is the suggestion, as Nicola Dandridge puts it, that “students want a personal relationship with their university” – a situation which initially appears at odds with “the type of engagement they associate with being a ‘customer’” (Universities UK 2019). The complexity and seeming contradiction within this scenario, coupled with intensifying funding pressures, often means that universities either wrongly “perceive” (as Haggis intimates) their students as primarily customers, or put in place measures which cater for or even exacerbate the identity of the student as customer – often to

11

Academic Writing and Student Identity: Helping Learners Write in an Age of. . .

205

the detriment of “personalized” learning. For instance, attendance monitoring via electronic scanners, recently rolled out in the author’s department, reduces the identity of the student to a mere barcode number. For irregular teaching sessions, it is extremely difficult for tutors (often on casual or zero-hours contracts) to ascertain the names of the students – a scenario which depersonalizes the learning experience for both parties and renders the student’s identity seemingly unimportant other than for the rich data their barcode provides for attendance monitoring, justifying delivery, targeting provision, and tracking attainment and retention. Indeed, the increased emphasis on delivering enhanced, targeted provision for Black, Asian, and Mixed Ethnicity (BAME) students, commuter students, or Widening Participation (WP) students, although laudable in terms of enhancing support and equality of opportunity, again further categorizes them, depersonalizes them, and perceives them as “other.” Such approaches can even “pathologize” their challenges and experiences (Haggis 2006, p. 4) rather than enhancing “personalized. . .support.” Arguably such support is only established in the first place owing to the need to address retention issues, and thus the money they bring into the institution as “customers” is often the priority. All these issues evince the extent to which the underlying identity of today’s students is not only in flux, but is more complex than it might seem. As such, they raise profound, challenging questions about our roles as educators and how we can support our students, not least in respect of academic writing. Within our increasingly large, eclectic, and often pressured and metricized institutions, there is often limited scope for students to find, let alone express, their identity. Other than unofficial outlets such as being members of clubs and societies, often the only “personalized” outlet for expressing their identity is through the relatively impersonal and ultimately assessed and metricized medium of academic writing. Despite being a formal genre, academic writing (whether undergraduate or published), is hardly ever merely a neutral, emotionless medium for communicating ideas (Kamler and Thomson 2014, p. 83). Rather, it is a key means of conveying a writer’s “integrity, credibility, involvement, and a relationship to their subject matter and their readers” (Hyland 1999, p. 101). As such, writing (particularly in respect of developing an argument) is an inherently complex, multilayered “process” of identity formation and expression, which is not only interwoven with often untapped, misunderstood or unappreciated opportunities for student support, but is out of step with the changing and often conflicted attitudes and identities of our students. In this chapter, the author argues that the challenge of articulating an argument or critical stance in student academic writing can be read as a map of the anxieties and contradictions associated with today’s student experience and identity formation. Understanding academic writing not merely as a tool to assess learning, but as a medium of identity expression, can help us not only make our support more “personalized,” but rethink the way we set and assess student writing activities so that they enable students to have a more dialogic, exploratory, “personal relationship with their university” and the learning process itself.

206

A. J. Wallbank

Why Is Academic Writing a “Challenge”? To understand the centrality of the academic essay in relation to identity it is worth briefly revisiting the supposed aims of Higher Education, these being an increased capacity for critical engagement (Barnett 1997), curiosity, global awareness, and creativity – all of which, in the UK at least, are now increasingly labeled, metricized, quantified (and thus dehumanized) in the form of a Higher Education Academy approved “Graduate Attributes Framework.” For Haggis (2006), these “attributes” are “best developed through processes which challenge the student,” crucial to which is the “reading and thought involved in the creation of an academic essay” (p. 3). A key ingredient of a good academic essay (particularly in respect of the humanities and social sciences), is the development of an argument (this is often inscribed in the assessment criteria, is frequently what distinguishes a first or upper second-class mark from the more descriptive nature of a lower second- or third-class mark, and is of course deeply inscribed within the US rhetorical tradition). Indeed, as Hyland (2002) has noted, writer stance and a “credible representation of themselves and their work” is a central pillar of academic discourse (p. 1091). To do this, our students are encouraged to develop an authorial “voice,” through which their position regarding the topic is articulated. In other words, while “content” is essential, “identity” and “authority” are also key, and the production of “academic writing, like all forms of communication” is inherently “an act of identity” (Hyland 2002, p. 1092). Essays, Hyland contends, must be constructed in a way that “readers are drawn in, influenced and persuaded” (p. 1093), but writing in this way is a considerable “challenge,” especially for novice writers like our students (Ivanic 1998). Indeed, rather than shying away from this fact, French (2016) argues that because learning to write involves “struggle, conflict and feelings of uncertainty, inauthenticity, marginalization, exclusion and occasionally, failure,” we ought to actively encourage students to “fail better” as a deliberate pedagogical strategy (p. 409). What students in the research presented here have said in respect of this challenge will be considered later, but for now, it is worth stepping back briefly to consider why writing is such a challenge and how this intersects with the core issue of identity and the development of an argument. Irrespective of the requirements to develop authoritative and convincing arguments, one of the primary reasons why writing is such a “challenge,” as Galbraith (2009) has argued, is because of a “pervasive problem stemming from the nature of the process itself” (p. 11). For Galbraith, writing involves the “retrieval” of ideas from the working memory which are then “strategically controlled in order to satisfy rhetorical goals” – a situation which is characterized as a “dialectic between content and rhetorical problem spaces” (pp. 9–10). Balancing the demands of content retrieval and rhetorical purpose is troublesome enough, but Galbraith sees the specter of “cognitive overload” as a pressing problem in writing. One of the reasons for this is the fact that writing is not merely a means of translating knowledge onto the written page – it is also a “knowledge-constituting process.” In other words, writing is as much generative (or “knowledge transforming”) as it is a process of direct translation and replication. Indeed, during writing, the very nature of ideas

11

Academic Writing and Student Identity: Helping Learners Write in an Age of. . .

207

generation is “transient,” and when coupled with the challenge of suiting recall, translation and generation to goals and rhetorical purpose, writing is inherently and inevitably a very challenging process (pp. 17–18). “Writing is thinking,” Galbraith concludes, and is not only guided by “cognitive conflict” but is “intimately related to the writer’s conception of self” (pp. 19–20). The “self” is a crucial ingredient in this equation and is only recently attracting more critical attention. For instance, it is striking the number of times French (2016) refers to “confidence” and “personal failure” in respect of academic writing (pp. 408–411). Haggis (following on from Ivanic 2001), meanwhile, in discussing the challenges faced by students (e.g., decoding the essay question and studying varied academic genres), highlights “a likely fear of exposure through the written medium” and “misconceptions about purpose” as being central planks of “their struggle to make sense of academic practices” (2006, p. 525). Haggis’s use of the phrase “fear of exposure” here is as intriguing as it is important, yet the implications of the wording here are not fully explored. To whom will the students be “exposed”? And why is this especially problematic or a catalyst for “fear” within the context of academic study? Used in this context, Haggis appears to be intimating the dictionary definition of exposure as “a state of having no protection from something harmful” and “the revelation of something secret, especially something embarrassing or damaging” (OED) as opposed to merely being visible and public. In other words, Haggis’s use of this word belies a more significant psychological and emotional exposure than we may care to admit – far from what one would expect from the relatively stultified genre of academic writing and very far from what we are trying to elicit from students when we design and set assignments or devise learning outcomes. Indeed, this element is rarely considered when we think of the work of student support services. What if, by helping students “make sense of academic practices,” we are complicit in perpetuating or even exacerbating such exposures (French’s “fail better” approach comes to mind)? Such a scenario certainly seems plausible, and perhaps underlines the importance of a “personalized” approach to student support rather than en masse academic writing classes.

Why Is It a Challenge for Students to Write Their Identity? Writing is clearly an emotional enterprise, and it is perhaps for this reason that Williams (2018) cites “words such as boring, frustrating, confusing, hate, disappointed, angry. . .satisfying, love,. . .pride,. . .pleasure,” and perhaps most critically for the argument here, “powerless” as the most frequent “emotional backdrops” to academic writing (p. 27). Indeed, this is particularly prominent in Stephen King’s diagnosis of writing difficulties: I’m convinced that fear is at the root of most bad writing. If one is writing for one’s own pleasure, that fear may be mild – timidity is the word I’ve used here. If, however, one is working under deadline – a school paper, a newspaper article, the SAT writing sample – that fear may be intense. (2000, p. 121)

208

A. J. Wallbank

Without wishing to sound hyperbolic, “fear,” “fear of exposure” and a fear of being “powerless” are precisely what some students feel when they write essays, and this is not merely related to a brand of “performance anxiety” or the specter of deadlines. The issues are more deep-rooted than that, and are intersected by a host of other complicating factors relating not only to the adoption of an academic identity (which is in itself a highly complex and contested issue), and not merely related, as Williams (2018) has suggested, to the practices students encounter at school (where much of what happens is at best “counterintuitive to learning” and at worst a cumulative process of “criticism,” “judgement,” and “negative emotional experiences” [p. 30]). This chapter argues that the struggle to create, express, negotiate, and ultimately perform an individual, academic identity originate in the inherent tensions and ambiguities associated with language and the complexities of negotiating and articulating meaning and truth in a postmodern, post-truth world (where even the previous centrality of the logos has been displaced and turned on its head). A key component of this issue is the centrality of the self within this struggle (whether “perceived” or otherwise [Williams 2018, p. 3]), even if the self (or our “literate identity” as Williams calls it) is both contested and perhaps even highly performative, and thus not necessarily “real.” Writing comes from the self, and although that self is often alienated, fragile, multiple, “perceived,” and artificial, its desire to be performed and thus “voiced” (in our case through academic writing) remains a cornerstone of the argument here – an argument that begins with Docherty’s recent work on confessions. For Docherty (2012), a core element of communication is confession, and as he puts it in relation to his analysis of its literary manifestations, “my presumption. . .is that – in some at least minimal fashion – the literary text is essentially an act of confession, that it is founded in a confession or revelation or ‘expressing’ of identity” (p. 32). Docherty is thinking primarily about the literary canon here, but his underlying “presumption” (which curiously belies an act of self-reflective identification which runs through his core hypothesis) is broad enough to assume that “every literary act” could very well encompass academic writing. Although a relatively stultified, often self-consciously impersonal genre in which the “I” is frequently shunned in favor of either impersonal, unbiased intellectual rigor or simply fulfilling the assignment brief (frequently both simultaneously if one is to read the marking criteria literally), the critical thinking contained within academic writing is nonetheless a highly personal enterprise. Indeed, as Oscar Wilde put it, that is what the highest criticism really is, the record of one’s own soul. It is more fascinating than history, as it is concerned simply with oneself. . .It is the only civilized form of autobiography, as it deals not with events, but with the thoughts of one’s life; not with life’s physical accidents of deed or circumstance, but with the spiritual moods and imaginative passions of the mind. (1908, p. 139)

It is perhaps for this reason, then, that Mills (1958) castigates the “turgid and polysyllabic prose” that he claims “seem[s] to prevail in the social sciences” and blames it not on any inherent “complexity of thought” but as “almost entirely” owing to “certain confusions of the academic writer about his own status” (p. 239). As

11

Academic Writing and Student Identity: Helping Learners Write in an Age of. . .

209

simultaneously a “confession,” a “record of one’s own soul,” a “civilized form of autobiography” and a repository of one’s own “confusions” about identity and “status,” there is clearly a lot at stake, not only when students write and submit their work for authoritative scrutiny, but when students seek assistance from support services. Not only are students seeking to attain good marks and approbation; they are literally laying on the line “the thoughts of one’s life” in respect of the given subject material and within an arena where an often distant, inaccessible authority figure decides what passes and what fails, and where assistance from student support services can be stigmatized as remedial (and thus lead to greater “exposure”). As Mann (2001) has observed, students are essentially in a double bind – through examination, they render themselves visible and thus objectified, and by confessing they are subjectified and thus inculcated into the “domain of power” and “disciplined into docility” (p. 14). To compound matters further, articulating a “voice” and argument amid an often seemingly overwhelming plethora of secondary materials, “voices” and arguments (most of which, by virtue of being published by academics, add an additional level of authority), adds an additional layer of struggle. Little wonder, then, that students feel “powerless.” Indeed, irrespective of the prevalence of imposter syndrome, even accomplished, publishing academic writers suffer from this affliction. As Ron Barnett complained in his keynote to the 2017 EATAW conference, “in a paper you’re supposed to be telling us something that we don’t already know” and no amount of “hiding behind other authors” or deliberate obscurity will suffice. Barnett claims that often “we daren’t say what WE feel and think. . . we hide ourselves behind the words of others” (2017). Student writers do this prolifically, which is why academic writing tutors expend a great deal of effort in teaching argumentation and rhetorical strategies. As a philosopher, Barnett joked that he lacks answers to these issues, but there are some very clear contributing factors to these problems which need to be explored here in order to inform our work within student support service scenarios and which reinforce the need for such support to be “personalized” as much as is practicable.

Why Is It a Challenge for Students to Develop Arguments in Their Writing? In addition to Mann’s notion of the double bind, an additional, equally irresolvable paradox exists at the heart of student academic writing (Ivanic 2001, p. 39). Writing essentially provides a way in which students can “hide. . .behind the words of others,” yet also allows them to “confess” and negotiate deep-seated uncertainties about “status” and confidence. As a consequence, the much-prized insistence upon argumentation is lost somewhere in the middle. As many theorists have demonstrated, words are one of the underlying problems in all this (Saussure [1959] Galbraith [2009, p. 18], Lacan [1977], Bakhtin [1981], Foster [1987], MerleauPonty [1973]). As such, we are faced, not only with “the difficult and complicated process” of “populat[ing]” language with “intention” in the midst of the multifarious “intentions of others” (Bakhtin 1981, p. 294), but a perpetual dilemma; “the inherent

210

A. J. Wallbank

inability of language to constitute presence itself is experienced by a speaker as alienation: we are lost from ourselves. The anxiety of that situation motivates a drive to produce oneself” (Foster 1987, p. 11). Our students, then, irrespective of the need to produce and submit work to gain their degrees, are impelled (through anxiety) to write in an ultimately futile attempt to “produce oneself,” and any notions of authorial agency are “based on the narcissistic delusion of total mastery” (Foster 1987, p. 5). Indeed, like reading, “the more one. . .spends working over the text, the more its truths seem one’s own” (p. 12). This is primarily because, as Lacan (1977) has argued, “every speech contains its own reply” (p. 316). The more students write, and the more they assimilate the conventions of academic discourse (with its concomitant insistence upon argumentation), the more they are assimilated into an intersubjective discourse in which one’s identity and ability to articulate arguments are affirmed by virtue of it being echoed in other texts. Simultaneously, they experience that affirmation as alienation from oneself. In other words, the more one writes to sound more “academic” (which is part of the academic enculturation student support services facilitate) the more one is merely narcissistically building an identity and rhetorical/argumentative repertoire which is not at all unique, individual, or autonomous, despite this being the avowed aim. This act of having oneself confirmed and reflected, coupled with the ultimate failure to actually “produce oneself” in any authentic way, is experienced as “alienation,” powerlessness, “estrangement. . .disorientation. . .invisibility, voicelessness,. . .ineffectualness” (Mann 2001, p. 11) and redundancy. This alienation is compounded by a host of other extrinsic factors which further alienate the individual from their compulsive quest to “find themselves” – not least the necessity of complying with restrictive academic conventions and the mark scheme. As already intimated, academic writing and skills provision in most Higher Education Institutions seek to help students articulate their arguments, find their individual “voice,” hone their critical skills and gain higher marks. Although often inherently flawed in focusing upon the “product” of writing rather than the “process” (Wrigley 2017, p. 5, Lillis 2001), such aims, however laudable, are thus ultimately “illusionary.” But for Olssen (2005), who builds on the work of Foucault, the idea that we can teach academic writing in a way which promotes a sense of autonomy and “voice” could also merely constitute “an insidious form of indoctrination where a belief in our own authorship binds us to the conditions of our own production and constitutes an identity that makes us governable” (p. 367). This is obviously antithetical to liberal notions of education as a means of inspiring criticality, choice, and autonomy. However, Foucault and Olssen see this situation as holding out some possibilities in the sense that agency can be generated via engagement with the rules of the game. The rules can be “pushed against” and “fought,” and Olssen contends that “freedom and constraint coexist” (Olssen 2005, p. 383, Foucault 1991, p. 12). Given that students are increasingly adopting “de-plagiarism” strategies (Wrigley 2017), and often have little interest in feedback or improvement (Bharuthram and McKenna 2006), it would appear that they are indeed “gaming” the system, but in a decidedly more instrumentalist manner than Olssen and Foucault advocate.

11

Academic Writing and Student Identity: Helping Learners Write in an Age of. . .

211

Ostensibly, students often seem more interested in compliance and the path of least resistance as a means of gaining their qualifications and becoming employable. This is a situation which Lyotard (1984), Barnett (1994), and Mann (2001) have observed to be integral to capitalism and the cohesion of capitalist social structures, and reduces the role of Higher Education to utilitarian provider of dehumanized, alienated workers whose emphasis is merely on “performativity,” “functionality,” and “efficiency” (Mann 2001, p. 9). Nonetheless, students surveyed and interviewed as part of this study (ten students in total ranging from Erasmus students through to PhD candidates) do have mixed, deep-seated feelings and anxieties in respect of agency, autonomy, and their abilities to generate arguments, and much of it aligns with the theoretical perspectives outlined above. A marked feature in the responses garnered from students in this study is the complex and often frustrating intersections between interest levels, authorial freedom and the constraints of complying with the conventions of academic genres. For example, one Erasmus student noted that; as I was writing on the subject, I found myself getting off the subject and exploring other themes which I felt were interesting and were related to the matter I was writing on, but not to the main argument or topic. Here my freedom was restricted and either I had to reshape my argument to make the information I was adding relevant or cut it out.

This student observed that “when I felt inspired I wrote ‘poetically’,” but complained that in these instances “I got feedback saying that it was a flowery style and I should avoid it.” A Business Studies student, meanwhile, reflected that her “most successful” essay “was the ‘International Business’ assignment because it was my favorite course in the whole year.” Conversely, a student in Music felt that it was “very easy to be original” because of their inherent passion for the subject. These comments align with Whitmore’s contention that “performance, learning and enjoyment are inextricably intertwined” and that “performance cannot be sustained” in the absence of enjoyment’ (2017, p. 93). But all the students questioned felt constrained in their writing, even when writing about something that interested them. The Music student noted that despite finding originality “easy,” “creatively I did feel restricted at times by the academic standards that were expected of me. . .it was frustrating at times.” The Erasmus student, meanwhile, reflected on the “difficulty” associated with “constructing a coherent and right argument,” especially in respect of word length: If I have 2500 words to write, it always happens to me that either writing only about that argument and maintaining it is difficult because I run out of ideas soon, or I have so much to say that I construct it without deepening and keeping it superficial.

It is interesting the way in which this student perceived success in terms of developing and maintaining a “right argument” (which seems to hint at an infantilized nervousness about compliance), but also saw the generation of ideas as sometimes difficult or too overwhelming to accommodate within the parameters of the

212

A. J. Wallbank

argument, word length, or the requisite depth. An undergraduate Economics student, meanwhile, suggested that following the conventions of academic writing is; very much ticking a box. It’s not the cultivation of the individual approach and an individual psyche, it’s not the sort of approach that great historians of the past were able to generate at a university, it’s very much – it’s a lot more conformist in terms of style. . . I don’t think originality’s praised enough. . .With the way it’s assessed, it can be forced very much down a straight line – the whole thing is that I came here for an education, not training. It’s so damaging. It’s so damaging because people are going to come here and they’re going to, like, come up with all these ideas, and great ideas, and they’re not going to be encouraged to develop them. There’re not going to be encouraged to write in an epic way, you know, so, yeah – there’s definitely a juggle between creating your own approach and getting your own grade.

Following the rules of the game, then, is seen as restrictive, but it is something which is built into the very DNA of transition pedagogies (Kift and Nelson 2005) – all of which seek to enculturate the student into conventional academic practices as a means of facilitating student success. But it is precisely this process of transition that is one of the biggest challenges facing students in respect of forging an academic identity in their writing.

Student Support Services, Transition Pedagogies, and Academic Enculturation Transition pedagogies are far from easy to deliver. In addition to contact with subject lecturers, remediation and transition support in the form of student support services (writing center help and learning development activities), are a central plank of many universities’ support initiatives, and however welcome, often merely serve to try and “fix” the student (Lea and Street 1988, pp. 158–159). In so doing, the students are systematically integrated (or “interpellated” to use Althusserian terminology) into acceptable writing conventions and styles via a process of “academic enculturation” – activities which have been exhaustively researched in recent decades from a variety of angles with a view to helping understand and facilitate student acclimatization, learning, and attainment (Prior and Bilbro 2012, pp. 19–31). This might help the student achieve academic success (as measured by conventional metrics and assessment matrices), but such activities are undoubtedly a form of “regulation and differentiation” (French 2016, p. 410), “normalization,” “pathologization” (Hoskin 1990, p. 52), and “colonization” (Gee 1990, p. 155). Indeed, Le Dœuff (1989) would argue that writing center pedagogy is not dissimilar to “sadism,” as the tutor’s “red ink in the margin” is a form of asserting “mastery” (p. 98) and a means of asserting/ enforcing “obedience” to institutional practices (Walker 2017, p. 47). Such practices also merely create “images of ourselves” rather than fostering a genuine avenue for student autonomy and empowerment (Haggis 2003). Instead of “challenging” the student and initiating a learning cycle via a feedback loop (Kolb 1984), unfortunately such feedback often reinforces an “otherness.” It can subject students to the

11

Academic Writing and Student Identity: Helping Learners Write in an Age of. . .

213

“pathologizing gaze” (Clughen and Connell 2015, p. 49), is detrimental to the student’s attempts to forge and articulate an agency and voice, lacks a consideration of the context which has created the student’s writing in the first place, and is deeply antithetical to notions of personalized learning – all of which exacerbates the student’s problems through further ‘exposure’. Despite the practice of “academic enculturation” being inherently phallocentric, essentialist (Biesecker 1992 and Campbell 1993), and thus arguably more inaccessible or unassimilable for historically underrepresented or marginalized groups such as women, BAME, WP, or first-generation students, such practices have also spawned an entire genre of “self-help” guides along the same lines as Stella Cottrell’s immensely popular study skills and academic writing guides. Even this author is guilty of perpetuating this genre (Wallbank 2018). All such guides (and indeed the work of writing centers) seek to empower the student writer to articulate their “voice,” but Gunn and Cloud (2010) have argued that such aims are essentially “wishful thinking,” and are motivated by little more than “elitist arrogance” and “regressive infantilism” (p. 71). Their aims are undoubtedly noble and humanistic, but student “success,” autonomy, agency, and “voice” are indubitably regulated and constrained (despite protestations to the contrary) in these modes of enculturation, and they often merely perpetuate or accentuate anxieties about fitting in with the tribe. Indeed, Gee (1990) would argue that such interventions help students to become ever more “complicit within their own subordination” (p. 155). A recent example of this type of work is Mewburn, Firth and Lehmann’s How to Fix Your Academic Writing Trouble (2019). Despite being an undoubtedly excellent resource which essentially “decodes” academese in the easily accessible format of a “recipe” or “cookery book” (p. 3), the language these authors use is telling. Writing, particularly the quest to articulate an argument, is intimately aligned with “identity work” (and here they borrow heavily from the work of Kamler and Thomson [2014]), and they consistently seek to assist their readers/students to develop their own, “distinctive academic voice” (pp. 3–4). But curiously, much of this work is couched in terms of doing so “correctly” and in a manner that requires moving beyond forms of writing that are seen as “trouble” in order to render the student acceptable to the academic or disciplinary community. Indeed, they buttress such a tone of disciplinary surveillance and acceptance through castigation of anything which does not quite fit the norms by foregrounding language such as “replicate” and “appropriate,” and by emphasizing the adoption of the “right ways to signal you belong” (p. 12). In other words, getting your academic writing “right” through mimicry is the only way to not only develop a “distinctive academic voice” (which is inherently contradictory), but is the key to accessing “privilege” and a “seat at the High Table.” Their quest in writing the book is to render such a process “transparent, so that everyone can have an equal chance of success” (p. 13). These are undoubtedly admirable and meritorious aims, but in following this advice it is little wonder that students continue to have “trouble” with their academic writing as not only is “trouble” and difficulty in belonging codified into the very process, but they advocate a pursuit of a “distinctive academic voice” by essentially abandoning anything remotely “distinctive.” As if to cover up their own contradictions (which haunt the genre not just these

214

A. J. Wallbank

authors’ otherwise excellent explication of how to write good essays), notions of acceptance, belonging, compliance, complicity, and privilege abound – precisely the things which are antithetical to the soul-searching, confessional, autobiographical identity weaving discussed earlier. It also renders the tensions between compliance, unoriginal mimicry, and the very evident anxieties associated with identity building and exposure all the more stark. Add in the pressure to succeed, to equip oneself for a career, and a host of other external sociopolitical and disciplinary factors, aims, conventions and metrics, and we have a seemingly unavoidable recipe for “trouble.” The only way out of this fix seems to be yet more disciplinary interventions which aim to further entrench the irresolvable tensions in the name of helping students find a voice while inducing yet more compliance. In many respects, the mimicry involved in modeling one’s writing on acceptable conventions in order to become academically enculturated is little more than a reflection of our postmodern/post-truth culture and its concomitant “crisis of agency” (Miller 2007). As Baldick (2015) has identified: postmodernity is. . .a culture of fragmentary sensations, eclectic nostalgia, disposable simulacra, and promiscuous superficiality, in which the traditionally valued qualities of depth, coherence, meaning, originality, and authenticity are evacuated or dissolved amid the random swirl of empty signals. (p. 288)

Academic writing, then, is now inextricable from the general, ultimately futile attempt to generate meaning, to borrow Baudrillard’s words, “in a world where there is more and more information, and less and less meaning” (1994, p. 79). Not only does academic enculturation amount to meaningless simulacra, simulation, and performativity, but it also feeds our students’ sense of “futility” at trying to say, “I’m so-and-so and I exist!” (Baudrillard 1988, p. 286). The fact that such a task is unachievable pushes both us and them tirelessly toward an increasingly futile pursuit of the real (Baudrillard sees this in graffiti and terrorism), which is ultimately “demonstrative suicide, suicide as advertising” (1989, p. 21). Students are thus disempowered, alienated from themselves and lack the available means of proving their individuality, originality, authenticity and voice while being simultaneously assessed on their ability to demonstrate doing so in an area where the available means are ostensibly profuse (‘more and more information’). The students questioned in this study summarize the issues outlined above in terms no less stark, especially in relation to mimicry, modeling, and originality. The Economics student in particular recalled: the way I was taught at A-level – have you heard of PEEL? Point, Evidence, Evaluate, Link? That turgid, categorical approach to an essay, which stunted any creativity or ingenuity. . . At my school you were just taught to tick boxes.

A Drama student had similar complaints, and when asked whether he thought much about agency and “voice” he replied:

11

Academic Writing and Student Identity: Helping Learners Write in an Age of. . .

215

Rarely. I feel like from, not so much from university, but from school, they kept drilling in, like, “never say I, never say me,” but I know that’s different at uni – you can have your own voice, but it’s sort of, like, a niggling thing – I can do it, but I still feel bad when I do. . . I suppose I do put my opinions in, but I still word it in a way that seems. . . that’s not my voice, sort of thing.

This student’s thoughts are particularly interesting for the ambivalence he expresses about having a “voice. . .that’s not my voice, sort of thing” – an “alienation from self” or profusion of simulacra that Ivanic (1998) also noted in students’ perceptions of writing (pp. 86 and 102). It is also interesting that he feels “bad” when he does express a voice – probably because of the essay writing style he was indoctrinated into while at school. Some students, meanwhile, in line with the work conducted by Ritchie (1989), Recchio (1991), Brooke (1998), and Ivanic (1998), managed to acculturate themselves into the academic style required at university by “modelling” their writing and “voice” on the work of others (either consciously or through unconscious assimilation). The Music student, in particular, acknowledged as much by stating that such a process was not “deliberate,” but “indubitably unconscious. . .The most helpful thing in learning to write is to read. Every article and book I have read has had an influence on the way I write, surely. This applies as much to academic literature as it does to fiction. My tutor once asked me how my English came to be ‘almost Dickensian’ at times; I think my soft spot for the works of Charles Dickens has left its mark.”

How Can We Help Learners to Write? Conclusion and Future Directions Thus far the author has painted a pretty bleak picture, but perhaps all is not lost. The academic debate about student agency and writing is at a crossroads – not least because inclusive pedagogies are increasingly rising to the top of the agenda. Back in 1998, Ivanic argued for a “revival of interest in the writer” (p. 97), but debates about agency in writing (notions of agentic orientation, magical voluntarism, a zeal for “rhetorical evangelicalism” and conceptions of academic writing as either reproductive or epistemic [Gunn and Cloud 2010, Lundberg and Gunn 2005, p. 94 and Mateos and Sole 2012, p. 62]) have only intensified recently, and an increasing body of literature is emerging which builds upon Freire’s (2005) “pedagogy of the oppressed” and Nussbaum’s (1997) plea for a more liberal, Socratic education. Such authors call for a radical rethink of how students and Higher Education generally are conceived. Davids and Waghid (2017), for instance, argue for increased debate, tolerance and inclusion in classroom deliberation, and of a type that is comfortable with disagreement and indecision. Williams (2016) highlights the need for critical, “academic freedom” in the face of an increasingly marketized sector which is playing host to (or producing) a “new generation of censorious

216

A. J. Wallbank

students” (p. 1), and Gunn and Cloud (2010) have argued in favor of a “third way” between agentic evangelicalism and “structural/economic determinism” in favor of “dialectical thinking” (p. 71). Recently, Bammar and Joeres (2015) have started to question the formal conventions of scholarly writing, and Badley (2017) has proposed a form of “post-academic writing” which prioritizes narrative as a way of making ideas accessible and humanistic. Both interventions, however, are only in respect of published work, but the call for “post academic writing,” which is more humanistic and allows for increased “academic freedom,” is surely a wake-up call for how we both assess and support student writing. More radically, Walker (2017) has entered the fray by advocating “slow philosophy” (particularly in relation to reading). Walker builds upon the work of Nietzsche and Irigaray to challenge the Western tradition of teaching and challenges us to “rethink” pedagogy in a more inclusive, “slow,” and ultimately provocative way’ (p. 125). Alongside these academic trends are increasing initiatives centered around inclusion and diversity, but much of this still revolves around the centrality of the argumentative essay. For example, Thesen and Cooper et al. (2014) have usefully advocated more “risk-taking” in academic writing, but ultimately see this as drawing attention to silences, conflicts, and deletions and making such reflections more “productive” within the largely conventional view of the “process and product of. . .writing” (p. 1). Similarly, Lykke et al. (2014) attempt to interrogate the necessarily “rhizomatic” nature of writing and habitus and propose “writing academic texts differently” by advancing not only a more incisive interrogation of the “multilayered subject positions from which one writes” (p. 6), but techniques for helping one to write. Unfortunately, like Thesen and Cooper, they only propose writing “differently” in terms of approach and situational awareness rather than genre – the writing and their conception of “scholarly knowledge production” remain wedded to “building. . .[an] argument” (p. 6). Meanwhile, Wrigley’s call for adopting the “honesty” and creativity of handwriting as a means of circumventing the tendency for some students to “de-plagiarize” their work via copying and pasting, although innovative as a means of countering how digital composition can effectively “deauthor. . .student writing,” still privileges the development of student writers (“reauthoring”) with the express aim of “helping students ‘populate with intent” (Wrigley 2017, pp. 3 & 9). Even Swales’s (2017) reflections on the more “unconventional” aspects of academic writing as holding some potential for “wriggling out of the straightjacket of hallowed conventions” (p. 251), does nothing to challenge the conventional adherence to argumentation. This chapter does not follow in Walker’s footsteps by advocating a form of “slow writing,” nor is it advocating that the essay genre ought to be scrapped, but an obvious way forward at this critical juncture in Higher Education pedagogy is to abandon the almost sacred adherence to argumentation as a key indicator of a good essay. A more inclusive, accessible way of writing (and by extension, student support), ought to be adopted which allows for debate, critical thinking, academic freedom, the cultivation of humanity, and the exercising and demonstration of key skills (all of which can still be measured to ascertain grades), and which is not dissimilar to that advocated by Gun and Cloud. If we abandon argumentation we

11

Academic Writing and Student Identity: Helping Learners Write in an Age of. . .

217

make way for dialogue – a dialogue with one’s self and perhaps more importantly, with others (either within the writing, or as part and parcel of the process of writing, which could be supported more through dialogue rather than “enculturation”). What appears to have happened is that we have strayed away from the original Socratic notion of argument, learning and student support as dialogue, toward the type of discourse Socrates identified in Gorgias as belonging to the sophists. The sophists utilized language, not of discovering truth, Socrates complained, but in the service of agendas (Plato 1937). The marking criteria of most universities seek to test both evaluation and argumentative skills, but we seem to have interpreted this (as have centuries of scholars), as meaning presenting a persuasive, convincing argument or agenda. This is not necessarily true evaluation, and often evaluation is sacrificed at the altar of rhetorical “intent.” Indeed, it is even a betrayal of the natural processes of human cognition. As Game and Metcalfe (1996) have identified, “everything about writing is deliberately fabricated.” Its “linearity,” which of course is particularly important for coherent, convincing argumentation, is especially problematic because “neither experience nor contemplative thought comes naturally in linear form” (p. 109). Such a situation, of course, is not just artificial, but specifically exclusive (students with specific learning difficulties such as dyslexia or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), for example, have profound difficulties trying to force their thought into conventional form), and as Mann (2001) has rightly observed, silencing, repression, and alienation inevitably occurs when something is sacrificed at the altar of unity inscribed within academic practices (p. 11). While Bakhtin is absolutely right that populating language with meaning and intention is troublesome, the remainder of this chapter invites us (and thereby our students) to challenge the apparent necessity of trying to force language to convey one’s own intent at all. Why not merely allow our students to revel in the fact that their language is not their own? Why not support our students dialogically rather than attempt to “enculturate” them via didactic, impersonal academic writing classes which focus on the product rather than the process? Such a stance would certainly eliminate some of the anxieties surrounding plagiarism and “performativity” for a start. Why not allow students to merely play with intellectual dialogue, either with themselves or others? In many respects, this chapter advocates a reconfiguration of Shaftesbury’s eighteenth century “Advice to an Author” in respect of dialogism and argumentation. Shaftesbury argued that it is the “peculiarity of philosophers and wise men to be able to hold themselves in talk” (1999, p. 77), and saw this as a remedy for unsound argumentation. Shaftesbury advocated extensive dialogue within oneself as a means of self-criticism – a process he called the “gymnastic method of soliloquy” (p. 84). Such a method, Shaftesbury contended, allows for a more convincing and persuasive performance, because one’s argument has been “taken to pieces, compared together and examined from head to foot” and thus one’s ideas have “been used to sound correction by themselves. . .before they are brought into the field” (p. 76). Being a “thorough-paced dialogist in this solitary way” makes one a “good thinker,” Shaftesbury contended, and he has a very valid point. However, his overall agenda was to make writing more convincing, persuasive, and argumentative via an “anticipatory

218

A. J. Wallbank

remedy” (p. 72). The dialogue is a means to an end, rather than the journey being the end in itself. When put into the service of persuasion, what results from Shaftesbury’s dialogizing is thus not necessarily truth, proper argument, or evaluation, but “performative” rhetoric. What this chapter proposes is that students be encouraged to submit written or verbal, “solitary” or group dialogues (perhaps with peers or even with tutors or student support services staff), with no necessity to present a persuasive argument. In other words, what is submitted and assessed is a record of the student’s personal, but academically justified reflections, arguments, philosophizing, negotiations, and “gymnastic. . ..soliloquizing” (with oneself or others). Student work would be a genuine, “warts and all” record of the process of learning and the “processes” of “reading and thought” that have “challeng[ed]” the student (Haggis 2006, p. 3), rather than the submission of a “performative” product or “right argument” as one of the students quoted earlier so aptly put it. This, as Shaftesbury himself confessed, would enable our students to become better thinkers, not least because, as Rancière (1991) insists, “reason begins when discourses organized with the goal of being right cease” (p. 72). Such an approach would be inclusive, flexible (its adaptability would make it perfect for aligning with Universal Design for Learning principles), and encourage our students to become “good thinkers” along the lines of the original Socratic model of humanist education (Nussbaum 1997), without doing away with the kind of critical thinking and evaluation skills we often tout as being key employability skills. Indeed, such a mode of writing arguably strengthens such skills more than conventional modes of writing and argumentative essays with their “turgid, categorical approach. . .which stunt any creativity or ingenuity.” Arguably, it would help eliminate some of the anxieties students face in terms of exposure and confession, as what is communicated is an ongoing, developmental intellectual process rather than a polished, yet somewhat “artificial” record of oneself. It also puts agency right back where it belongs – in the thick of evaluative, deliberative, self-reflective, truth-seeking dialogue rather than at the service of argument. It further brings the genre of academic writing, and its concomitant student support apparatuses, more in step with the dynamic, diverse student bodies we now recruit. While we openly acknowledge that the student body has become diverse (Haggis 2006, p. 6), academic writing and academic writing support has not diversified or kept pace to reflect such changes. The move away from the “turgid, categorical approach to writing essays” in favor of dialogue would not only allow our students to articulate themselves in a more authentically human way (Schiller noted that man is only fully human “when he is playing” [2004, p. 80] and Winnicott [1971] has suggested that “only in playing” is the human being “free to be creative” [p. 53]), but would help encourage a less instrumentalist, “deeper” approach to learning, which may help alleviate the concomitant alienation associated with being perpetually in the “double bind” discussed earlier and the necessity of “performativity” (Barnett 1994 and Mann 2001). As such, the support provided by writing centers and other student support services could focus far more specifically on the “personalized,” dialogic development of writing and its associated processes (critical thinking, evaluation and analysis), rather than on the end product. Dialogue is undoubtedly risky and a double-edged

11

Academic Writing and Student Identity: Helping Learners Write in an Age of. . .

219

sword as it can be put to the use of persuasive didacticism (Wallbank 2012), and of course students could “mimick” or “perform” authentic dialogue rather than presenting the real thing. But surely if we focus on encouraging dialogue with peers or even tutors, evaluation and self-reflection, however imperfect, is a better way forward than adhering, with almost religious fervor in some quarters, to the conventional argumentative essay? What is more, surely it will give our students more agency and authentic autonomy than our current and longstanding preoccupation with “voice” has achieved? In an age of more and more “conformity” (Williams 2016), increasingly suspicious attitudes toward truth, and increasingly polarized, entrenched politics (as epitomized in the rise of the right, Trump, Le Pen, Brexit and a return to propaganda and “fake news” not seen since the 1930s), surely we need dialogue now more than ever? Surely a new mode of student writing which encompasses such dialogue can only be a good thing, however unconventional it may seem? To practice what this chapter preaches (however imperfectly) it thus concludes not with a traditional concluding paragraph or argumentative knockout blow, but with these questions, in the hope that the conversations initiated here may now start in earnest.

End Notes Obviously not all subjects or indeed academic cultures assess via the written essay. However, essayist academic writing is the most frequently assessed genre at university (BAWE Corpus). The author has chosen to focus primarily on humanities and social sciences subjects because the requirement to produce an “argument” appears more frequently in the assessment criteria than for science disciplines.

Cross-References ▶ Empowerment Versus Power: The Learning and Performativity Conflict ▶ From “Customer” to “Partner”: Approaches to Conceptualization of StudentUniversity Relationships ▶ Neoliberalism and “Resistance” ▶ “Remedial,” Development, and Business: Three Opposing but Coexisting Approaches to Academic Student Support ▶ When Education Is a Right: How to Deal with Educational Consumerism Through Focusing on Autonomy, Meaning, and Sense of Comfort

References Augar, Philip. 2019. Independent Panel Report to the Review of Post-18 Education and Funding Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Education by Command of Her Majesty,

220

A. J. Wallbank

May 2019. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attach ment_data/file/805127/Review_of_post_18_education_and_funding.pdf Badley, Graham. 2017. Post-academic writing: Human writing for human readers. Qualitative Inquiry: 1–12. Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 1981. In The dialogic imagination: Four essays, ed. M. Holquist. Austin/London: University of Texas Press. Baldick, Chris. 2015. The Oxford dictionary of literary terms. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bammer, Angelika, and Ruth-Ellen Boetcher Joeres, eds. 2015. The future of scholarly writing: Critical interventions. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Barnett, Ron. 1994. The limits of competence – Knowledge, higher education and society. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education/The Open University Press. Barnett, Ron. 1997. Higher education: A critical business. Buckingham: Open University Press. Barnett, Ron. 2017. “Academics’ writing – A thing of beauty, A joy to behold”. Lecture, Royal Holloway, University of London, 2017. Available from: http://eataw2017.org/index.php/livestreaming/ Baudrillard, Jean. 1988. Selected writings, edited by Mark Poster. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Baudrillard, Jean. 1989. America. Translated by Chris Turner. London/New York: Verso. Baudrillard, Jean. 1994. Simulacra and Simulation. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan. Bharuthram, Sharita, and Sioux McKenna. 2006. A writer-respondent intervention as a means of developing academic literacy. Teaching in Higher Education 11 (4): 495–507. Biesecker, Barbara A. 1992. Coming to terms with recent attempts to write women into the history of rhetoric. Philosophy and Rhetoric 25: 140–161. Brooke, Robert. 1998. Modelling a writer’s identity: Reading and imitation in the writing classroom. College Composition and Communication 39: 24–41. Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs. 1993. Biesecker cannot speak for her either. Philosophy and Rhetoric 26: 53–159. Clughen, Lisa, And Connell, Matt. 2015 “Working with power: A dialogue about writing support using insights from psychotherapy”. In Working with academic literacies: Case studies towards transformative practice, edited by Theresa Lillis, Kathy Harrington, Mary R. Lea, and Sally Mitchell. Colorado: The WAC Clearinghouse. Davids, Nuraan, and Yuself Waghid. 2017. Tolerance and dissent within education: On cultivating debate and understanding. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Docherty, Thomas. 2012. Confessions: The philosophy of transparency. London: Bloomsbury. Foster, Dennis A. 1987. Confession and complicity in narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Foucault, Michel. 1991. The ethic of care for the self as a practice of freedom: An interview. In The final Foucault. Translated by J. J. Gauthier. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Freire, Paulo. 2005. Pedagogy of the oppressed. 30th ed. Translated by Myra Bergman Ramos. New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group Inc. French, Amanda. 2016. Fail better’: Reconsidering the role of struggle and failure in academic writing development in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 55 (4): 408–416. Galbraith, David. 2009. Cognitive models of writing. German as a Foreign Language 2-3: 1–22. Game, Ann, and Andrew Metcalfe. 1996. Passionate sociology. London: SAGE. Gee, James Paul. 1990. Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London: Falmer Press. Gunn, Joshua, and Dana L. Cloud. 2010. Agentic orientation and magical voluntarism. Communication Theory 20: 50–78. Haggis, Tamsin. 2003. Constructing images of ourselves? A critical investigation into ‘Approaches to learning’ research in higher education. British Educational Research Journal 29 (1): 89–104.

11

Academic Writing and Student Identity: Helping Learners Write in an Age of. . .

221

Haggis, Tamsin. 2006. Pedagogies for diversity: Retaining critical challenge amidst fears of ‘Dumbing Down. Studies in Higher Education 31 (5): 521–535. Heuboeck, Alois, Jasper Holmes and Hilary Nesi. 2007. The BAWE Corpus: An investigation of genres of assessed writing in British higher education. ESRC. https://www.coventry.ac.uk/ research/research-directories/current-projects/2015/british-academic-written-english-corpusbawe/ Hoskin, Keith. 1990. Foucault under examination: The crypto-educator unmasked. In Foucault and education: Disciplines and knowledge, ed. Stephen J. Ball. London: Routledge. Hyland, Ken. 1999. Disciplinary discourses: Writer stance in research articles. In Writing: Texts, processes and practices, ed. Christopher N. Candin and Ken Hyland. London: Longman. Hyland, Ken. 2002. Authority and invisibility. Journal of Pragmatics 34 (8): 1091–1112. Ivanic, Roz. 1998. Writing and identity: The Discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Ivanic, Roz. 2001. Academic writing: Purposes, practices and identities in the new policy context. Paper presented at higher education close up: Fine grained qualitative research in higher education, University of Lancaster, July 2001. Kamler, Barbara, and Pat Thomson. 2014. Helping doctoral students write: Pedagogies for supervision. 2nd ed. Abingdon: Routledge. Kift, Sally, and Karen Nelson. 2005. Beyond curriculum reform: Embedding the transition experience. In Higher education in a changing world: Proceedings of the 28th HERDSA annual conference, edited by Angela brew and Christine Asmar. Sydney: HERDSA. http://www.herdsa. org.au/wpcontent/uploads/conference/2005/papers/kift.pdf King, Stephen. 2000. On writing: A memoir of a craft. New York: Pocket Books. Kolb, David A. 1984. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Vol. 1. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Lacan, Jaques. 1977. Ecrits. Translated by Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications Limited. Le Dœuff, Michele. 1989. Red ink in the margin. In The philosophical imaginary. Translated by Colin Gordon. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Lea, Mary R., and Brian Street. 1988. Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education 23 (2): 157–172. Lillis, Theresa. 2001. Student writing: Access, regulation, desire. London/New York: Routledge. Lucaites, J. L. 2003. Understanding “rhetorical agency.” Evanston, IL: Paper presented at the meeting of the Alliance of Rhetoric Societies. Lundberg, Christian, and Ioshua Gunn. 2005. Ouija Board, are there any communications?’ Agency, Ontotheology, and the death of the humanist subject. Rhetoric Society Quarterly 35: 83–105. Lykke, Nina, ed. 2014. Writing academic texts differently: Intersectional feminist methodologies and the playful art of writing. London: Routledge. Lyotard, Jean-Francois. 1984. The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge theory and history of literature. Translated by Geoff Bennington & Brian Massumi. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Mann, Sarah J. 2001. Alternative perspectives on the student experience: Alienation and engagement. Studies in Higher Education 26 (1): 7–19. Mateos, Mar, and Isabel Sole. 2012. Undergraduate students’ conceptions and beliefs about academic writing. In University writing: Selves and texts in academic societies, ed. Montserrat Castelló and Christine Donahue. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing. Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. 1973. The prose of the world. Evanston: Northwestern University Press. Mewburn, Inger, Katherine Firth, and Shaun Lehmann. 2019. How to fix your academic writing trouble: A practical guide. London: Open University Press. Miller, Carolyn R. 2007. What can automation tell us about agency? Rhetoric Society Quarterly 37 (2): 137–157. Mills, C. Wright. 1958. The sociological imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

222

A. J. Wallbank

Nussbaum, Martha. 1997. Cultivating humanity: A classical defense of reform in liberal education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Olssen, Mark. 2005. Foucault, educational research and the issue of autonomy. Educational Philosophy and Theory 37 (3): 365–387. Plato. 1937.‘Gorgias’. In The dialogues of Plato, Vol 1. Translated by B. Jowett. New York: Random House. Prior, Paul, and Rebecca Bilbro. 2012. Academic enculturation: Developing literate practices and disciplinary identities. In University writing: Selves and texts in academic societies, ed. Montserrat Castelló and Christine Donahue. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing. Rancière, Jacques. 1991. The ignorant schoolmaster: Five lessons in intellectual emancipation. Translated by Kristin Ross. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press. Recchio, Thomas E. 1991. A Bakhtinian reading of student writing. College Composition and Communication 42: 446–454. Ritchie, Joy S. 1989. Beginning writers: Diverse voices and individual identity. College Composition and Communication 40: 152–187. Säljö, Roger. 1982. Learning and understanding. Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothenburgensis. Saussure, Ferdinand. 1959. In Course in general linguistics, ed. Charles Bally and Albert Sechehage. New York: The Philosophical Library. Schiller, Friedrich. 2004. On the aesthetic education of man. Translated by Reginald Snell. New York: Dover Publications Inc. Shaftesbury, Cooper Anthony. Ashley. Third Earl of. 1999. Characteristics of men, manners, opinions, times, edited by Lawrence E. Klein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stierer, Barry, and Maria Antoniou. 2004. Are there distinctive methodologies for pedagogic research in higher education? Teaching in Higher Education 9 (3): 275–285. Swales, John M. 2017. Standardization and its discontents. In Publishing research in English as an additional language: Practices, pathways and potentials, edited by Margaret Cargill and Sally Burgess. Adelaide: University of Adelaide Press. Thesen, Lucia, and Linda Cooper, eds. 2014. Risk in academic writing: Postgraduate students, their teachers, and the making of knowledge. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Universities UK. 2019. Around A half of students now see themselves as customers of their university – New ComRes Survey”. Universitiesuk.ac.uk. https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/ news/Pages/Around-a-half-of-students-now-see-themselves-as-customers-of-their-university. aspx. Walker, Michelle Boulous. 2017. Slow philosophy: Reading and against the institution. London: Bloomsbury. Wallbank, Adrian J. 2012. Dialogue, didacticism and the genres of dispute: Literary dialogues in an age of revolution. London: Pickering and Chatto. Wallbank, Adrian J. 2018. Academic writing and dyslexia: A visual guide to writing at university. London: Routledge. Whitmore, John. 2017. Coaching for performance: The principles and practice of coaching and leadership. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing. Wilde, Oscar. 1908. The critic as artist, with some remarks on the importance of doing nothing. In Intentions. London: Methuen & Co. Williams, Joanna. 2016. Academic freedom in an age of conformity – Confronting the fear of knowledge. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Williams, Bronwyn T. 2018. Literary practices and perceptions of agency: Composing identities. London/New York: Routledge. Winnicott, D.W. 1971. Playing and reality. London: Routledge. Wrigley, Stuart. 2017. Avoiding ‘De-plagiarism’: Exploring the affordances of handwriting in the essay-writing process. Active Learning in Higher Education. 1–13.

Incubators for Student Leader Identity Emergence

12

David Arendale

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Literature Review of Student Identity Emergence Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Student Involvement Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leader Identity Development Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Network Leadership Development Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Literature Review Regarding Venues for Leader Identity Emergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Academic Tutoring Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Student Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organized Sports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Extended Orientation Courses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Identity-Based Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Academic Peer Study Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Students as Partners (SaP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A New Leader Identity Emergence Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . More Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

224 225 225 226 227 227 227 227 228 229 230 230 231 232 233 233 235 238 238 238 239

Abstract

Too often student services have become a provider of discrete assistance in which one-way information transactions take place between the staff/student paraprofessionals providers and the students receiving the services. Students attend academic advising appointments, listen during tutorial or small groups study meetings, and read computer screens of information during career exploration D. Arendale (*) University of Minnesota – Twin Cities, Minneapolis, MN, USA e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 H. Huijser et al. (eds.), Student Support Services, University Development and Administration, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5852-5_46

223

224

D. Arendale

sessions. Transactions seldom lead to transformations of engagement, identity, and deep learning for the students who provide or receive the service. Student leaders involved in student services, Students as Partners partnerships, student organizations, and athletics experience unanticipated personal and professional growth. Case studies from Australia, Belgium, Indonesia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States display global connections among common themes of co-curricular learning events from such rich environments. This chapter provides a conceptual model for an ecosystem of leader identity emergence that can be effective in a variety of student activity venues and recommendations to be more intentional in fostering growth. Keywords

Student personal and professional growth · Leader identity emergence · Cocurricular experience · Employability skills

Introduction Leadership development courses and degree programs have proliferated in recent years. This is fueled by student perceptions that formal education in leadership provides valuable social capital for them in a highly competitive job market. Institutions recognized financial opportunities for offering leadership curriculum that enrolled students in additional credit hours of instruction. However, it is difficult to accommodate an ever-increasing load of credit-bearing courses in college degree programs with a fixed number of maximum credits, loan debt load of students enrolling in an everincreasing number of courses, and desire to graduate more quickly. An alternative to the formal course enrollment in leader curriculum is harnessing co-curricular, extra-curricular, and part-time job experiences to provide a rich learning situation for leadership education to take place and leader identity to emerge. This chapter first examines the major student development models of leader identity: Student Involvement Theory (Astin 1984, 1993), Leader Identity Development Theory (Komives et al. 2005), and Network Leadership Development Theory (Meuser et al. 2016). After an overview of these major theories, student activities, involvement in Students as Partners, and part-time jobs are explored that discuss how they serve as fertile grounds for leader identity evolution. These venues included: academic tutoring, student organisations, organized sports, extended orientation courses, identity-based organisations, Students as Partners activities, and academic peer review groups. Based on these leader identity theories and studies of student involvement, a new model for leader identity emergence is offered that provides an interactive ecosystem which fosters student development. The chapter concludes with practical actions that coaches, club sponsors, college administrators, and staff can make an intentional process for students, constructing their leader identity and applying it to future occupations and community service.

12

Incubators for Student Leader Identity Emergence

225

Literature Review of Student Identity Emergence Models Three major models have been frequently cited in the professional literature for explaining the process of change within students during their postsecondary learning experience. Student Involvement Theory (Astin 1984, 1993) provides a broad-based model based on hundreds of thousands of US students over a quarter-century. The model identified a wide variety of outcomes including leadership development. Two other models are focused on leader identity emergence. Komives and her colleagues identified a six-stage model that college students cycle through to higher levels of leader identity emergence (Komives et al. 2005). Meuser et al. (2016) extended the Komives et al. (2005) model to a more sophisticated level by developing the Network Leadership Development Theory which identified critical leader roles of group members who provided nuanced leader contributions to overall progress in accomplishing desired goals and tasks. The first theory examined in this literature review is Student Involvement Theory.

Student Involvement Theory Alexander Astin and his research colleagues (Astin 1984, 1993) identified one of the most widely cited theories for understanding how students change in response to postsecondary/tertiary experiences. The impact of the college environment is revealed through a model of nearly 200 variables: students’ inputs (demographics, academic preparation prior experiences, and more), college status (subdivided into bridge between secondary school and college entry and intermediate variables during the college experience), and outcomes after conclusion of their college experience (attitudes, job skills, and knowledge). This model is often called Involvement Theory and the Inputs-Environment-Outcomes (IEO) model (Astin 1984). Bridge involvement variables impacted students between their initial input variables and the college environment. Examples include selection of residence location, choice of academic major, experiences gained through new student orientation, and campus job training programs. Variables experienced or decisions made during this critical time impact the ensuing college experience. Intermediate involvement occurred during their time at college. Examples include involvement with academic content, faculty members, extracurricular activities, work, and student peers (Astin 1984, 1993). A consistent finding of the ongoing research study was the student peer group was the top influence upon a college student. College impact was a function of the quality of student experiences and number or quantity of them. Recognition of leader identity by a student was one of the outcome variables identified. Following this general student development model, a more detailed understanding of leader identity formation is provided below.

226

D. Arendale

Leader Identity Development Theory Leader Identity Development (LID) Theory focused on how students internally perceived themselves as a leader in a positional role or informally within a group (Komives et al. 2005). Leader skills and leader identity are clearly divided. For example, often the professional literature regarding peer study group leaders mentions acquisition of small group management skills instead of emergence of a new identity as a leader (Arendale 2019). According to Komives et al. (2005), leader identity is not taught, rather it emerges from interaction with others. Four influences were catalysts for leader identity emergence: (a) feedback from respected adults, (b) interaction with student peers, (c) meaningful involvement in a job or school project, and (d) reflective thinking by the student of their interactions with others and the work itself (Komives et al. 2005, p. 596). A six-stage LID model was created by Komives, Dugan, Owen, Slack, and Wagner (2006) based on qualitative research with college students. The student moves from dependence, to independence, and finally interdependence through interaction with others. Identity emerges as a person changes their view of self, not through formal classes. The six stages are a continuum of leader identity for self. Stages one and two occur during childhood and adolescence. Stage one, Awareness, recognizes authority figures (e.g., family members, school teachers, and other community members) to which a child is dependent. Stage two, Exploration/Engagement, occurs often during middle or high school. The young person interacts with local authority members (e.g., others in school, athletic events, and local organizations). The person may be elected, selected, or recognized for formal or informal leader roles (e.g., employee, athlete team leader, elected school club president, active class discussion or project participant, or mentor younger family members). Stages three through six often appear after secondary school. In stage three, Leader Identified, leader identity appears as a consequence of formal appointment to a positional group leader in a hierarchical position. Power is held by this person without shared leadership responsibility for the group (e.g., club president, employee supervisor, or teaching assistant). With stage four, Leadership Differentiated, the leader seeks to influence instead of commanding others. Power is shifted to the group so that others help direct efforts. Stage five, Generativity, occurs when the leader not only shares power, but is active in developing leadership capability and agency by group members. The next generation of leaders is cultivated within the group so many achieve their leader identity. The final stage, Integration/Synthesis, occurs when the leader of the group cultivates connections with other groups for mutual goal achievement (e.g., alliance with other college resources, student clubs, or external advocacy organizations). The group leader seeks to only influence and promotes others into formal or informal leader positions (Komives et al. 2006). Komives and her colleagues remind others the journey is not one of a strict hierarchy of one-way movement, but often students cycle back-and-forth among stages as they progress in their changing leader identity. Some criticism of their model was that it appeared to focus more on the visible leaders within the group and not the important and indispensable roles displayed by the other group members. The final of three theories sought to provide a nuanced recognition of leader identity by a wide range of group members.

12

Incubators for Student Leader Identity Emergence

227

Network Leadership Development Theory A corollary theory is Network Leadership Development Theory (NLD) (Meuser et al. 2016). NLDT states life and work is a complex interactive dynamic environment requiring group members achieve leader identity to solve complex problems. Both LID and NLDT are relational network leadership theories. However, NLD flattens the perceived hierarchical elements of LID by stating group members must function at the upper levels of the leader identity scale. Elected or appointed leaders are encouraged to expend equal energy for task accomplishment along with helping network members to achieve their own leader identity so as a team they can solve problems. Based on the NLT theory, hierarchy is a barrier for increased productivity. Network members can be just as valuable through less visible leader behaviors such as fostering deeper group conversations, gentle nudges towards project goal achievement without formal appointment as a leader, or talking often. When the situation requires them to assume a more visible role within the group, these network leaders are prepared to respond.

Summary The ecosystem for understanding leader identity emergence has become more sophisticated since Astin in 1984. Moving from Astin’s general model of student leader identity development, the mechanisms for fostering its emergence now include Komives et al. (2005) and Meuser et al. (2016) who expand the scope of leader development to all members of a group. In the next section, specific venues for leader identity emergence are identified.

Literature Review Regarding Venues for Leader Identity Emergence Increasingly, student experiences in organizations, athletic teams, and campus parttime jobs have been studied through the lens of the previous three leadership theories. These student venues include: academic tutoring, student organizations, organized sports, extended orientation courses, identity-based organizations, academic peer study groups, and Students as Partners. They include examples from Australia, Belgium, Indonesia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Academic Tutoring Programs Crandall (2017) utilized the lens of the LID model (Komives et al. 2005) to examine personal and professional growth among academic tutors through a qualitative study of eight college students at a two-year institution in the USA. Four themes emerged from her research: “. . .working in a family environment, working with diverse others, leadership empowerment, and tutors as leaders” (p. iii). A previously uncited

228

D. Arendale

variable fostering leader identity development, higher levels of tutor training, was discovered as helping to propel experienced tutors to the higher range of the six-stage model by Komives et al. (2005). This study found content and pedagogy in advanced tutor training curriculum promoted higher levels of identity formation. The source of the curriculum standards and outlines were from the College Reading and Learning Association (CRLA) and specifically their certification program for academic tutors (CRLA 2020). CRLA had three levels of certification for tutoring programs. Certification was attached to the tutor training program and did not certify individual academic tutors. The campus program made that determination. Crandall’s study confirmed findings from Sutherland and Gilbert (2013) regarding identity emergence of academic tutors. Crandall theorized several catalysts fostered leader identity emergence. An important component of higher levels of the CRLA tutor training was reflective writing of their work experiences and role-playing during training exercises. Focusing upon themselves and noting changes in self-perceptions may have been a catalyst for the tutor identity emergence. Another catalyst could have been recognition of their efficacy as a tutor and development of an identity as a consequence. Development occurred as the tutors grew in confidence that resulted from success in dealing with new challenges with students in tutoring situations. The tutors received positive feedback not only from the tutees, but also other tutors who provided a supportive network of peers of their increased competency. Supportive mentoring relationships are formed when a respected tutor provides positive feedback regarding job performance of the novice tutor. Mentoring has been found to enable others to see themselves as more capable, empowered, and as a person worthy of a leader identity (Pascarella and Terennizzi 1991, 2005). A common training assignment for new tutors was observing experienced tutors and then a subsequent conversation to discuss choices made and possibilities for improvement. Role-playing during tutor training workshops allowed them to practice their leader roles and receive positive feedback which in turn supported growth of a competent leader identity (Priest and Clegorne 2015; Vatan and Temel 2016).

Student Organizations Fediansyah and Meutia (2017) examined the potential catalyst of a leadership class offered during secondary school for fostering leader identity development. They conducted a qualitative study of 15 high school students enrolled in three Sukma Bangsa Schools located in Indonesia. Based on analysis by these researchers, it was the first study of leader identity emergence among high school students. The course name was Organisasi Siswa Intra Sekolah (OSIS). While mandated by the Indonesian government in all public junior and senior high schools to develop future leaders for service at the local and national level, its curriculum was determined by the local secondary school district. Membership was voluntary in the program. Students reported their motivation for the class due to desiring to acquire more skills, while others reported pressure from parents and other adults to participate.

12

Incubators for Student Leader Identity Emergence

229

OSIS was filled with a variety of elected and appointed leader positions. While an important priority of OSIS was development of leadership skills useful for community agencies and national service, Ferdiansyah and Meutia examined if the young people achieved various levels of the LID Model of Komives et al. (2005) and the causes of movement among the six levels. The study identified OSIS students moved along the six stages of the LID model with most clustered at levels three and four. These students sometimes had difficulty recognizing leader identity emergence due to conflicting opinions by parents, teachers, and other local adult members. Part of this difficulty may rest with the stage of development of these high schoolers in comparison with Komives students who were exclusively postsecondary (Patton et al. 2016). It appeared OSIS students sought external validation for their internal change of leader identity emergence. This study suggested the OSIS experience could have been enriched by the students selecting other organizations with which to join and exercise their new leader identity. According to Fediansyah and Meutia, a key catalyst of identity formation was student reflections of the OSIS course and how they applied their new skills and identity.

Organized Sports Kaya (2017) identified the role organized sports had in fostering leader identity emergence, especially for recent immigrants to the USA. His qualitative study was based on in-depth individual interviews with 15 newcomers in North Carolina. Sports competition had less barriers for recent immigrants since players valued competitiveness and scoring performance and was not heavily dependent upon verbal or written fluency in English which was the second, third, fourth, or more language proficiency of these student athletes. These students expressed that their leader identity flourished through their own efforts and was not dependent upon the official designation of being a leader by the adults who supervised the athletic practices, game preparation, and actual game performance. Kaya found sportsrelated leader identity carried over into their personal lives where they took more leader roles within their communities, families, and friends. Sports also presented a venue to develop cultural and social skills. Kaya found these young people displayed growth along the continuum line of leader identity development identified by Komives et al. (2005). Danish, Forneris, Hodge, and Heke (2004) found unique conditions presented through athletic competition foster leader identity emergence: pressure, problem solver, goal setting, dealing with victory and defeat, working in a small group, and communication under stressful situations. Fransen, Vanbeselaere, De Cuyper, Vande Broek, and Boen (2014) conducted an extensive study of nearly 4,500 athletes and coaches in nine sports located in Belgium. Their study illustrated opportunities for leader identity emergence since only one of four major leader roles within a team is appointed by the coach. While most literature on leadership in sports has previously focused on the coach and the appointed team captain, participants in this research revealed other leader identities occur off the athletic field and during the game: motivational leader, social leader,

230

D. Arendale

and external leader. These other identities emerged through interactions among the players on and off the field. Measuring winning percentages and achievement of tournament victories was higher among teams with shared informal leadership among half a dozen players. This concept was consistent with network leadership built upon many members of a team emerging with their own leader identities to support team success rather than attempting to gain appointment as a formal leader. This finding supports the reason for the usefulness of organized sports for fostering leader identity emergence of many team members and the reason for economic and policy support of competitive athletics as essential co-curricular education.

Extended Orientation Courses Linscott (2020) conducted a qualitative study of extended orientation (EO) course leaders at Ohio University (Athens, OH, USA) to examine the emergence of leader identity as a result of their interactions with students. While much has been written concerning EO program participants regarding increased student persistence towards graduation, little has been learned about changes among the EO leaders. Three major themes emerged: sense of institutional belonging, development of leadership capabilities and leader identity, and overall co-curricular learning experience. Linscott used the LID model (Komives et al. 2005) and found the data revealed leader identity emergence. While most EO leaders began with an understanding of positional leader identity (level 3, LID) due to their formal appointment as EO group leaders, they emerged to higher LID levels. Rather than relying on power granted to them as the official leader, most instead moved to a collaborative model of leadership in which power and influence was transferred to the EO participants with cultivation of their own LID levels. A unique feature of the LID development was fluidity of movement among the different levels, sometimes higher and sometimes lower. This explains why the EO leaders sometimes perceived themselves as leaders and other times they did not. Common phrases repeated among the EO leaders were of relationship development and shared leadership. Angie, one of the EO leaders shared her discovery and noted the “. . .importance of being a flexible and inclusive leader who is mindful of individual differences” (p. 187). A few OE leaders reported the influence of their role in helping solidify interests in future careers such as childhood education and medicine. This aligns with vocational identity development that postulates that students pursue careers due to positive experiences and supportive feedback in occupational involvement. This emphasizes again a theme from this research study that serving as an EO leader is a co-curricular learning opportunity with long-term impact on future choices and self-perceptions of identity.

Identity-Based Organizations Renn and Bilodeau (2005) investigated concurrent emergence of personal identity and leader identity among student leaders in the USA. While their focus was among

12

Incubators for Student Leader Identity Emergence

231

lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) student leaders, their research provides insights for a larger context within other identity-based student groups such as Greek organizations (fraternities, sororities), racial organizations (Black, Asian), and others. Renn and Bilodeau studied college students at three institutions located in the central USA. The leader identity development model by Komives et al. (2005) was validated by the LGBT students. The researchers identified identity-based activism was a catalyst for personal development and leadership activism. Since the LGBT community has been historically marginalized by some within US society, the researchers found the leaders were often focused on building consensus of the group towards action instead of serving as a solitary leader for the group to follow. This finding was consistent with research for other identity-based student groups. Implications of the research by Renn and Bilodeau (2005) included: (1) deeper understanding of the meaning of being a queer leader, (2) including identity development as a part of leadership education programs, and (3) providing an option for students enrolled in leadership education programs to be placed in a cultural context section of the course focused on a particular identity (racial, sexual orientation, vocation) to encourage both personal and professional growth as well as historic challenges and opportunities for leadership.

Academic Peer Study Groups Arendale (2019) maintains an annotated bibliography of 1,550 publications related to postsecondary academic peer-led study groups that includes Emerging Scholars Program (ESP), Peer-led Team Learning (PLTL), Structured Learning Assistance (SLA), and Supplemental Instruction/Peer Assisted Study Sessions (SI/PAS). Of these publications, 78 reported development of leadership skills and a few emergence of leader identity for facilitators of the groups. Two-thirds were from SI/PASS programs and the remainder were from PLTL. Arranged in frequency order, the studies were from the USA, Australia, United Kingdom, Sweden, Canada, Ireland, and South Africa. Of those 78 studies, outcomes included: leadership skills (39 studies), leadership roles (7 studies), leadership development (6 studies), leader identity emergence (4 studies), and a few other topics. Skalicky and Caney (2010) investigated a PASS program in Australia regarding leadership of study group leaders at the University of Tasmania in Australia. Twelve development themes emerged: organization, facilitation, support, attitude, relationships, role model, collaboration, communication, responsibility, decision making, pedagogy, and session management. Students displayed growth as they moved from the initial role as PASS leader to the more demanding role of PASS mentor. In a study by Arendale, Hane, and Fredrickson (2020) focused on the Peer Assisted Learning Program developed at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities (Arendale 2014), 90% of the PAL facilitators described growth in leadership skills which could also be identified as group management skills. Half of the facilitators expressed for the first time emergence of a leader identity. For many, perceiving

232

D. Arendale

themselves and being recognized by study group participants as a leader was a revelation. From this theme of leader identity emergence, four subthemes were identified: (a) positional leader identity, (b) leader identity evoked conflicting emotions of awe, confidence, and fear, (c) identity emergence was dependent upon subject mastery and peer relationships, and (d) serving as sole positional leader of the study group evoked leader identity. Findings from the study suggested half the facilitators self-identified as a leader due to experience within PAL and reflection about themselves. This new identity emerged from: (a) job duties as facilitator, (b) feedback from the participating students, fellow facilitators, and the program administrator, (c) recognition as a subject matter expert, and (d) numerous written self-reflections of themselves during the initial PAL training and throughout the academic term.

Students as Partners (SaP) Students as Partners (SaP) is a conceptual model first popularized in the United Kingdom to engage college students as equal partners in the learning process. While SaP is a broader and more sophisticated collection of student involvement roles than those previously described in this chapter, SaP roles share similar outcomes and processes for students to develop new identities, learn new personal and professional skills, and exercise power delegated to them by staff and course faculty members. Examples of student roles include curriculum development and assessment design. Course redesign is an emerging activity in the USA to deal with first-year student retention problems, but it generally involves only course faculty and student services staff but seldom, if ever, empowers students to be equal partners with course transformation. Some of the previous student roles in this chapter such as tutoring, orientation courses, and peer study groups could be imbued with partnership and power to become examples of SaP. This new pedagogical approach to higher education “disrupts traditional power structures of learning to offer a shared space where students become co-creators of change” (Dianati and Oberhollenzer 2020, p. 1). For purposes of this chapter, my overview of this model is confined to curricular co-creation. The contrasts between higher education in the United States and elsewhere in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom are striking. In the USA, students and families encounter ever escalating fees with few examples of power sharing and equal partnership with the students, staff, and faculty. Student unions seldom express power with significant classroom and institutional decision-making. Too often students are considered passive consumers in their education. In Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, there is an emergence of equal partnership and student agency with the learning environment. Student unions exhibit significant power and decision making. This is the environment which gave rise to SaP where students are engaged as equal partners with co-creating their learning (Healey et al. 2014). Student engagement is a common topic in US higher education. However, the distinction stated by Healey, Flint, and Harrington

12

Incubators for Student Leader Identity Emergence

233

differentiates SaP, “All partnership is student engagement, but not all student engagement is partnership” (Healey et al. 2014, p. 7). The catalyst for leader identity emergence is fueled by power delegated to them through SaP partnership activities. For example, as students receive delegated power over parts of the curriculum and assessment process, they become partners with the staff and faculty. This is an unfamiliar role for students who have often operated within a staff or faculty-centric environment. Students become more comfortable with this new role. Matthews, Dwyer, Hine, and Turner (2018) found SaP students moved beyond the initial role as “co-creators” to become “change agents.” Students perceived themselves as possessing a leader identity (change agent) in a learning ecosystem that had not previously fostered this identity emergence. Kek, Kimmins, Lawrence, Abawi, Lindgren, and Stokes (2017) found in their SaP study students effectively used the delegated power including those that were underrepresented in higher education. The students in the study reported increased understanding of leadership including networked leadership, leadership skills, and confidence in exercising leadership. Healey, Flint, and Harrington (2014) indicated that SaP was powerful for students to develop agency, confidence, and power even if they were from marginalized backgrounds. Those researchers identified many other personal and vocational skills that were manifested as a result of the partnerships. Based on these research studies, it is important for the institution to recruit a diverse group for SaP participation that includes those who are underrepresented and marginalized since they enjoyed positive outcomes similar to the majority students. SaP is an effective approach for narrowing the achievement gap while supporting widening of access to higher education.

Summary These case studies from around the globe shared several common themes. Leader identity emergence was often a surprise to the student leaders as an unanticipated by-product from involvement. Except with the case of the Indonesian student organization, leadership skill development and leader identity emergence was not a stated goal of the activity. The identity emergence was part of the student development. Common activities that the researchers cited in their case studies that helped to foster change were student partnership, reflective writing, role-plays, and training workshops for performing the task or performing on the athletic field. Based on the collective experiences of these student venues and the three major leader identity theories, the following section explores a unified model for understanding identity emergence.

A New Leader Identity Emergence Model Based on Astin (1984, 1993), Komives et al. (2005), and Meuser et al. (2016) LID theories, the following provides a more detailed model to explain student leader identity emergence. This model is based on findings from the previous studies that

234

D. Arendale

examined LID emergence among specific student populations: academic tutoring programs, academic peer study groups, extended orientation courses, identity-based organizations, organized sports, and student organizations. While the previous LID emergence models provided general guidance for growth of the students, this new model incorporated more specific student involvement variables and included common activities that were implemented with these different student populations, which resulted in leader identity emergence in their varied contexts. The following is a brief overview of the model and its different elements. Due to the interactive nature of student growth, it is recommended to view the model as more of an ecosystem rather than a hierarchical model for linear growth where students move among identity stages in response to their involvement in the postsecondary/tertiary learning environment. Huijser, Kek, Abawi, and Lawrence (2019) identified a healthier environment for students to thrive for growth. “. . .an agile ecology for learning allows for the extension of the learning environment well beyond the university walls. . . .seeking, harnessing and leveraging connections within what students bring to the formal learning environments (e.g. creativity) from other parts of the agile ecology for learning and the aim is thus to blur the boundaries between these different systems, both in a spatial and a temporal sense, in such a way that their connections become seamless. Our argument is that the more seamless or porous the ecology becomes, the more students’ prior learning and creativity will be sought, harnessed and leveraged (p. 139).

This new ecosystem for leader identity emergence is influenced by Astin’s InputEnvironment-Outcomes model (also named the Student Involvement Theory in this chapter) with three major components: Input Variables, College Environment, and Outcomes. As stated earlier, this ecosystem is dynamic with students cycling among the variables as they continue to grow throughout their college experience. The Input Variables column recognized what future college students bring with them to postsecondary/tertiary institutions with their personal variables such as demographics, skills, personalities, and more. Separately, prior roles in leadership place them at different leader identity stages as outline by Komives et al. (2005) or network leadership roles as identified by Meuser et al. (2016). Finally, student prior interest in leadership roles and their own road of self-discovery of a personal leader identity created a baseline for their reasons and anticipated outcomes of involvement in the job responsibility, organization, or sport. The next major category of variables was the College Environment. Within this large overarching category, it was divided into two smaller clusters of variables. The Bridge Involvement column identified activities and decisions occurring immediately prior to interacting with the college environment. Initial training camps, orientations, and workshops occur before students began their roles with student paraprofessional jobs, undergraduate teaching assistantships, and participation on sports teams. During these activities, they received basic training for their roles and setting of expectations. These activities often included reflective writing, role-plays, and practices. At the same time of their formal or informal preparation for a particular activity, such as an extended orientation leader, they concurrently made initial decisions and experiencing other activities. Bridge involvement activities and

12

Incubators for Student Leader Identity Emergence

235

decisions shaped the rest of their college experience, which was defined as Intermediate Involvement. The Intermediate Involvement column contained the rest of the college experience. In the case of this model, it represented student experience during their first academic term in their student paraprofessional role or their involvement in an organization or sports team. Time was divided into five categories: (a) the work experience; (b) ongoing training which may include a variety of activities such as team meetings, formal leader course, observe other students at work, mentoring, communities of practices with other students, and debriefing with coach, administrator, or other student leaders; (c) personal written reflections of their work and discussions with others; (d) leadership experiences the facilitators might experience in other places; and (e) their interactions with faculty members, fellow students, and others in the community. The final component of this ecosystem consisted of Outcomes Variables which are results of their experience during and after the first academic term. Many student leaders report improved comfort and confidence in their role. These students emerge in levels three or higher of the six stages of leader identity (Komives et al. 2005). The final box in the right column contains commonly reported outcomes of leaders from their job or role experiences. Growth is more complicated and at times convoluted than this model represents. As stated earlier, growth is a dynamic process that sometimes operates in reoccurring cycles with seamless transitions (Fig. 1).

Recommendations This chapter has explored how students can undergo significant personal and professional changes in response to the environment inside and outside the classroom. These experiences are co-curricular incubators of student development outcomes. Formal leadership programs are delivered most often through workshops, academic term courses, and academic minors or majors. While direct instruction in leadership is useful, a co-curricular approach through campus athletics, clubs, organizations, and part-time employment provides a living laboratory to try out leadership approaches, reflect upon them, and develop their own leader identity. Komives, Dugan, Owen, Slack, and Wagner (2011) describe approaching leadership education as a developmental process. Field experiences are needed to practice leadership skills. What follows are our recommendations for enhancing co-curricular and extra-curricular experiences. Integrate leadership vocabulary into the program. Raise awareness of basic leadership concepts and vocabulary into the initial training program, group discussions, and written reflections. Allow students to make connections between the vocabulary and their lived experience. The club sponsor, coach, or program supervisor could join leadership professional associations, read journals of the field, and make connections with others on campus involved with leadership education. Komives et al. (2011) provide a comprehensive list of these resources. Having this

236

D. Arendale

Input Variables

College Environment

Personal Variables Demographics 1. Life Experiences 2. Academic preparation 3. Vocational Interests 4. Personality Traits 5. College Major or Subject Area 6. Learning Skills 7. Personal identities

Bridge Involvement

Intermediate Involvement

Initial Training 1. Initial training camp, orientation, or workshop 2. Role expectations set by coach or supervisor 3. Learn new strategies and small group management skills 4. Practice new skills through role plays, practices, and case-inpoint class experiences

Work Experiences 1. Perform job responsibilities 2. Prepare for work sessions 3. Conduct work sessions

Prior Leadership 1. Positional Roles: a. Appointed as student service employee, work supervisor, or other b. Organisation roles appointed or elected with clubs, athletics 2. Network Roles: a. Contributing member of class discussions, project teams, or athletic teams b. Athletics team member

Prior Interest with Leader Role 1. Salary 2. Reinforce or learn academic knowledge and skills 3. Prepare for future leader positions 4. Prepare for future vocations 5. Genuine interest in helping others

Initial Decisions and Experiences 1. Choice of residence location and roommates 2. Selection of academic major or subject area 3. Attendance in new student orientation 4. Initial interest in joining clubs, organizations, athletic teams, and other extracurricular activities 5. Employment with jobs on and off campus 6. Financial aid 7. Academic and personal advisement

Outcomes

Ongoing Training 1. Periodic team meetings 2. Leader course during academic term 3. Observe other leaders and team members 4. Debrief with coach, administrator, and other student leaders 5. Mentoring 6. Informal communities of practice with only other students Personal Reflections of Work Experience 1. Weekly journal 2. Leadership course 3. Periodic conversations with administrator, coach, and other peer leaders 4. End-of-academicterm extended written reflection Other Leadership Experiences 1. Other jobs 2. Campus clubs 3. Sports teams 4. Class projects 5. Other experiences

Increased agency and confidence with leadership skills Leader identity development through the LID six-stages (Komives, et. al., 2005) Vocational skills development 1. Public speaking 2. Small group management 3. Leadership skills 4. Dispute resolution 5. Time management 6. Task organization 7. Lesson preparation 8. Confidence and comfort in groups 9. Work with diverse people 10. Expression of antiracist attitudes and behaviors 11. Expanded learning skills 12. Life-long learning skills 13. Mental complexity and critical thinking 14. Ethical reasoning and evaluation

Interactions In and Outside the Class 1. Faculty 2. Other students 3. Work employees

Fig. 1 Leader Identity Development Model for Students in College Co-Curricular and ExtraCurricular Activities

basic vocabulary will help students express themselves through written reflections and group discussions. Create leadership opportunities. Encourage students to exercise leadership within their athletic team, club, or program beyond normal expectations for their role. This could include delivering initial and advanced training workshops for

12

Incubators for Student Leader Identity Emergence

237

fellow peers, organizing social activities to encourage bonding and morale, leading practice activities for similar positions on an athletics club, stretching their own perceptions by accepting advanced leader roles, and other activities. Students as Partners already embeds student leadership roles as they received delegated power to co-create the curriculum. Intentional use of reflections and focused discussions. Students should complete reflective private journal entries regarding their past week’s experiences. Ask them to share perceptions of themselves as a leader. These entries could be shared during meetings with students and staff. Intentional reflection is a powerful catalyst for development (Zacharoppulou et al. 2015). Haver-Curran and Stewart (2015) found personal reflection preceded a person fostering a new identity as a result of successful behaviors. In New Zealand, Sutherland and Gilbert (2013) suggested in addition to the written reflections that the tutors maintain an e-portfolio of their curriculum and other learning materials to document their work. Massey, Sulak, and Sriram (2013) believed lack of structured reflective writing diminished leader identity emergence for extended orientation leaders. Foster creation of informal Communities of Practice (CoP). CoP is a group of people that naturally occurs due to a common interest and share knowledge in a horizontal fashion with each other (Wenger 1998). Often, these networks are invisible to others but serve as a powerful mechanism for knowledge education and mutual identity development (O’Brien and Bates 2015). It is important that these CoP experiences occur separate from the coaches and staff so that communications among students can flow freely and encourage an atmosphere of innovation outside of official job descriptions and expectations. The tutors created their own private CoP and communicated with one another outside of formal training workshops and meetings through personal interactions. Arendale, Hane, and Fredrickson (2020) discovered the small group study leaders created their own CoP to support themselves with needed information not provided by the peer program training program. Crandall (2017) cited how an informal CoP was vital for the tutors to provide a supportive network outside of official tutor team meetings and training sessions. Assess leadership development. Evaluate the leadership skill development and leader identity stage of the student leaders through a survey, end-of-term reflective journal entry, weekly journal entries, focus group session, or included as part of personal interviews with them. This information could be included with annual reports to upper-level administrators to document attainment of these outcomes derived. This broadens impact of the program and may provide additional rationale for stable or increased funding. In summary, the major implication from this research and a review of the professional literature is the opportunity to expand the vision of campus student employment opportunities (extended orientation, study groups, and tutoring), student organizations, and competitive sports. Repositioning them to a comprehensive co-curricular development experience for both the student participants and leaders recognizes their potential for increasing student personal and professional outcomes.

238

D. Arendale

More Research More research is needed about leader identity formation. A study could be conducted when leader identity was included as part of the training program for the facilitators and measure the outcomes as a result. Creation of a pre- and postassessment could help measure change in their identity. Similar studies could be conducted to measure leader identity development in other academic or student affairs programs such as teaching assistants and residence hall staff. A longitudinal study could follow former student leaders to understand if there was residual influence of the experience with their leader identity in the workplace. Conduct deeper investigation of network leadership theory by recording student group sessions and analyzing the conversation among members. This analysis could identity group members who are overlooked for their valuable contributions, which are masked by traditional studies that focus on impact on the appointed leader only. This deeper level of analysis can identify more participants who have achieved leader identity but due to being quiet are overlooked.

Conclusion This chapter has identified that student leader role experiences led to selfdiscovery of a new leader identity and has offered reasons for how and why this occurred. It is a subtle shift from practicing the job role as appointed leader/ manager of a group to embracing a leader identity. Student involvement in campus activities represents untapped co-curricular leader experiences that could be more powerful if they were intentional rather than serendipitous, regarding identity emergence. A key catalyst for the emerged identity was reflections about what the group leader was learning about themselves and conversations with fellow leaders, coaches, club sponsors, staff, faculty members, and program administrators. This chapter identifies a new agile ecosystem that fosters this student development regardless of the activity’s venue. Leader identity emergence and interpersonal skill development helps students prepare for a future career and a lifetime of engaged community involvement and citizenship.

Cross-References ▶ Academic Writing and Student Identity: Helping Learners Write in an Age of Massification, Metrics and Consumerism ▶ Experiences of Students with Auxiliary Services Journeys in Higher Education ▶ Future Institutional and Student Services Leadership Challenges: Implementing a Holistic Whare Tapa Rima – Five-Sided Home Model

12

Incubators for Student Leader Identity Emergence

239

References Arendale, D.R. 2014. Understanding the Peer Assistance Learning model: Student study groups in challenging college courses. International Journal of Higher Education 3 (2): 1–12. https://doi. org/10.5430/ijhe.v3n2p1. Arendale, D.R., ed. 2019. Postsecondary peer cooperative learning programs: Annotated bibliography 2019. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. ERIC database. (ED602488). https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.17262.56647 Arendale, D.R., A.R. Hane, and B. Fredrickson. 2020. Leader identity development by PAL facilitators. Manuscript under review. Astin, A. 1984. Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel 25: 297–308. Astin, A. 1993. What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass Publishers. College Reading and Learning Association (CRLA). 2020. International tutor training program certification (ITTPC). https://crla.net/index.php/certifications/ittpc-international-tutor-trainingprogram Crandall, S.L. 2017. A case study on leadership identity development of tutors in a learning center. (Ph.D. dissertation). Lindenwood University, St. Charles. ERIC Database. (ED581748). Danish, S.J., T. Forneris, K. Hodge, and I. Heke. 2004. Enhancing youth development through sport and recreation. World Leisure 46: 38–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/04419057.2004.9674365. Dianati, S., and Y. Oberhollenzer. 2020. Reflections of students and staff in a project-led partnership: Contextualised experiences of Students-as-Partners. International Journal for Students as Partners 4 (1): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v4i1.3974. https://mulpress.mcmaster.ca/ ijsap/article/view/3974 Fediansyah, D., and H. Meutia. 2017. The impact of a student organization (OSIS) on leadership identity development (LID). (Master’s thesis). University of Tampere, Finland. https://trepo.tuni. fi/handle/10024/102138 Fransen, K., N. Vanbeselaere, B. De Cuyper, Broek G. Vande, and F. Boen. 2014. The myth of the team captain as principal leader: Extending the athlete leadership classification within sport teams. Journal of Sports Sciences 32 (14): 1389–1397. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2014.891291. Haver-Curran, P., and T. Stewart. 2015. Leadership skill development in a first-year honors servicelearning seminar. Journal of Community Engagement & Higher Education 7 (2): 3–18. Healey, M., A. Flint, and K. Harrington. 2014. Engagement through partnership: Students as partners in learning and teaching in higher education. The Higher Education Academy. https:// www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/resources/engagement_through_partnership.pdf Huijser, H., M.Y.C.A. Kek, L.A. Abawi, and J. Lawrence. 2019. Leveraging creativity to engage students in an agile ecology for learning. Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal 2 (3): 138–153. https://sehej.raise-network.com/raise/article/view/880 Kaya, A. 2017. An exploration of how immigrant youth develop a leadership identity through sport participation. (Ph.D. dissertation). North-Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, Greensboro. Kek, M., L. Kimmins, J. Lawrence, L. Abawi, C. Lindgren, and T. Stokes. 2017. Students enabling students in a student partnership project: Case study emerging from the OLT Transforming Practice Project on Student Partnerships. Student Success 8 (2): 117–122. https:// studentsuccessjournal.org/article/download/508/374. Komives, S.R., J.E. Owen, S.D. Longerbeam, F.C. Mainella, and L. Osteen. 2005. Developing a leadership identity: A grounded theory. Journal of College Student Development 46: 593–611. Komives, S. R., Dugan, J., Owen, J. E., Slack, C., & Wagner, W. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook for student leadership programs. College Park, MD: National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs.

240

D. Arendale

Komives, S. R., Dugan, J. P., Owen, J. E., Slack, R., Wagner, W., & Associates (2011). The handbook of student leadership development (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Linscott, P.A. 2020. Building bridges: A qualitative analysis of undergraduate orientation leaders’ experience. (Ph.D. dissertation). Ohio University, Athens. https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_ file?accession¼ohiou1585911063727778&disposition¼inline Massey, J., T. Sulak, and R. Sriram. 2013. Influences of theory and practice in the development of servant leadership in students. Journal of Leadership Education 12 (1): 74–91. Matthews, K.E., A. Dwyer, L. Hine, and J. Turner. 2018. Conceptions of students as partners. Higher Education 76: 957–971. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0257-y. Meuser, J.D., W.L. Gardner, J.E. Dinh, J. Hu, R.C. Liden, and R.G. Lord. 2016. Network analysis of leadership theory: The infancy of integration. Journal of Management 42 (5): 1374–1403. O’Brien, W., and P. Bates. 2015. Looking and feeling the part: Developing aviation students’ professional identity through a community of practice. Teaching in Higher Education 20 (8): 821–832. Pascarella, E. T., & Terennizzi, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Pascarella, E. T., & Terennizzi, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: Volume 2, a third decade of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Patton, L. D., Renn, K. A., Guido, F. M., & Quaye, S. J. (2016). Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Priest, K.L., and N.A. Clegorne. 2015. Connecting to experience: High-impact practices for leadership development. New Directions for Student Leadership 145: 71–83. Renn, K.A., and B.L. Bilodeau. 2005. Leadership identity development among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender student leaders. NASPA Journal 42 (3): 342–367. Skalicky, J.L., and A. Caney. 2010. PASS student leader and mentor roles: A tertiary leadership pathway. Australasian Journal of Peer Learning 3 (1): 24–37. http://ro.uow.edu.au/ajpl/vol3/ iss1/4/ Sutherland, K.A., and A. Gilbert. 2013. Academic aspirations amongst sessional tutors in a New Zealand University. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice 10 (3): 1–11. https://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol10/iss3/7 Vatan, F., and A.B.. Temel. 2016. A leadership development program through mentorship for clinical nurses in Turkey. Nursing Economics 34 (5): 242–250. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. London, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Zacharoppulou, A., M. Giles, and J. Condell. 2015. Enhancing PASS leaders’ employability skills through reflection. Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. http://uir.ulster.ac. uk/37606/1/JLDHE%20employability%20article.pdf

A Digital Student Journey: Supporting Students in an Age of Super Complexity

13

Naomi F. Dale, Jennifer Loh, Laurie Poretti, Scott Nichols, and Scott Pearsall

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Students as Customers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Student Support Services at UC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Student Equity and Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Digital Service Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Digital Student Journey (DSJ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “Bespoke Experiences” to Engage and Retain Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion and Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

242 243 244 247 248 250 252 254 254 255

Abstract

The University of Canberra (UC) is a public university located in Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory and offers both undergraduate and postgraduate courses. Although still a young university, one of its central aims is to ensure that students from diverse backgrounds, such as Indigenous; low socioeconomic status (SES); and rural, regional, and remote areas are provided with the opportunity and support to achieve their academic goals through a positive university experience. Retention, completion, and success rates among these groups of students have been traditionally low. The Digital Student Journey (DSJ), a digitized CRM platform and Adobe experience cloud, delivers a bespoke landing page for students based on data from across university information systems and provides a solution to the

N. F. Dale (*) · J. Loh · L. Poretti · S. Nichols · S. Pearsall University of Canberra, Canberra, ACT, Australia e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 H. Huijser et al. (eds.), Student Support Services, University Development and Administration, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5852-5_20

241

242

N. F. Dale et al.

universal problem of disparate working groups not combining forces for greater support for students. As UC works towards becoming one of the most digitally progressive tertiary institutions in the nation, the DSJ project rollout and its expected impacts are covered in this chapter. Keywords

Digital student journey · Super-complexity · Equity groups · Student support services · Accessibility

Introduction Australia’s universities face significant challenges and changes in the operating environment of higher education, in a time of super complexity and the “information age.” The growing use of information and communications technologies (ICT) to support learning and research offers new possibilities for facilitating access and equity for all students (Barraket and Scott 2001). Advances in technology are creating societal changes which require new approaches and practices, with Education a key platform for radical change. There is a call to go beyond simple contradictions apparent in the “digital natives” debate to develop a more sophisticated understanding of our students’ experiences of technologies (Bennett and Maton 2010). A recent study conducted by Stone (2017) identifies a strategic whole-ofinstitution approach to understanding the nature and diversity of students in an online environment with an emphasis on integrated and embedded student support. While the COVID-19 pandemic posed the most challenging of times, Student Support Services, including Study Skills at University of Canberra, had an existing online service presence and had been gradually moving to online models of service provision in traditionally face-to-face areas such as student consultations and peer academic support. This placed the university in a unique position to mobilize quickly when the campus closed and moved to a remote learning environment. Initial response from students to online study skills service provision was very positive, with students seizing the opportunity to make connections with learning advisors. Students were keen to re-engage with support staff on campus and visit the virtual version of services they would have traditionally accessed face-to-face. This became particularly apparent as the university moved into an extended teaching break, student engagement with academic support services including online PALS (Peer Assisted Learning Sessions) was high as students embraced a connection to the UC community in uncertain times while teaching staff were not available. One unexpected finding was how easily staff and students made the transition to the virtual environment. The willingness of staff to mobilize online services, participate in training in using online platforms and problem-solve the challenges in order to meet students’ academic support needs was outstanding. For example, the face-toface Study Help zone was completely replicated in our Virtual Study Help room,

13

A Digital Student Journey: Supporting Students in an Age of Super. . .

243

with a peer Concierge greeting students in the main meeting room and assigning them to a peer advisor or specialist learning advisor in a virtual study help pod after determining their study needs. While planning to move Study Skills and many other support services online, a complete replication of face-to-face services in an online environment was not something the university expected to deliver at this point in time, yet quick thinking and swift action enabled innovation, and not only maintained continuity in service provision but expand the reach of services in the process. Digital solutions do help us reach the majority of learners but aren’t always preferred by our students. Some of our mature age students and English as an additional language learners have requested face-to-face academic support options so there is definitely a demand for both modes of service provision as evidenced by the results of the Student Readiness Survey. From 2015 to date, commencing students at the university have consistently shown a preference for mixed mode support service delivery, with 50% (on average) preferring both face-to-face and online options for support service delivery and 30% (on average) preferring face-toface only. The University of Canberra (UC) is a public university located in Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory and offers both undergraduate and postgraduate courses. Although still a young university (The World University Rankings 2018), it is committed to fostering an all-inclusive learning community to become a sector leading university for the professional guided by principles of entrepreneurship, innovation, equity, and diversity (University of Canberra’s Strategic Plan 2018–2022: Distinctive by Design 2018). Among the key aims of the university is to ensure that students from diverse backgrounds, who are traditionally under-represented in higher education, are provided with the opportunity and support to achieve their academic goals through a positive university experience. This is with the view that equity group students require more specialized services to support their university experience (Bradley et al. 2008; Zacharias 2017), as they face challenges relating to their geographical relocation, financial stress, emotional stress, isolation, work commitment, physical health, and others. To effectively support and service these students among others, UC has embarked on an innovative project designed to give current and prospective students a personalized digital platform from first enquiry to graduation and beyond known as the Digital Student Journey (DSJ).

Students as Customers With a growing acknowledgment of the customer’s role in service creation and delivery in education, there is an increased push toward building customer-centric organizations, with digital technology playing a key role. Leveraging these digital technologies, however, in customer-side operations continues to be a complex challenge for many service organizations including tertiary education providers (Setia et al. 2013). Many universities and government agencies provide

244

N. F. Dale et al.

tremendous amounts of information and services via the Web, often overwhelming stakeholders. Personalization and customization in delivering information and services, until recently, remained a major challenge, with efforts resulting in a fragmented conglomeration of services and information sources (Chun et al. 2002). Indeed, Haugen (1999) argues that while there has been an increase in the provision of student services provided by many universities in recent years, many of these services are not very well developed or adapted to the needs of students that are evolving and diversifying. Indeed, despite its many benefits, several scholars have raised concerns about the nexus of digital learning such as privacy issues, individualized versus standardized learning paths, poor integration of data systems, lack of time to develop personalized lessons, powerful patrons, and the lack of oversight that has allowed personalized learning to proliferate in educational institutes across the country (Boninger et al. 2019; Wong and Li 2020). Student services refers to the divisions or departments that provide services and student support in higher education with the aim of ensuring students growth during their academic experience (NASPA 2012). According to Tinto (1993), effective student services are vital in maintaining academic, emotional, and social connections of students with their institutions which then ultimately decrease universities’ dropout rate and increase the diversity of students’ experience. Given this importance, traditional student service solutions are no longer adequate and should be reconceived to serve a variety of learners (LaPadula 2003). The adoption of the term “customers” to refer to students can retain positive aspects – promoting the legitimate interests of students in the higher education system, allowing the benefits associated with a “customer orientation” – while avoiding potentially negative aspects as the problematic idea that “the customer is always right” (Eagle and Brennan 2007). Production and consumption of services are often concurrent, and students can often be a co-creator of services at Universities. These customers are becoming more demanding, and localized personalization is the key to effective customer service performance (Setia et al. 2013). It is inadequate to just state that the lives of students involve multiple, complex, and overlapping social and information universes; to understand the role technology plays, universities need to be able to conceive and curate these universes and the varied forms of knowledge and practices they involve (Bennett and Maton 2010). Institutions have a vested interest in ensuring that students graduate because institutions invest resources, financial and otherwise, into recruiting and admitting students. Students too have a lot to lose if they withdraw without completing their academic degree (Britto and Rush 2013).

Student Support Services at UC Customer support and service comprises the way that a product is explained, billed, delivered, bundled, renewed, and redesigned. The customer service process is therefore the set of activities that are associated with the creation and delivery of products and services to customers (Setia et al. 2013). Student Support Services

13

A Digital Student Journey: Supporting Students in an Age of Super. . .

245

differ to transactional “customer service provision” in that support services are embedded throughout the students’ journey to engage and nurture students. Recent research (Devlin and McKay 2016, 2019; Stone 2017) found that students feeling connected to the institution, staff, and peers was critical to their success. As the student body of Australian higher education institutions evolves and diversifies, so are student expectations. Positioning students as consumers with high expectations of quality service impacts student expectations (Scott 2008). Student services are important as they can enhance enrolment, decrease attrition, and ease students’ adjustment to university life and contribute to their academic success. Institutions are now serving larger numbers of students over a wider range of disciplines and locations. Traditional student service solutions are no longer adequate and should be reconceived to serve a variety of learners (LaPadula 2003). The University of Canberra aims to maximize the attraction, retention, and success of students from diverse backgrounds and enhance student wellbeing and safety, through the provision of quality support and administrative services aligned with student need. Therefore, a suite of support services and programs have been implemented at UC to provide all students with the support required at different phases of student engagement within the higher education lifecycle. These services vary in range to include transitional, academic, financial, cultural, and personal support services. While some of these services may span over the duration of the student’s enrolment, some are more relevant at different stages of the student’s enrolment lifecycle including pre access, participation, attainment, and transitioning out. The UC Strategic Plan outlines the objectives and actions that will drive enhancement of the student experience and deliver a distinctive and integrated UC student experience through the provision of high-quality curricula, services, and programs that support our students’ educational goals and enrich their university life, academically, socially, and culturally. Student Transition and Success Programs not only support the student across the entire student journey, but also contributes to improved participation, retention, and success outcomes. One example of this is the University of Canberra (UC) Student Mentor Program, designed to ensure the student experience is comprehensive, integrated, and coordinated through a whole of institution strengths-based approach. After reviewing current literature and recommendations of peer mentor programs delivered in a higher education context, the UC Student Mentor program was developed through consultation with UC faculty and support service staff and current students. The program integrates both learning and social theoretical mentoring frameworks (Dominguez and Hager 2013), where the experience is both a mutual-learning process for Mentees and Mentors as well as requires rolemodelling and the facilitation of social learning. The mode and style of delivery is informed by “Strengths Theory” (Saleebey 2013) and focuses on capacity and resilience building. All engagement with Mentees by their Mentors is from an enabling, supportive, and proactive position redressing a deficit and reactive approach to support. UC Student Mentors provide individual and targeted support to newly commencing students through Orientation activities, structured weekly meetings, and individualized information, advice, and guidance.

246

N. F. Dale et al.

The UC Student Mentor Program supports students at all stages of the student lifecycle, from pre-commencement, transition-in, throughout their degree, at completion and beyond. All Student Mentors also have access to their own professional Mentor from within the UC Alumni community. Retaining students by offering timely, appropriate, and flexible support improves the student experience, attempts to bring retention rates of students from equity backgrounds in line with the broader UC student cohort, and retains students throughout their degree for the benefit of the university, and the student. Students from low socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds tend to be less involved in the social experiences of university than their higher SES peers, including in clubs, societies, sports, and informal activities. Early engagement of students to scaffold the transition experience is central to enhancing the student journey through providing access to initial social networks, academic, and social support to increase their sense of connectedness in a meaningful and sustainable way. The UC Student Mentor Program provides visible, early, individualized, and proactive support by current student role models and university staff. The program is a powerful, effective, and efficient way to reach students at the beginning of their university studies, align them with appropriate administrative and pastoral support early in their education journey, and connect them to the university community in a meaningful and sustainable way. Increasing contact and meaningful engagement with students will yield improved retention rates, and/or provide crucial information regarding the causes of poor retention rates in various student cohorts enabling the development of increasingly informed and targeted strategies for improvement. Factors negatively influencing student retention include a lack of experience in higher education, busy lives outside coursework (such as work and family pressures), and a lack of access to technology and computers. Numerous studies conclude that social structures and opportunities for student engagement and collaboration can have a positive impact on student retention. Regardless, an understanding of the unique context and specific needs of customers of the university (students), with resources and services modified and customized to meet their needs is vital (Britto and Rush 2013). Chickering’s holistic consideration of students’ psychosocial lives underpins the provision of student support services at UC. Designed to support students across the student life cycle, comprehensive programs addressing all factors that influence student success and completion are largely underpinned by Chickering and Reisser’s (1993) seven vectors. UC’s small institutional size provides greater opportunity for meaningful and sustained engagement of the students. Student-faculty relationships can be established through small class sizes with greater opportunities for academics to know their students by name and on a more personal level. Through curriculum designed to provide students with an exceptional learning experience in a supportive and challenging environment, integrating employers, industry, government, and professionals into the curriculum. Embedding work integrated learning opportunities into all of our courses prepares students with directly relevant experiences and provides opportunities to develop richer, more diverse perspectives. Curriculum, teaching activities, and learning environments are responsive to students’ needs and utilize

13

A Digital Student Journey: Supporting Students in an Age of Super. . .

247

the most relevant learning and teaching technologies. The UC thrive program has been designed to foster engagement and build genuine student communities and we are seeing the additional benefits of the program through the development of meaningful and sustained relationships beyond the duration of the formal UC Student Mentoring Program. The UC Student Mentor Program is quickly becoming a larger and more comprehensive program that supports, enables and connects students throughout their higher education journey. The mentoring program is embedded across all of the faculties to ensure that activities are complementary and relevant to the student cohorts. Student Development Programs and Services work closely with the faculties to ensure support is embedded and students are empowered to engage, build peer networks, and further grow and develop their study and life skills. Providing student support services is seen as being important for reducing attrition due to personal or financial hardship, and to enhance student well-being, skillsbuilding, and overall engagement with the university. According to the Higher Education Standards panel’s report (Department of Education and Training 2017), there is feedback to suggest that despite the widespread and targeted promotion of support services for students within higher education institutions, it has been difficult to ensure that students who needed the support would take up the help and support offered by existing services and programs. Indeed, evidence suggests that low SES students and those from other equity groups are less likely to be aware of the services on offer or to have the confidence to make use of these services (Department of Education and Training 2017; Bennett et al. 2015). In addition, there is little evidence to suggest that universities with more extensive student support services have better retention rates (Bennett et al. 2015). One could argue that it is not the quantity of services on offer but the communication of services, the knowledge of services, and the inclination of students to take up the services that is most critical to student success. Student readiness surveys also indicate factors such as study background (such as first in family), self-identified support needs, preferred methods of communication, completion of a prep course, or even time since students last studied may have an impact. According to Barraket and Scott (2001), effective ICT use for learning and engagement requires the efficient interaction, ready access to infrastructure, appropriate use of ICT as part of learning design, and effective support for these by staff, systems, infrastructure, and procedures of the institution. Researchers have pushed to move the focus from particular technologies and towards the types of activities those technologies support, such as information access and communication, including both academic and everyday activities (Bennett and Maton 2010). This is especially important considering that many of the traditional student support services have not addressed equity students’ unique needs and concerns.

Student Equity and Access Commencing higher education can be a confronting experience for anyone, however, for those from an equity background, entering this new foreign culture, with a foreign set of norms, traditions, and rituals, and a new language and environment is

248

N. F. Dale et al.

often intensified, with many students underprepared for the transition (Bennett et al. 2015). The Student Equity & Access Plan 2018–2022 has identified four equity groups from the domestic undergraduate program at the University of Canberra (UC) which includes students from low socio-economic status (SES) backgrounds; students with disability; students from regional and remote areas; and students from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander backgrounds (Indigenous). The attraction, retention, completion, and success rates among these student groups have also been traditionally low in comparison to other student groups. Indeed, in its latest risk assessment of registered higher education providers, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) (2019) has identified four key areas of risks, namely: (1) regulatory history and standing, (2) students (load, experience, and outcomes), (3) academic staff profile, and (4) financial viability and sustainability. Students’ study load, experience, and outcomes are specific area of concern among equity group students. Scevak et al. (2015) found that availability, access, and types of support services are fundamental to the likelihood of success in this cohort of students. Students from backgrounds traditionally underrepresented in higher education require tailored support throughout their student journey. Devlin and McKay (2019) identify technology as a critical factor in enabling student success, particularly for students from diverse cohorts. Effective use of technology can play a pivotal role in facilitating interactivity and connection among the institution, peers, and staff to enable personalized learning approaches. To maximize the benefits, technology must be accessible, reliable, and tailored to the students’ digital literacy capabilities (Devlin and McKay 2016, 2019). According to Chaney et al. (1998), special strategies are appropriate if institutions wish to retain disadvantaged students who tend to engage if the university has a supportive environment, systematic data collection, nonstigmatization of participants, and comprehensive service offerings (Chaney et al. 1998). In other words, a systemic and integrated institution wide approach to student retention and support is most likely to pay the biggest dividends. This includes addressing areas such as personal attributes related to the students and student support services, academic policies and procedures, and technological access and design that are student centered (Britto and Rush 2013).

Digital Service Delivery Through the digitalization of higher education, more students are choosing to study online to accommodate their circumstances, including family, employment, and geographical proximity to institutions (Department of Education and Training 2017). In the age of super complexity, higher education institutions need to be increasingly proactive, informed, and prepared to meet the ever changing and demanding requirements of students. Students are used to having unlimited choice, flexibility, and input, and there is an expectation for more services to be offered and delivered digitally. However, without active steps by universities to assist equity groups,

13

A Digital Student Journey: Supporting Students in an Age of Super. . .

249

particularly those with limited access options, institutions may find themselves contributing to the digital divide and further marginalizing the disadvantaged (Barraket and Scott 2001). In addition, if educational institutions want to attract students unable to attend on-campus classes, and from diverse equity backgrounds, they need to develop increased and highly visible student support services (LaPadula 2003). Research shows that students spend much of their time on the Internet engaging in various forms of learning and the exchange of information, including via social networking. Undergraduates have demonstrated a heavy use of Web 2.0 applications, which encourage extended connection, interaction, and sharing (Cassidy et al. 2011). Technology enables on-demand access to information and interactive online experiences and learners are expecting these opportunities to be readily available throughout their institutions. Studies show students want their learning to be interactive and the interactivity ultimately makes them feel more connected (Devlin and McKay 2016). The capacity of technology to personalize the learning experience is potentially beneficial to student success, empowering students to plan, organize, and learn in their own time at their own pace. In other words, modern students’ digital world is an extension of who they are, and they have a deep connection with it. Building information quality through a digital business strategy enhances customer service performance, with recent literature suggesting a move towards “glocalization,” that is customization of a business offering according to local customers’ needs while retaining the benefits of globalization such as economies of scale (Setia et al. 2013). Cassidy et al. (2011) found, however, in a survey of undergraduates on higher education and emerging technologies, that information overload was a key constraint to adoption of e-services. Students reported they felt unable to “keep up” with the many tools for receiving and sharing information. Therefore, instead of undifferentiated information delivery, “Just-in-time” and “Justfor-me” information delivery and technical training are crucial in determining students’ experiences of online service delivery and education (Barraket and Scott 2001). A recent university wide gap analysis undertaken by the authors of this chapter confirms the need for specialized digitized student support services (Loh and Dale 2019) at the university of Canberra. Specifically, investigations into the issues of student support services, low retention, completion, and success rates, particularly of students from traditionally underrepresented backgrounds, highlights the need for students to have access to the right support services at the right time to help them succeed. This is important considering that the needs of equity students may be different to that of traditional student cohorts. An increasing emphasis on personalized learning and mobility also further confirm the need for mobile technologies that are flexible and in a form that are available to all students whenever and wherever they want it. Thus, with the aim of establishing greater communication and coordination of supports and services through a whole-of-institution approach, the Digital Student Journey (DSJ) was developed to overcome some of the common challenges students face, including personal and social pressures as well as academic difficulties and poor subject choices (Australian Government Department of Education and Training 2017).

250

N. F. Dale et al.

The Digital Student Journey (DSJ) The University of Canberra has embarked on an ambitious, sector leading project designed to give current and prospective students a personalized digital platform from first enquiry to graduation and beyond. Known as the Digital Student Journey (DSJ), the project builds on a series of technological enhancements and engagement with students to understand the needs of the contemporary higher education student in a digital sense. The University also looked outside the education sector, into sectors such as banking, retail, travel/tourism, and entertainment to source digital experiences to enhance the “students as customers” experiences as part of their learning journey. The genesis of the project came from a research project commissioned to better understand student experiences at the University of Canberra. This research looked at both academic and non-academic elements of the student experience and took the form of focus groups, student surveys and quantitative data (retention rates, survey results, etc.). Through this research, which covered representation from all academic areas of the University, a comprehensive overview of the strengths and weaknesses of the experience from a student’s perspective was created. Many of the issues identified by students through this research were aligned with less formal feedback received on processes and systems. Issues around timetabling and enrolment processes, availability of academic staff, car parking, and the like were re-enforced by the outcomes of the research which, in many ways, gave the University the impetus to move forward with systems and capabilities that were being proposed. From a technology perspective, the University has invested heavily in systems to improve the student experience in recent times. A Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system has been rolled out successfully to all student facing areas of the University over the past 4 years, which has resulted in significant process and communication improvements. A purpose-built learning analytics system, called Interface, allows students and academic staff to see real time data on academic performance and engagement. It facilitates conversations and actions to ensure students are actively engaged with their studies and also identifies students at risk of failing or disengaging in a timely manner, allowing meaningful interventions at appropriate periods. With this context established, the DSJ seeks to go further and create a seamless, personalized digital platform throughout the student journey. It brings together a significant number of disparate systems through a single interface that will give students what they need, when they need it in a platform that is intuitive and userfriendly. Students will only see information that is relevant to them, using the plethora of data that the University holds to maximum effect. For example, a student who self-identifies through the enrolment process as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) will receive content through the platform that identifies the support available specifically to them and opportunities, such as scholarships and internships, that are relevant to them. For students who haven’t self-identified, this content will be displayed, but not as prominently.

13

A Digital Student Journey: Supporting Students in an Age of Super. . .

251

A system such as the DSJ is equipped with domain knowledge and procedural knowledge, it is then able to automate work-flow generation. The system frees an ordinary user from the complex burden of identifying various requirements and delivers a customized workflow (Chun et al. 2002). When fully developed, students studying at partner institutions will see campus maps relevant to their location, rather than seeing the main campus map. International students will access content and processes relevant to them and other indicators that can be used to derive appropriate personalized content. This moves the experience for the student from one where they are placed into categories with labels, such as domestic, undergraduate, first in family, low socioeconomic status, to one where they are treated as an individual and given appropriate information, advice, and personalized support accordingly. A significant challenge for the University in its development of the DSJ is the complex nature of the relationship between students and the institution. Unlike other industries, the relationship between a student and their University is one that goes for a significant period, often several years, and goes through several different stages. The complexities around an ongoing and relevant engagement through the cycles of interest, application, admission, enrolment, graduation, alumni, and further study makes the development of a single point solution very difficult. Add to this, the different needs and attributes of students dependent upon their characterization – commencing or continuing, domestic or international, undergraduate or postgraduate, for example – and it is easy to see why universities have struggled to keep pace with the changing demands of their student bodies. Further complexity is faced by the number and nature of the various systems needed to support the student journey. These include major corporate applications, like the student management system, the learning management system, and the CRM, to more bespoke systems designed to support specific parts of the journey, such as a timetabling system, curriculum management system, lecture recording system, etc. As an example, the University identified through the DSJ that no fewer than seven different calendar tools were being used by students to engage with the various parts of the University ecosystem. Consequently, in the first release of the new platform, an integrated, single calendar feature was incorporated, with all other calendars in the DSJ platform. The first version of the new student platform created under the DSJ was released in June 2019. Launched as a beta release to coincide with a smaller Winter Term teaching period, the early feedback on the platform has been very positive. The approach of the project is to regularly release new functionality through the platform for the remainder of 2019 and into 2020 and beyond. The current student portal will be decommissioned in early 2020, allowing existing students the time to migrate to the new approach. Since the October 2019 release to the platform, 62% of users who gave site feedback rated it five out of five stars with a combined total of 75% giving 4 or 5 stars (from over 700 individual users). An important element of the project is the ongoing capability that it is bringing to the University. While the formative stages of the development are couched in a 3-year project, it is clear that the new platform will continue to develop and evolve

252

N. F. Dale et al.

over time, as new systems, technologies, and opportunities arise. Another important element is the role that students are playing as partners in the creation and development of this new capability. The University has taken to actively engaging with students throughout the development of the project, taking the approach that students are best placed to know what they need and want in a digital system designed to help their experience at university. This has included students in relevant disciplines actively participating in the design and development of the technology, a large, social media-based reference group, providing timely feedback and advice through the development stages, and units in related disciplines using the DSJ as assignment topics and discussions.

“Bespoke Experiences” to Engage and Retain Students The DSJ is a tool that can be used for a wide range of purposes, including to effectively interact with, inform and engage large numbers of students. With capacity to identify key priority cohorts, an increasingly seamless, supported, and successful transition of newly commencing students is now possible. In addition, communication with continuing students is easily maintained and progression through their educational journey appropriately monitored. There is an importance in having this conceptual framework as a starting point to understanding student interactions with support services. The DSJ, or similar, can help institutions to organize interventions across different stages of the study lifecycle (Brown et al. 2013). Customer orientation is characterized by continuous monitoring of customer needs and enhancement of customer value (Setia et al. 2013). The DSJ is tailored to the needs of a student user, by dynamically composing related information, identifying, integrating, and coordinating individual components (Chun et al. 2002). The new DSJ project aims to combat common limitations of traditional university communication methods to inform and engage with prospective and current students throughout all phases of the student lifecycle. The DSJ’s flexible design provides early, sustained intervention through “just-in-time” resources, support, and opportunities for learning and engagement within an interactive integrated learning environment. Traditional administrative and academic communication difficulties were circumvented within the new model by carefully designing the content to nurture and connect with all students which can be personalized to the individual user and is of particular importance for those from equity groups. Improved targeting of prospective and current students from traditionally underrepresented backgrounds will help to ensure that students, regardless of their location, background, or circumstances are made aware of financial assistance, and other vital support services on offer. Indeed, the DSJ will enable the University of Canberra to address the multitude of factors contributing to student attrition by facilitating more frequent and positive interactions with faculty, staff, and the institution (Department of Education and Training 2017).

13

A Digital Student Journey: Supporting Students in an Age of Super. . .

253

A wide body of research (Krause and Armitage 2014; Jones 2008; Tinto 2017; Norton et al. 2018) has found that the reasons for student attrition are complex and that decisions to withdraw are often due to a combination of personal and social pressures as well as academic difficulties and poor subject choices. Often students such as first in family (or first-generation) have an undeveloped understanding of career paths which can add to unmet expectations and increased pressures. Students from an equity background may face a number of barriers including belonging to more than one equity group. The learner, their various forms of capital, and their personal wellbeing all underpin educational disadvantage (Zacharias and Brett 2019). Rather than educational institutions making assumptions about their students, genuine engagement with students as partners is necessary to learn about their unique needs, circumstances, and challenges (Zacharias and Brett 2019). University-wide strategies, such as the DSJ enable access to larger, more comprehensive data sets to provide targeted identification, timely interventions, and more informed support provision to enhance student success. Findings from Zacharias and Brett (2019) emphasize that developing technology into an effective mechanism of education delivery to support young people from backgrounds traditionally under-represented in higher education requires considerable thought, time and effort. The implementation of the DSJ provides scope for greater engagement with the mature age population, caregivers, and other groups who are underserviced through the current, predominantly campus-based interventions. It is imperative that increasingly seamless embedded communication initiatives are created to complement the face-to-face mechanisms and link to key learning support services, resources, and outcomes. Online content reaches broader audiences, whereas traditional campus-based outdated models are excluding these groups (Bennett et al. 2015) and creating further disadvantage for students from diverse backgrounds. There is an obvious gap in the provision of information and support by university staff and the take up of these offerings by students, which can be bridged via the DSJ’s online content and delivery. Implementation of the DSJ can address the gap in preparedness for under-represented students. Timely academic, social, financial, and career information and guidance are essential to provide to students by means of a way that engages them and enables them to make use of the resources and opportunities to achieve optimal future outcomes. The innovative multi-modal DSJ platform has the potential to unlock learning opportunities, spark students’ curiosity, encourage them to connect with the content and engage with peers, academics, and professional staff. Students are ready to embrace the technologies that provide increased flexibility and access to resources, highlighting the critical importance of challenging the dominant communication models and adapting practices to best fit the needs of those we are attempting to engage. Moving forward, the DSJ has the potential to address calls to provide a more comprehensive personalization of interfaces to cultural background to appeal to student users in expanding markets (Reinecke and Bernstein 2013).

254

N. F. Dale et al.

Research has shown that cultural aspects, beyond nationality, shape a person’s preferences. In Web usage, this might include such things as: directing their eyes to the start location of their writing system orientation or the form of education to which they are accustomed to. For example, a predominance of teacher-centered instruction at school can have the effect that students are used to more detailed instructions (Reinecke and Bernstein 2013). The DSJ could enable UC to customize information based on a student’s stage of study or manner of entry into the university, or home writing system orientation for international students.

Conclusion and Future Directions The provision of student support services is pivotal to increasing the retention and success of students from equity backgrounds. These critical issues are addressed through the use of technology and digital resources through the DSJ project to promote innovation within current student support services. Effectively reaching the broad student population in the twenty-first century requires innovative thinking and the DSJ enables students from all ages, stages, and backgrounds to engage with the content on demand. Specific advice and support are provided to inform students of study options, financial assistance, and career pathways available through higher education. Information is scaffolded enabling students to successfully navigate the higher education structures, increasing confidence and self-advocacy. The DSJ provides a vital platform to enable students to experience a mobile and personalized access to support services. We do not advocate that the DSJ is the only medium of engagement with current or prospective students. Rather, regular and structured contact between the institution and the student is equally important in providing connection and direction along the student journey (Stone 2017). However, the authors believe that the DSJ is highly beneficial for students, especially students from disadvantaged or equity backgrounds who may be time poor, lack confidence to seek out assistance, or require greater flexibility. While the DSJ may take center stage as the star communications platform for UC, it must be part of a scaffolded and more holistic university-wide student engagement strategy. While limited to one institution, the DSJ project is revealing its potential to increase the university aspirations, access, achievement, participation, and success of students from diverse backgrounds. The results of this implementation will provide an evidence base for the suitability of increased online engagement with prospective and current students that might otherwise not have taken advantage of programs and resources communicated through the more traditional mediums.

Cross-References ▶ A View of the Contents of the Typical First-Year Virtual Uni Bag: Helping Staff and Students Develop a Pedagogy for Successful Transition

13

A Digital Student Journey: Supporting Students in an Age of Super. . .

255

▶ Learner Support Services in an Online Learning Environment ▶ Pacific Student Engagement, Experience, and Learning in Tertiary Education: Factors That Impact Success

References Barraket, J., and G. Scott. 2001. Virtual equality? Equity and the use of information technology in higher education. Australian Academic & Research Libraries 32 (3): 204–212. Bennett, S., and K. Maton. 2010. Beyond the ‘digital natives’ debate: Towards a more nuanced understanding of students’ technology experiences. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 26: 321–331. Bennett, A., R. Naylor, K. Mellor, M. Brett, J. Gore, A. Harvey, B. Munn, R. James, M. Smith, and G. Whitty. 2015. The critical interventions framework part 2: Equity initiatives in Australian higher education: A review of evidence of impact. University of Newcastle. Boninger, F., A. Molnar, and C.M. Saldaña. 2019. Personalised learning and the digital privatisation of curriculum and teaching. National Education Policy Center, University of Colorado Boulder, USA. Available from: https://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/personalizedlearning Bradley, D., P. Noonan, H. Nugent, and B. Scales. 2008. Review of Australian higher education: Final report. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from https://www.voced.edu.au/ content/ngv%3A32134. Britto, M., and S. Rush. 2013. Developing and implementing comprehensive student support services for online students. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 17 (1): 29–42. Brown, M., M. Keppell, H. Hughes, N. Hard, and L. Smith. 2013. Exploring the disconnections: Student interaction with support services upon commencement of distance education. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education 4 (2): 63–74. Cassidy, E.D., J. Britsch, G. Griffin, T. Manolovitz, L. Shen, and L. Turney. 2011. Higher education and emerging technologies: Student usage, preferences, and lessons for library services. Reference & User Services Quarterly 50 (4): 380–391. Chaney, B., L.D. Muraskin, M.W. Cahalan, and D. Goodwin. 1998. Helping the progress of disadvantaged students in higher education: The Federal Student Support Services Program. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 20 (3): 197–215. Chickering, A. W., and L. Reisser, L. 1993. Education and identity. 2nd ed. San Francisco: JosseyBass. Chun, S.A., V. Atluri, and N.R. Adam. 2002. Dynamic composition of workflows for customized eGovernment service delivery. In Proceedings of the 2002 annual national conference on Digital Government Research, Digital Government Society of North America, 1–7. Department of Education and Training. 2017. Final report – Improving retention, completion and success in higher education. Higher Education Standards Panel, Australian Government. Devlin, M., and J. McKay. 2016. Teaching students using technology: Facilitating success for students from low socioeconomic status backgrounds in Australian universities. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 32 (1): 92. Devlin, M., and J. McKay. 2019. A ‘critical factor’: Facilitating the success of students from low socioeconomic status backgrounds at Australian regional universities through technology. In Strategies for facilitating inclusive campuses in higher education: International perspectives on equity and inclusion, innovations in higher education, ed. J. Hoffman, P. Blessinger, and M. Makhana, 131–144. Emerald Publishing. Dominguez, N., and Hager, M. 2013. Mentoring frameworks: Synthesis and critique. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education 2 (3): 171–188. Eagle, L., and R. Brennan. 2007. Are students customers? TQM and marketing perspectives. Quality Assurance in Education 15 (1): 44–60.

256

N. F. Dale et al.

Haugen, E. 1999. Successful student-centered services. Retrieved from http://www. kaludisconsulting.com/intelligence/sudent_centered.html Jones, R. 2008. Student retention and success: a synthesis of research. York: HEA. Krause, K.L., and L. Armitage. 2014. Australian student engagement, belonging, retention and success: A synthesis of the literature. The Higher Education Academy, UK. LaPadula, M. 2003. A comprehensive look at online student support services for distance learners. The American Journal of Distance Education 17 (2): 119–128. Loh, J., and N.F. Dale. 2019. Equity group students at the University of Canberra: A gap analysis report on support service provisions. Internal report for the Widening Participation team at University of Canberra. NASPA- Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education. 2012. Considering a career in student affairs? Retrieved from http://www.naspa.org/career/default.cfm Norton, A., I. Cherastidtham, and W. Mackey. 2018. Dropping out: The benefits and costs of trying university. Grattan Institute. Reinecke, K., and A. Bernstein. 2013. Knowing what a user likes: A design science approach to interfaces that automatically adapt to culture. MIS Quarterly 37 (2): 427–453. Saleebey, D. 2013. Strengths perspective in social work practice. 6th ed. University of Kansas. Scevak, J., E. Southgate, M. Rubin, S. Macqueen, Douglas, H., and P. Williams 2015. Equity groups and predictors of academic success in higher education. A 2014 student equity in higher education research grants project. Report submitted to the National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education, Perth: Curtin University. Scott, G. 2008. University student engagement and satisfaction with learning and teaching: Review of Australian higher education. Canberra: DEEWR. Setia, P., V. Venkatesh, and S. Joglekar. 2013. Leveraging digital technologies: How information quality leads to localized capabilities and customer service performance. MIS Quarterly – Special Issue: Digital Business Strategy 37 (2): 565–590. Stone, Cathy. 2017. Opportunity through online learning: Improving student access, participation and success in higher education. Perth: The National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education (NCSEHE). Curtin University. Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA). 2019. TEQSA’s risk assessment framework (Version 2.3). Australian Government, Australia. Available from: https://www. teqsa.gov.au/sites/default/files/teqsa-risk-assessment-framework-v2-3-4-horizontal-layout-web. pdf?v¼1564542617 The World University Rankings. 2018. Young University Rankings 2018. Retrieved from https:// www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2018/young-university-rankings#!/ page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats Tinto, V. 1993. Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. 2nd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Tinto, V. 2017. Through the eyes of students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice 19 (3): 254–269. University of Canberra’s Strategic Plan 2018–2022: Distinctive by Design – Current Student Retention Report and Recommendations December 2018. Canberra, ACT: University of Canberra. Wong, B.T., and K.C. Li. 2020. A review of learning analytics intervention in higher education. Journal of Computer Education 7: 7–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-019-00143-7. Zacharias, N. 2017. The Australian student Equity Programme and institutional change: Paradigm shift or business as usual? Retrieved from National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education website https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/wpcontent/uploads/2017/06/Nadine-Zacharias_ TheAustralian-Student-Equity-Program.pdf Zacharias, N., and M. Brett. 2019. The best chance for all student equity 2030- A long-term strategic vision for student equity in higher education. National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education.

Learner Support Services in an Online Learning Environment

14

Alperhan Babacan and Matthew Thurgood

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Learner Support: Definition and Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pillar 1: Faculty Interaction and Orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pillar 2: Online Technical Competence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pillar 3: Health and Well-Being Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pillar 4: Sense of Belonging and Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion and Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

258 260 262 264 265 266 268 269 269

Abstract

Recent decades have witnessed the global growth of online study. With this has come an increase in online learners, many of whom face barriers to successful study. As a result, retention of online students is generally poor and lower than that for on-campus students. Although universities have moved toward improving nonacademic learner support services including resources, strategies, and practices which provide social, emotional, and physical resources, assistance, and guidance beyond the curriculum, these are often based on the on-campus experience and lack tailoring to the needs of online students. As online cohorts grow, this becomes increasingly unsuitable.

A. Babacan (*) Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Victoria and High Court of Australia, Melbourne, VIC, Australia e-mail: [email protected] M. Thurgood Discipline of Criminology and Justice, Australian College of Applied Psychology, Melbourne, VIC, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 H. Huijser et al. (eds.), Student Support Services, University Development and Administration, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5852-5_2

257

258

A. Babacan and M. Thurgood

The availability and quality of nonacademic learner support services for online students plays a critical role in assisting their transition to the university, enhancing a sense of community and thereby addressing isolation, increasing retention, and contributing to academic success. There is an institutional responsibility to create adequate support services for online students through each stage of their learning experience. We advance that these services can be effectively provided via online platforms that address four key pillars to ensure that students are effectively engaged and supported. The pillars include the provision of: (i) faculty interaction and orientation, (ii) assistance with using technology, (iii) health- and well-being-related support, and (iv) support that enhances a sense of community and belonging. Incorporating these four pillars, this chapter considers the importance of providing tailored learner support services to online students. A comprehensive international literature search is undertaken to discuss the theoretical and pedagogic significance of each of these pillars as a foundation to building learner support services for online learners. Drawing on examples of best practice and pedagogical theories, this chapter provides a meta-analysis of best practices for the four pillars of learner support services for online students and suggests how each pillar can be effectively implemented by higher education providers. Keywords

Online students · Student learning support · Retention

Introduction Advances in technology over the last two decades have provided greater opportunities for connection domestically and internationally. Online education is a successful example. Global agendas to widen access to higher education, coupled with developments in technology, have enabled higher education institutions to recruit students from nontraditional backgrounds who were previously underrepresented in the higher education sector (Allen and Seaman 2007; Allen et al. 2016; Devlin and McKay 2016). These include students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, firstin-family, individuals who did not complete or do well in secondary school, students in remote and distant areas, those with disabilities, and mature age students. The engagement of higher numbers of students and nontraditional students by universities is driven by a social justice and access perspective as well as economic imperatives. Many of these students have taken up study via the online medium (Allen and Seaman 2007; Allen et al. 2016; Universities Australia 2013). Distance study has become attractive as it enables students to overcome the barriers associated with on-campus study, such as geographic remoteness, availability of courses, and work, family, and personal commitments (Nelson 2008). Online modes of study provide students who are impacted by these key barriers with the “equivalent” education to that provided on campus (Bailey et al. 2017; LaPadula 2003).

14

Learner Support Services in an Online Learning Environment

259

In Australia, the number of commencing online students in higher education increased by 55% between 2009 and 2015 (Australian Government 2010, 2015), overtaking all increases in on-campus students by 2015 (Australian Government 2015). In the United States, online enrolments increased from 1.6 million in 2002 (Allen and Seaman 2007) to more than 5.8 million in 2014, a growth rate of 264% (Allen et al. 2016). Increases are also reported in Asia (Allen et al. 2016). The widening of higher education has been accompanied by user pays principles so that students are now predominantly viewed as customers by universities (Khawaja and Dempsey 2008). In recent years, the total student experience has become an important consideration among higher education providers (Universities Australia 2014). As a result of the shift in how students are viewed, universities now recognize that students who are well engaged and supported are likely to attain better academic outcomes, have a positive student experience, and are more likely to complete their studies (Universities Australia 2014). This reconceptualization of students has meant that institutional support in the form of learner support services has also begun to gain significance. Although the higher education sector now focuses on the broad concept of student experience, online education continues to be framed mainly in terms of academic outcomes. As such, the focus centers on appropriate curriculum, student engagement with the curriculum, the use of particular academic and online tools and strategies, and the adoption of best pedagogic practice (e.g., Brindley 2000; Hyllegard et al. 2008; Scheer and Lockee 2003). Studies examining the provision of learner support services to online students have been limited when compared to research concerning the curriculum and online pedagogies (Bailey et al. 2017; Borup et al. 2020; Brindley 2000; Brindley et al. 2004; Britto and Rush 2013; LaPadula 2003; Ludwig-Hardman and Dunlap 2003; Potter 1997, 1998; Roddy et al. 2017; Simpson 2002, 2013; Stewart et al. 2013). As a result of the emphasis on academic matters, broader aspects of learner support services for online learners have been overlooked or underdeveloped with much of the nonacademic learner support services provided to online learners heavily reliant on campus-based facilities (LaPadula 2003; Scheer and Lockee 2003; Devlin and McKay 2016). An empirical analysis of the websites of major universities in Australia and the United States by the authors in April 2019 reveals that the provision of specifically tailored learner support services to online students is absent from most universities. Provision of information and services to online students is predominantly academically focused. There is some reference to learning management systems, details of assessment, access to library resources, purchase of textbooks, and access to on-campus learner support services. Orientation days are held on campus with no provision of equivalent online programs. Learner support services are generally not offered via the online medium to cater for the needs of a cohort who do not come to campus. Given their choice of study mode, online students may not have access to on-campus learner support services (Devlin and McKay 2016). As a result, the unavailability of a service can lead to barriers in learning and contribute to attrition (LaPadula 2003). Restricted access of online students to learner support services

260

A. Babacan and M. Thurgood

may adversely impact on online experiences and outcomes in areas relating to achievement, satisfaction, and attrition, when compared to their on-campus peers (LaPadula 2003; Lee et al. 2013). Given the popularity and growth of online education and the focus by universities on the totality of the student experience, wider aspects of the online student experience and the provision of specific learner support services cannot be overlooked in an era where larger numbers of students are enrolling online. We advance that developments in technology enable higher education institutions to provide learner support services that cater for the specific needs of online learners. This gains significance when provision of such services has the potential to improve retention and the satisfaction of online leaners. This chapter discusses the importance of providing nonacademic learner support services that are tailored to the needs of online students and provides a framework upon which such services can be built. After discussion of definitions and the pedagogic rationale and benefits of learner support services, the chapter will provide a framework to develop learner support services based on Roddy et al.’s four key pillars. These encompass interaction and orientation, technological assistance, health- and well-being-related support, and support that enhances a sense of community and belonging. Examples of best practice for each pillar will also be provided.

Learner Support: Definition and Rationale The distance education literature reveals that the terms “student support” and “learner support” are utilized interchangeably to describe various strategies, administrative processes, and activities directed at supporting the process of learning (Simpson 2002). Tait (2000) suggests three key functions served by such support services in distance education programs. These comprise encouraging cognitive development, enhancing self-esteem and confidence, and contributing to students meeting required standards to avoid falling behind (Tait 2000). Similarly, Simpson (2002) proposes that learner support systems encapsulate activities that fall outside the preparation and delivery of course-related materials. These support activities, which could be academic or nonacademic, assist students in the progress of their studies. Academic support, such as printed unit materials, tutoring services, and effective and timely feedback, provides students with cognitive and metacognitive tools to improve their studies and performance (Simpson 2002). Nonacademic support concerns the provision of services to assist students with administrative, organizational, and personal needs, including those related to enrolment, fees, orientation, counseling, and technical support (Simpson 2002). The provision of nonacademic learner support is especially important for online learners, considering their nonpresence on campus and the subsequent difficulties integrating them into the university or learner community (Tinto 1997; Brindley 2000). The widening of the higher education system across the globe has provided educational access to students from nontraditional backgrounds who are not well

14

Learner Support Services in an Online Learning Environment

261

prepared for tertiary study and may lack familiarity with higher education institutions and practices (Devlin and McKay 2016). The educational outcomes of nontraditional students are impacted by various factors including their background, and financial, personal, and institutional factors (Mills 2003). For example, first-in-family students who attend university are unable to rely on parental advice regarding academic demands, and this adversely impacts upon their ability to transition and adjust to higher education. Bourdieu and Passeron (1977) maintain that students from culturally endowed backgrounds are better equipped to adjust to higher education as a result of social and cultural capital that has been built up over time. Hence, these students can interpret and adjust to the expectations and structures of an academic environment when compared to their peers from nontraditional and lower socioeconomic backgrounds (Bourdieu and Passeron 1977). In turn, these latter types of students tend to be less motivated for online study and are therefore more likely to require individual support to cope during their educational journey (Mills 2003; Sewart 1993). Given the diversity of contemporary student cohorts, appropriate learner support services must be provided to cater for the needs of students from nontraditional backgrounds. Numerous studies have documented the poor performance outcomes of online students when compared to their on-campus peers (Allen and Seaman 2014). This includes lower rates of course completion for, and retention of, online students (Borup et al. 2020; Kramer and Bohrs 2016; Simpson 2013; Hyllegard et al. 2008). For example, between 2006 and 2014, the Australian Government reported 30% lower completion rates for online students (46.3% for online vs. 76.3% for on campus) and more than double the rate of attrition (46.4% vs. 19.9%) (Australian Government 2017). Further, Australia’s Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) (2017) reports that “external” enrolment, or study that is not faceto-face, is a key contributor to attrition, particularly for commencing students. Potter (1997, 1998) places the barriers encountered by distance learners into three main areas: personal, pedagogic, and institutional. Personal factors include the learner’s self-esteem, motivation, prior educational experience, and work and family commitments. Pedagogic factors relate to teaching- and learning-related matters that include the student’s orientation and interest in learning, course structure, and availability of learning resources, interaction, feedback, and academic assistance. Institutional factors include the availability, quality, and timeliness of information and services provided by the institution, including those relating to enrolment, orientation, and counseling services. Potter (1997, 1998) advanced that an issue or deficiency with any one or more of these factors can exacerbate the barriers encountered by a distance education student. Multiple factors impact on online student attrition (Tinto and Pusser 2006). Online students may withdraw for a variety of interrelated reasons including difficulties with technology, personal problems, and external pressures (Packham et al. 2004). Additionally, online education has been identified as an isolating experience (Bailey et al. 2017; LaPadula 2003), and insufficient contact in the online medium may lead to frustration and inability to continue studying. Interaction and sense of community are critical in positively impacting on student satisfaction and social integration, both of which can enhance student retention (Kuo et al. 2013).

262

A. Babacan and M. Thurgood

Student retention and attrition rates are significant from multiple perspectives: Nontraditional students who are encouraged to attend university need to be provided with the adequate supports they need to successfully complete their studies. Attrition is also important to higher education institutions as attrition impacts on institutions financially, as well as from an overall university rankings perspective. Numerous qualitative studies demonstrate a significant correlation between the provision of appropriate learner support services and academic achievement in distance education (Lapadula 2003; Simpson 2002; Devlin and McKay 2016). Effective and targeted learner support services can positively impact on the motivation to study and the online experience (Bailey et al. 2017; LaPadula 2003). As a result, rates of student retention can be improved (Simpson 2002; Wibrowski et al. 2016). The provision of effective nonacademic learner support services for online students can be achieved by educational providers, ensuring that learner support services are built upon a framework that encapsulates four interrelated elements, or pillars, as advanced by Roddy et al. (2017): (i) faculty interaction and orientation from the outset, (ii) assistance with using technology, (iii) health- and well-beingrelated support, and (iv) support that enhances a sense of community and belonging (Roddy et al. 2017). These pillars provide a framework for the effective provision of support so that online students are encouraged and assisted to succeed from the time of their orientation to the conclusion of their studies (Roddy et al. 2017). A discussion of each of these pillars follows. Practical suggestions are incorporated with examples of best practice so that each pillar can be effectively translated into online platforms.

Pillar 1: Faculty Interaction and Orientation It is widely recognized that the first-year experience is critical for student retention as it involves a transition and adaptation to the higher education environment and study (Cannady 2015; Cho 2012; Roddy et al. 2017). As such, on-campus students in many tertiary institutions are offered comprehensive orientation services to aid this transition and improve chances of retention beyond the first-year of study and, subsequently, course completion (Roddy et al. 2017). However, as Britto and Rush (2013) report, student support services and orientation programs are often not communicated to online cohorts, leading to frustration and course withdrawal. In fact, many higher education institutions offering online courses do not compel their online students to attend the orientation programs offered. Exacerbating this, Cannady’s study (2015) reveals that only one-third of higher education institutions offer online orientation programs. While some institutions encourage online students to attend their on-campus orientation program, it is unrealistic to expect online students to attend a face-to-face orientation program, as the reasons students enroll in the online mode of study include geographical isolation from the campus or commitments that preclude on-campus attendance, such as those relating to employment or family.

14

Learner Support Services in an Online Learning Environment

263

As Williford, Chapman, and Kahrig (2001) demonstrate, the provision of effective orientation programs can lead to improved student retention and academic performance. The offering of tailored online orientation programs to online students provides numerous opportunities to aid the transition and boost the confidence of this cohort from the outset (Britto and Rush 2013). A thorough online orientation program needs to cover a number of areas to prepare online students for higher education and provide a foundation for engagement and success. For example, orientation sessions can familiarize online students with the technology used to deliver the course and thereby prepare them for online study, connect them to their peers and instructors and thereby provide a sense of belonging, as well as inform them about and how to access learner support services (Britto and Rush 2013). Furthermore, as Tomei et al. (2009) contend, a successful online orientation program needs to include adequate coverage of the course and its structure and coverage of the software and online platforms utilized, provide interaction between students and staff, and provide information and knowledge of how to access library resources. The provision of this information is critical to reducing attrition and enhancing the student’s sense of belonging (Tomei et al. 2009). Lone Star College and the University of Houston in the United States provide examples of good practice with respect to the provision of online orientation. Both institutions offer online orientation programs for online cohorts that introduce students to the faculty and allow interaction between staff and peers. The programs cover general information that all online students need to know about the institution, the services available, and the online study environment. Specifically, the programs cover degree options, student support services, financial aid, and information on how to access and use the student portal and learning management system. Following the online orientation program, Lone Star College directs students to the institution’s orientation web page where they sign up for one-on-one advice and an appointment with an online adviser (Britto and Rush 2013; Stewart et al. 2013). Students at Houston University reported to derive much value from these online services in terms of assisting them to use campus attributes and services (Stewart et al. 2013). Western Governors University (WGU), an online institution in the United States, provides a case adviser to new students during their first semester of study. There are multiple follow-up sessions throughout the semester on critical areas such as academic planning, online resources, career counseling, preparation for the next semester, as well as degree planning for coming semesters (Ludwig-Hardman and Dunlap 2003). This reflects the need for orientation programs to extend beyond their traditionally academic focus. Considering the importance of the first-year experience to student retention, the need for higher education providers to consider the needs of online learners is paramount. This begins with tailored online orientation programs that provide opportunities for commencing online students to meet members of faculty and fellow students. Programs also need to help students become familiar with the online tools and systems they will use throughout the course of study, including library services, as well as provide information relating to the support services offered by the institution and how to access these off campus. In essence, if higher education

264

A. Babacan and M. Thurgood

providers are to begin to improve retention rates of online students, the orientation programs and services delivered to on-campus students must be delivered online, and they must be tailored to the needs of students studying via this mode.

Pillar 2: Online Technical Competence Technology plays a central role in facilitating online study, highlighting the importance of providing students with technological support from the outset (Roddy et al. 2017). A student with low technical capability or literacy will face obstacles to their learning, particularly if they are unfamiliar with learning in the online environment, or the online environment itself. As Bailey et al. (2017) suggest, learners who are unable to navigate digital learning platforms will find it difficult to progress in their studies, leading to disengagement and likely discontinuation. Higher education institutions offering online courses need to ensure that technical competence and scaffolding are achieved by students if they are to successfully study in the online medium (Roddy et al. 2017). Prior to commencing a course, online students need to be provided with access and orientation to the online tools and learning management systems they are going to use during their studies. Therefore, an online orientation program needs to provide basic technical skills required to conduct study and research. This can be achieved through an interactive online orientation program that introduces students to the types of assignments required, and provides them with opportunities to develop some technical and computer-related skills necessary with the same learning management systems and tools that are being used by the institution. This practice would provide students with the necessary knowledge and experience required to succeed in the online learning environment (Britto and Rush 2013). This underscores the importance of institutions offering a thorough online orientation program through which online students are given the opportunity to gain familiarity with the online tools and systems they are expected to utilize throughout their studies. Additionally, online students need to be provided with ongoing technical support during their studies should they experience difficulties with the institution’s tools or systems, or their own devices. Lone Star College provides a good example of a higher education institution that provides both technology-focused orientation and ongoing assistance to new online students (Britto and Rush 2013). Given work and family commitments, online students are likely to experience problems outside of normal business hours. It is therefore critical to offer live technical support out of hours to ensure sufficient support is available to online students (Britto and Rush 2013). At Lone Star College, online students have access to technical support 24 h per day, 7 days per week, via e-mail, synchronous chat with a technician or toll-free number. Where the technical matter cannot be resolved, the matter is escalated to a higher-level technologist with advanced knowledge (Britto and Rush 2013). While it can be easy to assume that, in light of their choice of mode of study, online students commence with a sufficient level of technical capability, it is important that institutions provide orientation programs through which online

14

Learner Support Services in an Online Learning Environment

265

learners can become familiar with the tools and learning management system used to deliver a course. Subsequent assistance is also required through provision of technical support, through methods and at times accessible by online students.

Pillar 3: Health and Well-Being Support Adult learners can experience issues that are educational, personal, and health- or career-related that need to be addressed if they are to effectively engage in their course of study (Roddy et al. 2017). For example, in recent times, the widening of participation in higher education has resulted in an increased number of students experiencing mental ill-health (Hjeltnes et al. 2015). Counseling services are therefore important to assist students to cope with problems they may face. However, for many years, higher education institutions have offered counseling services to online students through on-campus counseling services (LaPadula 2003). Again, considering the reasons students undertake study online, these students have limited access to these services (Bailey et al. 2017; LaPadula 2003). Counseling services provided by higher education institutions need to incorporate technology so counseling services can be provided to online cohorts, or even so that services are available at times when on-campus facilities are closed (Roddy et al. 2017). Online counseling involves the use of internet communication channels by qualified mental health professionals to provide counseling services to a client (Rochlen et al. 2004). The application of online video-conferencing programs such as Skype and Zoom can be effectively used by higher education institutions to increase students’ accessibility to personal support and counseling services. Like technical support though, online counseling services need to be available to students after regular business hours, when they are more likely to have time away from other commitments. There are several examples of good practice where counseling support services are effectively provided to online students. At Western Governors University, personal student support services are provided to online learners who can contact counselors during the day or evening via a toll-free number (Ludwig-Hardman and Dunlap 2003). Appalachian State University, the University of Maryland Columbia University, and Ball State University all offer confidential, online mental health information services to which students can post questions on personal matters. Students are also provided with referrals to services in their local areas (LaPadula 2003). As a point of primary intervention, institutions can provide students with online access to self-help materials. For example, the University of Chicago and Pace University provide students with access to a virtual pamphlet collection that covers topics relating to mental health as well as other personal matters (LaPadula 2003). It is important that institutions recognize that the needs of online learners are diverse and extend beyond technological issues to personal concerns, such as matters relating to reasons for selecting online study, including family commitments or employment, disability, or even physical isolation from a campus. Institutions,

266

A. Babacan and M. Thurgood

therefore, must tailor counseling and personal support services to online students. While such services can be provided online relatively easily, it is important that they are offered at times accessible to online students, including after hours.

Pillar 4: Sense of Belonging and Community Pillar 4 concerns the provision of an environment and practices through which online students gain a sense of belonging and community (Roddy et al. 2017). Most descriptions of learner support services focus on access to the administrative processes and procedures. However, the cognitive function, including the need to belong, interact, and be a part of a community, is equally important as it enables online students to feel valued and comfortable (Roddy et al. 2017; Stacey 1999). This, in turn, can enhance engagement and reduce the likelihood that online students will withdraw from a course. While an online student may still experience frustrations, feeling part of a community may help alleviate such feelings. This is particularly the case when online students are given the opportunity to interact with faculty and peers from the outset of their studies, as they will feel more comfortable seeking assistance, thus providing a chance for a staff member or even fellow student to resolve the issue (Roddy et al. 2017). Online students from less traditional backgrounds may particularly face challenges adapting to higher education and developing skills and motivation to continue studying (Hyllegard et al. 2008). Many factors contribute to the attrition of online students, with a key factor being the absence of interaction and support (LudwigHardman and Dunlap 2003). To successfully study in the online medium, students need to feel supported and not isolated from their institution, peers, and instructors (LaPadula 2003; Stone and O’Shea 2019), and this carries equal weight to adequate instructional content (LaPadula 2003; Tinto 1975, 1997). This reflects the significance of the interplay between pillars 1 and 4 whereby opportunities to interact with faculty and peers, and to engage in an online orientation program, are central to establishing feelings of belonging and community. As Tinto (1997, 116) has stated, “other things being equal, the lower the degree of one’s social and intellectual integration into the academic and social communities of the college, the greater the likelihood of departure. Conversely, the greater one’s integration, the greater the likelihood of persistence.” Integrative activities are therefore key to not only establishing online students within an institution, but also retaining them, an aspect that has seemingly challenged many higher education providers given the generally low retention and completion rates for online cohorts. Additionally, research demonstrates that the quantity and quality of interactions offered to learners can result in increased levels of satisfaction with the course studied (Brindley 2000; Lee 2010), underlining the retentive benefit of integrating online students into what Jonassen et al. (1995) term a “learning community.” According to Jonassen et al. (1995), a “learning community” involves an interactive environment that facilitates learning. Technology can play an integral role in the formation and running of such communities whereby knowledge construction is

14

Learner Support Services in an Online Learning Environment

267

facilitated through collaboration, interaction with other learners, and reflection (Borup et al. 2020; Stone and O’Shea 2019). As such, and as Palloff and Pratt (1999, 21) have suggested, “community is no longer a place based concept,” though it may nonetheless be considered a “conscious community” with shared goals, communication styles, and behavioral norms. For the purposes of distance education, Palloff and Pratt (1999, 23) consider “geographically disconnected people becoming ‘connected’ in a community with several purposes but with a shared interest,” whereby all participants contribute to the exploration of subject matter so as to enable a better understanding of the topic at hand and the perspectives of other members (McDaniels et al. 2016). As McDaniels, Pfund, and Barnicle (2016) found, providing an effective online learning community was viewed positively by students who valued the opportunity to form connections with their peers and instructors, and the exposure to diverse ideas and approaches that followed. A successful learning community with interactive exchange thereby provides educational benefits relating to knowledge building, while also promoting retention (Conrad 2002; Stone and O’Shea 2019). From the viewpoint of online learning, connection to a learning community provides online students with a social context to feel supported and less isolated, thus strengthening a student’s motivation to study. The exercise of connecting and sharing between learners and between learners and instructors not only provides students with course content and skills but also guidance on matters relating to study skills, time management, access to resources, personal interests, and career aspirations. This in turn keeps the learner connected to not only the learning but also the institution and their peers through the creation of a positive climate based upon supportive and trusting relationships (Ludwig-Hardman and Dunlap 2003). Online communication tools, such as e-mail, digital drop-boxes, electronic bulletin boards, discussion forums, and virtual chat, can be effectively used to communicate regularly with students and enhance a sense of community (McGinley et al. 2012). Excelsior College provides an example of good practice in this area. Excelsior College in Albany, New York (formerly Regents College), offers its online students access to an Electronic Peer Network (EPN). The EPN is a website that enables online students to interact academically and socially as they progress through their degree programs. The EPN also enables students to interact with staff and to access additional resources. EPN members use the website to locate study partners, join online study groups, chat with other students and staff, and access resources related to their programs and careers (LaPadula 2003). Similarly, Washington State University (http://speakeasy.wsu.edu/) offers the “Speakeasy Program.” The Speakeasy Program allows students to chat with each other or work on assignments. The ability to connect students in this manner addresses student frustration and uncertainty (LaPadula 2003), thereby enhancing the prospect of student retention and success. Networking programs can be an invaluable aspect of online study environments. Such programs can provide students with the opportunity to connect with and seek support from their peers, mentors, and alumni. At Western Governors University, mentors invite commencing online students to join the community with communication based on set topics that are discussed through online forums and chats

268

A. Babacan and M. Thurgood

(Ludwig-Hardman and Dunlap 2003). Engaging online students in live chats or streamed video presentations is central to enhancing an online learning community and a student’s sense of belonging, as online synchronous activity engages off-campus students directly with the learning community, thereby enhancing their feelings that they are a part of the larger institutional and learning environment. In order to further increase communication channels with online students, Western Governors University’s online student support services team developed an online student newsletter in 2012. The newsletter, sent to students after they have registered and at the beginning of each semester, contains information relevant to online students with web links to support services and university events (Britto and Rush 2013). A periodic online newsletter of this nature is highly useful for providing online students with not only information, but also with feelings of belonging and community, thereby extending their opportunities to engage with support services and the wider university community (LaPadula 2003). Actively integrating online students into a learning community presents perhaps the most challenging pillar of Roddy et al.’s (2017) framework. If successful though, the feelings of belonging and community engendered among online students can increase their motivation and engagement, and in turn improve retention rates within this cohort. The additional benefit of increased course satisfaction highlights the significant potential should online students be effectively integrated within a higher education institution’s community.

Conclusion and Future Directions The number of students taking up higher education via the online medium continues to grow. However, the support offered by most higher education providers in general has not been sufficiently adapted or tailored to suit the needs of online students, many of whom are likely to endure barriers to learning not experienced by their on-campus counterparts. This includes the technological competencies required to engage with online study and research. While institutions may provide online orientation programs or support, these have tended to focus on academic areas and services. Although positive for integrating students into the educational setting and building a learning community, the nonacademic support services offered by institutions have largely remained focused on campus, thereby neglecting online students. This chapter has therefore contended that higher education institutions must redesign the learner support services they provide to specifically meet the needs of the growing numbers of online students. This is essential in light of previous research that has demonstrated that properly and successfully supported online students tend to perform better and are more likely to finish their degrees. Application of the four pillars framework provides avenues through which these outcomes can be maximized for online students, including by holding orientation programs online and tailoring content to online learner needs, providing online, after-hours access to technical, counseling, and personal support services, and integrating online students in a learning community through which they can develop feelings of belonging. Provision of these

14

Learner Support Services in an Online Learning Environment

269

programs and services can enhance engagement and retention of online students, as well as increase the level of course satisfaction they experience. These outcomes underline the importance of institutions effectively supporting online students throughout their studies by providing access to a holistic suite of services tailored to their needs, which extend beyond an academic focus. In addition, research addressing the link between the provision of online nonacademic support services and student completion rates would be beneficial. Data relating to this link is currently absent from the global literature, a gap which future research could bridge.

Cross-References ▶ A Digital Student Journey: Supporting Students in an Age of Super Complexity ▶ A View of the Contents of the Typical First-Year Virtual Uni Bag: Helping Staff and Students Develop a Pedagogy for Successful Transition ▶ How to Increase Retention and Graduation Rates ▶ Supporting Underrepresented Information Technology Students Through High Impact Practices ▶ Whole-of-Institution Transformation for First Year Learning and Success

References Allen, I.E., and J. Seaman. 2007. Online nation: Five years of growth in online learning. Sloan Consortium. http://www.sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/online_nation. Accessed 30 May 2019. Allen, I.E., and J. Seaman. 2014. Grade change: Tracking online education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group. http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/gradechange.pdf. Accessed 30 May 2019. Allen, I.E., J. Seaman, R. Poulin, and T. Taylor Straut. 2016. Online report card: Tracking online education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group. http://www.onlinelear ningsurvey.com/reports/onlinereportcard.pdf. Accessed 30 May 2019. Australian Government. 2010. Selected higher education statistics – 2010 student data. http:// education.gov.au/selected-higher-educationstatistics-2010-student-data. Accessed 30 May 2019. Australian Government. 2015. Selected higher education statistics – 2015 student data. http:// education.gov.au/selected-higher-education-statistics-2015-student-data. Accessed 30 May 2019. Australian Government. 2017. Completion rates of higher education students – cohort analysis, 2005–2014. https://docs.education.gov.au/documents/completion-rates-higher-education students-cohort-analysis-2005-2014. Accessed 30 May 2019. Bailey, M., M. Gosper, D. Ifenthanler, C. Ware, and M. Kretzchema. 2017. On campus, distance or online? Influences on student decision making about study modes at university. Australasian Journal of Educational Training 34 (5): 72–85. Borup, J., C.R. Graham, R.E. West, L. Archambault, and K.L. Spring. 2020. Academic communities of engagement: An expansive lens for examining support structures in blended and online learning. Educational Technology Research and Development. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423020-09744-x. Bourdieu, P., and J. Passeron. 1977. Reproduction in education, society and culture. London: Sage.

270

A. Babacan and M. Thurgood

Brindley, J.E. 2000. The effects of a social support intervention on distance learner behaviour. PhD dissertation, University of Ottawa. Brindley, J.E., C. Walti, and O. Zawacki-Richter. 2004. The current context of learner support in open, distance and online learning: An introduction. In Learner support in open, distance and online learning environments, ed. Jane E. Brindley, Christine Walti, and Olaf Zawacki-Richter, 9–28. Library and Information Systems of Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg. Britto, M., and S. Rush. 2013. Developing and implementing comprehensive student support services for online students. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 17 (1): 29–42. Cannady, R.E. 2015. Under the microscope: Looking at libraries and online orientations. Journal of Library Information Services and Distance Learning 9: 289–303. Cho, M.H. 2012. Online student orientation in higher education: A developmental study. Education Technology and Research Development 60: 1051–1069. Conrad, D. 2002. Deep in the hearts of learners: Insights into the nature of online community. Journal of Distance Education 17(1). http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/133/114. Accessed 30 May 2019. Devlin, M., and J. McKay. 2016. Teaching students using technology: Facilitating success for students from low socioeconomic status backgrounds in Australian universities. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 32 (1): 92–106. Hjeltnes, A., P.E. Binder, C. Moltu, and I. Dundas. 2015. Facing the fear of failure: An explorative qualitative study of client experiences in a mindfulness-based stress reduction program for university students with academic evaluation. International Journal of Qualitative Studies of Health and Wellbeing 10: 1–15. Hyllegard, D., H. Deng, and C. Hunter. 2008. Why do students leave online courses? Attrition in community college distance learning courses. International Journal of Instructional Media 35 (4): 429–434. Jonassen, D., M. Davidson, M. Collins, J. Campbell, and B. Bannan Haag. 1995. Constructivism and computer mediated communication in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education 9 (2): 7–26. Khawaja, N.G., and J. Dempsey. 2008. A comparison of international and domestic tertiary students in Australia. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling 18: 30–46. Kramer, A., and S. Bohrs. 2016. Experiences and future expectations towards online courses: An empirical study of the B2C- and B2B-segments. Journal of Education and Training Studies 4: 23–31. Kuo, Y., A. Walker, B. Belland, and K. Schroder. 2013. A predictive study of student satisfaction in online education programs. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 14: 16–39. LaPadula, M. 2003. A comprehensive look at online student support services for distance learners. American Journal of Distance Education 17 (2): 119–129. Lee, J.W. 2010. Online support service quality, online learning acceptance, and student satisfaction. Internet and Higher Education 13 (4): 277–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.08.002. Lee, Y., J. Choi, and T. Kim. 2013. Discriminating factors between completers of and dropouts from online learning courses. British Journal of Educational Technology 44 (2): 328–337. Ludwig-Hardman, S., and S. Dunlap. 2003. Learner support services for online students: Scaffolding for success. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 4: 1–13. McDaniels, M., C. Pfund, and K. Barnicle. 2016. Creating dynamic learning communities in synchronous online courses: One approach from the Centre for the Integration of Research, Teaching and Learning (CIRTL). Online Learning 20 (1): 110–129. McGinley, V., J. Osgood, and J. Kenney. 2012. Exploring graduate students’ perceptual differences of face-to-face and online learning. Quarterly Review of Distance Education 13 (3): 177–182. Mills, R. 2003. The centrality of learner support in open and distance learning. In Rethinking learner support in distance education: Change and continuity in an international context, ed. A. Tait and R. Mills. London: Routledge. Nelson, J.A. 2008. Advantages of online education. Home Health Care Management and Practice 20 (6): 501–502.

14

Learner Support Services in an Online Learning Environment

271

Packham, G., P. Jones, C. Miller, and B. Thomas. 2004. E-learning and retention: Key factors influencing student withdrawal. Education and Training 46 (6/7): 335–342. Palloff, R.M., and K. Pratt. 1999. Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Potter, J.D. 1997. Support services for distance learners in three Canadian dual-mode universities: A student perspective. PhD dissertation, University of Toronto. Potter, J. 1998. Beyond access: Student perspective on support service needs in distance education. The Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education 24: 59–82. Rochlen, A.B.., J.S. Zack, and C. Speyer. 2004. Online therapy: Review of relevant definitions, debates, and current empirical support. Journal of Clinical Psychology 60 (3): 269–283. Roddy, C., D.L. Amiet, J. Chung, C. Holt, L. Shaw, S. McKenzie, F. Garivaldis, J.M. Lodge, and M.E. Mundy. 2017. Applying best practice online learning, teaching, and support to intensive online environments: An integrative review. Frontiers in Education. https://doi.org/10.3389/ feduc.2017.00059. Scheer, S., and B. Lockee. 2003. Addressing the wellness needs of online distance learners. Open Learning 18 (2): 177–196. Sewart, D. 1993. Student support systems in distance education. Open Learning 8 (3): 3–12. Simpson, O. 2002. Supporting students in online, open and distance education. London: Kogan Page. Simpson, O. 2013. Student retention in distance education: Are we failing our students? Open Learning 28 (2): 105–119. Stacey, E. 1999. Collaborative learning in an online environment. Journal of Distance Education 14 (2): 14–33. Stewart, B.L., C.E. Goodson, S.L. Miertschin, M.L. Norwood, and S. Ezell. 2013. Online student support services: A case based on quality frameworks. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 9 (2): 290–303. Stone, C., and S. O’Shea. 2019. Older, online and first: Recommendations for retention and success. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 35 (1): 57–69. Tait, A. 2000. Planning student support for open and distance learning. Open Learning 15 (3): 287–299. Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency. 2017. Characteristics of Australian higher education providers and their relation to first-year student attrition. https://www.teqsa.gov.au/ for-providers/resources/characteristics-australian-higher-education-providers-and-their-rela tion. Accessed 21 Apr 2020. Tinto, V. 1975. Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research 45 (1): 89–125. Tinto, V. 1997. Classrooms as communities: Exploring the educational character of student persistence. Journal of Higher Education 68: 599–623. Tinto, V., and B. Pusser. 2006. Moving from theory to action: Building a model of institutional action for student success. Washington, DC: National Postsecondary Education Cooperative, Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/npec/pdf/Tinto_Pusser_Report.pdf. Accessed 30 May 2019. Tomei, L.A., H. Hagle, A. Rineer, L.A. Mastandrea, and J. Scollon. 2009. Do orientation materials help students successfully complete online courses? International Journal of Communication Technology and Education 5: 73–89. Universities Australia. 2013. An agenda for Australian higher education 2013–2016: A smarter Australia. http://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au. Accessed 30 May 2019. Universities Australia. 2014. The student experience. www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/uniparticipation-quality/students/The-Student-Experience. Accessed 30 May 2019. Wibrowski, C.R., W.K. Matthews, and A. Kitsantas. 2016. The role of a skills learning support program on first-generation college students’ self-regulation, motivation, and academic achievement. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice 19 (3): 317–332. Williford, M.A., L.C. Chapman, and T. Kahrig. 2001. The university experience course: A longitudinal study of student performance, retention, and graduation. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice 2: 327–340. https://doi.org/10.2190/K7K9-91EGE6F9-EVMK.

Neoliberalism and “Resistance” Analyzing the Philosophical Foundations of Student Support Services at Universities

15

Anibeth Desierto and Carmela De Maio

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Neoliberalism and Its Impact on Academics and Students in Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Neoliberalism and the Academic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Neoliberalism and the Student . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Resisting Neoliberalism in Higher Education: Alternative Philosophies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vygotskian Social Constructivist Philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transition Pedagogies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Self-Directed Learning (SDL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “A Pedagogy of the Heart” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Resisting Neoliberalism: The Role of Student Support Services in Engaging, Enabling, and Retaining Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Enabling Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Retention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion and Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

274 275 275 276 278 278 280 281 281 283 284 285 286 287 288

Abstract

Universities today are faced with top-down political and economic pressures, on the one hand, and the need to support students in their learning on the other. Neoliberalism, which conceptualizes students as consumers of higher education rather than learners in higher education, seems to be the current perspective adopted by university administrators. In contrast, academics involved in teaching and support services appear to adopt different philosophical frameworks which A. Desierto Curtin University, Perth, Australia e-mail: [email protected] C. De Maio (*) Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 H. Huijser et al. (eds.), Student Support Services, University Development and Administration, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5852-5_32

273

274

A. Desierto and C. De Maio

place their students at the core of teaching programs. These educators seem to be resisting neoliberalism through alternative pedagogies, such as those of Vygotsky’s social constructivism, transition pedagogies, and a “pedagogy of the heart” which seek to engage, retain, and support students in the higher education environment. Through a detailed examination of the available literature, the authors posit that despite what seems to be the economic-driven agenda of neoliberalist philosophy in universities today, student-centered learning and teaching practices found in student support services appear to be based on humanist philosophies. As studies in this field are limited, the authors call for further research into the effects of the neoliberalist philosophy on student support services to gain a more comprehensive picture of how these services will be affected in future. Keywords

Neoliberalism · Universities · Student support services · Alternative pedagogies · Vygotsky

Introduction Neoliberalism pervades all facets of modern society and intrudes into the functions of universities (Giroux 2014; Thornton 2013; Lorenz 2012; Shore 2008). Essentially, the notion of neoliberalism involves a for-profit mentality where the student is viewed as a consumer and the teacher and university as providers of services. This is in sharp contrast with the original purposes for which universities were set up, namely as places of learning and inquiry where participants have the freedoms and opportunities to express themselves and their diverse views. Neoliberalism’s effects on higher education have been disassembled and bemoaned by educators and social analysts (Giroux 2014; Lorenz 2012). In the neoliberalist world, education for the public good has been replaced by education sold as a private good in a commercial transaction between buyer (the student) and seller (the higher education institution) with the flawed notion that in this transaction, the teacher is also selling education to the student (Lorenz 2012). Hence, the erosion of the true nature of education as a critical and liberating process for changing the world for the better is the current reality all participants in higher education are faced with (Rustin 2016; Giroux 2014; Shore 2008). Teachers and students are part of the world of measurement and audit, what Shore (2008) has termed the “audit culture,” whereby university academics are constantly subject to “audits, performance indicators, competitive benchmarking exercises, university league tables, management by targets...punitive assessment exercises and periodic teaching reviews” (Shore 2008, 282) while being expected to teach, write courses, research, and undertake administrative functions. Simultaneously, there seems to be a focus among universities towards providing support to students through services, such as academic study support and

15

Neoliberalism and “Resistance”

275

counselling, to make them work ready graduates (Andrewartha and Harvey 2014). Whether this is a result of neoliberalism, or other forces such as a decrease in government funding and, for example, the deregulation of fees in Australia (Pitman 2016) still needs to be determined. Through a detailed review of literature, this chapter explores what seem to be competing educational philosophies which inform higher education student support services. Alternative philosophies, such as Vygotsky’s social constructivism, transition pedagogies, and a “pedagogy of the heart,” and how these underpin most student support services and teaching and learning practices, will be discussed. What this chapter will show is that despite the negative effects associated with neoliberalism in higher education, educators seem to resist neoliberalism through their alternative philosophies to make space for supporting, retaining, enabling, and engaging their students through various pedagogical approaches. It seems evident from the literature that educators perceive students as learners in education rather than primarily as consumers of it. The chapter concludes with a call for more research into the effects of neoliberalist philosophy on student support services to obtain a comprehensive picture of the implications for universities and the students they support.

Neoliberalism and Its Impact on Academics and Students in Higher Education This section will present the current situation, based on a review of literature, in which neoliberalism pervades universities throughout the world and how it negatively impacts on academics and on their students.

Neoliberalism and the Academic Neoliberalism in the higher education sector combines with managerialism to create not only an audit culture but a discourse which views academics as inferior, untrustworthy, noncompliant, and needing to be managed through “policies, regulations, guidelines and performance management metrics” (Sims 2019, 25). Instead of being an autonomous professional, the academic teacher is de-professionalized and becomes an “employee” of the university, subject to business managers and part of the “audit culture” which has heralded in the last 20 years, the new breed of audit experts – “bureaucrats, inspectors, commissioners, regulators” constantly measuring performance “excellence. . .[and] accountability” (Shore 2008, 289–290). This type of culture bases the quality of teaching on standards and could be viewed as “coercive” and “authoritarian” (Shore 2008). This is problematic as some researchers suggest that even applying the term “audit” to teaching and learning is questionable (Lorenz 2012), while others point out that one cannot measure, only judge, the quality of the provision of education by universities (Collini 2015). This same “audit culture” rules higher education in New Zealand, Australia, the UK, the

276

A. Desierto and C. De Maio

USA, and other countries subsumed under neoliberalism and its processes of “deregulation” and “privatization” (Shore 2008, 293). What this has meant is higher education institutions have become corporate entities to be bought and sold in an environment where poor-performing universities are closed down or taken over by large companies (Blakely 2017; Rustin 2016; Fitzsimmons 2015; Ball 2012; Morey 2004). Further, the corporatization of the university is never more evident than in statistics which now show that half of university employees are in managerial positions who then instruct the other half what to do and “how to do it” (Thornton 2013). The abandonment of the State’s role as provider of education as a public good (Rustin 2016; Fitzsimmons 2015; Giroux 2014) has also included crippling government funding cuts for higher education, especially in Australia (McGowan 2018; Universities Australia 2017; Morey 2004). This has reduced access to education for students in remote, rural, or regional areas or for poorer students who cannot be offered a place at university once funding for these places has been cut (Universities Australia 2017; Thornton 2013), while resources for staff, particularly for research, have also been reduced (Gardner 2018). Teachers and academics are likewise disadvantaged as universities have shifted to a largely casualised, generally more compliant workforce (Bone 2019; Rustin 2016; Shore 2008). In addition, funding cuts and the neoliberalist profit motive have also meant that academics are burdened with increasing workloads (Amsler and Shore 2017; Shore 2008; Rustin 2016), leading to stress and anxiety among academics (Evans et al. 2018; Thornton 2013). Thus, the academic is placed under extreme pressure under the neoliberalist university to deliver the same education services with fewer resources and this could have a negative impact on the students they support. The next section of this chapter will outline how neoliberalism specifically affects students studying in higher education institutions.

Neoliberalism and the Student There are some critical aspects in investigating the effects of neoliberalism on students in higher education. These are the increased inequity for access to education, the destructive internalization of the neoliberal agenda, higher levels of mental illness and anxiety, and the student operating as consumer instead of learner. Studies show that the neoliberal underpinnings of current society have led not to the claimed advantage of benefiting students but instead to decreased enrolments of underprivileged students (Dougherty and Natow 2019). With the corporatization of universities and increasing tuition fees, economically disadvantaged students find it difficult to access higher education, leading to further social inequality and reduced employment prospects (Edmond and Berry 2014; Croxford and Raffe 2013). Analysis of the neoliberalist practices of “standards,” “testing,” “rewards and punishment,” and “accountability” (Matusov 2008, 21) show that such standardization devalues diverse, non-white ways of learning and being (Matusov 2008), and

15

Neoliberalism and “Resistance”

277

prevents disadvantaged and impoverished students from accessing higher education (Giroux 2014; Matusov 2008; Lipman 2007). Yet, students seem to accept the neoliberal world. The internalization of neoliberalism and its damaging effects is nowhere more evident than in the unquestioning acceptance that neoliberalism is the norm and it is the way to be, namely, individualistic and profit-oriented, involving commercialization of all human transactions, facing unstable futures for employment and job transience (Amsler and Shore 2017; Shore 2008; Fitzsimmons 2015; Giroux 2014; Lorenz 2012). The unquestioning acceptance of a demoralizing, neoliberalist student life has been found among higher education students in Finland (Fitzsimmons 2015) where they are expected to graduate as soon as possible. This ensures that the university can get as much finance as possible since funds are based on diplomas completed, prompting the term “diploma factories” for these universities (Fitzsimmons 2015), similar to the US’s higher education “diploma mills” (Lorenz 2012). Thus, neoliberalism in higher education, “through its manipulation of education, contributes to the shaping of neoliberal citizens” (Sims 2019, 29). There is, however, some literature which shows student awareness of, and resistance to, the neoliberalist environment and its implications on society and social life. A UK survey revealed that students were anxious about privatization and cognizant of market mentality, practice, and the consequences of these for universities, and they were concerned with the university’s role to promote social good instead of profit and the muzzling of protest and dissent (Edmond and Berry 2014). The effects of neoliberalism may also impact on students’ mental health. The pressures on higher education students to achieve market employability quickly, and facing increasing student fees and living costs, has meant that many are now suffering psychologically. Emerging, albeit scant, data has shown that many students are not happy; they are stressed and anxious about their employment opportunities (Winerman 2017). In a study by Kunttu and Pesonen (2012), it was found that mental health illnesses since 2000 have now become more common among university students in Finland with 33% of those surveyed reporting substantial stress levels and difficulty in managing study and learning schedules while 20% had mood problems, and were anxious about their finances and their future. In a large-scale study of 2,279 graduate students in 243 higher education institutions of which 90% were PhD graduate students and 10% were students undertaking their Masters, high levels of anxiety and stress were found (Evans et al. 2018). A final critical aspect of neoliberalism is the overriding conceptualization of the student as a consumer buying education as a product, instead of the student being a learner on the way to transforming self and society for personal fulfillment and the public good. The former notion has meant the perversion and subversion of the true meaning of education (Lorenz 2012). Education is a continual, mutual process in which student and teacher play an active part; and the teacher stands for “professional authority”; it is not about buying a product or commodity nor is it an equal “economic transaction between a buyer and a seller” nor about the customer being “always right in the market” (Lorenz 2012, 621–622). To educate is to

278

A. Desierto and C. De Maio

empower, engage, motivate, support, and transform students to acquire a critical consciousness of themselves and of the world around them, to equip them with ways to fulfill their dreams and change the world for the better (MacDonald 2018; Hughes 2017; Fitzsimmons 2015; Giroux 2014). From this latter viewpoint, education is certainly not a pure economic transaction between buyer and seller and yet there are those students imbibing this consumerist approach to their studies and asking their teachers what service they can obtain for the monies they have paid to the institution (Giroux 2014). This successful neoliberalist perversion of the true meaning of education can also be understood in terms of the blind acceptance students have of neoliberalism, believing that there is “no alternative” (Fitzsimmons 2015, 215). A further critical point in this section is to ask how academics support their students in a neoliberalist institution. How does one assist with not only developing their academic literacies, enabling the disadvantaged to have access to education, assisting them to acquire social values of moral goodness and the power to critically question and engage with the wider environment so that they understand? How does one convince them that they are more than just human capital in a global labor force and are capable of transforming the world into a better place for all? The next section will present the literature which shows that educators seem to be resisting neoliberalist ways and thought through alternatives including Vygotskian philosophy, transition pedagogy, self-directed learning, and a pedagogy of the heart in a way which restores education to its transformative role in society. In addition, these alternative philosophies seek to restore the student as the learner in the educational process, rather than view them as a consumer who needs to be satisfied.

Resisting Neoliberalism in Higher Education: Alternative Philosophies Educators and social scientists are resisting neoliberalist quantification of themselves and their students as units for profit and the conception of learning and teaching as merely a calculated, measurable policy of exchange. They are resisting through alternative philosophies and non-neoliberal pedagogies, such as that of Vygotskian social constructivist practices and dialogue which conceptualize the student as a diverse and multifaceted being who requires support for their learning. This section outlines the various alternatives to neoliberalism such as Vygotskian social constructivist philosophy, transition pedagogy, and a “pedagogy of the heart” as forms of resistance to neoliberalist tendencies and the ideal ways to support students in higher education. It also examines a recently postulated pedagogy called Self-Directed Learning (SDL).

Vygotskian Social Constructivist Philosophy Against the neoliberalist practice of divesting students of their true self and identity (which is that of being learners, not consumers), social scientists and educators argue

15

Neoliberalism and “Resistance”

279

that students and learning must be understood as more than just units of currency for profit (Rustin 2016; Fitzsimmons 2015; Giroux 2014; Lorenz 2012; Shore 2008). Such understanding and the resulting pedagogy seem to be based on Vygotskian social constructivism. In examining the Vygotskian social constructivist framework for education, the student is not merely a buyer of education learning (Lorenz 2012) who is independent in his or her learning and is not just acquiring knowledge from a predetermined package as conceptualized, for example, in Self-Directed Learning (Servant-Miklos and Noordegraaf-Eelens 2019) which seems to reflect neoliberalist discourse. Rather, in Vygotskian social constructivism, the student and their social environment, groups and learning community within which they are based and with whom they interact are considered in a holistic way (Liu and Matthews 2005). The student’s mind forms part of the “social cultural group” and the environment around the student and the way the student learns is influenced by that environment which is, at the same time, being shaped by the student (Liu and Matthews 2005). Furthermore, the development of the student occurs in tandem with the social environment and one of the core Vygotskian concepts is that learning can enable the student to develop the knowledge and skills for understanding and investigating the sociological structures within which they find themselves and to challenge such structures if necessary. Thus, the external social world can be influenced over time by “collective participation and collaboration” (Liu and Matthews 2005; Vygotsky 1987, 1994). There are three essential components in the Vygotskian framework which are constantly in interaction during the learning process, “the environment, the student and the teacher” (Liu and Matthews 2005, 394). These components affect each other, and in turn can develop and alter both the individual student and their social environment (Liu and Matthews 2005). At universities, this holistic view of education in Vygotskian philosophy, where the focus is on the student, is evident in the concept of scaffolding the learning process where tasks are broken down in more manageable parts for the student (Verenikina 2008; Krause et al. 2003). This translates into supporting the student and their learning through the conception of the zone of proximal development (ZPD), a concept for which Vygotsky is better known (Verenikina 2008). Vygotsky’s postulation of the ZPD initially applied only to learning in childhood; however, subsequent Vygotskian educators and scholars have developed this concept to apply it to other contexts such as higher education institutions (Verenikina 2008; Chaiklin 2003). The teacher, in collaboration with the student, is critical for the student at their level of development (i.e. ZPD) so that they can then be supported to reach the next level of development goals of skills, literacy, and psychological and social capacity (Verenikina 2008). In addition to Vygotsky’s social constructivism, there are other alternatives to the neoliberalist concept of education. These alternative pedagogies include transition pedagogies, self-directed learning, and a “pedagogy of the heart.” These alternative philosophies seek to support and empower students through positive, collaborative interactions, and the development of critical thinking skills for self and social inquiry.

280

A. Desierto and C. De Maio

Transition Pedagogies Although neoliberalism may be posited as the only way for governments, political institutions, and the corporate world (Giroux 2014; Lorenz 2012; Shore 2008), the mindset of teachers in higher education appears to still be student-centered with teaching practices that reflect Vygotskian social constructivist underpinnings. This is also seen in the concept of transition pedagogies used for first-year university students (Kift et al. 2010). Hughes (2017) suggests that transition pedagogies are a means to resist neoliberalism in the classroom and create a space for true learning. These pedagogies, as outlined by Amsler (2014), are “emergence and becoming,” “encounter and discomfort,” and “sociality and community.” The first focuses on developing self-awareness of students where they comprehend how deep their learning is and acquire methods to improve their learning, the second transition pedagogy focuses on developing critical thinking which students acquire for conflict resolution when encountering different ideas and conflicting perspectives, and the third transition pedagogy focuses on students developing a sense of belonging and a sense of communal membership, both found to be vital for students to firmly continue with their studies and not to fail (Hughes 2017). The application of all three pedagogies could be powerful in transforming the education of university students, even under the constraints of neoliberal managerialism (Hughes 2017). To illustrate the transformative value of transition pedagogies, the literature shows that adult mature-age students, who make up the majority of students of first year and at-risk students in some universities (Erisman and Steele 2012), could benefit from these pedagogies. These students are also more likely to discontinue their degrees due to the competing demands of work, family, and studies, which leads to poor time management and inability to fulfill multiple responsibilities (Erisman and Steele 2012). Attrition rates among these learners are exceptionally high, with, for example, a 14% increase to 14 million students predicted by 2024 in the USA (MacDonald 2018). To avoid such large attrition rates, MacDonald (2018) also recommends transition pedagogy to specifically support these students to acquire literacy, writing, and mathematical skills, technological know-how and personal strategies for reducing stress, anxiety, fears, and the likelihood of giving up their studies (MacDonald 2018). This pedagogy includes developing self-awareness through reflective practice, collaborating with others, engaging in hands-on applications and providing feedback (MacDonald 2018). These contribute to increasing student motivation and provide a high level of support for those that need it the most (MacDonald 2018). In addition, Kift and her colleagues (2010) also confirm the benefits of transition pedagogies for first-year university students. In terms of social justice, they argue that transition pedagogy “delivers . . .coherent and careful alignment of institutional activities to ensure that all students, whatever their entering backgrounds, are provided with every opportunity to access equitably the transformative effects of higher education” (Kift et al. 2010, 13). From the economic perspective, they state that transition pedagogy is successful in identifying at risk students and intervening in a timely manner to offer them support through effective curriculum design that scaffolds

15

Neoliberalism and “Resistance”

281

learning to prevent them from dropping out of university, giving the institution “considerable economic benefit” (Kift et al. 2010, 13; Kift 2015). So, transition pedagogies in being student-centered and reflecting Vygotskian concepts help to provide support for students while constituting a form of resistance to neoliberalism.

Self-Directed Learning (SDL) Universities worldwide now tout Self-Directed Learning (SDL) as an important strategy that teachers and students must embrace (Servant-Miklos and Noordegraaf-Eelens 2019). SDL is based on Carl Rogers’ (2003) conception of self, meaning learners are always aware of what they want to learn, so teachers would merely facilitate the student’s course of self-discovery based on a relationship of openness and honesty in a classroom environment wherein students feel mentally safe (Servant-Miklos and Noordegraaf-Eelens 2019). SDL in higher education discourse arose at around the same time as neoliberal practice and discourse. It originated during the change from education as a public good provided by the State for the welfare of all citizens to the current reality of education as a commodity to be bought and sold on the open marketplace and provided by private profit-making companies (Collini 2015). SDL could benefit universities as graduate students would be made responsible for instructing other students (also known as peer learning), and these students could then become independent learners through, for example, using standardized online packages. Academic experts could then be moved to conducting research for the university, which could assist with acquiring funds by improving institutional ranking on a global scale and in turn increasing numbers of students enrolling in the highly ranked university (Servant-Miklos and Noordegraaf-Eelens 2019). At first glance, SDL appears to be supporting neoliberalism by creating efficiencies. However, ironically, it actually undercuts the neoliberal reality of serving students as customers (Lorenz 2012) as students would have to take responsibility for creating their own learning goals, search for their own learning materials, and manage their time for learning (Servant-Miklos and Noordegraaf-Eelens 2019). It is suggested, however, that instead of Rogers’ (2003) conception of the isolated self on which SDL is based, the conception of self needs to be understood from the Vygotskian framework of the self-operating in a social world, influenced by that world and vice-versa (Liu and Matthews 2005). Therefore, to be effective, learning undertaken by the student needs to be understood as firmly fixed in society and its processes and it cannot really be conceptualized as the solitary practice, stand-alone, isolated endeavor postulated by SDL proponents (Rogers 2003).

“A Pedagogy of the Heart” Fitzsimmons (2015) espouses a “pedagogy of the heart” to counter what seems to be the isolating and stressful experience of a neoliberal education. In this experience,

282

A. Desierto and C. De Maio

students may feel dislocated and marginalized, living with “a sense of hopelessness and nihilistic tendencies” (Fitzsimmons 2015, 218). In addition, teaching staff report high levels of stress and anxiety, being overworked, overburdened with being continually audited, struggling for time for family responsibilities and for many, without security of tenure nor of continuous employment (Rustin 2016; Thornton 2013; Lorenz 2012; Shore 2008). A “pedagogy of the heart” is a return to the humanist basis of education and reflects the sociological nature of teaching and learning as a means to challenge and improve society and human beings on a deeper level (Fitzsimmons 2015; Edmond and Berry 2014). This transformative pedagogy was originally espoused by Freire (1997), who viewed capitalism and neoliberalism as societal evils which sought to oppress students and their teachers. He viewed education as the tool to transform people from poverty and oppression to a more humanized world and teachers would be crucial to support students to achieve this transformation (Freire 1997). This pedagogy suggests that in their social, external environment, students have the ability to change their external world – a view similar to that espoused by Vygotsky (1987, 1994) who also viewed the student as operating within “the social external world. . .shaped historically by collective participation and collaboration” (Liu and Matthews 2005, 394). The theoretical framework of “pedagogy of the heart” is based on principles of “social justice, social equality, human rights and solidarity at the centre of dialogue and discourse within a critical higher learning curriculum” (Fitzsimmons 2015, 224). Students are taught and encouraged to become critical learners, examining and questioning the “social, political and economic structures” of their external environment, and engaging critically and socially with their own learning and the world (Fitzsimmons 2015, 223). In essence, instead of students learning to pass tests as is the dominant neoliberal mode of education, students learn to query knowledge, of themselves, of the wider society and develop a “critical consciousness” (Freire 1988) about themselves and society (Fitzsimmons 2015, 227). Thus, the human factor, and not the corporate factor, becomes the major focus of study for progress and analysis. In this way, students gain the power to understand what is really going on around them and the means to participate in the shaping of society, which may help to provide a sense of security as they realize they can effect positive change (Fitzsimmons 2015). In other words, engaging and developing critically returns to each student the power to move beyond the value of being merely a unit of currency in a neoliberal world to find value in a deeper existence where capital is but one aspect of life rather than it dominating all of life. To conclude, this section has outlined alternative philosophies and pedagogies which appear to resist neoliberalism in universities. These alternatives include Vygotskian philosophy, transition pedagogies, and a pedagogy of the heart which view students as learners in education rather than as consumers of education. The next section will focus on how these alternative philosophies and pedagogies seem to be evident in student support services provided by some universities to engage, enable, and retain students.

15

Neoliberalism and “Resistance”

283

Resisting Neoliberalism: The Role of Student Support Services in Engaging, Enabling, and Retaining Students A review of the research available on the philosophical frameworks behind student support services at higher education institutions should be discussed as few studies have examined the idea that services which support students in institutions of higher learning appear to adopt philosophies that contrast with neoliberalist practices in universities. In some of the literature on student support, the philosophies are clearly espoused and reference is made to Vygotskian notions of social constructivism; however, in other cases, the underlying frameworks are not that obvious. Despite this, these studies reinforce the notion that alternative pedagogies, whatever they may be, are necessary to resist neoliberalist tendencies in higher education to ensure that students are active participants in their learning rather than being passive consumers of educational products. Transformative pedagogies and educational philosophies that provide an alternative to neoliberalist hold on higher education have been discussed with some references to required student support and the lack thereof. In this section, a closer examination of actual student support services is undertaken and an attempt to uncover the philosophies underpinning such services is made. Some academics view students not as customers, but more likely as citizens in the university culture (Svensson and Wood 2007) who are engaged in a learning journey. As such, it is argued that academic and student learning support staff will adopt sociological and cultural perspectives that prioritize the student in the university and wider social contexts. Such perspectives suggest a Vygotskian approach to student learning with a focus on changing learner behaviors for developing critical consciousness and engagement, rather than focusing on the economic benefits students can bring to an institution (MacDonald 2018; Hughes 2017; Fitzsimmons 2015). To begin, student support services in this chapter is confined to those services which offer academic support to students to help them succeed in their studies and encourage their engagement with the institution itself. These include pathway or enabling programs found in most universities and academic learning support delivered by learning advisors in academic skills or learning centers. In addition, due to the authors’ own experiences with supporting students in various Australian institutions (Desierto et al. 2018; De Maio and Desierto 2016), most of these studies presented in this chapter are situated in the Australian context, although reference may be made to the current situation in the UK and the USA. Other support services, such as counselling and equity, which appear to try to do their best for students, may be more susceptible to viewing students as customers, although it is argued that most student support services may be resistant to neoliberalist practice (Temple et al. 2016). For example, in their case studies of four higher education institutions in the UK, Temple and his colleagues (2016) suggest that support services that are more closely aligned with teaching and learning (e.g., libraries, IT) will more likely not view students as customers, while others such as accommodation, counselling, catering, might operate on more market-driven

284

A. Desierto and C. De Maio

principles of supply and demand. Yet, they conclude by saying that the student-ascustomer relationship is “largely taken for granted by senior management and professional staff. . .even if some academic staff . . .resist its implications so far as teaching and learning are concerned. . .there seems to be a tendency for customerrelated changes to bleed across into academic areas” (Temple et al. 2016, 43). Therefore, it seems academics may consider students as learners while management and professional staff may consider them as customers. Support for students in terms of their learning can viewed on a continuum ranging from services which offer some benefits, for example, academic learning advisors giving workshops or consultations, to those which have been shown to be most effective in advancing students’ learning such as embedding of academic literacies in classrooms and enabling or pathway programs (De Maio and Desierto 2016; Sharp et al. 2014). Although viewed as effective for students and their educators, these student support services seem not to be welcomed by others within the institution and remain at the periphery. They are marginalized and viewed as an add-on rather than mainstream education (Hodges et al. 2013), and it is possible that this could be due to neoliberalist concern with costs. However, enabling or pathway programs at universities have been known to enhance student engagement and learning, thus reducing the attrition rate (Hodges et al. 2013). For staff that offer support to students in these programs, there is evidence that students engage in deep learning and successfully transition to undergraduate courses (Hodges et al. 2013; Desierto et al. 2018). The next section of the chapter will focus on how the alternative pedagogies, including Vygotskian social constructivism, might be used in services which support students in their engagement, enabling and retention at university.

Engagement Engagement has been the buzzword at universities for some time now. Lawson and Lawson (2013) define engagement in a wider sense that includes not only the classroom but the external environments including the students, teachers, institutions, and wider community. This is in line with Vygotskian social-cultural perspectives where learning occurs in context within the sociological conditions in which students find themselves (Liu and Matthews 2005). In whatever way engagement is defined, it is crucial for the retention of students at university. Researchers suggest that the focus on student engagement occurred well before neoliberalism could impact support services (Bryson 2014; Neary 2013; Kuh et al. 2007), and it appears that underlying pedagogical philosophies where students are viewed as producers, rather than consumers, of knowledge, have remained steady over time, despite the increasing influence of neoliberalism (Zepke 2017). Zepke (2017) suggests that one of the theories of student engagement involves the student in their social and cultural contexts as suggested by Vygotsky (1987, 1994). This is supported by others such as Lawson and Lawson (2013) who view engagement as a sociocultural and ecological construct which “involves more than

15

Neoliberalism and “Resistance”

285

behavioural, psychological, social and cultural understandings. . .[but rather] the whole being and is nourished by experiences in classroom, the home, the community and their own virtual worlds” (Zepke 2017, 47). The evidence of neoliberalism affecting student engagement is found in the many surveys undertaken by institutions to quantify what makes effective student engagement. For example, the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) in the USA (explained in Zepke 2017) includes indicators and practices to improve engagement. As Zepke (2017, 86) suggests, “such behavioural engagement indicators connect to a neoliberal view that higher education contributes to the development of human capital.” Neary (2013) strongly opposes neoliberalism as students work hard to be part of the production of creative, and perhaps potentially revolutionary knowledge, ideas, and meaning (Zepke 2017). Utilizing Vygotskian philosophy, his view of engagement is that of connecting the learner with the intellectual and manual production of knowledge and meaning through research so that the learner becomes the creative subject within the research project (Neary 2013). “This reshapes the relationship between teaching and research from neoliberal concepts of the learner as a consumer of teaching and knowledge to a producer of potentially revolutionary ideas” (Zepke 2017, 84). For students to successfully produce new knowledge, they would be actively engaged and supported in their learning. Student support services might foster student engagement through orientation sessions, raising student awareness of such services through emails, social media or posters on campus, telephoning or texting students within the first 3 weeks of them commencing studies to check in on them (Relf et al. 2017; Hodges et al. 2013).

Enabling Learning In their report on the enabling programs of five Australian universities, Relf and her colleagues state that “many of the enabling educators reported that they focused on establishing relationships, providing pastoral care and support, and building a community of learners” (Relf et al. 2017, 10). The notions of “support” and “care” are referred to frequently in their report. This indicates the possible kindred philosophy these educators have with Fitzsimmons’ (2015) “pedagogy of the heart” based on Freire (1997) where love and care underly the teaching and learning experience. Macdonald (2018) states that educators who form close bonds with their students help with their engagement and academic success, while Hughes (2017) suggests transition pedagogies in an Australian classroom helped foster a sense of belonging and community in students. Thus, there is a place for enabling programs within the neoliberalist institution because their purpose is to enable students to achieve the learning goals and move into higher education where they will contribute economically in terms of fees (Kift et al. 2010). Tinto (2012) believes that academic support is most important in the first semester of the first year of studies for university students. He supports other researchers that have found that remedial courses, study skills courses, or other support courses are beneficial for all students, not just the ones that need the extra assistance (e.g.

286

A. Desierto and C. De Maio

Windham 2006; Attewell, Lavin, Domina and Levey 2006, in Tinto 2012). He also believes that such support is best when aligned with the learning tasks in the classroom (e.g. Perin 2011, in Tinto 2012) rather than being offered as generic courses in a learning center. Tinto’s (2012) framework places the student at the center of the classroom, much like Vygotksy (1987, 1994) places students within the sociocultural context of the classroom. A review of the limited literature that is available on enabling programs in universities shows that most programs do not appear to explicitly state their underlying philosophies. However, one enabling program at Murdoch University has explicitly stated that it is based wholly on Vygotsky’s ZPD (Goggin et al. 2016). This program targets high school students even before they commence any studies at university, intervening in their final year of high school studies to offer them support to enable them to successfully enter university in the following year. The authors argue that using Vygotsky’s ZPD in the context of this program leads to successful transition of students into higher education (Goggin et al. 2016). While outlining the benefits of enabling programs to help in student learning, the report by Hodges and his colleagues (2013), also showed that low awareness and interaction with support services meant that students were more likely to not persist with their studies. The importance of student support services for retention will be discussed in the next section.

Retention A study of students in an enabling program in an Australian university found that higher rates of attrition were found in students that either did not engage in student support services (in the form of academic services and counselling services) or were not aware of such services (Hartley et al. 2011). Engaging with services therefore not only means success in studies in terms of retention (what the university wants) but also could help students to develop their own identities and feel that they belong to the university culture (what academics want). The results in the study by Hartley and his colleagues (2011) are supported by the more recent study of Morison and Cowley (2017) who sought to examine the factors that lead to the success and retention of students in enabling programs at university. Utilizing interview methods, they found that students cited the use of support services, together with support from their teachers on the enabling programs as factors that contributed to them staying at university. The latter ties in with studies which show the critical part teacher-student relationship play in student retention, engagement, and success (Hughes 2017). In contrast, students who left their studies knew about such services but regretted not using them (Morison and Cowley 2017). Research by Robert and Patricia Whannell and their colleagues (Whannell and Whannell 2014; Whannell et al. 2012) found that students who were socially and academically engaged with other students and staff at an institution, who attended classes and who completed assessments, were less likely to leave. Again, this supports the alternative philosophies aligned with Vygotskian social constructivism

15

Neoliberalism and “Resistance”

287

that if students feel a sense of belonging and are considered foremost as learners provided with supportive pedagogies such as scaffolding, collaborative, reflective practices, then they will continue with their studies (MacDonald 2018; Hughes 2017). In contrast, if students are viewed as consumers who must be fast-tracked through the higher education system (Lorenz 2012; Fitzsmmons 2015), then this may lead to their attrition.

Conclusion and Future Directions Neoliberalism’s subversion of the true meaning of education and its dominance as the underlying imperative for higher education today has been explored in this chapter. In addition, the implications of neoliberalism on teaching staff and students in universities have been discussed. To some extent, the implications of this dominance for student support and support services have been addressed; however, the literature on the latter is lacking and more research in this field would be required before clear, evidence-based conclusions can be drawn. Neoliberalism has radically altered education from being a public good to a commodity for sale wherein the student has become a customer to be satisfied and the teacher the seller. These flawed conceptions defeat the transformative role of education for human beings and society. Today’s teachers are stressed and anxious from work overload and insecurity of employment while students have lost the wonder of learning, and are anxious and stressed from the neoliberalist demand of being trained for the employment market while juggling responsibilities of work, family, and studies. Responses by educators and social scientists by way of alternative philosophies, including Vygotskian social constructivism, to counter the minimalist, instrumentalist, and profit-driven conception of education under neoliberalism have been explored. The philosophical underpinnings, nature, and extent of support services for students in this neoliberal regime have also been discussed. What seems clear is that the blind acceptance of neoliberalism as a way of life has been successfully put into place and what needs further investigation is the effects of this phenomenon on support for students and support services to gain a clearer picture of how students, teachers, and support professionals are responding to the dominant neoliberalist agenda in higher education. This chapter presented a detailed examination of the available literature on the effects of neoliberalism and alternative philosophies on student support services in universities. What is evident is that, on one hand, there is the neoliberalist conception of the student where the student can be left on their own to develop as learners, imbibing the discourse that they are merely customers to be served to secure their future employment. On the other hand, alternative philosophies such as Vygotsky’s social constructivism, transition pedagogies, and a “pedagogy of the heart” are still inherent in the pedagogies of educators who continue to view their role as critical in supporting students as learners who can become a transformative force for the public good and the welfare of society. Therefore, with the conflicting imperatives of neoliberalist philosophy and that of humanist philosophies evident in current teaching,

288

A. Desierto and C. De Maio

learning, and student support, further research into the effects of the neoliberalist philosophy on student support services is required for a comprehensive picture of how student support services in institutions of higher learning will be affected in the future.

References Amsler, S. 2014. For Feminist Consciousness in the Academy. Politics and Culture, 2:1. https:// politicsandculture.org/2014/03/09/for-feminist-consciousness-in-the-academy/ Amsler, S. & Shore, C. 2017. Responsibilisation and leadership in the neoliberal university: A New Zealand perspective. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education. 38 (1): 123–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2015.1104857 Andrewartha, L., and A. Harvey. 2014. Willing and enabled: The academic outcomes of a tertiary enabling program in regional Australia. Australian Journal of Adult Learning 54 (1): 51–68. https://www.latrobe.edu.au/data/assets/pdf_file/0010/736408/Andrewartha-Harvey-Willingand-enabled-AJAL-Final-article.pdf. Ball, S. 2012. Performativity, commodification and commitment: An I-spy guide to the neoliberal university. British Journal of Educational Studies 60 (1): 17–28. https://philpapers.org/rec/ BALPCA-5. Blakely. J. 2017. How school choice turns education into a commodity. The Atlantic, April 17, 2017. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/04/is-school-choice-really-a-formof-freedom/523089/ Bone, K. 2019. Dependent and vulnerable: The experiences of academics on casual and insecure contracts. The Conversation, July 18, 2019. https://theconversation.com/dependent-andvulnerable-the-experiences-of-academics-on-casual-and-insecure-contracts-118608 Bryson, C. 2014. Clarifying the concept of student engagement. In Understanding and developing student engagement, ed. C. Bryson, 1–22. London: Routledge. Chaiklin, S. 2003. The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and instruction. In Vygotsky’s educational theory and practice in cultural context, ed. A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. Ageyev, and S. Miller. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Collini, S. 2015. Defending universities: Argument and persuasion. Power and Education 7 (1): 29–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1757743814567383. Croxford, L., and D. Raffe. 2013. Differentiation and social segregation of UK higher education, 1996–2010. Oxford Review of Education 39 (2): 172–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985. 2013.784193. De Maio, C., and A. Desierto. 2016. First year business students’ perceptions of academic support through embedding: A practice report. Student Success 7 (1): 57–63. https://doi.org/10.5204/ssj. v7i1.324. Desierto, A, C. De Maio, J. O’Rourke, and S. Sharp. 2018. Deep or surface? The learning approaches of enabling students in an Australian Public University”. In Proceedings of the STARS Conference, Auckland, New Zealand, July 8–11. http://unistars.org/papers/STARS2018/05A.pdf Dougherty, K. and S. Natow. 2019. Analysing neoliberalism in theory and practice: The case of performance-based funding for higher education. Centre for Global Higher Education Working Paper no.44. https://www.researchcghe.org/perch/resources/publications/cghe-working-paper44.pdf Edmond, N., and J. Berry. 2014. Discourses of ‘equivalence’ in HE and notions of student engagement: Resisting the neoliberal university. Student Engagement and Experience Journal 3 (2): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.7190/seej.v3i2.90. Erisman, W. & Steele, P. 2012. From Contact to Completion: Supporting Returning Adult Students in Obtaining a College Credential. Washington, DC: Higher Ed Insight. https://higheredinsight. files.wordpress.com/2014/01/redesign_lumina-brief-oct2012.pdf. Evans, T., L. Bira, J. Gastelum, L. Weiss, and N. Vanderford. 2018. Evidence for a mental health crisis in graduate education. Nature Biotechnology 36 (3): 282–284.

15

Neoliberalism and “Resistance”

289

Fitzsimmons, R. 2015. Countering the neoliberal paradigm: A pedagogy of the heart from a finnish higher learning perspective. The Journal of Critical Education Policy Studies 13 (1): 210–237. Freire, P. 1988. The Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum Freire, P. 1997. A pedagogy of the heart. New York: Continuum. Gardner, M. 2018. Uni research cuts will be felt for years to come. Universities Australia. https:// www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/media-item/uni-research-cuts-will-be-felt-for-years-to-come/ Giroux, H. 2014. Neoliberalism’s war on higher education. Chicago: Haymarket Books. Goggin, T., S. Rankin, P. Geerlings, and A. Taggart. 2016. Catching them before they fall: A Vygotskian approach to transitioning students from high school to university. Higher Education Research and Development 35 (4): 698–711. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2015.1137879. Hartley, J., Hodges, B., Kavanagh, K., Schofield, N. (2011). Student retention in the University of Newcastle Open Foundation Program: Report of the 2009 Promoting Excellence Initiative project. Unpublished report, University of Newcastle. Hodges, B., T. Bedford, J. Hartley, C. Klinger, N. Murray, J. O’Rourke, and N. Schofield. 2013. Enabling retention: Processes and strategies for improving student retention in Universitybased enabling programs. http://www.enablingretention.org.au Hughes, K. 2017. Transition pedagogies and the neoliberal episteme: What do academics think? Student Success 8 (2): 21–30. https://doi.org/10.5204/ssj.v8i2.378. Kift, S. 2015. A decade of transition pedagogy: A quantum leap in conceptualising the first year experience. HERDSA Review of Higher Education 2: 51–86. http://www.herdsa.org.au/herdsareview-higher-education-vol-2/51-86. Kift, S., K. Nelson, and J. Clarke. 2010. Transition pedagogy: A third generation approach to FYE – a case study of policy and practice for the higher education sector. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education 1 (1): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.5204/intjfyhe.v1i1.13. Krause, K., S. Bochner, and S. Duchesne. 2003. Educational psychology for learning and teaching. Melbourne: Thomson. Kuh, G., J. Kinzie, J.A. Buckley, B.K. Bridges, and J.C. Hayek. 2007. Piecing together the student success puzzle: Research, propositions, and recommendations. Ashe Higher Education Report. https://doi.org/10.1002/aehe.3205. Kunttu, K. & Pesonen, T. 2012. Student Health Survey 2012: A National Survey Among Finnish University Students. Helsinki: Finnish Student Health Service. http://www.yths.fi/filebank/ 2104-KOTT2012_inENGLISH.pdf. Lawson, M., and H. Lawson. 2013. New conceptual frameworks for student engagement research, policy and practice. Review of Educational Research 83 (3): 432–479. Lipman, P. 2007. ‘No child left behind’: Globalization, privatization and the politics of inequality. In Neoliberalism and education reform, ed. W. Ross and R. Gibson, 35–58. New York: Hampton Press. http://www.hamptonpress.com/. Liu, C.H., and R. Matthews. 2005. Vygotsky’s philosophy: Constructivism and its criticisms examined. International Education Journal 6 (3): 386–399. Lorenz, C. 2012. If You’re so smart, why are you under surveillance? Universities, neoliberalism, and new public management. Critical Inquiry 38 (3): 599–629. MacDonald, K. 2018. A review of the literature: The needs of nontraditional students in postsecondary education. Strategic Enrollment Management Quarterly 5 (4): 159–164. https://doi. org/10.1002/sem3.20115. Matusov, E. 2008. Applying a sociocultural approach to Vygotskian academia: ‘our tsar isn’t like yours, and yours Isn’t like ours’. Culture & Psychology 14 (1): 5–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1354067X07085808. McGowan. M. 2018. Australian universities slip in world rankings amid funding cuts. The Guardian, September 27, 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/sep/ 27/australian-universities-slip-in-world-rankings-amid-funding-cuts Morey, A. 2004. Globalization and the emergence of for-profit higher education. Higher Education 48 (1): 131–150. Morison, A., and K. Cowley. 2017. An exploration of factors associated with student attrition and success in enabling programs. Issues in Educational Research 27 (2): 330–346. http://www.iier. org.au/iier27/morison.pdf.

290

A. Desierto and C. De Maio

Neary, M. 2013. Student as producer: A pedagogy for the Avant-Garde; or, how do revolutionary teachers teach? http://josswinn.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/15-72-1-pb-1.pdf Pitman, T. 2016. The evolution of student as consumer in Australian higher education: A policy perspective. Australian Educational Researcher 43: 345–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384016-0204-9. Relf, B., J. O’Rourke, N. Crawford, S. Sharp, B. Hodges, M. Shah, and R. Barnes. 2017. Lighting the path(way): Articulating curriculum design principles for open access enabling programs. http://www.newcastle.edu.au Rogers, C. 2003. Client-centred therapy. New York: Constable & Robinson. Rustin, M. 2016. The neoliberal university and its alternatives. Soundings 63 (63): 147–176. https://doi.org/10.3898/136266216819377057. Servant-Miklos, V., and L. Noordegraaf-Eelens. 2019. Toward social-transformative education: An ontological critique of self-directed learning. Critical Studies in Education. https://doi.org/10. 1080/17508487.2019.1577284. Sharp, S., J. O’Rourke, J. Lane, and A.M. Hayes. 2014. Cohesion, coherence and connectedness: A 3C model for enabling-course design to support student transition to university. In Proceedings of the Joint AARE-NZARE conference. https://www.aare.edu.au/data/2014_Conference/Full_ papers/SHARP_14.pdf Shore, C. 2008. Audit culture and illiberal governance. Anthropological Theory 8 (3): 278–298. Sims, M. 2019. Neoliberalism and new public management in an Australian University: The invisibility of our take-over. Australian Universities Review 61 (1): 22–30. Svensson, G., and G. Wood. 2007. Are university students really customers? When illusion may Lead to delusion for all. International Journal of Educational Management 21 (1): 17–28. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-354X.htm. Temple, P., C. Callender, L. Grove, and N. Kersh. 2016. Managing the student experience in English higher education: Differing responses to market pressures. London Review of Education 14 (1): 33–46. https://doi.org/10.18546/LRE.14.1.05. Thornton, M. 2013. Inhabiting the neoliberal university. Alternative Law Journal 38 (2): 72. Tinto, V. 2012. Completing college: Rethinking institutional action. University of Chicago Press. ProQuest Ebook Central. https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.scu.edu.au Universities Australia. 2017. Submission into the independent review of regional, rural and remote education. August 29, 2017. https://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/ 2019/06/UA-submission-to-the-independent-review-into-RRR-education.pdf Verenikina, I. 2008. Scaffolding and learning: Its role in nurturing new learners. In Learning and the learner: Exploring learning for new times, ed. P. Kell, W. Vialle, D. Konza, and G. Vogl. Sydney: University of Wollongong. Vygotsky, L. 1987. Collected works of L.S. Vygotsky, volume 1: Problems of general psychology (trans: Norris Minick). New York: Plenum. Vygotsky, L. 1994. The socialist alteration of man. In The Vygotsky reader, ed. R. van de Veer and J. Valsiner, 175–185. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Whannell, R., and P. Whannell. 2014. Identifying tertiary bridging students at risk of failure in the first semester of undergraduate study. Australian Journal of Adult Education 54 (2): 101–120. Whannell, P., R. Whannell, and B. Allen. 2012. Investigating the influence of teacher strategies on academic self-efficacy and study behaviour of students in a tertiary bridging program. Australian Journal of Adult Learning 52 (1): 39–65. Winerman, L. 2017. By the numbers: Stress on Campus. Monitor on Psychology 48 (8): 88. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2017/09/numbers. Zepke, N. 2017. Student engagement in neoliberal times theories and practices for learning and teaching in higher education. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore Pte. Ltd.

From “Customer” to “Partner”: Approaches to Conceptualization of Student-University Relationships

16

Natalia Maloshonok and Irina Shcheglova

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Review of the Models Conceptualizing Student-University Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Student as Consumer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Student as Active Learner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Student Engagement Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Student-Centered Approach Versus Instruction-Based Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transformative Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Student as Partner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Value Cocreation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Сoproduction Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Perspectives and Limitations of the Student-Staff Partnership Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Comparison of the Approaches of Student-University Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Higher Education Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Student Participation in the Educational Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Responsibility for Learning Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Capacity of Students to Influence the Educational Process, Courses, and Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Education Quality Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion and Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

292 293 293 293 295 295 296 298 298 299 299 300 300 301 301 301 303 303 304 305

Abstract

Under the pressures of massification of higher education, increasing competition among institutions, and a diversification of the student body, universities face challenges related to the quality of teaching and learning and student services. To understand how to support students, each university needs to decide on which N. Maloshonok (*) · I. Shcheglova Centre for Sociology of Higher Education, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russian Federation e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 H. Huijser et al. (eds.), Student Support Services, University Development and Administration, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5852-5_4

291

292

N. Maloshonok and I. Shcheglova

theoretical assumptions about student development and student-university relationships with student support services should be based on. There have been many suggestions for conceptual models of student-university relationships: consumerism, student engagement model, student-centered model, and coproduction model. The most influential of these can be classified into three groups: “student as consumer,” “student as active learner,” and “student as partner.” However, there is an absence of literature, which review and classify the most popular conceptual models of student-university relationships or which agree on the most productive model(s). This chapter examines models that conceptualize student-university relationships, identifies their crucial assumptions, and discusses their applications for mass higher education. Five criteria were developed to compare the models: (1) outcomes of higher education; (2) student participation in the educational process; (3) responsibility for learning outcomes; (4) the capacity of students to influence the educational process, courses, and programs; and (5) quality indicators. Challenges for implementing the models for mass higher education are discussed. Keywords

Student development · Student-university relationships · Student as consumer · Student as partner · Student as active learner · Student engagement · Studentcentered learning · Mass higher education

Introduction The field of student affairs and services in higher education has a long history. It was pioneered by US universities in the nineteenth century (Bloland 1991), and it evolved and expanded in the second half of the twentieth century. For at least 70 years, universities have been striving to foster student development. The establishment of the theoretical base and the research in this field has shown that student growth does not occur only in classroom. Involvement in co- and extracurricular activities in combination with efficient student support services can contribute to the formation of learning outcomes. Under the pressures of massification of higher education, increasing competition among institutions, and the diversification of the student body, universities face challenges related to the quality of teaching and learning and student services. Effective student support services should be based on the theoretical assumptions about student development and learning and student-university relationships (Bloland 1991). In different periods, different theoretical models conceptualizing student-university relationships were influential and shaped student support services; to name just a few: consumerism, student engagement model, student-centered model, coproduction model, constructivist learning, and instruction-based learning. They can be classified into three groups: “student as consumer,” “student as active learner,” and “student as partner.”

16

From “Customer” to “Partner”: Approaches to Conceptualization of. . .

293

However, there has been no answer as to which theoretical model conceptualizing student-university relationships is the most productive. There is an absence of literature that review and classify the most popular conceptual models of studentuniversity relationships. This chapter examines the different theoretical approaches to the conceptualization of the relationships between students and the university, identifies their crucial assumptions, and discusses their application and limitations for mass higher education. The five criteria were subsequently developed to compare the models of student-university relationships: (1) higher education outcomes; (2) student participation in the educational process; (3) responsibility for learning outcomes; (4) the capacity of students to influence the educational process, courses, and programs; and (5) quality indicators. Challenges for implementing each of the models for different systems of higher education are discussed.

Methodology The literature for the review of the student-university relationship conceptualization was identified by searching in the scholar.google.com. At the first stage, papers were identified with the following combinations of words: “conceptualization of the student-university relationships,” “student-university relationships,” and “approaches to teaching and learning at university.” After the analysis of the extracted papers, the search was expanded with the following phrases: “student as consumer,” “student as a partner,” “student-centered approach,” “instruction-based approach,” “student as coproducer,” “student as codesigner,” “student as cocreator,” “transformative learning at university,” “student engagement,” and “constructivist approach to learning.” Papers in the reference lists of the articles that were appropriate for the chapter were also considered. At the final stage, the following criteria for identifying literature for review were used: • Citations • Unique approach (whether the publications repeat ideas of other authors or present novel ideas) • A higher education context

Review of the Models Conceptualizing Student-University Relationships Student as Consumer The metaphor of “student as consumer” appeared in North America and Western Europe in the 1980s (McMillan and Cheney 1996; Levy et al. 2011). The popularity of this model skyrocketed in countries with fee-based education (Carey 2013) and liberal economies such as the USA, Canada, the UK, and Australia (Tomlinson 2017). Within the consumer-based model, the student is viewed as a consumer of

294

N. Maloshonok and I. Shcheglova

educational services and the university is presented as a provider of services and educational products, which must respond timely to students’ expectations and needs. This framework became influential for many higher education systems and empowered each student individually to affect the quality of education (Klemenčič 2015). The main argument to support the intense debate about students as customers is as follows: If the student pays for education, education can be considered as a service and universities have to guarantee that students receive a certain standard of service (Paricio 2017). After the 1990s, the “student as consumer” metaphor has become dominant in discussions related to the assessment of educational outcomes and program evaluation (McMillan and Cheney 1996). This resulted in transformations within universities and generated new approaches for the evaluation and management of the quality of higher education (for example, through teacher evaluation, student satisfaction surveys, and feedback forms) aimed at improving students experience (McCulloch 2009). Students’ satisfaction with academic programs and available services has become crucial for university success and survival in the competitive market of higher education (Bramming 2007). However, after the 2000s, educators and researchers increasingly started to question the ground of the “student as consumer” model. The opponents of this model believe that universities which treat students as customers undermine institutional quality and reputation (Eagle and Brennan 2007). Moreover, they argue that the “student as consumer” model affirms the passivity of students (McCulloch 2009). Thus, Rolfe (2002) found that instructors from 70 British universities reported that the majority of students are passive as they “want more ‘prescribed’ teaching, delivering the required knowledge, rather than to do their own reading and research” (p. 175). As the results of Rolfe’s study (2002) show, students tend to request lecture handouts before class and guidance on precise knowledge they need to show for assessment to achieve a good mark. A passive manner is associated with, for example, students’ waiting for teachers to spoon-feed the information needed in order to complete their program of study successfully (McCulloch 2009). Delucchi and Korgen (2002) found that four out ten students think that paying tuition fees for higher education “entitles” them a degree. However, some can argue whether passive learning is a direct consequence of consumerism. While there are arguments for and against this model, there is a lack of empirical evidence about the degree to which students express consumer behavior, and how it might affect their learning outcomes. The studies, conducted by Saunders (2014) and Tomlinson (2014, 2017), concluded that the majority of students did not have a customer orientation toward their education. Budd found that English students, who have a severe financial burden due to high tuition fees at British universities, are more engaged with their studies, for example, they spend more time on campus, interact more with academic staff, and more actively participate in discussions in class compared to German students (2017). In the first place, this difference can be explained by the country-specific context (fees, rankings) and the organization of learning. Other researchers state that students’ attitudes toward their customer identity are more complex and students can mix and match some elements

16

From “Customer” to “Partner”: Approaches to Conceptualization of. . .

295

of this approach. Bunce et al. (2017) found that consumer orientation can mediate traditional relationships between learner identity (a broad set of attitudes and behaviors associated with intellectual engagement), grade goal, and academic performance. As the results of their study show, a higher consumer orientation is associated with both lower academic performance and lower learner identity. Whereas, higher grade goal, being responsible for paying fees, and studying a STEM subject were positively associated with a higher consumer orientation. These findings share the concerns, expressed in the previous research on the “student as customer” model, and state that students who view themselves as consumers are less likely to be involved in their education and their right for a degree is incontestable (Rolfe 2002; Tomlinson 2014). That is why the university should distinguish students with different levels of consumer orientation and be cautious of feedback from students with a higher consumer orientation; as such, students tend to see their degree rather as a purchase not as an achievement that requires their effort and engagement (Bunce et al. 2017). Another concern raised by using this model is related to grade inflation. Researchers find that difficult courses can lower students’ grades, and this might impact the results of course and teaching evaluations (Johnson 2006; Joyce 2017). At the same time, it can put professors under pressure to inflate grades in order to improve student evaluations of their teaching.

Student as Active Learner A group of theoretical perspectives criticizes the approaches to student-university relationships that view students in a passive role as recipients of knowledge and information. These theories assume that learning is not a simple transfer of knowledge from instructor to student, but rather an active process which requires the investment of students’ efforts and time.

Student Engagement Model The model of student engagement emerged in the 1970s to 1980s. This theory focuses on the effects of educational environments on students’ development and changes during their studies at the university (Long 2012). The premise of this model is that students acquire knowledge and develop skills from what they do at the university, and universities influence what students can do through the activities and experiences they make available to students (Astin 1993; Kuh 2008, 2009). Within this model, learning is seen as a “joint proposition” which also depends on institutions and staff providing students with the conditions, opportunities, and expectations to become involved (Coates 2005, p. 26). As students come to the university from different backgrounds, some of them are more academically able than others, and some of them have access to more resources; however, the university can provide everyone with an opportunity for

296

N. Maloshonok and I. Shcheglova

self-development and maximize students’ potential. This approach emphasizes the importance of enhancing the engagement of students in “high-impact” practices to foster student success and institutional excellence (Pascarella 2001; Kuh 2008). However, it is not enough to implement any high-impact practices at university; it is necessary to construct more “purposeful pathways” for students by connecting learning goals and practices (Kuh 2008). It implies that university competes for students’ time trying to involve them in purposeful activities in class and out of class and to channel their efforts in the “right direction” (Astin 1984). For example, community-based learning fosters students’ learning in real-world settings and allows them to reflect in classroom settings on their service experiences, or a capstone project is aimed at integrating and applying what students have learned during their courses (Kuh 2008). Apart from high-impact practices, Matthews et al. (2011) highlight a special role of physical learning spaces on university campuses that can form informal settings and boost interaction of students with their peers and academic staff outside class. The main idea of the student engagement model traces back to Chickering and Gamson who identified “Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education” (1987): (1) to encourage contacts between students and faculty; (2) to develop reciprocity and cooperation among students; (3) to use active learning techniques; (4) to give prompt feedback; (5) to emphasize time on task; (6) to communicate high expectations; and (7) to respect diverse talents and ways of learning. In line with their ideas, the model of student engagement places a strong emphasis on students’ activity in class, requires investing more time and effort in academically challenging tasks, and encourages collaboration with peers in order to achieve shared educational goals. Notwithstanding the student engagement framework has received wide approval from researchers and educators (Pace 1984; Pascarella 2001; Kuh 2009), it is often criticized for its weak theorization (Kahn 2014) and multiple interpretations (Macfarlane and Tomlinson 2017), as well as for neglecting nonobservable practices enhancing student growth (Kahn 2017). Consequently, student engagement framework ignores some important student learning practices, student reasoning, and other cognitive activities and does not take into account differences in the learning styles of students. These limitations restrict the potential of the use of this framework for the development of student support services.

Student-Centered Approach Versus Instruction-Based Approach Another model of student-university relationships suggesting active participation of students in the learning process is a student-centered approach. The student-centered approach, which is based on the constructivist conception of learning, appeared from the works of John Dewey (1966), Carl Rogers (1969), and Jean Piaget (1936). The student-centered approach is built in opposition to the “instruction-based” or “direct instruction” paradigm of learning at the university (Barr and Tagg 1995). The instruction-based paradigm assumes that the primary purpose of the university is

16

From “Customer” to “Partner”: Approaches to Conceptualization of. . .

297

to deliver instructions. According to this paradigm, meaningful learning occurs when relevant instructional goals are achieved (Grossen and Kelly 1992). Students learn through knowledge transfer from the instructor, and the quality of education is measured by the input indicators: qualification of instructors and institutional resources (Barr and Tagg 1995). The instruction-based approach supposes the educational process as the sequences of lectures, and the main task of the instructor is to present material. Academic outcomes are measured by the extent to which student is able to reproduce this material. Proponents of the direct instruction argue that this model allows to achieve learning goals for all students despite their ability and previous educational experience (Grossen and Kelly 1992). They criticize the student-centered approach for placing a lot of responsibility for learning on students and their previous educational background (Grossen and Kelly 1992). According to the constructivist approach, learning is a process characterized by the following distinctive features (Wulf 2019): • It is constructive knowledge acquisition that means that knowledge structure constitutes the individual representation of reality and new information is drawn on previous experience and prior knowledge. • It is an active process, implying recreation of knowledge through active examination of the learning content and based on the integration of the individual experience and prior knowledge, instead of passively taking in information. • It is a self-regulated process, assuming that the learners define what, when, and how to learn. • It is a cooperative process because it implies exchange not only of content but also attitudes, expectations, and moods, transmitted as indirect messages. Learning occurs through engagement with instructor and other students. • It is a situational process because it always occurs within a specific context. Based on the constructivist approach, the direct transfer of knowledge from instructor to learner is impossible (Wulf 2019). The primary purpose of educators is facilitating processes of self-enquiry, critical reflection, mutual dialogue, and questioning (De Vita and Case 2003). Therefore, as outcomes of educational process, this approach considers not what is taught but what student has learnt (Attard et al. 2010). At the same time, other researchers have challenged the foundation of the constructivist approach. The proponents of the direct instruction approach (Kirschner et al. 2006; Sweller et al. 2007; Clark et al. 2012) propose that the guided instruction is the most effective pedagogical method because it takes into account human cognitive processes and long-term memory effect on our life. The effectiveness of the method can be influenced by the qualification of instructors (Grossen and Kelly 1992). Also, there are some challenges to implementing the student-centered approach. The effectiveness of the model is highly dependent on students’ motivation and approach to learning, as well as their ability to study independently. Therefore, the student-centered approach can be harmful for disadvantaged students because it can increase the achievement gap between students with higher and lower academic outcomes as well as negatively affect first-generation students (Kirschner

298

N. Maloshonok and I. Shcheglova

et al. 2006; Sweller et al. 2007). In other words, this approach is oriented to high achieving students who already have strong metacognitive skills and can selfregulate their learning process.

Transformative Learning The transformative learning model is also based on the constructivist conceptualization of learning. Bramming (2007) emphasizes that universities should provide students with opportunities for a transformative learning. She introduced the opposition of “strong” and “weak” learning, where strong learning is transformative and deep, while weak learning is adaptive and superficial. She proposed that “strong” learning can be a painful process, as it can cause negative emotions in students, such as irritation, anger, confusion, and dissatisfaction because of the high intensity of the learning process (Bramming 2007). Bramming argues that transformative “strong” learning is one of the forms of high-order learning that has the capacity to change mental models (2007). She defines mental models as deep-rooted assumptions, generalizations, and images influencing our understanding of the world and our actions. Contrary to the consumerist model, Bramming emphasizes the responsibilities of students and their contribution to the learning process. She argues that universities should transfer pedagogical principles and foster approaches protecting “strong learning.” It means that faculty should require “students are not only repeating what is taught, but are actually transforming the knowledge and are working with how the knowledge can change problems, solutions and situations” (Bramming 2007, p. 55). During this process, students undergo crises, and the faculty should empower them to cope with these crises and create their own learning track through a dialogue (Bramming 2007). Transformative learning requires a nonquantitative evaluation of the quality of education (Bramming 2007).

Student as Partner After the 2000s, in response to criticism of the consumerist approach, models considering students in the role of partners emerged (Cuthbert 2010; Jensen and Bennett 2016). The models of “value cocreation” (Bovill et al. 2011) and “coproduction” (McCulloch 2009) pushed forward the value of collaboration between teachers and students, as well as students’ active participation in curriculum design. Student as a partner model is characterized by the reciprocity relations of students and staff, as well as by shared responsibility in learning and teaching (Mercer-Mapstone et al. 2017). Mercer-Mapstone et al. (2017) identified that the most valuable positive outcomes of such partnership for students: (1) increased student engagement and motivation, (2) improved self-efficacy, and (3) enhanced relationships between students and staff.

16

From “Customer” to “Partner”: Approaches to Conceptualization of. . .

299

Value Cocreation Model In recent years, educators and researchers have called for new educational models which would place emphasis on the role of learners in defining their own learning, enabled by participation in learning communities (Healey et al. 2014; Bovill and Felten 2016). New ideas came from interdisciplinary concepts that existed in the fields of marketing and management for quite a while (Mark 2013). One of the most recently adopted models, the model of value cocreation, is based on the marketing theory of Service-Dominant Logic (SDL) (Vargo and Lusch 2004). It shares some similarities with the model of “student as consumer,” and it focuses on new types of customers who require more involvement in the process of product production and want to become actual participants of this process (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004). Also, it suggests activation of consumer resources for the collaborative creation of innovative products (Perks et al. 2012). In other words, this model proposes a shift from satisfying customers’ needs to improving their actual experience (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004). Educational researchers believe that this approach can be transmitted to the relations between students and the university, as it allows creating a positive student experience through value cocreation. The main idea of this model is to allow students and teachers to work together as partners and share a mutual responsibility for the deliverables such as academic achievements and skills development. One of the main principles of this model is that a student is viewed as a critical thinker and a competent participant of the learning process.

Сoproduction Model Another model, which considered students in the role of partners, was proposed by McCulloch (2009). He suggests taking the metaphor of “coproduction” as an alternative framework to the consumerist approach for building student-university relationships. McCulloch’s idea was based on the Public Administration literature that appeared in the 1980s, where coproduction was conceptualized as an arrangement and process of service delivery, in which government and citizens share conjoint responsibility (McCulloch 2009). In the context of higher education, this metaphor proposes that both the university and students invest resources in the learning process and impose expectations on each other (McCulloch 2009). Besides, it suggests that students become actively involved not only in the entire educational process but also in the process of knowledge development that bridges the gap between teaching and research (McCulloch 2009). According to the author, employing a coproduction framework brings positive consequences for academic outcomes and educational process, as it encourages deep learning and emphasizes the role of the community and cooperative learning in the educational process (McCulloch 2009). Despite the recognition of the benefits of the student-staff partnership model, researchers see potential difficulties in resistance from some actors of the learning

300

N. Maloshonok and I. Shcheglova

process and incompatible institutional cultures (Bovill et al. 2016), lecturer-student power relations (Allin 2014), and time limits to build productive and trustworthy collaboration (Levy et al. 2011; Marquis et al. 2017).

Perspectives and Limitations of the Student-Staff Partnership Models Ideas of student-staff partnership emerged as rethinking of the Humboldtian vision of the university as a community of learners and scholars, where the pursuit and building of knowledge are possible through a collective inquiry (Levy et al. 2011; Östling 2018). The Humboldtian model of university has appeared in the era of “elite” higher education. That is why the possibility to apply this perspective in mass higher education is limited. Even though the idea of student-university partnership seems to be the most beneficial for its proponents, its world-wide realization in the era of mass higher education raises some important questions. The models of student-university partnership with shared responsibilities for shaping educational experience between faculty and students require more effort and skills from both students and faculty than the consumerist model or the instruction-oriented model. Students have to be active participants in the educational process and should be equipped with such skills as self-regulated learning, social, and communication skills. Participation in decision-making processes requires students to be critical thinkers. However, in the era of mass higher education, universities can hardly expect high-skilled freshmen. Currently, there are some “good practices” and successful institutional cases for building student-university partnerships based on the ideas of coproduction and value cocreation. For example, Woolmer et al. (2016) described the experience of studentstaff cooperation for the development of a multidisciplinary lesson plan in a Scottish university. Freeman et al. (2014) presented the results of the implementation of Student Academic Partners scheme, encouraging students to work in collaboration with staff on educational development projects. However, today, these practices are not widespread and their implementation for mass higher education is challenging (Felten et al. 2013). To opt for one of the models of partnership, the university should develop students’ skills to help them become successful in learning and able to shape their educational experience (Dickerson et al. 2016) and create educational settings for helping students become effective learners (Fullan and Langworthy 2014).

A Comparison of the Approaches of Student-University Relationships Five criteria were developed to compare the models of student-university relationships: (1) higher education outcomes; (2) student participation in the educational process; (3) responsibility for learning outcomes; (4) the capacity of students to

16

From “Customer” to “Partner”: Approaches to Conceptualization of. . .

301

influence the educational process, courses, and programs; and (5) indicators of education quality. The classification of the models is presented in Table 1.

Higher Education Outcomes This criterion describes the outcomes of higher education proposed by each model of student-university relationships. According to Barr and Tagg (1995), the main mission of higher education in the instruction-based paradigm is delivering instructions. The consumerist approach is oriented to the acquisition of qualifications by students and their job placement after graduation. According to this model, a university degree should increase the probability of students being employed after graduation. The models based on the constructivist understanding of learning, and partnership, consider student development and the acquisition of key competences such as self-regulated learning, critical thinking, and teamwork as the desired academic outcomes of higher education.

Student Participation in the Educational Process In this analysis, the activity of students was defined as observable behavior for knowledge acquisition and achieving a learning task individually or in collaboration with peers or faculty. According to this definition, direct instruction and consumerist models suggest the passivity of students. However, there are some works which questioned the passivity of cognitive processes of students during instruction delivery (Klahr and Nigam 2004; Kirschner et al. 2006). The models, proposing partnership and a constructivist understanding of learning, emphasize the crucial role of the active participation of students in the learning process. The difference between the student engagement model and the model “student as partner” is that the student engagement framework focuses on what students do at university, while “student as a partner” model highlights what student and staff do together to achieve educational goals (Matthews et al. 2011; Mercer-Mapstone et al. 2017). Similarly, the student-centered approach and the transformative learning framework mostly emphasize student activity not focusing on studentstaff collaboration.

Responsibility for Learning Outcomes The consumerist and the student engagement models place responsibility for higher education outcomes on the university. On the contrary, the instruction-based model places responsibility for learning on students. The models, suggesting a partnership and constructivist understanding of learning, argue that responsibility for the outcomes and shaping learning experience must be shared between the student and the university.

Production, dissemination, and application of knowledge. Development of learners

Student as partner (coproduction, value cocreation)

Transformative learning

Key competencies such as self-regulated learning, critical thinking, and teamwork skills Transformation/ changes in mental models

Learner-centered approach

Active

Active

Active

Active

Qualification, job placement

Student development, learning gains

Mostly passive

Outcomes of higher education Delivered instructions

Student engagement

Approaches Instructorcentered approach Student as consumer

Student participation in the educational process Mostly passive

Table 1 A comparison of the models for student-university relationships

Shared responsibility between student and university

Shared responsibility between student and university Shared responsibility between student and university

University

University

Responsibility for learning outcomes Student

High capacity through participation in decisionmaking related to educational process

Influence on own learning experience through dialogue with faculty

Student influence on their own learning experience

Limited (through advising and filling out feedback forms) Not specified (in most publications)

Capacity of students to influence educational process Limited

Extent to which learning is transformative (evaluation through studying process, learning logs, and reflexive panels) Not specified

Participation in “high-impact practices” (through student engagement surveys) Quality of graduates

Students’ satisfaction measured through surveys, feedback forms

Education quality indicators Faculty qualification

302 N. Maloshonok and I. Shcheglova

16

From “Customer” to “Partner”: Approaches to Conceptualization of. . .

303

The Capacity of Students to Influence the Educational Process, Courses, and Programs The instruction-based approach does not suggest active participation of students in shaping their educational experience at university. Students are considered as recipients of knowledge. In this model, instructors are responsible for students’ learning and for curriculum design, and for setting of learning goals. The consumerist model suggests students’ participation in the decision-making process, through filling out feedback forms and surveys. However, the filling out of feedback forms does not suggest the responsibility of students for decisions and changes (Klemenčič 2015). Therefore, the participation of students in decision-making can be classified as limited. In the model “student as consumer,” a student plays the role of a consultant rather than a decision-maker and his/her participation takes the form of consultation rather than partnership (Klemenčič 2015). The model of student engagement suggests that students are encouraged to invest a significant amount of time and effort in educationally purposeful activities. However, this approach places more responsibility on the university for determining what and how to learn because the university should provide students with opportunities for self-development and cognitive growth. Therefore, this model does not expect student participation in decision-making processes. The models proposing constructivist learning suggest that students can shape their own learning experience through dialogue with instructors (Bramming 2007; Wulf 2019). Student-staff partnership models suggest student participation in the development of educational products and services, not only for their own educational experience, but also for that of other students. Thus, “student as partner” models suggest the highest capacity of students to influence the educational process.

Education Quality Indicators Within the consumerist approach, there is an open competition between institutions for attracting more financially reliable students which resulted in university investment in a greater diversity of university facilities such as accommodation, equipment, and infrastructure and in seeking student satisfaction of these services. Therefore, the quality indicators in the consumerist approach concern how institutions respond to student-consumer needs. It is measured by using feedback forms and satisfaction surveys. The student engagement model proposes indicators of student participation in “high-impact” educational practices and also uses surveys for measuring quality. The instruction-based model measures quality by input indicators such as faculty satisfaction or institutional resources for organizing instruction delivery. In studentstaff partnership models, the indicators of quality are not specified, because they suggest quality control through student participation in developing educational products. Bramming (2007) argues that the quality of education cannot be quantified. She proposes to evaluate quality through the learning process, learning logs, and reflexive panels. Supporters of the learner-centered approach suggest evaluating output indicators, for example, graduate earnings, qualifications, and skills.

304

N. Maloshonok and I. Shcheglova

Conclusion and Future Directions Over the last few decades, the following tendencies in the conceptualization of the student-university relationships can be emphasized: (1) highlighting the importance of the active participation of students in the educational process and (2) the shared responsibility for the educational process and learning outcomes between students and the university. Most scholars and educators, supporting the idea of a studentuniversity partnership, are inclined to believe that achieving high academic outcomes required by contemporary universities is impossible without students’ investment of time and effort in learning and in cocreating the educational experience (Bovill et al. 2011; Dollinger et al. 2018). They argue that the dialogue between students and faculty must be the most important part of contemporary higher education (De Vita and Case 2003; Carey 2013). However, the model of direct instructions and the consumerist approach are still influential and considered by their proponents as the most effective both for organizing the educational process and developing student support services. The massification of higher education has been accompanied by the diversification of higher education institutions in their missions, programs, and student body, and therefore, it is not possible to establish a one-size-fits-all model. This chapter analyzes the various conceptions of student-university relations but does not aim to answer which conceptualization is the most productive for developing student support practices and organizing the learning process. Each university should choose the most appropriate model, taking into account the following points: • The external conditions and the national policy in higher education that affect higher education institutions (for example, who pays for education, or how much autonomy institutions have in defining their own curricula and institutional practices) • The qualification of faculty, their attitudes, and pedagogical practices • The expectations and abilities of students (Are students ready for a studentcentered approach or being a partner with the university? How can the university help students adjust to a new model?) The optimal model has to be a compromise between the desired academic outcomes of students and these three points. The five criteria can be considered a derived decision framework for institutions to develop the most appropriate model for their educational contexts. It is worth noting that the models of student-university relationships discussed here usually appear in the context of the UK, US, and Australian higher education systems. Despite these models being employed in other educational settings (Vuori 2013), little is known about their applicability and effectiveness in other cultural contexts. As for the next steps for the development of this topic, there is a need to conduct mixedmethod research using qualitative (interviews) and quantitative (survey data) methods with teaching staff and students as well as randomized experiments to understand what models can be well perceived and effective for different university and national contexts.

16

From “Customer” to “Partner”: Approaches to Conceptualization of. . .

305

References Allin, Linda. 2014. Collaboration between staff and students in the scholarship of teaching and learning: The potential and the problems. Teaching & Learning Inquiry 2 (1): 95–102. Astin, Alexander W. 1984. Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel 25 (4): 297–308. Astin, Alexander W. 1993. What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. Vol. 1. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Attard, Angele, Emma Di Ioio, Koen Geven, and Robert Santa. 2010. Student centered learning. An insight into theory and practice. Bukarest: Education International, European Students Union. Barr, Robert B., and John Tagg. 1995. From teaching to learning – A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 27 (6): 12–26. Bloland, Paul A. 1991. A brief history of student development. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American College Personnel Association, Atlanta. Bovill, Catherine, and Peter Felten. 2016. Cultivating student–staff partnerships through research and practice. International Journal for Academic Development 21 (1): 1–3. Bovill, Catherine, Alison Cook-Sather, and Peter Felten. 2011. Students as co-creators of teaching approaches, course design, and curricula: Implications for academic developers. International Journal for Academic Development 16 (2): 133–145. Bovill, C., Cook-Sather, A., Felten, P., Millard, L., and Moore-Cherry, N. 2016. Addressing potential challenges in co-creating learning and teaching: Overcoming resistance, navigating institutional norms and ensuring inclusivity in student–staff partnerships. Higher Education 71 (2): 195–208. Bramming, Pia. 2007. An argument for strong learning in higher education. Quality in Higher Education 13 (1): 45–56. Budd, Richard. 2017. Undergraduate orientations towards higher education in Germany and England: Problematizing the notion of ‘student as customer’. Higher Education 73 (1): 23–37. Bunce, Louise, Amy Baird, and Sian Jones. 2017. The student-as-consumer approach in higher education and its effects on academic performance. Studies in Higher Education 42 (11): 1958–1978. Carey, Philip. 2013. Student as co-producer in a marketised higher education system: A case study of students’ experience of participation in curriculum design. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 50 (3): 250–260. Chickering, Arthur W., and Zelda F. Gamson. 1987. Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE bulletin 3–7. Clark, R. E., Kirschner, P. A., and Sweller, J. 2012. Putting students on the path to learning: The case for fully guided instruction. American Educator 36(1): 6–11. Coates, Hamish. 2005. The value of student engagement for higher education quality assurance. Quality in Higher Education 11: 25–36. Cuthbert, Rob. 2010. Students as customers. Higher Education Review 42 (3): 3–25. De Vita, Glauco, and Peter Case. 2003. Rethinking the internationalisation agenda in UK higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education 27 (4): 383–398. Delucchi, Michael, and Kathleen Korgen. 2002. We’re the customer-we pay the tuition: Student consumerism among undergraduate sociology majors. Teaching Sociology 30 (1): 100–107. Dewey, John. 1966. Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: The Free Press. Dickerson, Claire, Joy Jarvis, and Lewis Stockwell. 2016. Staff–student collaboration: Student learning from working together to enhance educational practice in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education 21 (3): 249–265. Dollinger, Mollie, Jason Lodge, and Hamish Coates. 2018. Co-creation in higher education: Towards a conceptual model. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 28 (2): 210–231. Eagle, Lynne, and Ross Brennan. 2007. Are students customers? Quality Assurance in Education 15 (1): 44–60.

306

N. Maloshonok and I. Shcheglova

Felten, Peter, Julianne Bagg, Michael Bumbry, Jennifer Hill, Karen Hornsby, Maria Pratt, and Saranne Weller. 2013. A call for expanding inclusive student engagement in SoTL. Teaching & Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL Journal 1 (2): 63–74. Freeman, Rebecca, Luke Millard, Stuart Brand, and Paul Chapman. 2014. Student academic partners: Student employment for collaborative learning and teaching development. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 51 (3): 233–243. Fullan, Michael, and Maria Langworthy. 2014. A rich seam. How new pedagogies find deep learning. Pearson. Grossen, Bonnie, and Bernadette F. Kelly. 1992. The effectiveness of direct instruction in a thirdworld context. International Review of Education/Internationale Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft/Revue Internationale de l’Education 38 (1): 81–85. Healey, Mick, Abbie Flint, and Kathy Harrington. 2014. Engagement through partnership: Students as partners in learning and teaching in higher education. York: HEA. Jensen, Kathrine, and Liz Bennett. 2016. Enhancing teaching and learning through dialogue: A student and staff partnership model. International Journal for Academic Development 21 (1): 41–53. Johnson, Valen E. 2006. Grade in ation: A crisis in college education. New York: Springer Science & Business Media. Joyce, Amanda. 2017. Course difficulty and its association with student perceptions of teaching and learning–Research. Kentucky Journal of Excellence in College Teaching and Learning 14: Article 4. Kahn, Peter. 2014. Theorizing student engagement in higher education. British Educational Research Journal 40 (6): 1005–1018. Kahn, Peter. 2017. Higher education policy on student engagement: Thinking outside the box. Higher Education Policy 30 (1): 53–68. Kirschner, Paul A., John Sweller, and Richard E. Clark. 2006. Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist 41 (2): 75–86. Klahr, David, and Milena Nigam. 2004. The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science 15 (10): 661–667. Klemenčič, Manja. 2015. Student involvement in university quality enhancement. In The Palgrave international handbook of higher education policy and governance, ed. J. Huisman, H. de Boer, D.D. Dill, and M. Souto-Otero. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Kuh, George D. 2008. High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges and Universities. Kuh, George D. 2009. What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement. Journal of College Student Development 50 (6): 683–706. Levy, Philippa, Sabine Little, and N. Whelan. 2011. Perspectives on staff-student partnership in learning, research and educational enhancement. In Staff-student partnerships in higher education, ed. S. Little, 1–16. London: Continuum. Long, Dallas. 2012. Theories and models of student development. In Environments for student growth and development: Librarians and student affairs in collaboration, ed. L.J. Hinchliffe and M.A. Wong, 41–55. Chicago: Association of College & Research Libraries. Macfarlane, Bruce, and Michael Tomlinson. 2017. Critiques of student engagement. Higher Education Policy 30 (1): 5–21. Mark, Eddie. 2013. Student satisfaction and the customer focus in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 35 (1): 2–10. Marquis, Elizabeth, Christine Black, and Mick Healey. 2017. Responding to the challenges of student-staff partnership: The reflections of participants at an international summer institute. Teaching in Higher Education 22 (6): 720–735. Matthews, Kelly E., Tori Andrews, and Peter Adams. 2011. Social learning spaces and student engagement. Higher Education Research & Development 30 (2): 105–120.

16

From “Customer” to “Partner”: Approaches to Conceptualization of. . .

307

McCulloch, Alistair. 2009. The student as co-producer: Learning from public administration about the student–university relationship. Studies in Higher Education 34 (2): 171–183. McMillan, Jill J., and George Cheney. 1996. The student as consumer: The implications and limitations of a metaphor. Communication Education 45 (1): 1–15. Mercer-Mapstone, Lucy, Sam L. Dvorakova, Kelly E. Matthews, . . . and Kelly Swaim. 2017. A systematic literature review of students as partners in higher education. International Journal for Students as Partners 1(1): 1–23. Östling, Johan. 2018. Humboldt and the modern German University: An intellectual history. Lund: Lund University Press. Pace, Robert C. 1984. Measuring the quality of college student experiences. In An account of the development and use of the college student experiences questionnaire. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute. Paricio, Javier. 2017. Students as customers: A paradigm shift in higher education. Journal on Culture, Power and Society 131 (3): 137–149. Pascarella, Ernest T. 2001. Identifying excellence in undergraduate education are we even close? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 33 (3): 18–23. Perks, Helen, Thorsten Gruber, and Bo Edvardsson. 2012. Co-creation in radical service innovation: A systematic analysis of microlevel processes. Journal of Product Innovation Management 29 (6): 935–951. Piaget, Jean. 1936. Origins of intelligence in the child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Prahalad, Coimbatore K., and Venkat Ramaswamy. 2004. Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing 18 (3): 5–14. Rogers, Carl R. 1969. Freedom to learn: A view of what education might become. Columbus: C.E. Merrill Pub. Rolfe, Heather. 2002. ‘Students’ demands and expectations in an age of reduced financial support: The perspectives of lecturers in four English universities. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 24 (2): 171–182. Saunders, Daniel B. 2014. They do not buy it: Exploring the extent to which entering first-year students view themselves as customers. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 25: 5–28. Sweller, John, Paul A. Kirschner, and Richard E. Clark. 2007. Why minimally guided teaching techniques do not work: A reply to commentaries. Educational Psychologist 42 (2): 115–121. Tomlinson, Michael. 2014. Exploring the impacts of policy changes on student attitudes to learning. York: Higher Education Academy. Tomlinson, Michael. 2017. Student perceptions of themselves as ‘consumers’ of higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education 38 (4): 450–467. Vargo, Stephen L., and Robert F. Lusch. 2004. Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing 68: 1–17. Vuori, Johanna. 2013. Are students customers in Finnish higher education? Tertiary Education and Management 19 (2): 176–187. Woolmer, Cherie, Peter H. Sneddon, Gordon Curry, Bob Hill, Szonja Fehertavi, Charlotte Longbone, and Kathrine Wallace. 2016. Student staff partnership to create an interdisciplinary science skills course in a research intensive university. International Journal for Academic Development 21 (1): 16–27. Wulf, Carmen. 2019. From teaching to learning: Characteristics and challenges of a studentcentered learning culture. In Inquiry-based learning–Undergraduate research, 47–55. Cham: Springer.

Creating Collaborative Spaces: Applying a “Students as Partner” Approach to University Peer Mentoring Programs

17

Sarah O’Shea, Janine Delahunty, and Amanda Gigliotti

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Neoliberal University and the Equity Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Understanding the “Brave” Nature of “Students as Partners” Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Applying “Students as Partners” to University Support and Outreach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implementing a “Students as Partners” in Mentoring (SaPiM) Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Social Value: SAPIM Creates a “Brave” Place . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Practical Value: Providing Opportunities to Develop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Affective Value: Developing Collegial Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions and Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

310 311 311 313 314 315 319 320 321 322 324 325 325

Abstract

Globally, access to higher education (HE) has reached unprecedented levels with almost a third of school-leavers worldwide attending university and some countries approaching or exceeding 50% participation across populations (Marginson 2016). This increase in the volume and diversity of students is partly determined by government-driven participation targets for equity groups, which are generally framed by social inclusion imperatives and economic or productivity goals. This creates an uncomfortable dialectic, wherein institutions invite students from diverse backgrounds into further learning for the national good, yet expect S. O’Shea (*) National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia e-mail: [email protected] J. Delahunty · A. Gigliotti University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 H. Huijser et al. (eds.), Student Support Services, University Development and Administration, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5852-5_7

309

310

S. O’Shea et al.

individuals to pay for this endeavor and adapt themselves to institutional expectations of the “successful learner” (O’Shea and Delahunty 2018). This chapter critically analyzes how HE participation not only provides access to new knowledges and learning but is equally a deeply embodied and emotional experience. Focusing on the importance of relational connections within this landscape, we show how the “students as partners” (SaP) approach offers an alternative discourse to those that focus on skills acquisition and knowledge gain only. Keywords

Students as partners · Neoliberal university · Equity and access · Widening participation

Introduction Higher education access and participation has seen increased numbers of learners from more diverse and often educationally disadvantaged backgrounds (Universities Australia 2019). This is a global phenomenon (Marginson 2016) that implicitly impacts on the nature of the student experience and how institutions support and retain diverse student populations. This study is set in Australia within a regional university with a diverse student population of over 32,000. Like many other Australian universities, this university has significant numbers of students from rural and remote areas, economically disadvantaged locations, as well as those who are first in their families to attend university. Creating appropriate and bespoke student support services that engage with diversity in a productive manner is an ongoing challenge for universities like this one, not only within Australia but also in the UK, Canada, and the USA, where similar dramatic growth in access has occurred. Despite shifts in student demographics, Reay (2017) argues that UK universities continue to operate according to systems and processes associated with more elite or privileged values. These values are often embedded in an understanding of higher education (HE) participation as an “individual” life choice (Lehmann 2009). However, emphasis on the individual can ignore inherent and somewhat invisible barriers and boundaries; in short, it deems the learner to be solely responsible for their educational choices and activities. Similarly, understandings of failure often place requisite blame upon the individual in the form of lack of ability, planning, or understanding, rather than drawing attention to external constraints beyond their control. Mann argues that university structures and practices exacerbate “alienation” in students, with an ongoing emphasis on “utilitarianism” and “performativity” (2001, 8), which ultimately reduces learning to functions or competencies that fail to recognize individual meaning systems. This can be characterized as masculinist discourse where learning is largely conducted in pragmatically focused environments, with successful learners expected to simply “acquire” skills and ultimately

17

Creating Collaborative Spaces: Applying a “Students as Partner” Approach. . .

311

make themselves “employable.” However, such focus belies the more relational and intimate nature of learning, characterized by networks and personal connections. Forging genuine and collaborative partnerships within the equity and outreach space offers potential to create and envision a university for all rather than for some. In this chapter, we explore a “Students as Partners” (SaP) approach to supporting students that is manifestly divergent to the concept of the student as an individual consumer, and instead underpinned by building productive relationships within and across university populations. This chapter describes the development of a studentfocused program that deliberately facilitates the creation of trust-filled partnerships between staff and equity-seeking students. It commences with a literature review that situates the overarching context of this project and considers why a SaP approach was particularly appropriate, followed by in-depth detail of the development of the program, and analysis of data collected from staff and student participants involved in the project. Drawing on written reflections, surveys, and focus groups, we demonstrate how the SaP approach offers an alternative way of working with students that avoids unintentionally positioning them as passive consumers or as independent sole learners. We argue that an SaP approach is one way of engaging in more authentically cooperative and productive learning agendas within the HE sector. The following section presents scholarly literature detailing the nature of the contemporary HE setting, including neoliberalism, student employability, and understandings of student partnerships.

Literature Review The university setting can be an uncompromising and alien landscape for many of our diverse learners (Mallman and Lee 2014; O’Shea 2016; Southgate et al. 2018); hence, key foci for most support services are to ensure that pathways into and through the institution are adequately supported. The following sections adopt a wider perspective, outlining broader and dominant discourses that often impact on the student experience, and include examinations of the nature of the “neoliberal” university with a specific focus on the equity landscape. This provides a context for defining ways in which “students as partners” have the potential to disrupt these understandings and offer alternative, more enriching opportunities for equity students.

The Neoliberal University and the Equity Landscape The term “neoliberal” has a lengthy and diverse history for describing economic systems, politics, and more recently, university education (Birch 2017). Despite this eclectic application, the use of the term to describe HE systems merits attention, particularly as university populations grow in numbers and diversity. The “neoliberal” university is characterized by an emphasis on the individual learner who bears all responsibility for their educational careers and successes (Mulya 2019). On face

312

S. O’Shea et al.

value, this may not seem negative or prohibitive; however, when the highly segregated nature of the HE environment is considered, inequity becomes apparent, with each individual responsible for creating and “constructing” their own identity and biographies (Bathmaker 2015). Such a “celebratory social mobility discourse” (Friedman 2014, 355) unhesitatingly conflates social mobility with the concept of social justice, suggesting that if people simply take advantage of apparently readily available opportunities (educational, professional, and entrepreneurial), selfdetermination will inexorably shift societal inequalities. However, such simplistic determination fails to adequately consider the complexities of stratification that people encounter (Brown 2013). As Reay (2013) so succinctly argues, “a strong version of social justice requires much more than the movement of a few individuals up and down an increasingly inequitable social system” (661). Within the UK, Watson describes a HE system that is fundamentally flawed and undeniably orientated toward the “white middle-class student population” (2013, 413), which is a position echoed by Kirby (2016), who identifies a persistent and ongoing correlation between those who occupy high status professions and those who attend more prestigious or elite educational institutions. Segregation of opportunity is evidenced by some significant statistics; for example, while only approximately 7% of students attend private schools, almost a third of British MPs are derived from private schools (Kirby 2016). Indeed, the elitist nature of the UK employment market has attracted much scholarly criticism with stratification recognized as deeply embedded within neoliberal contexts (Stevenson et al. 2010). For example, Moreau and Leathwood (2006) argue that understandings of postgraduation “employability” place onus on the individual, resulting in: policy discourse [that] constructs employability as [a] matter of individual attributes and responsibility, with scarce reference to structured opportunities in the education and labour markets. (309)

Within Australia, segmentation is also noted in institutions that students attend, with those from more advantaged backgrounds being the majority in elite, more established universities (Cherastidham and Norton 2014; Polesel et al. 2018; Southgate et al. 2018). Equally, students from poorer, less-resourced environments are more numerous in the younger, regional institutions (Nelson et al. 2017). While not necessarily negative, such delineations in university access indicate that individuals are not necessarily free or equal in terms of educational decisions; rather, these learners are generally constrained by material circumstances, and also by access to certain types of cultural and knowledge capital (O’Shea et al. 2017). According to Lehmann, this is “[i]nequality [being] explained by personal qualities and abilities rather than. . .unequal life chances rooted in social class differences” (2007, 632). When individual “choices” are inevitably limited by the material, as well as the social and cultural, it presents a stark contrast with neoliberal discourse of the individual, who is largely characterized as an “entirely free and autonomous agent able to make “rational” choices in the (higher education) marketplace” (Moreau and

17

Creating Collaborative Spaces: Applying a ”Students as Partner“ Approach. . .

313

Leathwood 2006, 37). These differences extend to the level and depth of involvement at university, particularly for those constrained by financial or family obligations. Kirby (2016) argues that due to time and financial constraints, students from low socioeconomic (LSES) backgrounds may direct their focus more on academic activity at the expense of the extracurricular. Such delineation has long-term impacts, often measurably reducing students’ competitiveness in the labor market. Arguably, this is an enduring hidden characteristic of the university experience, where gaining good grades and fastidiously submitting assignments may not necessarily translate to postgraduation achievement or the anticipated social mobility. Morrison contends that the actual concept of the “graduate employment market” may itself be an “anachronism” as it is “segmented into zones of greater and lesser security” where traditional delineations of “graduate and nongraduate work” no longer exist (2014, 183). These are competitive markets that not only expect job-ready applicants, but also graduates for high prestige professions must have a level of “polish,” combined with key “soft skills,” which cannot be achieved solely through academic focus (Kirby 2016; Morrison 2014; Moreau and Leathwood 2006). Given the differences in opportunity, access, and understandings of achievement, how can we, as university practitioners, ensure that students from equity backgrounds are encouraged and scaffolded to achieve their potential. The next section explores the concept of “students as partners” through the lens of equity and access as an alternative but powerful engagement strategy. We argue that this framework offers the potential to both disrupt and redefine the ways in which students are invited to participate in events and, importantly, how they are valued as individuals in this setting.

Understanding the “Brave” Nature of “Students as Partners” Approaches The potential of “students as partners” (SaP) as providing alternative approaches to student engagement and support has emerged as an important initiative within HE (Matthews 2016). While not widely applied specifically to the equity and outreach field, the opportunities offered by this relational and ethically bounded framework have been identified. Matthews (2017) argues that this type of partnership offers an alternative power paradigm within HE, described as “an act of resistance to the traditional, often implicit, but accepted, hierarchical structure where staff have power over students” (6). This “resistance” is a “radical cultural shift” for the university setting (Matthews et al. 2018, 24) whereby students are not assumed as passive recipients but instead are negotiated as agents in constructing their learning and educational experiences. The potential of SaP to disrupt taken-for-granted discourses and approaches is further argued by Cook-Sather (2016) as offering the possibility for creating “brave” spaces in the education landscape. Cook-Sather offers the term “brave” spaces as counternarrative to “safe” spaces, the latter implying a lack of “danger, risk or harm” for participants, when in fact learning by its very nature is a risky undertaking, and to strive or present “safe spaces” can be somewhat “counterproductive” (1). This is echoed by Arao and Clemens as “contribut[ing] to the entrenchment of dominance

314

S. O’Shea et al.

and subordination” (2013, 140). This is not to say that the student partnership approach does not create trust-filled partnerships between staff and students, but focusing on “bravery” acknowledges this as sometimes difficult and demanding work. Of course, not all students may opt to engage in this work; research has indicated that more recent generations of learners (such as millennials or Gen Y) have adopted a more passive consumer approach to learning, characterized by commodity exchange or commodification (Fullerton 2013; Luckett et al. 2017). Importantly however, those from equity backgrounds often have a lower sense of belonging or entitlement to HE (Spiegler and Bednarek 2013), which in turn may mean that deliberate and proactive approaches designed to engage these learners are needed. Forging genuine and collaborative partnerships within the equity and outreach space entails a level of engagement that is both active and agentic; however, such spaces provide the potential for those involved to feel: courageous enough to risk, explore, experiment, assert, learn and change, knowing that they would be supported in those necessarily destabilizing and unpredictable processes. (CookSather 2016, 1)

The reciprocal nature of the SaP approach results in each having the opportunity to contribute in various ways to a learning environment or process. The collaborative nature is key for students from diverse or disadvantaged backgrounds as it creates a space where existing types of capital and knowledges can inform the structure and content of activities. As Matthews explains, the strength of working with students as partners is in the diversity, which “forms the foundation of fruitful partnerships in acknowledging that we bring different but equally valuable perspectives to the joint enterprise of education” (2016, 3). However, to optimize the possibility for change that characterizes SaP approaches, it is necessary to retain a level of vigilance in how these partnerships are framed, deliberately constructed, and managed. This is explored in the next section with specific reference to equity populations.

Applying “Students as Partners” to University Support and Outreach Matthews (2017) and Bovill (2017) concur there is no exact or predefined way to implement SaPs; instead, adoption needs to be contextualized to the setting and the participants. This is particularly the case in equity settings with care taken to ensure that participation incorporates diversity in terms of “social classes, countries, backgrounds, religions, [and] disciplines” (Matthews 2017, 2). Matthews identifies five key principles for any SaP venture, particularly those engaging with equity cohorts: • Creating “inclusive partnerships” • Enabling “power-sharing relationships” managed through “dialogue and reflection”

17

Creating Collaborative Spaces: Applying a “Students as Partner” Approach. . .

315

• Navigating and acknowledging the uncertainty that such partnerships can evoke • Recognizing the “ethical” nature of these relationships and implementing ethical practices • Negotiating and engaging with the transformational nature of these partnerships (Matthews 2017, 2) The program detailed in this chapter sought to follow these five principles in recognition that the students would be both vulnerable but also “brave.” The following section provides a detailed account of the development of the program with particular attention paid to the ways in which issues of power, uncertainty, and ethical understandings were considered and managed.

Implementing a “Students as Partners” in Mentoring (SaPiM) Program The Students as Partners in Mentoring (SaPiM) program focused on the development and implementation of a first-year student mentoring program piloted in the School of Education at the University of Wollongong (UOW). Based upon a student partnership framework (Healey et al. 2014; Matthews 2016), SaPiM was developed from the ground-up, utilizing a student-staff committee. The committee oversaw the development of a Student Partnership Agreement as well as implementation of the program. A research project ran alongside the SaPiM program exploring the reflections of participants (committee members, mentors, and mentees) involved in the design and development or implementation of SaPiM. SaPiM involved three key phases: preimplementation; development and implementation; and reflection on implementation. All stages were overseen by the project team (authors), comprised of staff (Delahunty and O’Shea) and a student (Gigliotti), to ensure that research, recommendations, and best practice were considered.

Preimplementation: Forming a Committee The preimplementation phase involved expressions of interest from staff and students within the School of Education to form a student-staff committee. Staff were expected to work collaboratively on the committee to develop a transition program and participate in regular meetings. Nine staff members expressed interest, with three to four rotating staff attending each meeting. Likewise, students who had completed at least 1 year of study were invited to apply via electronic means (student message and advertisements on core subject LMS sites), and in lectures. Nine students submitted an expression of interest, addressing criteria aimed at attracting applicants from all “walks of life”: • Personal details including current enrolment status (degree program/year of study and how entry was gained: HSC, STAT, TAFE, etc.) (Access to higher education in Australia can be accomplished through a range of avenues including a statebased exam such as the New South Wales’ Higher School Certificate (HSC).

316

S. O’Shea et al.

Potential students can also elect to sit an entry examination called the Special Tertiary Admission Test (STAT) or may complete a qualification via a vocational provider such as Technical and Further Education Colleges (TAFE)) • Details of relevant experience (community programs, mentoring, etc.) • Academic results to date • A short essay describing why they thought a program like SaPiM was important and why they wished to be involved From this process, five student committee members were selected with a deliberate focus on diversity of backgrounds to ensure that a range of perspectives would be represented on the committee. Table 1 indicates the diversity of student committee members (pseudonyms are used, and all biographical details were supplied by students).

Table 1 Student committee members – demographics, background, and degree Student (pseudonym) Naomi, 22

Elise, 32

Background Identified as being the firstin-family from a single parent home Variety of volunteer experiences Identified as being the first in the family with parenting and work responsibilities

Henry, 24

Identified mental health issues that had impacted on his study progression

Natalie, 32

Identified as the first in the family and a sole parent with “informal” mentoring experience Identified as being the firstin-family, from a rural town with some volunteer tutor and mentoring experience

Alistair, 20

Pathway to university 2013: HSC Early entry

Degree B.Primary education

Degree level 4th year undergraduate

Part-time student 2007: B. Design (Architecture) 2010: Grad. Dip urban and regional planning Poor ATAR 2014: B.Arts entry via portfolio application Mature-age entry – STAT Test

M.Teaching (primary), regional campus

Postgraduate

M.Education (TESOL)

Postgraduate

B.Primary education

4th year undergraduate

2015: HSC 2016: Accepted offer to UOW after gap year

B. Mathematics education

3rd year undergraduate

17

Creating Collaborative Spaces: Applying a “Students as Partner” Approach. . .

317

Development and Implementation of SaPiM Based on initial consultation across the committee, it was agreed that a mentoring program, which was both designed and run by students, would be most beneficial to the school. However, this was an evolving and fluid process that considered a range of factors including: • • • •

Potential issues experienced by diverse first-year commencing students Support for academic study and student mental well-being The role of academics in raising awareness of student issues The role of students in deciding on the scope of responsibility of the mentors, as well as program inclusions • Available tools to assist with awareness-raising and links to existing resources (including how to navigate the Learning Management System or LMS) Over a period of 9 months, the student-staff committee worked collaboratively to design and develop SaPiM considering diverse perspectives. Monthly committee meetings were organized using an online poll with priority given to student availability in a deliberate move to privilege the student voice. Outcomes of these meetings included the following: • “Student Partnership Agreement” outlining the aims and objectives of SaPiM, roles and responsibilities of committee members, and the collaborative nature of the student-staff partnership to improve the first-year student experience • “Mentor Handbook” including the purpose of the program; the role of a mentor; how to support mentees; information about fears and expectations of first-year students; existing support services at UOW; setting personal boundaries; and a planner to keep track of meetings with mentees • Diverse approaches to introducing a “mentoring culture” to staff and students within the School of Education • Mentor training session, mandatory for potential mentors

Recruitment of Student Mentors (Mid-2017) Following the development of SaPiM, recruitment of student mentors mirrored that of the student committee members. The invitation extended to undergraduate and postgraduate education students through electronic messages and advertising during lectures. To ensure diversity in learning and representation of biographical backgrounds, students from “all walks of life” who had completed at least 1 year of fulltime of study (or equivalent) were encouraged to apply. As with the student committee application, potential mentors addressed the same points outlined in the Preimplementation: forming a committee section, with each being reviewed by the committee. From the applications, 12 mentors were recruited across a range of educational degrees (Early Years Education, Primary Education, Health and Physical Education, Science Education Mathematics Education, and Masters of Teaching). Diversity in

318

S. O’Shea et al.

backgrounds and experience was represented in the form of, for example, single mothers, international students, and students living on campus. All student committee members also volunteered to be mentors and were referred to as “Super-Mentors” based on their prior experience and involvement. All mentors participated in a training session designed by the student-staff committee and delivered by the Super-Mentors. Training was aligned with the mentor handbook but was energized through role play, games, and collaborative groupwork to explore mentor roles and responsibilities, fears and expectations of first-year students, as well as information delivery, such as strategies to build resilience, and a Yarning Circle for reflection, facilitated by an aboriginal staff committee member. (Yarning circles are an aboriginal practice which articulate values of respect, responsibility, and reciprocity. They create a space of connection through sitting together to share stories, while upholding and engaging in strong protocol that preserves these values (Kennedy et al. 2019).) Following training, mentors were given access to a range of resources and ongoing support was offered, including a dedicated e-mail for assistance or support during their involvement in the program.

First-Year Mentees (2018) SaPiM was piloted in 2018. The opportunity to be mentored was promoted at orientation activities (with Super-Mentors dressed in capes), via electronic messages, and in lectures of commencing education students. Forty-five mentees signed up, and each was assigned a mentor who was responsible for contacting the mentee(s) to negotiate mutually convenient informal meetings and/or communications. Mentees could contact their mentor as many times as they wanted throughout the semester to seek advice. Some queries were addressed in a single instance, others over multiple occasions. Reflection on Implementation Following the 2018 pilot, data was collected from student-staff committee members, mentors, and mentees. Committee members (some staff and all students) completed a reflection on their involvement, mentors and mentees completed an anonymous survey, and three mentors participated in a focus group interview. Below is a summary of the data collected (Table 2): The reflective review (written or videoed) was guided by three questions: Table 2 Details of data collected Participant type Student committee members Staff committee members Mentors Mentees

Reflective review (2017) 4

Survey (2018)

Focus group (2018)

6 4

3

2

17

Creating Collaborative Spaces: Applying a “Students as Partner” Approach. . .

319

1. Why did you become involved in SaPiM? 2. What key insights/learning did you take away from this experience? 3. What would you do differently if involved in another SaP initiative? The online survey (approximately 20–30 min) invited respondents to reflect on their involvement in the program, particularly the ways in which this experience had informed their perspectives on the university and their involvement. It included a range of open questions to encourage participants to reflect in a deeply descriptive sense. The focus group involved open questions to explore participants’ perspectives on peer mentoring, the student-staff design of SaPiM, and suggestions for improvements. The data from all sources was considered collectively, and analysis was based upon manual line-by-line coding conducted by two of the authors. All data was analyzed for common themes and foci, ensuring that the emergent meaning was inductive in nature. This was an iterative process that involved continual movement between the data, relevant literature, and theories in the field, drawing upon key sociological theorists who focus on social justice issues and educational equity framed within a mobility discourse (e.g., Bathmaker 2015; Friedman 2014; Reay 2013). Elements of interpretative action research were drawn upon in this approach in the sense that reality was recognized as being “socially constructed [and] subjectively-based” (O’Brien 1998, 10). Applying a diversity of conceptual categories then enabled the data to be unpacked in various ways and avoided implying singular taken-for-granted or assumed understandings.

Findings The findings show clearly that the types of genuine collaborations that occurred in SaPiM, from design to implementation, offer potential for learning for all participants. Staff and students indicated the overall value of fostering relationships, particularly those on the committee: To be able to sit at a table as an equal with our undergrad students for me, that was an uplifting experience. (Staff) This experience enabled me to collaborate with other educators and engage professionally with colleagues. I learnt that when working together for the same goal, ideas and action flow quite easily and goals can be accomplished. I also learnt more about the University. . .I have grown. . .through this experience. (Student)

The following summarizes positive evaluations of SaPiM from the mentormentee survey. All agreed/strongly agreed that they would recommend future mentoring programs to be collaborative staff-student ventures. In addition, most agreed/strongly agreed that:

320

S. O’Shea et al.

• They could use what they had learned through SaPiM in other areas of life. • It was important to them that students had significant input into SaPiM’s design/ development. • Being involved in SaPiM assisted them in understanding the nature of transitioning to university. • They would volunteer to be part of a similar program again (as a mentor). • They would continue their involvement in the program on an informal basis. • Their involvement in SaPiM would be beneficial to their future university experience and academic goals. Next we detail a thematic analysis of the qualitative data. Broader themes across all the data emerged as three main foci: • SaPiM’s social value: creating a “brave” space for participants, including relevance for students and assisting in the transition to university • SaPiM’s practical value: providing opportunities to develop high level skills through student/staff collaboration, program development and implementation, and mentor-mentor and mentor-mentee interactions • SaPiM’s affective value: enabling the development of collegial relationships and networks important for success in the university experience Each theme is explored separately with reference to insights provided by all participants – staff and student committee members, mentors, and mentees. This 360-degree perspective provides a comprehensive overview of the program, its benefits, and also the various personal and public impacts.

Social Value: SAPIM Creates a “Brave” Place The relationship created between commencing students (mentees) and continuing students (mentors) was trust-filled, providing an opportunity to “test out” the student role. This was largely indicated in responses to the mentee survey, exemplified by Mentee 4: Having a mentor show me the ropes and talk with me in a relaxed way that academics could not. . .If not for this program I believe I would have struggled immensely with the first few months of uni, I would not have calmed my anxiety and definitely would have struggled a lot more.

Equally, students on the committee reflected upon insights into the university, gained through the process of designing and developing SaPiM. This gave them new understandings of the inner workings of the institution, challenging them to reconceptualize the student experience, as Elise explained:

17

Creating Collaborative Spaces: Applying a “Students as Partner” Approach. . .

321

I have never been involved in a project before that has been developed by both staff and students. Having the students involved, meant that the program was able to be built from the ground up, relating directly to students’ experiences. (student reflection)

The opportunity to occupy a “space” to work collaboratively and equally with staff to drive an initiative was significant. For Alistair, the committee experience encouraged him to consider more complex issues associated with university participation: A wide variety of insights that I hadn’t considered was brought in by everyone else on the team. . .the professional discussion was a good learning experience for me, not having considered everything that was put on the table. It was nice to see fresh takes on problems. (student reflection)

Staff on the SAPIM committee noted that the experience provided them with another perspective on student life, particularly the realities of participating in a contemporary HE landscape and additional factors that impact on student learning. For Neil, this provided a space to step outside the relentless nature of teaching and instead appreciate learners as individuals rather than a collective mass: I just find that my experience of university – I don’t want to use the metaphor, a bit of a ‘meat grinder’ - but it can feel like that with thousands of students being put through the system and very rarely do we get an opportunity to see those students actually step up and help others directly. (staff reflection)

Overall, the sentiment was that involvement in SaPiM crossed artificial studentstaff boundaries. This was a “brave” space as it allowed, and indeed challenged, participants to reconsider their perspectives and embrace alternative and unexpected ways of doing and being in the HE landscape, so eloquently summed up by Linda: I really love the idea of people who teach and make a difference – touch lives forever and that whole thing of “have I made a difference, even for a little nanosecond in someone’s day?”. . .that’s a really positive experience, to see the program with positive outcomes at the end is really exciting. (staff reflection)

Practical Value: Providing Opportunities to Develop Involvement in SaPiM had extremely tangible and practical outcomes, particularly for mentors and mentees. This perhaps is not surprising, given the objective of the program to assist commencing students, particularly those from equity backgrounds, to transition successfully into university. However, while the delivery of knowledge was recognized as important, the interpersonal context in which it was negotiated was key: I love that the program is not purely run by academics and uni employees but it is driven by students. (Mentor 3 survey)

322

S. O’Shea et al.

I really enjoyed building relationships with the other student members of the committee and learning about the similarities and differences in our university experiences. (Naomi, student reflection) Having peer mentors hopefully would be setting up trusting relationships and also those connections of “I remember this was difficult” or “Have you found this a challenge?” I think that’s a lovely way of actually caring for others. (Linda, staff reflection)

Importantly, involvement was characterized as a valuable opportunity to gain employability skills identified by mentors as key to future prospects. This included participating in committee meetings, communicating with peers from diverse backgrounds and ages, developing organizational skills, planning and developing programs, delivering/facilitating training, and working in cross-disciplinary teams. In addition to practical skills, students mentioned increased self-confidence and sense of belonging. For Natalie, being on the committee resulted in “more confidence in my ability to engage with other professionals to work collaboratively on meeting the needs of students.” Equally, participation forged new and rewarding relationships and connections across campus: Meeting all the staff that we haven’t been in contact with before. Even meeting other students from different degrees, different year groups. (Tiffany, Mentor FG)

We know that university campuses can be lonely places, and many students no longer have the time nor the inclination to remain on campus unless this is for purposeful and meaningful activities (Thomas and Jones 2017). Arguably, a staffstudent collaboration like SaPiM not only provides measurable benefits to all in terms of skills and knowledges acquired but also, importantly, foregrounds the importance of relationships and connections. This relational focus celebrates collectivity and provides an alternative to the individual-focus of neoliberal contexts.

Affective Value: Developing Collegial Relationships The affective value of SaPiM was often articulated through embodied language and emotional terms. For example, one mentor described the connection facilitated by the program, enabling mentors to “truly empathis[e]” with the mentees and their needs. Similarly, another explained that involvement enabled a “strong connection with a mentee who was looking for guidance.” Yet, another reflected on their involvement as a desire “to ease someone’s stress as they find their feet at university.” The value of these supportive relationships was often in contrast to mentors’ personal experience of commencing university. Both Naomi and Natalie explained that becoming involved in the SaPiM committee was motivated by what was “lacking” for them and what would have assisted their transition:

17

Creating Collaborative Spaces: Applying a “Students as Partner” Approach. . .

323

Reflecting back. . .there are many things I could have learnt about earlier if a program such as this was available. (Naomi, reflection) I am the first person in my family to undertake tertiary education. . .I didn’t know where to go to seek advice and no one I knew had experienced it before. . .I remember feeling quite isolated in my first year. . .and I thought it would be nice to have. . .someone who could give me advice on where to go to utilise facilities on the campus that I never knew existed. . .I never had somebody to guide and mentor me, but maybe I could be that person for somebody else. (Natalie, reflection)

The actual execution and content of the program was similarly negotiated by mentors in a very personal and embodied sense, often reflecting the “gaps” and difficulties of previous experience: When planning/organising activities for first year students it was helpful thinking back to what we would have appreciated back in first year. . .we were able to collaborate our ideas through face to face discussions. (Mentor 1) ‘Cos it is quite a big change from high school. . .in high school you’re pretty much hand-held by the teachers. . .it’s a big shock to come to uni and it’s all very independent and you kind of sink or swim. (Anna, FG)

For mentees, the collegial and approachable nature of the mentors was a key characteristic of the program. Collegiality was identified in survey responses, such as “being able to ask questions to students who had been in the same situation” (Mentee 3). For staff, opportunities to work with students in a collegial sense provided greater appreciation of their abilities and strengths. Linda described the “energy,” “commitment,” and “passion” of the students: They [mentors] were saying ‘we’d like to continue’ so in fact it’s not just the ‘flash in the pan’, it’s the whole thing of ‘this is important’. So it comes to this inner sense of genuine care for the well-being of others. . .That thing of making a difference, global citizens sort of thing. (reflection)

The possibilities of the program were similarly recognized by Neil who, like Linda, had developed a more comprehensive understanding of the students: They just bring empathy and they bring understanding when it comes to mentoring. A lot of my role as academic director is helping students who have lost their self-esteem, who have lost a bit of hope about where they need to go, they’ve lost perhaps hope they’ll achieve their goal. . .so therefore anyone who can step in; a student who is on the same level as them and say ‘look I understand what you’re going through.’ (reflection)

The SAPIM program, while narrow in its application, initiated a range of positive impacts that were not necessarily anticipated at the commencement of the project. We argue that this model can be replicated elsewhere, but importantly must be

324

S. O’Shea et al.

situated within a “student partnership” framing. The final section explores the possibilities offered by such programs in a broader sectorial sense and provides recommendations for those interested in initiating similar programs.

Conclusions and Implications SaP approaches should underpin all efforts to support and engage our increasingly diverse student population – who better to initiate learners across various equity categories than their peers who have gone before them? SaPiM has the potential to disrupt the discourse of the independent sole learner; this case study has shown that repositioning students in partnership as collaborators essentially forged effective and cooperative connections. One implication of this is that educators could revision what they do, both within and outside of the learning environment, and consider the benefits of an SaP approach. Sometimes, this may only involve minor changes to the activity, but the benefits of collaborations for both students and staff are clear (CookSather 2016). Research indicates that mentoring programs provide timely and authentic ways to engage commencing learners in their university journey (Lindsay et al. 2016). However, often these are designed and developed by staff for students (Lynch et al. 2015) and there has been little focus in the literature on the explicit benefits for the mentors themselves (Beltman and Schaeben 2012). The SaPiM approach offers an opportunity to engage with incoming students, but importantly, it places student mentors as central to the process, thus creating a program developed and designed as a student-staff collaboration. This chapter has identified ways in which partnerships such as SaPiM create an environment in which students can be brave and explore alternative roles within HE environments. Development of relationships and connections that are inherent in SaP initiatives, in the form of working together collectively on a worthwhile extracurricular project, is unlikely to occur elsewhere. Allowing students to use their skills and talents in creative ways (e.g., dressing in superhero capes, producing a customized help guide, and organizing and running training days) develops a sense of self-efficacy and self-confidence as well as multiple other transferrable skills. Situating mentoring within a SaP framework also offered additional and unexpected opportunities to develop relationships and social connections. These opportunities are valuable in an institutional environment where the sheer growth in student numbers, combined with the precarity of teaching roles, often curtails the opportunity for relationship-building (O’Shea et al. 2016). Importantly, for those interested in implementing an SaP approach to mentoring, it is key that diversity is valued and represented, which requires deliberateness, such as that demonstrated through the application process in this case study. This can help promote feelings of belonging for equity students (and staff). Another important implication is the need to ensure that the student voice is genuinely privileged to encourage agency in decision-making in areas such as program design, development, and implementation, so that the needs of students are reflected.

17

Creating Collaborative Spaces: Applying a “Students as Partner” Approach. . .

325

The SaP approach is particularly valuable for learners who arrive at university with alternative forms of cultural or knowledge capital; adapting to often invisible or taken-for-granted learning expectations can result in difficult and fragmented transitions to HE landscapes (O’Shea 2016). Collier (2017) has highlighted the benefits of “trust-filled” relationships for commencing cohorts, particularly those from equity backgrounds (Beltman et al. 2017). Benefits include providing a space to ask questions about university life in a relaxed and informal way (Colvin and Jaffar 2007), providing opportunities to make important connections with experienced peers and other commencing students (Collier 2017), and importantly, providing an authentic and timely orientation to the academic environment (Collier 2017; Crisp et al. 2017). Finally, and importantly, a key implication is the need to meaningfully recognize students’ involvement in such initiatives. In terms of SaPiM, as a cocurricular program, mentor contributions were formally acknowledged on their transcripts and in a certificate of participation. Such recognition is particularly important for students who are competing in the postgraduation market where cocurricular and volunteer experience often provide them with an “edge” during recruitment. We further recommend that the students themselves should assist in “wording” these certificates of participation as they generally have a better understanding of what types of skills and knowledges are expected in their particular field. We offer SaPiM as a potential model for how SaP can be applied productively within the equity and access space, recognizing that this is a relatively small-scale project and the data we collected were similarly constrained by size. However, despite the limited scope, the application of this framing to larger contexts is evident; this would be manageable both financially and temporally to staff within schools, faculties, and central units. Overall, such strategies provide rewards and positive impacts for all participants, facilitating a culture of connectivity and relational connection rather than individuality or isolation.

Cross-References ▶ A Case-Study of Partnership in Practice: Engaging Students to Shape Support for Learning in Higher Education ▶ From “Customer” to “Partner”: Approaches to Conceptualization of StudentUniversity Relationships ▶ Neoliberalism and “Resistance”

References Arao, Brian, and Kristi Clemens. 2013. From safe spaces to brave spaces: A new way to frame dialogue around diversity and social justice. In The art of effective facilitation, ed. L. Landreman, 135–150. Sterling: Stylus Publishing.

326

S. O’Shea et al.

Bathmaker, Ann-marie. 2015. Thinking with Bourdieu: Thinking after Bourdieu. Using ‘field’ to consider in/equalities in the changing field of English higher education. Cambridge Journal of Education 45 (1): 61–80. Beltman, Susan, and Marcel Schaeben. 2012. Institution-wide peer mentoring: Benefits for mentors. International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education 3 (2): 33–44. Beltman, Susan, Shamim Samani, and Kate Ala’i. 2017. Mentoring programs and equity groups: The Australian story. Perth: National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education (NCSEHE), Curtin University. https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/publications/mentoring-programsand-equity-groups-the-australian-story/ Birch, Kean. 2017. What exactly is neo-liberalism? The Conversation. November 3, 2017. http:// theconversation.com/what-exactly-is-neoliberalism-84755 Bovill, Catherine. 2017. A framework to explore roles within student-staff partnerships in higher education: Which students are partners, when, and in what ways? International Journal for Students as Partners 1 (5): 1–5. https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v1i1.3062. Brown, Phillip. 2013. Education, opportunity and the prospects for social mobility. British Journal of Sociology of Education 34 (5–6): 678–700. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2013.816036. Cherastidham, Ittima, and Andrew Norton. 2014. Effects of university prestige and courses on graduates’ earnings. Grattan Institute Report No. 2014–13, November 2014. https://grattan.edu. au/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/818-mapping-background-2014.pdf Collier, Peter. 2017. Why peer mentoring is an effective approach for promoting college student success. Metropolitan Universities 28 (3): 9–19. https://doi.org/10.18060/21539. Colvin, Cassandra, and Fozzil Jaffar. 2007. Enhancing the international student experience: The importance of international student groups and peer support at Edith Cowan University. Paper presented at 10th Pacific Rim first year in higher education conference. Brisbane, 4 July. Cook-Sather, Alison. 2016. Creating brave spaces within and through student- faculty pedagogical partnerships. Teaching and Learning Together in Higher Education 18 (Spring): 1–6. https:// doi.org/10.1109/ESTC.2014.6962775. Crisp, Gloria, Vicki L. Baker, Kimberly A. Griffin, Laura Gail Lunsford, and Meghan J. Pifer. 2017. Mentoring undergraduate students. ASHE Higher Education Report 43 (1): 7–103. https://doi. org/10.1002/aehe.20117. Friedman, Sam. 2014. The price of the ticket: Rethinking the experience of social mobility. Sociology 48 (2): 352–368. Fullerton, Darren. 2013. What students say about their own sense of entitlement. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 135: 31–36. Healey, Mick, Abbi Flint, and Kathy Harrington. 2014. Students as partners in learning and teaching in higher education. York: Higher Education Academy. Available from: https://www. heacademy.ac.uk/engagement-through-partnership-students-partners-learning-and-teachinghigher-education Kennedy, Jade, Lisa Thomas, Alisa Percy, Bonnie Dean, Janine Delahunty, Kathryn Harden-Thew, and Maarten de Laat. 2019. An aboriginal way towards curriculum reconciliation. International Journal for Academic Development 24 (2): 148–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2019.1593172. Kirby, Philip. 2016. Leading people 2016: The educational backgrounds of the UK professional elite. In: Improving social mobility through education. The Sutton Trust. http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/id/ eprint/30232 Lehmann, Wolfgang. 2007. ‘I just didn’t feel like I fit in’ : The role of habitus in university drop- out decisions. Canadian Journal of Higher Education Revue Canadienne 37 (2): 89–110. Lehmann, Wolfgang. 2009. Becoming middle class: How working-class university students draw and transgress moral class boundaries. Sociology 43 (4): 631–647. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0038038509105412. Lindsay, Sally, Laura R. Hartman, and Melissa Fellin. 2016. A systematic review of mentorship programs to facilitate transition to post-secondary education and employment for youth and young adults with disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation 38 (14): 1329–1349. https://doi.org/ 10.3109/09638288.2015.1092174.

17

Creating Collaborative Spaces: Applying a “Students as Partner” Approach. . .

327

Luckett, Michael, Phillip Trocchia, Mark Noel, and Dan Marlin. 2017. A typology of students based on academic entitlement. Journal of Education for Business 29 (2): 96–102. Lynch, Julianne, Bernadette Walker-Gibbs, and Sandra Herbert. 2015. Moving beyond a ‘bums-onseats’ analysis of progress towards widening participation: Reflections on the context, design and evaluation of an Australian government-funded mentoring programme. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 37 (2): 144–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2015.1019122. Mallman, Mark, and Helen Lee. 2014. Stigmatised learners: Mature age students negotiating university culture. British Journal of Sociology of Education, Online First 37: 1–18. Mann, Sarah J. 2001. Alternative perspectives on the student experience: Alienation and engagement. Studies in Higher Education. 26 (1): 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070020030689. Marginson, Simon. 2016. The worldwide trend to high participation higher education: Dynamics of social stratification in inclusive systems. Higher Education 72: 413–434. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10734-016-0016-x. Matthews, Kelly E. 2016. Students as partners as the future of student engagement. Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal 1 (1): 1–5. Matthews, Kelly E. 2017. Five propositions for genuine students as partners practice. International Journal for Students as Partners 1 (2): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v1i2.3315. Matthews, Kelly E., Alison Cook-Sather, and M. Mick Healey. 2018. Connecting learning, teaching and research through student-staff partnerships. In Shaping higher education with students: Ways to connect research and training, ed. V. Tong, A. Standen, and M. Sotiriou, 23–29. London, UK: UCL Press. Moreau, Marie-Pierre, and Carole Leathwood. 2006. Graduates’ employment and the discourse of employability: A critical analysis. Journal of Education and Work 19 (4): 305–324. https://doi. org/10.1080/13639080600867083. Morrison, Andrew R. 2014. ‘You have to be well spoken’: Students’ views on employability within the graduate labour market. Journal of Education and Work 27 (2): 179–198. https://doi.org/10. 1080/13639080.2012.74217. Mulya, T.W. 2019. Contesting the neoliberalisation of higher education through student-faculty partnership. International Journal of Academic Development 24 (1): 86–90. https://doi.org/10. 1080/1360144X.2018.1520110. Nelson, Karen, Catherine Picton, Julie McMillan, Daniel Edwards, Marcia Devlin, and Kerry Martin. 2017. Understanding the completion patterns of equity students in regional universities. Perth: National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education (NCSEHE), Curtin University. https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/publications/completion-patterns-of-equity-students-in-regionaluniversities/ O’Brien, Rory. 1998. An overview of the methodological approach of action research. Retrieved from http://web.net/~robrien/papers/xx%20ar%20final.htm O’Shea, Sarah. 2016. First-in-family learners and higher education: Negotiating the ‘silences’ of university transition and participation. HERDSA Review of Higher Education 3: 5–23. O’Shea, Sarah, and Janine Delahunty. 2018. Getting through the day and still having a smile on my face! How do students define success in the university learning environment? Higher Education Research and Development 37 (5): 1062–1075. O’Shea, Sarah, Pauline Lysaght, Jen Roberts, and Valerie Harwood. 2016. Shifting the blame in higher education – Social inclusion and deficit discourses. Higher Education Research and Development 35 (2): 322–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2015.1087388. O’Shea, Sarah, Josephine May, Cathy Stone, and Janine Delahunty. 2017. First-in-family students, university experience and family life: Motivations. In Transitions and participation. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-58284-3. Polesel, John, Mary Leahy, and Shelley Gillis. 2018. Educational inequality and transitions to University in Australia: Aspirations, agency and constraints. British Journal of Sociology of Education 39 (6): 793–810. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2017.1409101. Reay, Diane. 2013. Social mobility, a panacea for austere times: Tales of emperors, frogs and tadpoles. British Journal of Sociology of Education 34 (5–6): 660–677.

328

S. O’Shea et al.

Reay, Diane. 2017. Miseducation: Inequality, education and the working classes. Bristol: Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt22p7k7m. Southgate, Erica, Susan Grimes, and Jarrad Cox. 2018. High status professions, their related degrees and the social construction of ‘quality’. In Achieving equity and quality in higher education. Palgrave studies in excellence and equity in global education. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78316-1_13. Spiegler, T., and A. Bednarek. 2013. First-generation students: What we ask, what we know and what it means: An international review of the state of research. International Studies in Sociology of Education 23 (4): 318–337. Stevenson, Jacqueline, Sue Clegg, and Ruth Lefever. 2010. The discourse of widening participation and its critics: An institutional case study. London Review of Education 8 (2): 105–115. https:// doi.org/10.1080/14748460.2010.487328. Thomas, Liz, and Robert Jones. 2017. Student engagement in the context of commuter students. London: TSEP. https://www.lizthomasassociates.co.uk/projects/2018/Commuter%20student% 20engagement.pdf Universities Australia. 2019. Data snapshot. https://www.google.com/url?sa¼t&rct¼j&q¼&esrc¼s& source¼web&cd¼4&ved¼2ahUKEwiL_aLChMjiAhVDVisKHfstDz0QFjADegQIABAC& url¼https%3A%2F%2Fwww.universitiesaustralia.edu.au%2FArticleDocuments%2F169%2FData %2520snapshot%25202019%2520FINAL.pdf.aspx&usg¼AOvVaw2McY0h8fpzttYzpSql10Wv Watson, Jo. 2013. Profitable portfolios: Capital that counts in higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education 34 (3): 412–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2012.710005.

“Remedial,” Development, and Business: Three Opposing but Coexisting Approaches to Academic Student Support

18

Tracey Ashmore

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Policy and Literature (Key Themes) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “Remedial”: Overcoming Deficits in Order to Achieve Predefined Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Academic Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Emotional Resilience and Self-Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Development: Holistic Knowledge Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rite of Passage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Choice and Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Challenging the Status Quo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Opening Minds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Holistic Development and Social Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Business: The Service Industry Approach to Improving Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Student Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Funding and Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Footfall as Measure of Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grades Versus Progress as Measure of Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Satisfaction as Measure of Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

330 331 332 333 334 335 336 336 337 337 338 339 339 340 340 341 342 343 343 345 345

Abstract

This chapter outlines three opposing but coexisting approaches to academic support that emerged from my 2018 PhD enquiry: What is the role of academic support in contemporary UK Higher Education (HE)? Data from 17 interviews with academic support staff and managers from 6 different institutions (different origin, status, subject, scale, geographic location) were analyzed thematically in T. Ashmore (*) University of Kent, Kent, UK e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 H. Huijser et al. (eds.), Student Support Services, University Development and Administration, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5852-5_8

329

330

T. Ashmore

the context of key UK HE government-commissioned reports and policy (1963–2016), as well as literature on the evolving role of UK HE academic support (1960s–2018). Bourdieu’s field analysis provided a conceptual framework with which to understand the complex interrelationships between contexts, perceptions, and practices. Analysis revealed academic support to be negotiating and alleviating politically driven conflicts, at the same time as adhering to social values. These conflicts are exemplified in three different academic support approaches: “remedial,” development, and business. “Remedial” and business are both politically driven by competition and commerce, while, in stark contrast, development emerged from practitioners’ aspiration to empower individuals for social advancement. This chapter explores the nature and origins of each of these coexisting approaches. Keywords

Academic student support · Remedying deficits · Learner development · Student satisfaction · Social versus economic values

Introduction The role of academic support can broadly be defined as developing learner’s capabilities for university study and academic achievement. Academic support in UK Higher Education (HE) has historically lacked prominence and only really emerged in literature in the 1990s. Because of limited publications prior to the 1990s, tracing the exact time and origins of UK HE academic support is difficult, this limit in publications prior to the 1990s raises questions about the early visibility and pedagogic status of the role. Historically, UK HE academic support services have also tended to be defined in different ways, for example, “support,” “service,” “development,” “advice,” “counseling,” and “center” with a variety of prefixes, for example, “skills,” “study,” “writing,” “learner,” “student,” “academic,” making it difficult to trace sector-wide developments consistently. According to Bourdieu (1984, 1998), practices arise from the interrelationship between “context” (rules, dominant capital, and positions of power within a particular sphere) and “perceptions” (the habitus, capital, and subsequent positions that agents adopt). Indeed my 17 years of experience of working in HE academic support have taught me that institutions are neither homogenous nor equal and that practices are defined within specific contextual and perceptual constraints. This chapter is therefore concerned with the following questions: how do those working in academic support perceive their role, and how are their perceptions shaped by wider policy contexts? In order to respond to these questions, data from 17 interviews with academic support staff and managers from six different institutions (different origin, status, subject, scale, geographic location) were analyzed thematically. Thematic analysis is commonly associated with exploratory research where codes arise from analysis rather than “pre-established categories” being imposed (Fontana and

18

“Remedial,” Development, and Business: Three Opposing but Coexisting. . .

331

Prokos 2007, 40). Semi-structured interviews with individuals were conducted in order to obtain the unanticipated (Newby 2014), and names of individuals and institutions were replaced with pseudonyms to encourage candid responses. To identify themes, a three-stage process was undertaken: (1) “text segmentation” (Guest et al. 2012) in relation to questions; (2) summarizing responses per institution; and (3) summarizing responses across institutions. Thematic analysis was undertaken of UK government-commissioned reports (1963–2016) and literature about perceptions and practices of UK HE academic support roles (1960s–2018); and the whole process was conceptually framed by Bourdieu’s field analysis: “[(habitus) (capital)] + field ¼ practice” (1984, 101). For a theme to be considered worthy of discussion, at least 3 out of 17 participants would need to have raised it. To contextualize themes arising from interviewee responses, it is important to offer a brief thematic summary of UK government-commissioned reports and the correlation with literature on UK HE academic support.

Policy and Literature (Key Themes) Four periods of policy seem to be vital to the development of UK HE academic support, these are the 1960s, the 1990s, the early 2000s, and post-2009 – after the marketization of UK HE. The first form of academic support emerged in literature in the 1960s in reference to the Robbins Report (1963), the first government-initiated report to formally promote widening participation in HE and the last report to prioritize education and knowledge for societal, as opposed to economic, good. Academic support in this period is described by, and the responsibility of, educational psychologists situated in the university sector (as opposed to HE colleges of the time). The role was defined as individual-centered (Wankowski 1991a; Peelo 1994) with the purpose of supporting students to learn how to: learn at university, be self-directing, regain “academic competence,” and improve or restore the “mastery” of living with “oneself and others” (Wankowski 1991b, 99). Thirty years after the Robbins Report, in the early 1990s, the Department for Education (1993) published a report evaluating support services in polytechnics and colleges – the part of the HE sector at the forefront of widening participation. This report highlighted both notions of good practice and shortfalls in supporting large numbers of “non-traditional” students to engage with their studies. While Simpson (1996) described a significant growth in students with very “mixed” education experiences, knowledge, understanding, confidence, emotional resilience, priorities, and commitments in the mid-1990s, Wolfendale described increased policy-driven pressures for students and institutions to bridge deficits in “personal and transferrable skills” for commerce (1996, 4) – indicating pressure on academic support teams to bridge deficits at both ends of the student journey. The skills agenda was further enforced in 1997 with the Dearing Report and expectations that a set of “key skills,” needed to bridge national deficits, be explicitly mapped onto and addressed through degree programs. Barkas (2011) describes this report and the “key skills” as the

332

T. Ashmore

catalyst for the “skills center” phenomena emerging in the late 1990s and early 2000s, to address skills deficits on mass. In the mid to late 2000s, literature on academic support tends to present and debate what are perceived as optimal models, approaches, and practices. However, optimal approaches have not tended to be presented within institutional contexts and perceptions of purpose. It is this gap in literature, combined with the marketization of HE (post-2009) and the need to contribute to satisfaction metrics in addition to student performance, that led to this research enquiry. The thematic analysis of interviewee responses resulted in the emergence of three coexisting perceptions of purpose with origins in different periods of policy, albeit with some crossover: 1. “Remedial”: overcoming deficits in order to achieve predefined targets (DfE 1993; Dearing 1997) 2. Development: holistic knowledge acquisition (Robbins 1963). 3. Business: the service industry approach to improving quality (BIS 2011, 2016). This chapter will introduce each purpose and discuss the characteristics and practices associated with each.

“Remedial”: Overcoming Deficits in Order to Achieve Predefined Targets Official[ly]. . . [our team] are trying to encourage people to reach their potential and support their own learning development, . . . unofficial[ly] . . . [we are undertaking] “remedial work”, supporting students who, one way or another, are struggling. (Anna 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 155)

In this section of the chapter I explore interviewees’ perceptions that the role of academic support involves “remedial work,” remedying educational and social deficits so that individuals can fully engage with higher education and achieve the graduate skills defined by national policy. While all interviewees saw their role as enabling students to achieve their “potential,” as described on HEI and departmental websites, 13 out of 17 described themselves as attempting to “bridge” the gap between course expectations and the capabilities of students. Phrases like “problem solving” and providing “a safety net” were used to describe this “remedial work,” reflecting the re-active response to individual “needs” as needs are presented. The word “remedial” was raised by a minimum of one interviewee from each participating team – to either describe the work they found themselves undertaking or to describe what their work was not. However, all participants using the term “remedial” considered it to be an unacceptable description of their role. Consequently, there appeared to be two narratives regarding the purpose of academic support – official and an unofficial – with tensions between the two. The notion of “deficits” on a wider scale arose from government perceptions that UK education, at all levels, was insufficient for a thriving economy (Dearing 1997; BIS 2011, 2016),

18

”Remedial,“ Development, and Business: Three Opposing but Coexisting. . .

333

thus leading to predefined and enforced targets for a more economically driven sense of purpose and success. Although skills “deficits” have tended to be described as a shortfall in the abilities of our nation's school leavers and graduates, it is possible that these “deficits” have arisen from politically defined notions of education, learning, knowledge, and measures of educational quality and success. Academic support has emerged and developed out of politically defined and politically-driven deficits, in the space where the disposition (habitus and capital) of individuals (Bourdieu 1984; Noble and Davies 2009), policy-driven expectations, and the practices of HEIs, all collide. Three key areas of need or “deficit” arose from interviews: (1) academic skills, (2) emotional resilience and self-management, and (3) motivation.

Academic Skills All interviewees predominantly described supporting writing and the development of knowledge and thinking involved in producing written work. While some students were described as being able to develop their writing by “imitating others or . . . responding to feedback” (Dimitriou 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 160) others were described as needing “obvious strategies” (Dimitriou 2016 in Ashmore 2018). To put this into context, one self-defined “research-intensive” institution was described as having 50% of law students below the expected literacy threshold (Antreas 2015 in Ashmore 2018). However, it is important to make the distinction between “basic” literacy and “academic” writing. Basic literacy tends to be concerned with societal conventions and standards of reading and writing (Lebus 2010; Tett 2016), whereas “academic literacy” is described as a part of discipline-specific “meaning making,” “criticality,” and “knowledge production” (Brynne 2016 in Ashmore 2018). The general inference in interviewee responses is that “academic literacy” is something that everyone needs to be inducted into (Lea and Street 1998; Hill et al. 2010; Wingate 2015) for students do not necessarily arrive from school academically literate; whereas students are expected to arrive with basic literacy, having completed compulsory education. Despite this expectation, some teams described dealing with much more complex and basic literacy issues. Murray and Klinger state that the emphasis on widening participation and “underrepresented” social groups in HE has brought with it “numerous tensions, one of which concerns language and literacy” (2012, 27). Indeed, one HE institution was described by interviewees as presenting a social and academic divide between its campuses. The originating campus, which is in a more affluent area offering liberalfocused courses, was described as attracting a “mix of ethnicity” and higher levels of literacy; in contrast, the newer campus in a more deprived area with more vocational courses, was described as attracting a “much higher level of [UK] black ethnic minority . . . [a] broader range of educational backgrounds” (Adie 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 172) requiring higher levels of basic literacy development. This suggests a link between social backgrounds, literacy, and educational trajectories. Tett (2016) describes “learning identities,” shaped prior to HE, as playing the role in “determining whether the process of learning will end up with what counts as

334

T. Ashmore

success or . . . failure” for an individual (Tett 2016, 428). In other words, if students do not acquire “the expected skills and competencies required by their society” (Tett 2016, 427) within the expected timeframe (compulsory education), inequalities are reinforced (Simpson and Cieslik 2007; Bathmaker et al. 2013). Although, this would imply that, ideally, educational inequalities need addressing in compulsory education, Murray and Klinger highlight the importance of HEIs providing adequate support to ensure “non-traditional” cohorts are not incorrectly labeled as “lacking academic quality” (2012, 27). Regardless of levels of literacy, when interviewees described supporting students’ writing abilities, it was largely with reference to three key areas: reading, critical thinking, and language. A severe lack of proficiency in one or all of these areas was commonly linked to cases of plagiarism. The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) paper, Plagiarism in Higher Education (2016), identified two contextual drivers for cases of plagiarism: (1) the recruitment of students regardless of educational suitability; (2) students’ motivation to compete in the market rather than a desire to learn. Both point toward the political context rather than education institutions per se. However, at the Westminster Higher Education Forum in 2018, the “copy and paste” culture identified in secondary education, as evidence of knowledge and applied learning, was specifically mentioned as a contributing factor in the rise of plagiarism in HE. However, plagiarism was not the only issue blamed on the compulsory sector. Over half of interviewees described large numbers of school leavers needing explicit instructions on what to read and write in assignments. Paton (2012) describes school leavers entering Cambridge University, one of the highest ranked UK HEIs, as “grappling” with similar issues. Being “templated to get through [school and college] exams” (Eileen 2016 in Ashmore, 170) was considered to be the issue: “it’s a bit like ‘write like this because this will help you pass’ . . . [we had] really strict targets to hit . . . all of our students had to pass the level that we had said they would” (Chey 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 171). “Protective” forms of “teaching” in schools and colleges to ensure government-defined targets are met (Raaheim and Wankowski 1981) arguably impact on how individuals receive and engage with learning and knowledge postschool, affecting learner motivations, confidence, and resilience.

Emotional Resilience and Self-Management Students’ emotional resilience – “positive adaption to threat or adversity” (Cotton et al. 2017, 65) – and their ability to manage themselves and their studies, was a thread that ran through interviewee responses. Over half of the interviewees described students of all ages juggling study alongside other commitments, such as caring responsibilities and employment. Students from economically poorer backgrounds with caring responsibilities or having to undertake paid work were especially highlighted as missing key learning opportunities. Therefore, some practitioners found themselves trying to mitigate the cycle of social and economic inequities that perpetuate social and economic inequities (Reay et al. 2005; Crawford et al. 2017; Reay 2017).

18

“Remedial,” Development, and Business: Three Opposing but Coexisting. . .

335

Although “confidence” building was mentioned by most interviewees, because it was considered integral to all aspects of learning, very low emotional resilience was highlighted as a barrier to even the basic engagement. Six interviewees had noticed an increase in students with anxieties and mental health issues, in addition to a general need to mitigate “imposter syndrome” (Antreas 2015 in Ashmore 2018, 176) – an innate sense of inadequacy affecting performance (Ramsey and Brown 2018). Bourdieu (2013) has stated that a person’s ability to grapple with anything challenging is dependent on historical “dispositions” – perceptions of themselves constructed through prior experiences. In HE however, the conflict between the perception of inadequacy and a desire to belong can lead individuals to instinctively mask “shortfalls” rather than proactively address them. Interviewees who mentioned “imposter syndrome” also tended to describe cases of students continually seeking academic support last minute, leading to poor assessment results and confirmation of being an “imposter.” One of the five academic support teams interviewed described a very steep increase in students with “very complex” relationships to education (Eileen 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 181), which subsequently impacted on demand for one-to-one guidance at later stages in the year. The increase in demand for individual support was so significant that, despite the developmental benefits of individual-centered approach, this team made the decision to return to generic, predefined group tuition, to manage their workload. This highlights the conflicts between politically driven metrics, that is, teaching efficiency, teaching quality, and student expectation and satisfaction.

Motivation Ten interviewees mentioned motivation, with half highlighting a relationship between student motivation, engagement, and attainment. The increase in participation in HE was described as increasing pressure on individuals to undertake degrees because “everybody else” is (Asaad 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 186) and because employers now expect it (Boris 2016 in Ashmore 2018; Dimitriou 2016 in Ashmore 2018). Some of the motivational issues interviewees faced were largely from young school leavers: “wanting to get through [university] with minimum effort,” even when they risk “failing” (Anna 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 183); or being disinterested in engaging in curriculum outside of their prior knowledge and immediate enjoyment (Ethan 2016 in Ashmore 2018); or viewing HE as an extension to, or interruption of, their social life (Assad 2016 in Ashmore 2018). Authors such as Bourdieu (2013), Rogers (2002), and Tett (2016) argue that motivation for learning is formed prior to HE, thus influencing learning behaviors – attendance and engagement – within HE. However, HEI performance indicators, such as student satisfaction, retention, achievement, and employment, are based on the assumption that: (1) all students entering HE are committed to learning; and (2) student motivation and performance is dependent on the quality of HE teaching and support. Rogers (2002) described the ability to gain enjoyment from and persevere with difficult tasks as underpinned by: what a student perceives as “success”; what they are accustomed to, for example, success or failure; and whether they perceive success as

336

T. Ashmore

correlating with their own actions or determined by other people – highlighting the fine line between attitudes of dependence (power-less) or independence (power-full). Indeed, interviewees and authors, such as Rogers (2002), describe motivation as complex and something that academic support teams have little influence over, other than to encourage individuals “to acquire the patterns of thinking [and behaviour] that will enable them to succeed . . . on their own” merit (Anna 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 184).

Development: Holistic Knowledge Acquisition The term “development” emerged from interviews, confirmed and reinforced by literature on academic support in UK HE (Wankowski 1991b; Simpson 1996; Jones et al. 1997; Blythman and Orr 2002; Oyston 2003; Wingate 2006, 2007; Shreeve 2007; Stephenson 2008; Marsh 2008; Hill et al. 2010). The term “development” has two meanings – one related to practice and one related to purpose. “Development” in terms of practice represents a departure from deficit models of support (Wingate 2007), denoting an anticipatory and proactive approach to addressing all students’ needs in a timely manner (Hill et al. 2010). “Development” in terms of purpose signifies the aspiration of interviewees that their purpose is to contribute to the holistic growth of individuals beyond skills and skills agendas. In 2011, Quinlan pointed out that there was “relatively little discourse in the UK about the ways that higher education . . . support not only intellectual development, but the development of the whole student” (2011, 5); I would argue that some years on, holistic development is still viewed as an addition to intellectual development, rather than central. This section of the chapter focuses on the latter definition of “development” as in “holistic” purpose, which Quinlan describes as “an integrative view of learning . . . that emphasises . . . relationships between thinking, feeling and action” (2011, 2) leading to empowerment and more meaningful societal contributions (Barkas 2011; Gibbs 2017). Five themes in relation to “development” arose from the interviews: (1) Rite of Passage; (2) Choice and Identity; (3) Challenging the Status Quo; (4) Opening Minds; (5) Holistic Development and Social Values.

Rite of Passage Half of the interviewees described HE as bridging the gap between school and adulthood. As Quinlan points out, “developmentally, young adulthood is a time . . . in which students are grappling with identity” and moving toward independence (2011, 7–8). Interviewees mentioned equipping students with the “skills to handle life and to make a real contribution to society” (Dylan 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 192), and enabling students to “have a positive impact” and make a “difference” in the world (Anton 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 192). This implies that compulsory education does not necessarily prepare individuals adequately for adulthood or contribute to the development of independence. Several interviewees described their role as promoting “independent learning” (Ethan 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 192), enabling students to become

18

“Remedial,” Development, and Business: Three Opposing but Coexisting. . .

337

autonomous “managers of their own learning” (Eileen 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 192). Therefore, interviewees were not just enabling students to develop subject knowledge but to develop self-knowledge and emotional resilience. Carlson (2013) associates better decision making, academic achievement, and general contentment with selfknowledge and emotional resilience. Resilience is arguably related to “self-efficacy” and self-efficacy enables students to view educational challenges as something that everyone grapples with rather than a “threat” to avoid (Turner et al. 2017) – resilience is, therefore, synonymous with empowerment and choice.

Choice and Identity Although student “choice” was emphasized by Success as a Knowledge Economy (2016), it was in relation to driving up competition between HEIs in the name of “quality.” In contrast, interviewees defined choice as the right to study and the right to choose what to study, seeing the very act of choosing and engaging in something meaningful to the individual as key to their development and empowerment, the very essence of democracy. Half of interviewees described the rise in “student fees” in the UK as potentially creating more barriers to these kinds of opportunities for those on lower incomes. There were also concerns raised about the potential extinguishing of the liberal arts, outside of the few wealthy institutions and students who can afford to ignore employment and wage metrics in pursuit of intellectual growth. Burke describes the current political climate – subject funding and employment metrics – as favoring “certain institutions, courses, academics and students” (2012, 32). University education has been described as “the first opportunity” for individuals to break free of the constraints of a compulsory curriculum, and develop their own sense of self through choice (Antreas 2015 in Ashmore 2018, 195), and therefore an opportunity that should be open to all. Interviewees were advocates for equality of choice, believing that all students should have the right to study something they considered “important” “interesting” and “relevant” to them (Effie 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 197), regardless of how it fits with political and economic agendas. As one interviewee raised: “it’s hard to say that if someone becomes an artist and doesn’t earn as much money as they might, [that, that] is . . . a loss for the world or for that person, . . . if that person is able to have, what they perceive as, a worthwhile life” (Desiree 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 197–198). Gibbs (2017) describes the aim of education as learning how to “be” – as in identity, rather than to “have” – as in commodity, which arguably conflicts with the current economically driven education system in the UK.

Challenging the Status Quo Although compulsory education is free in the UK, Bourdieu (1998) argues that free education goes no closer to breaking with social boundaries, because of the way that curriculum, delivery, and quality are predefined, and controlled. Based on their own experiences and that of their students, almost all interviewees felt that UK school

338

T. Ashmore

education did not raise the aspirations of all individuals. Over half of the interviewees described school as contributing to, or compounding, low self-esteem, therefore, considered it their duty to raise “expectations” of others, opening individuals up to challenge and change, altering their relationship with learning, education, and power (Carl 2016 in Ashmore 2018). Challenging the status quo was not just about raising aspirations however, for interviewees talked about equipping and empowering students to be able to query and challenge social practices, within and beyond their studies. The “privilege of critique . . . freedom of speech” (Brynne 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 203) were considered important aspects of HE, with academic support encouraging “discussion, research, criticality” (Beatrice 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 203). However, this requires students to have the “capacity to present knowledge and understanding in a form legitimated by . . . a field” (Watson 2014, 107), in other words “linguistic capital,” which is symbolic of knowledge (Bourdieu et al. 1994). The linguistic capital exclusive to a specific sphere can be divisive if an individual does not possess it and cannot access it (Mawson 2010; Bourdieu et al. 1994). Because linguistic capital is not simply words, but consists of knowledge, social discourse, and the understanding that words represents, it is not possible to just remove words and consider everyone to be equal. Instead, in order to really empower, academic support practitioners are inducting students into forms of linguistic capital, making the invisible knowledge “visible” and aiding understanding. In order to aid individuals to challenge social practices and discourses, it is often necessary to first equip them with the language and knowledge of the field, in other words aiding individuals to conform to conventions in order to challenge and possibly change conventions.

Opening Minds Every interviewee emphasized the importance and power of enhancing students’ thinking. Students’ beliefs and capacity to reflect and critique were considered fundamental to development; therefore all interviewees talked about encouraging students to move beyond comfort zones to “new” ways of viewing the world and “themselves” (Asaad 2016 in Ashmore 2018). Interviewees described the importance of encouraging students to explore “new” perspectives in the development of knowledge and self-awareness, while recognizing the discomfort that students may experience as they move away from established ideas and grapple with new ones (Beatrice 2016 in Ashmore 2018). Identifying and understanding one’s own perceptions and positions, and then developing the ability to actively challenge rather than passively accept, was considered to be an important part of education. Interviewees discussed the power of reflective and critical thinking, not just in relation to subject learning but also in relation to learning how to learn and become informed. Critical thinking, or “higher level thinking” (Adie 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 208), was described as enabling individuals to “ascertain the extent” of “fact” in “claims” made by those in power (Adie 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 208), thereby enabling individuals to make more

18

“Remedial,” Development, and Business: Three Opposing but Coexisting. . .

339

informed and empowered decisions – equating enquiry and criticality with democracy. A quarter of interviewees placed importance on expanding students’ ability to think critically, as they saw this as a means to increase students’ chances of challenging political and social status quos and taking on leadership roles.

Holistic Development and Social Values Despite institutions having delineated specialists to “support” different facets of students, and HE policy inadvertently describing students in terms of market-related “specifications” (Quinlan 2011, 7) and “attributes” (Brynne 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 213), interviewees were concerned with the holistic growth of students and their social values. Thomas states that “the benefits of . . . greater staff-student and peer interaction can be understood in relation to the social and emotional dimension of learning . . . influencing students’ sense of belonging” (2005, 104). Indeed, interviewees described developing individuals, in terms of “integrity” and ethical values (Carl 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 213), as well as their broader social skills and tolerance within diverse populations (Asaad 2016 in Ashmore 2018; Arron 2016 in Ashmore 2018).

Business: The Service Industry Approach to Improving Quality the culture is changing in the wake of the 9K fee hike[,] . . . five years ago I would encourage students to come early . . . [then] go away and work on the corrections and submit the work[.] . . . [N]ow students are coming the day before the deadline . . . and [effectively] saying “fix it for me – I’ve paid for this” . . . the mind-set is of “consuming education”, . . . “buying it” . . . not “engaging with it” (Eileen 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 220)

This part of the chapter will explore interviewees’ perceptions that they are required to improve the business of their HEI by: (1) meeting student expectations (customer service), at the same time as (2) enhancing learning and teaching quality (quality enhancement). The marketization of higher education (Schofield et al. 2013) and the reclassification of learners as consumers – empowered to shape education establishments through “choice,” supported complaints procedures, and publicized HEI evaluations (BIS 2011, 2016) – led academic support to adopting a business approach, where institutions, and academic support, are expected to demonstrate “value” and “impact” of their “services” in the name of competition and “quality.” Because of the nature of the academic support role, most interviewees viewed attempts to “measure” their value or success as “contentious” and problematic. Indeed, nearly every definition and approach to measuring “effectiveness” arising from interviewee responses was challenged, either by another team or even a team member. The following key topics arose from interviewee responses in relation to the business approach: (1) Student Expectations; (2) Funding and Efficiency; (3) Footfall as Measure of Success; (4) Grades versus Progress as Measure of Success; (5) Satisfaction as Measure of Success.

340

T. Ashmore

Student Expectations Interviewees described a growing expectation that academic support teams can and will quickly fix learning and language deficits just before assignment deadlines, despite learning and language being assessable representations of a student’s knowledge, understanding, and criticality (Bourdieu et al. 1994; Mawson 2010; Watson 2014). One-to-one academic support was described as a very popular mode for students to seek these quick fixes; over half of the teams limited their one-toone offer – limit on number, regularity, and amount of work that can be reviewed in a tutorial. The purpose of these limits was to manage demand, ensure equity across cohorts, and encourage appropriate (discourage inappropriate) student use of tutorials. The teams who did not limit their offer described cases of individuals accessing high numbers of appointments – in some cases sixty plus – to gain a “competitive” edge (Anton 2016 in Ashmore 2018) rather than achieving academic independence. In cases such as these, the desire for knowledge and transformation is superseded by the need or desire to meet expected outcomes quickly regardless of whether the necessary learning has taken place. This highlights the potential conflict between student expectations and expectations of students and conflicts between different “quality” metrics – student satisfaction and student learning. As one interviewee described: “there’s a lot of emotional pressure from the students to do the work for them, and if that is resisted they will . . . create waves which will ripple through the institution” (Anna 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 222). Indeed, not all students were described by interviewees as wanting to learn how to do something themselves, this was because doing something themselves took longer than some students were prepared to devote at that moment in time (Blumenfeld 2015; QAA 2016; Lancaster 2016). The desire for quick fixes rather than real transformation is potentially a by-product of the current “need” for a degree rather than the aspiration to really learn – as discussed earlier in the chapter. Despite this, Farenga and Quinlan highlight employers’ desire for more than just technical competence from their employees, instead requesting enhanced interpersonal skills as well as “ethical” and “sociocultural awareness” (2016, 770).

Funding and Efficiency Despite expectations that HE institutions offer more in the wake of higher fees, most interviewees described their teams as “too small” to meet all expectations. Teams described themselves as unable to offer parity of service or experience on current resources, although they felt that their expertise could make a difference to the development and achievement of all students. Despite interviewees mentioning the transformative power of one-to-ones, all teams prioritized group sessions over tutorials as a more “efficient” use of their time, because tutors could address larger numbers of students simultaneously. In the 1990s – when funding was still available for UK HE and scrutiny of HEIs less intense – Simpson (1996) describes the obstacles faced in maintaining “quality” with

18

“Remedial,” Development, and Business: Three Opposing but Coexisting. . .

341

decreasing resources at the same time as negotiating increases in accountability, student numbers, and diversity. One interviewee – academic support manager described their current resource limits and the consequences, explaining that they regularly receive complaints about shortage of spaces on their academic literacy programs – “I would say ‘well it’s because I haven’t got enough staff’” (Boris 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 228). In the current market-driven business model of education, expectations of teams are much higher than in previous decades while resources are tighter, this combination affects practices.

Footfall as Measure of Success Several interviewees talked about “footfall” (quantity of students seen) as a measure of effectiveness (Brynne 2016 in Ashmore 2018). The rationale given by one manager for this was that “footfall” equated to effectiveness (Arron 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 231), in other words, students and academics would not access their services if they were not useful – equating attendance with relevance. Indeed, even senior management were described by several teams as equating footfall with effectiveness (Chey 2016 in Ashmore 2018); therefore, despite teams working at capacity, all teams talked about the continual need to market their services in order to maintain visibility and certain levels of engagement. Footfall in terms of tutorial statistics was deemed “quite difficult to present in a way that people will understand” (Eileen 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 232) because high attendance rates were not always representative of effective support, and equally a drop in attendance did not necessarily equate to ineffective support. Useful on-course group teaching was described as leading to higher demand for tutorials, and therefore indicative of “successful” classes (Effie 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 232); however, if, through excessive demand for tutorials, the team identified an issue with an assignment and helped the course to rectify the issue, this tended to reduce demand for tutorials – reduced tutorials indicating a “successful” intervention (Effie 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 233). Therefore, statistics really needed a contextual narrative for them to be understood. Like “footfall,” the notion of “reach” was also a “quantity”-related definition of effectiveness that arose from the interviews. “Reach” was defined as the extent of contact a team had had with courses and students across an institution – “reach” favors limited contact with many, rather than consistent contact with a few. However, like “footfall,” “reach” was not always considered a sign of “success,” but merely indicative of that contact had been made. Scott (2011) highlights the issues with the propagation of “metrics,” stating that they: inevitably get translated into “winners” and “losers” . . . [therefore] the enemies of diversity because they translate legitimate differences – in student mix, research priorities and the rest – into illegitimate hierarchies. My guess is that rankings – and the measurements that have fed them – have done far more to destroy diversity than, for example, the decision two decades ago to make polytechnics universities.

342

T. Ashmore

According to Scott, a generic approach to measuring institutions does not value institutional or student diversity. In other words, generic metrics designed to increase quality across bodies of students and the HE sector risk reflecting and reinforcing the very inequities that they are meant to address.

Grades Versus Progress as Measure of Success The most contended measure of success was probably student grades, however, as one manager pointed out, “everybody” wants to “gauge” value, efficiency, and impact on the “academic success” of students (Carl 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 236). Half of the interviewees did not subscribe to the “accountability discourse” because they felt that student pass rates and grades were “dependent” on too many other “factors” (Boris 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 236), such as student circumstances and other forms of educational input. Without reliable “diagnostic tests” assessing students before and after support, which most teams had very little time, tools, and resources to carry out, interviewees deemed it impossible to measure the extent of cause and effect, in a way that can be presented across cohorts. Shevlin et al. describe measuring teacher “effectiveness in facilitating good academic work” (2000, 398) as controversial, because of the emphasis that the “British Government” places on “examination results” for teacher “incentives” (2000, 398). Scott (2011) believes that use of statistics in this way merely encourages “corruption” and “game-playing” in order to survive the market place; he also adds that there is “something deeply incongruous” about institutions that are set up to critique and question, “reducing everything to uncomplicated digits.” The majority of interviewees felt that reducing learning and teaching down to statistics was simplistic, for student learning is not always “chronologically bound” (Boris 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 239). Shevlin et al. (2000) support this by describing the change as a long-term outcome and therefore difficult to “quantify” in the way central government expects. Homogenous approaches (methods and timing) to measuring learning and teaching discounts diversity, for it assumes that learning is a standardized activity that can be externally traced and measured in a similar way (approach and timing) regardless of individual (Wolf 2002). However, learning is complex, there is not a definitive line that a student crosses from learner dependence to independence or from under-achieving to reaching their full potential, and not a single approach or event that can help students to cross that line. As Wingate (2006, 2015) raises, learner development is not the same as simply mastering superficial “skills,” in reality, for some individuals, it takes 3 years of incremental tuition to go some way toward achieving course and employability expectations, and in some cases, 3 years is not enough. As an alternative to grades, most interviewees described evaluating the development of individuals through qualitative methods, looking for positive changes in “confidence” and “independence.” However, this is where metrics collide, for if students achieve confidence and independence, their reliance on academic support would diminish and this would presumably lead to a reduction in attendance figures,

18

“Remedial,” Development, and Business: Three Opposing but Coexisting. . .

343

this then conflicts with the notion that consistently high “footfall” is evidence that a service is relevant and useful, for it may not be relevant and useful if students remain dependent.

Satisfaction as Measure of Success All interviewees talked about “student satisfaction” in one form or another, interlinked with notions of “relevance” and “perceptions.” All teams talked about obtaining views of learners; however, there is a distinction between feedback to ascertain learning and feedback which requests learners to evaluate their satisfaction with teaching – how teaching meets expectations. Indeed, working with students toward independence of academic support did not always fit with student expectations, as most preferred individualistic guidance over group teaching. However, despite the obvious flaws in judging “teaching quality” based on subjective “learner expectations,” UK government agents rely on rates of “satisfaction” (National Student Survey – NSS) to measure and rank institutional effectiveness, aligning HE institutions with service provider industries. On a personal level, practitioners welcomed unsolicited positive feedback. Quinlan states that: “teaching is, first and foremost, a human interaction . . . We bring ourselves, including our feelings, into the classroom” (2016, 104). As one interviewee indicated: “we were really buzzing on what happened in the classroom because we hadn’t done it before . . . we went for a coffee . . . and took the evaluation forms with us and read them out . . . we just got higher . . . [students] said . . . such positive things” (Anton 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 244). Although interaction is key to teaching, human interactions do not “necessarily fall into [the] reporting mechanisms” that governments like to use (Carl 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 246) and manage education with.

Conclusion Rather than challenging students’ “epistemological assumptions” (Wingate 2006, 2015) and developing them profoundly and holistically, policy-makers have progressively used education as a means to address, what they consider to be, national “skills” deficits and the demands of industry. HE institutions have, therefore, had to interpret and respond to policy-driven skills agendas, balancing the needs of learners against the demands of policy. The role of academic support in UK HE emerged from a number of significant changes in the sector, including how higher numbers of students could be “helped” to meet expected performance “criteria” of their studies (Hill et al. 2010, 2–3). The “remedial” approach to academic support largely involved addressing areas of need arising from individuals: academic and basic skills; emotional resilience, self-management, and motivation. The need to remedy “deficits” of learners, in order for them to be able to engage with higher education, implies that “deficits” exist

344

T. Ashmore

within individuals. However, according to Bourdieu, “a gap [is] . . . a relational property existing only in and through its relation with other properties” (1998, 6). Therefore, a deficit only arises when a set of criteria or expectations is enforced by those in positions of power, criteria that individuals or institutions are yet to meet. UK political powers have increasingly used the education system to define deficits in individuals and educational establishments, increasing and enforcing remedial agendas in order to improve the national economy. However, as Barkas (2011) points out, this approach has merely driven economic deficits and has done very little to improve social harmony and the development of cultural capital. Therefore, politically defined deficits in learners, the workforce and the establishments held responsible for changing the status quo, are possibly driven by the very policies and political powers governing them. The Development approach to academic support is the aspiration of practitioners, underpinned by social and humanistic values of empowerment. The key themes arising from the interviews in relation to “development” were: equipping individuals for the transition into adulthood; supporting students to make the best of the choices they have made; empowering individuals to challenge the status quo; opening and developing minds; and supporting social inclusion and values. Bourdieu (1977) and Byrom (2016) agree that self-limiting perceptions and pathways can be “interrupted” by persistent and transformative interactions and relationships. Relationships were described as essential to learning, but also key to social integration and a more tolerant and just society. Interviewees described a link between developing an individual’s ability to think critically, their social abilities, and their quality of life and opportunities. These common values underpinning the role of academic support appeared to suggest a type of collective habitus of those entering the profession, as well as giving an indication of their priorities for higher education. The business approach to academic support evolved with political drives to improve teaching and learning quality “efficiently” through approaches consistent with commerce. This approach is underpinned by monetary “values” and arguably drives “deficit” agendas and inequity. Themes associated with a business approach tend to conflict with: student expectations; funding and efficiency; measures of success – “footfall,” grades, progress, and satisfaction. The need for HEIs to secure monetary capital by attracting, retaining, and satisfying consumers eclipses the benefits of HE mentioned by Robbins back in 1963: for example, empowerment, community, interest, and pursuit of knowledge. More importantly, however, the need to secure monetary capital affects how education, learning, and knowledge are viewed and valued. As Wingate (2006) indicated in relation to “doing away” with study skills, and as Barkas (2011) highlighted in relation to the “skills paradox,” quality learning – in other words, real transformation and progression – does not occur through business strategies and homogenous measures of success, but comes from challenging “epistemological assumptions” and developing knowledge holistically and individually. Like the development of individuals, academic student support practices also need to be considered in context. Although there may be “ideals,” it is important to remember that practices occur within overlapping, complex contexts, both internal

18

“Remedial,” Development, and Business: Three Opposing but Coexisting. . .

345

and external to institutions. Perceptions, priorities, and behaviors of individuals and institutions, including those of political powers, correlate and conflict, forming variations in boundaries, constraints, and opportunities in HE. The combination of boundaries, constraints, and opportunities is thus what shapes the role of academic student support.

Cross-References ▶ Empowerment Versus Power: The Learning and Performativity Conflict

References Ashmore, T. 2018. What is the role of academic support in contemporary HE? University of Kent. https://kar.kent.ac.uk/73885/ Barkas, L. 2011. The paradox of skills: Widening participation, academic literacy & students’skills centres. Sense Publishers. Bathmaker, A., N. Ingram, and R. Waller. 2013. Higher education, social class and the mobilisation of capitals: Recognising and playing the game. British Journal of Sociology of Education 34 (5–6): 723–743. Blumenfeld, W. 2015. A culture of cheating at the university? In Understanding neoliberal rule in higher education: Educational fronts for local and global justice, volume II, ed. M. Abendroth and B. Porfilio, 21–35. Information Age Publishing. Blythman, M., and S. Orr. 2002. A joined-up policy approach to student support. In Failing students in higher education, ed. M. Peelo and T. Wareham, 45–55. SRHE and Open University Press. Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Routledge & Kegan Paul. Bourdieu, P. 1998. Practical reason. Polity Press in association with Blackwell Publishers. Bourdieu, P. 2013. Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, P., J. Passeron, and M. De Saint Martin. 1994. Students and the language of teaching (trans: Teese, R.). In Academic discourse, ed. P. Bourdieu, J. Passeron, and M. De Saint Martin, 1–34. Polity Press. Burke, P. 2012. The right to higher education: Beyond widening participation. Oxon: Routledge. Byrom, T. 2016. Split habitus and othering: First generation students, habitus transformation and higher education. https://www.srhe.ac.uk/conference2016/abstracts/0301.pdf. Accessed 25 Jan 2017. Carlson, E. 2013. Overcoming the barriers to self-knowledge: Mindfulness as a path to seeing yourself as you really are. Perspectives on Psychological Science 8 (2): 173–118. Cotton, D., T. Nash, and P. Kneale. 2017. Supporting the retention of non-traditional students in higher education using a resilience framework. European Educational Research Journal 16 (1): 62–79. Crawford, C., L. Dearden, J. Micklewright, and A. Vignoles. 2017. Family background and university success: Differences in higher education access and outcomes in England. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dearing, R. 1997. Higher education in the learning society report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education (NCIHE). London: HMSO. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ ncihe/. Accessed 07 Nov 2012. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). 2011. Higher education: Students at the heart of the system. Cm 8122. London: The Stationery Office Limited.

346

T. Ashmore

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). 2016. Success as a knowledge economy: Teaching excellence, social mobility and student choice. Cm 9258. London: The Stationery Office Limited. Department for Education (DfE). 1993. Higher education in the polytechnics and colleges: Student support services in higher education. London: HMSO Publications. Farenga, S., and K. Quinlan. 2016. Classifying university employability strategies: Three case studies and implications for practice and research. Journal of Education and Work 29 (7): 767–787. Fontana, A., and A.H. Prokos. 2007. The interview: From formal to postmodern. West Coast Press. Gibbs, P. 2017. Why universities should seek happiness and contentment. Boomsbury Academic. Guest, G., K. MacQueen, and E. Namey. 2012. Applied thematic analysis. SAGE. Hill, P., A. Tinker, and S. Caterall. 2010. From deficiency to development: The evolution of academic skills provision at one UK university. Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education 2: 1–19. Jones, M., J. Siraj-Blatchford, and K. Ashcroft. 1997. Researching into student learning and support. Kogan Page. Lancaster, T. 2016. ‘It’s not a victimless crime’ – The murky business of buying academic essays. The Guardian, 19 October. https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2016/oct/ 19/its-not-a-victimless-the-murky-business-of-buying-academic-essays. Accessed 14 Feb 2018. Lea, M., and B. Street. 1998. Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education 23 (2): 157–170. Lebus, S. 2010. Learning and control: Towards an improved model for curriculum development. In Liberating learning: Widening participation, ed. P. Derham and M. Worton, 35–42. The University of Buckingham Press. Marsh, S. 2008. From learning to learner: The role of learning support services in the Bradford student experience. In Transformative learning support models in higher education: Educating the whole student, ed. M. Weaver, 51–65. London: Facet publishing. Mawson, T. 2010. Bourdieu, language and linguistics. London: Continuum International Publishing. Murray, N., and C. Klinger. 2012. Tensions in higher education: Widening participation, student diversity and the challenge of academic language/literacy. Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning 14 (1): 27–44. Newby, P. 2014. Research methods for education. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge. Noble, J., and P. Davies. 2009. Cultural capital as an explanation of variation in participation in higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education 30 (5): 591–605. Oyston, E. 2003. Introduction. In Centred on learning: Academic case studies on learning Centre development, ed. E. Oyston, ix–xii. Ashgate Publishing. Paton, G. 2012. Bright students ‘cannot write essays’, say Cambridge Dons’. The Telegraph. 5 March. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9124555/Bright-students-can not-write-essays-say-Cambridge-dons.html. Accessed 19 Feb 2012. Peelo, M. 1994. Helping students with study problems. SRHE and Open University Press. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. 2016. Plagiarism in higher education: Custom essay writing services: An exploration and next steps for the UK higher education sector. http:// www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/Plagiarism-in-Higher-Education-2016.pdf. Accessed 09 Feb 2018. Quinlan, K. 2011. Developing the whole student: Leading higher education initiatives that integrate mind and heart. Leadership Foundation for Higher Education. Quinlan, K. 2016. How emotion matters in four key relationships in teaching and learning in higher education. College Teaching 64 (3): 101–111. Raaheim, K., and J. Wankowski. 1981. Helping students to learn at university. Sigma Forlag. Ramsey, E., and D. Brown. 2018. Feeling like a fraud: Helping students renegotiate their academic identities. College & Undergraduate Libraries 25 (1): 86–90. Reay, D. 2017. Miseducation. Policy Press.

18

“Remedial,” Development, and Business: Three Opposing but Coexisting. . .

347

Reay, D., M. David, and S. Ball. 2005. Degrees of choice: Social class, race and gender in higher education. London: Institute of Education Press. Robbins, L. 1963. Higher education: Report of the committee. Cmnd 2154. London: HMSO. http:// www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/robbins/. Accessed 14 Mar 2013. Rogers, C. 2002. Developing a positive approach to failure. In Failing students in higher education, ed. M. Peelo and T. Wareham, 113–123. SRHE and Open University. Schofield, C., D. Cotton, K. Gresty, P. Kneale, and J. Winter. 2013. Higher education provision in a crowded marketplace. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 35 (2): 193–205. Scott, P. 2011. Higher education: Not everything can be measured. The Guardian, 5 April. https:// www.theguardian.com/education/2011/apr/05/higher-education-metrics. Accessed 10 Mar 2018. Shevlin, M., P. Banyard, M. Davies, and M. Griffiths. 2000. The validity of student evaluation of teaching in higher education: Love me, love my lectures. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 25 (4): 397–340. Shreeve, A. 2007. Learning development and study support – An embedded approach through communities of practices. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education 6 (1): 11–25. Simpson, R. 1996. Learning development in HE: Deficit or difference? In Opening doors: Learning support in higher education, ed. S. Wolfendale and J. Corbett, 17–30. Cassell. Simpson, D., and M. Cieslik. 2007. Basic skills and transitions to adulthood. Young: Nordic Journal of Youth Research 15 (4): 395–412. Stephenson, C. 2008. Widening horizons, dissolving boundaries: Organizational change and the seamless learning environment. In Transformative learning support models in higher education: Educating the whole student, ed. M. Weaver, 33–49. London: Facet Publishing. Tett, L. 2016. Learning, literacy and identity: ‘I don’t think I’m a failure anymore’. British Journal of Sociology of Education 37 (3): 427–444. Thomas, L. 2005. The implications of widening participation for learning and teaching. In Widening participation: Which way forward for English higher education? ed. C. Duke and G. Layer, 98–113. National Institute of Adult Continuing Education (England and Wales). Turner, R., D. Morrison, D. Cotton, S. Child, S. Steves, P. Nash, and P. Kneale. 2017. Easing the transition of first year undergraduates through an immersive induction module. Teaching in Higher Education 22 (7): 805–821. Wankowski, J. 1991a. Success and failure at university. In Helping students to learn. Teaching, counselling, research, ed. K. Raaheim, J. Wankowski, and J. Radford, 1–39. SRHE and Open University Press. Wankowski, J. 1991b. Increasing students’ power for self-teaching. In Helping students to learn. Teaching, counselling, research, ed. K. Raaheim, J. Wankowski, and J. Radford, 59–67. SRHE and Open University Press. Watson, J. 2014. Widening participation in higher education: Capital that counts. In Bourdieu and data analysis: Methodological principles and practice, ed. M. Grenfell and F. Lebaron, 97–115. Peter Lang. Westminster Higher Education Forum. 2018. Priorities for quality assurance in UK HEIs – grade inflation, tackling plagiarism, and the future of degree. March 2018. Wingate, U. 2006. Doing away with ‘study skills’. Teaching in Higher Education 11 (4): 457–469. October 2006. UK: Routledge. Wingate, U. 2007. A framework for transition: Supporting ‘learning to learn’ in higher education. Higher Education Quarterly 61 (3): 391–405. Wingate, U. 2015. Academic literacy and student diversity: The case for inclusive practice. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Wolf, A. 2002. Does education matter? London: Penguin Books. Wolfendale, S. 1996. Learning support in HE: Principles, values, continuities. In Opening doors: Learning support in higher education, ed. S. Wolfendale and J. Corbett, 1–16. Cassell.

Future Institutional and Student Services Leadership Challenges: Implementing a Holistic Whare Tapa Rima – Five-Sided Home Model

19

Susan F. Stevenson and Kristyl C. Zagala

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . An Introduction to Whare Tapa Rima – The Five-Sided Home (WTR-FSH) Theoretical Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Understanding the Whare Tapa Rima – Five-Sided Home (WTR-FSH) Dimensions . . . . . Taha Wairua . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Taha Hinengaro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Taha Whanau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Taha Tinana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Taha Whenua . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WTR-FSH Model Implementation, Threshold Viewpoints for Institutional Readiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implications of the Institutional Implementation of the Whare Tapa Rima – Five-Sided Home Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion and Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

350 352 354 354 356 357 358 358 359 362 364 364 365

Abstract

This chapter aims to outline a synergistic philosophy and theoretical model supported by emerging research and practice that can inform effective student services, viz., the indigenous New Zealand Whare Tapa Rima – The Five-SidedHome holistic student support model. This model challenges one-size-fits-all models and provides an alternative framework for student services provision in higher education institutions. The Whare Tapa Wha Model of holistic well-being was first documented by Durie (Whaiora: Māori Health Development. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1994) and then further developed by Moeau in 1997. S. F. Stevenson (*) · K. C. Zagala Registry, FREEDOM Institute of Higher Education (Te Wānanga O Rangatiratanga), Hamilton, New Zealand e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 H. Huijser et al. (eds.), Student Support Services, University Development and Administration, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5852-5_11

349

350

S. F. Stevenson and K. C. Zagala

The emerging utility of this model is expanded on in Graham and Going (Whare Tapa Rima – The Five-Sided Home. Published as a Poste. Hamilton, 2010, 2016) and supportive research on the effectiveness of the approach is provided by Fielden et al. (2020). This model challenges higher education institutions to provide a responsive, theory-informed framework for their student services. This presented holistic theoretical model is capable of underpinning professional level recognition of even the most complex student needs and of supporting effective student-centered services. Understandings of this model also shed light on why simplistic “one size fits all” solutions fail students frequently. This chapter reviews the interconnections between both learning and support and between staff and students; it also identifies the new capabilities that both higher education teaching and support staff need to develop to implement an effective holistic student-centered support system. Keywords

Whare tapa Rima · Five-sided home model (WTR-FSH model) · Holistic student services · Theory-informed student services model · Student service practice · Leadership

Introduction The recent shift in the higher education sector from a “service to society” paradigm to a more “profit-driven” economic one has brought with it a range of leadership challenges and perhaps some unintended consequences. These new challenges are coming from students, funders, employers, higher education staff, and society. First and dominant among these challenges has been the heightened expectations from an increasingly diverse student body that believes that the education they receive will give them face to face time with faculty and represent “value for money” (Barg 2013; Beloucif et al. 2018; Naidoo 2018). Another key issue for students is that, as a consequence of the increasingly high costs of higher education for both international and national students, their expectations have risen and most now expect that their individual needs will be met in a wider range of areas than previously; such expectations are often fueled by overly zealous recruiters. These latter issues require urgent attention by most higher education institutions. A second challenge has been the increasing demands by funders that institutions become more accountable for learning and other outputs (Tertiary Education Commission 2018); this has led to the increased evaluation by external parties absorbing valuable institutional resources. Third, challenges to higher education providers are being made by employers who require the graduation of employees skilled in an ever-growing range of complex and new capabilities. Capabilities sought include capacity to acquire knowledge, knowledge making, thinking, social, practical, interactive, and technical skills, plus specific professional beliefs, values, and attitudes (Australian Association of Graduate Employers 2019). Fourth, higher education staff are challenging the paradigm shift towards a more profit-driven model and many view

19

Future Institutional and Student Services Leadership Challenges:. . .

351

change, such as reducing the time to teach and conduct research, as producing lower quality outputs (Biggs 1997). Finally, challenges come from “society” that are more complex and multifaceted. Families seek the holistic care of their family members, opportunities to lift their social status, and high paying employment, while students seek effective student services to develop their capabilities and succeed in their new environment. Added into this mix are more general societal expectations: that higher education will repay society for its financial support, develop solutions to societal problems, produce ethical leaders, and remain an independent critic and conscience of society (New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit 2000). The above five areas of challenges collectively create a vastly different landscape to that of the past. They especially require higher education student services leaders to holistically reevaluate today’s student learning and life needs and to create new and more effective responses to these. The key initial challenge for student services leaders is to accurately identify the needs of students today and to apply professionally new knowledges, skillsets, and attitudes in order to meet these. However, all the above expectations collide with the day-to-day work of higher education leaders and those leading and working in student services. Most student services leaders have emerged from a historic “one size fits all pastoral care” approach on a tight budget (Tertiary Education Commission 2018). What has quickly become clear from student retention and completion rates in many countries are the inadequacies of the past “one size fits all” academic support services (Schofield et al. 2011; McNeur et al. 2017). For example, higher education systems in most countries have historically not addressed cultural-ethnic needs and, as a result, patterns of failure for such groups have emerged in most countries and have led to equity target setting by funders. Larger institutions utilizing “one size fits all” approaches have tried mostly to respond to their students’ needs through technology-based student service systems. However, students usually perceive such services as both cheap and inadequate solutions to their needs. As the work of Bunce et al. (2017) shows, the new consumer orientation is being associated with lower academic performance by students and, if this view becomes widespread, it bodes poorly for all higher education stakeholders. The need to create new and better answers to the plethora of complex and multidimensional needs of students and staff that make up higher education institutions is urgent. Effective and creative leadership in this area will be critical. Many resources can be found in the field of applied leadership where practice has moved from a simplistic top-down transactional approach (of economic origins) toward more collaborative servant, distributed, transformational, authentic, and indigenous approaches. The latter in particular is noted to have a rich history of sustaining relationships and meeting needs over time, and often against all odds, through supportive partnerships and collective social systems. Higher education leadership and student services have a pressing need to redefine and develop comprehensive philosophical and theoretically underpinned student support services and then to execute these professionally and subject them to evaluative research to further hone their effectiveness (Davies and Gonzales 2017). Such institution-wide changes are complex and need support and time. Institutional leaders

352

S. F. Stevenson and K. C. Zagala

will also be challenged to be involved and supportive of new initiatives and creative ways of providing student services that meet the needs and expectations of their students. Institutional leaders will further need to be influential in negating the current discourse that attempts to reduce higher education to just another “economic good or service transaction” and the general cynicism of many faculty to change. While funders once accepted that quality education costs money, takes time, and is challenging and complex, these same funders now pressure higher education institutions to become profitable, highly productive, sustainable, and independent (Finney and Finney 2010), often on a reduced budget. What is of great concern is that those driving such changes appear not to have conducted research investigating both the intended and unintended consequences of the recent paradigm shift and little robust literature is available about what is being “traded off” in this economic transaction paradigm shift. History tells us all too often that economically driven changes generally continue until the system they are being applied to breaks. In this chapter, the development and application of a historic theoretical model and its underpinning philosophy, the indigenous New Zealand Whare Tapa Rima – Five Sided-Home (WTR-FSH) Model is introduced (Fielden et al. 2020). This rich holistic model has the potential to respond effectively to the five areas of challenge and is capable of providing those leading and working in student services with a comprehensive, customizable, and measurable framework. Use of the model by student services leadership will empower and support accurate responses to diverse student needs. The model will also support those professionals working in student services to provide services, to know when they have been effective, and where they need to move to comprehensively meet the complex needs of diverse individual students in a manner that is both efficient and effective. In order for the model to meet student and institutional needs, authentic transformation in viewpoints will be necessary at all institutional levels. Leaders of student services are ideally placed to lead this transformation. Key outcomes institutions can expect from the implementation of the WTR-FSH model include heightened student (a) achievement outcomes and (b) satisfaction with the institution. It is only through high quality implementation of holistic student services that increased numbers of students will achieve the graduate profile capabilities they aspire to and the sense of identity that higher education institutions aim to develop.

An Introduction to Whare Tapa Rima – The Five-Sided Home (WTR-FSH) Theoretical Model The Whare Tapa Wha (four-sided) model of holistic well-being was first documented by eminent New Zealand Māori psychiatrist Mason Durie (1994) in a book entitled Whaiora. This seminal work portrayed holistic well-being in the form of a four-sided house (whare). The model showed a four-sided house with each side representing a dimension of holistic health, that is, (i) the spiritual dimension (wairua), (ii) the intellectual and emotional dimension (hinengaro), (iii) the social dimension (whanau), and (iv) the physical dimension (tinana). Durie viewed a positive health and

19

Future Institutional and Student Services Leadership Challenges:. . .

353

well-being state as consisting of the balanced development of these four dimensions; and a lack of development and/or balance in all dimensions would possibly contribute to and create dis-ease. Durie’s model has resonated widely and has been extensively adopted by many diverse organizations, fields, and industries to support understandings of health, safety, and well-being across New Zealand and further afield. A further development to the model was later documented by Moeau (1997) during the development of a New Zealand-based Health and Physical Education curriculum. During the development of new curricula, a fifth dimension was added to the model: (v) whenua (land or culture). Though this new model was submitted to the New Zealand Ministry of Education, the New Zealand government, due possibly to a long and difficult history (over the return of land to New Zealand Māori), rejected the addition of the fifth dimension to the model, which was therefore excluded from the final version of the curriculum. However, Graham and Going (2010) in an effort to provide effective student support services for predominantly Māori, Pacific Island, and some international students drew on and practiced the five-dimension theoretical model of Moeau. They implemented the model as a framework for their tertiary institution’s student services in a low socioeconomic area in an effort to lift historically low achieving student outcomes. Research into the effectiveness of their work was undertaken by Stevenson, who gained a national best practice grant, and this was published in 2011 (Schofield et al. 2011). When Stevenson and Going again worked together from 2013 in a higher education institution, they utilized a more developed version of the same five-dimensional Whare Tapa Rima – Five-Sided Home (WTR-FSH) model to support largely international learners. In this new higher education setting, many students from a range of different countries demonstrated new and more complex support needs related to their cultural and ethnic heritage. Stevenson and Going’s use, and continuous improvement in the practice, of the WTR-FSH model as a framework for all student services again led to success. They began consulting with Māori, deepened their understanding of the five dimensions and, in turn, their professional understanding and practices. The more developed the WTR-FSH model became, the more effective the holistic and institution wide student services framework became. The WTR-FSH model was quickly recognized as a theoretical framework new staff could quickly learn and begin to practice. This meant that student services were not restricted to student services staff, but became reinforced by all staff, at all levels, as well as by leadership. Over time, the WTR-FSH model started to inform all institutional relationships and supported all those associated with the institute. Patterns also began to emerge around the relationship between the viewpoints that staff held and whether they engaged with and practiced the model successfully or not. Support to utilize the WTR-FSH model has also been extended to other institutions on a consultative basis, and they have also begun to find success using this model. Research evaluating the outcomes of the WTR-FSH model has recently demonstrated its effectiveness in supporting program completions, supporting credit achievement, retaining learners, and achieving planned destination outcomes, and it has been credited with preventing student withdrawals (Fielden et al. 2020).

354

S. F. Stevenson and K. C. Zagala

Staff utilized the model in practice to investigate and find solutions to various student challenges that occurred. For example, if a student was found to have plagiarized an assessment, the staff member would ask questions to identify the root cause of the behavior. For example, they would examine whether the student did this because of a belief system that lacks respect for the intellectual property of others (Spiritual-wairua dimension) or whether they lacked the knowledge and skills to cite materials appropriately (Hinengaro-Intellectual and Emotional dimension) or both. Initial research (Fielden et al. 2020) shows that the model supported and led staff in practice to consider all five dimensions of the model and to take an integrated, balanced, and holistic view of student challenges that occurred. The model’s prime positive impact appears to be in supporting higher quality solution finding and accuracy, and more effectiveness in decision-making to address student challenges by staff. Students also reported a high level of awareness and satisfaction with the WTRFSH model. Emerging from this practice setting was the clear capacity of the WTRFSH model to provide a comprehensive framework for supportive relationships within the higher institution, especially in the area of student services. Professional practice of the WTR-FSH model further demonstrated that it could easily be customized to meet even the most complex of individual student needs. The initial institution that practiced the WTR-FSH model has now also comprehensively extended this framework to relationships between staff and institutional managers and leaders, and to community stakeholder relationships, with positive outcomes. The implications and actual outcomes will be outlined in more detail towards the end of this chapter (Fig. 1).

Understanding the Whare Tapa Rima – Five-Sided Home (WTR-FSH) Dimensions In this section, the five dimensions that make up the WTR-FSH model are discussed in more detail. Understanding these Māori concepts can be enriched with appropriate cultural guidance and the development of deep understandings of this language, and the underpinning cultural context from which they are derived. The concepts described are also underpinned by a Māori philosophical viewpoint, which is also discussed. It is important to note that many Māori words have multiple meanings, depending on the context in which they are used, and depending on the complexity of the concept being described different translations should not be viewed as contradictory, but as enriching and complementing understandings of the concepts referred to. While the five dimensions of the model are now outlined separately, it should never be forgotten that they are inter-connected and together create a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.

Taha Wairua The Māori word wairua is most often translated as spirituality. Over time, the translation and understanding of this concept (as it relates to higher education) has come to be understood as a dimension that includes the beliefs, values, and attitudes a

19

Future Institutional and Student Services Leadership Challenges:. . .

355

Fig. 1 The Whare Tapa Rima – The Five-Sided Home Model. (Graham and Going 2010, 2016)

student holds or is developing. These may or may not be religiously based. This dimension reminds and supports student services staff to understand different lenses of beliefs, and value students’ world views as well as the attitudes that result from these beliefs. Taha wairua, a combination of a student’s beliefs, values, and attitudes may be viewed as their key concerns or internal rules along with their views of others and the sanctity of human life. Clearly, the views different individual students hold about such topics will vary greatly within, and between, cultures and ethnic groups. The WTRFSH model encourages student services staff to consider this dimension very carefully and to investigate their own beliefs as well as those of the students they support. It is important student services staff build consciousness of the impact of their beliefs on those they work with. The provision of facilitated reflection sessions or regular supervision with a professional supervisor could assist staff to develop awareness of their own beliefs and how these might assist or create barriers for the students they work with. This dimension is important because it represents a potentially hidden or difficult area for many higher education students who are in the process of developing self-awareness. Such students may, for example, have difficulty finding spaces and people with whom to express and practice their spiritual beliefs. Secondly, new higher education sector students are often young people meeting people from different cultural and spiritual backgrounds and living independently for the first time. Such a situation can precipitate questioning what has, up until that

356

S. F. Stevenson and K. C. Zagala

point in their lives, been the unquestioned framework of their family life: their spiritual/religious and/or moral beliefs. Reviewing and developing a potentially new sense of identity, determining one’s pathway, and absorbing new experiences, can all threaten previously secured and “taken for granted” spiritual commitments and this can in turn cause guilt, anxiety, and stress. As most higher education institutions today question beliefs, but do not necessarily replace or support previously held beliefs, many students experience a sense of loss or being lost in this area when commencing higher education. Gauntlett (2010) investigated the experiences of students from the Gulf states and found evidence that traditional values such as reliance on wasta (social networks or connections, an important component of Middle Eastern culture) was the most significant point of divergence between the experiences of Middle Eastern and other students in Australia. A typical situation a new higher education sector student might face could be that they find an institution and its activities disrespectful to their personal beliefs and values, for example, through its promotion of drinking alcohol at orientation events. A key awareness most international students also acquire is that of being minority students and the lack of power and influence they experience as a result of that new status. The way common beliefs and values are enacted is also different in different cultural contexts. A student and a new higher education context may both value empathy, but both may interpret, practice, and recognize this in very different ways. With the variance of individual viewpoints being infinite and the potential for misunderstandings – and therefore conflict – being high in this dimension, most higher educational institutions simply avoid addressing issues raised in this area. Built into this dimension are, however, especially rich reciprocal educational opportunities for cross-cultural dialogue and the development of truly empathetic global citizens.

Taha Hinengaro The Māori word hinengaro is most often translated as a combination of the intellectual or mental and the emotional. This dimension acknowledges the connection between what we think and what we feel. This complex concept, as it relates to higher education, has come to be understood as including the thoughts, intellectual capabilities, and talents of a student alongside and connected to their emotions and emotional intelligence. This dimension can support student services staff to identify the emotional personality, repertoire, and states of their students. Fundamentally, students think deeply about those areas they care deeply about; for example, passing their courses, making others proud of them, achieving good employment, the making of friends, and being socially accepted (Fielden et al. 2020). Hinengaro recognizes that cognitive processes and emotions are not distinct but interrelated processes. This dimension can support student services and faculty to actively support the development of emotional intelligences by moving from providing vague academic or critical comments towards a more sophisticated and effective evaluative professional level feedback and feed forward (Spronken-Smith et al.

19

Future Institutional and Student Services Leadership Challenges:. . .

357

2015). Such awareness and shifts by institutional staff can significantly impact on a student’s emotional commitment and motivation. A typical situation a student might face in a higher education setting, for example, could be being faced with information such as James Cook discovered Australia and/ or New Zealand when, in fact, an Australian Aboriginal or New Zealand Māori student may know that the information being presented is factually inaccurate. It could be offensive to them and they might react emotionally to the erasure of their people and achievements from stories of their country’s origins. This example shows the type of events that can impact on the relationship between students, faculty, the institution, and their intellectual and emotional engagement. The impact of this dimension is often underestimated by those working in student services and faculty. Understanding of hinengaro can support student services and faculty to understand the ways in which emotions can either facilitate and increase learning or inhibit learning alongside the heavy emotional investment students make when they enter a higher education program. Providing emotional support for students can be as simple as providing encouragement when students express unease, and although many staff naturally do this, it is important to build awareness of, and emotional support into, all student services and program delivery.

Taha Whanau The Māori word whanau traditionally referred to extended and usually bloodconnected groupings and is most often translated into English as family. Today, however, this concept extends to friends and other relationships that form part of one’s social support network. The whanau dimension refers to the social relationships that support a person over time and at multiple levels. This concept is more complex and dynamic than it might first appear. Few students entering higher education settings continue to be supported by family and friends as they were before entering this setting. Many students are required to move to pursue their studies and today they often move from one country to another. These changes interrupt the normal social support system a student may have around them – family, friends, sporting, or church connections – to enter a different world, often very alone. Students from collectivist cultures (Alazzi and Chiodo 2006) are especially challenged as the focus in most Western higher education institutions is on independence and not inter-dependence. The social dimension is further complicated by the age and stage in life when many students enter a higher education institution, which involves seeking social acceptance and often a life or significant other relationships in their new world. Gauntlett (2010) has noted that many international students have a concern that they be perceived as “the best” in their classes in Australia, as they have been at home. This entails not only achievement of high marks but having “good relations” with their lecturers (p. 149). Disturbances to their past social and family life were likely to include loneliness, home sickness, and concern about their social competence. In a traditional pastoral care model of student services, social support is often considered part of the student’s personal or private life. However, the whanau dimension supports student services to

358

S. F. Stevenson and K. C. Zagala

consider the role they play in supporting new collaborative and supportive social relationships both within and beyond the classroom. Again, there is an opportunity for staff and institutions to host events, highlight different cultural and ethnic groupings and their talents and unique contributions, and facilitate social relationships through buddy systems and other supportive strategies.

Taha Tinana The Māori word tinana is generally translated into English as “physical.” This dimension refers to all the physical world factors that may impact on students: the food they need to learn to buy, cook and eat, part-time work, exercise patterns, cleanliness and hygiene standards, financial supports, sleep patterns, intake of alcohol or drugs, and their physical living environment. Students entering into higher education usually lose a large range of physical family supports and controls. Typically, higher education students experience poor nutrition, less sleep, less comfortable accommodation, and physical stress, while they also gain awareness of requirements such as insurance, car registration, taxes, work and study deadlines and stress around financially supporting themselves. These challenges usually continue throughout their programs of study. While for most students becoming more competent is coping with such physical challenges, some require extensive support from student services to do so. The physical dimension of learner services may seem self-evident, but many higher education institutions have eroded supportive services in this dimension area. Student kitchens, gyms, physical libraries, club rooms, meeting and social spaces have been replaced with virtual ones or are now commercially operated to add to organizational profits. Such changes can make social connections between students harder. There is a need to consider the downstream benefits of providing students with noncommercial spaces for social gatherings and developing mutual support networks. These physical spaces are the foundation for the development of a familial (whanau) environment that can facilitate social cohesion, inclusion, collaboration, and emotional security for students. Kandiko and Mawer (2013) found that the students they interviewed were concerned about student life and technology. Many students also had immediate financial concerns, about food, rent, transport, tuition fees, student loans, and part-time work. They wanted an institution-wide response to their support needs, support at a course level, social activities, and a user-friendly IT infrastructure. Significantly, they also wanted more face-to-face interaction with faculty to gain support and feedback. The tinana dimension raises questions about students’ preferences for face-to-face interactions, and it challenges the way many institutions are allocating teaching and technology resources.

Taha Whenua The Māori word whenua is often simplistically translated into English as land but given that the dominant Māori world view regards the land as their mother, such an approach can be misleading. This dimension refers to the ethnic and cultural identity

19

Future Institutional and Student Services Leadership Challenges:. . .

359

of a person and all that entails from their perspective. This concept may include sexuality, nationality, age, or any other factor that contributes to a person’s sense of who they are. Few students entering higher education are completely clear of their ethnic and cultural identity; many are instead in a process of clarifying and finding their identity. This dynamic state is further complicated by meeting and attempting to fit into a new ethnic or cultural group and its norms. Typical situations students might face in a new higher education setting include the mass culture’s views of their ethnicity, cultural identity, and history as documented and researched in that context. Experiences of holistic well-being and student services support indicate the critical roles ethnicity and culture play in the way learners understand and respond to the learning process. Past experiences of family and schooling shape patterns of learning that do not necessarily “fit” Western higher education expectations and contexts. Their new setting may be supportive of them or it may be highly critical or even marginalize them on a daily basis. Many students face an actual culture shock and psychological disorientation when they enter higher education, and this can trigger depression and anxiety. Many students can no longer follow their usual routines as old habits may not fit new circumstances. The signs and symbols of social intercourse may be unfamiliar or alienating particularly for Māori, Pacific, and international learners who many have had little or less contact with the dominant culture. The whenua dimension of the WTE-FSH model supports those in student services to respond to learners’ vulnerability not only by assisting them to adjust but also by adjusting learning experiences in ways that take advantage of the cultural knowledge and experience of the students as a basis for facilitating learning. Student services could, for example, model cultural competencies, identify gaps in knowledge and experience, and induct students into their new cultural and ethnic setting, which would give them the understanding and confidence to engage with the mass stream community. Gauntlett (2010) has identified the inability of students to understand and access appropriate supports, which could hinder their success, impact on institutional achievements, and create pressure points for student services and institutional leaders.

WTR-FSH Model Implementation, Threshold Viewpoints for Institutional Readiness A New Zealand Tertiary Education Productivity Commission report (2017) has found that “the tertiary education system does not adequately cater for diverse students or encourage new models to emerge to meet evolving needs and opportunities” (p. 5). This raises the question of what is required for a higher education institution and its student services to implement a holistic student services model like the WTR-FSH model. Successful individual and institutional Implementation of the WTR-FSH model can be predicted based on the authenticity of the viewpoints held by institutional leaders and individual higher education educators and support staff. Those considering or wishing to implement the WTR-FSH model are advised to first examine and identify their viewpoints about the Whare Tapa Rima – The Five-Sided Home (WTR-FSH) Threshold Viewpoints Readiness Matrix, as outlined in Fig. 2.

360

S. F. Stevenson and K. C. Zagala

Leaders and educators who sit exclusively at either side of the continuum may find an examination of research in the field of student services and the undertaking of a range of personal encounters with diverse students valuable before attempting implementation. While the setting up and navigating such challenges is difficult for individual staff to do, institutional staff orientation and induction program could easily facilitate such programs that assists staff to develop empathy and understanding of the students body they will be supporting to learn. Subsequently, authentic movement toward the viewpoints in the central column of Fig. 2, and implementation of the model, will become achievable. The viewpoints in the central column predict success in the implementation of the model by institutions and individuals. Small scale piloting is highly recommended for large institutions to build institutional knowledge, experience, and a body of professional WTRFSH model mentors. Developing readiness by examining the threshold viewpoints can be both developmental and rewarding for institutional leaders and educators. Implementation of the WTR-FSH model will be a transformative change process for both institutions and individual staff members. In 2011, Ray Land noted that significant learning and acquisition of new knowledge, skills, and viewpoints requires adaptions and moving into new thinking spaces by those involved. He also noted that significant new learning is usually challenging and troubling. This is necessary in order for us to move, learn, and change. The acquisition of any new thinking or learning requires us to step into the unknown, a new space; that is, to enter through a portal and go on a journey. In other words, as Land has stated, we enter a state of liminality where we are “betwixt and between,” which can feel uncomfortable or even stressful initially and many note high levels of initial resistance. The outcome of this state of liminality is significant for new learning and knowledge and understanding acquisition, which can support us to implement the new thinking and concepts in practice (such as those set out in the WTR-FSH model). For many, the Fig. 2 central column viewpoints will challenge, confront, and take the form of the unfamiliar or “troublesome.” Those wishing to implement the WTRFSH model can expect to enter a state of liminality when they begin to engage with those viewpoints and the broader philosophical viewpoints that underpin the model. Put another way, many leaders and educators may find themselves leaving the familiar and moving toward some new point in their understandings, and they may experience feelings of resistance and thoughts that such shifts are not do-able, yet such shifts may be essential to be able to authentically and successfully implement the WTR-FSH model. Moreover, the potential benefits to students, staff, leaders, and institutions should not be underestimated. The WTR-FSH Model, as Fielden et al. (2020) show, has the potential to achieve higher levels of achievement, student satisfaction levels, equity and overall improvements in all learner achievements and therefore makes academic, social, cultural, “sustainability” (Brundtland 1987), and economic sense. Initial research supports the view that use of the WTR-FSH Model by staff has the potential to improve qualification achievement rates, improve the levels of program achievement, reduce withdrawals and terminations, improve retention, and support equity and inclusion objectives.

Future Institutional and Student Services Leadership Challenges:. . .

Fig. 2 Whare Tapa Rima – The Five-Sided Home (WTR-FSH) Threshold Viewpoints Readiness Matrix

19 361

362

S. F. Stevenson and K. C. Zagala

Readiness to implement WTR-FSH model in any institution requires the crossing of a threshold (Land et al. 2016), as well as the development of the professional viewpoints or mindsets and practices needed to achieve the change that the WTRFSH model supports. The critical starting points to the implementation of the WTRFSH model are motivation, comprehension, and authentic engagement with the model, and its underpinning philosophies and concepts, by institutional leadership and staff. Two specific practices underpinning the model include systems or network thinking about “holism” and “emergence.” Both concepts are privileged in the Māori worldview and can provide insights into how to apply the model in practice. The holism of the model orients staff to a holistic interpretation of the components of a healthy learning environment and, as experience increases, an understanding that the sum is more than its component parts emerges. The holistic WTR-FHS model, when applied to student success in a higher education context, is underpinned by the following views: (i) Higher education staff teach students, not subjects. (ii) All people have equal value and mana (social standing) and are worthy of respect. (iii) Healthy relationships are reciprocal in the academy. (iv) The quality of relationships between students and their teachers and student services staff is at the heart of quality outcomes for students and institutions. (v) Students whose holistic needs are met stay and achieve in higher education. The challenges that learners may experience have two dimensions: learner challenges and challenges to learning (McNeur et al. 2017). The above viewpoints also recognize a key distinction between students and support, both those who understand learning as the result of their own individual efforts (a Western individualist perspective) and learners who understand learning as an integrated part of their broader lives and world (those from a collectivist culture or ethnic group). There is convincing evidence that the relationship between learner support understood holistically and learner success engagement with holistic student support systems are critical to retain engagement and motivation to remain in tertiary study (Davidson-Toumu’a and Dunbar 2009).

Implications of the Institutional Implementation of the Whare Tapa Rima – Five-Sided Home Model The WTR-FSH model supports institutional leaders, leaders of student services and staff to accurately recognize and respond equitably to all five dimensions in their individual students but also see the whole student or a group of students’ needs or situation. The model further supports staff to empathetically understand the need to achieve a balance of these dimensions for positive student (or staff) health, wellbeing, and success in higher education. The model invites institutions to investigate where students are already receiving such supports and what expertise their

19

Future Institutional and Student Services Leadership Challenges:. . .

363

institution may already have in terms of these different dimensions. Implementation then becomes a process of investigating how these might be interconnected and provided for the benefit of diverse students. Some of these supports may exist outside an institution. It will only be through investigation and scoping that teams will form clearer understandings of what is being employed externally, and understandings of students’ holistic needs will grow to support the highly integrated and effective student service system that the WTR-FSH model allows to emerge in and across an institution. The WTR-FSH model provides a conceptual map to plan, implement, and evaluate holistic student services. Student services leaders can usually, on introduction to the model, identify where the different dimensions of the model are already being delivered. If they can identify these, the implementation of a comprehensive holistic WTR-FSH model can often become a coordination and networking role rather than an expensive establishment of a “new service” project. In the higher education context, the emergence of quality holistic student services is about how the links between the various support dimensions can be integrated and the creative ways in which networks can be developed so that the model can be “lived” in practice. Student services are inherently not performed by a single person or team but emerge within a context and between people within and between the five dimensions of the model. Recognition that the holistic student services context is something we co-create with faculty, staff, learners, and the community empowers institutions to consider how we can consciously and purposively design our learning environments in ways that support students’ success and well-being. Drawing together the implications of the implementation of the WTR-FSH model shows that it has numerous and important benefits: improved program completions and credit achievement, retaining learners, achieving planned destination outcomes, preventing student withdrawals, increased student awareness and satisfaction with their studies, strengthening supportive relationships within the higher institution as well as with external stakeholders, increased capacity to customize student support to meet even the most complex of individual student needs, equity, and a more robust institutional ethos. By grouping the implications of the WTR-FSH model under six key functional components, the importance of the initiative to develop more responsive education practices can be highlighted. The six functional components underpinned by the five key concepts of the WRT-FSH model are: 1. Dealing sensitively and creatively with struggles, adjustments, and peer and selfsupport 2. Developing people-smart staff 3. Creating a culturally responsive, sensitive, and inclusive environment 4. Promoting academic immersion 5. Providing holistic support for a sustainable future 6. Giving constructive recommendations The benefits of “living” the WTR-FSH model is that it can provide daily exemplars of best practice that support and empower faculty, student services, students, and institutions to improve in this area and make simultaneous progress

364

S. F. Stevenson and K. C. Zagala

on aspirations for achievement, inclusion, and equity in the higher education context. Over time, institutions that have implemented the model can investigate what works internally and across the sector to build a national evidence-based approach to holistic student services.

Conclusion and Future Directions Ideally, implementation of the WTR-FSH model shifts responsibility for student achievement and equity from often ill-informed and ill-equipped young or culturally and ethnically very different students and specific departments to a holistic collective system-wide endeavor. Conversations move from evaluating students who “don’t fit” or “do their work” to working creatively with the challenges and causes of such behavior, and how and what types of unmet needs such students have. Students become central to the higher education institution, not as customers, or people who prevent important research being completed, but as people seeking to achieve and contribute to the world with the institution in an ako (reciprocal relationship). There is also evidence to suggest that international students will actively seek out those institutions that they perceive will facilitate social and academic adjustment (Martirosyan et al. 2019), which is important for institutional sustainability, quality, and reputation. Institutional foci need to move from cutting the cost of providing student services to the following core question: What are the optimal conditions for student learning and how can our institutions provide these conditions and meet their needs for the benefit of society? The question poses a real-world problem to be solved, which is a central part of institutional quality assurance and continuous improvement process work. The WTR-FSH model challenges existing approaches to student services that limit support to academic skills and/or pastoral care and other such deficitfocused “one size fits all” approaches. Instead, the WRT-FSH model challenges institutions to become proactive, inclusive, and “aspirational” (National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education 2008), and to find how they can optimize and accelerate the learning of all their students for the benefit of all stakeholders.

Cross-References ▶ A Case-Study of Partnership in Practice: Engaging Students to Shape Support for Learning in Higher Education ▶ A Continuum of Language Support Services for Undergraduate Students: Case Studies of Integrating Academic Literacy ▶ A Digital Student Journey: Supporting Students in an Age of Super Complexity ▶ A View of the Contents of the Typical First-Year Virtual Uni Bag: Helping Staff and Students Develop a Pedagogy for Successful Transition ▶ A Whole Person Model of Student Success Advising in the Liberal Arts ▶ Academic Writing and Student Identity: Helping Learners Write in an Age of Massification, Metrics and Consumerism

19

Future Institutional and Student Services Leadership Challenges:. . .

365

▶ Creating Collaborative Spaces: Applying a “Students as Partner” Approach to University Peer Mentoring Programs ▶ Developing an Engagement-Focused Learning Support Service Within a Conservatoire Context ▶ Engaging and Retaining Students in Productive Learning ▶ [Expert] Guide on the Side: One University’s Response to Support for Learning in STEM-Based Disciplines ▶ Experiences of Students with Auxiliary Services Journeys in Higher Education ▶ Exploring the Impact of Learning Development on Student Engagement, Experience, and Learning ▶ From “Customer” to “Partner”: Approaches to Conceptualization of StudentUniversity Relationships ▶ How to Increase Retention and Graduation Rates ▶ Increasing Student Persistence: Wanting and Doing ▶ Learner Support Services in an Online Learning Environment ▶ Residential Learning Communities as Coalitions: Bridging the Gap Between Customer, Consumer, and Learner ▶ Socio-cultural and Settlement Support Services for International Students: A ‘Home Away from Home’ Approach ▶ Supporting Indigenous Higher Degree by Research Students in Higher Education ▶ Supporting Underrepresented Information Technology Students Through High Impact Practices ▶ The Challenge of Student Mental Well-Being: Reconnecting Students Services with the Academic Universe ▶ The Student “Experience” in Commercialized Higher Education ▶ Whole-of-Institution Transformation for First Year Learning and Success

References Alazzi, Khaled F., and John J. Chiodo. 2006. Uncovering problems and identifying coping strategies of middle eastern university students. International Education 35 (2): 65–81. Australian Association of Graduate Employers. 2019. The 2019 AAGE Employer Survey. Victoria. https://aage.com.au/ Barg, Sarah J. 2013. Expectations v. reality: A study about Chinese students’ expectations and experiences at a Midwestern university in America. (Master’s Thesis). University of NebraskaLincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska. Beloucif, Ahmed, Messaoud Mehafdi, and Naa Ayeley Komey. 2018. Expectation as a key determinant of international students’ satisfaction. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education.[JARHE-04-2017-0048]. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-04-2017-0048 Biggs, John B. 1997. Teaching across and within cultures: The issue of international students. In Learning and teaching in higher education: Advancing international perspectives. Proceedings of the Higher Education Research and Development Society Conference, 1–22. Adelaide: Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA). Brundtland, Gro. 1987. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development “Our Common Future”. Annex to UN General Assembly document A/42/427. New York: United Nations. Bunce, Louise, Amy Baird, and Siân E. Jones. 2017. The student-as-consumer approach in higher education and its effects on academic performance. Studies in Higher Education 42 (11): 1958–1978.

366

S. F. Stevenson and K. C. Zagala

Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. 2008. Engaging higher education in societal challenges of the 21st century. San Jose: Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. Davidson-Toumu’a, Mary Ruth, and Kevin N. Dunbar. 2009. Understanding the experiences of Pacific students and facilitating socio-cultural adjustment into higher education in Aotearoa, New Zealand. Journal of the Australia and New Zealand Student Services Association 33: 69–88. Davies, Diane K., and Suronda Gonzales. 2017. Empowering learners: A win-win solution for students and educators. New Directions for Student Services 158 (summer): 23–35. Durie, Mason. 1994. Whaiora: Māori health development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fielden, Kay, Susan F. Stevenson, Nikki Going, Suzanne Grant, and Kristyl Zagala. 2020, in press. Whare Tapa Rima – The Five-Sided Home: a best practice holistic learner support model project. Ako Aotearoa Norther Hub Project Colloquium. Auckland: Ako Aotearoa. Finney, Treena Gillespie, and R. Zachary Finney. 2010. Are students their universities’ customers? An exploration study. Education and Training 52 (4): 276–291. Gauntlett, K. 2010. Understanding the academic expectations of students from Oman in Australian universities: Traditional family values in the modern educational context. Doctoral dissertation. Graham, Susan, and Nikki Going. 2010. Whare Tapa Rima – The Five-Sided Home. Published as a Poster (2016). Hamilton: FREEDOM Institute of Higher Education. Graham, Susan, and Nikki Going. 2016. Whare Tapa Rima – The Five-Sided Home Poster. Hamilton: FREEDOM Institute of Higher Education Kandiko, Camille B., and Matt Mawer. 2013. Student expectations and perceptions of higher education. London: King’s Learning Institute. Land, R., J.H.F. Meyer, and M.T. Flanagan. 2016. Threshold concepts in practice. Vol. 68. Rotterdam/Boston/Taipei: Sense Publishers. Martirosyan, Nara M., Rebecca Bustamante, and D. Patrick Saxon. 2019. Academic and social support services for international students: Current practices. Journal of International Students 9 (1): 172–191. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v9i1.275. Peter McNeur, Tracey Shepherd, Bernie Lepper, John Chemis, Ryan Morrison, and Peterson, L. 2017. Adult learners in the ACE context: Evaluation and review to support sustained learner success. Retrieved from Wellington, New Zealand. Moeau, P. 1997. Hauora. Paper presented at the NZ conference on health and physical education. Auckland: Auckland College of Education. Naidoo, David. 2018. ‘Like strangers in a new world . . .’ Interrogating issues of access, belonging and participation of foreign students in private higher education in South Africa. International Journal of Inclusive Education 22 (6): 622–637. New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit. 2000. Universities as critic and conscience of society: The role of academic freedom. Wellington: New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit. ISSN: 1174-8826. Schofield, Anne, Lisa Walker, and Nikki Going. 2011. Supporting academic success to minority group students in a private tertiary establishment. Retrieved from Wellington, New Zealand. Spronken-Smith, R., C. Bond, A. McLean, S. Freilick, N. Smith, M. Jenkins, and S. Marshall. 2015. Evaluating engagement with graduate outcomes across higher education institutions in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Higher Education Research and Development 34 (5): 1014–1030. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2015.1011098. Tertiary Education Commission. 2018. Statement of performance expectations. Wellington: Tertiary Education Commission. Tertiary Education Productivity Report. 2017. New models of tertiary education. Wellington: Productivity Commission. .

Empowerment Versus Power: The Learning and Performativity Conflict

20

Tracey Ashmore

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Forms of Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Political Power and Educational Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reinforcing Social Divides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Political Power and the Control of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Power Struggles Within HEIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Academic Power, Administrative Power, and Institutional Deficits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Academic and Administrative Powers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conflicting Expectations Converging in the Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Priorities for Education Versus Educational Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Satisfaction Metrics, Consumer Power, and Learner Deficits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Performance Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Performativity and the Commodification of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Consumer Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Academic Support Services, Inequality of Power, and Variations in Addressing Deficits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Positions of Power and Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bridging Mandates and Relationship Gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Filling in the Gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Holistic Education for Social Progression Versus Performativity and Societal Deficits . . . . . . . Humanitarian Side of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “Employability Skills” and “Commodification of Knowledge” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Need for Social Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Performativity Versus Relationships and Tolerance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

368 369 369 370 370 370 371 371 371 373 374 375 375 376 376 377 377 379 380 380 380 381 382 382 383 384 384

T. Ashmore (*) University of Kent, Kent, UK e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 H. Huijser et al. (eds.), Student Support Services, University Development and Administration, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5852-5_9

367

368

T. Ashmore

Abstract

Since the 1990s, academic support practices in UK Higher Education (HE) have been presented and debated in the literature, but rarely within the context of power positions internal and external to an institution. This chapter explores the power positions that emerged from my 2018 PhD enquiry: What is the role of academic support in contemporary UK Higher Education (HE)? Data from 17 interviews with academic support staff and managers from 6 different institutions (different origin, status, subject, scale, geographic location) were analyzed thematically in the context of key UK HE government-commissioned reports and policies (1963–2016), and literature on the evolving purpose and practices of UK HE academic support roles (1960s–2018). Bourdieu’s field analysis provided a conceptual framework with which to understand the interrelationship between power positions (combination of habitus, capital, and field) that shape practice. Conclusions drawn from this examination highlighted the role of academic support to be negotiating contradictory powers – political, administrative (HEI), academic (subject teaching), and consumer (different to learner) – and conflicts in priorities between commercial and societal values. Inequity of power positions within and external to an institution affect how learning, and support for learning, are perceived and fulfilled within an HE institution (HEI). The argument underpinning this chapter is that education systems, driven by power positions and performativity, often perpetuate the very inequalities and deficits – individual, institutional, and societal – that they were designed to address. Keywords

Academic student support · Power positions · Metrics · Empowerment · Social values

Introduction Emerging in the literature in the 1990s, the practices of academic support in UK Higher Education (HE) have been extensively presented and debated over the last 30 years. However, approaches are rarely presented within the context of power positions internal and external to an institution, and yet, according to Bourdieu, the positions that agents hold within a field impacts on the practices they adopt. This chapter explores the power positions that emerged from my 2018 PhD enquiry: What is the role of academic support in contemporary UK Higher Education (HE)? Two questions underpinned this research: How do those working in academic support perceive their role, and How are their perceptions shaped by wider policy contexts? In order to answer these two questions, 17 interviews with academic support staff and managers from 6 different institutions – different origin, status, subject, scale, geographic location – were undertaken, the six institutions can best be described as: • 1960s broad subject • Pre-WWII high ranking social science specialist

20

Empowerment Versus Power: The Learning and Performativity Conflict

369

• Pre-WWII Russell Group (an association of UK universities with a strong reputation for high quality research and academic standards) • Post-1992 broad subject • Post-1992 arts specialist • Post-WWII Russell Group – involving only the campus shared with the post1992 arts specialist Data from interviews were analyzed thematically; thematic analysis is commonly associated with exploratory research where codes arise from analysis rather than imposing “pre-established categories” (Fontana and Prokos 2007, 40). Semistructured interviews were conducted in order to obtain the unanticipated (Newby 2014), and names of individuals and institutions were replaced with pseudonyms to encourage candid responses. A three-stage process was undertaken to identify themes: 1. “text segmentation” (Guest et al. 2012) in relation to interview questions; 2. a summarizing of responses per institution; and 3. a summarizing of responses across institutions. Thematic analysis was undertaken of UK governmentcommissioned reports (1963–2016), literature about perceptions and practices of UK HE academic support roles (1960s-2018), and the whole process was conceptually framed by Bourdieu’s field theory: “[(habitus) (capital)] + field ¼ practice” (1984, 101). For a theme to be considered worthy of discussion, at least 3 out of 17 participants would need to have raised it. The results of analysis revealed academic support to be mediating politically driven conflicts between economic, social, and cultural values and priorities. These conflicts are embodied in three coexisting perceptions of purpose and four forms of power:

Purpose • “Remedial” – overcoming student deficits in order to achieve predefined performance indicators, i.e., student learning outcomes, discipline benchmarks, and institutional or sector-wide targets and expectations • Development – supporting holistic knowledge acquisition for transformation • Business – satisfying service users

Forms of Power • • • •

Political Administrative Academic Consumer

This chapter is primarily concerned with defining forms of power and their impact on how learning and support for learning are perceived and fulfilled within an HE institution (HEI), it has the following progressive discussion topics:

370

T. Ashmore

1. 2. 3. 4.

Political power and educational control Academic power, administrative power, and institutional deficits Satisfaction metrics, consumer power, and learner deficits Academic support services, inequality of power, and variations in addressing deficits 5. Holistic education for social progression versus performativity and societal deficits

Political Power and Educational Control Reinforcing Social Divides Education is a political, cultural, and social action . . . bound up in the interplay between state and civil society shaping who we are, what we do, how we think and speak; and, what we receive from and give to society. The business of education is the creation and recreation of culture, society and personal identity . . . Education is seen as both a force for social change and as a vehicle for reproducing existing social hierarchies. (McLean 2008, 1)

The “business” of education as McLean (2008) describes it, can either be a means for transforming society or a means for “reproducing” existing social “hierarchies.” According to Bourdieu, systems of education and the categorizing (grading or ranking) of individuals and educational establishments merely “separates” “holders of inherited cultural [and economic] capital from those who lack it” (Bourdieu 1998, 20), for he believes that “aptitude” is “inseparable” from “social differences according to inherited capital” (Bourdieu 1998, 20). In other words social hierarchy is transformed into “academic hierarchies and, by extension, into hierarchies of ‘merit’” (Johnson 1993, 23) – thus perpetuating preexisting social hierarchies and notions of merit and power. Bourdieu describes “the act of scholastic classification . . . [as] an act of ordination” (1998, 21), which “institutes a social difference of rank, a permanent relation of order: the elect are marked, for their whole lives, by their affiliation of people who are separated from the common run of mortals by a difference of essence and, therefore, legitimately licensed to dominate” (Bourdieu 1998, 21). Bourdieu’s analytical framework is centered on the idea that all social spheres involve a degree of competition and a battle for power; however, dominance in educational spheres is likely to lead to power and dominance in other fields.

Political Power and the Control of Education At this point it is important to ask who allows education to maintain, rather than break with, the status quo. According to Bourdieu (1998), education is shaped by the same familial generations who have benefitted from maintaining the status quo. In other words, those with the cultural capital needed to control the field of education, maintain the very “sorting” systems that guarantee their dominance. In the UK, these

20

Empowerment Versus Power: The Learning and Performativity Conflict

371

people are likely to hold high ranking positions in HE and or government – political power – from historical lines of privilege and privileged education where noble title has been metaphorically traded for academic title, in order to legitimize decisionmaking power. When it comes to UK higher education in particular, Scott (2014) describes UK HE as being within the power of the same “gilded” few, those who are already bestowed with substantial amounts of the “right” cultural capital. Indeed, over the last 30 years HE has progressively come under the control of conflicting (Ball 2013) national government policy. The white paper Students at the Heart of the System (2011) increased political control over who, what, and how institutions should teach, under the guise of increasing institutional autonomy and healthy competition between HE institutions. However, the expectation that institutions compete as equals through politically defined metrics and methods would indicate anything but autonomy and healthy competition. Indeed, Scott defines the current system as privileging “top universities” and reinforcing “elitism” (2014, 2); however, it is also privileging the political powers who have risen up to power positions through these institutions.

Power Struggles Within HEIs Conflicting policies and competition in an already unequal and compromised HE field lead to more conflicts and compromises within HE institutions. Interviews with academic support staff and managers highlighted power struggles within their institutions, particularly between: 1. those responsible for the business of an institution – administrative power; 2. those involved in educating and guiding students – academic power; and 3. students – in dual position as learners and consumers. HE administrative power has control over staff through wages and contracts; whereas academic power has control over students as learners through teaching and assessment; however, students as fee-paying consumers have control over academic and administrative powers through public “feedback” mechanisms and purchasing power. The following diagram illustrates this chain of power (Fig. 1): Academic support services are positioned within this unstable cycle of power and cognitive dissonance, experiencing conflicts in values between one of educating (challenge and transformation) and one of value for money (complying and satisfying).

Academic Power, Administrative Power, and Institutional Deficits Academic and Administrative Powers This section of the chapter will explore the conflicts between academic and administrative powers and how these impact learners and the role and practices of academic support services. Academic power consists of subject disciplines and their varying levels of autonomy that they hold within their HEI. Bourdieu describes

372

T. Ashmore

Fig. 1 Power positions in Higher Education Institutions

“academic power and intellectual prestige . . . [as] weapons and stakes . . . of all against all” (Wacquant 1990, 680). A hierarchy exists between subjects and different specialists command varying degrees of scholarly power (Bourdieu 1988). However, academic power has increasingly become accountable to administrative power – those with power to shape how an institution responds to HE policy. Atherton, referring to the work of Deem et al., describes this hierarchical power structure as the “new managerialism,” a shifting “balance . . . between ‘strategic control’ and ‘operational control’” (2017, 95): The organisational reality of everyday university life seems to suggest that for many, if not most, academics there has been a fundamental loss of control – over work organisation and professional culture – as universities have been transformed from ‘communities of scholars’ into ‘workplaces’. Activities designed to promote social mobility via widened access have been associated with this shift. (2017, 95)

Although interviewee responses tend to concur with this shift, the power and autonomy of staff members – academics and academic support – not only seems to vary between institutions but also between changes in Vice Chancellors, which for some institutions seemed to occur on a 5-year cycle. One interviewee described their administrative powers in their 1992 arts institution as a top down “culture” of “fear”; with all staff having to “toe the line,” “obey instructions,” and “keep their heads down” (Effie 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 252). However, this conflicted with the external image marketed to potential students, which was described as: “creative, cutting-edge, questioning, innovative, [and] radical,” “break[ing] rules in order to establish new and better ones” (Effie 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 252). This institution was thought to be suffering a “crisis” in “identity” (Effie 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 252), for what is sold to students is not the

20

Empowerment Versus Power: The Learning and Performativity Conflict

373

reality that staff experience. Collini (2012) describes numerous institutions as grappling with a loss of identity, as they focus their efforts on meeting contradictory priorities and targets. However, the concern raised at this particular HEI, emphasizes an imbalance of power between teachers and learners, with students being encouraged to question, while staff (those entrusted to develop students) are expected to remain subservient. Add to this the additional layer of consumer power – presented in the 2016 BIS report Success as a Knowledge Economy – and academics and academic support staff are caught between consumer expectations and administrative powers.

Conflicting Expectations Converging in the Curriculum The decisions of administrative powers are shaped by habitus on two levels: 1. individual habitus –how those individuals in power interpret and react to challenge; 2. institutional habitus – how the power and status of their institution shapes the way in which they can interpret and react to challenge. As Nixon states: “the public of private interests justifies the increasing privatization of higher education and the increasing disparity of institutions across the higher education sector” (2011, 63). Variations in power between institutions (economic, cultural and symbolic capital) lead to variations in power-conflicts within institutions, which impacts on how support for learning is perceived and achieved. As one interviewee from the pre-WWII social sciences institution described: [our] recruitment materials and websites . . . say things like . . . “this will prepare you for a 21st century career in marketing”[,] and then . . . [the students] are . . . assessed on a 20,000 word piece of original research written in an academic style[.]. . . [Students] are being recruited on the basis that they need . . . [an MA] for their career and then they’re being assessed in a method . . . which is trying to train them as obvious researchers. (Boris 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 253)

The impact of this is that academic support services find themselves mediating the gap between conflicting expectations in order to enable students to meet assessment criteria. Atherton describes HE as “attempting to balance retaining its ability to develop critical, reflective thinking and thinkers” at the same time as providing “the kind of tangible skills that enable . . . students to not just survive but to prosper in the 21st century” (2017, 97). Similarly, Fenton (2011) views teaching staff as conflicted, trying to achieve expected teaching efficiencies – cramming “teaching into every available hour to maximise space utilisation and student turnover” (2011, 105) at the same time as developing research informed teaching. Fenton has predicted “the chance of research, writing or even reading” (2011, 105) as becoming “a luxury for all but the few elite institutions” (2011, 105). Interviewees regularly highlighted conflicts between different governmentimposed measures converging in the curriculum, which they found themselves having to negotiate or reconcile. One staff member from the pre-WWII Russell Group institution described seeing a lot of nursing students regarding their numerous types of essays – “reflective,” “scientific,” “factual,” “sociological,” “psychological” – all

374

T. Ashmore

with “a lot of learning outcomes” on very low word counts (Chey 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 255). Conflicting performance targets were blamed for these “crammed” assignments; however, the workload of academics – large nursing cohorts with underdeveloped writing abilities – were blamed for low word counts (Chey 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 255). The situation described here, however, also emphasizes the tensions arising from the use of more liberal modes of assignments, used to gauge intellectual development, alongside competency models of assessment (Wolf 2002), associated with vocational training. The two managers of participating academic support teams in post-1992 institutions both described the negative impact that research performance targets had had on teaching after achieving university status, which their teams were having to mitigate. The academic support manager of the post-1992 broad subject institution (ex-polytechnic) described their institution prior to university status as very well known for “supporting all sorts of students . . . very much a widening participation institution” (Dylan 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 256). However, after achieving university status, administrative powers swapped teaching priorities for “investing” in researchers and “climbing up the league tables” (Dylan 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 256). This situation increased the workload for academic support services as they became the mediators between learner needs and teaching inadequacies. Similarly, the manager of the post-1992 arts institution also described their administrative powers as trading teaching for research post-university status, hiring more entrepreneurs and researchers than teachers in a bid to gain a stronger research profile. At the same time, hiring high numbers of part-time associate lecturers – experts in their fields – had led to ambiguous and inconsistent communication, teaching, and assessment; nothing was considered to be “refined and embedded” in the curriculum; “it’s just “oh, that didn’t work let’s do something different”” (Effie 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 257). This team described themselves as plugging gaps in the curriculum and teaching, as well as attempting to translate expectations to students. In addition, the team identified the need to guide associate lecturers in their teaching; however, unlike some academic support teams, this team lacked the official institutional power, status and mandate to formally and consistently undertake this task.

Priorities for Education Versus Educational Priorities In the Times Higher Education, Morgan (2015) describes how the status of HE teaching is being undermined by conflicting priorities – meeting research metrics and meeting promises of “quality teaching” defined by Students at the Heart of the System: This month, [the University of] Surrey – whose vice-chancellor [VC] is Sir Christopher Snowden, the president of Universities UK – announced plans to cut the number of academics in its politics department from 14 to six. On most measures currently used to judge teaching (although such measures are problematic for many) the politics department scores highly. It was ranked fourth in the UK in the 2014 National Student Survey [NSS], with an overall student satisfaction score of 97 per cent. In the same year, it was announced that the department’s graduates had scored an employment rate of 100 per cent in the Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education survey.

20

Empowerment Versus Power: The Learning and Performativity Conflict

375

Despite scoring high in all teaching “quality” metrics, the VC of the University of Surrey made the decision to cut an area of teaching staff by more than 50% in order to focus resources on improving the department’s poor performance in the Research Excellence Framework (REF) (Morgan 2015). This VC therefore prioritized meeting REF metrics over maintaining teaching quality. Many interviewees described their administrative powers as concerned with league table positions; however, priorities are shaped by institutional status, for example, the pre-WWII Russell Group institution – already acknowledged for “quality” research – was described by one interviewee as turning attentions toward improving “transferrable” and “employability skills” in order to meet “graduatelevel jobs” metrics (Chey 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 259). However, this interviewee considered there to be a “gap between” what their administrative powers may prioritize and what academics and “support services” may consider a priority (Chey 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 259). Thus, when institutions turn their attentions away from teaching, academic support teams described themselves as having to bridge teaching deficits and gaps.

Satisfaction Metrics, Consumer Power, and Learner Deficits Performance Indicators This section of the chapter will explore how the empowerment of students as consumers undermines students as learners. It will further discuss the performativity and subjectivity of rates of satisfaction, and how these statistical measures homogenize rather than diversify education and approaches to academic support. According to Scott (2011), institutional “performance” is primarily based on “subject mix,” and secondly on “student mix – in terms of class, gender and ethnicity.” Despite the view that subject and student mix can affect institutional performance, HEIs are expected to compete as though equal in order to meet policy-defined expectations. Ball states that “professionalism” has been replaced by “three interrelated policy technologies; the market, managerialism and performativity” (2003, 215–216): The issue of who controls the field of judgement is crucial . . . as it determines what is to count as a valuable, effective or satisfactory performance and what measures or indicators are considered valid . . . [I]n the UK, these struggles are highly individualized as teachers, as ethical subjects, find their values challenged or displaced by the terrors of performativity. (2003, 216)

Student satisfaction, completion rates, and degree classifications in higher education are all performance measures predefined by those with power over the “field of judgement” – politicians. Although each of these measures to assess educational effectiveness can potentially undermine the professional power of educators, it is the use of rates of satisfaction (borrowed from the private sector) that is probably the most contentious. In the words of Ball (2003), rates of satisfaction “displaces” teacher power – “creativity” and “professionalism” – and instead turns it into consumer power.

376

T. Ashmore

Performativity and the Commodification of Education Empirical research conducted by Shevlin et al. (2000) identified that students’ perceptions of quality teaching were dependent on the charisma of the teacher, in other words how their own perceptions (habitus and capital) and position fits with the position and perceptions of the person teaching them. This research revealed judgments on teaching to be subjective, dependent on relational perceptions. According to one academic support manager, satisfaction and dissatisfaction are expectations-dependent. In other words, student satisfaction is dependent on student expectations, which do not always correlate with expectations of academic support, academics, institutions, or governments: Some people say “you’ve helped me so much” and others might go out and say “well actually that wasn’t an awful lot of help”, but that’s not because we haven’t done our job, it might just be that we told them they have got a lot more to do than they thought, but we can’t make that better for them. (Effie 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 263)

Consumer Power Watson states that “the introduction of tuition fees” has led to students viewing themselves as “consumers” with specific “expectations” (2008, 7). These expectations have led to a fundamental shift in learner perceptions and behavior: [The] concept of the degree ‘ticket’ separates out academic success from intellectual effort. Rather than focus on being a student or immersing themselves in a favourite subject, students instead focus upon having a degree. The tuition fee invoice reinforces the idea that students are entitled to a university degree in exchange for their time and money. (Williams 2013, 83)

Williams (2013) believes that institutions reinforce this sense of entitlement by drawing up student “charters” and presenting those responsible for teaching and support for learning as “service providers whose aim is to do what the customer demands (‘you said: we did’)” (2013, 83). This leads to an “‘instrumental approach to university,’ moving from ‘being’ to ‘having’ . . . [and] from engagement to passivity, with some students seeking satisfaction in the fulfilment of their rights as opposed to a struggle with theoretical content” (Williams 2013, 86). Despite education being “co-creative” and learner failure not necessarily meaning a failure in “product or service” (Schofield et al. 2013, 194), consumer rights tend to replace learner agency and responsibility. The use of the consumer service model to measure the “quality” of education does not take into consideration the agency and responsibility of learners; it also undermines the power of educators to challenge learner thinking and behaviors that run counter to growth. Therefore, consumer power is not the same as learner empowerment, for it is possible for students to “protect” themselves from challenge and change by exercising the right to critique those who challenge, i.e., academics and academic support. Therefore, consumer power can in fact perpetuate the political

20

Empowerment Versus Power: The Learning and Performativity Conflict

377

notion of learner “deficits” and ultimately national deficits. Indeed, it is questionable whether consumer power is really “power” at all, or merely a political construct to covertly control the outcome of HE. At a time when educators are expected to challenge and raise aspirations and lay the foundations for social mobility (BIS 2011, 2016), staff seem to be at their most disempowered through being subjected to measures of satisfaction. However, satisfaction measures are not necessarily a problem in themselves, but they tend to be distilled into decontextualized percentages on a spectrum between good and bad, and then used to empower or disempower those involved in the education process. Elliot (2009) suggests that teaching and learning cannot be distilled into definitive and generic sets of rules and practices, for learning is context-dependent; in other words, the combination of learners, educators, and learning environments can potentially create different outcomes. Therefore, individually tailored qualitative measures are more appropriate in assessing what happens between educator and learner “within an atmosphere of professional trust” (Brynne 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 266).

Academic Support Services, Inequality of Power, and Variations in Addressing Deficits Although academic support practitioners and managers seemed to adopt a mediating role between policy, academic, and administrative “power-struggles” (Anna 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 268), the power and subsequent practices of teams depended largely on their positions held in relation to their academic and administrative powers. The inequality of power held by participating academic support teams supports Bourdieu’s (1987, 1998) theory that power positions and practices are contextspecific and relational. Figure 2 indicates the three main positions of power that academic support (AS) teams tended to adopt in relation to administrative and academic powers, and their subsequent practices:

Positions of Power and Practices Evaluation of interviewee responses revealed that the nearer academic support services were positioned to administrative power (see P1 in Fig. 2), the more likely they were able to influence teaching and learning (T & L) strategy. In contrast, the nearer academic support services were positioned to academic power (see P2 in Fig. 2) the more proactive they could be in supporting academics and students at curriculum level, as one interviewee highlighted: the staff might come to us and say . . . “we’ve got a large number of students that are on the verge of failing could you please do us some special sessions” . . . on the back of that we [also] do . . . writing development sessions with staff so they can then see what we do, [and] integrate their own relevant classes. (Boris 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 268–269)

378

T. Ashmore

Fig. 2 Positions and practices of academic support teams

In this case, academic support services were positioned close to course teams, situated within an academic department, but more importantly, they held expertise (cultural capital) desired by academics, who were unaware of student “discourse patterns” in “writing” (Beatrice 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 269). This enabled the team to be viewed and treated as equals with equal power to influence on-course teaching. This team was also positioned closely to administrative powers – line-managed by the faculty head who played a role in institutional strategy. Being positioned close to administrative powers also gave them the ability to contribute knowledge and experience to educational strategy, helping them to shape how the institution responds to student needs. In contrast, the further away that academic support services are situated to academic power, particularly if the service is also positioned at a distance from administrative power (see P3 in Fig. 2), the more the team would assume a “go to” role, remedying issues or “deficits” on an ad hoc basis directly with students. In this case, the team as a collective did not appear to be viewed as experts with knowledge desired by academic and administrative powers, and therefore did not hold equal power to influence. As one interviewee described: Institutionally we don’t sit in any of the academic departments . . . there’s the politics of status[.] . . . [W]e are not attached to any . . . academic faculties and we are not allowed to call

20

Empowerment Versus Power: The Learning and Performativity Conflict

379

ourselves lecturers . . . Because we are at arms-length from the academic departments it means that all the time our positions are being negotiated. (Anna 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 269)

A lack of connection with academic or administrative powers seemed to position this team closer to students, and therefore under the power of consumers. Indeed, the manager of this team tended to prioritize providing a “service” for students, responding to their demands and levels of student satisfaction over other academic and administrative priorities. Student satisfaction was used as a means to justify the team’s role and practices. Positions, perceptions, and behaviors reinforce positions, perceptions, and behaviors (Bourdieu 1977). Indeed, any engagement that team members had with academics seemed to occur on an ad hoc basis, whereby members of the team for one reason or another established relationships with individual academics.

Bridging Mandates and Relationship Gaps The team supporting the post-1992 arts institution also partially supported a postWWII Russell Group institution. This team described quite a unique position in relation to both institutions, as they were managed externally by a separate company along with nonteaching roles. This distance between the team and all institutional powers meant that the interviewees had to work hard to build and maintain relationships with academics relying on what they described as ad hoc “corridor conversations [with academics] rather than . . . being institutionally enshrined” (Eileen 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 270). As the manager explained: “we talk to individual lecturers but we don’t have an official presence or status in the system” (Effie 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 270). However, what enabled them to be positioned somewhat closer to academic power in the post-1992 arts institution was the fact that academics were very “practice-based” with about 20% “on a dyslexic spectrum” (Eileen 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 270). Therefore, these dyslexic academics, with their own concerns regarding the cultural capital of the HE institutions turned to those who they perceived as holding the power to transform their position. This relationship presents another example where power and equality arise from holding desirable cultural capital – in this case the ability to teach writing to dyslexic academics. Indeed, these particular academics were “very grateful” for the guidance offered by the academic support team, which subsequently enabled the team to develop a degree of equality, opening up opportunities to influence on course teaching. In contrast, however, this team seemed to hold very little power when it came to the academics in their post-WWII Russell Group courses, for these academics were considered to be imbued with the capital (and power) desired in the field. Bourdieu (1986, 1998) has stated that the dominant quality or currency (capital) in a particular field affects the power and status of agents; those with the coveted and dominant quality in a social sphere hold the power, until what constitutes the dominant quality changes or is lost.

380

T. Ashmore

Filling in the Gaps Being positioned at a distance to academic and administrative powers is problematic for it leaves academic support teams open to conflicting demands from administrative, consumer, and academic powers. One example of this is a team that described itself as being used to bridge gaps in diminishing on-course staffing levels. They would frequently receive requests to run specific workshops that did not seem to fit the work that the cohorts were undertaking, or the timing was not appropriate, therefore rendering the session irrelevant. These requests had more to do with freeing up academics to undertake other expected duties, such as research, than relevance and timely enhancement of the curriculum. These requests often posed a dilemma for the academic support team, for if they should agree to deliver a session knowing that the timing may render the content ineffective and a waste of students’ time, then this would affect student engagement and the teams satisfaction metrics. However, if the team refused to deliver a session that an academic requested, they would run the risk of a relationship breakdown with the course team, which could then affect engagement in the future. Therefore, the team were often caught between academic power and consumer power. Two teams who described being positioned at a distance to academic and administrative powers also highlighted issues with filling in staffing gaps for course teams.

Holistic Education for Social Progression Versus Performativity and Societal Deficits Humanitarian Side of Education All interviewees, in varying forms, either mentioned or championed the development of social and humanitarian values. Interviewees either demonstrated support for these values in what they considered a priority in their teaching or in how they approached their teaching. Phrases like “creating citizens that make a useful” (Chey 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 272) or those who make a “real” “contribution” (Dylan 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 272) to society, emerged from the interviews. One described the role of HE and academic support as developing “attitudes” “underpinned by compassion, imagination, generosity, inventiveness, flexibility and all of the skills that would enable . . . [someone] to be a good citizen and . . . a team player” (Eileen 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 272). These values were highlighted earlier by Quinlan (2011), emphasizing the importance of developing “good character” and the “right behaviour” in order to live a “good life.” Interviewees collectively discussed the development of “integrity,” “inclusivity,” “respect,” “generosity,” “tolerance,” and a sense of shared “social responsibility,” which Mascolo (2017) defines as “self-cultivation.” These qualities can be categorized as forms of cultural capital, as they are advantageous across all social spheres; however, self-cultivation cannot “merely” be achieved by providing individuals with the “capacity” for choice (Mascolo 2017), or quick fixes:

20

Empowerment Versus Power: The Learning and Performativity Conflict

381

Self-determination does not spring spontaneously from within the self. It is a slow and gradual process through which students construct knowledge, skills and values that have their origins between the student and agents of culture . . . It is a relational process that occurs as teachers provide the academic and socio-moral scaffolding that awakens, orients and supports a student’s active efforts toward self-formation. (2017, 31–32)

This highlights the significance of the two-way relationship between learner and educator in individual development – the student as an “active” and motivated participant in “self-formation,” and the teacher as facilitator and support. As discussed earlier, the performativity paradigm by which UK education is governed, places the responsibility for motivating “active efforts” in “self-formation,” solely with those responsible for teaching and supporting learning. However, this view appears to run counter to philosophies, values, and practices underpinning selfcultivation and self-formation. In order to develop and strengthen the qualities described earlier, it is essential to shape or reshape the habitus of individuals through complete immersion in “changed life conditions” (Illeris 2014, 61). There is “no quick-fix option” to developing an individual’s “thinking,” “consciousness,” and “understandings” (Fenton 2011, 105). Therefore, educational leadership needs rethinking, so that attitudes, approaches, and the academies themselves model and reinforce humanistic values (Quinlan 2011; Mascolo 2017). The notion of “humanistic academies” (Mascolo 2017) is one that supports and prepares students holistically for a “good life” in the widest sense, with “vocation” as just one part (Quinlan 2011; Mascolo 2017). Mascolo encourages institutions to “galvanize academic life around a common purpose: the pursuit of knowledge for the good of humanity”. . . [to] ask fundamental questions about the nature of “good” in relation to “human actions,” and about the “bodies of knowledge and skills . . . students need to live a good life in an ever-changing global world” (2017, 32). Therefore, developing curriculum and pedagogy that Mascolo describes as going “beyond the disinterested dissemination of discipline-based information” (2017, 32).

“Employability Skills” and “Commodification of Knowledge” Quinlan describes the idea of “character” or “morals” as “rarely” being “invoked in higher education” (2011, 5). Instead, Quinlan sees the “moral” and social duty of higher education as being “overshadowed by . . . instrumental and economic goals, including employability skills and preparation for the workplace” (2011, 5). The belief that vocational education will transform the “employability” and “social mobility” of a nation (BIS 2016) is somewhat naive, for it ignores the reality of societal habituation, its role in determining how individuals will view and respond to the world around them. Bourdieu (2013) supports the idea that resilience and the ability to cope with challenge, is dependent on historic “dispositions”; in other words based on the “structures” and perceptions of an individual’s self, constructed through prior experiences. Therefore, depending on past experiences, students can either be open to challenge and change, or resist (struggle with) ideas and practices that

382

T. Ashmore

contradict engrained perceptions of themselves, irrespective of whether the status quo is undesirable. Individuals require a significant and “holistic” shift in knowledge in order to transcend existing trajectories; deep and significant change does not generally come as a result of a quick fixing of superficial skills. Ball, citing the work of Lyotard, describes how economically motivated education has led to a “commodification of knowledge” (2003, 226). This commodification has affected the relationship between “learner, learning and knowledge,” with Knowledge being “de-socialized” (2003, 226) and viewed as external to learners, information that learners acquire superficially for a single purpose, rather than fully engage with, understand, and assimilate.

The Need for Social Reform Socially driven education, underpinned by values associated with self-cultivation and societal progression, is undermined by politically driven education motivated by economic capital, commerce, and competition. The latter is more likely to lead to a self-absorbed (Illeris 2014) and “sectional” society (Collini 2012, X), concerned only with “private benefits” (Collini 2012, X), thus posing a real threat to “meaning and purpose”’ (Mascolo 2017, 30). Walton describes UK Universities as a mere vehicle for advancing “corporate capitalism,” posing a serious threat to “diversity” of any kind, as it prioritizes “measurable growth, a quick fix and the bottom line” (2011, 24). Barkas (2011) and several interviewees echo this view, highlighting that the current political paradigm in education has not advanced societal conditions; we only need to look at the lack of social harmony and “destruction that is going on around the world” (Anton 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 275) to know that human beings need “to evolve as a species” (Anton 2016 in Ashmore 2018, 275).

Performativity Versus Relationships and Tolerance uinlan (2011) highlights the importance of being equipped to develop and maintain positive relationships, mentioning “virtues” such as “sincerity,” “honesty,” “empathy,” “care of others,” “reliability,” “integrity,” “trustworthiness,” and “tolerance.” Although Quinlan offers a number of reasons for developing students holistically, the ultimate rationale is “quite simply” because it is the “right and good thing to do” (Quinlan 2011, 4). This argument, which Quinlan recognizes as “difficult to sustain on its own against a rising tide of external demands on the sector” (2011, 4) is reinforced by Ball, who describes performativity as leaving “no room for caring” (2003, 224). Indeed, expectations and “judgements” on how individuals and institutions perform, leave no room for meaningful and authentic “interactions and relations” (Ball 2003, 224) between teachers and students, and between colleagues and peers (Ball 2003). Pring raised similar concerns in the 1990s, describing a “wide-spread and deeply rooted” feeling that the UK education system was “not succeeding” in instilling “social values necessary for a well-ordered society” (1999, 5), nor preparing the

20

Empowerment Versus Power: The Learning and Performativity Conflict

383

young “psychologically,” “economically,” or “adequately for the world of work” (1999, 5). I would argue that the last decade of UK HE policy and educational reforms have done little to rectify this. Governmental concepts of how to drive up “standards” as well what constitutes as evidence of quality teaching and learning are often too simplistic and subsequently flawed. Ainley concludes in his book Betraying a Generation that “Competition does not raise ‘standards,’ save those that can be ranked in numerical order, [thus] narrowing performance to what can be assessed in prescribed behaviours” (2016, 115). Performativity agendas and the measuring of “prescribed behaviours,” whether it be teaching or learning, potentially undermine relationships between learner and teacher, and devalue the wide-reaching power of knowledge and transformative learning. Despite pressures to perform however, interviewees talked about the importance of building relationships with and between students, both aiding their socialization and building of support networks. “Tolerance” was raised by several interviewees and authors alike, for this was considered important to societal cohesion, motivating diverse individuals to explore and identify ways to live and work together. Illeris, referring to the work of Wenger, describes the “social qualities” needed to shape thinking and behavior conducive to tolerance: [identity is both the] social and societal relations of the individual, who one experiences to be in relation to others, and how one wants to be experienced by others. This part of the identity is developed by learning and is of great importance with regard to transformative learning, but it has not received so much focus as the part of the identity that concerns the individual’s relationship to her or himself – although the two parts are, of course, elements of the same whole. (2014, 59)

In order to positively influence social and societal identity and qualities, Quinlan highlights the need for those leading and working in education, “to focus on their own inner lives – their senses of self – so that they are modelling lives of purpose, meaning and integrity” (2011, 3).

Conclusion The role and practices of academic support are context-dependent – both political and institutional – and power-position dependent. The position and power of an institution within the HE field shape institutional priorities, e.g., recruitment, research, teaching, and efficiency; and institutional priorities subsequently shape the role of academic support teams, e.g., remedying deficits, holistic development, and meeting consumer demands. Institutions are not created equal and therefore are unable to compete equally; however, the current system favors the elite institutions and those who attend them. The inner power dynamics of an institution, e.g., how and where academic support teams are positioned, impacts on how they fulfill their roles and the practices they assume. Teams who are positioned close to administrative power have the power to work more strategically to

384

T. Ashmore

influence teaching and learning practices and processes. Teams positioned close to academic power have the power to share knowledge and practices for improved teaching and curriculum at the point of delivery. However, teams positioned at a distance from both administrative and academic powers tend to act as a “go to” service for students, reactively responding to student needs as they are presented. For the interviewees in this study, this position often meant that teams were having to respond to conflicting demands from administrative, academic, and consumer powers. Interviewees who considered themselves powerless to influence academics or institutional practices, and who instead worked directly with students only, were more likely to prioritize learner satisfaction over other institutional expectations. However, satisfaction does not always equate with learner empowerment and can, in fact, run counter to it. Academic support is not just a role that aids “academic” development or helps to address institutional or national deficits. Instead, it is a philosophy which stands for valuing whole person development, empowerment of individual and society through knowledge acquisition and development – of self and subject – beyond immediate market-place skills. However, while political powers control and define HE, it is not always possible to empower individuals beyond immediate politically defined expectations. Therefore, the role of UK HE academic support, which evolved out of political and HE conflicts, tends to exist to resolve conflict. However, real transformation within HE would require a change in HE power so that education is not steered by the privileged few with fixed ideas regarding the economic “needs” of the nation, but would rather be concerned with harnessing individual power for the greater good.

Cross-References ▶ “Remedial,” Development, and Business: Three Opposing but Coexisting Approaches to Academic Student Support

References Ainsley, P. 2016. Betraying a generation: How education is betraying young people. London: Policy Press. Ashmore, T. 2018. What is the role of academic support in contemporary HE? University of Kent. https://kar.kent.ac.uk/73885/. Atherton, G. 2017. The success paradox: Why we need a holistic theory of social mobility. London: Policy Press. Ball, S. 2003. The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. J Educ Policy 18 (2): 215–228. Ball, S. 2013. The education debate. 2nd ed. Bristol: The Policy Press. Barkas, L. 2011. The paradox of skills: Widening participation, academic literacy & students’skills centres. Boston: Sense Publishers. Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a theory of practice. London: Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.

20

Empowerment Versus Power: The Learning and Performativity Conflict

385

Bourdieu, P. 1986. The forms of capital. In Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education, ed. G. Richardson, 241–258. New York: Greenwood. Bourdieu, P. 1987. What makes a social class?: On the theoretical and practical existence of groups. Berkeley J Sociol 32: 1–17. USA: Regents of the University of California. Bourdieu, P. 1988. Homo Academicus. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Bourdieu, P. 1998. Practical reason. London: Polity Press in association with Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Bourdieu, P. 2013. Outline of a theory of practice. London: Cambridge University Press. Collini, S. 2012. What are universities for? London: Penguin Books Limited. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). 2011. Higher education: Students at the heart of the system. Cm 8122. London: The Stationery Office Limited. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). 2016. Success as a knowledge economy: Teaching excellence, social mobility and student Choice. Cm 9258. London: The Stationery Office Limited. Elliot, J. 2009. Making evidence-based practice educational. In Educational research and evidencebased practice, ed. M. Hammersley, 66–88. London: The Open University and Sage Publications Ltd. Fenton, N. 2011. Impoverished pedagogy, privatised practice. In The assault on universities: A manifesto for resistance, ed. M. Bailey and D. Freedman, 103–110. London: Pluto Press. Fontana, A., and A.H. Prokos. 2007. The interview: From formal to post modern. Walnut Creek: West Coast Press. Guest, G., K. MacQueen, and E. Namey. 2012. Applied thematic analysis. New York: SAGE. Illeris, K. 2014. Transformative learning and identity. London and New York: Routledge. Johnson, R. 1993. Editors introduction: Pierre Bourdieu on art, literature and culture. In The field of cultural production, ed. R. Johnson, 1–25. London: Polity Press. Mascolo, M. 2017. Rekindling the humanistic soul of the academy: Pursuing knowledge for the good of humanity. https://www.academia.edu/. Accessed 14 Feb 2018 McLean, M. 2008. Pedagogy and the university: Critical theory and practice. London and New York: Continuum Studies in Education. Morgan, J. 2015. Does the sector need a ‘teaching REF’?. Times Higher Education, 26 March. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/does-the-sector-need-a-teaching-ref/2019253. article. Accessed 04 June 2018 Newby, P. 2014. Research methods for education. 2nd ed. London and New York: Routledge. Nixon, J. 2011. Re-imagining the public good. In The assault on universities: A manifesto for resistance, ed. M. Bailey and D. Freedman, 59–70. London: Pluto Press. Pring, R. 1999. Closing the gap: Liberal education and vocational preparation. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Quinlan, K. 2011. Developing the whole student: Leading higher education initiatives that integrate mind and heart. London: Leadership Foundation for Higher Education. Schofield, C., D. Cotton, K. Gresty, P. Kneale, and J. Winter. 2013. Higher education provision in a crowded marketplace. J High Educ Policy Manag 35 (2): 193–205. Scott, P. 2011. Higher education: Not everything can be measured. The Guardian, 5 April. https:// www.theguardian.com/education/2011/apr/05/higher-education-metrics. Accessed 10 Mar 2018 Scott, P. 2014. Scope, size and shape of higher education. http://www.oie.ac.uk. Accessed 01 Oct 2015 Shevlin, M., P. Banyard, M. Davies, and M. Griffiths. 2000. The validity of student evaluation of teaching in higher education: Love me, love my lectures? Assess Eval High Educ 25 (4): 397–340. Wacquant, J. 1990. Sociology as socioanalysis: Tales of Homo Academicus. Sociol Forum 5 (4): 677–689. Watson, L. 2008. It’s not about us: It’s about them. In Transformative learning support models in higher education: Educating the whole student, ed. M. Weaver, 3–18. London: Facet publishing. Williams, J. 2013. Consuming higher education: Why learning can’t be bought. London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. Wolf, A. 2002. Does education matter? London: Penguin Books Ltd.

Engaging and Retaining Students in Productive Learning

21

Geoff Scott

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Why Focus on What Engages and Retains Students in Productive Learning? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Empirical Research and Experience Which Inform the Chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ensuring There Is a Shared Understanding of Key Terms and Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Seeing How the Pieces Fit Together . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What Is Productive Learning in the Current Context? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . It Is the Total Experience That Counts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Building Aspirations to Attend University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Optimizing the Quality of Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ensuring High Levels of Retention and Engagement in Productive Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sustained Personal Contact from the Outset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leveraging Peer Group Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fostering a Sense of Belonging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Early Identification and Support of Students at Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Learning Analytics and Targeted Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Early Training of Students on How to Use University Resources, Student Support Services, and Online Learning Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ensuring Equitable Access to Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leveraging Student Difference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engagement via Extracurricular Projects and Using the Campus as a Living Laboratory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leveraging Cocurricular Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Effective Complaints Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Use of a “One Stop Student Support Shop” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Benchmarking for Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Using the Relevant TEQSA Guidance and Good Practice Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Making It Happen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Common Myths to Be Wary Of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

388 389 390 391 391 392 392 395 397 399 401 401 402 403 403 404 404 404 405 406 406 406 407 407 407 408 409

G. Scott (*) Western Sydney University, Sydney, NSW, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 H. Huijser et al. (eds.), Student Support Services, University Development and Administration, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5852-5_38

387

388

G. Scott

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research and Experience Informing the Chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definitions of Key Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Student Satisfaction Survey: Specific Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2019 QILT Student Experience Survey Results and Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

410 411 411 412 412 413 413 414 414 416

Abstract

This chapter brings together 40 years of experience and research on how best to engage and retain students in productive learning. It provides empirical data which show that it is the total university or college experience, not just what happens in the traditional classroom, that accounts for effective student engagement, retention, and success. Proven strategies and resources for optimizing the quality of student aspiration building, transition and retention are identified, and the critical importance of high quality, aligned student administration, infrastructure, cocurricular, student preparation, and support systems is noted. The chapter argues that it is no good to have highly satisfied, rigorously assessed, well supported, and highly engaged students with high levels of retention if what they are learning is irrelevant and leaves them ill-equipped to successfully navigate the many social, cultural, economic, vocational, and environmental sustainability challenges now being faced by the world. The stakes are high for universities and colleges in the coming decades of the twenty-first century. Those that will flourish will have a clear moral purpose – the development of work ready plus graduates who are emotionally intelligent, sustainability literate, change implementation savvy, inventive, and ethically robust. And they will use the total university experience to make this happen. Keywords

Productive learning · Effective student engagement · Retention and success · Work ready plus · Moral purpose

Introduction Student success, retention, and completion in higher education is an issue of fundamental importance. (Australia’s Tertiary Education Quality & Standards Agency)

Many of the Standards in Australia’s Higher Education Standards Framework 2015 require the provision of robust evidence that each provider is engaging and retaining students in productive learning. (The relevant HE standards include those relating to orientation and progression (standard 1.3); learning outcomes and

21

Engaging and Retaining Students in Productive Learning

389

assessment (1.4), facilities and infrastructure (2.1), diversity and equity (2.2), wellbeing and safety (2.3), student grievances and complaints’ management (2.4), course design (3.1), staff quality (3.2), learning resources and educational support (3.3), and information for prospective and current students (7.2), along with aligned governance and accountability (Standard 6). To be effective, all of these elements must not only be wisely formulated but also to work in synergy.) The integrating themes for this chapter are: • It is the total university or college experience that engages and retains students in productive learning, not just what happens in the traditional classroom. • It is critical to always start by focusing on the fitness of purpose of higher education, at what constitutes “productive” learning in the new, volatile world context, before confirming that the learning methods, content, resources, or support systems being used are aligned with and fit for achieving that validated purpose. • Assuring each learning program’s fitness of purpose requires confirming that learning will be productive. In this context, “productive” means that the capabilities to be developed are definitely the ones graduates are going to most need to successfully negotiate the current age of acceleration (Friedman 2016) and uncertainty (Galbraith 1977). In this chapter, it is argued that it is no good to have highly satisfied, rigorously assessed, well supported, and highly engaged students with high levels of retention if what they are learning is irrelevant and leaves them ill-equipped to successfully navigate the many social, cultural, economic, vocational, and environmental sustainability challenges now being faced by the world. • Learning is a profoundly social experience and information is not learning. • Good ideas with no ideas on how to implement them are wasted ideas.

Overview First, the case for ensuring the effective engagement and retention of students in productive learning will be presented, then the empirical research and practical experience that informs the chapter will be summarized. This is followed by a quick introduction to key terms and an internationally validated quality and standards framework that shows how the various elements which ensure productive engagement, retention, and learning fit together. The chapter then brings together the key empirical lessons on what constitutes productive learning in the current rapidly shifting international context, and the empirical evidence which shows it is the total university experience that counts in this process, not just what happens in the classroom. It shows how the aspirations to attend university of first in family students in particular can be most effectively built, how the quality of student transition into their higher education studies can be optimized, and then how to ensure that students are successfully supported and retained in their courses of study so that they successfully graduate.

390

G. Scott

The chapter concludes by summarizing the key lessons on successful change management for the area and identifies a pervasive set of current myths about higher education learning and support, which practitioners need to be alert to as they seek to ensure that their students are engaged and retained in productive learning.

Why Focus on What Engages and Retains Students in Productive Learning? A failure to engage and retain students in productive learning at universities and colleges costs. It costs students because not completing a degree considerably diminishes their life chances and opportunities, especially if they are the first in their family to attend a higher education institution (HEI). It costs the country because a failure to optimize the development of its total social, intellectual, and cultural capital is very risky in the highly volatile, rapidly changing, globalized, and increasingly competitive environment currently faced. It has been recognized for many years that higher education profoundly influences not only the individual’s life chances but the nation’s well-being. (For example, as long ago as May 2005 a report by the Educational Policy Institute in the USA (www.educationalpolicy. org) demonstrated that educated people and their offspring get more highly paid jobs, pay higher taxes, have generally better health, and require less government support. It is well educated graduates who will be well positioned to help their country address the key challenges of social, cultural, economic, and environmental sustainability now faced. Furthermore, as 95% of the world’s leaders have a degree, it is important that they graduate being able to both lead and respond to change effectively and wisely.) Optimizing the retention, subsequent career success, and the contribution students make to society after graduation is a key moral purpose of universities and colleges. It also costs HEIs through loss of income which, in turn, can cost the jobs of their academic and professional staff. (This is because the prime source of funding for most universities is student fees. Lose just 20 students generating income of $13,000 per annum each at the end of year one of a 3-year program and the income loss for the university over the remaining 2 years is almost half a million dollars – around five staff salaries for a year with on-costs.) Being known as an HEI that successfully supports and retains its students and develops graduates who perform successfully as employees, entrepreneurs, and leaders builds reputation which, in turn, optimizes subsequent demand. We know from first year exit surveys of the students who discontinue their studies that many of the reasons for their departure are beyond the control of the university or college (e.g., health or stress, job transfer, family pressures, conflicting employment commitments). However, many are within the control of the higher education provider and can be more effectively addressed. The common departure factors that can be addressed include failure to follow up on queries, lack of personal contact, inaccessibility of staff, feeling isolated, expectations not being met, lack of interest in

21

Engaging and Retaining Students in Productive Learning

391

the course chosen, unclear assessment, poor academic support and timetabling, and commuting difficulties. Australia’s 2019 Student Experience Report (QILT 2019, p. 20) continues to identify a similar pattern. The proportion of students rating different aspects of their student experience positively ranged from 84% for Learning Resources, down to 60% for Learner Engagement (QILT Student Experience Report 2019, p. 2). For international students, the areas identified in the International Student Barometer (Ammigan and Langton 2018, pp. 7–10) that matter most to them are, in addition to the quality of the overall learning and teaching experience, on-arrival support, suitable accommodation, campus quality, experiencing the local culture, cost of living, support for English skills, social facilities, social activities, making in-country friends, safety and security, leading to a good job, opportunities to work, and the institution’s eco-friendliness. It is on how best to address student engagement and retention “hot spots” for both domestic and international students like these, while making sure that what students learn is relevant to their future success, that this chapter concentrates.

The Empirical Research and Experience Which Inform the Chapter The chapter is informed by 40 years’ research and practical experience focused on optimizing the quality and outcomes of the total student experience of postsecondary and higher education. All of this research clearly demonstrates that what engages and retains students in productive learning is the total university or college experience, not just what happens in the classroom (See Appendix 1 for details).

Ensuring There Is a Shared Understanding of Key Terms and Concepts It is very important, when discussing the best ways to optimize the quality of the total student experience and the outcomes for graduates, to make sure that all of the players are using key terms with a shared meaning. Below are some key terms that are used in this chapter (See Appendix 2 for details). It is recommended that each HEI confirm their preferred definitions for terms like these and ensure staff have a shared understanding of what each term means in practice for them: Capability and competence Standard Transition Retention Quality Learning

392

G. Scott

Assessment Strategy Evaluation Learning outcomes

Seeing How the Pieces Fit Together It is important to ensure that both academic and professional staff understand and are acknowledged for the key, complementary roles they all play in engaging and retaining students in productive learning. The framework in Fig. 1 (Scott 2012), commended by the Australian Universities Quality Agency in its cycle 2 audit of the University of Western Sydney (now Western Sydney University), has been successfully used around the world to show how all of these roles fit together to achieve productive learning and work ready plus outcomes for students (Scott 2019). The top section of this diagram identifies what, in combination, optimizes student retention and engagement in productive learning and subsequent career success. The bottom section identifies how this is to be assured, enabled, governed, monitored, and improved. At the heart of Fig. 1 is impact (4) – this involves the careful up-front determination and confirmation of the fitness of purpose of what is being learnt. All of the other elements (1–3) and the underpinning quality management system need to be working in combination to achieve this purpose. That is, they need to be fit for the right purpose – productive learning.

What Is Productive Learning in the Current Context? What are the key capabilities and competencies which will ensure that the impact on students of their HEI experience identified in Diagram One is productive – that what students learn will enable them to navigate the age of acceleration (Friedman 2016) successfully, and the “wicked” social, cultural, economic, and environmental challenges to be faced in the coming decades – of which the 2020 Covid-19 pandemic is just one immediate example? (Horst Rittel and Melvin M. Webber formally described the concept of wicked problems in their 1973 article in Policy Sciences (Rittel and Webber 1973).) This issue of what constitutes productive learning is dealt with in great detail in the Right Outcomes section of the FLIPCurric site (Scott 2017) and in Scott (2019). Our studies of successful early career graduates in a wide range of professions over the past 20 years have been used to identify what capabilities need to be developed and assessed in order to ensure graduates are prepared for a volatile professional and societal future. (Studies have been undertaken with successful early career graduates in accounting, architecture, education, engineering, IT, journalism, law, nursing, and sports management. These are listed in a separate section in

21

Engaging and Retaining Students in Productive Learning

393

Fig. 1 UWS academic standards and assessment framework for learning and teaching. (Source UWS AUQA cycle 2 audit portfolio 2011)

the “References” section at the end of the chapter and in the References Section of the FLIPCurric site.) This research distinguishes between competencies (the ability to deliver set skills and knowledge in set situations) and capability (the ability to successfully negotiate situations that are unexpected and “tricky,” and times when things go awry). Competencies are necessary but not sufficient to be identified as a successful early career graduate by clients, colleagues, and supervisors. For further information on these studies and the professional capability framework developed in

394

G. Scott

Table 1 Top ranking capabilities from studies of successful early career graduates in 9 professions (top 12/41 in rank order) 1. Being able to organize work and manage time effectively (Generic skills and knowledge) 2. Wanting to produce as good a job as possible (Personal capability – Commitment) 3. Setting and justifying priorities for my daily work (Cognitive capability – Strategy) 4. Being able to remain calm under pressure or when things take an unexpected turn (Personal capability – Self-awareness and regulation) 5. Being willing to face and learn from errors and listen openly to feedback (Personal capability – Self-awareness and regulation) 6. Being able to identify the core issue from a mass of detail in any situation (Cognitive capability – Diagnosis) 7. Being able to work with senior staff without being intimidated (Interpersonal capability – Influencing) 8. Being willing to take responsibility for projects and how they turn out (Personal capability – Commitment) 9. Being able to develop and contribute positively to team-based projects (Interpersonal capability – Empathizing) 10. A willingness to persevere when things are not working out as anticipated (Personal capability – Commitment) 11. Ability to empathize and work productively with people from a wide range of backgrounds (Interpersonal capability – Empathizing) 12. Being able to develop and use networks of colleagues to help solve key workplace problems (Interpersonal capability – Influencing)

response, along with the full set of validated items that make it up, see Sect. 3.2 in FLIPCurric site’s Getting Started section. Table 1 shows the top 12 key capabilities/competencies identified by successful early career graduates across nine of the professions studied. These studies have, in particular, identified real-world case studies of the dilemmas inevitably faced in the first years of each profession and how successful graduates have handled them, along with the key role of community engaged learning with real-world challenges like those embodied in the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals as key learning and assessment tools. The key conclusion of the 3700 learning and teaching leaders involved in co-creating the FLIPCurric site and the 16,500 higher educators around the world that have subsequently used it to review their programs is that graduates must, not only be work ready for today (competent, able to deliver set skills and set knowledge in set ways) but they must also be work ready plus (capable of managing an uncertain future and times when things go awry or unexpected opportunities crop up). To be work ready plus, graduates must, therefore, emerge from their HEI course being: • Sustainability literate • Change implementation savvy

21

Engaging and Retaining Students in Productive Learning

395

• Creative and inventive – socially not just commercially • Clear on where they stand on the tacit assumptions driving the twenty-first century agenda, assumptions like: – Growth is equally good for everyone. – Consumption is happiness. – Information and communications technology is always the answer. – Globalization and uniformity are great. In order to be work ready plus, graduates need to develop and be assessed on key capabilities like those identified in Table 1. A wide range of powerful, peer-reviewed assessment tasks that validly assess if students have developed the capabilities of the work ready plus graduate are identified at the bottom of the search page on the FLIPCurric site and are discussed in more detail in Scott (2019). In summary, although high levels of retention and satisfaction are important, the acid test of whether a HE program has been productive lies in the quality of its impact on students. And this is determined by looking at what is assessed and how well this predicts the quality of graduates’ performance in their subsequent careers and life. It is little benefit to students if they are highly satisfied with their HEI experience but what they have learnt subsequently proves to be irrelevant. By giving focus to developing work ready plus graduates, universities, and colleges will be achieving their long-standing moral purpose – to be not just a training agency generating work ready employees for today but places committed to developing change capable, ethically robust, adaptable, resilient leaders, innovators, professionals, and citizens for an uncertain tomorrow. Seeking to develop work ready plus graduates aligns with seeing education as being an investment not as a cost, or as being far more than just a source of income. (For further details, see Scott (2019) and Sects. 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 of the FLIPCurric site.)

It Is the Total Experience That Counts What is important in the framework outlined in Diagram One is the acknowledgement that, as demonstrated in the data in Table 2 below, student support is of as much importance to graduate retention, success, and productive learning as ensuring we have in place the right (fit for purpose) course design and the right (fit for purpose) staff. A comprehensive Student Satisfaction Survey (SSS) that covers all of the key elements in Diagram One has been used for a number of years at two large Australian metropolitan universities. The SSS covers every aspect of the student experience identified in that Diagram and invites students to rate the items that make up the survey not only on performance but also on importance. This has enabled the universities concerned to identify what matters most to students in their experience of a university and to focus their improvement efforts more strategically by giving priority attention to areas rated high on importance (items that attract mean ratings of

396

G. Scott

Table 2 Student Satisfaction Survey results in one large metropolitan university. Items rated 4/5 or higher on importance Item 1. Ease of access to the library 2. Online learning support 3. Computing 4. Information about exams is easy to understand 5. Electronic access to library resources 6. My course is conducted by staff who are good teachers 7. Enrolling and reenrolling online is quick and convenient 8. Quality of computing equipment 9. I am provided with clear assessment requirements 10. Information about enrolment procedures is clear and accurate 11. Accurate information about courses is easily available 12. Quality of software 13. IT help and support 14. Online systems and online forms have made student admin easier 15. The library makes access to materials listed in unit outlines easy 16. Problems with administrative matters are easily resolved 17. I am learning the up-to-date knowledge and skills needed by employers 18. My course provides relevant assessment tasks 19. The quality of photocopiers and printing 20. Application procedures for entry are straightforward 21. My course has up-to-date content 22. My course enables me to electronically access essential information or content if I miss a class 23. Bookshops 24. Parking 25. My course enables me to construct a timetable for attendance at classes which suits my needs 26. I receive current and accurate information on my HECS-HELP or FEE-HELP liability and fees 27. I am developing skills in communicating with people 28. The learning materials are useful and relevant 29. I am developing an ability in the area(s) studied to solve practical problems successfully 30. Staff provide timely and constructive feedback on learning 31. My course closely links theory and practice 32. High quality study facilities

Mean importance/5 4.5 4.4 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.8 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.9 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.0 4.0

4/5 or greater) but low on performance (items that attract performance ratings of less than 3/5). The 79 items that make up the survey cover all of the following areas, as identified in Diagram One:

21

• • • • • • • • • •

Engaging and Retaining Students in Productive Learning

397

The quality of staff and the course being undertaken Key course outcomes Administration Ease of access Library quality Learning support Computing facilities General student support services General student infrastructure The quality of student representation

Appendix 3 shows the specific items covered in each of the above dimensions in these surveys. The combined results taken from the SSS at one university demonstrate that what students see as being important to engage and retain them in productive learning involves far more than what happens in the classroom. It is the total experience that develops the work ready plus capabilities of successful graduates. The 32 items attracting an importance rating of 4/5 or greater, from the representative sample of 1860 students completing the survey, demonstrate this and they are listed in rank order of importance in Table 2. This pattern is confirmed in the analysis of the 285,906 “best aspect” and “needs improvement” comments made by students from 14 Australian universities in the Accessing the Student Voice research (Scott 2006, p. 27). The analysis shows that what counts for students is the combination of a relevant course design, sound assessment, positive outcomes, and expert staff, along with broader aspects of the university experience like social affinity, peer support, learning resource quality, library resources, and responsive and efficient student services and student administration. A wide range of successful ways of encouraging participation in tertiary education and ensuring that the preconditions for productive learning – successful student transition and retention are effective – have built on the research summarized above. We now turn to an overview of these successful strategies.

Building Aspirations to Attend University It is important to recognize that support for student success at a university or college starts well before students enroll. HEIs committed to encouraging first in family students to attend a university or college have identified a range of particularly productive strategies. The Schools’ Engagement Strategic Plan of Western Sydney University (WSU) is a good example of a sustained, strategic approach to this area. The integrated set of WSU tertiary aspiration-building initiatives include: • Targeted aspiration-building programs for particular equity groups • A development program for teachers in Greater Western Sydney (GWS)

398

• • • •

G. Scott

Indigenous mentoring Refugee Action support programs in schools Student volunteer programs in schools Participation in the Greater Western Sydney (GWS) Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths (STEM) Schools’ Alliance Productive aspiration-building approaches used over the past 15 years include:

• Using successful Indigenous university students to work as mentors with Aboriginal and Torres Strait students in primary school to show them that university success is both possible and achievable for people from their shared background. The WSU Australian Indigenous Mentoring Experience (AIME) provides a structured educational program for young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students to access the University throughout their high school experience. Students completing the AIME program are proven to finish school and transition through to university, training and employment at the same rate as every Australian child – effectively closing the gap in educational outcomes. • The WSU Years 9–12 Fast Forward Program, which involves activities and events tailored to different school year cohorts, and the WSU Aspire program, which is aimed at students who display levels of high academic achievement, leadership qualities and ambassadorial skills, and who have the potential to influence social change within the university and their own communities. • For VET (Vocational Education and Training) students, the WSU Tertiary Education and Pathways and Partnerships program involves agreements between WSU and NSW Technical and Further Education (TAFE), along with private VET and higher education colleges. These agreements generally provide guaranteed entry and credit transfer from vocational/higher education studies towards a related degree. • Use of successful university students from the same background as aspiring students to run the University’s student contact center. • The establishment of Pathways Colleges like WSU-The College and WSU International College in which students receive a wide range of transition support and are given extra assistance to study the same subjects as the first year ones in the course to which they would like advanced standing at the University. Many other universities have similar programs. Examples include: • Murdoch University’s Aspirations and Pathways for University Project (MAP 4 U) • The University Technology Sydney UTS Building STEM aspiration in primary school girls program • The University of the Sunshine Coast outreach program for schools • The University of Canberra’s widening participation initiatives • The University of New South Wales Aspire outreach program

21

Engaging and Retaining Students in Productive Learning

399

Optimizing the Quality of Transition It is of little benefit to gain students if they are not retained and engaged in productive learning. We know from first year exit surveys that transition into tertiary studies is a key time for quality assurance, personalized assistance, and proactive support. Many detailed and very helpful reports and guides have been written on this area over the years, including those produced by Nelson et al. (2006), Kift (2008), and Kift (2009). Some of the highly rated transition strategies include: Personal Contact Prior to Course Commencement • Personal contact just prior to course commencement from a staff member who gets to know the student, alerts them to the transition support services and guides available to help them, answers any queries, and checks that they are clear on what is about to happen. This is a key strategy used for many years to optimize transition and retention at the UK’s Open University. • Proactive assistance provided at enrolment to ensure that the correct units of study and a feasible workload are selected. Transition Advice from Successful Students from the Same Background • Direct use of what students in specific target groups who have already succeeded at university or college have found works best. The notion here is that “fellow travellers” (“students just like me who have done well”) are seen by new students as a key source of relevant information and support as they start university. • “Lonely planet” guides on “how things work around here” written by successful students from the same background are a good example. They cover the total experience that a new student can expect and identify key “hot spots” for people from that particular background and how to handle them, with a particular focus on cultural alignment and awareness. One example is the WSU peer guide for first in family students. • Transition support needs to be available not just for those entering first year. For example, VET students with articulation into the second year of an undergraduate program also typically require considerable transition assistance. Truth in Advertising and Clear Expectations’ Management • Ensuring that what is promised during recruitment and on the institution’s website is delivered consistently and effectively (Scott 2009). • Using assessment-focused learning guides that are discussed in detail in the first class of each unit of study, in order to ensure that students understand exactly what is required in their assessment tasks, the learning methods and resources that will help them complete them successfully, and how different grades will be determined, with exemplars.

400

G. Scott

Targeted “just in time and just for me” Assistance • Timely and easy to access advice which allows students to find the answers to questions as they arise, rather than assuming that everything can be covered in one, up-front orientation day. Orientation is therefore best seen as being a gradual learning process not an event. • Transition assistance which is specifically targeted to the distinctive needs of particular groups of students and fields of education. This can include the use of low stakes English and Maths tests based on what will be needed in specific subjects and the provision of early, targeted support on the gaps identified. • The provision of targeted study skills’ especially for those returning to study after a long break or those who are unfamiliar with how assessment, research, and writing work in higher education. Situated knowledge that relates directly to the subject at hand is more valued and engaging than generic workshops on academic writing. • Transition support which covers all aspects of the tertiary experience and especially the areas identified as a reason for withdrawal in first year exit surveys. • Both academic and administrative staff understand and are acknowledged for the important, complementary roles they have to play and are alerted to what motivates student engagement and retention. A good example of a training manual on transition pedagogy for academic staff is the UTS Successful Student Transition Guide. Particular attention to transition support was necessary during the move to the new modes of learning that resulted from the 2020 Covid-19 pandemic. In a survey of the members of the Australia’s Higher Education Private Providers Quality Network (HEPP-QN) in June 2020 on the forms of student support found to be most effective in the transition to online learning that resulted from the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, the following strategies were identified: • Proactive individual telephone contact of students from the outset to see how they were going and to respond to any broader challenges they identify • The use of a quick, early online survey on the best aspects and areas most needing improvement in the use of the new learning system • The development of a “learning buddy” support system among students • Up-front coaching and follow-up help on how to use the institution’s learning management system and other online resources and tools like Zoom and Microsoft Teams • Equipment support for equity students • Individualized training of staff on the HEI’s support services for online learning • The use of “quick guides” for students written by successful graduates in the same course • Course coordinators sitting in on online classes to identify any support areas needing follow-up • Active application by the Academic Board of the institution’s quality and standards framework to ensure equivalent quality in online learning, teaching, and assessment

21

Engaging and Retaining Students in Productive Learning

401

• The IT support center being available for just in time support, including the use of video-based coaching on how to use the institution’s online learning system and resources • Provision of a “dry run” in using new online examination systems • Personalized payment plans when necessary • Careful attention to assuring online academic integrity and specific briefing of students on how it can be assured • Use of an online ideas and support site to gather in feedback from students and to provide updates on how any emerging challenges were being managed Here is the feedback from students from one Australian University when support strategies like those above were implemented: The spring session will begin soon and I, as an international student, feel so appreciative of all the staff in this university. I checked my grades and happily found I passed all the units. Without your help, including your phone calls, hardship assistance, scholarship and other quick and timely support, I could not possibly go through this semester and make it. This pandemic is still going on and we are all not sure of when it will finally be over. But now I have more confidence in my life with your care and support. I will continue to try my best in the new semester. All I want to say is A BIG THANK YOU. What you have done is truly meaningful and important because you did help a lot of students like me and I want you to know this.

Ensuring High Levels of Retention and Engagement in Productive Learning As all of the research reviewed earlier indicates, course design, high quality assessment, and expert teaching staff certainly play a key role in engaging and retaining students in productive, work ready plus learning. The FLIPCurric website gives the latest research on how to optimize the quality of these areas. Some emerging options with potential to further assist with retention include the block learning models used by Victoria University in Australia and Quest University in Canada. However, as already emphasized, many other aspects of students’ experiences of a HEI play a role in retaining and engaging them in productive learning. These other key components, which build on the aspiration-building and transition strategies discussed above, are identified below, and how they might best be handled is also discussed.

Sustained Personal Contact from the Outset This includes the use of a first year coordinator and adviser – ideally this is a single, well known, trained member of staff who proactively contacts students, especially during their first year of study. This is necessary for both on-campus students and students studying at a distance and can be complemented by giving students access to

402

G. Scott

an easily located “Need Help?” page on the institution’s website and having protocols for ensuring that queries are answered promptly, personally, and accurately. Slade and Prinsloo (2015), in discussing the use of this approach in the UK’s Open University, report that: . . . students have been supported by a primary student support team (SST) based in one of 12 regional or national centres in the UK. . . Students are automatically allocated to an SST at registration based on their primary curriculum area.. . . Each SST has interventions closely aligned to its curriculum and to the profile of its students. The SST aims to pre-empt and guide student behaviour and to rapidly respond to situations where students are not engaging as expected.

Individualized contact at the O.U. includes a personal welcome to the University, regular discussions on progress and assessment, on what is a feasible study load given other commitments and the choice of subjects to be taken in the next year of study, along with a call to congratulate students on completion of their degree. Many HEIs supplement such support with a virtual personal assistant. A good example is Deakin University’s Deakin Genie App. More generally, as noted earlier, there has been increased acknowledgement of the important role student support services have played in helping students cope with the impact of the 2020 Covid-19 crisis, and with their consequent loss of part time work income, their need to cope with new forms of online study and with the management of emerging mental health issues. As Leask and Green (2020) say: . . . the transition to online learning . . . (triggered by the Covid. . . lockdowns). . . cannot be accomplished by faculty alone. Students, faculty and IT experts, learning designers and student support staff will need.. to work together on this project.

Leveraging Peer Group Support It is important to recognize that learning is a profoundly social experience and that peer support plays a key role in retention and success. This can be facilitated by: • Making sure that all students get to know one another at the outset of each course and that a system of “learning buddies” is established. Examples include the Study Buddies at Southern Cross University, the WSU Mentoring and Transition Equals Success (Mates) program, the Buddy Program at Macquarie University, and the International Study Buddy Program at Griffith University. A study of a “study buddy” support scheme by Thalluri et al. (2014) found that the pass rate of “at risk” students who participated in the scheme was significantly higher than students who did not. They also found that improvements in retention and increases in student satisfaction persisted beyond first year. • Systematically implementing Peer Assisted Study Sessions (PASS) (This program is based on the Supplemental Instruction program that started in the USA in 1973 and now operates in over 1500 higher education institutions in 29 countries.). A range of

21

Engaging and Retaining Students in Productive Learning

403

studies of the impact of participation in PASS show that it has a positive impact on both retention and academic performance (For example, research reported in the performance portfolio for an audit of one HEI by the Australian Universities Quality Agency in 2011 (UWS 2011, pp. 63–64) found that the average mark for students who attended more than four PASS sessions in a variety of subjects ranged between 6 and 16 points higher than those who attended none. In a study undertaken by Birch and Li (2009) at a second Australian university the authors found that: “Enrolment in a PASS program was found to have a positive impact on students’ academic success.” In another study of the impact of PASS on students in a Malaysian HEI, Sultan et al. (2013, p. 71) report that: “The participants generally agreed that PASS helped them to integrate more quickly into college life and to make connections with other students.” See also Spedding et al. (2017).)

Fostering a Sense of Belonging As noted in the research and analysis report on student retention commissioned for the Bradley Review of Australian Higher Education (Scott 2009), a key factor for retention is to foster each student’s sense of belonging to the HEI’s community. A successful strategy is to spend some time in the first class finding out about the background, abilities, needs, and experience of each student and then referring back to this knowledge in first few sessions. Individual contact with students can be supplemented by a quick, informal classroom survey around weeks 4–6 of each semester to elicit students’ views on the “best aspects” of their subject so far and what most “needs improvement.” The following week the lecturer can report the results and highlight what everyone says is working well and what is being done to address any emerging areas for improvement or clarification identified by students.

Early Identification and Support of Students at Risk This involves establishing an agreed set of “students at risk indicators” which are systematically monitored from the first day of classes. These indicators can include: failure to activate one’s university email account, poor class attendance, failure to submit the first assessment task or low performance on it, repeated requests for an extension on assignments, expressing concern in class etc. The data from the institution’s exit interviews can be used to sharpen what is focused on in these indicators. Provision of a personalized, early, proactive response with targeted support when at-risk flags are raised is particularly important. Making this a key focus of New Staff Mentoring Programs has also been found to be important. The University of New England Early Alert Program, which is used with its predominantly distance education student body, is a good example of an integrated approach. As the program’s website says:

404

G. Scott

Early Alert uses multiple data sources to highlight students who may be at risk of attrition supporting these students in a case-by-case managed basis to actively improve retention at the institution.

Tools used by UNE include an automated Wellness Engine that extracts studentrelated information from 8 separate UNE systems and analyzes the results against 34 different risk indicators. A student support team contacts students by phone, email, and/or social media to offer help. Support materials used include an Insider’s Guide blog and The UNE Vibe, along with the use of Facebook and Twitter.

Learning Analytics and Targeted Support As illustrated in the UNE example above, recent rapid developments in information technology can help HEIs monitor student learning activity and, when necessary, trigger targeted support. Slade and Prinsloo (2015) discuss how learning analytics is being successfully used in the UK, in conjunction with curriculum-based support teams, to significantly reduce the high attrition rates often found in open distance learning in higher education.

Early Training of Students on How to Use University Resources, Student Support Services, and Online Learning Systems Most university and college libraries provide students with self-teaching guides on how to undertake research and search both efficiently and effectively. One example is Melbourne University’s Research Essentials site. Many also provide detailed self-teaching guides on effective online learning and effective ways to use the institution’s learning management system. Some, like the University of Newcastle, provide a short video guide to all new students on the online learning systems and support services available to them. Purely online providers like the Australian Institute of Business use an integrated Online Student Learning Portal. Many HEIs also require all students, prior to the commencement of their studies, to successfully complete a mandatory online learning training program and to review supporting videos co-created by online teaching staff and successful graduates. These “IT-enabled learning badges” are likely to assume even greater importance given what is likely to follow on from the impact of the 2020 Covid-19 pandemic.

Ensuring Equitable Access to Technology This includes making sure that people with disabilities are provided with accessible technology and that all students, especially those from low SES backgrounds and other equity groups, have the required hardware and access to the internet at

21

Engaging and Retaining Students in Productive Learning

405

home. As a member of the Australian Council of Open and Distance Education reported in a discussion thread on the use of online learning as a response to the Covid-19 outbreak on 1 April 2020: A survey. . . in a computing science school found that more than 5% of students were unable to successfully participate in online activities with the access they had at home. We are in great danger of disenfranchising students and adding more stress to their lives at a time when no one needs it.

In other countries, the issue of digital inequity is even more marked. For example, on 3 April 2020, University World News reported that at the University of Chile 15% of students didn’t own a computer, and on 2 May 2020, Nishat Riaz reported in University World News that: According to UNESCO, half of the total number of learners – some 826 million students – kept out of the classroom by the pandemic do not have access to a household computer and 43% (706 million) have no internet at home.

As Andrew Harvey (2020) observed in May 2020: Students with a disability, financial disadvantage, and poor internet and computer access are already more likely to withdraw from university, and to cite financial and health reasons for doing so. Achievement gaps will grow as poverty, anxiety, and mass online learning expose a disparity of resources, dispositions, technology, and parental support.

Disadvantages associated with the “digital divide” were raised as long ago as 2001 in a research project undertaken by Barraket and Scott (2001). In addition to taking steps to provide IT hardware, access, and support for equity groups, another key engagement and retention strategy, as noted earlier, is to use successful students from each equity group to identify the key strategies they have found most useful and to provide peer support on what they have learnt for students just entering the university or college.

Leveraging Student Difference The distinctive backgrounds, abilities, needs, and experience (BANE) of students can be used as a learning resource rather than viewing all students from a deficit perspective (Gravett et al. 2020). A good example is using the home country experience of international students as a learning resource for intercultural understanding in a wide range of professional courses. This has been found to enhance their sense of belong, acknowledgment, engagement, and retention.

406

G. Scott

Engagement via Extracurricular Projects and Using the Campus as a Living Laboratory Many universities offer students opportunities to contribute to socially worthwhile community service projects and use the campus as a living laboratory for them to actively learn about and address the challenges of social, cultural, economic, and environmental sustainability.

Leveraging Cocurricular Experiences Many of the 160 universities involved in the FLIPcurric project noted that fostering and giving credit for cocurricular experiences undertaken by students while they are at their university or college enhances retention and productive learning. Universities like Portland State University give credit for such contributions by using units of study focused on student eportfolios. Others, like those involved in the Enactus network of universities, focus on student projects aimed at addressing the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals via community-based service projects through its Enactus 2030 initiative. An Association of Commonwealth Universities benchmarking project on student engagement led by the author in 2018 identified a wide range of cocurricular activities that students rate highly as enhancing engagement and retention. They include students going back into their high school to act as mentors, successful early career graduates being used to improve the relevance of the curriculum and the quality of what is provided, students working on sustainability projects with community partners in programs like the studentrun Reach Out and Give (RAG) program at South Africa’s North West University, engagement in student led research in programs like the WSU Ideas Lab, helping manage university clubs, involvement in maker spaces like the MIT Makersystem and Stanford’s dSchool, participating in student union activities, acting as a student representative on governing bodies, and, when from a different culture or background, being used as a learning resource in the classroom.

Effective Complaints Management Australia’s Tertiary Education and Quality Standards Agency (TEQSA) requires prompt and effective complaints management. We know that complaints left unanswered are one key reason for students considering discontinuation of their studies. Good practice in this area includes clear protocols for responding to students, clear accountabilities, and the proactive use of regular analyses of complaints to remove the causes of recurring complaint areas. A well-developed approach cited as best practice by Australia’s International Student Ombud is the WSU Complaints Management and Resolution system.

21

Engaging and Retaining Students in Productive Learning

407

Use of a “One Stop Student Support Shop” Students like the use of a “one-stop student support shop” organized around a framework for integrating all of the proven approaches listed above. Examples include: • The establishment of a single FAQ site and a rapid Q&A service for students who have queries about any aspect of their university/college experience. An indicative example is La Trobe University’s Ask La Trobe site. • The WSU Student Transition, Retention and Success (STaRS) initiative which actively seeks student feedback and suggestions on how to make student transition and retention support as helpful as possible. • RMIT University’s Student Voice home page which seeks student input on how to improve their university experience, encourages them to have their say on topics they care about, and provides input to the university’s student-staff consultative committee. It also links students to clubs, provides tips on mental well-being, and fosters student leadership and participation.

Benchmarking for Improvement There are many networks focused on sharing good practice in student engagement and support. For example, Australia’s Higher Education Private Providers Quality Network (HEPPQN) runs an online benchmarking and monitoring discussion board that seeks to identify and share the most effective approaches to student engagement among its 40 members.

Using the Relevant TEQSA Guidance and Good Practice Notes TEQSA provides a wide range of relevant guidance/good practice notes related to student engagement, retention, and productive learning. They include good practice guidance notes on a wide range of engagement and retention strategies including: Staffing, learning resources, and educational support Technology-enhanced learning Well-being and safety Diversity and equity Grievance and complaint handling Course design (including learning outcomes and assessment) Academic integrity Addressing contract cheating to safeguard academic integrity Improving retention and completion of students in Australian higher education The HE Standards Panel discussion paper on improving retention, completion, and success Making higher education admissions transparent for prospective students

408

G. Scott

Appendix 4 provides satisfaction data from the most recent Australian QILT survey on the total HE student experience and gives links to a range of university and college student support websites. For a summary of the key findings from a national review of the key strategies that optimize student engagement and retention, and which align with what has been discussed in the present chapter, see the discussion paper on the area produced by Australia’s HE Standards panel (2017, pp. 66–67).

Making It Happen A key finding from 40 years of research on effective change implementation and leadership in tertiary education is that “good ideas with no ideas on how to implement them are wasted ideas” (Scott et al. 2008a; Fullan and Scott 2009). In order to ensure that the good practice ideas suggested above are taken up and put into practice both effectively and consistently, it is necessary to ensure that the following steps are taken. Effective strategy • Adopt a whole of institution, aligned, systems approach to assuring and improving the quality of the total student experience (Stone 2017), using a framework like that identified earlier in Diagram One. Continuous quality tracking and improvement • Agree on the key indicators of what a high level of performance in preparation, transition, retention, and engagement in productive learning looks like in practice. • Introduce tracking and improvement systems to monitor the quality of performance on these indicators and a systematic approach for ensuring any shortfalls in performance are addressed promptly and effectively. • Ensure that this tracking and improvement system is, inter alia, informed by both qualitative and quantitative evidence from a whole of university student satisfaction survey, a first year exit survey and short qualitative feedback surveys in the first 6 weeks of study along with data from open forums like University Reviews and subsequent studies of successful graduates. Effective accountability and leadership • Allocate clear accountabilities and leadership for implementation of the support system using the findings summarized in Fullan and Scott (2009) to select and develop leaders. Effective staff support for implementation • Undertake a university-wide stocktake and review of demonstrably effective approaches and establish a clearing house and support system to share what emerges.

21

Engaging and Retaining Students in Productive Learning

409

• Link and sharpen support for students and leverage the key roles in this process, including what is required of Heads of Student Support and Administration, Associate Heads of School (L&T), first-year advisers and course coordinators. • Establish of a Student Experience Director role charged with identifying, linking, and leveraging different roles and best practice within and beyond the university or college. • Introduce awards, like an annual Vice-chancellor’s award, that directly acknowledge teams of academic and professional staff who have demonstrably improved the quality of the total student experience. • Ensure that the HEI joins relevant networks within and beyond Australia to identify and share proven approaches to supporting the student experience. Such networks can include Australia’s Higher Education Private Providers’ Quality Network, the Association of Commonwealth Universities, ACODE, Engagement Australia, and Enactus. • Provide consistent, effective, and targeted sessional staff support and training on how to engage and retain students in productive learning, using guides written by the most experienced and highly rated support staff and teachers in each field of education. This should include training all academic staff on how to use assessment-focused learning guides. • Target staff development, relevant sabbaticals, and study tours onto building capacity to foster the effective preparation, transition, and retention of students in productive learning. Aligned governance and resourcing • Ensure effective training and use of student representatives on key governance bodies like the Academic Board to optimize the quality of their feedback (Varnham 2016). • Adopt a process of “steered engagement” (Fullan and Scott 2009, pp. 85–88) to ensure that key engagement and retention projects are implemented consistently and effectively. • Provide targeted funding for productive extracurricular activities, one example of which was the WSU Sustainable Universities Rolling Fund (SURF) which is based on the earlier Harvard Green Rolling Fund. The Making it Happen section of the FLIPcurric site gives further details.

Common Myths to Be Wary Of In looking at what optimizes student retention and engagement in productive learning, it is important to be alert to myths like the following: • Learning is not a profoundly social experience. • Students’ decisions to leave or drop out are shaped only by what happens in the classroom.

410

• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

G. Scott

Higher education is a cost not an investment. Higher education is a private good not a public one. Higher education is mainly a business and students are customers. Higher education is only for employability. Public humiliation makes individuals and institutions improve. Competition works better than collaboration. Rewarding individuals for excellence is better than rewarding teams for improvement. A demand-driven system optimizes quality. Information is learning. Teaching is learning. ICT is always the answer. All change is achieved through brute logic. All change is progress. Consensus around the table is better than consensus around the data.

Conclusion The successful practice and research reviewed in this chapter indicate that what engages and retains students in productive higher education learning is the combined effect of the following: • First, making sure that the capabilities and competencies being developed are what graduates will need to successfully negotiate an uncertain future. • Then, making sure that all of the following are working together to achieve these productive learning outcomes for students: – Aligned aspiration building programs back in school and in VET – Truth in advertising – A sound orientation and welcome by staff – Receiving proactive contact especially during the early stages of enrolment – Encountering efficient, effective, and accurate student administrative systems – Having one’s queries and concerns responded to promptly and effectively – Clear expectations’ management about key support services and key academic areas like assessment – Consistently encountering committed, accessible, responsive, and capable teaching and professional staff – Receiving prompt and helpful just-in-time and just-for-me feedback on learning – Seeing prompt and effective action on the results of student feedback surveys – Having a single point for personal contact – The effective use of an appropriate selection from more than 50 active learning strategies and interactive resources – Being involved in socially worthwhile community support projects – Engaging in practice-oriented learning – Being involved in peer supported learning and self-managed learning

21

Engaging and Retaining Students in Productive Learning

411

– Experiencing high quality, fit-for-purpose staff, facilities, and reliable infrastructure In this chapter, it has been argued that what is needed is a whole-of-institution transition and retention framework that takes into account all of the components of the student experience identified above and in Diagram One. Engaging and retaining students, especially those who are first in their family to attend a university or college is a core, moral purpose of our HEIs. It is these institutions which will grow the leaders, inventors, and professionals who will ensure that our country and the world has a sustainable future. Just like life itself, for these students, it is the total experience of their university or college that counts. The stakes are high for Australia’s universities and colleges in the coming decades of the twenty-first century. Those that will flourish will have a clear moral purpose – the development of work ready plus graduates who are emotionally intelligent, sustainability literate, change implementation savvy, inventive, and ethically robust. And they will use the total university experience to make this happen.

Appendix 1 Research and Experience Informing the Chapter • Experience as Pro Vice-chancellor Quality at the University of Western Sydney (now Western Sydney University) from 2004 to 2011. During this period, the University improved its percentage of first preferences from 49% to 50.5%; overall satisfaction on the national course experience questionnaire by 25% and retention by 4% (an important measure in a university where more than 60% of students are first in their family to participate in higher education and domestic students come from more than 170 countries). • The findings from 30 years surveying the total university experience of students in two large metropolitan universities and benchmarking these findings with dozens of other universities within and beyond Australia (see UWS TILT). • The findings from surveys of students who exited university before the end of their first year of study. These studies undertaken at UWS from 2004 to 2007 align with the more recent National Student Experience Survey (QILT 2019). • The key findings from the Accessing the Student Voice research project funded by the Australian Government (Scott 2006) involving the qualitative analysis of some 280,000 best aspect and needs improvement comments made by students from 14 Australian universities on the national course experience questionnaire. • As a TEQSA expert involved in undertaking quality reviews in a range of higher education providers in Australia in the period from 2017–19. • The feedback from successful graduate studies in nine professions undertaken over the past 20 years. • As a higher education auditor in NZ, South Africa, Oman and quality adviser to Sweden and Finland.

412

G. Scott

• The preparation for and outcomes of the UWS audit by the Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA) cycle 2 audit led by the author in 2011. The areas singled out for commendation included: – The University’s establishment of an overarching Academic Standards and Assessment Framework. – The University’s wide-reaching schools’ engagement program, which helps build educational aspirations among young people, particularly among those who are the first in their families to experience university. – The University’s ongoing commitment and approaches to strengthening student transition and retention. – UWSCollege, which provides a pathway for the successful transition into university study for students from Greater Western Sydney. • The outcomes of the international FLIPCurric national senior fellowship project with 3700 L&T leaders from 160 universities around the world (Scott 2017). • Recent testing and benchmarking of the research findings and practical strategies identified in the chapter with national and international quality networks including at the: – Association of Commonwealth Universities (ACU) benchmarking project on the student experience led by the author in 2018. – The national student engagement and retention benchmarking workshops in hosted by the Higher Education Private Providers’ Quality Network (HEPPQN) and led by the author from 2017 to 2019. • The insights and effective approaches identified at hundreds of workshops on student engagement and support at individual universities and colleges within and beyond Australia over the past 20 years.

Appendix 2 Definitions of Key Terms Capability and competence Scott, Coates and Anderson (2008a, p. 12) make the following distinction between these two key terms: Whereas being competent is about delivery of specific tasks in relatively predictable circumstances, capability is more about responsiveness, creativity, contingent thinking and growth in relatively uncertain ones. . . Whereas most conceptions of competence concentrate on assessing demonstrated behaviours and performance, capability is more about what is going on inside the person’s head.

Standard A level of achievement with clear criteria, indicators, and means of testing. Transition Experience of a significant change in social and learning environment. (The University of Sydney’s Student transition into Higher Education section of its Teaching Resources Hub gives further details.)

21

Engaging and Retaining Students in Productive Learning

413

Retention This is most commonly defined as the proportion of students out of the total number enrolled who complete or return to the university or college in the following year. It can also be defined as those students plus the students who transferred successfully to study at another HEI. Attrition The Department of Education and training definition is: “Attrition rate for year (x) is the proportion of students who commenced a bachelor course in year (x) who neither complete nor return to study in year (x+1)” HE Standards Panel (2017, p. 5). Quality Fitness for purpose and/or fitness of purpose and performance to an agreed standard. Learning A demonstrably positive improvement in the capabilities and competencies that count. Assessment Gathering evidence about the current levels of capability and competency of students using valid (fit-for-purpose) tasks. Strategy Linking relevant, desirable, and clear ends to the most feasible means necessary to achieve them. Evaluation Making judgments of worth about the quality of inputs and outcomes (including the evidence gathered during assessment). Learning outcomes The capabilities and competencies students are expected to demonstrate they have developed to a required standard by the end of a program or unit of study. They include personal, interpersonal, and cognitive capabilities, and the key knowledge and skills necessary for effective early career performance and societal participation (See the graduate studies and the FLIPCurric site for a valid framework). The TEQSA glossary of terms gives an additional range of definitions.

Appendix 3 Student Satisfaction Survey: Specific Items • The quality of the course being undertaken Course content, relevance, staff quality and accessibility, assessment, learning materials, workload, convenience of class times and class sizes • Key course outcomes Development of critical thinking, problem-solving abilities, capacity for creativity and innovation, ethical values, ability to work with diversity, capacity for self-directed learning, and enthusiasm for further learning

414

G. Scott

• Administration Quality of HEI’s application procedures, enrolment, fee payment processes, information about key issues given to students, HECS and similar liabilities, course details, speed and quality of resolution of administrative problems • Ease of access To the library, computers, sports and fitness facilities, food and beverage outlets, child care, student associations, security services, bookshops, parking, religious facilities, and public transport • Library quality The quality of library desk service, provision of materials listed in units of study, study facilities, photocopying and printing, electronic access to resources • Learning support Online learning support, learning and study skills assistance, Indigenous tutorial assistance, English Language support • Computing facilities The quality of computing equipment, quality of software, responsiveness of IT help and support services • General student support services Careers and employment advice, counselling, student welfare services, disability services, Indigenous student services, international student support services, and complaints management • General student infrastructure The quality of campus food, bookshops, retail outlets, clubs, sports and social activities, and student union support services • The quality of student representation The performance of student representatives on university governance bodies.

Appendix 4 2019 QILT Student Experience Survey Results and Links HEIs that attracted ratings for the quality of the total tertiary experience and for student support in particular which were above the national average on the 2019 QILT Student Experience Survey (QILT 2019) are presented in the tables below. Table 3 National means for each SES scale Skills development Learner engagement Teaching quality Student support Learning resources Quality of overall experience

Universities 81.3 63.2 80.9 73.2 84.4 78.4

Nonuniversity HEIs 82.2 65.9 82.2 77.5 76.3 79.4

21

Engaging and Retaining Students in Productive Learning

415

What is noteworthy in Table 3 is that the skills development, teaching quality, and learning resources attract much higher ratings that learner engagement and student support. Any rating below 80% identifies an area that warrants monitoring and any area below 70% indicates an area for improvement action. Tables 4 and 5 identity are range of universities and colleges that attracted high ratings for student support and for the quality of the entire TEI experience. These suggest opportunities for improvement benchmarking. Table 4 Universities Student Support Quality entire TEI experience All universities 73.7 78.4 Bond University 91.3 87.2 https://bond.edu.au/current-students/services-support/student-support Notre Dame University 82.7 88.0 https://www.notredame.edu.au/current-students/support Southern Cross University 81.2 79.4 https://www.scu.edu.au/study-at-scu/why-scu/student-support/ University of Divinity 94.8 92.8 https://divinity.edu.au/study/current-students/ https://divinity.edu.au/study/overseas-students/ University of New England 81.7 83.2 https://www.une.edu.au/current-students/support/student-support Table 5 Nonuniversity HEIs Student support Quality entire TEI experience All nonuniversity HEIs 77.5 79.4 Adelaide Central School of Art 94.4 96.7 https://www.acsa.sa.edu.au/student-resources/student-support-services/ Adelaide College of Divinity 90.0 90.6 Aust College of Theology 92.6 94.6 Campion College 95.3 96.3 https://www.campion.edu.au/student-life/ Christian Heritage College 95.6 92.4 https://chc.edu.au/student-services/ Eastern College 90.8 90.1 https://www.eastern.edu.au/students/student-support Moore Theological College 96.4 96.4 https://www.campion.edu.au/qilt/ National Art School 80.0 90.5 https://nas.edu.au/support-services/ Perth Bible College 98.4 92.6 https://www.pbc.wa.edu.au/undergrad-undergraduate-studies/undergrad-domestic-student-andcampus-services/ Tabor College of HE 93.6 92.2 https://tabor.edu.au/student-support/ https://tabor.edu/undergraduate/student-life/student-success/

416

G. Scott

References Ammigan, R., and D. Langton. 2018. The International student experience in Australia: Implications for administrators and student support staff. International Education Association of Australia (IEAA). https://www.ieaa.org.au/documents/item/1478 Barraket, J., and G. Scott. 2001. Virtual equality? Equity and the use of information technology in higher education. Australian Academic and Research Libraries Journal 32 (2): 204–212. Birch, E., and I. Li. 2009. The impact of peer assisted study sessions on tertiary academic performance, Conference paper, Jan 2009, accessed via Research Gate 1 April 2020. Friedman, T.L. 2016. Thank you for being late: An optimist’s guide to thriving in the age of accelerations. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. Fullan, M., and G. Scott. 2009. Turnaround leadership for higher education. San Franciso: Jossey Bass. Galbraith, John Kenneth. 1977. The age of uncertainty. London: BBC – Andre Deutsch. Gravett, K., I. Kinchin, and N. Winstone. 2020. Frailty in transition? Troubling the norms, boundaries and limitations of transition theory and practice. HE Research and Development, 10 Feb 2020. Harvey, A. 2020. Helping disadvantaged students deal with COVID-19. Campus Morning Mail, 15 May 2020. Higher Education Standards Panel. 2017. Improving retention, completion and success in higher education. HESP Discussion Paper. Department of Education & Training, Canberra. Kift, S. 2008. The next, great first year challenge: Sustaining, coordinating and embedding coherent institution–wide approaches to enact the FYE as “everybody’s business”. In Proceedings of the 11th international Pacific Rim first year in higher education conference. http://www.fyhe.qut. edu.au/past_papers/papers08/FYHE2008/content/pdfs/Keynote%20-%20Kift.pdf Kift, S. 2009. Articulating a transition pedagogy to scaffold and to enhance the first-year student learning experience in Australian higher education. Final Report for ALTC Senior Fellowship Program, QUT. Available online: http://fyhe.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Kift-SallyALTC-Senior-Fellowship-Report-Sep-092 Leask, B., and W. Green. 2020. Is the pandemic a watershed for internationalisation? University World News, 2 May 2020. Nelson, K.S., S. Kift, J. Humphreys, and W. Harper. 2006. A blueprint for enhanced transition: Taking an holistic approach to managing student transition into a large university. In Proceedings of the 9th international Pacific Rim first year in higher education conference. http:// www.fyhe.qut.edu.au/past_papers/2006/Papers/Kift.pdf QILT. 2019. National student experience report, Australian Government, Canberra. Quality Indictors for Learning and Teaching. https://www.qilt.edu.au/docs/default-source/ses/ses2019/2019-ses-national-report.pdf?sfvrsn¼6486ec3c_2 Rittel, Horst W.J., and Melvin M. Webber. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4 (2): 155–169. Scott, G. 2006. Accessing the student voice. Canberra: Australian Government, HE Innovations Program. Scott, G. 2009. University student engagement and satisfaction with learning and teaching. Review of Australian higher education: Commissioned research and analysis report. Canberra: DEEWR. Scott, G. 2012. Improving learning and teaching quality in higher education. South African Journal of Higher Education 27 (2): 275–294. Scott, G. 2017. FLIPCurric. Canberra: OLT. http://flipcurric.edu.au/ Scott, G. 2019. Preparing work ready plus graduates for an uncertain future. Chapter 9. In Education for employability, ed. J. Higgs, G. Crisp, and W. Letts. Leiden: Brill. Scott, G., H. Coates, and M. Anderson. 2008a. Learning leaders in times of change. Sydney/Melbourne: ALTC and ACER. Scott, G., M. Shah, L. Grebennikov, and H. Singh. 2008b. Improving student retention: A University of Western Sydney case study. Journal of Institutional Research 14 (1): 1–23.

21

Engaging and Retaining Students in Productive Learning

417

Slade, Sharon, and Paul Prinsloo. 2015. Stemming the flow: Improving retention for distance learning students. In 2015 annual conference proceedings, European Distance and E-Learning Network. Spedding, J., A. Hawkes, and M. Burges. 2017. Peer assisted study sessions and student performance: The role of academic engagement, student identity and statistics self-efficacy. Psychology Learning & Teaching 16 (1): 144–163. Stone, C. 2017. Opportunity through online learning: Improving student access, participation and success in HE. NCSEHE. https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/ CathyStone_EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY-1.pdf Sultan, F., et al. 2013. Helping students with difficult first year subjects through the PASS program. Journal of Peer Learning 6: 59–75. Thalluri, J., J. O’Flaherty, and P. Shepherd. 2014. Classmate peer coaching – A study buddy support scheme. Journal of Peer Learning 7(8), University of Wollongong. University of Western Sydney. 2011. AUQA performance portfolio. Sydney: UWS. Varnham, Sally. 2016. Student engagement in university decision-making and governance. Canberra: OLT. https://ltr.edu.au/resources/SP14-4595_Varnham_AustralianSurveyReport_ 2018.pdf

Studies of Successful Early Career Graduates Koppi, T., and F. Naghdy. 2009. The perspective of ICT graduates in the workforce, Chapter 2. In Managing educational change in the ICT discipline at the tertiary education level. Sydney: ALTC. http://www.acdict.edu.au/documents/KoppiNaghdyICTeducation2009.pdf Otago Polytechnic. 2016. Making tertiary studies in engineering more relevant. Wellington: NZTEC. http://www.tec.govt.nz/assets/Reports/33c28aac3c/Making-Tertiary-Studies-In-Engi neering-More-Relevant.pdf?r¼1 Rittel, Horst, and Melvin Webber. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. In Policy sciences, vol. 4, 155–169. Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific. Rochester, S., K. Kilstoff, and G. Scott. 2005. Learning from success: Improving undergraduate education by understanding the capabilities of successful nurse graduates. Nurse Education Today 25 (3): 181–188. Scott, G. 2016b. Using a comprehensive and validated professional and graduate capability framework to profile program level outcomes. In FLIPCurric, ed. G. Scott. Canberra: OLT Senior Fellowship. http://flipcurric.edu.au/about-143/about/using-the-guide-and-getting-started (section 3.2). Scott, G., and S. Saunders. 1995. The continuous learning improvement program for Australia’s skill Olympians. Sydney: Work Skill Australia Foundation Incorporated. Scott, G., and D. Wilson. 2002. Tracking and profiling successful IT graduates: An exploratory study. Australasian (ACIS) 2002 Proceedings. http://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi? article¼1192&context¼acis2002 Scott, G., and W. Yates. 2002. Using successful graduates to improve the quality of undergraduate engineering programs. European Journal of Engineering Education 27 (4): 363–378. Scott, G., L. Grebennikov, and T. Gozzard. 2009. ICT-enabled learning: The student perspective. Journal of Institutional Research 14 (2): 1–16. Scott, G., E. Chang, and L. Grebennikov. 2010. Using successful graduates to improve the quality of undergraduate nursing programs. Journal of Teaching & Learning for Graduate Employability 1 (1): 26–44. Vescio, J. 2005. An investigation of successful graduates in the early stages of their career across a wide range of professions – Accounting, architecture, education, engineering, IT, journalism, law, nursing, and sports management (final report). Sydney: University of Technology. Wells, P., et al. 2009. Professional skills and capabilities of accounting graduates. Accounting Education 18: 4–5, 403–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639280902719390.

Student Academic Freedom: Chimera or Realpolitik Requiring Serious Attention in an Era of Student Consumerism

22

Fernando F. Padro´

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Why Is It Student Academic Freedom Is Underrepresented in the Literature? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What Is Academic Freedom? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Defining What Student Academic Freedom Is . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Courts Are Often Involved in Academic Freedom Complaints/Determination While Avoiding Tackling the Meaning of the Concept Itself . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Is Academic Freedom a Privilege or a Right? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hohfeldian Jural Correlatives and Academic Freedom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implications and Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

420 423 426 430 433 433 436 439 440 440

Abstract

This chapter discusses academic freedom concerns from the perspective of the students, a seldom discussed topic that indirectly influences what higher education institutions (HEIs) offer in terms of programming and support. Student academic freedom comes across as derivative from the academic freedoms enjoyed by staff regarding their teaching and research duties – and by implication, the support given to students. Commercialization of HEI brings a different set of claims surrounding academic freedom. Nuance may be different; however, these claims are not significantly different than those concerns and expectations students have historically brought with them. This chapter discusses academic freedom of staff and students and provides examples of current views on both – really, what there is regarding student academic freedom. A limited Hohfeldian analysis based on jural correlates is performed to show the strengths and

F. F. Padró (*) USQ College, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 H. Huijser et al. (eds.), Student Support Services, University Development and Administration, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5852-5_44

419

420

F. F. Padro´

challenges in strengthening the definition and understanding and impact student academic freedom has on student learning experience. Keywords

Academic freedom · Freedom of speech · Hohfeld · Privilege · Right · Student academic freedom · Triple-helix

Introduction Discussing academic freedom for some seems to be an exercise in abstract thought or philosophical luxury rather than tangible realities within HEIs. However, as Menand (1996) pointed out, Academic freedom is not simply a kind of bonus enjoyed by workers within the system, a philosophical luxury universities could function just as effectively, and much more efficiently, without. It is the key legitimating concept of the entire enterprise. Virtually every practice of academic life that we take for granted . . . derives from it. (p. 4)

It is often considered as an historical abstraction dependent on other, broader legal concepts mainly related to freedom of speech and intellectual freedom along with external legislative or regulatory recognition of institutional autonomy. Indeed, these considerations frame permissibility or impermissibility of what occurs within a campus. Yet, the boundaries of permissibility or impermissibility are often clarified in courts rather than within internal processes because of the highly contextual nature of what a breach can be, regardless of occurring from institutional decisions made or personal actions by staff (professional and sometimes personal) and students. Walter Metzger (1988) argued that “freedoms are defined by the manner in which they are defended . . . [and conversely,] freedoms are defended by the manner in which they are defined” (p. 1265). Outside the narrative of court cases and related legal analyses, articles and studies on academic freedom tend to have an interest on the limitations of academic freedom (Hayes 2009). Nonetheless, there are different identifiable streams in the literature on the subject. These are not discrete foci because some of the points made within these lines of inquiry fit within the different narratives, as will be seen momentarily. Hofstadter and Metzger (1956) noted the lens of academic suppression. There is also the perspective of the protection of rights at the expense of the exploration of new terrain (cf. Gibbs 2016). A third approach is the difference and linkage between the administrative element of an HEI and “governance” (Birnbaum 2004; Gerber 2001; Millett 1980). A fourth manner at looking at academic freedom is who possesses a right to academic freedom and the extent to which universities are able to define limitations and confer protections for those working (and studying) within them (Goldberg and Sarabyn 2011). Closer to the interests of this chapter is the point of view of the power differences between academics and students (Gross-Schaefer 2010). More recently, discussions have

22

Student Academic Freedom: Chimera or Realpolitik Requiring Serious. . .

421

become interested in the politicization of academic freedom “by those who regard the university as a hotbed of academic radicalism” (Macfarlane 2012, p. 730) and the curriculum more broadly. In this last case, attention often centers on external forces belief that academics promote left-leaning political agenda – a long-standing historical concern from the opposite political spectrum – and supporting subject matter limiting the ability of students to explore and express alternative or dissenting perspectives in class or on campus. This narrative in the literature strengthens the point made by Robert Post (2013) who made the point that: If “academic freedom” is a concept designed to persuade those who are outside the scholarly profession, it can be effective only if it is convincing to non-scholars. This means that it must appeal to values that are attractive to non-scholars. (p. 13)

Ronald Barnett’s (1990) comment goes a long way into explaining a major part of the problem universities and their employees have in convincing non-scholars in the external community: “traditional discussions of academic freedom . . . lack the following characteristics: a lack of specificity; a concern for the academic freedom of staff not students; a defensive proclamation of the rights of academics; and a disinclination to say anything about the duties that should accompany academics’ rights” (p. 137). Fish (2000) goes further, noting that discussions based on particular, highly contextualized events when turned into abstractions for the purpose of making a point politicize these arguments in an environment imbued with competing interests. As a result, as Gerber (2001) observed, references to academic freedom in these types of discourse come across as formulaic or disingenuous while failing “to take into account the full meaning of the concept” (p. 23). This chapter is about student academic freedom. So far, outside the title, the word student has only appeared four times, reflecting Metzger’s (1988) conclusion “that student freedom is not an integral part of academic freedom, but is something different – and something less” (p. 1272) and supports the point that the concept of student academic freedom is not as well developed as a concept as academic freedom for academic staff (Kaplin and Lee 2014). The same applies to the increasing number of professional staff at universities often performing what can be termed quasi-academic duties as part of a blended professional identity (Padró 2018; Whitchurch 2009); however, this is outside the scope of this work. Student academic freedom, as a concept, represents a power imbalance between the interests of university management/administration, academic staff, and professional staff and those of students. Probably the major reason for the imbalance is the prevailing view that student academic freedom is derivative from and therefore subordinate to academics’ academic freedom based on students’ dependence on the information/knowledge held and provided by the university and the acquisition of a desired academic credential (Macfarlane 2012; Monypenny 1963). Metzger’s (1988) assessment captures the general sentiment pertaining student academic freedom: the assumption “that student freedom is not an integral part of academic freedom, but is something different – and something less” (p. 1272).

422

F. F. Padro´

The best illustration of this is the recently proposed amendment to Australia’s Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020 (https:// parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/7649722/upload_binary/ 7649722.pdf) amending the Higher Education Support Act 2003 where academic freedom is defined to mean the following: (a) The freedom of academic staff to teach, discuss, and research and to disseminate and publish the results of their research (b) The freedom of academic staff and students to engage in intellectual inquiry, to express their opinions and beliefs, and to contribute to public debate, in relation to their subjects of study and research (c) The freedom of academic staff and students to express their opinions in relation to the higher education provider in which they work or are enrolled (d) The freedom of academic staff to participate in professional or representative academic bodies (e) The freedom of students to participate in student societies and associations (f) The autonomy of the higher education provider in relation to the choice of academic courses and offerings, the ways in which they are taught and the choices of research activities and the ways in which they are conducted (p. 15) This definition is based on the Model Code formulated by former Chief Justice of the Australian High Court, Robert French (French 2019), grounded on his analysis on academic freedom. He found a need to clarify the language, “changing their subject matter from ‘free intellectual inquiry’ to ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘academic freedom’ and inserting a workable definition of the “essential elements of academic freedom” (p. 14). Note that students are only mentioned in (b), (c), and (e), with (e) referring to the ability of students to belong in different student organizations. Similarly, section 267(4)(a–e) of New Zealand’s Education training Act 2020 (https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2020/0038/latest/LMS170676.html) enshrines academic freedom to be: (4) In this section, academic freedom, in relation to an institution, means – (a) the freedom of academic staff and students, within the law, to question and test received wisdom, to put forward new ideas, and to state controversial or unpopular opinions: (b) the freedom of academic staff and students to engage in research: (c) the freedom of the institution and its staff to regulate the subject matter of courses taught at the institution: (d) the freedom of the institution and its staff to teach and assess students in the manner that they consider best promotes learning: (e) the freedom of the institution through its chief executive to appoint its own staff. (pp. 167–168)

Under this law, the application of academic freedom to students is found in clauses (a) and (b) relating to the exchange of ideas within an HEI and of the ability to do supervised but independent research.

22

Student Academic Freedom: Chimera or Realpolitik Requiring Serious. . .

423

Why Is It Student Academic Freedom Is Underrepresented in the Literature? Compared to the available published works on academic freedom of staff in their role as teachers, researchers, and performance of academic governance, there seems to be little in the realm of student academic freedom on its own. To this author, two questions come to the fore: (1) why the lack of interest? and (2) should students be entitled to academic freedom? Monypenny (1963) argued that the idea of student academic freedom is a difficult proposition. For starters is the preference to limit the scope of academic freedom to institutional matters rather than extramural considerations that fall under the considerations of freedom of expression or speech (Palfreyman 2007). Like Metzger (1988) noted in his analysis on the development of the American Association of University Professors 1915 Declaration on Principles of Academic Freedom and Tenure, the excision of student academic freedom was a matter of prudence based on the reality of students living on campus: Whatever they thought about the merits of leaving students to their own devices, the committee members must have been aware that the heavy investment in dormitories, dining halls, playing fields, social centers, and the like had created a powerful institutional interest in their reputable use and punctilious upkeep, and they may well have calculated that the AAUP had enough exhortative work to do without persuading academic landlords that a student pension did not need a watchful concierge. (p. 1272, italics in the original)

When discussed, student academic freedom is often presented in broader, abstract academic values based on change processes, democratic values, improving individual capabilities through social justice, nondiscrimination, etc. (Jackson 2020; Westa 2017). Within these abstractions, the foci of these academic artifacts have been student conduct and participation (representation) in university activities beyond study (Barendt 2010; Beiter et al. 2016). Hayes (2009) noted that most of the attention is placed on limitations of academic freedom, noting how primary consideration is given to legislation and speech codes enshrining limitations to protect staff and students from physical or mental distress. Emphasis is given to analyses of codes of conduct and other institutional policies, procedures, and guidelines concerning how student speech or on-campus behaviors and online activities can disrupt academic activities and/or lead to disruptive or otherwise problematic behaviors (Vrielink et al. 2011). These lines of reasoning may not be as concerning in the sense that, as Rawls (1971) argued, a more contractual-based discourse allows for ascertaining “when the equal liberties [of different groups] are infringed and to establish discrepancies from the difference principle than it is to decide whether unequal treatment increases social welfare” (p. 501). More recent discussions in the general and media plus higher education trade publications also tend to be on the politicization of the curriculum. In many instances, the rhetoric is based on the perspective of the presence of a “crisis” in dichotomous terms: either students not being allowed to express politically conservative perspectives or the need for “trigger warnings” to protect students from

424

F. F. Padro´

uncomfortable discussions or potential emotional harm (cf. Thompson 2020). Both sides of the political spectrum who challenge the norms of academia often do so with what Mill (2001/1859) called “the dread of heterodox speculation” (p. 33). In the 1960s and early 1970s university students from the left of the political spectrum demanded recognition and acceptance from university administration and staff and a tolerance of their views. Nowadays it is the turn of the “political right” at many (mainly) western-styled HEIs who feel left out and not being listened to. Approaches may be different, but the basic idea remains, outsiders whose ideas are not recognized by either the staff or the institutional administration. The newish wrinkle is the extent of tribalism exhibited by those politicizing the workings within universities in a manner that “[r]ather than engaging in dialogue, understanding, and deliberation,” the different groups proceed “to designate a morally and culturally distasteful category, a defining term to the opposite views, and subsequently, to relegate and dismiss them from entering public discussion” (Zhao and Bindewald 2018, pp. 517–518). Old-style thinking, as typified by Jaspers (1959), sees discourse within universities aiming to attain “the presence of genuine intellectuality of the kind that is no respecter of persons” (p. 74). However, Thomas (2010) simplified the present-day concerns in terms of the paradoxical effects of this discourse: “[o]ne person’s Socratic method is another person’s harassment” (p. 88). This brings a second, more recent concern that of “safe spaces.” If Baxter Magolda’s (2000) definition of inclusive and effective learning environment applies – “environments in which opportunities for complex cognitive, intrapersonal, and interpersonal development exist for all students” (p. 94) – what happens when students do not feel they can engage in a manner that will not result in derogation, harassment, or apprehension of harm (evaluative, physical or psychological)? In all, the issue of perceived stability as a moral notion (cf. Nussbaum 2011) has become preeminent within the discussion of the rights students and staff are able to enact within a learning environment. Two issues now come to the forefront: (1) stability is not stasis emanating from merely pursuing a status quo, but rather as an institution balances different and often competing differences (Padró and Hawke 2003), and (2) how notions of neutrality and reasonableness shape the cloaking of behaviors within the framework of freedom and then how these are evenly protected (Rawls 1971, 1993; Thomas 2010). Basically, the question that keeps coming up in different guises is a straightforward one, even if the answer is anything but: “can HEIs, staff, students and/or visitors to campuses (physical or online) take absolutist positions and be protected under either freedom or expression or academic freedom?” Jaspers’ (1959) view that a learner should be able to have a meaningful freedom to think independently and critically, as these are the basis of freedom to learn that is the core of university life; yet, this freedom can be limited. Karl Popper (1945) term “paradox of tolerance” provides a frame of reference to the issue of HEI tolerance of views problematic to the discourse within institutions and/or the raison d’ être for their existence. For him, there is a right of suppression: those advocating intolerance of any one position should not be tolerated because not do so endangers the tolerant environment; otherwise, the intolerant will destroy the tolerant “and tolerance with them”

22

Student Academic Freedom: Chimera or Realpolitik Requiring Serious. . .

425

(p. 543/804), although suppression is unwise if there are other means or mechanisms to keep intolerance in check. Similarly, Rawls (1971) posits a limit on tolerance, that of institutional self-preservation. Jaspers (1959) believed that a learner should be able to have a meaningful freedom to think independently and critically, as these are the basis of freedom to learn that is the core of university life. Ultimately, any justification for student academic freedom is ultimately based on the status of the student within the university community, one that often is unequal to staff, often leading to academic freedom concerns not applied to students due to how academic freedom is defined and framed or limited by law (French 2019; Grant 2011; Gross-Schaefer 2010). The following set of questions demonstrate the difficulty in generating an answer based on historical and current apprehensions (sometimes analogous, sometimes contradicting or competing in values) regarding the role of a student as a learner within a higher education learning environment. • Are students members of an academic community or disciplinary community of practice or are they something else? Does the view of in loco parentis still shape how student learners are perceived and managed in post-secondary education (Bowden 2010)? • Are students dependents due to their being novice learners, with the assumed inability (due to immaturity) to make fully informed judgments a barrier to having academic freedom considerations applied to them similar to academic and professional staff at a university (Cain 2012; Macfarlane 2012)? Or are they independent thinkers who should be free of impositions imposed by staff and the HEI organizational structure (Jackson 2020)? • Should the focus on student engagement within the university be based on institutional culture and policies that are preventive or protective in scope (Cain 2012)? Is the free expression of ideas in a “market of ideas” still an appropriate approach to learning or is most speech potentially harmful and thus should face constraints within a higher education learning environment (Hayes 2009)? And within this line of questions, how do/should student affiliations and identification with on-campus and off-campus groups or organizations affect student engagement within the university? • Does the rise of the paradigm of students as consumers diminish or change the nature of academic freedom of students as well as staff at universities? In other words, does the demand for external accountability from stakeholders and students (through observable learning engagement activities) run counter to the traditional academic norms of discourse and engagement based on the overriding paradigmatic duty of staff and students to discover and teach what is important and “true” (Dworkin 1996; Gibbs 2016; Macfarlane 2017)? Or does the commodification of knowledge in the knowledge economy/society curtail academic freedom of staff or students (Hayes 2009)? The purpose of this chapter is to point out that there is value for the community at-large, policymakers and HEIs to consider student academic freedom as a

426

F. F. Padro´

value-add proposition to their functions in teaching, researching and engaging with the broader community. Enhancement of value, however, does not come from the perspective of a ratification of student consumer rights. If anything, student academic freedom provides a self-regulating mechanism for responsibilities from students reflective of current constructivistic views about student learning (cf. Doolittle 2014). The presence of student academic freedom does highlight the challenges and sometimes conflicting issues surrounding the ability to express opinions, disagreements and oppositional experiences in reasonable and safe manner. Intramural expression issues notwithstanding, extramural challenges and polarization come into play. Bengtsen and Barnett’s (2019) comment explains the reason why well: Students experience that universities no longer offer a safe platform, and understandably so since higher education has moved from the social and political periphery into the swirling centre of contemporary societies and policy making . . . (p. 28)

What Is Academic Freedom? Fundamentally, the modern concept of academic freedom is based on antecedents from the nineteenth-century German university notions of Lehrfreiheit – the freedom of teachers to teach – Lernfreiheit – the freedom of students to learn and Wertfreiheit (the freedom to research). Academic freedom has been a major direct or indirect factor shaping the roles of staff (primarily academic) and students (Kaplin and Lee 2014). This is due to either recognition of traditional university values surrounding learning engagement, governance reliance on (or avoidance of) these traditional values, government enforcement of laws and supporting regulations or court-based decisions. However, one result of academic freedom has been the presence of an ethical paradox based on individual responsibilities of academic, political determination of university corporate structure and leadership, and the duties to not profess what one believes (Dworkin 1996). Academic freedom is a complementary set of rights based on a complex set of relationships (Vrielink et al. 2011) that is central to academic integrity at any university because both staff and students need leeway to explore controversial ideas (Moshman 2017). A concurring opinion in the USA by Judge Edwards in the case of Emergency Coalition to Defend Educational Trave v. U.S. Department of the Treasury (545 F.3d 4 (D.C. Cir. 2008)) stated that academic freedom, while not an easy concept to grasp, is understood to “protect and foster independent and uninhibited exchange of ideas” of academics and students. Its customary role is to insulate HEIs from the effects of the vicissitudes of politics and public opinion as a means of upholding trust and assurance of producing knowledge rather than opinion (Rorty 1994). The AAUP 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure (https://www.aaup.org/report/1940-statement-principles-academic-freedom-andtenure) provides a broad, positively framed but abstract definition of academic

22

Student Academic Freedom: Chimera or Realpolitik Requiring Serious. . .

427

freedom, even if it does not carry legal authority (Metzger 1990; van Alstyne 1990). According to Metzger (1990), the language is neutrally stated, speaking of the entitlement of academics rather than institutional prohibitions. Three kinds of freedom are defined based on major functions: “‘freedom in research and in the publication of results’; ‘freedom in the classroom in discussing (the teacher’s) subject’; and ‘freedom from institutional censorship’ when the teacher ‘speaks or writes as a citizen’” (p. 8). For research: 1. Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject to the adequate performance of their other academic duties; but research for pecuniary return should be based upon an understanding with the authorities of the institution.

In current times when research is touted by the government as a fungible product that universities (in particular) can use to generate additional revenue and policysteering is based on what Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (1998) termed the triple-helix relationship between the university (or higher education sector), industry, and (usually national) government geared to achieve innovation as a means of increasing economic productivity. (There can be additional helices based on context – e.g., Leydesdorff 2012 – a topic outside this chapter’s purview.) There are three issues that come to play regarding freedom to research based on current practice that are not directly addressed: the rights of students when conducting student-based research (undergraduate and postgraduate) and the degree of independence of staff to perform their research (Behrens and Gray 2001; Bleiklie and Kogan 2007; Thune 2010), particularly in relation to third-party contractual agreements, be these with local, national, or international external partners. Concerns are present regarding the extent to which research aligns with institutional mission (for the type of research being conducted), the extent to which researchers are able to openly discuss and share research and implications from the research (i.e., when it is proprietary in nature or due to security concerns), decisions pertaining to where and how results of the research are published, and intellectual property rights in the commercialization of research findings (Münch 2020). The AAUP second clause on the freedom of classroom discussion of subject matter states: 2. Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject. Limitations of academic freedom because of religious or other aims of the institution should be clearly stated in writing at the time of the appointment.

This clause is in keeping with the 1997 Recommendation Concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel, probably the most important aspirational international document on academic freedom in that it seeks enactment in national legislation (French 2019; Karran 2009a), indicated “higher education teaching personnel[‘s]” had a duty within academic freedom to:

428

F. F. Padro´

teach students effectively within the means provided by the institution and the state, to be fair and equitable to male and female students and treat those of all races and religions, as well as those with disabilities, equally, to encourage the free exchange of ideas between themselves and their students, and to be available to them for guidance in their studies. (p. 30)

Attracting attention in this present day is the treatment of controversial matters. Section 161(2)(a) in New Zealand’s Educational Amendment Act 1990 defines academic freedom “of academic staff and students, within the law, to question and test received wisdom, to put forward new ideas and to state controversial or unpopular opinions. . .” A footnote added in 1970 to the 1940 Statement indicates that this clause is not meant to discourage the discussion of controversial matters because “[c]ontroversy is at the heart of the free academic inquiry which the entire statement is designed to foster” (AAUP n.d.). The literature is rife with complaints by academics of attempts by “right-wing” conservative groups desire to restrict classroom discussions to provide a “balanced” approach to subject matters (e.g., Nelson 2010). However, there is also a discussion about how the pressure on academic freedom is not simply external but internal, particularly from the perspective of the student experience literature concentrating on student wellness (Waiton 2021). Central to this last argument in particular over the past few years is the meaning of “pursuit of truth” (p. 3/17) and what the boundaries are regarding what is meant by both “safe spaces” and “trigger warnings” (Darbyshire et al. 2020). Thus, while the statement relates primarily to academic staff – here is also noted the historical nature of the language that does not automatically accommodate nonacademic professional staff (Padró 2018) – these are inherently linked to student issues. Key in this second clause defining academic freedom is the caution for those teaching to limit controversial matters to those having direct relevance to the subject matter. Controversial topics tend to be those that are heavily politicized and/or topics become personalized by students who either have first-hand experience or who tend to personalize an issue (Burkstrand-Reid et al. 2011). Concerns over advocacy and indoctrination along with concerns over student harm frame this caution. Nowadays critics from outside the institution or within the campus seem to frame limitations and institutional responses in terms of (tolerance or intolerance of) indoctrination or inattention to students feeling vulnerable due to challenges to self-perception, values, social status, or ethnicity. Good pedagogical practice now has to consciously rather than tacitly find an equilibrium between student transformation through engagement with information (and the exchange of ideas) and the potential of harm, typically more psychological and physical, but this last point cannot be fully discounted. The litmus test is the extent to which varying ideas warrant respect while still ensuring the respect for students and their perspectives and their recognized freedom to express themselves. Although not present in the AAUP’s definition, the effects of controversial matters being part of the “marketplace of ideas” (as noted in the US Supreme Court case Keyishian v. Board of Regents (385 U.S. 589 (1967)) are concerns that the balancing that may need to occur leads to self-censorship due to the belief that a “trade-off is required between administrative policies and practices

22

Student Academic Freedom: Chimera or Realpolitik Requiring Serious. . .

429

intended to promote racial and ethnic tolerance and political tolerance – that is, freedom of expression and inquiry” (Sniderman 2006, p. 158). This applies to both staff and students. The Chicago Principles or Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression at the University of Chicago (https://provost.uchicago.edu/sites/ default/files/documents/reports/FOECommitteeReport.pdf) written in 2014 and supported by many political conservatives still stipulates the importance of restrictions in accordance to legal limits, albeit to the minimum extent possible: The freedom to debate and discuss the merits of competing ideas does not, of course, mean that individuals may say whatever they wish, wherever they wish. The University may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests, or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the University. In addition, the University may reasonably regulate the time, place, and manner of expression to ensure that it does not disrupt the ordinary activities of the University. But these are narrow exceptions to the general principle of freedom of expression, and it is vitally important that these exceptions never be used in a manner that is inconsistent with the University’s commitment to a completely free and open discussion of ideas. (p. 2/3)

Like Dworkin (1996) pointed out, is the argument about a competing right rather than an overriding policy? The AAUP’s third clause defining academic freedom specific to freedom of speech in a public venue as a private citizen is an elaborate comment on this freedom. It states that: 3. College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution.

This clause is in keeping with the later 1997 UNESCO Recommendation (1997) that “calls for a sense of personal and institutional responsibility for the education and welfare of students and of the community at large and for a commitment to high professional standards in scholarship and research” (p. 27). Implicit in this clause are what Metzger (1990) saw as two opposite ambitions, holding “the academic professional to high standards of public conduct and to secure for the academic professional the ordinary right to free speech” (p. 51). There is an incongruity based on the fluidity or simple lack of clear boundaries between personal and professional utterances in public, particularly as academics are expected to engage with the public in a more impactful manner (Watermeyer 2016). The footnote provided for this clause in 1970 links this definition with the 1964 Committee A Statement on Extramural Utterances indicating academic staff have the right to speak as a citizen. The issue then is when is the staff member speaking as an individual or as a

430

F. F. Padro´

professional on any given matter when saying or publishing something in a public space. Sometimes the distinction can be difficult to make because of the crossover between personal opinion in matters where the person is recognized as an expert (Finkin and Post 2009). Limitations are imposed by general laws like incitement or libel, for example (Barendt 2010). As this third clause suggests, professional expertise as measured by accuracy and standing does bring with it some responsibility to ensure the demarcation between the private citizen and the “expert” is made as clear as possible. Nonetheless, the issue that muddies the distinction is “that the public may judge [the staff’s or even students’] . . . institution by their utterances” and thus adversely impact institutional reputation. This result could end up with these extramural statements running afoul of institutional codes of conduct. The problem according to Justice French is that “[m]any of the higher education rules and policies mentioned in the Report use broad language capable of impinging on freedom of expression” (p. 217). The overall approach of the clause is echoed in the Model Code that has been the basis for Australian academic freedom policies universities were required to adopt by the Minister of Education (French 2019; Walker 2020), although less specific in terms of recognition of the so-called special position of staff members. French (2019) expressly expanded the rights of freedom of lawful speech to all HEI staff, students, and campus visitors. However, what is more important is that he places this freedom of lawful speech as a paramount value, meaning superior to other values. Under the Model Code academic freedom is “a defining characteristic of universities and like institutions” (p. 114), a step lower than paramount. As can be seen in the proposed Australian legislation defining academic freedom, the Model Code echoes the sentiment of the three AAUP clauses. Overall, the AAUP 1940 Statement and the Model Code are in agreement with the wider UNESCO Recommendation (1997) “that the right to education, teaching and research can only be fully enjoyed in an atmosphere of academic freedom” (p. 26).

Defining What Student Academic Freedom Is Freedom to learn – Lernfreiheit – is based on a reciprocal relationship with the freedom to teach because without freedom to teach – Lehrfreiheit – freedom to learn is abridged (Hook 1970), hence the bias toward focusing on the freedom of staff to teach or exercise their professional judgment as appropriate and on institutional autonomy. This is why, for example, the Magna Charta Universitatum (http://www. magna-charta.org/resources/files/the-magna-charta/english), passed in 1988 with 430 European university Rectors signing the document (Karran 2009b), indicated that “[e]ach university must . . . ensure that its students’ freedoms are safeguarded” without specifying what these student freedoms are. Likewise, the 2020 revision of the Magna Charta Universitatum (http://www.magna-charta.org/magna-chartauniversitatum/mcu-2020) did not identify these freedoms when stating academic freedom is the lifeblood of all students and scholars.

22

Student Academic Freedom: Chimera or Realpolitik Requiring Serious. . .

431

There are few documents at any level specifically attempting to define student academic freedom. Only one example stood out in the documentary review performed for the purpose of writing this chapter. Moving beyond the in loco parentis mindset shaping the 1915 and 1940 Statements, in 1967 the AAUP and other student-based associations generated the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students (Nelson 2010). In 1992 an interpretive set of notes were added to the Joint Statement reflecting changes in the law in that time. Within the classroom, academics teaching courses: should encourage free discussion, inquiry, and expression. Student performance should be evaluated solely on an academic basis, not on opinions or conduct in matters unrelated to academic standards. 1. Protection of Freedom of Expression. Students should be free to take reasoned exception to the data or views offered in any course of study and to reserve judgment about matters of opinion, but they are responsible for learning the content of any course of study for which they are enrolled. 2. Protection against Improper Academic Evaluation. Students should have protection through orderly procedures against prejudiced or capricious academic evaluation. At the same time, they are responsible for maintaining standards of academic performance established for each course in which they are enrolled. 3. Protection against Improper Disclosure. Information about student views, beliefs, and political associations that professors acquire in the course of their work as instructors, advisers, and counselors should be considered confidential (https://www.aaup.org/report/ joint-statement-rights-and-freedoms-students).

These statements still do not fully clear confusion as to what student academic freedom fully entails as remarked by Sydney Hook back in 1970. Do discussion, inquiry, and expression include participation through consultation (a recognized current approach toward enhancing student learning) as suggested by him? What are the parameters, if any, around discussion and dialogue between students, staff, and the institution as a corporate entity? Nevertheless, these statements reflect a limitation in terms that “the power of decision on educational questions” (p. 63, italics in original) rests with the HEI or staff member, with this recognized authority reflected in institutional policies and procedures and how they are enacted. This power is delegated by the HEI to staff and ultimately does not realistically address the possibility of power sharing between the institution, staff, or even students (Bloustein 1969). Outside the classroom, student academic freedom encompasses freedom of association (“They should be free to organize and join associations to promote their common interests.”). Student academic freedom includes freedom of inquiry and expression: (a) Students and student organizations should be free to examine and discuss all questions of interest to them and to express opinions publicly and privately. They should always be free to support causes by orderly means that do not disrupt the regular and essential operations of the institution. At the same time, it should be made clear to the academic and larger community that in their public expressions or demonstrations students or student organizations speak only for themselves.

432

F. F. Padro´

(b) Students should be allowed to invite and to hear any person of their own choosing. Those routine procedures required by an institution before a guest speaker is invited to appear on campus should be designed only to ensure that there is orderly scheduling of facilities and adequate preparation for the event, and that the occasion is conducted in a manner appropriate to an academic community. The institutional control of campus facilities should not be used as a device of censorship. It should be made clear to the academic and larger community that sponsorship of guest speakers does not necessarily imply approval or endorsement of the views expressed, either by the sponsoring group or by the institution (https://www.aaup.org/report/joint-statement-rightsand-freedoms-students). Another element of student academic freedom within an HEI is the ability to participate in institutional government “[a]s constituents of the academic community. . . individually and collectively, to express their views on issues of institutional policy and on matters of general interest to the student body” (https:// www.aaup.org/report/joint-statement-rights-and-freedoms-students). Furthermore, when student publications are present at an HEI, “the institution must provide sufficient editorial freedom and financial autonomy for the student publications to maintain their integrity of purpose as vehicles for free inquiry and free expression in an academic community” (https://www.aaup.org/report/joint-statement-rights-andfreedoms-students). Off-campus, students should be able to exercise the rights of citizenship. According to the Joint Statement: As citizens, students should enjoy the same freedom of speech, peaceful assembly, and right of petition that other citizens enjoy and, as members of the academic community, they are subject to the obligations that accrue to them by virtue of this membership. Faculty members and administration officials should ensure that institutional powers are not employed to inhibit such intellectual and personal development of students as is often promoted by their exercise of the rights of citizenship both on and off campus. (https://www.aaup.org/report/ joint-statement-rights-and-freedoms-students)

The Joint Statement also indicates that students who face penalties from authorities outside the HEI “should be prepared to apprise students of sources of legal counsel and may offer other assistance.” HEIs should not duplicate measures of the general law under these circumstances, and if the institution needs to consider its own sanctions to do so only when there is reason based on distinct institutional interest. Finally, the Joint Statement spells out disciplinary standards in disciplinary proceedings for internal matters relating to student conduct and when off-campus breaches of the student code of conduct “need” to be addressed. These are based on procedural fairness. Footnote 4, however, points out that student grievance procedures used to review charges emanating from a student’s failure to maintain standards of academic performance “are not appropriate for addressing charges of

22

Student Academic Freedom: Chimera or Realpolitik Requiring Serious. . .

433

academic dishonesty or other disciplinary matters arising in the classroom.” These should follow procedures consistent with the AAUP’s Procedural Standards in Disciplinary Proceedings.

Courts Are Often Involved in Academic Freedom Complaints/ Determination While Avoiding Tackling the Meaning of the Concept Itself Court decisions legitimate findings that provide normative referencing by weaving their way into the cultural, social, and economic frameworks (Schlag 2017). The nature of the concept of academic freedom makes this attribute unavoidable. In general, when cases are about academic staff, court findings in many different countries avoid tackling the meaning of academic freedom, instead looking to make rulings based on contractual relationships found in university charters, collective enterprise bargaining agreements (cf. Kaplin and Lee 2014). Berendt (2010) observed that in the UK common law has a major influence in determining the effects of academic freedom on university activities, and courts prefer to enforce a contractual arrangement rather than accept a breach of contract based on academic freedom. Kaplin and Lee (2014) discerned a trend from the 1970s onward that courts in the USA emphasized legal norms over professional norms. Lynk (2014) observed that academic freedom in Canada is a labor law right. Most recently, in Australia, the three cases of Ridd v James Cook University ([2019] FCCA 997; [2020] FCAFC 123; [2021] HCA 32) focused on two items: (1) the interpretation of the Enterprise Agreement (EA) or collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the University and its staff and (2) the drafting of the EA clauses and policies and procedures these being subordinate to the EA. Kaplin and Lee (2014) opined that courts in the USA “have focused attention on the academic freedom of students and raised new questions about its status and role” (p. 852). A list of student academic freedom cases typically touched on these various subjects, among others: freedom of speech/expression, freedom of association on campus and support given to student organizations, freedom of assembly, speakers and visitors, student publications, admission to HEI based on discrimination, other forms of discrimination and/or harassment, breach of privacy/confidentiality, use of student fees, academic decisions like failing grades or non-conferral of degrees. The rise of these cases seems to come as the concept of in loco parentis lost support from the courts (van Alstyne 1968a).

Is Academic Freedom a Privilege or a Right? Malcolm Grant (2011) wrote that while “academic freedom and freedom of speech are fundamental to their functioning. . . all freedoms have limits imposed by law, in order to protect the rights and freedoms of others” (p. 2). Consequently, academic

434

F. F. Padro´

freedom as a concept and as university policy (influenced by court cases, legal dicta via legislation and/or regulations, professional association statements that on occasion have quasi-legal standing, and/or international declarations or statements) tend to be a balance between freedom of expression, intellectual freedom (and to some extent recognition of intellectual property recognition), employment related issues, limitations imposed by law, and recognized personal rights within the legal regime and institutional interests (often framed in terms of mission). As Grant (2011) also indicated, “[u]niversities need to go beyond the minimum prescribed by law to ensure openness and transparency” (p. 3). Institutional policies and procedures establish processes set up the rules for determining whether academic freedom has been allowed or breached by the individual or the university. The focus of policy is procedural due process, which, as already indicated, does not truly account for organizational culture. However, it reflects the Realpolitik of the contractual and policy-legislative relationship – think in terms of the Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (1998) triple-helix – that is the basis of recognition and agreement as to what academic freedom is and its limits within HEIs. On the other hand, there can be (and often is) a difference between what is culturally preferable within the institution making the determination a pyrrhic result for many staff members. Schein’s (1990) definition of culture provides context: Culture can now be defined as (a) a pattern of basic assumptions, (b) invented, discovered, or developed by a given group, (c) as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, (d) that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore (e) is to be taught to new members as the (f) correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems. (p. 111)

While this chapter is ending on a somewhat obstruse note, the distinction between a privilege or a right helps shape how internal institutional policies and procedures are written and enacted because of how the terms of these instruments are crafted. Understanding the rationale behind the distinction helps establish what interests are legally protected and those that are not (Smolla 1982). More to the point, tacit awareness of the distinction may ensure these instruments are able to withstand legal scrutiny from external agencies and/or the courts. In these highly politicized times when there is a tribalistic view about universities and what academic freedom parameters are for staff, students, and institutions themselves, policies and procedures should be as robust and clear as possible to ensure consistent application that is not found to be capricious or arbitrary, or, as Lindahl (1977) noted in his analysis of rights, to determine whether these constitute a logical system. John Stewart Mill’s (2001/1863) definition of a right is when a person “has a valid claim on society to protect him in the possession of it, either by the force of law, or by that of education and opinion” (p. 52). Black’s Law Dictionary (2001) defined a right as “[s]omething that is due to a person by just claim, legal guarantee, or moral principle” (Garner 2001, p. 613). Mann’s (2017) Australian Law Dictionary defines rights in a similar fashion:

22

Student Academic Freedom: Chimera or Realpolitik Requiring Serious. . .

435

Authoritative claims or entitlements based on legal or moral norms. They typically protect the vital interests, or essential characteristics, of individuals or groups against encroachment by the state or others. (p. 783)

Hohfeld (1913) succinctly summarized the distinction: “A right is one’s affirmative claim against another, and a privilege is one’s freedom from the right or claim of another” (p. 55). Legal theorists vary if there are moral rights and legal rights. A compromise approach seems to be that legal rights should be based on moral reasoning (Campbell 2021). In the instance of academic freedom, the language in support seems to generate claims that are both legal and moral. For Raz (1980), “[r]ights serve to distinguish behaviour which is legally permissible or effective from behaviour which is not” (p. 31). This brings out the question of when a person (or entity) is entitled to a right (Bentham 1988/1789). Per Black’s Law Dictionary (Garner 2001), privilege is a “special legal right, exemption, or immunity granted to a person or class of persons” (p. 553). It is “a prerogative given to a person or to a class of persons” (Auburn 2000, p. 2). Privilege can be seen as a prerogative (van Alstyne 1968b), and from an American context, it is an interest created by the state and fully dependent on its willingness to extend or retract it to a person or class of persons (Smolla 1982). There are two ways of determining if academic freedom is a privilege or right. One way is to consider academic freedom as an abstract using Dworkin’s (1977) view that individual possess preexisting individual rights prior to or outside the enactment of any form of legislation – a political trump as it were. A second way of determining if academic freedom is a privilege or a right is to look at existing documentary treatment of academic freedom. Most documents from various international organizations such as the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR 1966), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR 1966) make a case for academic freedom being a human right (Scholars at Risk n.d.). Karran (2009b) and Taylor (2020), in their analyses, clearly view academic freedom as a human right. Taking Post’s (2013) view, the author believe that academic freedom is a right rather than a privilege based on the normative claims that have been recognized from the late nineteenth century until today, even if the boundaries have been contested ones all along. The question of who holds the right to academic freedom becomes a primary concern, with much of the concern being on whether or not there is a clash of these rights. The dilemma here is that competing claims are often framed so that a “right” can automatically trump a competing claim (Singer 2018) based on an asymmetry from the perspective of a “perpetrator – victim frame” (Schlag 2017, p. 10/29, italics in original). In other words, competing claims other than one’s own do not deserve legal protection. Another concern is the imbalance in the discussion of academic freedom favoring limitations rather than the meaning of the concept itself, that is, what falls within the umbrella of academic freedom. A third item that

436

F. F. Padro´

challenges the discussion of academic freedom as a right is the language used to discuss the topic. For example, language and function exclude nonacademic staff being recognized as possessing academic freedom when their duties are quasiacademic in nature (Padró 2018). The Ridd cases in Australia showed the difficulty in this regard in their use of intellectual freedom (a different and higher form of freedom) to circumnavigate the broader institutional concerns regarding who has academic freedom and how this freedom is recognized. So far, this discussion has been on the meaning of rights as distinguished with privilege. Freedom is a form of right. However, when there is clash based on differing claims of freedom, the question becomes “what makes freedoms different from rights?” (Singer 2018, p. 2). One way of looking at the difference between rights and freedom is the lens of action. A right relates to a concern of actions of another person while freedom relates to one’s own action (Lindahl 1977). Freedom, at its core, is “the opportunity to act, not the action itself” (Berlin 2002, p. 35). For Berlin, freedom is about choice, conferring agency and self-determination which, without the capacity of choosing to act, negates the right itself. It is worth noting that Berlin uses the terms freedom and liberty interchangeably as other notable legal scholars like Hohfeld (1913). The term right or rights is therefore used as a synonym for freedom under this form of analysis (cf. Wenar 2021). There is a deontic logic position component (Saunders 1990) into the determination based on “obligations” and “rights” based on what Lindahl (1977) termed imperation logic grounded on Bentham’s notions of command-permission on one end of the decision spectrum and prohibited-non-commanded at the other (pp. 8, 19). Schauer (2000) likened academic freedom to Hohfeld’s (1913) legal notion of privilege and immunity from the point-of-view those possessing academic freedom are exempted from “something everyone else has to do” (p. 14). For its limitations (e.g., Frydrich 2018; Lindahl 1977; Thompson 2018), applying a Hohfeldian approach to all types of academic freedom makes sense because it provides an avenue or tool to analyze legal problems and the distribution of rights and duties that yield insights into how to look at a subject like academic freedom (Schlag 2015; Thompson 2018).

Hohfeldian Jural Correlatives and Academic Freedom Hohfeld (1913) believed that all legal relations may be reduced to “rights” and “duties” (p. 28). These need to be clarified and explained because these represent “the lowest common denominators of the law” (p. 58). A right is a “three-term relation between one person, one act-description, and one other person” (Finnis 2011, p. 199) that have four basic yet distinct aspects that need to be considered: claim, privilege, power, and immunity (Hohfeld 1913). The four elements have unique correlative or conception and a unique opposite or contradiction (Frydrich 2018; Schlag 2017). Each aspect represents positions borne by a second party (Frydrich 2018). These are:

22

Student Academic Freedom: Chimera or Realpolitik Requiring Serious. . .

Jural correlatives Right – Duty Privilege – No-right Power – Liability Immunity – Disability

437

Jural opposites Rights – No rights Privilege – Duty Power – Disability Immunity – Liability

Source: Hohfeld 1913, p. 30

Hohfeld (1913, 1917) based his analysis of rights as encompassing a claim to be able to do X based on a duty borne by Y or, as Thompson (2018) wrote, the relationship is essentially about what ought to be done or not done. Duty in this sense, if breached (not followed), could result in a negative outcome (Cullison 1967). Simply stated, a “person holding a claim-right is owed a duty by some other person(s)” (Wenar 2013). Privilege is synonymous with liberty and freedom in Hohfeld’s (1913) scheme. No-rights have been called no-claim by later scholars (e.g., Biasetti 2015; Dong and Roy 2021), making the distinction between rights and privilege clearer. No-right simply is the lack of something (Hurd and Moore 2018). Thus, a privilege is something X has sans a claim to it. Kramer’s (2019) approach for this correlate is “Y’s no-right concerning X’s entering the land (or Y’s no-right in respect of X’s entering the land, and so forth)” (p. 217). Hohfeld’s power refers to legal power and it is “the ability to change one’s rights, duties, and privileges” (Hurd and Moore 2018, p. 301). The relationship between X and Y changes due to the exercise of power by X, changing the legal relationship between both (Cullison 1967). This power, however, “must be associated with either a privilege to exercise or not to exercise it, or with a duty to exercise or a duty not to exercise it” (Wilson 1980, p. 192). Liability in this case refers to the possibility that X’s legal position can be modified or altered by Y if Y has a similar, comparable power. As Schlag (2015) indicated, the issue here is about control over alterations to the legal relationship between X and Y. Immunity, for Hohfeld (1917), is X’s ability to be protected from attempts by Y to alter an existing legal relation. Y, therefore, has a disability to X because Y lacks the standing or capacity to alter the legal relation. Disability in Hohfeldian terms is the same as lacking or having no-power (1913, p. 55). Academic freedom for staff is a claim-right in Hohfeld’s sense to perform what the US Supreme Court case Sweezy v. New Hampshire (354 U.S. 234 (1957)) identified as the four basic tenets defining academic freedom: to determine on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study. In performing these activities, their duties are to teach and perform research and to do so, to use the language of the AAUP 1940 Statement, by ensuring accuracy in their teaching and research; exercise appropriate restraint (and proper and reasonable professional judgment in keeping with the accepted standards of practice in their discipline and institution) in their interactions with students, other staff, and others outside the HEI; and should show respect for the opinions of others within and outside the classroom in the performance of their tasks.

438

F. F. Padro´

In general, however, a question arises about if academic freedom is a claim-right or if it treated as a privilege. Court cases prefer to discuss academic freedoms, the duties ascribed to it and ensuing obligations from the perspective of contract or employment law. This confers a right resulting from a contractual agreement. The presence of the contract provides immunities predicated on what was agreed to between parties. This is why its presence in an EA or CBA is important and a major reason for policies and procedures to withstand legal scrutiny. The extent of the full meaning, however, is left to negotiation and question, the latter resolved through internal due process mechanisms or the courts. Academic freedom enshrining legislation strengthens the claim-right, but as can be seem from above, it is the specifics that often are still not spelled out, at least beyond the traditional claims recognized belonging to academic freedom and the umbrella capability in both legislation and court cases providing additional cover based on other legislation and government agency rules (cf. Padró and Green 2018). Student academic freedom is obviously nowhere near as well developed as a claim-right. It is hard to overcome the tradition of it being a derivative right. While academic freedom has been added to legislation and regulatory schemes in various countries, what it means and what it includes have yet to be fully discussed. Few HEIs have or have had specific references to student academic freedom as standalone statements, with most of these existing as policies – in some instances, these do carry the weight of laws in accordance to how HEIs (mainly universities) are recognized through legislation as occurs in some states within Australia. Courts have been the ones defining some of the inclusions and most of the exclusions; however, it seems that the boundary setting is predicated on other legal bases like freedom of speech/expression (as an example of the nexus between freedom of speech and academic freedom in general), bullying, discrimination, harassment, etc. Duties for students are based on policy and procedure, especially through student codes of conduct, most not having the same level of recognition as a law. These define the duties of students who have the privilege of attending non-compulsory formal education. Admission acts as a contract in the sense that an HEI accepts an application for enrolment, makes an offer to the potential student who then accepts to become admitted under the stipulations of the HEI. These stipulations are determined through program handbooks (or equivalents), course syllabi, and relevant institutional policies and procedures, which is where the student code of conduct typically resides. The narrative in this paragraph makes a stronger case that students have a privilege and not necessarily a claim. A recognized privilege entitles holders the freedom to act within bounded limits while immunity entitles holders of the privilege to be free of undesirable repercussions from actions taken in their exercise of the privilege (Wenar 2021). Hohfeld (1913) equated power with “affirmative ‘control’ over a given legal relation as against another; whereas an immunity is one’s freedom from the legal power or ‘control’ of another as regards some legal relation” (p. 55). Students clearly do not have affirmative control as they do not have the freedom to act beyond the prescriptions imposed the student code of conduct, course syllabi, and other relevant policies and procedures. Students are disabled, that is, do not have the power, to act outside to act outside these boundaries or to have a claim

22

Student Academic Freedom: Chimera or Realpolitik Requiring Serious. . .

439

to extend rights acknowledged or legitimized without resorting to extended internal appeals of decisions or recourse to courts. Academic freedom of staff and students are not self-regarding, they mutually impact each other and these must be understood and recognized in a manner that is as clear as possible. Presently, one recourse available to students is “walking with their feet” when their engagement with their learning and the learning environment is found to be lacking. Academic freedom of staff does not trump student academic freedom and vice versa. Like Singer (2018) pointed out, “[l]egal entitlements are almost never absolute; often they can be appropriately exercised in one social context but not another” (p. 4).

Implications and Conclusion The author agree with Jackson’s (2020) view that academic freedom of students is seldom treated as an educational principle. She presents the issues from the perspective of the paradoxical nature that is part of the learning process within a formal education environment. In this environment, individual learning is guided and influenced by those “teaching” and the organizational environment and culture in which the learning is supposed to occur. Does higher education aim “at a meaningful freedom” (Jaspers 1959, p. 52) and what is the role student academic freedom play in achieving this aim? Macfarlane (2016) posited challenges to this question in this market-based higher education environment. Using a superficial analysis of Hohfeldian jural correlates to identify provides an avenue to understand legal and normative challenges surrounding the development of student academic freedom. Frankly, academic freedom, in general, is not a fully developed concept. One major reason is the courts try to avoid defining academic freedom directly. Avoidance is mainly due to deferring to the professional authority of academics Birnbaum (2004) describes, even during these times of increasing corporatization of HEIs and their commodification as a result of the Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (1998) triple-helix. But the politicization of academic freedom courtesy of the culture war where the right-wing of politics distrusts academia because many identify as left-wing or progressive (e.g., Ladd and Lipsett 1975) – to the point that this view is considered a given (Peters 2021) – makes an understanding of what academic freedom actually means and how it functions within an HEI environment critical. This is probably even more important for student academic freedom because of how student freedoms have become a stalking horse for those who distrust the values and approaches of staff in the teaching and support of students and their research. The concern is that there is a bias (often deemed as negative) adversely impacting student learning and experiences (Peters 2021; Honeycutt and Freberg 2017). At the minimum, student engagement within an HEI should be aware that students do have academic freedom, making them, in effect, potential co-creators of their learning experience as is noted in much of the current learning and teaching literature. Also, policies and procedures regarding student engagement should focus less on the limitations but rather provide a more balanced approach based on what students should expect from an institution (their duty to students), and these should

440

F. F. Padro´

be written in a consistent manner that easily stands up to external legal scrutiny and is consistent with the terms of offer given to students at the time of selection. As important is that student academic freedom is couched and enacted in a manner that does not favor staff or one class of students over another class of students.

Cross-References ▶ Being a Student Colleague and the Impact on Student Learning and Belonging ▶ Creating Collaborative Spaces: Applying a “Students as Partner” Approach to University Peer Mentoring Programs ▶ Empowerment Versus Power: The Learning and Performativity Conflict ▶ Exploring the Impact of Learning Development on Student Engagement, Experience, and Learning ▶ Increasing Student Persistence: Wanting and Doing ▶ Neoliberalism and “Resistance” ▶ One Singapore Institution’s Evolution from Service to Partnership: A Case Study ▶ Research into Learning and Teaching in Universities ▶ Student Academic Appeals Committees: The “Canary in the Mine” – Part of the Quality Assurance Processes of Higher Education Institutions in Their Own Right ▶ Towards an Interconnected University Ecology for a Hypercomplex World ▶ Working Towards Best Teaching and Learning Practices in a Holistic Curriculum for the Twenty-first Century

References American Association of University Professors (AAUP). n.d. 1940 Statement of principles on academic freedom and tenure. https://www.aaup.org/report/1940-statement-principles-aca demic-freedom-and-tenure Auburn, J. 2000. Legal professional privilege: Law and theory. Oxford/Portland: Hart Publishing. Barendt, E.M. 2010. Academic freedom and the law: A comparative study. Oxford/Portland: Hart Publishing. Barnett, Ronald. 1990. The idea of higher education. Open University Press. Baxter-Magolda, M.B. 2000. Teaching to promote holistic learning and development. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 82: 88–98. Behrens, T.R., and D.O. Gray. 2001. Unintended consequences of cooperative research: Impact of industry sponsorship on climate for academic freedom and other graduate student outcome. Research Policy 30: 179–199. Beiter, K.D., T. Karran, and K. Appiagyei-Atua. 2016. “Measuring” the erosion of academic freedom as an international human right: A report on the legal protection of academic freedom in Europe. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 49: 597–691. Bengtsen, S.S.E., and R. Barnett. 2019. Higher education and alien ecologies: Exploring the dark ontology of the university. In Philosophy and theory in higher education: Special issue on the Anthropocene in the study of higher education, ed. R.E. Gildersleeve and K. Kleinhesselink, vol. 1(1), 17–40. Peter Lang. Bentham, J. 1988/1789. The principles of morals and legislation. New York: Prometheus Books.

22

Student Academic Freedom: Chimera or Realpolitik Requiring Serious. . .

441

Berendt, E. 2010. Academic freedom and the law (A comparative study). Oxford/Portland: Hart Publishing. Berlin, I. 2002. Introduction. In Liberty: Isaiah Berlin. Incorporating four essays on liberty, ed. H. Hardy, 3–54. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Biasetti, P. 2015. Hohfeldian normative systems. Philosophia 43: 951–959. Birnbaum, R. 2004. The end of shared governance: Looking ahead or looking back. New Directions in Higher Education 2004 (127): 5–22. Bleiklie, I., and M. Kogan. 2007. Organization and governance of universities. Higher Education Policy 20: 477–493. Bloustein, E.J. 1969. The new student and his role in American colleges. In Dimensions of academic freedom, ed. W.P. Metzger, S.H. Kadish, A. DeBardeleben, and E.J. Bloustein, 92–121. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Bowden, R.G. 2010. Students’ rights: A conceptual framework for postsecondary student academic freedom. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal 14 (1): 27–36. Burkstrand-Reid, B., J. Carbone, and J.S. Hendricks. 2011. Teaching controversial topics. Family Court Review 49 (4): 678–684. Cain, T.R. 2012. Establishing academic freedom: Politics, principles, and the development of core values. Palgrave Macmillan. Campbell, K. 2021. Legal rights. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, ed. E.N. Zalta. https:// plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/legal-rights/ Cullison, A.D. 1967. A review of Hohfeld’s fundamental legal concepts. Cleveland-Marshall Law Review 16 (3): 559–573. Darbyshire, P., L. Patrick, S. Williams, N. McIntosh, and R. Ion. 2020. The culture wars, nursing, and academic freedom. Journal of Advanced Nursing 76 (11): 2786–2789. Dong, H., and O. Roy. 2021. Dynamic logic of legal competences. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 30: 701–724. Doolittle, P.E. 2014. Complex constructivism: A theoretical model of complexity and cognition. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 26 (3): 485–498. Dworkin, R. 1977. Taking rights seriously. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Dworkin, R. 1996. We need a new interpretation of academic freedom. Academe 82 (3): 10–15. Etzkowitz, H., and L. Leydesdorff. 1998. The endless transition: A “triple-helix” of universityindustry-government relations. Minerva 36 (3): 203–208. Finkin, M.W., and R.C. Post. 2009. For the common good: Principles of American academic freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press. Finnis, J. 2011. Natural law and natural rights. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press. Fish, S. 2000. What’s sauce for one goose: The logic of academic freedom. In Academic freedom and the inclusive university, ed. S.E. Kahn and D. Pavlich, 3–12. Vancouver: UBC Press. French, R.S. 2019. Report of the independent review of freedom of speech in Australian higher education providers. Canberra: Department of Education and Training. Retrieved from: https:// docs.education.gov.au/node/52661 Frydrich, D. 2018. Hohfeld vs. the legal realists. Legal Theory 24 (4): 291–344. https://doi.org/10. 1017/S1352325218000150. Garner, B.A., ed. 2001. Black’s law dictionary. 2nd ed. St. Paul: West Publishing Company. Gerber, L.G. 2001. ‘Inextricably linked’: Shared governance and academic freedom. Academe 87: 22–24. Gibbs, A. 2016. Academic freedom in international higher education: Right or responsibility? Ethics and Education 11 (2): 175–185. Goldberg, E., and K. Sarabyn. 2011. Measuring a “degree of deference”: Institutional academic freedom in a post-Grutter world. Santa Clara Law Review 51: 217–264. Grant, M. 2011. Freedom of speech on campus: Rights and responsibilities in UK universities. London: Universities UK. Retrieved from https://www.statewatch.org/media/documents/news/ 2011/feb/uk-freedom-of-speech-on-campus.pdf Gross-Schaefer, A. 2010. Academic freedom: Moving away from the faculty-only paradigm. Journal of Legal Studies in Business 16: 45–72.

442

F. F. Padro´

Hayes, D. 2009. Academic freedom and the diminished subject. British Journal of Education Studies 57 (2): 127–145. Hofstadter, R., and W.P. Metzger. 1956. The development of academic freedom in the United States. Columbia University Press. Hohfeld, W.N. 1913. Some fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning. Yale Law Journal 23: 16–59. https://doi.org/10.2307/785533 Hohfeld, W.N. 1917. Fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning. Yale Law Journal 26: 710–770. https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5383& context=fss_papers Honeycutt, N., and L. Freberg. 2017. The liberal and conservative experience across academic disciplines: An extension of Inbar and Lammers. Social Psychological and Personality Science 8 (2): 115–123. Hook, S. 1970. Academic freedom and academic anarchy. New York: Cowles Book Company. Hurd, H.M., and M.S. Moore. 2018. The American Journal of Jurisprudence 63 (2): 295–354. Jackson, L. 2020. Academic freedom of students. Educational Philosophy and Theory. https:// www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi¼10.1080/00131857.2020.1773798 Jaspers, K. 1959. The idea of the university. Ed. K.W. Deutsch, Ed. Trans. H.A.T. Reiche and H.F. Vanderschmidt. Beacon Press. Kaplin, W.A., and B.A. Lee. 2014. The law of higher education. 5th ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Karran, T. 2009a. Academic freedom in Europe: Reviewing UNESCO’s “recommendation”. British Journal of Educational Studies 57 (2): 191–215. Karran, T. 2009b. Academic freedom in Europe: Time for a Magna Charta? Higher Education Policy 22 (2): 163–189. Kramer, M.H. 2019. On no-rights and no rights. The American Journal of Jurisprudence 64 (2): 213–223. Ladd, E.C., Jr., and S.M. Lipsett. 1975. The divided academy: Professors and politics. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Leydesdorff, L. 2012. The triple helix, quadruple helix, . . ., and an n-tuple of helices: Explanatory models for analyzing the knowledge-based economy. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 3: 25–35. Lindahl, L. 1977. Position and change: A study in law and logic. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company. Lynk, M. 2014. What does academic freedom protect in Canada? Law of Work, February 28. http:// lawofwork.ca/?p¼7380 Macfarlane, B. 2012. Re-framing student academic freedom: a capability perspective. Higher Education 63: 719–732. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011-9473-4 Macfarlane B 2016. Why students are treated worse than customers. University World News. https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20160517150918945&mode=print Macfarlane, B. 2017. Freedom to learn: The threat to student academic freedom and why it needs to be reclaimed. Routledge. Mann, T., ed. 2017. Australian law dictionary. 3rd ed. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Menand, L. 1996. The limits of academic freedom. In The future of academic freedom, ed. L. Menand, 3–20. The University of Chicago Press. Metzger, W.P. 1988. Profession and constitution: Two definitions of academic freedom in America. Texas Law Review 66 (7): 1265–1322. Metzger, W.P. 1990. The 1940 statement of principles on academic freedom and tenure. Law and Contemporary Problems 53 (3): 3–77. Mill, J.S. 2001/1859. On liberty. Kitchener: Batoche Books. Mill, J.S. 2001/1863. Utilitarianism. Kitchener: Batoche Books. Millett, J.D. 1980. Management, governance, & leadership: A guide for college and university administrators. New York: AMACOM. Monypenny, P. 1963. Toward a standard for student academic freedom. Law and Contemporary Problems 28 (3): 625–635.

22

Student Academic Freedom: Chimera or Realpolitik Requiring Serious. . .

443

Moshman, D. 2017. Academic freedom as the freedom to do academic work. AAUP Journal of Academic Freedom 8: 1–14. Münch, R. 2020. Academic capitalism. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. https://oxfordre. com/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-15 Nelson, C. 2010. No university is an island: Saving academic freedom. New York/London: New York University Press. Nussbaum, M. 2011. Rawls’s political liberalism. A reassessment. Ratio Juris 24 (1): 1–24. Padró, F.F. 2018. Preface. In Professional and support staff in higher education, ed. C. Bossu and N. Brown, v–xxii. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore. Padró, F.F., and J.H. Green. 2018. Education administrators in Wonderland: Figuring out how policy-making and regulatory compliance when making decisions. In Education and the law: Considering the legal context of schools, ed. K. Trimmer, R. Dixon, and Y. Findlay, 141–166. Dordrecht: Springer International Publishing AG. Padró, F.F., and M.F. Hawke. 2003. A perceptual model of organization behavior. National Social Sciences Journal 19 (2): 102–112. Palfreyman, D. 2007. Is academic freedom under threat in UK and US higher education? Education and the Law 19 (1): 19–40. Peters, U. 2021. An argument for egalitarian confirmation bias and against political diversity in academia. Synthese 198: 11999–12019. Popper, K.R. 1945. The open society and its enemies: The spell of Plato. Vol. 1. Princeton University Press. Post, R. 2013. Why bother with academic freedom? Florida International University Law Review 9: 9–20. Rawls, J. 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. Rawls, J. 1993. Political liberalism. Columbia University Press. Raz, J. 1980. The concept of a legal system: An introduction to the theory of legal system. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Rorty, R. 1994. Does academic freedom have philosophical presuppositions? Academe 80 (6): 52–63. https://doi.org/10.2307/40251372. Saunders, K.W. 1990. A formal analysis of Hohfeldian relations. Akron Law Review 23 (3): 465–506. Schauer, F. 2000. Academic freedom: Rights as immunities and privileges. In Academic freedom and the inclusive university, ed. S.E. Kahn and D. Pavlich, 13–19. Vancouver, CA: UBC Press. Schein, E.H. 1990. Organizational culture. American Psychologist 45 (2): 109–119. Schlag, P. 2015. How to do things with Hohfeld. Law and Contemporary Problems 78: 185–234. Schlag, P. 2017. Hohfeldian analysis, liberalism and adjudication (some tensions). In Wesley Hohfeld a century later: Edited work, select personal papers, and original commentaries, ed. S. Balgamesh, T.M. Sichelman, and H.E. Smith, 29 pp. Cambridge University Press. https://autopapers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id¼2941839 Scholars at Risk. n.d. Is academic freedom a human right? Article retrieved from Futurelearn website https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/academic-freedom/0/steps/44155 Singer, J.W. 2018. Religious liberty & public accommodations: What would Hohfeld say? In Wesley a century later: Edited work, select personal papers, and original commentaries, ed. S. Balgamesh, T.M. Sichelman, and H.E. Smith, 18 pp. Cambridge University Press. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id¼3091333 Smolla, R.A. 1982. The reemergence of the right-privilege distinction in Constitutional Law: The price of protesting too much. Stanford Law Review 35 (1): 69–120. Sniderman, P.M. 2006. Two theories of self-censorship. In Academic freedom at the dawn of a new century: How terrorism, governments, and culture wars impact free speech, ed. E. Gerstmann and M.J. Streb, 157–174. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Taylor, P.M. 2020. Thinking allowed in the academy: International human rights law and the regulation of free speech and academic freedom under the ‘model code’. University of Queensland Law Journal 39 (1): 117–146.

444

F. F. Padro´

Thomas, N.L. 2010. The politics of academic freedom. New Directions for Higher Education 152: 83–90. Thompson, J.C. 2018. The rights network: 100 years of Hohfeldian rights analytic. Laws 7(3): 18. https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/7/3/28/htm Thompson, C. 2020. Participation in participation: Post-critical approaches to the university. In Post-critical perspectives on higher education: Reclaiming the educational in the university, ed. N. Hodgson, J. Vlieghe, and P. Zamojski, 59–72. Springer Nature Switzerland AG. Thune, T. 2010. The training of “triple helix workers”? Doctoral students in university–industry–government collaborations. Minerva 48: 463–483. United Nations Economic, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 1997. Records of the General Conference, 29th session, Paris, 21 October to 12 November. Volume 1: Resolutions. Paris: Author. https://liye.info/doc-viewer Van Alstyne, W.W. 1968a. The demise of the right-privilege distinction in Constitutional Law. Harvard Law Review 81 (7): 1439–1464. Van Alstyne, W.W. 1968b. The judicial trend toward student academic freedom. University of Florida Law Review 20 (3): 290–305. Van Alstyne, W.W. 1990. Academic freedom and the first amendment in the supreme court of the United States: An unhurried historical review. Law and Contemporary Problems 53 (3): 79–154. Vrielink, J., P. Lemmens, S. Parmenter, and LERU Working Group on Human Rights. 2011. League of European Research Universities: Academic freedom as a fundamental right. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 13: 117–141. Waiton, S. 2021. Examining the idea of the ‘vulnerable student’ to assess the implications for academic freedom. Societies 11: 88. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc11030088. Walker, S. 2020. Review of the adoption of the model code on freedom of speech and academic freedom. Canberra: Department of Education, Skills and Employment. https://www.dese.gov. au/higher-education-reviews-and-consultations/resources/walker-review-categories-universityalignment-french-model-code Watermeyer, R. 2016. Public intellectuals vs. new public management: the defeat of public engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education 41(12): 2271–2285. https://doi. org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1034261 Wenar, L. 2013. The nature of claim-rights. Ethics 123: 202–229. Wenar, L. 2021. Rights. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, ed. E.N. Zalta. https://plato. stanford.edu/archives/spr2021/entries/rights/ Westa, S. 2017. Academic freedom in Europe: The Bologna Process and academic freedom. In Academic freedom ed. S. Westa, and S. Wright. UNKIE Notes on Doctoral Education No. 3. Universities in the Knowledge Economy. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 355741675_UNIKE_Notes_on_Doctoral_Education_No3_Academic_Freedom Whitchurch, C. 2009. The rise of the blended professional in higher education: A comparison between the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States. Higher Education 58: 407–418. Wilson, J.G. 1980. Hohfeld: A reappraisal. University of Queensland Law Journal 11 (2): 190–204. Zhao, G., and B.J. Bindewald. 2018. Tolerance and free speech in education: A Habermasian perspective. Philosophy of Education 1: 517–530. https://educationjournal.web.illinois.edu/ojs/ index.php/pes/issue/view/2

Student Affairs: One Hundred Years in the Making

23

Kevin Kruger

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Student Personnel Point of View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Academic Mission of the Institution Is Preeminent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Students Are Individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Each Person Has Worth and Dignity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bigotry Cannot Be Tolerated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Feelings Affect Thinking and Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Student Involvement Enhances Learning/Out-of-Class Environments Affect Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Supportive and Friendly Community Life Helps Students Learn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Freedom to Doubt and Question Must Be Guaranteed/Effective Citizenship Should Be Taught . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Modern Student Affairs Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Future of Student Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mental Health Global Crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Career Development and Twenty-First-Century Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Equity Gaps in Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Final Thoughts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

446 447 448 448 448 449 450 451 452 452 453 454 454 456 458 458 459 460

Abstract

This chapter provides a concise history of the role and position of student affairs educators in higher education, with a partial focus on the US context. Part of this history is an evolving sense of values that form the foundation of student affairs in relation to the academic mission of higher education institutions. For example, it covers the importance of individual students’ worth and dignity and the importance of intolerance for any form of bigotry. The chapter then discusses the K. Kruger (*) NASPA – Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education, Washington, DC, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 H. Huijser et al. (eds.), Student Support Services, University Development and Administration, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5852-5_47

445

446

K. Kruger

modern student affairs division, including the role of NASPA (Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education) in the sector. The final part of the chapter focuses on the future of student affairs in the face of, for example, a mental health global crisis and equity gaps. Overall, the chapter traces the adaption of student affairs to a changing higher education landscape, and concludes that in many ways it has remained true to its historical origins. Keywords

Student affairs · Holistic student development · Mental health · Student equity · NASPA (Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education) · Student engagement · Civic learning

Introduction In 2019, NASPA – Student Affairs Educators in Higher Education celebrated its 100 Year Anniversary. This celebration provided an opportunity to reflect on the foundations of the student affairs profession and the fundamental principles around which student affairs is organized. While NASPA was founded in 1919 by a small group of Deans of Men, the actual beginnings of students affairs happened several decades earlier. American higher education was undergoing a significant shift in the latter part of the nineteenth century. Through US Federal legislation such as the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890, the advent of the public land-grant university was established and the number of American youth attending college was also increasing. The other change was the increase in numbers of women students at American colleges, where historically, higher education had been largely a male endeavor. In the late 1800s, only one in five college students were women, but by 1920, the percentage of women in American colleges and universities had jumped to almost 50% (Graham 1978, pp. 759–793). This rapid expansion led to the appointment of the first Deans of Women by college presidents. “Most presidents were comfortable managing money, trustees, faculty and competition; but students, especially the newly arrived women students, were more troubling” (Schwartz 2003, p. 217). These early Deans of Women were chosen to “advise, assist, and counsel female students. . .and insulate the historically male campuses from the women and, in turn, protect and guide the women, a distinct social and cultural minority despite the rapid increase in their enrollment” (Schwartz 1997, p. 419). This expansion of co-education on American colleges exposed a reality, namely that college presidents and faculty felt ill-prepared to deal with the range of issues that were arising among college students. Eventually, as the issues facing college students became more complex, colleges appointed both Deans of Women and Deans of Men to manage the lives of students outside of the classroom. Their roles looked a lot like the roles of modern student affairs officers. “These officers were appointed first to

23

Student Affairs: One Hundred Years in the Making

447

relieve administrators and faculties of problems of discipline; but their responsibilities grew with considerable rapidity to include a large number of other duties: educational counseling, vocational counseling, the administration of loans and scholarship funds, part-time employment, graduate placement, student health, extracurricular activities and social pro-grams” (ACE 1937, p. 2).

The Student Personnel Point of View By 1937, the work of these Deans of Women and Men had expanded to an evolving administrative structure that became a critical component of the educational processes in colleges and universities. The value of the work done by these Deans and their staff began a process of distinction between “in-class” and “outof-class” learning that still exists today. One of the more seminal moments in the recognition of the value of this work came when the American Council on Education (ACE) commissioned the Committee on Student Personnel Work that would later produce the 1937 Student Personnel Point of View (ACE 1937). “By doing this, the academic association ACE made a statement about the importance of the emerging role of student personnel work in American higher education and provided direction by offering a philosophical framework and calling for all in the academic community—faculty and staff alike—to support it” (Roberts 2012, p. 3). It was during the work of the Committee on Student Personnel Work that the term “student personnel” began to become the primary way the profession was named and described. The 1937 Student Personnel Point of View (SPPOV) articulated a philosophy that resonates with the current work of student affairs professionals. It stated a philosophy that had three critical elements: “that all students should be viewed holistically, that all students should be encouraged to develop to the full limits of their potential, and that learning should be recognized as the result of a variety of rich experiences that take place both in and outside the classroom” (Roberts 2012, p. 4). Upon the 50th anniversary of the original 1937 Student Personnel Point of View, the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA), convened a group of higher education leaders and produced Points of view: A perspective on Student Affairs. The purpose of the publication was not to revise the original statement, but to create a forum for a national “discussion and debate. . .and a renewed understanding and appreciation of the contributions student affairs professionals make to institutions of higher education and the students they serve” (NASPA 1987, p. 2). Of significance were a set of guiding assumptions that were identified through this work. These assumptions have remained remarkably relevant over the years and they apply to the complete diversity of students served and the diversity of institutions who serve them. These core assumptions from 1987 have served as a foundation for student affairs work for the past 30-plus years and continue to provide an important organizing structure for our work.

448

K. Kruger

The Academic Mission of the Institution Is Preeminent The 1987 “Points of View: A Perspective on Student Affairs” starts with one of the most fundamental principles of student affairs. The role of student affairs is always to support the academic mission of the institution, never to compete with that mission. Student affairs should be a compliment to the academic pursuits of students and should support students’ full academic participation and success. This is an important component of student affairs work and serves also to reduce conflicts between faculty and administrators. This principle gained momentum in the 1990s as “higher education researchers began focusing on the benefits of increased collaboration between student affairs and academic affairs and demonstrated positive outcomes for students and institutions, such as increased learning and better decision-making” (Kezar 2003, p. 1). Research has also shed light on the barriers to effective collaboration between student and academic affairs. One of the most common barriers is a misunderstanding of the different values, cultures and norms between these two functional areas (Commodore et al. 2008). Effective collaboration requires an understanding and awareness of the core values and norms for both student and academic affairs and a willingness to set up structures to facilitate collaboration. “Campuses need to ensure they are creating an environment of cooperation, developing cross-institutional dialogue, instituting a common vision and goals, generating enthusiasm, examining personalities, evaluating committee membership and crossdivisional work, fostering involvement and a desire to increase student learning on campus” (Kezar 2003, p. 17).

Students Are Individuals The unique nature of every student is another key element to student affairs work. Each student brings their own “expectations, abilities, life experiences, or motives” (NASPA 1987, p. 9). This principle is critical to the work that student affairs professionals do today, and it recognizes that each student brings their own identity, based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, ability, etc., or in many cases the intersection of multiple identities, and that these identities will change the ways in which each student experiences the ecosystem of their college or university. While in many cases the individual identity or circumstance can be an asset for their ability to succeed as a student, it is equally important to acknowledge that the “playground” is not equal, and that unique barriers may exist that inhibit an individual students’ growth, development and academic progress.

Each Person Has Worth and Dignity One of the most valuable outcomes of the college experience is the exposure to students from a variety of experiences. Interactions with those who are different creates opportunities to be exposed to new cultures, experiences and beliefs.

23

Student Affairs: One Hundred Years in the Making

449

Ideally, being exposed to students who are different from yourself will create a greater sense of appreciation, tolerance and celebration of those differences. In addition, exposure to these differences creates a level of cognitive dissonance that forces students to reconcile their own stereotypes and biases. Over 50 years ago, in 1968, Nevitt Sanford wrote Where Colleges Fail: A Study of Student as Person which examine the importance of a “holistic” view of student development (Sanford 1968). His work also highlighted the important concept of “challenge and support” as a key component of a student’s developmental journey. “He stated that ego development in college students is favored by an environment that is varied, complex, and impelling enough to confront students with demands for a decision and, at the same time, protective enough to prevent too much anxiety” (Roark 1989, p. 314). Sanford believed that if a student experienced too much support, the student would not develop a mature sense of how to experience the world around them. They would not be pushed to think differently when confronted with values and beliefs different from their own. The same would be the case for the student who experiences too many challenges – their developmental path would also be hampered. They may feel overwhelmed or shut down and not be open to understanding, or experience challenges to their view of the world. For student development to occur, there must be a balance between challenge and support. The 1987 Perspective on Student Affairs captured this sentiment by advocating that colleges “can, and indeed must, help their students become open to the differences that surround them: race, religion, age, gender, culture, physical ability, language, nationality, sexual preference, and life style. These matters are learned best in collegiate settings that are rich with diversity, and they must be learned if the ideals of human worth and dignity are to be advanced” (NASPA 1987, p. 9). It is important to note that this balance of challenge and support is best achieved through the tight integration between the academic and student life experiences of students, as mentioned. Both faculty and student affairs professionals play an important role in advancing holistic student development. “Student development occurs most frequently when the two dominant professional subcultures of the campus—the faculty and professionals in student affairs and ministry—integrate support and challenge. This culture represents a shift where historically faculty did the challenging and student affairs professionals did the supporting, but holistic student development calls for both of these groups to support and challenge students”. This theme of academic and student affairs integration, while not explicitly named in the 1987 document, is critical to designing environments that result in the most positive developmental outcomes for students.

Bigotry Cannot Be Tolerated The following statement about bigotry is as relevant today as it was when written in 1987. “Any expression of hatred or prejudice is inconsistent with the purposes of higher

450

K. Kruger

education in a free society. So long as bigotry in any form exists in the larger society, it will be an issue on the college campus. There must be a commitment by the institution to create conditions where bigotry is forthrightly confronted” (NASPA 1987, p. 9). Today, issues of bigotry and racism are challenges faced by most societies around the world and, as such, are critical issues facing college campuses. Sylvia Hurtado’s research examined the campus climate around the same time the 1987 Perspective on Student Affairs was published. Her research revealed widespread experiences of racial incidents on college campuses. “Racial conflict was becoming commonplace on American college campuses in the 1980s, with more than one hundred college campuses reporting incidents of racial/ethnic harassment and violence in each of the last two years of the decade” (Hurtado 1992, p. 539). Hurtado’s research suggested that significant numbers of non-White students reported examples of racial conflict on their campuses, where one quarter of all students believed that there was racial conflict on their campus. More concerning was that for students who believed that racial conflict was present, they also did not believe that creating learning opportunities around race and ethnicity was an institutional priority (Hurtado 1992). On today’s college campus, we now understand the power of not only condemning bigotry and racism, but of providing opportunities for students to be exposed to a diverse student body. More experiences with students who have different racial and ethnic backgrounds leads to positive developmental outcomes. “Exposure to diverse perspectives during college could interrupt long-standing segregation trends in society. Students (especially Whites) who engage meaningfully with peers from different backgrounds and diverse perspectives both inside and outside college classrooms are unlikely to remain isolated within their own racial/ ethnic communities” (Harper and Hurtado 2007, p. 14). It is clear that there is an important role for student affairs in the campus effort to reduce and eliminate bigotry and racism. Student affairs leaders can help all students understand the ways in which non-White students experience the campus climate and work actively to dismantle policies and practices that continue to perpetuate systemic racism on campus. “As long as administrators espouse commitments to diversity and multiculturalism without engaging in examinations of campus climates, racial/ethnic minorities will continue to feel dissatisfied, all students will remain deprived of the full range of educational benefits accrued through cross-racial engagement, and certain institutions will sustain longstanding reputations for being racially toxic environments” (Harper and Hurtado 2007, p. 20).

Feelings Affect Thinking and Learning “Although students are in college to acquire knowledge though the use of their intellect, they feel as well as think. Students are whole persons. How they feel affects how well they think. While students are maturing intellectually, they are also developing physically, psychologically, socially, aesthetically, ethically, sexually, and spiritually” (NASPA 1987, p. 9). The importance of addressing the socioemotional well-being of students has emerged as one of the most important aspects

23

Student Affairs: One Hundred Years in the Making

451

of student affairs work. This aspect of student affairs work has become more critical over the last decade. In 2018, the “World Health Organization’s World Mental Health International College Student Initiative” surveyed 14,000 students from 19 colleges in eight countries. The most significant finding was that over 35% reported symptoms consistent with at least one mental health disorder. Major depressive disorders were the most common, followed by generalized anxiety disorder and substance abuse (Cuijpers et al. 2019). This research, as well as other studies in the United States (Eisenberg et al. 2020; ACHA 2018), confirms what every student affairs professional already knows – we are in the midst of a mental health crisis among adolescents, and the crisis is getting worse. This is also another strong example of where faculty and student affairs need to work collaboratively to address the psychological health of students. With psychological issues on the rise, it is critical that faculty have an understanding of mental health resources and how to identify students in their classroom who may be struggling with mental health issues. From the student affairs perspective, virtually all staff who have direct contact with students need basic training on mental health support. One approach that is used globally is Mental Health First Aid, which is designed to train staff to identify, understand, and respond to signs of mental illnesses and substance use disorders. The training focuses on understanding the unique experiences and needs of college students and the skills necessary to provide initial support to students who may be developing a mental health or substance abuse problem and then connecting them to the most appropriate resource (Mental Health First Aid 2020).

Student Involvement Enhances Learning/Out-of-Class Environments Affect Learning “Learning is not a passive process. Students learn most effectively when they are actively engaged with their work in the classroom and in student life” (NASPA 1987, p. 10). This basic principle is at the heart of student affairs work; that active student engagement in and out of the classroom will result in a range of positive outcomes for students – both developmentally and academically. This was the center of the work of George Kuh and his research on engagement, which has been a key foundation for the student affairs profession. “Student engagement represents the time and effort students devote to activities that are empirically linked to desired outcomes of college and what institutions do to induce students to participate in these activities” (Kuh 2009, p. 683). Earlier research by Astin (1984) developed a theory of “involvement” that addressed the linkage between student’s active involvement with a range of positive developmental outcomes. In addition, involvement has a direct link to other institutional outcomes such as degree progress, persistence in college and attainment of a college degree (Astin 1999). “Student involvement refers to the amount of physical and psychological energy the student devotes to the academic experience. Thus, a highly involved student is one who devotes considerable energy to studying, spends much time on campus, participates actively in student organizations, and interacts frequently with faculty members and other

452

K. Kruger

students” (Astin 1984, p. 519). Astin also summarizes this concept by the importance of “time-on-task.” Student affairs professionals create environments for students to engage in these educationally purposeful involvement and engagement opportunities.

A Supportive and Friendly Community Life Helps Students Learn “A campus is usually a collection of small communities such as schools, departments, residences, teams, clubs, and service, religious, social, and peer groups. Healthy communities are settings where students learn to work together, make and keep friends, care about the welfare of others, balance freedom and responsibility, and appreciate human differences” (NASPA 1987, p. 10). The communities that exist on a college campus provide a wide range of educational and developmental benefits. Exposure to different perspectives, developing interpersonal communication skills, and finding supportive relationships all contribute to positive student outcomes. “Building a sense of community between students has many educational benefits, including the potential to create opportunities to develop leadership skills; instill a sense of belonging for students who might otherwise be marginalized; instill empathy and responsibility for violations of the community’s standards; and advance interpersonal skills through communication and conflict resolution” (Long 2012, p. 8).

The Freedom to Doubt and Question Must Be Guaranteed/Effective Citizenship Should Be Taught These two core principles speak to a foundational principle in American higher education – that the college should provide a forum for a wide range of ideas and that faculty and students should be able to express those ideas freely. For faculty, this is the cornerstone of “academic freedom.” For students it is a critical dimension to their development; to engage actively with other students so that their belief systems and values can be tested and explored. The 1987 statement articulated this important premise. “Students need to be encouraged and free to explore ideas, test values and assumptions in experience, face dilemmas of doubt and perplexity, question their society, criticize and be criticized” (NASPA 1987, p. 10). Of equal and related importance is the process by which students learn to be become active and engaged citizens. In 1987 this was framed as active participation in institutional governance, community service, and an understanding of civic responsibilities. Today, the conversation has shifted to civic and democratic engagement as a critical competency for all students. The importance of civic and democratic engagement was the focus of the landmark report, A Crucible Moment: College Learning and Democracy’s Future, published by the Association of American Colleges and Universities in 2012. This report identified the value of civic learning “that includes knowledge, skills, values, and the capacity to work with

23

Student Affairs: One Hundred Years in the Making

453

others on civic and societal challenges [which] can help increase the number of informed, thoughtful, and public-minded citizens [to be] well prepared to contribute in the context of the diverse, dynamic, globally connected United States” (National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement 2012, p. 6). Since then, as the global political discourse has become more polarized, it is widely advanced that civic learning is one of the more important areas of higher education and that the opportunity for debate and discourse is “absolutely crucial to the educational experience and for developing citizens prepared to engage with democracy” (Cauce 2017, p. 1). While faculty play an important role in advancing civic learning, there are rich opportunities in the co-curricular. “Student affairs professionals have many opportunities to develop students civically through the co-curriculum via experiential learning; in living-learning communities and in residence halls; through volunteerism, community service, or leadership programs; and in facilitated dialogues and conversations with peers” (Sponsler and Hartley 2013, p. 8).

The Modern Student Affairs Division As demonstrated above, historical documents such as the Student Personnel Point of View and its subsequent revisions and reflections provide an important foundation to the current work of student affairs professionals. While these philosophical foundations are relevant today, the actual work and functions of student affairs have evolved as the issues affecting students have changed. In American higher education, there has been an increase in the specialization and an expansion of the roles that support student affairs divisions. The modern student affairs division has come a long way from the original Deans of Men and Women. Student affairs can comprise a wide range of departments and functions – all oriented toward serving the educational needs of students. In some American universities, a division of student affairs might include up to 30 different departments. “A student affairs division today typically includes responsibility for such functions as enrollment management, financial aid, housing, counseling, student health, judicial programs, career services, recreational sports, and student activities. It also may include campus services such as transportation, security, child care, and student academic support” (Sandeen 2004, p. 30). NASPA – Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education (NASPA), a professional association that provides educational development and research for student affairs professionals around the world, has conducted research on the primary departments that are under the student affairs umbrella. NASPA’s bi-annual VPSA survey (Wesaw and Sponsler 2014) found that there were 12 departments that were common at over two-thirds of institutions. As shown in Table 1, the five most commonly reported functional areas within student affairs divisions were campus activities, student conduct, counseling services, orientation and student affairs assessment. These functional areas intersect with students in their life outside of the academic classroom, and in most cases these functional areas would primarily serve a traditional student

454 Table 1 Student Affairs Functional Areas

K. Kruger

Functional area Campus Activities Student Conduct Counseling Services Orientation Student Affairs Assessment Career Services Wellness Programs Disability Support Services On-Campus Housing Recreational Sports Multicultural Services Community Service/Service Learning

Percentage (%) 98 97 89 88 80 73 70 70 69 66 66 62

population of 18–24 year-olds. However, some of these functional areas would also be relevant for a more nontraditional population of students (older students, working adults, military-connected veterans). While there are newer functions that have emerged over the last 30 years, the purpose and mission of most functional areas have been at the core of student affairs for decades. In the “Perspective on Student Affairs” (NASPA 1987), referenced earlier in this chapter, you can see the outlines for the range of departments listed above. For example, “create opportunities for students to expand their aesthetic and cultural appreciation” aligns with campus activities; “establish programs that encourage healthy living and confront abusive behaviors” aligns with student conduct; and “help students clarify career objectives, explore options for further study, and secure employment” aligns with the career services functional area.

The Future of Student Affairs Regardless of functional areas, there is a newer set of issues that will drive the nature of student affairs work over the next decade. The global Coronavirus pandemic has amplified many of these issues and they will become an even higher priority when the pandemic is over.

Mental Health Global Crisis As mentioned earlier, we are in the midst of a mental health crisis among college students. The global coronavirus pandemic has amplified and deepened this crisis. In a recent survey of undergraduate and graduate students, 35% of undergraduates and 32% of graduate and professional students screened positive for major depressive disorder, while 39% of undergraduate and graduate and

23

Student Affairs: One Hundred Years in the Making

455

professional students screened positive for generalized anxiety disorder (Chirikov et al. 2020). The effect of the pandemic has clearly increased the numbers of students who are struggling with mental health. “The pandemic has led to increases in students’ mental health disorders compared to previous years. In fact, the prevalence of major depressive disorder among graduate and professional students is two times higher in 2020 compared to 2019 and the prevalence of generalized anxiety disorder is 1.5 times higher than in 2019” (Chirikov et al. 2020, p. 1). This was a concerning trend before the pandemic. The longer-term impact of the pandemic is as yet unknown. Prior to the pandemic, the number of students who have serious psychological issues has been increasing over the past decade. In recent surveys of counseling center directors at American colleges, about two-thirds report an increase in the numbers of students with “severe psychological problems.” In addition, almost one in four students who visit the counseling center is taking psychotropic medications (Reetz et al. 2014). What is more challenging is that the majority of students who are experiencing mental health issues never seek treatment from the counseling center. In fact, only 20% of students who committed suicide in college had sought help through the counseling center (Reetz et al. 2014). This suggests a challenging dynamic – the numbers of students with serious mental health issues are increasing, and yet, those who are at greatest risk for self-harm are not seeking treatment. Are today’s students simply less resilient, less able to cope with the day-to-day challenges that life presents? A recent article by a counseling center director in Psychology Today seems to support that suggestion and its consequent impact on today’s colleges. “There has been an increase in diagnosable mental health problems, but there has also been a decrease in the ability of many young people to manage the everyday bumps in the road of life. Whether we want it or not, these students are bringing their struggles to their teachers and others on campus who deal with students on a day-to-day basis. The lack of resilience is interfering with the academic mission of the University and is thwarting the emotional and personal development of students” (Gray 2015, p. 1). In short, the mental health crisis among college students has become so severe that it is no longer possible to address the problem by simply hiring more counselors. It can be said that faculty and staff all need to play an important role in addressing student mental health. The mental health first aid referenced earlier in this chapter is an example. It is also imperative that student affairs professionals focus on the root causes for mental health distress and intentionally build the skills necessary for students to manage lower-level psychological issues. The reality is that without the wrap-around services offered by student affairs many students who are struggling with mental health issues would not graduate. “At their very root, programs and services that provide support for students as they manage stress, anxiety, depression and other mental health issues are also retention and degree persistence efforts” (Kruger 2015–2016, p. 14). While difficult to measure, there have been multiple studies that have linked effective psychological treatment with increases in persistence and retention. In

456

K. Kruger

addition, “students who participate in counseling report improvements in their satisfaction with their quality of life—a more predictive measure of student retention than GPA alone” (Douce and Keeling 2014, p. 3). As a final point, since the majority of students who are experiencing mental health challenges do not seek counseling or psychological support, virtually all student affairs professionals must have a basic competency in counseling and referral skills as students will present mental health issues in the residence halls, student organizations, student union, career center and virtually any place where students and staff interact (Kruger 2015–2016).

Career Development and Twenty-First-Century Skills It is easy to argue that the investment in a two or four year college degree should result in getting a good job. While there is much more to a college education as reflected earlier in this chapter, with the cost of an education rising and increases in student debt, it is essential that college graduates are employed in well-paying jobs that require a college degree. This represents a shift in thinking and metrics for higher education and a greater degree of accountability. It is not enough for students to graduate, and therefore, simply counting degrees is an incomplete measure of institutional success. Michael Collins, vice president at Jobs For the Future, said as much in a recent interview: The evolution of the completion agenda from completion to completion and careers is only part of the story. The national policy focus went from postsecondary access to a more intentional focus on completion. As a result of this focus on completion, we have begun to see data that show huge variations in the payoff from different degrees and academic programs. Those data show that African-Americans, people from Latinx backgrounds, and women are overrepresented in degree pathways that lead to jobs and careers that do not pay well. (Griffin 2020)

This identifies an important equity component to the career development process. It is important for campuses to understand their data on job acquisition, but also demographic data on race, ethnicity, income and first-generation status to identify who is getting the best jobs. All of this calls into focus the role of student affairs in the career development process. Unfortunately, the traditional career services function has been underutilized and undervalued by college students. In a recent Gallup-Purdue survey of college graduates, only a little more than half report visiting the career services office at least once during their undergraduate experience. Even worse, only 16% found their experience with career services “very helpful” (Auter and Marken 2016). It will be critical in the coming years for student affairs to have a greater understanding of workforce development and the skills employers are requiring

23

Student Affairs: One Hundred Years in the Making

457

for the best jobs. There is a growing consensus among employers about the skills and competencies required for success in today’s modern, global workplace. This set of critical skills is part of the “value-add” that employers expect from college graduates. Given that the world of work is changing, these core competencies will be increasingly important. According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, every year more than one-third of the entire US labor force changes jobs; today’s students may have between 10 and 14 jobs by the time they are 38. Students entering the workforce this year will increasingly be in jobs that did not exist 10 years ago. This puts an increasingly important value on creating learning opportunities for developing competency in twenty-first-century skills which are vital across jobs and industries. Employers increasingly are in need of college graduates who can thrive in an innovative, complex work environment. “Notably, employers indicate that they prioritize critical thinking, communication, and complex problem-solving skills over a job candidate’s major field of study when making hiring decisions” (Hart Research Associates 2013, p. 12). This same study found several other results that should serve as a roadmap for student affairs leadership. They point to a key set of skills and competencies that should be the focus of the co-curricular experience: Nearly all those surveyed (93%) agree, a candidate’s demonstrated capacity to think critically, communicate clearly, and solve complex problems is more important than their undergraduate major. More than nine in ten of those surveyed say it is important that those they hire demonstrate ethical judgment and integrity; intercultural skills; and the capacity for continued new learning. More than three in four employers say they want colleges to place more emphasis on helping students develop five key learning outcomes, including: critical thinking, complex problemsolving, written and oral communication, and applied knowledge in real-world settings. (Hart Research Associates 2013, p. 1)

This research suggests a new, innovative approach for student affairs that integrates the career and workforce development data more holistically into the students’ academic journey. For example, more career development information needs to be integrated into orientation and academic advising. Career development must not be relegated to the senior year. The solution to our career services woes is not to find a quick fix to a broken system, but to develop a new and better one. Modernizing the career development function of higher education requires us to stop and appreciate the vital role that colleges play—not just as places of learning, but also as brokers of the sort of connections, social capital and networks that are still preconditions for economic mobility. As part of their value proposition, colleges and universities must work to design a system that can give students and workers the insights and guidance they need to find work—and they must deliver those services virtually. (Flynn 2020)

458

K. Kruger

Equity Gaps in Higher Education Student affairs professionals are in a unique position to contribute to closing historic equity gaps in higher education. Globally, there are concerns about equity in access to higher education and in college completion rates. In American colleges, it has been well documented that first-generation students, students from low-income families, and students of color complete college at a significantly lower rate than their peers. For example, “the percentage of adults age 25 and older who had earned a bachelor’s or higher degree in 2016 was highest for Asian adults (54 percent). Among the other racial/ethnic groups, 35 percent of White adults, 34 percent of adults of Two or more races, 21 percent of Black adults, 18 percent of Pacific Islander adults, and 15 percent each of American Indian/Alaska Native and Hispanic adults had earned a bachelor’s or higher degree” (National Center for Education Statistics 2020). This difference in completion rates is often referred to as achievement or attainment gaps. Attention to these persistent attainment gaps has resulted in changing student affairs structures to address this challenge. Many student affairs divisions have begun to implement “equity audits” to gain a better understanding of who is succeeding at their institution, and how to focus resources on those groups of students who have lower completion rates. In this way, student affairs leaders can assess the efficacy of newer interventions and assess progress on overall completion rates. These new data have also resulted in efforts by student affairs to focus on student success as an overall philosophical approach to working with students. Student success offices are increasingly a core function within student affairs. These student success centers track student data and provide a range of services to support first-generation, low-income students and students of color. We know that mentoring and coaching are important tools for improving degree progress for these students. We know that creating opportunities for involvement and engagement in campus-based experiences pays great dividends for student success. And we know that outside of basic financial aid, small amounts of financial assistance can play a huge role in student success. Emergency aid programs, food pantries, completion grants, and other forms of assistance have been shown to increase degree persistence for students. (Kruger 2017)

These additional services are often now found in student success initiatives within student affairs.

Final Thoughts As higher education evolves, particularly in the years after the Coronavirus pandemic, the range of issues facing student affairs will continue to become more complex and more critical. In the historical documents that provided the foundation for student affairs, the emphasis was on providing support for

23

Student Affairs: One Hundred Years in the Making

459

students’ cognitive and interpersonal development. As student affairs began to mature as a profession, the role of student affairs in supporting learning became a critical focus (NASPA and ACPA 2004). In this next era of student affairs work, given the complex issues facing students, the modern student affairs professional may need to assume a role that is much like a social worker, as the challenges facing low-income and first-generation students require much more individual support and coordination of services in order to guide them through degree completion. This shift to a social work philosophy acknowledges that solutions to student success cannot solely be achieved through population-level interventions, but will require addressing the needs of the individual student whether that be a mental health issue or factors that create barriers to success. Over the past one hundred years, student affairs has both adapted to a changing higher education landscape as well as remained true to its historical origins. As we consider the evolution and importance of student affairs today, we are not far from the ideals presented in the 1937 Student Personnel Point of View. To develop a profession where the purpose is to “consider the student as a whole – their intellectual capacity and achievement, emotional make up, physical condition, social relationships, vocational aptitudes and skills, moral and religious values, economic resources, and aesthetic appreciations. It puts emphasis, in brief, upon the development of the student as a person rather than upon his intellectual training alone” (ACE 1937, p. 1).

Cross-References ▶ A Digital Student Journey: Supporting Students in an Age of Super Complexity ▶ A Whole Person Model of Student Success Advising in the Liberal Arts ▶ Building Learning Ventures for Students’ Future-Readiness ▶ Developing Students’ Career Identity from Choice of Major to a Values-Driven Career Plan ▶ Engaging and Retaining Students in Productive Learning ▶ Exploring the Impact of Learning Development on Student Engagement, Experience, and Learning ▶ Future Institutional and Student Services Leadership Challenges: Implementing a Holistic Whare Tapa Rima – Five-Sided Home Model ▶ How to Increase Retention and Graduation Rates ▶ Increasing Student Persistence: Wanting and Doing ▶ Student Services, Personal Tutors, and Student Mental Health: A Case Study ▶ Supporting Underrepresented Information Technology Students Through High Impact Practices ▶ The Challenge of Student Mental Well-Being: Reconnecting Students Services with the Academic Universe ▶ Whole-of-Institution Transformation for First Year Learning and Success

460

K. Kruger

References American College Health Association. 2018. American College Health Association-National College Health Assessment II: Reference group executive summary fall 2018. Silver Spring: American College Health Association. American Council on Education. 1937. The student personnel point of view. (American Council on Education Studies, series 1, no. 3). Washington, DC: Author. American Council on Education (ACE), and National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA). 1987. A perspective on student affairs. Washington, DC: ACE and NASPA. Astin, A. 1984. Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development 25 (4): 297–308. Astin, A. 1999. Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development 40 (5): 518–529. Auter, Z., and S. Marken. 2016. One in six U.S. Grads say career services was very helpful. GallupPurdue Index Report 2016. Cauce, M. 2017. Messy but essential. Inside Higher Education. November 20, 2017. Chirikov, I., K. M Soria, B. Horgos, & D. Jones-White. 2020. Undergraduate and graduate students’ mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. UC Berkeley: Center for Studies in Higher Education. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/80k5d5hw Commodore, F., M. Gasman, C. Conrad, and T. Nguyen. 2008. Coming together: A case study of collaboration between student affairs and faculty at Norfolk State University. Frontiers in Education 3: 1–10. Cuijpers, P., R.P. Auerbach, C. Benjet, et al. 2019. Introduction to the special issue: The WHO World Mental Health International College Student (WMH-ICS) initiative. International Methods in Psychiatric Research 28 (2): 1–6. Douce, L.A., and R.P. Keeling. 2014. A strategic primer on college student mental health. Washington, DC: American Council of Education. Eisenberg, D., S.K. Lipson, P. Ceglarek, and M. Phillips. 2020. The health minds study; 2018–2019 data. https://healthymindsnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/HMS_national-201819.pdf. Retrieved 15 Sept 2020. Flynn, M. 2020. Out of the wreckage of COVID, the rebirth of college career services. https://nebhe. org/journal/out-of-the-wreckage-of-covid-the-rebirth-of-college-career-services/. Retrieved 15 Sept 2020. Graham, P. 1978. Expansion and exclusion: A history of women in American higher education. Signs 3 (4): 759–773. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3173112. Retrieved 9 Oct 2020. Gray, P. 2015. Declining student resilience: A serious problem for colleges. Psychology Today. September 22, 2015. Griffin, A. 2020. Repairing the broken connection between college and career. Forbes. May 20, 2020. Harper, S.R., and S. Hurtado. 2007. Nine themes in campus racial climates and implications for institutional transformation. In Responding to the realities of race on campus, New Directions for Student Services (No. 120), ed. S.R. Harper and L.D. Patton, 7–24. San Francisco: JosseyBass. Hart Research Associates. 2013. It takes more than a major: Employer priorities for college learning and student success. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). Hurtado, S. 1992. The campus racial climate: Contexts of conflict. Journal of Higher Education 63 (5): 539–569. Kezar, A. 2003. Achieving student success: Strategies for creating partnerships between academic and student affairs. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice 41: 1–22. Kruger, K. 2015–2016. Force of change. Journal of Student Affairs 25: 1–124. Kruger, K. 2017. Student success: Mission-critical. Educause Review 52 (3). Kuh, G. 2009. What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement. Journal of College Student Development 50 (6): 683–706.

23

Student Affairs: One Hundred Years in the Making

461

Long, D. 2012. The foundations of student affairs: A guide to the profession. In Environments for student growth and development: Librarians and student affairs in collaboration, ed. L.J. Hinchliffe and M.A. Wong, 1–39. Chicago: Association of College & Research Libraries. Mental Health First Aid. 2020. https://www.mentalhealthfirstaid.org National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. 1987. Points of view: A perspective on student affairs. Washington, DC: NASPA. National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA), and American College Personnel Association (ACPA). 2004. Learning reconsidered: A campus-wide focus on the student experience. Washington, DC: NASPA. National Center for Education Statistics. 2020. Indicator 27: Educational attainment. US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/ raceindicators/indicator_RFA.asp. Retrieved 15 Sept 2020. National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement. 2012. A crucible moment: College learning and democracy’s future. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Reetz, D.R., B. Krylowicz, and B. Mistler. 2014. The Association for University and College Counseling Center Directors Annual Survey. Indianapolis: Association for University and College Counseling Center Directors (AUCCCD). Roark, M.L. 1989. Challenging and Supporting college students. NASPA Journal 26 (4): 314–319. Roberts, D.C. 2012. The student personnel point of view as a catalyst for dialogue: 75 years and beyond. Journal of College Student Development 53 (1): 2–18. Sandeen, A. 2004. Educating the whole student: the growing academic importance of student affairs. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 36 (3): 28–33. Sanford, N. 1968. Where colleges fail: A study of student as person. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schwartz, R.A. 1997. How deans of women became men. The Review of Higher Education 20 (4): 419–436. Schwartz, R.A. 2003. The Rise and demise of deans of men. The Review of Higher Education 26 (2): 217–239. Sponsler, L.E., and M. Hartley. 2013. Five things student affairs professionals can do to institutionalize civic engagement. Washington, DC: NASPA. Wesaw, A.J., and B.A. Sponsler. 2014. The chief student affairs officer: Responsibilities, opinions, and professional pathways of leaders in student affairs. Washington DC: NASPA.

Part III Applied Practice for Student Support Services

While Part 1 has provided a conceptual grounding for student support services, Part 2 has a strong focus on applied practice in the form of case studies of both successful models for student support services and specific initiatives in a wide range of contexts. Together these chapters provide both depth and breadth to discussions of the role of student support services, and they show many concrete examples of good and high impact practices. In this way, the chapters in Part 2 reinforce the discussions in Part 1. The topics in the chapters in Part 2 range from supporting Indigenous students in an Australian higher education context to support services for Pacifika students in New Zealand; from mental health initiatives to developing career identity; from students as partners initiatives to English language support; from developing learning communities in residential facilities to learning support in a conservatoire context; from a social media-based student support community to servicing underrepresented technology students; from STEM-based support to socio-cultural settlement support for international students; from a postgraduate skills development program to an online writing support service; and from student experiences with auxiliary services to building learning ventures for students’ future readiness. The case studies in Part 2 are based in Australia, Aotearoa New Zealand, the UK, the USA, Singapore, China, Denmark, and Belgium.

Supporting Indigenous Higher Degree by Research Students in Higher Education

24

Peter Anderson, Thu Pham, Levon Blue, and Ashley Fox

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Participation, Retention, and Completion Rates of Indigenous HDR Students in Australian Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Support Services for Indigenous Postgraduate Students in Australian Academies . . . . . . . . . . . . Indigenous HDR Supervision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indigenous HDR Students Support Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Support Services Offered to Indigenous Postgraduate Students: A Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What We Want: Support from Supervisors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What We Want: Counselling and Mentoring Support Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What We Want: Support from the Community, Indigenous Centers, and Financial Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions and Research Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

466 467 467 467 468 469 469 471 473 474 475 476 476

Abstract

This book chapter provides an overview of the support for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher degree by research (HDR) students at one Australian university as a case study. The hiring of an Indigenous postgraduate program officer (IPPO) was informed by capability building workshops offered to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander HDR students through the National Indigenous Research and Knowledges Network (NIRAKN). Presented in this book chapter is the support requested by the HDR students and an overview of the IPPO’s role in supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander HDR students.

P. Anderson (*) · T. Pham · L. Blue · A. Fox Carumba Institute, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 H. Huijser et al. (eds.), Student Support Services, University Development and Administration, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5852-5_39

465

466

P. Anderson et al.

Keywords

Indigenous · Higher degree by research · Students · Support · Service · Success · Supervision Abbreviations

HDR IPPO NIRAKN QUT

Higher Degrees by Research Indigenous Postgraduate Program Officer National Indigenous Research and Knowledges Network Queensland University of Technology

Introduction Over the past decade, Australian universities have recorded a steady increase in the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (hereafter referred to as Indigenous) students participating in postgraduate study (Barney 2013; Behrendt et al. 2012). The number of Indigenous higher degree by research (HDR) students are still low compared to the total number of HDR students in Australia. Even though the number of Indigenous HDR students’ enrolments and participation in higher education have increased, the completion rates have never reached beyond 1.0% since 2006 (Moreton-Robinson et al. 2020; Department of Education and Training 2016). Support services for Indigenous HDR students, therefore, have become more critical than ever to enable students to succeed in their research journey. There is a growing body of literature that recognizes the challenges and type of barriers Indigenous HDR students have encountered in their research journey (Moodie et al. 2018), including isolation, lack of social and academic support structures at university, and experiences of racism, culturally inappropriate support or supervisors (Barney 2013; Oliver et al. 2013; Moodie et al. 2018; BodkinAndrews and Craven 2013), lack of continued funding, and inadequate levels of cultural competency from professional staff to support Indigenous students (Wilks and Wilson 2014). However, a systematic understanding of what support services Indigenous HDR students require or need to be supported during their HDR journey to completion is still lacking. This chapter provides an overview of internal support services for Indigenous HDR students in Australia from the perspectives of support service providers and Indigenous HDR cohorts, made possible through the Australian Research Council (ARC) funded Special Research Initiative, the National Indigenous Research and Knowledges Networks (NIRAKN). The chapter also discusses the support Indigenous HDR students require during their research study journey. We then discuss the matching of support service provisions and the needs of Indigenous HDR students. The chapter concludes by outlining the alignment between the support services and the Indigenous students’ support needs and identifies opportunities for future research as well as recommendations for internal support services providers, i.e., Australian universities specifically.

24

Supporting Indigenous Higher Degree by Research Students in Higher. . .

467

The Participation, Retention, and Completion Rates of Indigenous HDR Students in Australian Higher Education Much of the literature on Indigenous higher education has highlighted the increasing participation of Indigenous students in Australian universities, which is clearly illustrated in the increased number of Indigenous HDR students (e.g., Moodie et al. 2018; Moreton-Robinson et al. 2020; Hutchings et al. 2019; Behrendt et al. 2012; McGagh et al. 2016; Gore et al. 2017). However, recent literature has also shown that the completion rates of Indigenous HDR students remain much lower than non-Indigenous HDR students (Behrendt et al. 2012; Moreton-Robinson et al. 2020; Buckskin et al. 2018). In a recent report on Indigenous success in higher degrees by research, which was prepared for the Australian Government Department of Education and Training, Moreton-Robinson et al. (2020) have highlighted the participation rates of Indigenous students in higher education, and have revealed the under-represented completion rates of Indigenous HDR students. Supervisors’ support was mentioned to be one of the support services Indigenous HDR students require to lead their research journey to completion; yet, internal support services have not been discussed much in the literature. In recent years, there has been an increasing amount of literature on the retention and satisfaction of Indigenous HDR students (e.g., Hutchings et al. 2019; Pearson 2012; McGagh et al. 2016; Shah and Widin 2010). Many factors may impact the retention rates of Indigenous HDR students, from the recruitment process to the completion of their research studies. While university teaching and learning experience matters, retention issues such as scholarship funding (Behrendt et al. 2012), opportunities of academic career development (Moreton-Robinson et al. 2020), and success in completing their research degree studies (Trudgett 2013) strongly influences Indigenous HDR students’ retention rates. The support for Indigenous postgraduate students during years in research degree programs vastly contributes to the retention of Indigenous students and enables them to succeed in completing their higher degrees by research (Trudgett et al. 2008, 2016; Trudgett 2013, 2014).

Support Services for Indigenous Postgraduate Students in Australian Academies Indigenous HDR Supervision While examining the retention and completion of Indigenous HDR students, Dunbar, Arnott, Scrimgeour, Henry, and Murakami (2004) identified that non-Indigenous supervisors might not feel confident in supporting the needs of Indigenous students. The authors made this claim because they found that the support needs of Indigenous HDR students included Indigenous matters, and support and training techniques may disturb and influence the confidence of non-Indigenous supervisors even though they are experienced research supervisors. Additionally, Laycock et al. (2009) indicated the dilemma of incorporating Indigenous worldviews into Western research methodologies and recommended a reciprocal relationship between supervisors and novice

468

P. Anderson et al.

researchers, drawing on the specialized and complementary expertise of each person, to be successful in supporting research activities. However, whether supervisors’ availability and supervisors’ workload in academia had an impact on their support for Indigenous HDR students was not addressed in the abovementioned studies. Harrison et al. (2017) discerned that supervisors’ knowledge and skills have an impact on student research development. They emphasized the role of supervisors and recommended that supervisors have an open mind and respect Indigenous knowledges and ways of doing, and respect Indigenous students as knowledgeholders. The authors also focused on whether supervisors’ academic skills and capabilities to supervise Indigenous research students were culturally appropriate and safe. However, how culturally appropriate supervision contributes to the success of Indigenous research students in higher education and what culturally appropriate supervision actually means remains vague (Moreton-Robinson et al. 2020)

Indigenous HDR Students Support Services How to best support Indigenous HDR students has attracted the interest of a number of authors (Barney 2013; Behrendt et al. 2012; Schofield et al. 2013; Trudgett 2011, 2013, 2014; Trudgett et al. 2016). In a critical review of this research field, Moodie et al. (2018) synthesizes a range of support strategies for Indigenous HDR students in Australian universities, including Indigenous support program funding such as scholarships (Behrendt et al. 2012), bridging, orientation, and transition programs (Nakata et al. 2008; Howlett et al. 2008), evaluation of Indigenous support units (Sonn et al. 2000), an increase in the presence of Indigenous academic staff across disciplines and in university and faculty-level leadership positions (Foley 2010), cultural competence training for university staff (Universities Australia 2011), the quality of research supervision Indigenous HDR students (Trudgett et al. 2016), and a support services focus on success of Indigenous students (Pechenkina 2014; Pechenkina and Anderson 2011). Financial support has been identified as crucially important matter and may impact on the participation and completion of Indigenous HDR students (Behrendt et al. 2012; Pechenkina 2014). In their review of higher education access and outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, Behrendt et al. (2012) have highlighted various funding mechanisms to provide support for Indigenous students. However, a lack of knowledge about who to approach and what Indigenous support programs exist, including available scholarships, prevents Indigenous HDR students from gaining access to these programs and university services (Behrendt et al. 2012). As such, consultation services to assist Indigenous HDR students access their support funding are highly recommended by Behrendt et al. (2012). Financial support provides opportunities for Indigenous students to participate in Australian higher education, and increases retention rates and success in higher education. However, attention on the institutional support for Indigenous students to enable their academic success in Australia universities is also required (Pechenkina and Anderson 2011; Pechenkina 2014, 2015). Trudgett et al. (2016) are very concerned about the quality of research supervision to support Indigenous doctoral students in

24

Supporting Indigenous Higher Degree by Research Students in Higher. . .

469

completing their degrees successfully. By bringing attention to the relationship between supervisors and Indigenous doctoral students, Trudgett et al. (2016, 76) have stated that “there is a greater chance of success when the supervisor is older than Indigenous doctoral students, or that the students are likely to choose supervisors who are older than them.” In the same vein, Trudgett (2010) determined that cultural differences or supervisors lacking cultural awareness impacts the relationship between supervisors and Indigenous doctoral students. Yet, much uncertainty still exists about the academic relationship, focusing on the research purpose and/or academic success between Indigenous and/or non-Indigenous supervisors and Indigenous HDR students; and how this relationship may support or impact Indigenous HDR students in successfully completing their research degrees (Moreton-Robinson et al. 2020). The support Indigenous HDR students require from their supervisors has not been fully documented in this research field.

Methodology This research study focused on the data of internal support services for Indigenous HDR students in Australian universities. Group discussions with 34 Indigenous HDR students and an individual interview with the Indigenous Postgraduate Program Officer (IPPO) were two types of data gathered for this research. The Indigenous HDR participants in this research study were recruited from different disciplinary backgrounds and from different universities across Australia. The capacity building workshops facilitated by the National Indigenous Research and Knowledge Network (NIRAKN) provided an opportunity for participants to participate in this study. The IPPO is an employee at the Carumba Institute, Queensland University of Technology (QUT). The Carumba Institute is a central component of QUT’s commitment to Indigenous Australians and provides an Indigenous research and education environment. The Institute attends to the needs of Indigenous Australian students and contributes to overcoming Indigenous disadvantage. It was important to get the perspectives of both the support service provider – the IPPO and the support service receivers – the Indigenous HDR students. The data from group discussions were analyzed to understand the support Indigenous HDR students require. The data obtained from the individual interview with the IPPO were analyzed to provide an understanding about the support services offered to Indigenous HDR students.

Support Services Offered to Indigenous Postgraduate Students: A Case Study At QUT, where all of the authors are employed, supporting Indigenous HDR students is one of the focuses of the Carumba Institute. The Carumba Institute employs an Indigenous postgraduate program officer (IPPO) whose main role is to offer support. Shared below is an excerpt from an interview with the IPPO.

470

P. Anderson et al.

Q: Could you please briefly describe your roles and responsibilities as an Indigenous postgraduate program officer? A: The Indigenous Postgraduate Programs Officer (IPPO) oversees the recruitment, retention, and completion of Indigenous Higher Degree Research students. The position provides university-wide support to Indigenous Higher Degree by research (HDR) students in collaboration with faculties, divisions and institutes. The IPPO supports the development and implementation of initiatives that build pathways for Indigenous people into HDR studies, by attending the university’s Open Day and holding “What is Research?” information sessions at the Indigenous undergraduate support unit. The IPPO maintains data regarding progression and the provision of student support services within the university and provides guidance to, and works collaboratively with, faculty HDR Liaison Officers in Faculties to deliver administrative, study, and cultural support to Indigenous HDR students. In addition, the IPPO liaises with and provides support and advice to faculties, divisions, and institutes to develop and implement improved procedures and processes to support Indigenous HDR students. Within the Carumba Institute, the IPPO provides postgraduate administrative support and advice based on an understanding of university HDR policies and procedures and assists with the coordination of Indigenous research collaborations and the implementation of research capacity building programs. Q: What support services have you offered/provided for Indigenous postgraduate students at QUT? A: The Institute hosts a range of activities available exclusively to Indigenous HDR students where they can undertake skill development alongside, and network with, their Indigenous peers in a culturally safe space. An off-site writing retreat held over a week which is organised twice a year allows students to focus on writing their thesis without distractions and attend workshops developed specifically to support the writing process. Monthly data analysis training workshops and one-to-one consultations are also provided at the Institute for the Indigenous HDR cohorts. We invite external facilitators to provide practical workshops on Qualitative Data Analysis in NVivo, for example, to demonstrate how NVivo can assist in developing their literature review. The Institute also holds critical reading groups to provide Indigenous HDR students with an understanding of how to engage critically with academic literature. Outside of the student’s faculty allocation funding, the Institute provides additional funding tailored to support the individual needs of students. Institute funding may be used to support conference attendance, purchase computer hardware and software, research materials, textbooks/books related to their research, and provide additional top-up scholarships to assist with their day to day living costs, and any emergency financial support needed. Q: What are the most common issues postgraduate students usually come to you to seek for support? A: The most common issues raised by Indigenous HDR students relate to their relationship with supervisors. This is a complex issue, which can be difficult for an

24

Supporting Indigenous Higher Degree by Research Students in Higher. . .

471

IPPO to navigate, given that the root cause of these problems often relate to the absence of a clear understanding of supervisory expectations between students and supervisors. Students often feel they have insufficient access to their supervisors and/ or they receive insufficient feedback on progress. While this problem is not necessarily unique to Indigenous HDR students, the power dynamics inherent in the supervisory relationship and the need for supervisors to value Indigenous culture and ways of doing provides additional complexity in terms of how to approach resolutions. The University offers a raft of professional development for HDR supervisors as well as mandatory training to achieve supervisor accreditation. Similarly, a comprehensive suite of training is available to HDR students to support individual skill development. These programs articulate the responsibilities and obligations of all stakeholders in the HDR process but do not specifically address the needs of Indigenous HDR students. The Institute is considering a range of strategies to further support the development of productive relationships between Indigenous HDR students and supervisors. One strategy is to develop a database of supervisors who are willing and equipped to supervise Indigenous students. A second approach is to provide a tailored orientation program for all new HDR students, coordinated by the IPPO, which identifies the specific support needs of each student and assists with setting and managing expectations with supervisors from the outset. HDR students either have no knowledge that they can change supervisors during their candidature or are concerned about the repercussions of changing supervisors. An example is when a HDR student approached me about issues with their primary supervisor not providing feedback or giving the student time to discuss their progression. The student knew they could change supervisors, however, was too afraid as this supervisor was influential in this student’s research area. The IPPO acts as an intermediary and a trusted advisor to Indigenous HDR students throughout the course of their candidature. Having established relationships with Indigenous HDR students as well as key stakeholders across the university, the IPPO is uniquely positioned to assist when issues arise during candidature to ensure Indigenous students have access to the best possible advice and support the university can offer in a culturally safe environment. In addition to what the IPPO offer to Indigenous HDR students, we also asked Indigenous HDR students across Australia what they need to succeed.

What We Want: Support from Supervisors Building a good rapport with supervisors is extremely critical for the success of Indigenous HDR students (Trudgett 2014). However, Indigenous HDR students require more than just a good relationship with their supervisors to guide them to completion, and to provide opportunities for their academic career development. HDR students need a lot of support from their supervisors. Beside the academic

472

P. Anderson et al.

support, Indigenous HDR students also expect supervisors’ support for their mental health and well-being during their candidature. Of over half of the Indigenous HDR students who participated in this research study indicated that supervisors’ support was the key factor contributing to the quality of supervision. A recurrent theme in the group discussions was a sense among participants that Indigenous HDR students expect their supervisors to support and act as their mentors as well as a cultural supervisors. In the discussion about the quality supervision and the support from supervisors, a female participant shared that: Like I came and I knew my supervisor, and like a really strong mentor through my undergrad. And for me, I’m in social work, and my connection with my supervisor is connection, it’s friendship, it’s everything. And well we just talk about everything. So it’s what I’m doing but also who I am as a person. I came to my PhD because I knew I was going to get that.

A male participant who works in the academy said: Essentially, you have to do it. And our supervision is actually our service to – it’s what we give back, and I think you were talking about just before around mentoring – approach people outside your discipline, like that is what we do, to mentor. Having mentors all over the place is really good in academia.

Agreeing with other participants about the supervisors’ support, a female participant who works full-time while studying a higher degree by research added: I have found that having supervisors that advocate or help me in supporting me to advocate for work allocations while researching at the same time has been really helpful. Because it’s a process that you’re [HDR students] often very new to or we’re [HDR students] not really aware of, so having someone to sit down and go, this is this, and that, and then actually to be able to move forward. Yeah, so I just have found that can be a great difficulty if the support isn’t there, but they can be people who support you in speaking up for yourself.

Besides acting as a mentor, supervisors of Indigenous HDR students are also expected to be their cultural advisors. It does not matter for Indigenous HDR students if their principal supervisors are Indigenous or non-Indigenous people, yet it is crucial to have an Indigenous associate supervisor to provide advice and support when needed. In group discussions, the participants brought up an issue of Indigenous and non-Indigenous supervisors, which was not listed in the discussed questions, and they shared their experience; for example, a female participant thought: So, that’s how I’ve handled it and they’re [supervisors] both white people so my cultural advisor is the person I go to where I say, “Who do you know in these spaces who’s good for this?” or, “Who should I talk to?” and, “Can you help me get to know this person so that I can then – maybe they’ll share some of their writing with me that isn’t published yet,” or something.

On the one hand, the support of supervisors and the strong relationship with supervisors are imperative for the success of Indigenous HDR students’ research

24

Supporting Indigenous Higher Degree by Research Students in Higher. . .

473

journey (Trudgett 2014; Moreton-Robinson et al. 2020). On the other hand, Indigenous HDR students also need support from Indigenous centers and convenors in case the relationship with their supervisors turns out to be unproductive. For instance, a female participant in the group discussion shared an experience where she contacted her supervisor multiple times but she never heard back from them, while another female participant asked: Do you have an HDR convenor or somewhere not like a graduate school thing, someone who’s actually for students?

Another participant added that: In two and a half years, I never got any written feedback on anything I wrote. I didn’t make it through my confirmation there. I got a six-month extension on it which I hung it right out to the last day and then I terminated my enrolment with those.

Talking about the concern about their supervisors, a female participant mentioned inappropriate behavior of her supervisor, while another female participant who works in an Indigenous center said: But you have every right to say – you know what you can do to counter it is to say, well, can you come and meet with me in the professor’s office? Right? If he’s got to do that and you feel uncomfortable, and you want to be your time only, I’m sure we can have an Aboriginal person in the room with you.

What We Want: Counselling and Mentoring Support Services Counselling and mentoring services for Indigenous HDR students in Australian universities are needed and available (Pearson 2012; Behrendt et al. 2012; Chapman and Whiteford 2016). Supporting the stance that counselling and mentoring services benefit Indigenous HDR students in physical, emotional and mental health, our research found that Indigenous HDRs students seek counselling services when they have not found that support from their supervisors. As one of the participants said that: The purpose of coming down here is to meet with you [HDR cohorts] and talk about what’s going on and understand areas of how to do things. And knowing that if something’s happening and you’re unwell physically, mentally, holistically, whatever – knowing avenues of how to go about sort of correcting that imbalance is huge. And figuring out counselling services or people to talk to at the university, even to have the confidence to just come down and talk to people about what’s going on, and their experiences. Because supervisors aren’t going to do that.

However, how to get Indigenous HDR students access to these counselling services in Australian universities has been an issue. Who should Indigenous HDR students talk to? Where should they go if they need counselling services? Or What

474

P. Anderson et al.

should they do if they have a problem or conflict in the relationship with their supervisors? For example, a male participant in the group discussions said: I haven’t sort of had my relationship where I’ve spoken to them [supervisors] about wellbeing, because their time is so short that I’ve had with them so far, so we don’t speak – well I do speak to one of them.... I don’t know, splitting it and knowing avenues of how to go about it is the hardest thing. Like there’s no clear – if I’m feeling this, who do I speak to at the university? Or going to like an Aboriginal Medical Service and getting counselling, ten sessions or something like that, is pretty significant. Or just taking some time off.

The experience with counselling services, unfortunately, is not always a good experience. Some counselling services for Indigenous HDR students have failed to meet the students’ expectations. A female participant reflected: “How can we support you?” Because, I don’t know about you guys, but our counselling service at the uni’s pretty shocking. And some of us are kind of in that weird age group as well where I was just eligible for Headspace services, but now I’m too old. So then you fall into this interspace and it’s like oh how do I navigate this huge part of my wellbeing that’s impacting my work? And hopefully they can have some kind of guidance on that as well. Because if I’m not well, my work’s not happening.

What We Want: Support from the Community, Indigenous Centers, and Financial Support Indigenous communities play a crucial role in the success of Indigenous HDR students (Trudgett 2014; Behrendt et al. 2012). This research finding is consistent with Behrendt et al.’s (2012) and Trudgett’s (2014) findings that Indigenous HDR students need support from their community when they encounter an issue or even if they just need someone to check “they are ok.” As one participant put in: Indigenous students have some of the worst mental health rates. High drug rates, high suicide. And I guess there’s something around how cool this is about having a community to say, “Are you okay?”

As Behrendt et al. (2012, 81) reported in the review of higher education access and outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, “students often face challenges in gaining sufficient access to university services,” including financial support program funding for Indigenous students such as scholarships. One participant in group discussion said that: We also come from a university that don’t have any scholarships or any supports that are Indigenous specific and there are obviously very – there’s a lot of money in other universities if I would go to them but I have a very good relationship with my supervisors so I’m not willing to walk away.

24

Supporting Indigenous Higher Degree by Research Students in Higher. . .

475

Together these findings provide important insights into the support services Indigenous HDR students require for their success in Australia. Supervisors play a key role in supporting Indigenous HDR students to completion in their research journey. Building a good rapport with supervisors is always recommended for research students; however, Indigenous HDR students also seek support from counselling and mentoring services and Indigenous centers in the event that this relationship turns out to be unproductive. The findings in this chapter have contributed to the current literature by confirming that Indigenous community provides not only cultural supports for Indigenous HDR students, but also supports them in physical, emotional, and mental well-being. Last, financial support such as scholarships are identified as factors that impact the success of Indigenous HDR students, specifically the completion of their research journey.

Conclusions and Research Implications In this study, the IPPO from the Carumba Institute was interviewed individually and 34 Indigenous HDR students from different industries across Australia were engaged in group discussions to provide both their perspectives of support service providers (IPPO) and support service receivers (Indigenous HDR students). The findings have significant implications for understanding how stakeholders, including institutions, supervisors, and support service officers can better support Indigenous HDR students; and what Indigenous HDR students need to do to access to the support services when needed. The findings of this study suggest that Australian institutions should consider appointing more support officers such as an IPPO to act as an intermediary and advocate to provide university-wide support to Indigenous HDR students in collaboration with faculties, divisions and institutes. Even though counselling and mentoring services for HDR students are available in most Australian universities, the IPPO’s role is unique as they support Indigenous HDR students holistically. This support begins at recruitment and continues to completion. The IPPO follows culturally safety practices during academic consultations, and refers Indigenous HDR students to the resources and/or contacts needed. Indigenous HDR students are more relaxed and confident knowing that the IPPO is looking after their concerns. The most significant aspect about having an IPPO on campus is that Indigenous HDR students always know who to talk to when assistance is needed that does not concern their supervisor. Taken together, these findings strengthen the idea that building good rapport with supervisors is critical for Indigenous HDR students and all students. Indigenous HDR student can be embarrassed and confused when the relationship with their supervisors are unproductive and/or if conflicts arise. It is very important for Indigenous HDR students to familiarize themselves with the support services of the institutions and reach out to Indigenous centers, Indigenous communities, and/or the IPPO, if available. An implication from this study is the possibility that supervisors should inform students of their academic expectations and the boundaries

476

P. Anderson et al.

around supervisors’ support from the beginning of their research journey. More recommendations for supervisors of Indigenous HDR students have been proposed by Moreton-Robinson et al. (2020). In conclusion, this research study was conducted to identify specific needs of support of Indigenous HDR students and provide an overview of support strategies and services which are available in Australian universities. Generally, the perspectives of both support service providers and receivers have been discussed and this has provided insights for stakeholders in supporting Indigenous HDR students to success in the academy.

Cross-References ▶ A Case-Study of Partnership in Practice: Engaging Students to Shape Support for Learning in Higher Education ▶ [Expert] Guide on the Side: One University’s Response to Support for Learning in STEM-Based Disciplines ▶ How to Increase Retention and Graduation Rates

References Barney, Katelyn. 2013. ‘Taking your mob with you’: Giving voice to the experiences of Indigenous Australian postgraduate students. Higher Education Research & Development 32 (4): 515–528. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.696186. Behrendt, Larissa, Steven Larkin, Robert Griew, and Patricia Kelly. 2012. Review of higher education access and outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Edited by Skills and Employment Department of Education. Canberra, Australia: Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education. Bodkin-Andrews, Gawaian, and Rhonda G. Craven. 2013. Negotiating racism: The voices of Aboriginal Australian post-graduate students. Diversity in Higher Education 14: 157–185. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-3644(2013)0000014007. Buckskin, Peter, Mark Tranthim-Fryer, Leanne Holt, Jennifer Gili, John Heath, Dorothy Smith, Steve Larkin, Sarah Ireland, Lesley MacGibbon, Kim Robertson, Tammy Small, Kathleen Butler, Tareka Chatfield, Peter J. Anderson, and Zane Ma Rhea. 2018. NATSIHEC accelerating Indigenous higher education consultation paper. National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Higher Education Consortium (NATSIHEC) Aboriginal Corporation. Chapman, Elaine, and Gail Whiteford. 2016. Supporting Indigenous students through the university journey: The elder in residence program. In Bridges, Pathways and Transitions: International Innovations in Widening Participation, ed. Shah Mahsood and Whiteford Gail, 55–68. Chandos Publishing. Department of Education and Training. 2016. Selected higher education statistics – 2016 student data: 2016 Indigenous students. Australia: Department of Education and Training. Dunbar, Terry, Allan Arnott, Margaret Scrimgeour, John Henry, and Lorna Murakami-Gold. 2004. Working towards change in Indigenous health research. Darwin: Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal and Tropical Health (CRCAH). Foley, Dennis. 2010. Can we educate and train Aboriginal leaders within our tertiary education systems? Australian Journal of Indigenous Education 39 (2010): 138–150.

24

Supporting Indigenous Higher Degree by Research Students in Higher. . .

477

Gore, Jennifer, Sally Patfield, Leanne Fray, Kathryn Holmes, Maree Gruppetta, Adam Lloyd, Maxwell Smith, and Treesa Heath. 2017. The participation of Australian Indigenous students in higher education: A scoping review of empirical research, 2000–2016. The Australian Educational Researcher 44 (3): 323–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-017-0236-9. Harrison, Neil, Michelle Trudgett, and Susan Page. 2017. The dissertation examination: Identifying critical factors in the success of Indigenous Australian doctoral students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 42 (1): 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1085488. Howlett, Catherine, Monica Seini, Chris Matthews, Browyn Dillon, and Vivian Hauser. 2008. Retaining Indigenous students in tertiary education: Lessons from the Griffith School of Environment. Australian Journal of Indigenous Education 37 (1): 18–27. https://doi.org/10. 1017/S1326011100016057. Hutchings, Kate, Roxanne Bainbridge, Kerry Bodle, and Adrian Miller. 2019. Determinants of attraction, retention and completion for Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander higher degree research students: A systematic review to inform future research directions. Research in Higher Education 60 (2): 245–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-018-9511-5. Laycock, Alison, Diane Walker, Nea Harrison, and Jenny Brands, eds. 2009. Supporting Indigenous researchers: A practical guide for supervisors. Darwin: The Lowitja Institute. McGagh, John, Marsh Helene, M. Western, Peter Thomas, Andrew Hastings, Milla Mihailova, and Matt Wenham. 2016. Review of Australia’s research training system. Melbourne: Australian Council of Learned Academies. Moodie, Nikki, Shaun Ewen, Julie McLeod, and Chris Platania-Phung. 2018. Indigenous graduate research students in Australia: A critical review of the research. Higher Education Research & Development 37 (4): 805–820. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1440536. Moreton-Robinson, Aileen, Peter Anderson, Levon Blue, Lan Nguyen, and Thu Pham. 2020. Report on Indigenous success in higher degree by research: Prepared for Australian Government Department of Education and Training. Australia: Indigenous Research and Engagement Unit, Queensland University of Technology. Nakata, Martin, Vicky Nakata, and Michael Chin. 2008. Approaches to the academic preparation and support of Australian Indigenous students for tertiary studies. Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, The 37 (Supplementary): 137–145. Oliver, Rhonda, Judith Rochecouste, Debra Bennell, Roz Anderson, Inala Cooper, Simon Forrest, and Mike Exell. 2013. Understanding Australian Aboriginal tertiary student needs. International Journal of Higher Education 2 (4): 52–64. Pearson, Mark. 2012. Building bridges: Higher degree student retention and counselling support. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 34 (2): 187–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1360080X.2012.662743. Pechenkina, Ekaterina. 2014. Being successful. Becoming successful. An ethnography of Indigenous students at an Australian University. Swinburne University. Pechenkina, Ekaterina. 2015. Who needs support? Perceptions of institutional support by Indigenous Australian students at an Australian university. UNESCO Observatory Multi-Disciplinary Journal in the Arts 4. Pechenkina, Ekaterina, and Ian Anderson. 2011. Background Paper on Indigenous Australian higher education: Trends. initiatives and policy implications. Prepared for the review of higher education access and outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People. Vol. Commissioned research paper #1. Canberra: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. Schofield, Toni, Rebecca O’Brien, and John Gilroy. 2013. Indigenous higher education: Overcoming barriers to participation in research higher degree programs. Australian Aboriginal Studies 2: 13–28. Shah, Mahsood, and Jacquie Widin. 2010. Indigenous Students’ voices: Monitoring Indigenous student satisfaction and retention in a large Australian University. Journal of Institutional Research 15 (1): 28–41. Sonn, Christopher, Brian Bishop, and Ross Humphries. 2000. Encounters with the dominant culture: Voices of Indigenous students in mainstream higher education. Australian Psychologist 35 (2): 128–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/00050060008260334.

478

P. Anderson et al.

Trudgett, Michelle. 2010. Supporting the learning needs of Indigenous Australians in higher education: How can they be best achieved? International Journal of Learning 17 (3): 351–361. Trudgett, Michelle. 2011. Western places, academic spaces and Indigenous faces: Supervising Indigenous Australian postgraduate students. Teaching in Higher Education 16 (4): 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2011.560376. Trudgett, Michelle. 2013. Stop, collaborate and listen: A guide to seeding success for Indigenous Higher Degree Research students. Vol. 14. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Trudgett, Michelle. 2014. Supervision provided to Indigenous Australian doctoral students: A black and white issue. Higher Education Research & Development 33 (5): 1035–1048. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/07294360.2014.890576. Trudgett, Michelle, Jan Frances Connelly, and Anne-Katrin Eckermann. 2008. An Investigation into the Support Provided to Indigenous Postgraduate Students in Australia. Rune. Trudgett, Michelle, Susan Page, and Neil Harrison. 2016. Brilliant minds: A snapshot of successful Indigenous Australian doctoral students. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education 45 (1): 70–79. https://doi.org/10.1017/jie.2016.8. Universities Australia. 2011. National best practice framework for Indigenous cultural competency in Australian universities. Canberra: Universities Australia. Wilks, J., and K. Wilson. 2014. Can’t be what you can’t see: The transition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students into higher education: Final report 2014. Sydney: UNDA; SCU: BIITE.

Pacific Student Engagement, Experience, and Learning in Tertiary Education: Factors That Impact Success

25

Daisy Bentley-Gray

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Talanoa: Pacific Research Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pacific Peoples in New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unitec Institute of Technology’s (UNITEC) Pacific Success Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Range of Pacific-Specific Initiatives and Pacific Model, Na Kuita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Part 1: Three Selected Initiatives: Pacific Orientation (PO), Pacific Assignment Retreat (PAR), and Pacific Group/Individual Sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pacific Orientation (PO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pacific Assignment Retreats (PAR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pacific Group and/or Individual Sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Part 2: External Factors and Their Impact on Student Engagement, Experience, and Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Part 3: Pacific Academic Development Lecturers (ADLs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion and Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

480 481 481 482 483 484 484 486 488 490 491 492 493 493 494

Abstract

This chapter explores the impact of three initiatives targeted at supporting Pacific students at a New Zealand (NZ) Institute of Technology and Polytechnic (ITP), Unitec Institute of Technology. Pacific success has always been and will continue to be a significant aspect of this ITP’s overall success. The implementation of new teaching pedagogies to match its move towards ingenuity and future-thinking education platforms between 2015 and 2017 (Unitec, 2015 and

D. Bentley-Gray Pacific Centre, Unitec New Zealand Limited, Auckland, New Zealand e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 H. Huijser et al. (eds.), Student Support Services, University Development and Administration, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5852-5_15

479

480

D. Bentley-Gray

2017) have affected many people, Pacific peoples included. Therefore, the continuous focus and outreach efforts of the Pacific Center (PC) and Student Support Services are aimed at reaching as many Pacific students at the institute as possible. This chapter analyzes data gathered through a mixed-method approach using a Pacific research tool, Talanoa, to acquire relevant information from Pacific informants in a culturally safe and relevant way. Talanoa with three Pacific graduates of the polytechnic allowed each graduate to discuss their own narratives of being a Pacific student at this institute. In addition, an online survey with 14 participants comprising current and former Pacific students of the ITP gauged the impact of three specific initiatives – Pacific Orientation, Pacific Assignment Retreat, and Pacific-specific groups. Finally, analyses of documents and online platforms relating to Pacific students and some student services at the ITP, and Pacific learners within the New Zealand context, provide an overview of some of the areas that are significant for Pacific learners. Keywords

Pacific success · Pacific students · Talanoa – Pacific research tool · Targeted support initiatives

Introduction There are many ways of defining Pacific success; however, each definition alludes to core components of what constitutes success. This chapter broadly considers Pacific success as the achievement of set goals through individual and collaborative efforts, where Pacific students acquire the necessary skills and knowledge to overcome barriers they face. Success also means being empowered through acquired knowledge and skills, which enables Pacific peoples to make choices that ultimately improve conditions for them as individuals, their families, and communities (ACE Aotearoa 2014). Success in tertiary education brings rewards such as employment and cultural and socioeconomic enhancement among so many more (Mantz and Longden 2004). Hence, the decisions were made to develop and implement appropriate supporting mechanisms to reach the goals and aspirations of Pacific peoples. This chapter consists of three parts. Part 1 discusses the impact of a range of Pacificspecific initiatives implemented at one of NZ’s ITPs on engagement, experience, and learning. For the purpose of this chapter, the focus is on three selected initiatives implemented at both the organizational and program levels: Pacific Orientation, Pacific Assignment Retreats, and Pacific-specific group/Individual Sessions. Part 2 describes how external factors impact on student engagement, experience, and learning, as well as the mechanisms that alleviate some of the key issues involved. Part 3 discusses the role of Pacific ADLs, the Pacific Center, and other Student Support Services in providing support to ensure positive student engagement, experiences, and learning

25

Pacific Student Engagement, Experience, and Learning in Tertiary. . .

481

Talanoa: Pacific Research Tool Talanoa is a Pacific concept, which refers “to a conversation, a talk, an exchange of ideas or thinking” (Vaioleti 2006, 23), whether in real world or abstract terms. As a research tool, Talanoa is holistic in its use and application, as it takes into consideration the emotions, knowledge, interest, and experiences of both the researcher and participant/s. Chu et al. (2013) explain that Talanoa is utilized in Samoan, Tongan, and Fijian cultures with a focus on developing relationships between people. Therefore, discussions do not necessarily follow a rigid and formal structured format, but they become more meaningful to the participants over time. Farrelly and NaboboBaba (2012, 1) define it as “talking about nothing in particular, chat, or gossip and it is within the cultural milieu of Talanoa that knowledge and emotions are shared.” Vaioleti (2006) describes Talanoa as a qualitative research method belonging to phenomenological research approaches, which aim to understand the meanings that events have for participants. Hence, Talanoa is best done using the knowledge and respect the researcher has of the culture, knowledge, and experiences the participants come with. The researcher becomes subjective in that they immerse themselves in the culture of the participants instead of standing back to analyze (Vaioleti 2006). Talanoa is done authentically in a safe space, which empowers participants to have ownership of and the right to legitimize or challenge their stories being told (Otsuka 2006). This research utilized Talanoa to gather information from three respondents; all three are Pacific graduates, and at one point, all three were Pacific staff of the institute. Engaging in Talanoa allowed each respondent an opportunity to talk freely about their experiences as Pacific students while studying and working at the institute. Utilizing Talanoa in this research allowed “contextual interaction with Pacific participants to occur that creates a more authentic knowledge, which may lead to solutions for Pacific issues” (Vaioleti 2006, 23).

Pacific Peoples in New Zealand New Zealand’s Pacific population comprises diverse groups of people who identify with one or more of the eight Pacific ethnicities in New Zealand: Samoans, Tongans, Cook Islanders, Fijians, Niueans, Tuvaluans, Tokelauans, and Kiribati (Pasifika Proud 2016). Pacific peoples will make up 10% of NZ’s population by 2026, compared to 7.4% in 2013 and approximately two-thirds or 69.2% of Pacific peoples live in Auckland (Ministry for Pacific Peoples 2019). Significantly, New Zealand’s Pacific population comprises a predominantly young population, with 46.1% of its people under the age of 20, and when combined with people under 25 years old, they made up a majority of 54.9% of the total Pacific population of 295,941 in 2013 (Ministry for Pacific Peoples 2019). Although Pacific peoples comprise a growing population, they are nonetheless a minority group within New Zealand, and overall, a large number of Pacific peoples are from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Wright and Hornblow (2008) reported

482

D. Bentley-Gray

that Pacific peoples are a socioeconomically disadvantaged group compared to other groups in New Zealand. Marriott and Sim (2015) explained that outcomes for Maori and Pacific peoples have been lower than for white New Zealanders. Pacific have the lowest percentage of education achievements compared to any other ethnic group within New Zealand, and historically, have been underrepresented in tertiary education (Benseman et al. 2007). Although research suggests that students of Pacific descent are participating more in tertiary education, as 2.5% of those enrolled in tertiary studies in 1990 had increased to 4.8% by 2000 (Benseman et al. 2007), Toumu’a and Laban (2014) have identified that retention and completion levels are still very low. Successive governments in New Zealand have advocated, through a sequence of the nation-wide Tertiary Education Strategies, to bring about equitable outcomes for Pacific peoples (Chu et al. 2013; Tertiary Education Commission [TEC] n.d.). The education plan for Pacific peoples in New Zealand, the Pasifika Education Plan 2013–2017, requires education providers to commit to achieving better outcomes for Pacific people with at least parity at tertiary level (Ministry of Education 2018). In July 2020, the government launched the Action Plan for Pacific Education 2020–2030 to outline the ways in which the education sector will work in partnership with Pacific communities to bring about change (Ministry of Education 2020). The Tertiary Education Strategy 2014–19, currently driven by the labor-led government, stipulates its goals and expectations for Pacific peoples in tertiary education. Success indicators are included in it, but they are not specific to increased rates of Pacific students enrolling in and completing qualifications at levels 4 and above, and engaging Pacific communities in the provision of appropriate support (Ministry of Education 2018). Therefore, improvements at all levels of tertiary education, from enrolments to levels 4 and above, as well as improvements to retention and completion of qualifications have to be part of priorities of individual ITPs, including this institute (Tertiary Education Commission [TEC] n.d.; 2016). In August 2019, the NZ Government announced their intention to bring together all NZ ITPs into one national ITP, New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology [NZIST] (working title) to build a stronger ITP sector (Tertiary Education Commission 2020). In April 2020, Unitec Institute of Technology became a formal subsidiary of NZIST. However, this new entity has had no direct impact on the purpose and duration of this research. Therefore, the discussions of this research will not reflect on NZIST. It is worth mentioning that the reform has led to a name change for the institute; Unitec New Zealand Limited (previously Unitec Institute of Technology).

Unitec Institute of Technology’s (UNITEC) Pacific Success Strategy This ITP’s Pacific Success Strategy (PSS), which derives from the government’s Tertiary Education Strategy (TES) 2014–19, demonstrates its commitment to, and support of, Pacific success. The TES commits Tertiary Education Organizations (TEOs) to achieving Pacific success through ways it deems necessary (Ministry of Education 2018). Unitec’s Pacific Center has implemented several initiatives aimed

25

Pacific Student Engagement, Experience, and Learning in Tertiary. . .

483

to provide support for its Pacific students. The initiatives discussed in this chapter, namely Pacific Orientation (PO), Pacific Assignment Retreats (PARs), and Pacific Group/Individual Sessions, have provided ways for Pacific learners to become familiar with the way the institute functions. Beasley and Pearson (1999) explain that many students from minority and indigenous backgrounds experience more challenges compared to others, due to differences in cultural and traditional values and belief systems. This chapter highlights the importance of creating a feeling of belonging from the outset of students’ study journeys at Unitec, as well as providing consistent and constant support during those journeys. It also identifies that external factors impact on students’ engagement, experience, and learning. Moreover, the role and functions of Pacific Academic Development Lecturers (ADLs) also affect students’ overall engagement, experience, and learning. Falaniko Tominiko (personal communication with author, July 2019) and Linda Aumua (personal communication with author, July 2019), the respective current and former directors of the Pacific Center, explain that the initiatives have been driven by the ITP’s successive Pacific Success Strategies (PSS) and its Pacific governing council. The strategy is regularly reviewed and has a 5-year timeframe. Having the PSS adopted at an institutional level commits all of Unitec’s staff to meeting the needs and aspirations of Pacific students. In addition, it ensures appropriate attention is placed on other matters relating to the Pacific (p.c., Falaniko Tominiko, July 2019). The strategy has four overarching goals, which ensure the inclusion of Pacific needs: • Goal 1: Increase Pacific student success, completion, and participation rates. • Goal 2: Grow staff capability and capacity to empower and support Pacific students. • Goal 3: Grow Pacific knowledge and awareness in learning, teaching, and research. • Goal 4: Develop and maintain partnerships with Pacific communities and stakeholders.

Range of Pacific-Specific Initiatives and Pacific Model, Na Kuita The initiatives implemented between 2015 and semester 1, 2019 have been numerous. Goal 1 of the PSS has provided the foundation for the work of the Pacific ADLs to ensure appropriate and relevant initiatives that contribute to the achievement of “Increase Pacific success, completion and participation rates” (Linda Aumua, unpublished report shared to author, 2015). From 2015 to 2016, the center, tasked with providing support and enhancing Pacific success at the institute, operated largely by using a Pacific model called Na Kuita, as well as other ways of incorporating the many Pacific values, which include alofa (love) and fa’aaloalo (respect). According to Chu et al. (2013), learner-teacher relationships, built on shared values, which include respect, compassion, humility, and honesty, are important; and education providers should integrate these into policies and practices for Pacific students

484

D. Bentley-Gray

in education. Na Kuita is the Fijian word for octopus, and this metaphorically represents the way in which the center staff operated (Aumua, unpublished report). Aumua developed and implemented the model, which is unique to Unitec. The model connects students and staff to the Pacific Center (Aumua, unpublished report). Na Kuita works on the premise that the tentacles represent Pacific staff across the institute who create a network that provides support when a need arises, and that ensures a connection with the head and core represented by the Pacific Center (PC). This provision of support in a timely manner ensures that issues are addressed as soon as they arise. Ultimately, the center becomes the core entity in addressing the varying needs of Pacific students, including academic needs. Lifting achievement levels for the departments that struggled to meet expected success and retention rates was a vital focus in Na Kuita (Aumua, unpublished report). Although there have been many institutional changes between 2015 and 2019, Na Kuita still guides the practices of a few Pacific staff at the institute.

Part 1: Three Selected Initiatives: Pacific Orientation (PO), Pacific Assignment Retreat (PAR), and Pacific Group/Individual Sessions This section explores the rationale behind effect of the three selected Pacific initiatives to support and enhance Pacific students’ engagement, experience, and learning at the ITP.

Pacific Orientation (PO) The Pacific Center started its own orientation program with the intention of providing new Pacific students at the institute with relevant information to prepare them for their time at the polytechnic (Sopoaga et al. 2013), as well as creating a sense of belonging and community early in their tertiary journeys. Sopoaga et al. (2013) emphasized the need for tertiary institutions to engage students early by informing and preparing them for tertiary studies. Mata’ia, Faaiuaso, Taumoepeau, and Talakai (n.d., 2) explained that Pacific Orientation was developed and implemented at Unitec on the “notions of collectivism, and community inherent to Pacific communities” in New Zealand. Pacific Orientation not only creates a sense of community among Pacific students at the Unitec, it has also served to “hook” in Pacific students to the Pacific Center to form relationships for spiritual, cultural, academic, and pastoral support (Matai’a et al. n.d.). Creating and accessing culturally relevant spaces (Chu et al. 2013) and events are significant to Pacific student learning. Having a safe place, which appreciates the range of Pacific ethnicities that exist, encourages Pacific students to feel positive (Chu et al. 2013; Theodore et al. 2018). These orientation events were held once yearly at the beginning of each academic year, until 2018 when it ran twice, at both the beginning of semester 1 and semester 2. They are always held either in the week prior to, or the week of, the ITP’s main

25

Pacific Student Engagement, Experience, and Learning in Tertiary. . .

485

orientation. Pacific students who attend Pacific Orientation are likely to receive the same and/or similar information during their program-specific orientations, which reinforces crucial and necessary processes (Aumua, unpublished report). Hence, they are more likely to know where Student Support Services are located when they need it. Pacific students are recognized in the Pacific database when they select Pacific at enrolment; hence, they are sent an invitation to attend these events in their first semester of study. The Pacific Center designs a program for these events, which differs slightly from year to year but it includes the main elements of prayer, welcoming words, and Pacific and Student Support Services staff introductions, followed by lunch at the end. The number of students attending have differed from orientation to orientation, but their feedback has indicated positive experiences where they were introduced to other Pacific people who work in different areas at the ITP.

Orientation 2016 The 2016 Pacific Orientation program differed in comparison to previous ones. The online pedagogies, which were introduced at the ITP in 2015, had a level of expectation on students’ capability to be somewhat familiar with their online platforms. Hence, in 2016, center staff introduced students to platforms that they were expected to be able to navigate and develop proficiency in during their first semester of study. For example, the Pacific ADLs created introductory and practice sessional activities in the four main online platforms used to help students gain basic knowledge and understanding of these platforms. Students who attended were provided with systematic information starting with how to log in. Student feedback on the 2016 event supports the importance of holding these events to ensure a positive start to the student experience at Unitec. All 64 respondents to the evaluation survey carried out at the end of the event were asked five questions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

“What did you enjoy most of orientation and Why?” “What can we do better for next time?” “Did you find the Pacific Orientation valuable and Why?” “What else would you like to see included in the Pacific Orientation?” “Any other comments?”

The feedback about the event was largely positive with most enjoying the activities, which included a quiz and a session to familiarize them with online learning. In addition, most of the respondents found the Pacific Orientation (PO) worthwhile as it provided an opportunity to meet new people as well as get to know the support services available. Other than wanting more music and a longer time for activities, 98.4% of 62 respondents answered yes to finding the Pacific Orientation valuable, because it provided them with information that would help them in their studies. Importantly, some felt that the orientation events made them, as Pacific Islanders, feel so welcome and comfortable about the place that it boosted their confidence (PC, unpublished report shared to author, 2016). “the Pacific sense of self is defined in relation to others and thrives on interaction, closeness, and

486

D. Bentley-Gray

connection” (Matapo 2020, para.6). Mila-Schaaf and Robinson (2010) reported that better educational outcomes for Pacific peoples were associated with ethnic pride in Pacific identities and values as well as a general feeling of being accepted. However, the absence or lack of student support (Theodore et al. 2018) and having no cultural recognition (Ali and Narayan 2016) can impede educational outcomes for Pacific learners.

Orientation 2017 The 2017 Pacific Orientation took into consideration the feedback students provided in the 2016 PO Evaluation. Although the program did not include an introduction to online platforms’ session due to time constraints, it kept the main parts that students really enjoyed in previous orientation sessions such as the introduction to Pacific staff and Student Support Services, as well as the activities which required them to interact with other students. Orientation 2018 In 2018, the Pacific Center changed the PO frequency to accommodate new students studying in their first semesters, regardless of whether they were starting in semester 1 or semester 2. Previously, POs were held once a year, prior to and/or during the polytechnic’s orientation week. However, there was a need to accommodate those who started in semester 2. The likelihood of those starting in the second semester attending PO in the following year was lower because they would have already spent a semester at the polytechnic. Having been at Unitec for half a year would have provided them with enough information to help them get through. However, having two POs during the academic year served the purpose of maintaining and building student engagement and enhancing Pacific students’ overall experience (Lani Max Mikaio, in discussion with the author, July 2019). Overall, the institute will continue to run Pacific Orientation (PO) where and/or when the institute deems relevant beginning of both semesters or embedded into the institute’s main orientation. The variables each cohort of students bring as well as institutional factors will influence the way in which future POs will take form. Whatever the choice, POs in any shape provide a sense of belonging, which Pacific students’ value.

Pacific Assignment Retreats (PAR) The Pacific Center first implemented PARs in the 2014 academic year, as another avenue of support for Pacific students. Although it adds to a list of Pacific-specific initiatives already implemented at Unitec, PARs are different because they are intentionally scheduled on Saturdays from morning until late afternoon. PARs provide opportunities for students who cannot attend support sessions offered during the week because of classes and/or personal commitments. For example, students who were keen to access support but could not, due to work as well as children pickups, found Saturdays to be more convenient. Hence, PARs offer Pacific students

25

Pacific Student Engagement, Experience, and Learning in Tertiary. . .

487

quiet study space, access to staff who can provide academic support during set timeframes, and refreshments throughout the day. Initially, PARs were intended to be once a semester, but the demand from students who attended the first PAR resulted in the PC holding another PAR within the same semester closer to exam times. For example, the Bachelor of Nursing students who attended a PAR in semester 1, 2015 found it useful and convenient, and they asked for another one closer to the end of semester exams. PARs are advertised through several platforms, which students can access. For example, Pacific ADLs disseminate specific information about PARs to the programs they are assigned to, which promotes awareness. In addition, students who identify as Pacific at enrolment are sent invitations to attend, with an expectation of a reply, to allow the organizers time to prepare for the expected number of attendees. PARs are deliberately scheduled during crucial times in the semesters, which coincide with assignment due dates and/or exam dates. To ensure fairness and inclusion, the PC scheduled PARs at Unitec’s two campuses at Mt. Albert and Waitakere alternately. Although feedback from students who attended PARs sessions in 2017 was positive, there were some comments indicating that improvements could be made, such as having PARs in a larger venue and/or in a computer lab.

Program-Specific Pacific Assignment Retreats PARs were initially planned for Saturdays, and with an institution-wide approach. However, feedback from students who attended different sessions led to variations in which program-specific assignment days (AD) were implemented. For example, in semester 12,017, a nursing-specific AD was implemented in which Pacific nursing students, and staff teaching in actual courses for the nursing program, from Years 1–3, were invited. This was coordinated in the exact same way PARs are, but on a smaller scale and specifically tailored for nursing. For example, a Pacific nursing lecturer was available to provide content support throughout the day, while a Pacific ADL assigned to the nursing program coordinated the AD as well as being available to provide academic support. Food was available for the duration of the scheduled AD. ADs provide a way for better and more specific collaboration between the learning and achievement team and programs, where these encouraged the establishment and maintenance of relationships. However, the turnout from students to the nursing-specific AD was not good, which may have been due to multiple reasons. For example, promotional emails and Moodle posts may not have reached all Pacific nursing students, and/or students may have been committed to prior course and personal arrangements. Moving forward, the Pacific ADL in partnership with the Pacific nursing lecturer will schedule future assignment days based on demand. In 2017, the Pacific ADLs became part of SLA and all the academic initiatives they implemented became part of the wider SLA. Since then, PARs have been held twice per semester. In 2017 and 2018, all PARs were held at Mt. Albert, but with good attendance of Waitakere-based students in the social practice and nursing programs. Hence, in semester 1, 2019, the Pacific ADLs scheduled one PAR at Mt. Albert and the other at Waitakere.

488

D. Bentley-Gray

Student feedback is usually sought immediately after the events are run, which helps the Pacific ADLs to make appropriate changes. For example, 87.5% of 14 respondents who attended the October 2017 PAR preferred to be contacted by email rather than other means. Hence, the main way of communication to reach students has been via email. A 76.9% of the same group of students found PAR very helpful with a rating of 5 out of 5 and 23.1% gave it a rating of 4 out of 5 (2017 Oct Pacific Center Assignment Retreat Evaluation, Oct 2017).

Pacific Group and/or Individual Sessions Pacific ADLs work with different academic programs and schools to make sure relelvant support is made available to all Pacific students in the respective programs and/or schools. Hence, each ADL will work in collaboration with programs to ensure relevant support is provided to promote student learning, experience, and engagement.

Pacific Nursing Tutorial Group 2015–Semester 1, 2019 The Pacific Nursing Tutorial is an initiative that provides targeted support to Pacific students in the Bachelor of Nursing program. It is where a Pacific nursing lecturer and a Pacific ADL collaborate to provide support to Pacific nursing students. Ali and Narayan (2016) explain that learner-centered teaching is conducive to learning because the leaner’s cultural background among other attributes are recognized and respected. The initiative stemmed from Pacific students’ need for a safe space they could share with other Pacific students in the program; the Pacific Nursing Tutorial Group is offered exclusively to Pacific students. Pacific students are more likely to gain confidence and be motivated to learn if their cultural identities, values, and languages are embedded in teaching and learning strategies and practices (Chu et al. 2013; Theodore et al. 2018). Although the focus is on students in the first semester of their first year, it does not discourage attendance by students in other levels of the program. The tutorials are coordinated so that the nursing lecturer provides content support and the Pacific ADL provides academic and study skills support, for example, in the form of workshops on essay writing and time management. The tutorials are driven by student learning needs and/or assessment due dates. The sessions are scheduled for 2 h per week during the semester, excluding semester breaks and holidays, and are usually determined by the availability of the nursing lecturer and the timetable for the students. Although the tutorials are offered to Pacific students in the first semester of their first year of study in the nursing program, not all of them attend. However, the different cohorts have always had groups of students who were regular attendees of the tutorials. Students are not compelled to attend as these are offered as extra support outside of class time; students who have other commitments may choose to attend or not. Attendance veers between no one attending, particularly after assessments have been submitted, to sometimes more than 10 students attending, especially around crucial assessment due dates. Students who participated in the sessions found them valuable and noted that relevant skills developed in the

25

Pacific Student Engagement, Experience, and Learning in Tertiary. . .

489

sessions helped them with their assignments. Others liked the comfortable nature of them and they felt relaxed (Evaluating THREE Pacific Initiatives Survey, Jul 8, 2019).

Social Practice Support 2015–2018 Pacific-specific support in the social practice program has occurred through a range of initiatives. Students could choose to approach the Pacific ADL for individual and/or small group sessions, as do others studying across the institute. In addition, until 2016, Pacific support also included Pacific ADLs being involved in co-teaching in the actual tutorials for its Pacific course, which runs in semester 2 of the Year 1 structure. This validated the role of the Pacific ADLs in the program, which led to rapport with both staff and students. Toumu’a and Laban (2014) have found that program-specific academic support was highly valued from a cultural responsiveness perspective, and it ensures consistency when structured well. The relationship forged between the Pacific ADL and the program also promoted the provision of support in other areas and thereby enhanced the overall student experience, engagement, and learning. Although limited resources and institutional changes impeded the Pacific Center from having direct involvement in the Pacific course, the Pacific ADL continued to provide support as they had done for the other programs. In semester 1, 2015, a promising partnership between social practice and the center was initiated through a meeting with more than 20 Pacific students in their first semester of their first year, which was led by the then head of department (HOD). While the initiative started well – the Pacific students decided to meet for 2 h per week for organized support sessions – the turnout to these weekly sessions dropped off after the first 3 weeks of the semester. Still, a regular group of about four or five students continued to attend and utilized the sessions, which the Pacific ADL facilitated. One of the reasons for the low turnout was that although there was a genuine need for active and consistent involvement in this initiative, many students had other commitments to family, communities, work, and church (Theodore et al. 2018), which caused them to miss it. Consequently, this initiative ceased after semester 1, 2015. In semester 1, 2018, the social practice program recruited their second Pacific lecturer, which became crucial in the development and coordination of a new initiative to support its Pacific students. A partnership between the two Pacific lecturers and the Pacific ADL led to a new initiative to support Pacific students. This initiative was different because it had the commitment from both the program and Student Support Services. It was offered in both semesters 1 and 2, 2018; and an end-of-year review of the initiative, based on student feedback as well as observations, endorsed changes to be made in the running of this initiative in semester 1, 2019. Chu et al. (2013) explained that both teaching and nonteaching staff who develop respectful and nurturing relationships with students could help to enhance the student experience. Student feedback confirmed that those who attended the sessions found them useful and they were able to develop academic skills, which helped them to pass assignments they had completed in these sessions (Anonymous, in a discussion with the author, October 2018).

490

D. Bentley-Gray

Part 2: External Factors and Their Impact on Student Engagement, Experience, and Learning This section explores external factors that affect Pacific students’ experience, engagement, and learning. Mila-Schaaf et al. (2008, cited in Mila-Schaaf and Robinson 2010) described that Pacific students experience considerable socioeconomic disadvantage. In education, students who experience financial hardship also face challenges, which hinder engagement and learning. Thus, support from both family and the institution is pertinent (Theodore et al. 2018). Students who experience financial hardship struggle with costs associated with their studies. For example, traveling to and from campus can be costly, especially for students who do not have a good support system. Toumu’a and Laban (2014) reported that transport costs to and from students’ place of study, as well as lack of resources, were some of the external factors that had “straightforward” effects on Pacific student retention and completion rates. When students cannot attend class due to their inability to afford transport to and from class, their level of engagement and learning becomes a problem (Mosegi, Mikaio and Taumoepeau, personal communication, July 8, 2019, Unitec Institute of Technology, Auckland New Zealand). Theodore et al. (2018) explain that financial pressures and the need to work impact Pacific peoples’ participation and completion rate. In some cases, the situation is worsened when peers and/or lecturers assume absence is due to other reasons. For example, students who frequently miss class due to limited finances feel they are perceived as unreliable; and being Pacific expedites these fears. Hence, some tend to shy away, especially if they are singled out in class or teased outside of class, which sometimes happens. The reality is that many deal with issues that impede their ability to attend class and/or other events; they often struggle silently without approaching peers, lecturers, and/or Student Support Services. In addition, Pacific students enrol in tertiary education for a variety of reasons, which include honor and prosperity to their families. Education is very important to Pacific families (Theodore et al. 2018), and Mila-Schaaf and Robinson (2010, 7) explain that some students in their study felt “motivated by the ‘migrant dream’ proffered by their parents.” Despite being motivated to live the dreams of their migrant parents and grandparents and having family support, some students encounter a range of issues, which have a significant influence on their commitment to study. Toumu’a and Laban (2014) have called it “double-edged swords” where on one side, there are obvious positives of having families, while on the other, familial responsibilities get in the way. For example, some students who are youth leaders in their church communities have responsibilities that sometimes clash with their study responsibilities. Others, who are first in families to be in tertiary education, also bear the responsibility of looking after siblings, parents, and/or grandparents. Ultimately, learning becomes secondary to their family responsibilities when situations arise that require them to take charge. One participant reflected on her personal experience where her learning and engagement were impacted because taking her elderly parents to their regular doctor’s appointments was a priority and getting to class became secondary. Consequently, sitting in the back of the classroom was the best

25

Pacific Student Engagement, Experience, and Learning in Tertiary. . .

491

way she could disguise getting to class late (Mosegi, Mikaio and Taumoepeau, personal communication). Furthermore, some Pacific students new to tertiary education struggle with confidence issues (Theodore et al. 2018), which hamper their engagement, experience, and learning. One of the participants remembers being so shy that it affected her ability to engage with peers. As a result, she kept to herself and was shy to ask for support. Theodore et al. (2018) found that shyness and not asking for help were among the common factors, which impeded learning for the Pacific students they surveyed. Students who studied away from the main student services areas felt shy about accessing support because of the lack of connection, which Matai’a et al. (n.d.) also describe as feelings of isolation in large and impersonal institutions. However, students who experience challenges but have engaged in support often feel that they can be supported. For instance, having had lecturers who genuinely cared and provided the necessary support at the right time helped to overcome hurdles that seemed overwhelming to these students (Mosegi, Mikaio and Taumoepeau, personal communication). Lecturers who made the effort to ask how students felt, and tried to understand and suggest ways to address the issues students were facing, without the students feeling overburdened, really helped to bring a positive experience, which helped the students engage and learn (Chu et al. 2013). In addition, students who make friends with others going through similar learning experiences become encouraged to engage and learn. For example, one participant explained that joining the Samoan Student Association and being part of a group boosted her level of confidence, which also encouraged engagement and learning, and ultimately resulted in a positive experience (Mosegi, Mikaio and Taumoepeau, personal communication). Chu, Abella, and Paurini (2013, 10) found that the concept of the “learning village,” described by one of their research participants, summed up the importance of Pacific students having a place that is “safe and culturally strengthening.” The ITP provides solid Student Support Services, which have a specialized focus in the various areas that would affect the life of any student during their study journey. For example, it provides pastoral care services, which support students going through financial hardship, as well as counseling services for those feeling overwhelmed, which Toum’ua and Laban (2014) have shown to be important to Pacific students who experienced financial hardship.

Part 3: Pacific Academic Development Lecturers (ADLs) This section analyses the role of Pacific ADLs in ensuring that Pacific students’ engagement, experience, and learning are positive. Pacific ADLs play a significant role in affecting Pacific student engagement, experience, and learning at Unitec. Support provided is not only limited to academic matters, but also includes an embedded pastoral element. Pacific students who access support from the Pacific ADLs almost always come with other underlying issues that also require attention before addressing the academic needs. Student feedback has shown that having Pacific ADLs support their learning was good because they could

492

D. Bentley-Gray

relate to them just because they were Pacific (PCTLR, 2016 Pacific Orientation Evaluation, February 2016). Chu et al. (2013) have explained that Pacific students gain confidence and motivation when teaching strategies incorporate their cultural identities, values, and languages. Pacific ADLs are based in the Pacific Center, where they engage with students who drop in, as well as in other spaces across the institution’s two campuses. According to Theodore et al. (2018), having Pacific cultural spaces and support services provide a nurturing place where Pacific learners form interdependence and supportive peer relationships. The Pacific ADLs support the center with events such as Pacific Orientations and in return, the Pacific Center provides the ADLs with support for their academic initiatives to enhance Pacific students’ learning experiences. Pacific ADLs play an integral role in establishing and maintaining good working relationships with both academic and Student Support Services staff. For relevant and appropriate wrap-around support systems to be developed and implemented, all parties need to come together to make sure student needs are addressed. For example, Pacific ADLs work on establishing good working relationships with lecturers to ensure connections are made with the various programs at the institution (Linda Aumua, unpublished report, 2015). For most of 2018 and in semester 1 of 2019, two Pacific ADLs continued to work in partnership with the various programs within eight of the ten schools, while the other schools have received support from general ADLs, the Pacific Center, and other Student Support Services, to ensure consistency and engagement. The initiatives discussed in Part 1 are three of many initiatives that have been implemented at the ITP with a focus of increased Pacific success. Pacific ADLs contribute to the growth and success of their team by being the drivers of and/or work in collaboration with the Pacific Center to implement initiatives directly aimed at enhancing Pacific students’ engagement, experience, and learning at the institute.

Conclusion and Future Directions Pacific success is important; however, reaching it has been, and will continue to be, a challenge across New Zealand. The government’s Tertiary Education Strategy 2014–2019 pushed tertiary education providers to increase Pacific participation in, and completion of, tertiary qualifications. However, despite this push, the nationwide participation rates for Pacific peoples decreased for all tertiary-level studies from 15.2% in 2014 to 12.5% in 2018, which reflected also a decreased national trend of enrolments in formal tertiary education (Education Counts, “Participation”). Unitec, in its Pacific Success Strategy, recognizes and acknowledges the aspirations of Pacific peoples. Initiatives developed and implemented by the Pacific ADLs in partnership with the Pacific Center, Student Support Services, and academic programs demonstrate the institution’s commitment to enhancing Pacific students’ engagement, experience, and learning. The welcome at Pacific Orientation and the consistent support provided during students’ learning journeys, through to Pacific Assignment Retreats and Pacific Group/Individual Sessions, provide platforms

25

Pacific Student Engagement, Experience, and Learning in Tertiary. . .

493

through which Pacific students can gain a sense of belonging. However, despite the initiatives’ outreach to ensure positive overall student experiences, external factors such as financial and personal issues also affect Pacific students’ study journeys. The role of Pacific ADLs, and support from the Pacific Center and other Student Support Services, ensure that Pacific students engage and have positive experiences, which enable meaningful learning and ultimately lead to student success.

Implications Increasing Pacific student success is achievable but it requires determination, resources and commitment from all staff across the institute. Individuals cannot and should not work in silos to try to meet the goals of this institute’s Pacific success strategy, because success can only happen on a larger scale when resources and efforts are combined. Theodore et al. (2018) found that Pacific students in their study said that good working relationships between academic staff and support services such as the Pacific ADLs, the Pacific Center, Student Support Services, and program staff are instrumental in the overall success of all students, particularly Pacific students. Initiatives such as Pacific Orientation, Pacific Assignment Retreats, and Group and/or Individual Sessions, aimed at improving Pacific success, need to be further reviewed and altered to ensure they remain relevant and effective. For example, while Pacific Orientation in 2016 included an online teaching session, which reflected the increasing emphasis on online learning at the institute in 2015 and 2016, the Pacific Orientations in 2017, 2018, and 2019 did not because it reflected the institution’s redirection. The priorities and changes at Unitec also affect the achievement of Pacific goals and inspirations in the Pacific Success Strategy. The effectiveness of initiatives is dependent on the ability of all, and specifically the Pacific ADLs, the Pacific Center, and Student Support Services, to promote and implement them. Hence, it is very important that Pacific ADLs continue to work in partnership with programs and other support staff to make sure Pacific students are aware of and have access to support services to ensure success. Moving forward, support initiatives developed and implemented in the future at the ITP should reflect the holistic needs of Pacific students. Students who feel they are welcomed and provided with a lot of support will more than likely be engaging and experience learning positively.

Cross-References ▶ Creating Collaborative Spaces: Applying a “Students as Partner” Approach to University Peer Mentoring Programs ▶ Developing an Engagement-Focused Learning Support Service Within a Conservatoire Context ▶ Exploring the Impact of Learning Development on Student Engagement, Experience, and Learning

494

D. Bentley-Gray

▶ Future Institutional and Student Services Leadership Challenges: Implementing a Holistic Whare Tapa Rima – Five-Sided Home Model ▶ How to Increase Retention and Graduation Rates ▶ Socio-cultural and Settlement Support Services for International Students: A ‘Home Away from Home’ Approach ▶ Supporting Indigenous Higher Degree by Research Students in Higher Education

References ACE Aotearoa. 2014. Pasifika success as Pasifika – Pasifika conceptualisations of literacy for success as Pasifika in Aotearoa New Zealand. New Zealand: Adult and Community Education (ACE) Aotearoa. Ali, Irshad, and Anil Narayan. 2016. Access but limited success? Impediments for students from disadvantaged communities in attaining university accounting qualifications. In Meditari accountancy research conference. Pilanesberg National Park. http://mailimages.vibrantmedia. co.za/2016/unisa/meditaripapers/Ali.pdf. Beasley, Colin J., and Cecil A.L. Pearson. 1999. Facilitating the Learning of Transitional Students: Strategies for success for all students. Higher Education Research & Development 18 (3): 303–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436990180303. Benseman, John, Eve Coxon, Helen Anderson, and Melani Anae. May 2006. Retain non-traditional students: lessons learnt from Pasifika students in New Zealand. Higher Education Research & Development 25 (2): 147–162. Chu, Cherie, Ivy Abella, and Seann Paurini. 2013. Education practices that benefit Pacific learners in tertiary education. New Zealand: Ako Aotearoa – The National Centre for Tertiary Teaching Excellence. Education Count. “Participation.” Updated June, 2019. https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/ statistics/tertiary-education/participation Farrelly, Trisia, and Unaisi Nabobo-Baba. 2012. Talanoa as empathic research. In Preparation paper for international development conference. Auckland. 3–5 Dec 2012. https://devnet.org. nz/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Farrelly,%20Trisia%20&%20Nabobo-Baba,%20Unaisi% 20Talanoa%20as%20Empathic%20Research%20%5Bpaper%5D_0.pdf. Mantz, Yorke, and Bernard Longden. 2004. Retention and Student Success in Higher Education. United Kingdom: Open University Press. https://books.google.co.nz/books?hl¼en&lr¼& id¼4azlAAAAQBAJ&oi¼fnd&pg¼PP1&dq¼student+success+in+higher+education& ots¼QbiygBtoIN&sig¼JLvyWH7koMaDVkfYIGtS-f95g2Q&redir_esc¼y#v¼onepage& q¼student%20success%20in%20higher%20education&f¼false. Marriott, Lisa, and Dalice Sim. 2015. Indicators of inequality for Maori and Pacific people. Journal of New Zealand Studies 20: 24–50. https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary; dn¼276927349255099;res¼IELNZC. Matai’a, Stephen, Deborah Faaiuaso, Venusi Taumoepeau, and Malia Talakai. n.d. A Pacific based approach to supporting the wider participation of Pacific peoples in higher education. In Pacific centre for learning, teaching and research. Auckland: Unitec Institute of Technology. http://fyhe.com.au/past_papers/papers11/FYHE-2011/content/pdf/4B.pdf. Matapo, Jacoba. The vā that binds: A Pasifika education story during Covid-19. Newsroom, May 03, 2020. https://www.newsroom.co.nz/covid-19/2020/05/03/1155074/the-v-that-binds-apasifika-education-story-during-covid-19?fbclid¼IwAR0Koq5u_JjVdTmNItA4bHQBpBTq toNsDtBr9J45I6cNQ5oQQajr7YclODo Mila-Schaaf, Karlo, and Elizabeth Robinson. 2010. ‘Polycultural’ capital and educational achievement among NZ-born Pacific peoples. MAI Review 1: 1–18. Ministry for Pacific Peoples. Pacific People in New Zealand. Updated 2019. http://www.mpp.govt. nz/pacific-people-in-nz

25

Pacific Student Engagement, Experience, and Learning in Tertiary. . .

495

Ministry of Education. Tertiary Education Strategy 2014–19. Updated Jan 30, 2018. http://www. education.govt.nz/further-education/policies-and-strategies/tertiary-education-strategy/ Ministry of Education. Supporting Pacific Success- Action Plan for Pacific Education 2020–2030. Updated July 23, 2020. https://www.education.govt.nz/news/supporting-pacific-success-actionplan-for-pacific-education-2020-2030/ Otsuka, Setsuo. 2006. Talanoa research: Culturally appropriate research design in Fiji. Sydney: University of Sydney. http://www.aare.edu.au/data/publications/2005/ots05506.pdf. Pasifika Proud. Our Families, Our People, Our Responsibilities. The profile of Pacific peoples in New Zealand. Updated 2016. https://www.pasefikaproud.co.nz/assets/Resources-for-download/ PasefikaProudResource-Pacific-peoples-paper.pdf Sopoaga, Faafetai, Tony Zaharic, Jesse Kokaua, Alec J. Ekeroma, Greg Murray, and Jacques van der Meer. 2013. Pacific students undertaking the first year of health sciences at the University of Otago, and factors associated with academic performance. The New Zealand Medical Journal 126: 1384. http://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal/126-1384/5864. Stats, N.Z. Ethnic populations projected to grow across New Zealand. Updated Oct 3, 2017. https://www.stats.govt.nz/news/ethnic-populations-projected-to-grow-across-new-zealand Stats, N.Z. Tatauranga Aotearoa. Education and Pacific Peoples in New Zealand. http://archive. stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/people_and_communities/pacific_peoples/pacific-progress-edu cation/introduction.aspx# Tertiary Education Commission. New Zealand Institute of Skills & Technology. Updated April 2, 2020. https://www.tec.govt.nz/rove/new-zealand-institute-of-skills-and-technology/ Tertiary Education Commission (TEC). Boosting achievement for Pasifika. Updated Nov 11, 2016. http://www.tec.govt.nz/focus/our-focus/pasifika-achievement/ Tertiary Education Commission (TEC). Are you charging compulsory student services fees? Ways to comply with the Ministerial Direction. Accessed 17 July, 2019. http://www.tec.govt.nz/ assets/Forms-templates-and-guides/bb8136885a/Compulsory-student-service-fees-guide.pdf Tertiary Education Commission (TEC). Boosting achievement for Pasifika learners in tertiary education: 2015 Research findings. http://www.tec.govt.nz/assets/Reports/11ae7bb230/ Boosting-outcomes-for-Pasifika-learners-in-tertiary-education-2015-research-findings.pdf Theodore, Reremoana, Mele Taumoepeau, Karen Tustinc, Megan Gollopd, Charlotte Unasae, Jesse Kokauaf, Nicola Taylorg, Sandhya Ramrakhah, Jackie Hunteri, and Richie Poultonj. 2018. Pacific university graduates in New Zealand: What helps and hinders completion. AlterNative: An international journal of Indigenous people 12 (2): 138–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/117718 0118764126. Toumu’a, Ruth, and Hon. Luamanuvao Winnie Laban. 2014. Cultivating a whole of university response to Pasifika: Research in action for widen participation, retentions and completion at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. International Studies in Widening Participation 1 (2): 46–59. https://novaojs.newcastle.edu.au/ceehe/index.php/iswp/article/view/13/pdf_7. Unitec Institute of Technology. 2017 Oct Pacific Centre assignment retreat evaluation. Updated Oct, 2017. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1YcbFNRSLUUSeDOyfZW_uSwTj6LCn D88a1QpM1qLhIMk/edit#responses Unitec Institute of Technology. Unitec Annual Report, 2015. Updated Jan 14, 2019a. https://www. unitec.ac.nz/sites/default/files/public/documents/unitec-annual-report-2015.pdf Unitec Institute of Technology. Unitec Annual Report, 2017. Updated Jan 14, 2019b. https://www. unitec.ac.nz/sites/default/files/public/unitec-annual-report-2017.pdf Vaioleti, Timote. 2006. Talanoa research methodology: A developing position on Pacific research. Waikato Journal of Education 12: 21–34. https://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/bitstream/ handle/10289/6199/Vaioleti%20Talanoa.pdf?sequence¼1&isAllowed¼y. Wright, Sarah, and Andrew Hornblow. 2008. Emerging needs, evolving services: The health of Pacific peoples in New Zealand. Kotuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online 3 (1): 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/1177083X.2008.9522430.

The Challenge of Student Mental Well-Being: Reconnecting Students Services with the Academic Universe

26

Gareth Hughes

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Note on Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Relationship Between Student Services and the Academic Universe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Whole University Response to Student Mental Health and Well-Being . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Student Well-Being and Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Impact of Academic Learning on Well-Being . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Role of the Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Student Services Relationship to Core Mission 1: Learning and Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Barriers and Possible Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case Study – The University of Derby . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Student Services Relationship to Core Mission 2: Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Student Services – Moving Forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

498 501 501 502 503 504 505 507 511 511 513 513 514 515 515

Abstract

Current dialogues in the Higher Education sector highlight a range of tensions and uncertainties about university responses to student mental health that potentially contribute to a lack of clarity about the role of Student Services and institutions. These dialogues suggest that there is a need for theory which can seek to answer the following four central questions: 1. What role should universities and Student Services play in relation to student mental health and well-being? 2. What balance of proactive and reactive responses should universities adopt?

G. Hughes (*) Student Services, University of Derby, Derby, UK e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 H. Huijser et al. (eds.), Student Support Services, University Development and Administration, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5852-5_6

497

498

G. Hughes

3. If institutions are to adopt a “whole university approach,” what should the role of Student Services be within this approach? 4. How closely positioned should Student Services be to core university missions and the academic universe? This chapter explores these issues and proposes a conceptual model for Student Services’ responses to well-being and learning, arguing for the adoption of a research, practice, and teaching model to ensure better collaboration between academic and professional staff and closer integration of well-being and learning. Using practical examples and clinical evidence, it argues that well-being services should be based on developmental rather than deficiency-based models of practice and that well-being interventions should include support for academic learning. Keywords

Student mental health · Student services · Whole university approach · Learning and well-being

Introduction One of the most significant challenges facing universities and Student Services departments in recent years has been a growing concern about the mental health of students (Auerbach et al. 2018; Neves and Hillman 2017). This concern has been echoed across the Westernized nations in the media and the literature, in relation to both undergraduate and post-graduate communities (Stallman 2010; Levecque et al. 2017). Research indicates that there has been a growth in student need and demand for mental health support services, with an increasing number of students experiencing mental illness (Broglia et al. 2018). Some studies and reports even suggest that most students may experience levels of distress above clinical thresholds (Stallman 2010). Responses to this apparent rise in student mental illness vary across and within nations. Some voices have claimed that this contemporary concern with student mental health is part of a rise in, “therapeutic culture” Furedi (2003). These voices claim that a concern with and dialogue about the mental health of students is, in fact, helping to create this problem by persuading students that they are ill, when they are actually experiencing normal emotions and events (e.g., Ecclestone and Hayes 2009). There are also objections that it is not the role of universities to support student mental health, that these are matters that should belong solely to statutory health services and that universities are being pushed to take on responsibilities that have never been part of their mission. However, historical records do not support this view. While this current rise is a contemporary concern, student mental health has long been recognized as an issue that requires university attention. A UK report issued in 1945 recommended that every university should provide students with access to an optician, a dentist, and a

26

The Challenge of Student Mental Well-Being: Reconnecting Students Services. . .

499

psychiatrist. Student counseling services have existed in Australia, the USA, and the UK, at least, since the mid-1950s (although in the UK they appear to have become more common since the 1960s) (Walker 1979). They were created, even then, in response to an identifiable student need (Jacobs 1979). It is, therefore, not a new phenomenon for universities to accept some responsibility for the well-being and “pastoral care” of their students. Equally there are both ethical and practical reasons for universities to accept some responsibility for supporting the mental health of their student populations. Given the weight of evidence, it is clear that many students do experience difficulties with their mental health, while at university. From an ethical perspective, universities cannot pretend that this is not an ever present issue within their communities. Knowing this, there is an incumbent moral requirement on universities to ensure that these students are supported and that engaging in university behavior does not have a negative impact on their mental well-being. Practically, it is also clear that poor mental health can have a negative impact upon student performance, retention, and future employability (Stallman 2010). It is in the self-interest of universities to take steps to prevent this. The traditional university response to student mental health problems has been to provide services that students can access when they are experiencing difficulties. In other words, these services have provided forms of reactive support to help students address problems if and when they arise. From the beginning the mix and make up of this support has varied from institution to institution and nation to nation, often including some combination of counseling and\or psychotherapy, advice and guidance, disability services, welfare or well-being services, and a Chaplaincy (Jacobs 1979). Typically, services to support mental health have usually been positioned as separate to the core research and teaching mission of universities. At most, a tangential case has been made that by providing support for students, when they experience problems, universities may be able to reduce the number of students dropping out or underperforming academically. As a result, Student Services, have potentially been positioned as a “nice to have” addition to the university structure, which demonstrates an institution’s care for its students, but which plays no direct role in core functions. It would, in fact, be perfectly possible to have a university without a Student Services or Student Affairs department and still consider it to be a university. However, the recent increase in concern about student mental health has brought a number of these assumptions and models into question. Research has shown that most students, who experience problems with their mental health, do not access formal support (Hunt and Eisenberg 2010). In addition, it has long been recognized that even largely effective treatments, such as counseling and psychotherapy, do not work for everyone (e.g., Evans et al. 2017). Of those students who do access counseling, some will still experience ongoing problems afterward. This has led to calls for universities to take a “whole university approach” to student mental health to ensure that the mental well-being of all students is adequately addressed (e.g., Universities Australia 2018; Universities UK 2017). These calls argue that it is not enough to provide services, which some students may or may not access. Universities also have a moral responsibility to ensure that they provide

500

G. Hughes

an environment that is conducive to good mental health, take action to prevent students becoming ill, help students develop “resilience” and self-management skills and provide proactive responses that do not rely on reactive services. The implication of these calls is that universities must consider every aspect of their interactions with students and the impact these may have on mental health. In particular, this places a focus on the role of academic staff and the curriculum as the only guaranteed points of contact between a student and the university (Hughes et al. 2018). These calls have not been welcomed without reservation. Some organizations and students have raised concerns that “whole university activity” is in fact being used by institutions to provide cover for the under-resourcing of professional services (e.g., BACP 2018; Hewitt 2019). One particular concern is that this approach facilitates the outsourcing of specialized student support from qualified professionals to other existing staff within the university (e.g., academic staff placed into “pastoral” roles) or to unqualified staff in “wellbeing” roles (Lightfoot 2018). In effect, these voices suggest that the approach undervalues specialized, professional clinical staff and responses to student mental health. In doing so, the “whole university approach” potentially represents a dilution of the mission of Student Services, in responding to student mental health needs. Inherent in these criticisms is also an underlying tension that places traditional services, such as counseling, in opposition to more broad-based, preventative interventions that seek to build students’ ability to manage their own well-being and to create environments that are more supportive to well-being. Some of these concerns suggest that the move toward building “resilience” is, in effect, an attempt to place responsibility for mental health problems back onto students (Binnie 2016). In other words, that this is a form of victim blaming. These dialogues highlight a range of tensions and uncertainties in the current hinterland of Student Services and student mental health that potentially contribute to a lack of clarity about the role of Student Services in this area. This lack of clarity points toward a current theoretical gap, through which these questions and tensions can be coherently addressed. In particular, these dialogues suggest that there is a need for theory which, can seek to answer the following four central questions: 1. What role should universities and Student Services play in relation to student mental health and well-being? 2. What balance of proactive and reactive responses should universities adopt? 3. If institutions are to adopt a “whole university approach,” what should the role of Student Services be within this approach? 4. How closely positioned should Student Services be to core university missions and the academic universe? This chapter will, therefore, explore these questions and, drawing on evidence from the literature, developing practice, and a case study from the UK, seek to develop an outline theoretical response through which these tensions can be addressed.

26

The Challenge of Student Mental Well-Being: Reconnecting Students Services. . .

501

A Note on Terminology The terms mental illness, mental health, and well-being are often used interchangeably and without clear definition. This can lead to misunderstanding and a lack of clarity and focus. In this chapter, mental illness will be taken to mean poor mental health or a condition that may receive a clinical diagnosis. Mental health will refer to a full spectrum ranging from good mental health to mental illness. Well-being will encompass a wider framework, of which mental health is an integral part, but which, on Kraut’s model (2009), also includes physical and social well-being, leading to flourishing at its optimum level.

The Relationship Between Student Services and the Academic Universe A number of concerns have been raised in the literature and sector discourse that Student Services teams and academics exist in different worlds (Hughes et al. 2018; Greatrix 2018). These concerns suggest that Student Services and academics often use different language, have different conceptions of students and university life, and differing sets of priorities or mission. While this separation may well occur as a result of unplanned developments in culture and organization, there are ethical arguments that suggest that students may benefit from at least some separation between Student Services and the academic universe. From a student perspective, research indicates that many do not want their tutors or academic supervisors to know if they are accessing support for their mental health or well-being (McAllister et al. 2014). Perhaps understandably, some students report being concerned that if their academic knows they are mentally ill or that they require support, this may alter their tutor’s perception of them and may affect future opportunities. A clear separation between Student Services and the academic community can, therefore help to reassure students that they can rely on the confidentiality of the support they are receiving. While, if students perceive this confidentiality wall to be porous, because of a close relationship between Student Services and academics, they may be less willing to access professional support when needed. It could, therefore, be argued that maintaining clear separation can help avoid such ethical dilemmas. However, while this ethical concern deserves consideration, research shows that separation between Student Services and the academic universe can have negative consequences for students, student well-being, and responses to student mental illness. In particular, when there are poor or no relationships between academics and Student Services, this can create gaps in support through which students can fall. As a result, ill students do not receive the support they need, in a timely manner, potentially creating greater risk. Conversely, when academics and Student Services are able to work together, with individual students, to coordinate support and allocate

502

G. Hughes

appropriate responsibility, this collaboration provides a more effective and cohesive response (e.g., Hughes et al. 2018). There are also institutional risks from Student Services departments being separated from the academic universe. Student Services departments often have specialized knowledge about the experiences and needs of specific student groups or of the impact of particular aspects of student life. Separation strips Student Services departments of the opportunity to use this knowledge to influence the academic environment. As a result, university policies, practices, and culture may develop in ways which, inadvertently, have negative impacts on the well-being of some or all students. This suggests there is a strong, ethical case for Student Services to move in the direction of a more joined up, whole university approach.

The Whole University Response to Student Mental Health and Well-Being It is not hard to see why a more cohesive, cross university response may be necessary to support the mental health and well-being of all students. First, students themselves do not have separate, departmentally based experiences of their time at university. They have one student experience, made up of multiple elements, all overlapping and impacting upon each other. If universities do not provide education, interventions, and support that span these elements, then students are left to navigate this interaction by themselves. This is a significant expectation to place upon students, who may have never been to university before, may not be able to see these connections for themselves, and may not have the skills to respond effectively. As Kift (2009; Kift et al. 2010) has pointed out in her work on transition pedagogy, universities cannot assume that students will automatically bring with them the skills and knowledge to succeed at university. Instead, it is for universities to ensure that students have the explicit opportunities to gain all of the knowledge, understanding, and skills that they will need to be successful. Secondly, as is described above, many students who experience problems with their mental health do not access the formal support provided by Student Services. However, research has shown that many of these students will turn to others within the university community for support, such as peers and their academics (Byrom 2018; Hughes et al. 2018; Hughes and Byrom 2019). A recent report from Student Minds, in the UK, demonstrated that for many academics, responding to issues related to student mental health had become an inevitable part of their role (Hughes et al. 2018). In this way, academics, in effect, become the invisible front line of Student Services, as they are often the first people, within their university, to whom students divulge a mental health problem. Academics also reported that when students were unable to access support from Student Services, because of long waiting lists, they returned to their academics for ongoing support. The academics in Student Minds study felt unprepared and under-supported for this aspect of their role and found it difficult to understand and maintain appropriate

26

The Challenge of Student Mental Well-Being: Reconnecting Students Services. . .

503

boundaries, creating risk for themselves, students and their universities. This was also true for staff who were teaching on health care courses and were qualified mental health professionals themselves (Hughes and Byrom 2019). Given that staff with this level of expertise still found these circumstances challenging, it suggests that universities need to address these issues structurally. Finally, signposting students to Student Services emerges as a complex, nuanced, and, at times, difficult task that is exacerbated by gaps in understanding and communication, between academics and Student Services (Hughes et al. 2018). All of which clearly indicates, that universities need to do more to properly consider the role of academics and to ensure closer working relationships between Student Services and academic staff, based on common understanding and goals. Finally, the significant, transactional link between well-being and learning suggests that support for mental well-being cannot be entirely separated from academic learning and teaching.

Student Well-Being and Learning It has long been accepted that there is a clear relationship between the well-being of students and their ability to learn and perform academically. Taking Kraut’s (2009) conception of well-being as encompassing the physical, psychological (emotional and cognitive), and social aspects of an individual’s life, we can see from the research literature that each has an effect on student learning.

Physical Well-Being and Learning Numerous studies have demonstrated the impact of physical well-being on student learning and performance. Sleep (Scullin 2019; Curcio et al. 2006), hydration (Pawson et al. 2012), exercise (Rasberry et al. 2011), and diet, (Florence et al. 2008) have all been shown to have clear effects on how students feel, learn, and perform. Social Well-Being and Learning Researchers in social neuroscience, such as Cacioppo and Patrick (2009) have demonstrated that social isolation and loneliness also reduces cognitive function. For students this has been shown to reduce their ability to focus attention, concentrate, remember, and problem solve (Baumeister et al. 2002; Cacioppo et al. 2000) and some research has shown a direct impact on overall academic ability and grades (Baumeister et al. 2002; Cacioppo and Patrick 2009). Additionally, authors such as Vincent Tinto (1975) have long argued that student sense of belonging to their university plays a significant role in determining student persistence and success. Psychological Well-Being and Learning UK Government data indicates that students who experience mental illness are more likely to drop out of university and underperform academically. The work of authors such as Joseph le Doux (1998) demonstrates that anxiety and trauma reduce cognitive functioning, making it more difficult for mentally ill students to learn,

504

G. Hughes

concentrate, problem solve, and perform to their academic potential. A low level of mental well-being can negatively impact concentration, motivation, self-confidence, and the ability to engage with attendance and assessment, therefore, significantly impeding learning overall (Craig and Zinckiewicz 2010; Tinklin et al. 2005; Quinn et al. 2009). On the other hand, good well-being has been associated with enhanced creativity (Rothenberg 2006) and the ability to enter into a “flow” state of learning, described as a state of complete concentration or absorption that benefits learning and academic performance (Csikszentmihalyi 1992).

Impact of Academic Learning on Well-Being The impact of mental health and well-being on learning and academic performance, therefore, has a clear evidence base. However, research has also shown that this relationship is bidirectional. That is, the way in which students engage with their learning and their academic experience also has an impact on their well-being. Researchers such as Postareff et al. 2016), have shown that students who engage in deep learning have better well-being, perform better, and have a better experience of their time at university. Students who engage in surface learning have lowered well-being. In particular, they are more likely to experience higher anxiety and to need others to help them address and solve problems. In deep learning, as the name suggests, students engage deeply with their subject, motivated by their passion or interest, reading widely, connecting what they have learned to previous learning and seeking understanding. This helps to generate meaning and a sense of mastery and control, thus boosting their well-being. In surface learning, students are more likely to skip over the surface of the subject, focusing only on what they need to know, to get the grade they want, with the minimum amount of effort. They are more likely to seek to regurgitate material rather than understand it and learn subjects in isolation from each other. This focus on external measures (grades) denies the opportunity to generate meaning and places control for their self-perceived success on external judgments, thus lowering wellbeing overall. The common difference between these two groups is often motivational focus, with deep learners more likely to be intrinsically motivated and surface learners more likely to be extrinsically motivated (Deci and Ryan 1985) (Table 1). However, to be able to engage deeply with their learning, students require a level of predeveloped skill, knowledge, awareness, understanding, and self-confidence. While surface learning students are more likely to be anxious, it is equally true that anxious, ill-trained students are likely to reach for a surface learning approach, as a survival strategy. This is also true of students who face external and internal barriers to learning. For instance, students with additional caring responsibilities or those required to undertake significant amounts of paid work, may have to strategically ration their time and therefore focus solely on what must be done, to make it through each stage of their program (Haggis 2003).

26

The Challenge of Student Mental Well-Being: Reconnecting Students Services. . .

505

Table 1 Deep versus surface learning Deep learning Reads and studies widely and deeply Aims to understand the meaning behind the material Connects new material to previous knowledge and beliefs Seeks to create new arguments and ideas from what they have learned Motivated internally by desire to learn or love of subject Thinks critically about what they have learned

Surface learning Reads and studies narrowly Aims to regurgitate the material Learns subjects in isolation Seeks to repeat arguments of others accurately Externally motivated by the need to pass assessments or grain grades Focuses on memorizing necessary material without examining it

On the other hand, students who have been taught to learn well at university level, have good preexisting subject knowledge, face no additional barriers, and who feel confident, safe, supported, and emotionally positive will find it easier to engage in deep learning (Csikszentmihalyi 1992). Deep, active learning, in other words, is a function of self-confidence, capacity, and the possession of necessary “pre-knowledge” (De Bruyckere 2018). The well-being impact of a student’s academic experience will therefore depend upon their level of competence and mastery, pre-knowledge, locus of motivation, mindset, support, external and internal barriers, and learning approach (Black and Deci 2000; Houghton and Anderson 2017; Postareff et al. 2016). This then suggests that a student’s mental well-being and academic learning exist in a circular relationship, with the potential for both positive and negative outcomes (Fig. 1).

The Role of the Curriculum Taking Kift’s (2009) view that if something is required for students to be successful, they should encounter the opportunity to acquire it in a timely way, while at university, this relationship between well-being and learning becomes a topic that must be specifically addressed with students. This interconnection must be explained to them and explored with them. All of which creates a challenge for universities and Student Services, as the different sides of this circular relationship have tended to be addressed by different departments – academic learning by academic program teams and study skills or learner development teams, student well-being by Student Services. This potentially leaves a gap in student knowledge and understanding (and therefore behavior) and as discussed above, places the burden of making these connections on potentially underprepared students. To remove this burden from students, it is then necessary for universities to create and deliver interventions that make these connections explicitly and support students

506

G. Hughes

Fig. 1 The transactional relationship between student learning and well-being

to develop strategies, skills, and knowledge to enhance both their well-being and learning in an interconnected manner. Ensuring that this reaches all students places a particular focus upon the development and delivery of curriculum. Research demonstrates that curriculum design and delivery can have both a negative and positive impact on student well-being (Slavin et al. 2014; Stephens 2013; Thomas and Asselin 2018; Thomas and Revell 2016). What students learn (content) and the ways in which students are taught and assessed can generate confidence, deep learning, positive self-regard, and a sense of belonging or, alternatively, anxiety, surface learning, doubt and imposter syndrome, and a sense of isolation and competition (Sheldon and Krieger 2007; Slavin et al. 2014). A number of disparate approaches to addressing this problem have been trialed, from workshops and modules students can chose to attend (e.g., Pennock 2015), to curriculum embedded psycho-education, (e.g., What Works Wellbeing 2018) to redesigning assessment strategy and teaching (Houghton and Anderson 2017) However, these approaches are often attempts to add to or “bolt on” additional content and delivery, rather than a deliberate redesign of subject-specific delivery. As Houghton and Anderson (2017) argue, because of the role that emotions play in the learning process, responses to student mental health should have the curriculum at their core. If this is not considered, then not only are universities passing up an opportunity to positively impact on student well-being and learning but curriculum may be having a negative impact on both (Fig. 2). However, research has also demonstrated that many academics lack the knowledge and resources to be able to consider well-being in designing and delivering curriculum. This places a challenge back to Student Services teams, who do have the knowledge and understanding of student well-being and how it can be improved, to be able to share this knowledge with colleagues and influence the curriculum. As a repository of expertise within universities, on student mental health and well-being, this is a responsibility that must lie, at least partly, with Student Services. This requires Student Services to be engaged with academics and academic program

26

The Challenge of Student Mental Well-Being: Reconnecting Students Services. . .

507

Fig. 2 View of student well-being responses with curriculum at the core

delivery. As argued above, if complete separation exists, it is not possible for Student Services to have this influence or impact. However, the relationship between learning and well-being and a requirement to be able to support academic colleagues to develop curriculum that benefits wellbeing and learning, have a number of significant implications for Student Services departments. In particular, there are potential consequences for staff whose primary responsibility is supporting student mental health.

Student Services Relationship to Core Mission 1: Learning and Teaching To explore the potential role of Student Services in relation to learning and teaching, it is worth considering a specific example in which the overlap between well-being and academic learning and achievement is most obvious.

508

G. Hughes

Exam anxiety is one of the most identifiable points of connection between mental well-being and student learning and performance. Estimated to affect 25–30% of students, exam anxiety is defined as a tendency to respond to test situations with worry, physiological arousal, tension, and mental disorganization and to have a negative impact on exam performance (Orbach et al. 2007). Within the literature it is possible to find a significant variety of approaches and treatments for exam anxiety but a meta-analysis conducted by Ergene (2003), identified that multimodal treatments have the best outcomes. That is, students are more likely to overcome exam anxiety, following interventions that combine a variety of therapeutic approaches, support to implement lifestyle changes, and study skills support within the same intervention. Taken together with the unbreakable relationship between student learning and well-being, this suggests that effective treatment and interventions for student mental health must be able to directly address aspects of student learning. In other words, that student counseling and other support for student mental health and well-being should be regarded as a specialism, with student learning and academic performance recognized as a key contextual factor in the mental well-being of students. Mental health interventions, of whatever type, should also address how students approach their learning and provide psycho-education on meta-learning and effective learning techniques, to support students to develop mastery, academic confidence, and deep learning approaches. This then provides a four axis model of student well-being taking into account physical, psychological, social, and academic aspects and the interrelationship between them (Fig. 3). In turn, this can be used to provide structure and thinking around the activities of Student Services departments in this area and help provide some definition of the role of universities in supporting student mental health. Given that student mental health is a specialism, which incorporates student learning, it is therefore clearly an area which falls legitimately within the purview of universities. It is unlikely that external health services will be able to develop the specialist insight and knowledge that this approach will require. This can be given clearer definition again, if a developmentalist approach is taken toward the mental health and well-being of students. For decades it has been recognized that students can be particularly receptive to counseling and other mental health interventions because, by the nature of undertaking study, they are in a stage of profound development and open to new learning (Walker 1979). If Student Services departments view their role as developmentalist and in support of student learning, it also places them closer to the core mission of universities and provides greater clarity of purpose. The nature of this learning will inevitably vary depending upon context. Within counseling or psychotherapy, for instance, the student may be supported to learn more about themselves, their past, their own emotions, their responses to particular situations, and to develop new understandings, strategies, and behaviors that improve their well-being. For some students, this may include their approach to learning, their study behaviors, and steps they can take to adopt more effective

26

The Challenge of Student Mental Well-Being: Reconnecting Students Services. . .

509

Fig. 3 Holistic model of student well-being

learning, as a way of increasing their sense of competence, control, self-efficacy, and meaning, thereby improving their mental health and well-being. In crisis situations involving risk, it may be more difficult to take this developmentalist approach (for example, if a student is experiencing psychosis and presents a risk to themselves or others). This can therefore lend definition to those times when external health services must play the key role in responding to mental illness. However, universities may still be able to play a learning role even in this scenario. For instance, by helping the student to develop an understanding of the need for medical intervention. During recovery, Student Services staff, working in collaboration with external services, may also be able to support the student to learn about and understand their experience, so they can return to study safely and reduce the possibility of relapse. Theoretical support for this approach can be found in recent advances in the literature. Byrom and Murphy (2018) propose a new three factor model for understanding how mental health develops in the individual. While traditional models of mental health development have considered that it is largely a confluence of genetic characteristics and the environment, their work suggests that learning should be seen as a third mediating factor. That is, that it is through learning that we adapt to our genetic makeup and the environment. Individuals who learn to adopt flexible, sophisticated, and balanced responses to their environment and their own characteristics are more likely to develop good mental health. However, this is obviously easier for those whose genes and environment are less challenging. This provides an additional theoretical structure through which universities can think about student mental health and in particular, can envision whole university

510

G. Hughes

Fig. 4 Interaction of genes, environment, and learning

approaches, which do not fall foul of accusations of “victim blaming” as mentioned in the introduction but remain developmental and holistic in outlook (Fig. 4). This structure suggests that universities must consider (Byrom and Murphy 2018) the following: Genetic factors – Students with particular characteristics that make them more vulnerable to mental health difficulties, e.g., Autism, may require specialist types of proactive support to ensure they meet their potential. This incorporates a range of the typical services offered by Student Services, e.g., disability services. Environmental factors – Students require a university environment that is conducive to good mental health. This includes all university activities, including the curriculum. Universities should also consider (1) the environments from which students are coming to university and the impacts these may already have had and (2) the need for an inclusive university environment, that responds to intersectional issues that can otherwise create the potential for mental health difficulties, e.g., for LGBT+ students. Learning – Students may need to develop insights, understanding, skills, and strategies to improve academic achievement and to better manage their own well-being now and in their future lives and careers. Bringing all of this together, it is possible to construct a vision of Student Services as playing a central developmentalist role in a whole university response to student well-being, delivering learning to support good well-being and contributing to the development of curriculum and pedagogy that supports well-being and learning. This situates Student Services closer to one of the core missions of universities, protects the professionalism of services, and delivers a response to mental health that can have a positive impact on the mental health and well-being of all students.

26

The Challenge of Student Mental Well-Being: Reconnecting Students Services. . .

511

Barriers and Possible Solutions While there is a strong research and theoretical basis for Student Services to adopt a developmentalist, whole university approach to student mental health and wellbeing, this may not be where many departments find themselves today and there may be a number of barriers to adopting this model. For instance, to implement this model would require staff in mental health roles (counselors, psychotherapists, mental health practitioners, etc.) to be able to at least discuss learning approaches, strategies, and techniques with students. This may require a level of professional development in terms of both knowledge and pedagogic techniques. This, however, may create opportunities for two-way exchanges of learning between academic staff and Student Services staff – with academics providing learning on pedagogy to Student Services staff and Student Services staff providing learning on student well-being to academics. There are also existing structures that could support this development – the Higher Education Academy Fellowship scheme, for instance, is an international award that can provide a structure and recognition for staff undertaking development in learning and teaching. Similarly, Student Services leaders must possess sufficient knowledge and understanding to be able to advocate for the development of curriculum that supports high quality learning and well-being. In particular, they must be able to respond to the concerns of some academics that considering well-being within the curriculum will distract from or dilute scholarship and the disciplinary integrity of a degree program (Ecclestone and Hayes 2008, 2009). This requires a familiarity with evidence, demonstrating that scholarship and well-being are not in opposition to each other but are in fact interlinked. While this may be a significant distance to travel for some Student Services professionals, there are examples of this in practice across the world. In the USA, for instance, it is common for Student Affairs staff to be well versed in theories of learner development. However, even where Student Services staff have the requisite knowledge and understanding, a more challenging barrier may simply be their profile and perception within their institution (Greatrix 2018). The division between academic and professional staff is often deep and both culturally and structurally maintained. Overcoming these barriers can take time, persistence, and sustained commitment. However, there are examples of institutions where significant progress has been made, which highlight a number of principles that may be key to achieving these changes. This chapter will now consider one of these examples as an illustration case study.

Case Study – The University of Derby As can be seen (“Student Services Relationship to Core Mission 1: Teaching and Learning”) in this book, Student Well-Being at the University of Derby (part of Student Services), plays a key role in pedagogic developments within the institution

512

G. Hughes

and is now routinely included in discussions around teaching, learning, and academic development. However, this situation has developed over time and began in a similar context to that described above, in which Student Services and academics existed largely separately, in different language and cultures and in which Student Well-Being’s voice was not usually included in discussions around curriculum. Changing this environment required years of work in a ground up strategy, requiring the development of Student Services staff, the building of a network of relationships, and creating a new profile for the department. The initial intervention that helped to build bridges between Student Services and academics was the development of a program of psycho-education, designed to empower students with knowledge, skills, motivation, and belief to take control of their own well-being and learning. Each session blended education on effective learning and practical steps to improve well-being and focused on topics such as Learning and Well-Being, Improving Performance in Assessments, and Maintaining Motivation. These sessions were initially offered to academic teams to book and were delivered into academic programs. They are now embedded into undergraduate programs at Derby and into several PG taught programs. Central to the program’s success is that the material for each session has been adapted to ensure it is relevant to the curriculum of each program. Using student evaluations and the importance of the situated nature of learning, individual workshops were fitted around subject material that was already familiar to students. Thus, a session on Learning and Well-Being became “Emotional Intelligence in the Workplace” for Business students and “Improving Live Music Performance” for Popular Music students. The need to alter each session in this way, created an opportunity to work with program-based academics. By being present in the classroom, demonstrating knowledge, understanding, and an ability to teach, staff were also able to win over academic staff and positively change perceptions. In addition, by placing themselves in the classroom, Student Well-Being staff were also better able to understand the experiences of the whole student body (not just those who presented to services) and this learning, in turn, was used to inform the development of other new interventions and ongoing practice. To reach this point, however, a number of principles had to be fulfilled: 1. Staff developing the psycho-education program had previous teaching experience and undertook professional development, to ensure they could discuss and employ evidence-based pedagogy. 2. All staff delivering psycho-education were mental health professionals with deep knowledge and experience in supporting students to improve their well-being. 3. The psycho-education team were also able and willing to have discussions with academics to understand cohort and subject context, the challenges they faced, and to work to shape appropriate responses together. 4. The psycho-education program itself took a holistic, developmentalist approach, helping students to find positive ways to improve both well-being and learning, without requiring any diminishing of subject or scholarship, thus gaining credibility with academic staff.

26

The Challenge of Student Mental Well-Being: Reconnecting Students Services. . .

513

Student Services Relationship to Core Mission 2: Research Alongside this work, Student Well-Being also began to develop a strand of research activity. It is a curious fact that despite existing within universities, many Student Services teams do not engage in conducting publishable research and there is no institutional expectation that they do so. However, this is problematic, for a number of reasons, particularly in relation to student mental health. First, there is a recognition that there are significant gaps in our current knowledge about student mental health, the causes of student mental illness, and what the most effective responses might be. Student Services are situated in the optimal position to be able to address this gap. Secondly, research into student mental health is often conducted without the involvement of Student Services staff in design or implementation. As a result, this research can produce findings that are detached from day to day practice and recommendations that cannot be implemented, in reality, within universities. Franchising research out to academics within the institution can be a tempting way to address this problem but even here, if Student Services staff do not understand the research process enough to guide the study, it may still produce findings that do not contribute to more effective practice. In effect, if Student Services are not leading research, this can lead to interventions and activity to address mental health, being delivered to students, without a clear, justifiable evidence base that is clearly relevant to the university context. Third, as has already been discussed, by not contributing or engaging with research output, Student Services are decoupled from one of the core missions of universities. At Derby, conducting research and publishing in peer reviewed journals, books, and conferences has helped Student Well-Being to develop evidence informed practice and to evaluate and revise current interventions (e.g., Hughes et al. 2018; Hughes and Byrom 2019). As importantly, it also raised the profile of the service within the academic community, gaining additional credibility and placing Student Well-Being in the same universe as academics; sharing experiences, viewpoints, and a more common language and demonstrating that building closer relationships between academics and Student Services is possible.

Student Services – Moving Forward This chapter began with a number of challenges facing Student Services in relation to student mental health and a series of questions created by those challenges. In addressing those challenges, this chapter has sought to pull together evidence from research, theoretical understandings, and an example from practice to construct a theoretical model of Student Services in thinking about and responding to student mental health. This model may be described as a research, practice, and teaching model, taking a holistic, developmentalist, whole university approach to student mental health (Fig. 5).

514

G. Hughes

Fig. 5 Research, practice, and teaching model of Student Services

In this model, research, practice, and teaching inform each other, driving continual learning, improvement, and influence. Student Services are better positioned to be able to support and work with academic staff, to ensure students don’t fall through gaps in communication or understanding and to influence institutional development of curriculum and pedagogy. There is also a closer link to core mission and a clearer definition of Student Services role, ensuring that the department is better able to make key contributions to strategic university priorities. There is also a clearer answer to the question of whether universities should play a role in responding to student mental health. Taking Byrom and Murphy’s model, it is apparent that universities do have a role in providing an environment and learning that supports good mental health and well-being and additional support for those with further barriers or vulnerabilities to mental illness. Taking a developmentalist approach, Student Services can also support students to improve their academic learning and to prepare for life after university, rather than relying on reactive support that may not be available after they graduate. This definition also provides some increased clarity about a university’s threshold of responsibility in relation to students who are seriously mentally ill, when developmental learning will not address the situation and a student requires medication, hospitalization, or specialized health care. There remains, however, the ethical concern that creating closer relationships between academics and Student Services may result in students losing confidence in the confidentiality of services. As has been argued elsewhere (Hughes and Wilson 2017), this then calls for the repositioning of Student Services and academics, with a closer working, overlapping relationship but with appropriate boundaries that still remain. This collaborative model still maintains appropriate boundaries that can and should be clearly communicated to students, such as the boundary of confidentiality. However, these boundaries should be positioned so that there is clear overlap, ensuring that students are engaged with their own well-being, understand the links between well-being and learning, and have clear access to support if needed (Fig. 6).

Conclusion As George Box (1979) said, all models are wrong but some models are useful. The theoretical model, constructed in this chapter, is offered in the hope that it can provide a clearer platform for thinking about, interrogating, and advancing the role

26

The Challenge of Student Mental Well-Being: Reconnecting Students Services. . .

515

Fig. 6 Collaborative model of working between academics and student services – overlapping but clear boundaries remain

of Student Services, when considering student mental health and well-being. Moving Student Services to a more influential position within universities, tied to the core missions of teaching and research and able to more powerfully advocate for student need, is arguably key if the current rise in student mental health problems is to be properly addressed. Having a stronger theoretical conception of the role of Student Services, might also allow Student Services leaders to exploit the opportunities presented by initiatives such as the University Mental Health Charter in the UK and the University Mental Health Framework in Australia to bring these issues from the fringes of university activity into the core of day-to-day business. This in turn may offer opportunities to reduce gaps in support, lower risk, and deliver more effective whole university responses that can turn back the tide on student mental illness, allowing universities to become environments that promote good well-being and producing healthy, thriving students, who emerge ready to change the world for the better.

Cross-References ▶ Student Services, Personal Tutors, and Student Mental Health: A Case Study

References Auerbach, R.P., P. Mortier, R. Bruffaerts, J. Alonso, C. Benjet, and R.C. Kessler. 2018. The WHO world mental health surveys international college student project: Prevalence and distribution of mental disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 127 (7): 623–638. https://doi.org/10.1037/ abn0000362. BACP. 2018. https://www.bacp.co.uk/media/4159/bacp-student-mental-health-briefing.pdf Baumeister, R., J.M. Twenge, and C.K. Nuss. 2002. Effects of social exclusion on cognitive processes: Anticipated aloneness reduces intelligent thought. . .. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83 (4): 817–827. Binnie, G. 2016. Struggling students are not’ lacking resilience’ – They need more support. The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2016/aug/18/ struggling-students-are-not-lacking-resilience-they-need-more-support. Accessed 10 May 2019.

516

G. Hughes

Black, A.E., and E.L. Deci. 2000. The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and students’ autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective. Science Education 84 (6): 740–756. Box, G.E.P. 1979. Robustness in the strategy of scientific model building. In Robustness in statistics, ed. R.L. Launer and G.N. Wilkinson, 201–236. New York: Academic Press. Broglia, E., A. Millings, and M. Barkham. 2018. Challenges to addressing student mental health in embedded counselling services: A survey of UK higher and further education institutions. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling 46 (4): 441–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03069885.2017.1370695. Byrom, N. 2018. An evaluation of a peer support intervention for student mental health. Journal of Mental Health 27 (3): 240–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638237.2018.1437605. Byrom, N.C., and R.A. Murphy. 2018. Individual differences are more than a gene  environment interaction: The role of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition 44 (1): 36–55. Cacioppo, J.T., and W.B. Patrick. 2009. Loneliness: Human nature and the need for social connection. New York: Norton, W. W. & Company. Cacioppo, J.T., J.M. Ernst, M.H. Burleson, M.K. McClintock, W.B. Malarkey, L.C. Hawkley, R.B. Kowalewski, A. Paulsen, J.A. Hobson, K. Hugdahl, D. Spiegel, and G.G. Berntson. 2000. Lonely traits and concomitant physiological processes: The MacArthur social neuroscience studies. International Journal of Psychophysiology 35 (2–3): 143–154. Craig, N., and L. Zinckiewicz. (2010). Inclusive practice within psychology higher education. York: Higher Education Academy Psychology Network [Internet]. Available from: https://www. heacademy.ac.uk/resource/inclusive-practice-within-psychology-higher-education Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1992. Flow: The psychology of happiness. London: Rider & Co. Curcio, G., M. Ferrara, and L. De Gennaro. 2006. Sleep loss, learning capacity and academic performance. Sleep Medicine Reviews 10: 232–337. De Bruyckere, P. 2018. The ingredients for great teaching. London: Sage. Deci, E.L., and R.M. Ryan. 1985. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. 3rd ed. New York: Plenum Publishing Co. Ecclestone, K., and D. Hayes. 2008. The dangerous rise of therapeutic education. London: Routledge. Ecclestone, K., and D. Hayes. 2009. Changing the subject: The educational implications of developing emotional well-being. Oxford Review of Education 35 (3): 371–389. Ergene, T. 2003. Effective interventions on test anxiety reduction: A meta-analysis. School Psychology International 24 (3): 313–328. Evans, L.J., A. Beck, and M. Burdett. 2017. The effect of length, duration, and intensity of psychological therapy on CORE global distress scores. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice 90 (3): 389–400. https://doi.org/10.1111/papt.12120. Florence, M.D., M. Asbridge, and P.J. Veugelers. 2008. Diet quality and academic performance. The Journal of School Health 78 (4): 209–215. Furedi, F. 2003. Therapy culture: Cultivating vulnerability in an uncertain age. London: Routledge. Greatrix, P. (2018). Academics and administrators: No more ‘us and them’. WonkHE. Available at https://wonkhe.com/blogs/academics-and-administrators-no-more-us-and-them/. Accessed 10 May 2019. Haggis, T. 2003. Constructing images of ourselves? A critical investigation into ‘approaches to learning’ research in higher education. British Educational Research Journal 29: 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192032000057401. Hewitt, R. (2019). Measuring well-being in higher education. HEPI policy note 13. HEPI. Available at: https://www.hepi.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Policy-Note-13-Paper-May2019-Measuring-well-being-in-higher-education-8-Pages-5.pdf. Accessed 10 May 2019. Houghton, A.-M., and J. Anderson. 2017. Embedding mental wellbeing in the curriculum: Maximising success in higher education. York: Higher Education Academy.

26

The Challenge of Student Mental Well-Being: Reconnecting Students Services. . .

517

Hughes, G.J., and N.C. Byrom. 2019. Managing student mental health: The challenges faced by academics on professional healthcare courses. Journal of Advanced Nursing: 1–10. https://doi. org/10.1111/jan.13989. Hughes, G., and C. Wilson. 2017. From transcendence to general maintenance: Exploring the creativity and wellbeing dynamic in higher education. In Creativity, innovation and wellbeing, ed. F. Reisman, 23–65. London: KIE Conference Publications. Hughes, G., M. Panjwani, P. Tulcidas, and N. Byrom. 2018. Student mental health: The role and responsibilities of academics (rep). Oxford: Student Minds. http://www.studentminds.org.uk/ uploads/3/7/8/4/3784584/180129_student_mental_health__the_role_and_experience_of_aca demics__student_minds_pdf.pdf. Hunt, J., and D. Eisenberg. 2010. Mental health problems and help-seeking behavior among college students. The Journal of Adolescent Health 46 (1): 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth. 2009.08.008. Jacobs, M. 1979. Counselling within a student health service. In Student health practice, ed. A. Wilkinson. Tunbridge Wells: Pitman Medical Publishing Company Ltd. Kift, S. 2009. Articulating a transition pedagogy. Queensland: Australian Learning and Teaching Council. Kift, S.M., K. Nelson, and J.A. Clark. 2010. Transition pedagogy: A third generation approach to FYE: A case study of policy and practice for the higher education sector. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education 1 (1): 1–20. Kraut, R. 2009. What is good and why: The ethics of Well-being. London: Harvard University Press. LeDoux, J. 1998. The emotional brain. London: Phoenix. Levecque, K., F. Anseel, A. De Beuckelaer, J. Van Der Heyden, and L. Gisle. 2017. Work organization and mental health problems in PhD students. Research Policy 46: 868–879. Lightfoot, L. 2018. Universities outsource mental health services despite soaring demand. The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/jul/17/universities-out source-mental-health-services-despite-soaring-demand. Accessed 10 May 2019. McAllister, M., D. Wynaden, B. Happell, T. Flynn, V. Walters, R. Duggan, L. Byrne, L. Heslop, and C. Gaskin. 2014. Staff experiences of providing support to students who are managing mental health challenges: A qualitative study from two Australian universities. Advances in Mental Health 12 (3): 192–201. Neves, J., and N. Hillman. 2017. Student academic experience survey. York: Higher Education Academy. Available at https://www.hepi.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/2017-StudentAcademic-Experience-Survey-Final-Report.pdf. [Accessed 6/4/21] Orbach, G., S. Lindsay, and S. Grey. 2007. A randomised placebo-controlled trial of a self-help Internet-based intervention for test anxiety. Behavior Research and Therapy 45: 483–496. Pawson, C., M. Gardner, S. Doherty, L. Martin, R. Soares, and C.J. Edmonds. 2012. Water consumption in exams and its effects on students’ performance. Paper presented at Annual British Psychological Society Conference, London, 18–20 April. Pennock, S.F. 2015. Positive psychology 1504: Harvard’s groundbreaking course. Positive Psychology 1504: Harvard’s Groundbreaking Course. Available at: https://positivepsycholo gyprogram.com/harvard-positive-psychology-course-1504/. Accessed 10 May 2019. Postareff, L., M. Mattsson, S. Lindblom-Ylänne, and T. Hailikari. 2016. The complex relationship between emotions, approaches to learning, study success and study progress during the transition to university. Higher Education 73 (3): 441–457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0096-. Quinn, N., A. Wilson, G. Macintyre, and T. Tinklin. 2009. ‘People look at you differently’: Students’ experience of mental health support within higher education. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling 37 (4): 405–418. Rasberry, C.N., S.M. Lee, L. Robin, B.A. Laris, L.A. Russell, K.K. Coyle, and A.J. Nihiser. 2011. The association between school-based physical activity, including physical education, and academic performance: A systematic review of the literature. Preventive Medicine 52: S10–S20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.01.027.

518

G. Hughes

Rothenberg, A. 2006. Creativity – The healthy muse. The Lancet 368 (Special Issue): S8–S9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69905-4. Scullin, M.K. 2019. The eight hour sleep challenge during final exams week. Teaching of Psychology 46 (1): 55–63. Sheldon, K.M., and L.S. Krieger. 2007. Understanding the negative effects of legal education on law students: A longitudinal test of self-determination theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 33 (6): 883–897. Slavin, S.J., D.L. Schindler, and J.T. Chibnall. 2014. Medical student mental health 3.0: Improving student wellness through curricular changes. Academic Medicine 89 (4): 573. Stallman, H.M. 2010. Psychological distress in university students: A comparison with general population data. Australian Psychologist 45 (4): 249–257. Stephens, T.M. 2013. Nursing student resilience: A concept clarification. Paper presented at the Nursing forum. Thomas, L.J., and M. Asselin. 2018. Promoting resilience among nursing students in clinical education. Nurse Education in Practice 28: 231–234. Thomas, L.J., and S.H. Revell. 2016. Resilience in nursing students: An integrative review. Nurse Education Today 36: 457–462. Tinklin, T., S. Riddell, and A. Wilson. 2005. Support for students with mental health difficulties in higher education: The Students’ perspective. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling 33 (4): 495–512. Tinto, V. 1975. Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research 45 (1): 89–125. Universities Australia. 2018. Universities & specialists work together on student. Universities Australia: Discover Learn Lead. Available at: https://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/Mediaand-Events/media-releases/Universities%2D%2D-specialists-work-together-on-student-men tal-health#.XNVdZ_ZFzcs. Accessed 10 May 2019. Universities UK. 2017. Mental health in higher education. Universities UK. Available at: https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/stepchange. Accessed 10 May 2019. Walker, J. (1979). Student counselling services. In Student health practice, ed Wilkinson, A. Tunbridge Wells: Pitman Medical Publishing Company Ltd. What Works Wellbeing. 2018. University of Derby: A warmer welcome for better wellbeing. What Works Centre for Wellbeing. Available at: https://whatworkswellbeing.org/case-study/49677/. Accessed 10 May 2019.

Developing Students’ Career Identity from Choice of Major to a Values-Driven Career Plan

27

Lori Nero Ghosal, Rachel Worsham, and Chester Miller

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Identity Development in College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implications of an Unclear Career Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Career Identity Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theoretical Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elements of the Program: Workshops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elements of the Program: Collaboration with Campus Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elements of the Program: Coach Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Assessment Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion and Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Future of the Career Identity Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

520 522 522 525 525 526 530 530 531 531 531 532 532 535

Abstract

This chapter details the Career Identity Program at North Carolina State University and poses the concept of students’ career identity as a necessary construct in choosing their major and creating a values-based, purpose-driven career path. The literature on student identity development largely excludes discussions around career identity, which is defined as the self-awareness of L. N. Ghosal (*) Career Development Center, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA e-mail: [email protected] R. Worsham North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA e-mail: [email protected] C. Miller Living and Learning Initiatives, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 H. Huijser et al. (eds.), Student Support Services, University Development and Administration, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5852-5_22

519

520

L. N. Ghosal et al.

one’s values, beliefs, goals, abilities, purpose, and passion as it relates to career. Similarly, much of the career-related programming at colleges and universities focuses on the task of obtaining employment rather than the process by which students discover careers that fit their personality, strengths, and interests. Yet, students’ ability to determine their career identity has implications for retention, academic success, time to degree, career readiness, and career satisfaction. The Career Development Center at NCSU recognized this gap and created an initiative, the Career Identity Program, for first-year students to help them discover their career identity and set them on the path toward entering a meaningful career. This chapter includes a description of the Career Identity Program including a discussion of the value of coaching in helping students along their career identity exploration. Keywords

Coaching · Identity · Career · Living & Learning Villages · Purpose

Introduction The purpose of higher education in the United States has changed drastically since its inception. In its earliest iteration, higher education in the United States was designed to educate white, prosperous, protestant men with the goal of confirming social status rather than promoting mobility and grooming the country’s “future leadership cohort” (Thelin and Gasman 2011, 6). However, over time, the value of a college education for the general population became evident and the land-grant, state university was born. (In this manuscript, “college” and “university” are used interchangeably to refer to institutions of higher education. Typically, in the United States where this program is situated, “colleges” refer to institutions that only offer undergraduate programs, and “universities” are institutions that have undergraduate and graduate programs; however, this is not always true, as there are some institutions that have “college” in their title but offer graduate programs. Additionally, within the United States, academic programs within institutions are often referred to as “colleges.” For example, NC State University’s College of Engineering.) The land-grant institution was designed to further industrialization and the commercialization of farming and serve as an affordable and accessible postsecondary option for the common man within the state. Universities as a whole added practical curriculum areas, women became a growing presence on campuses, students of color were granted access to institutions, and with the advent of community colleges, postsecondary education became a viable option for many (Renn and Reason 2012, 5; Thelin and Gasman 2011, 11–12). (A community college (also known as a 2-year college) is a type of educational institution in the United States. These institutions offer both vocational courses and technical certificates as well as traditional academic courses that culminate in an Associate’s degree. The length of programs are typically 2 years, as opposed to the traditional Bachelor’s degree which lasts at least

27

Developing Students’ Career Identity from Choice of Major to a. . .

521

4 years. Students with Bachelor’s degree aspirations can take half of their course of study at a community college before transferring those credits to a 4-year college or university where they can finish their Bachelor’s degree.) While college access for underrepresented students has increased, the cost of an American higher education has grown exponentially, making the decision to attend a 4-year college one that typically involves student debt (Baum et al. 2017, 4). As higher education is becoming both more accessible and expensive, today’s diverse students are approaching education ever more mindful of the end result: qualifying for and achieving a “good” career that will provide stability, high income, and personal satisfaction (Morley 2003, 81). Students are entering the university as learners and also as consumers of a product they expect will result in security and social mobility (Singleton-Jackson et al. 2010, 350). Higher education professionals work to ensure that students receive a good return on their investment by striving to increase retention and graduation rates while helping students have a positive and valuable undergraduate experience. Facilitating a smooth transition to college and supporting students through their first year is critical to this mission. For many students, the first year of college can be a stressful transition personally, academically, and socially, as students face new challenges. As students are entering this new phase of independence, they are further refining their sense of identity and may be challenged by both their experience and their peers while at the university (Patton et al. 2016, 89; Renn and Reason 2012, 210). In addition to these personal changes, students in American universities are expected to identify their major after their first 2 years of general education courses, a decision intertwined with their choice of career. However, students’ frequently underdeveloped career goals and lack of experience in the field complicates their ability to make informed decisions about their major, as they may not know career fields well enough to understand what type of jobs they can do with certain degrees. To achieve a good return on their educational investment in the form of marketability and well-paid jobs, students need to be able to choose and complete a major that will support a career. Equally important, students are seeking high job satisfaction. To have this, they must identify careers that fit their interests, skills, values, and purpose – a developmental learning process that can be facilitated by higher education professionals (Matusovich et al. 2010, 296). But how do higher education professionals help first-year students find their purpose and passion and apply it to a major and career path by the end of their first year? In this chapter, we will describe North Carolina State University’s Career Identity Program (CIP) – a collaboration between the Career Development Center and academic units that guides first-year students toward their academic and career goals by helping them self-author a path to a profession that best fits their personal purpose, values, interests, skills, and passions. The CIP includes a series of interconnected, activity-based workshops that build upon each other to help students design meaningful, values-driven careers. In addition to the interactive and selfreflective workshops, students work individually with their assigned career coach throughout the year for customized, intensive academic and career coaching. Over

522

L. N. Ghosal et al.

the last 3 years, the CIP has increased its overall cohort capacity 109% – from 132 to 276 students – and participant surveys have confirmed that, after the program, students were better able to connect their values to their careers, felt more confident in choosing their major, and were able to create a comprehensive academic to career plan. Long term, we hope to find that students’ alignment of their career identity with their career path will positively impact career satisfaction.

Identity Development in College The literature on identity development in college is wide-ranging and comprehensive. From psychosocial theories that attempt to understand the development of identity and self-concept to cognitive-structural theories that seek to understand cognitive maturation, the literature has come to consensus that college is a transformative time in students’ lives where they gain knowledge about the world around them and, most importantly, themselves (Jones and Abes 2013, 45). Most first-year programming in higher education centers on students’ successful transition to college in terms of academic readiness and social awareness that is presumed to support their developing identity and independence (Renn and Reason 2012, 201). Higher education professionals provide support services such as residence life programming, mentorship, academic advisors, wellness resources, and counseling. But how do these professionals assist students’ transition from first year to career-ready professionals? Commonly at American universities, career development centers are looked upon as the hub for resume development, job search, mock interviews, job fairs, and other career readiness activities to support students’ job search. These services help students obtain employment; however, they are not intended to help students choose their major and design a comprehensive career pathway. The connection between students’ identities and their careers is limited in the literature on student development. This gap in research and practice led the Career Development Center at NC State University to develop a first-year program around the concept of a person’s career identity. Career identity, as defined by the authors, is the self-awareness of one’s values, beliefs, goals, abilities, purpose, and passion as it relates to their career. A students’ ability to recognize and act upon their career identity has implications not only for major choice and time to degree completion, but also retention at companies, job satisfaction, and security postgraduation (Leu 2017; Guichard et al. 2012, 53; Wendlandt and Rochlen 2008, 152).

Implications of an Unclear Career Identity Choosing a Major. Students’ major choice not only determines what they will study over the next 4 years, but also sets their trajectory toward their desired career. In many cases, students approach discussions around their majors and careers through the lens of a generalized interest in helping people, society, or improving

27

Developing Students’ Career Identity from Choice of Major to a. . .

523

the world, with expertise in a certain topic as the resources on which they draw. Some know the subject they want to address, which they have discovered through coursework or an experience during high school. Some just know they want to help people live a better life. Additionally, many students look for majors that will lead to job security and a comfortable, stable income upon graduation (Milsom and Coughlin 2015, 9; Montmarquette et al. 2001, 554). In the United States, most college students are required to declare a program of study, or major, during or after they have completed a general education curriculum, which typically lasts 2 years. The general education curriculum is a set of courses predetermined by the university designed to provide students an introduction to a broad range of subjects including history, literature, foreign language, mathematics, science, and physical education. The purpose of these courses is to provide students with an interdisciplinary exposure to a broad range of subjects, which builds a base for future intellectual engagement and establishes an understanding of crosscurriculum connections. Students also gain introduction to various fields, allowing them to make an informed major choice. Near the end of their general education coursework, students are required to choose a major that consists of disciplinespecific courses. Students take these courses for the remainder of their time at the university (Hart Research Associates 2016, 2–14). However, many first-year students do not fully understand the connection between majors and potential careers. Furthermore, first-year students are typically 18 years old and are in the middle stages of identity and cognitive development, which further complicates their ability to make informed decisions about their major and future career (Renn and Reason 2012, 134–168). Students’ lack of exposure to the workplace, their ongoing cognitive and identity development, and the relatively short amount of time they have to explore fields through general coursework coalesce to make major choice overwhelming and intimidating for many. Given this, it is not surprising that 80% of undergraduates in the United States change major at least once, and as many as three times, before graduation (Leu 2017). While it is important that students find a major and a career path in which they feel fulfilled, students who change their major can face serious consequences: increased time to degree, additional financial burden, anxiety and doubt about major and career choices, and the potential loss of relevant internship experience. Most importantly, students who are unable to make informed major choices run the risk of misaligning their career path with their identity. In an effort to avoid these negative consequences, it is critical that students become more selfaware and identify a sense of purpose and life direction early in their college career that reflects their values (Tobolowsky 2008, 64; Graunke and Woosley 2005, 367; Gahagan and Hunter 2008, 46; Lemons and Richmond 1987, 15–19; Milsom and Coughlin 2015, 5–14). Retention in Jobs Postgraduation. An unclear sense of purpose and vision of a career has implications far beyond the choice of major. In addition to the rising cost of college and the financial implications of increased time to degree, today’s students face a different economy with jobs defined by more flexibility and transitory behavior which challenges workers to direct their own career pathways. Until

524

L. N. Ghosal et al.

recently, workers often found themselves in jobs that offered upward mobility within the corporate structure – allowing employees to build lifelong careers within the same company (Hall 2002, 3). However, today’s organizations tend to assign individuals to small teams to perform a specific assignment. Accordingly, when the particular task or assignment is completed, teams are disbanded, threatening job security (Guichard et al. 2012, 53). The temporal changes in work contracts force workers to assume more loosely defined career trajectories that are guided by how well the person identifies opportunities and how easily they can translate their skills from one environment to another. The “protean” or “boundaryless” nature of the workplace empowers workers to take greater responsibility for their careers – making career choices resemble life-design choices (Hall 2002, 17–22; Guichard et al. 2012, 53; Hoekstra 2011, 161). To have successful, fulfilling workplace and life experiences within the protean workplace, college graduates need to be able to identify their own values, needs, and professional skills and apply them to their job searches (Hoekstra 2011, 161). The increasingly fluid nature of career trajectories allows workers much more freedom and control over their vocational development; however, without a clear sense of purpose and knowledge of one’s own skills and values, workers run the risk of falling into a career path by circumstance rather than by consciously choosing and designing it. Poor retention for early career college graduates has become more common in the United States. Whereas in 1983 the average tenure for Americans with their employers was 5 years (Bureau of Labor Statistics 1997), only 50% of recent graduates remain in their first jobs after college for more than 2 years, with an average of 11 months (Wendlandt and Rochlen 2008, 152). While recent graduates may transition jobs for a number of reasons including job instability, perceived lack of opportunities for advancement or familial obligations, evidence suggests that turnover is due in part to a misalignment between worker’s expectations of their roles and duties within a company and the reality of a career in a specific field (Wendlandt and Rochlen 2008, 152) – an issue explored in the CIP’s individual coaching sessions. Lack of awareness of how to translate values, needs, and skills to job searches and the ensuing transient employment pattern can have severe financial implications and ensuing stress not only for employees who may experience chronic unemployment, but also for companies who have invested resources in hiring and training new employees (Holton 1995, 74; Wendlandt and Rochlen 2008, 152). These trends have not gone unnoticed by employers, and it is important for student support service providers at colleges and universities to help students clarify their skills and needs before they enter the workforce (Wendlandt and Rochlen 2008, 159). All of these considerations, coupled with the necessity of postsecondary education in American society for personal, professional, and social mobility, task the university with answering all of these needs. It is imperative that the university both educate students as learners for their personal and social growth as well as treat them as the consumers that they are, preparing them for a lucrative and fulfilling career they expect as a result of a college education, the burden of which is partially shouldered by career centers.

27

Developing Students’ Career Identity from Choice of Major to a. . .

525

The Career Identity Program NC State University’s Career Development Center serves the majority of its 25,000+ undergraduate students on campus. Students typically come to the center for assistance writing resumes and cover letters, searching for jobs, interviewing, and connecting with employers with the goal of gaining employment postgraduation. However, practitioners in the center began to notice that students also came to the center looking for answers on major choice. While some academic units at the university offer first-year programming that covers a broad range of topics including acclimating to the college environment and choosing a major, the career development center saw a need for first-year programming focused exclusively on helping students determine their career goals and choose a major based on their sense of values, interests, passions, and purpose not solely their academic ability. To answer this need, in 2016, the Center conceptualized a new program aimed at first-year students called the Career Identity Program (CIP). At the conclusion of its third year, CIP is experiencing rapid growth and recognition around campus. Cohort 1 (2016–2017) served 132 students, Cohort 2 (2017–2018) served 202 students, and Cohort 3 (2018–2019) served 276 students, an overall increase of 109% without the addition of professional staff. The CIP is a collaboration with the College of Engineering, the College of Humanities and Social Science, and campus partners such as Living and Learning Initiatives and is designed to help first-year students understand themselves and their identity as it relates to their career. The CIP offers programming to help students navigate toward their academic and career goals while also increasing the percentage of students who select and retain their major, reducing the number of major changes and time to degree completion. This program combines career choices with personal exploration to help students learn more about their interests, skills, passions, purpose, values, and apply all of these components to their career pathway. This program draws on student development theory, specifically Chickering’s Vectors (Chickering and Reisser 1993, 43–235), to help students create a comprehensive academic-to-career plan that reflects their career identity by the end of their first year, supporting them as learners while respecting their investment as consumers.

Theoretical Framework This program is framed by Arthur Chickering’s Seven Vectors of Development (Chickering and Reisser 1993, 43–235), which demonstrate continued use in the literature since their inception (Goldman and Goodboy 2016, 70–89; Moseley et al. 2020, 83–94). Chickering’s vectors examine the interpersonal, intellectual, emotional, and ethical elements of identity development. The first vector, Developing Competence, considers the process by which students develop skills in three areas: intellectual, physical and manual, and interpersonal. Acquiring skills in these three areas allows the student to feel as though they can “cope with what comes and

526

L. N. Ghosal et al.

achieve goals successfully” (Chickering and Reisser 1993, 53). In the next vector, Managing Emotions, students learn to understand, articulate, and manage their emotions – allowing them to act on their feelings responsibly. Resulting from the increased emotional maturity developed in the prior vector, Moving Through Autonomy Toward Interdependence refers to the process by which students are relieved of the need for other’s approval and are better able to self-direct and problem solve based upon their own needs. In the next vector, Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships, students learn to understand and appreciate differences and develop the capacity to maintain long-lasting, healthy relationships with partners and friends. Establishing Identity builds on the previous four vectors and includes the development of a clear selfconcept, comfort with one’s cultural heritage, gender, sexual orientation and ethnicity, self-esteem, and self-acceptance. After a student is able to understand and articulate their identity, they enter the next vector: Developing Purpose, during which they establish vocational goals and connect their interests and passions with their life’s purpose. The last vector, Developing Integrity, is a sequential three-stage process by which students first move from a principled, inflexible way of thinking to one that balances the interests of others with their own needs. Next, students develop their own value system that centers around the balance of their self-interests and the beliefs and interests of others. Finally, students align their actions with their new value system (Chickering and Reisser 1993, 43–235; Patton et al. 2016, 297–299). While the vectors build upon each other, Chickering notes that students may not move through the vectors in a linear manner, as students may find themselves revisiting earlier vectors as they discover more about themselves and their purpose (Chickering and Reisser 1993, 43–235; Patton et al. 2016, 297–299). Chickering’s vectors were applied to developing career identities, which laid the foundation of the program.

Elements of the Program: Workshops At the core of the CIP is a series of activity-based workshops that facilitate the process of students’ identity development and help students identify and design meaningful, values-driven careers. The structure of the program introduces students to concepts through group workshops, allowing them opportunities to interact with each other in self-exploration and reflection. Core workshops build one upon another and draw on Chickering and Reisser’s Seven Vectors – relating them to career identity development. Workshops are offered in a scaffolded sequence that lead students through selfexploration, exploration of majors and careers, introduction to experiential activities, and to the creation of a comprehensive academic-to-career plan. It includes three required “core” workshops each in fall and spring semesters plus three elective workshops each semester from which students choose at least one. The fall semester focuses on identifying students’ personal and professional values, their self-knowledge of their abilities and personality, and a vision of their life that may have been a subconscious ideal. As students move through these foundational workshops, they

27

Developing Students’ Career Identity from Choice of Major to a. . .

527

simultaneously move through Chickering and Reisser’s (Chickering and Reisser 1993, 43–235) Vectors of Establishing Identity, Developing Integrity, Developing Competence, and Developing Purpose, which supports the foundations of their career identity development. Throughout these workshops, and along with individual coaching support, students are supported through the second vector, Managing Their Emotions, by being challenged to think critically about and analyze their unconscious motivations and the expectations of significant others in their lives. In the spring, students move into the action phase of their career identity development. The three spring workshops focus on creating a step-by-step, comprehensive master plan of the activities they want to incorporate into their undergraduate experience and how these will prepare them for career readiness. These workshops focus on specific action steps that students can make to move them through the vectors of Developing Competence, Purpose, Integrity, and Mature Interpersonal Relationships. Culminating in passage through Autonomy to Interdependence, as students are taught to understand that we draw on others to support our development. The final workshop, Roadmap to Your Career, integrates all of the learning from the two semesters and tasks students to demonstrate their learning by writing their professional mission statement. By the end of the year, students have been supported in moving through the vectors through interactive, experiential activities, closely supported by their Career Identity Coach. See Table 1 for a description of workshop objectives mapped to vectors. Figure 1 illustrates the dynamic nature of workshops as students progress from self-exploration to integration. Throughout the process is the support of one-on-one coaching. The vectors running along the top of the figure indicate that as students move through the workshops, they are simultaneously moving through the vectors, although vectors overlap and repeat throughout the process.

Elements of the Program: Coaching Coaching is essential to support students and facilitate the integration of all of the learning taking place throughout the workshops. The coach establishes a trusting, respectful relationship with students that presumes the student is the expert in their life and has ultimate authority in their own decision-making. For this to happen successfully, the coach assists the student holistically, supporting all aspects of the student in all the roles the student plays in life (Wax and Wertheim 2015, 40). Students meet with their Career Identity Coach individually twice per semester (total of 4 sessions) for customized, intensive career coaching where they explore their goals, interests, passions and uncover their sense of purpose in their career. Coaches encourage student-led research in career fields of interest, which include shadowing and informational interviews of professionals. Coaches review and extend student learning, explore new questions allowing the student opportunities to have personalized, in-depth, exploratory conversations to support them through their intensive introspection and learning. Coaches help students examine (1) their interests, skills, and motivations; (2) their understanding of career pathways and related majors; and (3) their career-related activities and experiences, and how to maximize those experiences in becoming career ready. Coaches also serve as supplemental advisors and help students prepare for meeting with their advisors by identifying pertinent questions about their academic plan.

Electives

One-on-One Coaching

Experiential Activities

•High Impact Activities to Support Your Vision

Autonomy to Interdependence

Fig. 1 Career Identity along Chickering & Reisser’s 7 Vectors (1993)

Self-Exploration

Career & Curriculum Exploration

Developing Competence

•Complementary Majors & Minors

Developing Purpose

•Personal & Professional Values •Focus2 •Visioning Your Future

Establishing Identity

• The Career Competencies

Electives

• Developing Your Master Academic Plan

Managing Emotions

Integration

• Roadmap to Your Career

Developing Mature Relationships

Academic to Career Plan

Developing Integrity

528 L. N. Ghosal et al.

27

Developing Students’ Career Identity from Choice of Major to a. . .

529

Fig. 2 Career Identity Coaching Model

Individualized coaching deepens learning and is essential to the success of students; each coaching session is unique, as each student is on their own exploratory path (Wax and Wertheim 2015, 40). Goals typically include identifying a major that fits their interests, determining a specific career path within a field of interest, or searching for extracurricular experiences that help the student reach their career goal. In a departure from the typical advising practices utilized in higher education, coaches challenge students to make decisions and realize goals through guided questioning and reflective inquiry (Hastings and Kane 2018, 9). Coaches further challenge students with outside research assignments. For example, if a student was interested in biochemical research, the coach may ask the student to search for labs conducting similar research and come back with a list of possible research opportunities. During coaching appointments, students are able to process through their assumptions, clarify misconceptions, and learn to identify and listen to their own voice. Identity coaching utilizes students’ self-knowledge gained through the workshops to facilitate students’ progress through Chickering and Reisser’s Seven Vectors, oftentimes resulting in transformational self-awareness and decision-making. As illustrated in Fig. 2, each of these components overlap and inform one another to support the student through an iterative process of career exploration related to their sense of purpose.

530

L. N. Ghosal et al.

Elements of the Program: Collaboration with Campus Units A vitally important element of the CIP’s success and growth is the campus partnerships that allow the program to reach additional students. The program’s longest standing, and most successful campus partnership has been with Living and Learning Initiatives, specifically, the Engineering Village (EV). Living and Learning communities are purpose-built, on-campus living environments where students with similar interests or identities share a residence hall. Living and Learning communities offer specialized programming and associated coursework that supports student success and allows students to develop their interests, identities, strengths, and skills (Renn and Reason 2012, 70–71). The NC State Engineering Village is a living-learning community serving over 500 first and second-year students pursuing a degree in engineering. As a collaboration between the College of Engineering and University Housing, its mission is to stimulate skills, talents, and behaviors in first- and second-year engineering students that lead to a purposeful and successful transition to the University, the College of Engineering, their chosen discipline and the global community. In 2016, the first cohort of 132 students from the College of Engineering and the College of Humanities and Social Science participated in the Career Identity Program. In 2017, after learning about the impact on EV students who participated in the 2016 cohort, the Engineering Village Director and Graduate Assistant committed to serving as coaches for 35 additional EV students, expanding the 2017 cohort, for a total of 201 participants. In the fall of 2018, the EV staff expanded their coaching capacity to 50 students, increasing the overall CIP cohort 276.

Elements of the Program: Coach Training With overwhelming support from students and administration, the Career Development Center sought ways to reach more students but was limited in funding for hiring additional staff. The center sought creative ways to expand the program’s reach by collaborating with Engineering Village and other Living & Learning Villages, advisors, and staff, thus the inception of the Coach Training program. As the EV took on a cohort of students in the program, the CIP, which continued to provide workshops to all students, needed to augment the individual coaching support for these students. To maintain the value and integrity of the coaching experience, the center launched the first “Career Identity Coach Training” program in August 2017. As a Professional Certified Coach with the International Coach Federation, the Career Identity Coach for Engineering developed and led a 15-hour training program for faculty, staff, advisors, and directors on coaching skills combined with training on the Career Identity Program. Coaches are not required to have specific knowledge about career paths, but rather are trained to help students find answers to questions using their available resources and coaching methodology. After 5 consecutive training programs, a total of 127 campus partners from various programs and departments throughout the university, ranging from housing to academic departments to human resources, have volunteered to participate in the coach training program to date. Faculty and staff, especially Living & Learning Villages Directors, were trained as coaches to support and provide

27

Developing Students’ Career Identity from Choice of Major to a. . .

531

individual coaching to their cohort of students in the program and for their own professional development to better support their work with students. Campus partnerships like that with the EV have been crucial in expanding the coaching capacity of the program, which has allowed the program to serve more students and expand its reach beyond the College of Engineering and the College of Humanities and Social Sciences. Additionally, by partnering with residential communities, the program is now able to offer coaching services where the students live, which increases accessibility and allows students the comfort of meeting in the residence halls.

Assessment Data Each year, students completed a survey before beginning the program and then a survey upon completion with both quantitative and qualitative data. Student responses indicate a statistically significant positive effect in confidence levels regarding their future academic and career plans. Specific data from Cohort 3 (2018–2019) is shown in Table 2. Survey results showed that students felt overwhelmingly positive about their degree of confidence in learning more about themselves, their values as they relate to career, in choosing their major, and in creating a comprehensive academic to career plan. In addition to the multiple-choice survey questions, students had the opportunity to answer the question “What was most valuable to You in the Career Identity Program?” A selection of responses includes: Before [the program] I had a vague idea of what I wanted to do and why I wanted to do it. After the program I realized my purpose . . . It allowed me to put into words why I wanted the career I do . . . I went into the program to learn about myself and left on a mission. The Career Identity Program gave me a compass for my first year and a foundation for my future. I now know how to think critically about my career and values and how to create plans for my future, even if my path changes. Whether you have a clearly defined career path or if you’re completely lost in which direction you want your career path to go, this program delves into every aspect of your life to guide you on your way on how you can systematically obtain your career and life goals. . . . I [learned] how to find my values and make them applicable to life and the workplace, and this is an incredibly valuable skill . . . I wish more people could have the same experience.

While student responses are overwhelmingly positive, the sample size of participants who completed both the pre- and post-assessment was low (n ¼ 46). Therefore, there is a possibility of a bias effect wherein only highly engaged students completed both assessments, potentially skewing the data.

Conclusion and Future Directions Future of the Career Identity Program Through the coach training, and with the support of the Living & Learning Villages Director, collaborations such as that with the EV are increasing yearly, allowing CIP to extend its reach to more students on campus. As more faculty and

532

L. N. Ghosal et al.

staff see the value of the program and the growth in the number of participating students, they are enrolling in and referring colleagues to the training. In turn, they are serving as coaches and engaging more students in the program. The longterm goal of the CIP is to reach all first-year students (5,000) within 6 years, which will be accomplished by offering workshops virtually and training additional faculty and staff to coach and support students. In this way, we hope to establish NC State University as a career-focused university with a coaching culture that supports students as learners while simultaneously ensuring that they receive a good return on their educational investment through a fruitful career.

Conclusion Through the Career Development Center’s work preparing students for the job market it became clear that students, especially those in their first year, require intensive career exploration at the earliest decision-making juncture possible. The CIP was created to address this need, and the program staff envisions that the program will not only expand at NC State University but will also be adopted at other institutions of higher learning. While it may not be feasible to adopt the CIP’s model as is at other institutions due to differences in the way higher education is structured (especially in the United Kingdom and Europe), student affairs practitioners can utilize elements of the CIP to help their students develop into career-ready professionals. In systems where students apply to the institution and the academic program concurrently – like many universities outside of the United States – students do not navigate through the major choice process at the university; however, student affairs practitioners can still offer workshops and coaching to help students clarify where their skills, interests, and plan of study fit within certain job fields. Additionally, these services do not need to be offered through a career development center – they can be offered through academic departments or other campus units that have knowledge of the workforce and needs of students. Regardless of the context in which students are educated, their career identity development needs remain an important, and often unaddressed, component of their education. Postsecondary institutions can fill this gap by implementing programming that helps students identify and enter into a career that is aligned with their interests, needs, and skills.

Appendix See Tables 1 and 2.

27

Developing Students’ Career Identity from Choice of Major to a. . .

533

Table 1 Workshops Mapped to Chickering & Reisser’s 7 Vectors Workshop

Vector Addressed

Core 1: Personal & Professional Values Exploration

Establishing Identity, Developing Integrity

Core 2: Focus2 Assessment

Establishing Identity

Core 3: Visioning Your Future

Establishing Identity, Developing Competence, Developing Purpose, Managing Emotions

Core 4: Developing Your Master Academic Plan

Moving through Autonomy toward Interdependence, Developing Competence, Developing Purpose, Developing Integrity, Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships

Core 5: The Career Competencies

Moving through Autonomy toward Interdependence, Developing Competence, Developing Integrity

Core 6: Roadmap to Your Career

Moving through Autonomy toward Interdependence, Establishing Identity, Developing Purpose, Developing Integrity

Elective: High Impact Experiences to Support Your Vision Panel Discussion

Moving through Autonomy toward Interdependence, Developing Competence, Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships,

Learning Outcome Students will “. . .” Identify the values that are important to them in their personal & professional life; Assess how well they are currently living their values Learn about their interests, skills, personality, and values; Gain exposure to possible matching majors and careers Create a comprehensive interest/ passion life diagram; Think about themselves in relation to the world and their place within it; Think deeply about the work they want to do and why; Think about ways to integrate all aspects of themselves into their career and life Understand the components of a comprehensive education plan to be a well-rounded, prepared graduate; Identify co-curricular and experiential activities to support their goals and entrance into career; List educational and career planning goals, articulate action steps toward achieving those goals; Identify people as their mentors and resources to achieve goals Learn about the 8 National Association of Colleges and Employers’ Career Competencies and identify activities to participate in to achieve them Think about their career as an expression of meaningful work; Identify their values, interests, talents, purpose and passion and connect them to their work; Articulate a mission statement Learn about co-curricular and high impact experiences to integrate into their academic plan; Gain introduction to individuals who have (continued)

534

L. N. Ghosal et al.

Table 1 (continued) Workshop

Vector Addressed

Learning Outcome

Developing Purpose, Developing Integrity

experience in these areas; Learn how these important “high impact” experiences can help them define their career interests, engage in their passions, and help prepare for their career path Learn about other curriculum areas that complement their academic and career plan; Gain information to collaboratively create their career path Engage in discussion highlighting diversity initiatives; Understand the concept of privilege and its impact; Critically think about their place in society and social justice Take assessment to uncover their own strengths; Develop strategies to use strengths and neutralize weaknesses, Determine careers that build upon their own uniqueness Take an assessment on social style; Learn their communication style and how to effectively communicate with others Define stress; Identify and use techniques to combat stress

Elective: Complementary Majors & Minors Panel Discussion

Moving through Autonomy toward Interdependence, Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships

Elective: Exploring Diversity

Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships, Establishing Identity, Developing Integrity

Elective: StrengthsFinder

Developing Competence, Establishing Identity, Developing Purpose

Elective: Communication Skills

Developing Competence

Elective: Managing Stress

Managing Emotions, Developing Competence

Table 2 Average of Differences from Pre-Assessment to Post-Assessment of Cohort 3 How much confidence do you have about each of the following items? Choice of Major Extra-Curricular Plan Personal Values Career Values Plan to be Career Ready Upon Graduation Career Goals Career Plan to Accomplish Career Goals Do you plan to graduate with your current major? Do you feel your career plan reflects your strengths, values and passions?

Average Difference between pre-post assessment 0.57 0.67 0.41 0.74 0.85

T-Statistic 4.46 6.52 3.61 4.91 5.46

P-Value