A Study of First Year Experience Programs at Faith-Based Institutions

Transcription

1 A Study of First Year Experience Programs at Faith-Based Institutions by Kristie Neff, Cornerstone University, in partnership with the Acton Institute November 2015 First Year Experience programs (FYE) are deliberate and comprehensive programs that consist of various components that work to serve students within their first year of college through increasing academic performance, providing transitional assistance, increasing student persistence, helping with transition into college and cultural connection, and creating a sense of commitment to the community. 1 Programming can be both academic and non-academic in nature. FYE programs are an institutional standard for faith-based colleges and universities. Overall goals of FYE programs focus on retention and acclimation to individual institutions. However, the meaning ascribed to each of these programs is highly variant, highlighting the inconsistency of resources, student demographics, and goals of each institution. The unique purposes and culture accompanying colleges and universities that are religiously-affiliated creates additional programmatic and curricular demands. With FYE programs being a recent phenomenon in Higher Education, paired with a tendency towards institutional siloing, best practices for this niche of FYE programs are reasonably elusive. Below is an initial diagnostic report on faithbased FYE programs. The goal is that, by uncovering and understanding institutional practices within the larger community, collaboration around best practices will emerge. Through the generous funding of Acton Institute (Grand Rapids, MI), grant money for research was given May IRB approval for the initial stage of research was approved June 2015 by the Cornerstone University Institutional Review Board. 1 Barefoot, Fidler, Gardner, Moore, & Roberts,

2 Participating Institutions Academic Affiliation Fifty respondents participated in the initial survey, including five schools from Canada and fortyfive schools representing twenty states across the USA. Respondents were initially invited because of affiliation with the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU) or the Council of Independent Colleges (CIC). The CCCU is a higher education association of 180 Christian institutions around the world. The 120 member campuses in North America are all fully accredited, comprehensive colleges and universities with curricula rooted in the arts and sciences. 2 The CCCU is based in Washington D.C., and is a leading voice in faith-based higher education. The CIC is a, major national service organization for all small and mid-sized, independent, liberal arts colleges and universities in the U.S. CIC focuses on providing services to campus leaders through seminars, workshops, and programs that assist institutions in improving educational offerings, administrative and financial performance, and institutional visibility. 3 Forty-six respondents are CCCU affiliated, thirteen are CIC affiliated, and nine claim additional affiliations such as the Association of Christians in Student Development. Participating Institutions:

3 Religious Affiliation Over twenty-six different religious affiliations were claimed by the institutions, with the most frequent responses being Nondenominational (8), Interdenominational (4), and Nazarene (4). Religious Affiliations: 3

4 Enrollment Undergraduate enrollment at participating institutions ranged from students (2) to over 3000 students (3), with a majority of populations between (10), (13), or (8) students. Thirty-six of the fifty programs had been established over five years, six had been established three to five years, seven had been established one to three years, and three had been in existence less than a year. Over three-quarters of students participate in FYE programs (40). Undergraduate Enrollment: 4

5 Student Participation in FYE programs: 5

6 Program Structure Within Higher Education institutions, Academics is primarily responsible for the curricular work of students while Student Development or Student Affairs is primarily responsible for any cocurricular engagement students have. Fifty percent of participating institutions housed their FYE programs in Student Development (25) and twenty-six percent housed them in Academics (13). Responsibility for the programs fell to a full-time position 29% of the time, a part-time position 21% of the time, and was otherwise a split responsibility between two or more professionals. Where FYE Programs are Housed: 6

7 Personnel Responsible for FYE programming: 7

8 FYE Program Components Formats of programs varied drastically, where Orientation was the most frequent component, followed by a combination of three seminar styles: uniform content, study-skills/on-campus resources, or interest or topic based. Service-learning was used in 44% of programs. However, 24 schools only used service-learning during orientation or once during the semester. Ten schools used service learning more than one time with only three schools using service-learning as a significant piece of their programming, meaning eight times or more. FYE Components: 8

9 Frequency of Service-Learning: 9

10 Orientation Out of the fifty schools, only six did not include an orientation. Twenty-two schools had an orientation running up to three days, and twenty-four had orientation programs between four and seven days long. Orientation serves as a key time of communication and a curriculum-heavy phase of FYE programming. Orientation Duration: 10

11 Program Duration Programs varied in their length with the most frequent duration being between 5-8 weeks (13), a full semester (16), or a full year (12). Students either attend once a week (29) or twice a week (20) depending on credit offerings. Credit for programs was more often given than not, with 24 schools assigning one credit hour, four assigning two credit hours, and thirteen assigning three credit hours for their programs. Credit fell within most Core Curriculums (26) or as General Elective credit (11). The ability for a school to offer credit allows for more available funding, higher invest by faculty and staff, and increased legitimacy. Program Duration: 11

12 Personnel As a major goal of programs and a key factor in high retention rates being relational connection, the personnel instructing FYE programs are a lynchpin to success. Almost 80% of schools use Faculty (40) to instruct. Student Affairs professionals teach nearly 60% of the time (30) and staff instructs almost 50% of the time (25). Voices from every corner of the institution are invested in this program, unlike any other academic component on campus, as alumni, graduate students, adjunct faculty, and students also join in the instruction process. Out of the fifty institutions, only eleven did not have students directly involved in their program. Twenty-eight institutions have students assisting but not teaching, while the other twelve have them instruct either alongside another student or non-student. Personnel Instructing: 12

13 Role of Student Leaders: 13

14 Training Training for instructors is offered for both new and veteran instructors only 50% of the time (25). Training is offered for new instructors only 14% of the time (7). Training is an identified as a key need from the participating institutions, as students are most often split between multiple sections and consistency is hard to achieve. Training for Instructors: Training for Student Leaders: 14

15 15

16 Curriculum Curricular pressure falls heavily on FYE programs as stakeholders across the university, students, and parents are invested in the learning outcomes. When asked to identify their curricular goals, institutions listed, on average, nine major curricular goals each. When asked to identify the top two curricular goals for each program, institutions most commonly responded to develop a sense of community/relational connection (22), create a connection to institution and mission (15), and improve retention rates (13). All Curricular Goals: 16

17 Top Two Curricular Goals: 17

18 18

19 19

20 Syllabi Assessment In order to take a more thorough look at what curricular themes emerged in current programs, syllabi were collected and coded for the frequency of learning themes. While identified above, cross-checking for assignments and learning objectives brought to light more current curricular direction: Create a Connection to Institution and Mission 5 Service-learning and Social Responsibility 5 Personal Development 5 Build Academic Skill 4 Provide Orientation to Campus Resources and Services 4 Develop Leadership Skills 4 Develop a Sense of Community/Relational Connection 3 Understand Liberal Arts Education 3 Discipleship 3 Develop Writing Skills 2 Develop Worldview Sense 2 Develop Global Knowledge and Connection 2 Improve Retention Rates 1 Increase Student/Faculty Interaction 1 Create a Common Experience 0 20

21 Program Development Expressed Strengths When prompted to share the strength of each institutions FYE program, there were clear trends. Almost half of the institutions identified relational connection as the strength of their program as it was mentioned 24 times throughout their responses. Specifically, student leaders, often times called peer mentors, were identified most frequently, followed by faculty and student connection. Finally, an overall relational connection to the wider community was listed as a strength. Often times, orientation programs, smaller class sizes, and deliberate hiring of students and faculty was accounted for this increased platform to connect. The second most frequent trend in identified strengths was the campus collaboration experienced. Whether between Student Development and Academics or with Residence Halls, when collaboration was high-functioning, it was quickly mentioned. Curriculum was referenced four times as a strength of the program. See Appendix A. Strength Responses 21

22 Expressed Needs Expressed needs highlighted a perceived ideal to strengthen the interior structure of programs. Obtaining resources for program development (22) and increasing campus collaboration and support (22) were identified as the top two potentially strengthening components. Resources for Instructors and Student Training (18), followed by Curriculum focused on college transition (17) were listed next. Seen through these expressed needs, the underbelly of many programs is seen; programs that live in the tyranny of the necessity, without the time capacity to develop strong training and curriculum and with the challenge of siloed departments within Academia, are common. Exp ress ed Nee ds: 22

23 Specific responses within the highlighted need for program development included: Increased consistency in curriculum Curriculum that had a distinctive worldview Consistency within each group for learning Curriculum that addresses a myriad of learning objectives An institution-focused curriculum A stronger primary text. In regards to increased campus collaboration, academic buy in was most frequently mentioned, followed by the ability to increase cross-programming. 23

24 Predicted Program Changes The shifting needs of incoming students paired with institutional strategy create an everchanging environment for FYE programs. It is not uncommon that programs will undergo a heavy shift every 3-5 years of time. When asked for predictions about how their institutions will shift in the next 3-5 years, the most common things expected were increased collaboration across campus, creating a more integrated curricular and co-curricular approach to FYE programming, and increasing the duration of the programming. FYE programs were predicted to shift more significantly into the academic arena, allowing for a more stable curriculum and more topical curriculum choices. With these predicted shifts, FYE programs would become even more rooted into a campus culture and academic experience, increasing both the potential for influence and significance of program quality. 24

25 Curriculum Needs Both program development and curriculum focused on college transition are listed in the top four needs of current FYE programs, representing a need for institutions to access and implement effective training and curricular components. When asked about what media would be most useful for curriculum, interactive and experientially-based programming was the highest response with thirty-four institutions identifying it as a desired medium. Interactive curriculum is filled with guiding questions, discussion, case studies, and activity-based simulations to reach learning objectives. Online, web-based mediums were selected by twelve institutions and video and workbook based materials were selected by ten. National trends in education reinforce this questions response, highlighting a tendency towards interactive, technology-based learning. Learning Mediums for Curriculum Development: When asked what topics would be most useful in a new curriculum, the top response was academic skills. With FYE programs commissioned to increase student readiness, the frequency of this response (15) is due. Following academic skills, topics related to personal growth and emotional intelligence were most frequent. Thirteen references focused on personal 25

26 development, emotional health, ability to self-advocate, and increased mental and spiritual health. The third most frequent topic to be included in curriculum was vocation and calling, a likely place that FYE programs and liberal arts school will turn much focus to in the next five years. Worldview, leadership, and an understanding of liberal arts education were also mentioned curricular interests. 26

27 Stage 1 Summary Diversity of Programs The 50 FYE programs diagnosed represent a wide range of program structures: orientation types, seminar styles, varying durations, and diversity of personnel create a wide pool of programs. With programs being housed in various parts of the institution and split responsibilities for FYE charged professionals, there is no normal for FYE programs. Programs are diverse based not only on their structure and housing, but also on the demographic of student entering their experiences and institutional goals, as is seen through the high value institutions hold to connect incoming students specifically to one own s institution and mission. While this inconsistency can be seen as a challenge for collaboration and cooperation amongst institutions, it also reflects programs ability to be flexible and shift--a major asset in typically slow-moving Higher Education. One challenge that the wide diversity within programs brings begins with establishing best practices. Because of the variety of programs and needs, best practices may not be a specific medium, program, or book used to reach a learning outcome. Instead, it is way of approaching a program. Best practices may be more general, focused on identifying one s student population, understanding needs, collaborating across campus, and principle-driven practices. Best practices, in the case of FYE programs, are undercurrents to what is happening at the surface. The major goal of the second stage of research is to collect best practices, and the diagnostic s revealing of great diversity will help frame the conversation. What principles can be identified as applicable, despite diversity within programs? Is diversity representative of a lack of best practices or of unique institutional features? What approaches, theories, and tactics can bring each institution to its best? Similarity of Challenges While structure and format of programs are diverse, two challenges emerged across the board. First, the need for collaboration and understanding between stakeholders on campus was a significant trend. Buy-in, collaboration, and understanding were the most frequent holes identified in the atmosphere surrounding programs. Seen through the split housing and shifting responsibilities, a shared theoretical basis and foundational understanding of what FYEs aim to accomplish is missing. Buy-in begins with understanding the purpose and vision of a movement. In order to gain cohesive teams across campus, there must be resources and space for stakeholders to understand FYE programs, value their outcomes, and create culture together. A second major goal of the second stage of research will be to collect the predominant perspectives of stakeholders based on their department, role, and investment in FYE programs. What are the lynchpin conversations needed? What information is missing that direct influencers 27

28 over programs need to begin the conversation? What history and perspective is missing from common knowledge? An additional major theme uncovered through this diagnostic is the range of curricular goals that each FYE program has. Demonstrated through the identification of multiple goals for each program, a clear pressure to accomplish much through a single program emerges. With pressures from major stakeholders on campus, and the ever-pressing issue of retention and persistence at hand, how does a program address learning goals? A third goal of the following research will be to identify areas to streamline learning goals through overlapping purposes of curriculum with demanded outcomes. How can basic academic goals be rooted in the curriculum? How can time, energy, activities, and conversations be focused on the necessary theoretical and meta-learning? How can relational connection from both faculty and student leadership be interwoven into experiences? This is an opportune time to begin discovering and establishing best practices specifically for faith-based FYE programs. 28

29 Appendix A. Strengths Responses 29

30 30

31 31

32 32