Citation
The effects of student support services

Material Information

Title:
The effects of student support services assessing program benefits for higher education
Creator:
Rhodes, Arlene Estel Newsome
Place of Publication:
Denver, CO
Publisher:
University of Colorado Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xiii, 229 leaves : ; 28 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Student affairs services -- Evaluation ( lcsh )
Counseling in higher education -- Evaluation ( lcsh )
Student assistance programs -- Evaluation ( lcsh )
Counseling in higher education -- Evaluation ( fast )
Student affairs services -- Evaluation ( fast )
Student assistance programs -- Evaluation ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 217-229).
Thesis:
Biology
General Note:
School of Public Affairs
Statement of Responsibility:
by Arlene Estel Newsome Rhodes.

Record Information

Source Institution:
|University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
|Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
66899876 ( OCLC )
ocm66899876
Classification:
LD1193.P86 2005d R46 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
THE EFFECTS OF STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICES:
ASSESSING PROGRAM BENEFITS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION
by
Arlene Estel Newsome Rhodes
B.S.,University of Dubuque, 1969
MSW, University of Illinois at Chicago, 1972
A thesis submitted to the
University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Public Affairs
2005


i
i
This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy
| degree by
I Arlene Hstel Newsome Rhodes
has been approved
by
i
; i
i
Date


Rhodes, Arlene Estel Newsome (Ph.D., Public Affairs)
The Effects of Student Support Services:
Assessing Program Benefits for Higher Education
Thesis directed by Professor Richard J. Stillman
ABSTRACT
This study examines the effects of the federally funded Student Support
Services (SSS) programs on colleges that serve as hosts. Indicators of program
success have focused on student outcome data to evaluate program success. Research
on if and how these programs have influenced their host institutions in providing
similar services for non-program students has been missing in the data used to
measure program effectiveness.
Applying a conceptual framework based on diffusion and organizational
learning theories, the study conceptualizes learning by institutions of higher education
as an iterative process where the system develops potential for change each time it is
influenced by new information, that the system generates knowledge after this cycle
and is repositioned for potential change. The study tests several hypotheses to explore
the effects of SSS programs on higher education. Academic support services were
compared between two groups of institutions, host and non-host schools.
m


Additionally, the groups of schools were compared for perceptions of value-added
benefits to the college in achieving institutional missions. Analysis collected from the
survey of host and non-host schools and structured interviews found strong support
that more host colleges provided more support services for all students after the
arrival of SSS than before its advent. The study found moderate support for
differences between the perceptions of value-added benefits by schools that provided
support services to all students prior to SSS and those that offered such services after
SSS arrived on the campus. Findings indicated that host schools did not provide more
SSS-type services than non-host colleges.
When colleges are influenced by the presence of SSS to develop similar
services for all students, it means that a kind of institutional learning has occurred.
Such learning has the impact of leveraging the effects of SSS programs well beyond
the funded students, furthering the colleges educational objectives for all students,
and disbursing the consequences of public dollar spending that results in unintended
benefits for citizens. As institutions of higher education attempt to develop strategies
that enhance achievement of their mission of teaching, research, and service they must
acquire more accurate information about which efforts are most productive.
This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidates thesis. I recommend
its publication.
Signed
IV


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
It is with a humble spirit that I take this opportunity to thank most sincerely
those who have supported my journey of education in the pursuit and completion of
my doctoral studies and this dissertation. First and foremost to the members of my
dissertation committee who shared their knowledge, expertise, time, patience and
encouragement my deepest thanks. They are: Franklin James who served as my
original committee chairman until his untimely passing who, as a benevolent guide,
constantly motivated me to think in more and more challenging ways; Richard
Stillman who generously took on the chairmanship of my committee serving as an
encourager and all important coach and master educator who would not let me give
up; Lloyd Burton who encouraged me to pursue the qualitative aspects of my research
and whose sharp analysis held my work to the highest of scholastic standards; Joan
Foster who provided her insights and expertise on the challenges of supporting
college student success, particularly in urban environments; Danny Martinez who is a
living historian on the development and implementation of student support efforts at
the Auraria campus in Denver; and Jennifer Wade who brought her enthusiasm for


the topic and keen research critique in evaluation of my work. In addition, my
sincerest of thanks to Jeffrey Wilson my colleague at Arizona State University who
taught me how to truly appreciate the power and limitations of statistical analyses.
Any successful completion of this dissertation could not have been possible
without the support of those who did not enroll in one course and did not sit for any
exams. They are my family, especially my parents and brother and my friends whose
unconditional support kept me moving forward. Finally, I extend a very, very special
thanks to my wonderful son, Anwar who kept me firmly grounded in the reality of
family and parenthood and constantly reminded me of how proud he was of my
efforts.


CONTENTS
Figures........................................................ xi
Tables.........................................................xii
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................1
Background................................................1
Statement of the Problem. ...............................10
Research Overview........................................12
Organization of the Study.............................. 14
2. LITERATURE REVIEW...........................................19
The Changing Role of Higher Education....................19
Governance ..............................................22
Functional Role .........................................28
Student Demographics.....................................31
A New Perspective: The University as a
Community of Learners ...................................35
Higher Education and Diffusion Theory....................39
vii


Foundations of Organizational Learning Theory..................45
Quality Assurance and Support Services.........................50
Higher Education Learning Goals and Support
Services for Students..........................................52
Learning Environments and Organizational
Characteristics................................................57
An Inclusion Perspective That Enhances Student Success
and Institutional Excellence ..................................61
Student Support Services (TRIO) Programs.......................65
History of SSS Programs .................................65
Documentation of Success ................................68
Limitations of the Research on SSS Programs..............77
Potential Contributions of the Study...........................79
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ..............................................82
Introduction...................................................82
Research Questions ............................................83
Research Hypotheses............................................85
Research Design................................................87
Data Collection..........................................87
vui


Longevity of SSS Programs as a Criterion for Inclusion
in Sample.............................................89
Selection of Sample Institutions .....................95
Surveys...............................................98
Corroboration of Data Collected: Follow-up
Structured Interviews.............................. 100
Methods of Data Analysis.............................101
Relationship of Independent Variables to the
Dependent Variables..................................102
Validity Considerations............................. 105
Conclusion...........................................106
4. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS.......................................... 108
Analysis of Hypotheses..................................... 110
Hypothesis 1.........................................110
Hypothesis 2.........................................115
Hypothesis 3.........................................119
Hypothesis 4........................................ 123
Summary................................................... 125
5. CONCLUSIONS ...................................................129
IX


Expectations of the Investigation ............... 129
Research Limitations ............................ 130
Research Findings.................................132
Significance of the Study ....................... 134
Implications for Future Research .................136
LIST OF TABLES .............................................. 139
APPENDIX..................................................... 173
A. DEFINITION OF TERMS ................................ 174
B. SURVEY OF STUDENT ACADEMIC SUPPORT
PROGRAMS FOR HOST INSTITUTIONS ..................... 180
C. SURVEY OF STUDENT ACADEMIC SUPPORT
PROGRAMS FOR NON-HOST INSTITUTIONS ..................189
D. INTERVIEW QUESTIONS .............................. 196
E. RESPONSES TO INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ................... 199
REFERENCES....................................................217
x


FIGURES
Figure
3.1 Conceptual View of the Effect of Independent
Variables on the Dependent Variables...................................104
3.2 Relationship Among the Variables for Hi ..............................105
4.1 Response of Colleges If SSS Funding Ended..............................122
xi


TABLES
Table
1 Characteristics of the Institutions........................................141
2 Academic Services Provided by SSS & Non-SSS
Schools: Institutional Group Statistics...................................142
2a Academic Services Provided by SSS & Non-SSS
Schools: Independent Samples Test.........................................143
3 Services Begun Prior to or After SSS
(TRIO) Program: Group Statistics..........................................144
3a Services Begun Prior to or After SSS:
Independent Samples Test..................................................145
4 Services Provided by Public and Private Colleges:
Descriptive Statistics.........................*.........................148
4a Services Provided by Public and Private Colleges:
Correlations..............................................................148
5 Services Provided by SSS Schools: Statistics...............................149
5a Services Provided by SSS Schools: Statistics...............................150
6 Benefits of Academic Support Services: T-Test
Group Statistics..........................................................151
Xll


6a Benefits of Academic Support Services:
T-Test Independent Samples Test......................................152
7 Benefits for Private & Public Schools: Group Statistics..............153
7a Benefits for Private & Public Schools:
Independent Samples Test.............................................154
8 Higher Education Mission Goals: ANOVA................................155
8a Higher Education Mission Goals: Descriptives.........................157
8b Higher Education Mission Goals: Test of
Homogeneity of Variances.............................................159
8c Post Hoc Tests Higher Education Mission Goals:
Multiple Comparisons Dunnett C ......................................160
9 Years Hosting SSS Oneway ANOVA: Descriptives.........................162
9a Years Hosting ANOVA .................................................167
10 Support Services for Non-program Students:
T-Test Group Statistics .............................................171
10a Support Services for Non-program Students:
Independent Samples Test.............................................172
xm


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Background
A critical factor in determining the prosperity of individuals in the United
States is education. Today an ability to earn a living that allows for meeting the
essential and important (i.e., housing, food, clothing, an occasional vacation, and
savings) needs of an individual requires skills and knowledge that are beyond the
educational level reached in high school. The economic gap between those with a
college degree and those without has continued to widen. Twenty years ago, college
degreed workers earned 38 percent (National Center for Education Statistics, 1999)
more than those with a high school diploma. Today the difference has expanded to 73
percent.
One of the greatest challenges facing the nation today is that of finding a way
to develop the intellectual and social potential of each member of our society through
education. The world of higher education is one of limited resources where all cannot
1


enter. Conflict in the allocation of these resources is expected and must be
understood. Although many researchers (e.g., Blandin 1990; Aschroft, Biggert &
Coates 1996; Oliver & Shapiro 1995; Orfield & Whitla 1999; Gandara, 1994) have
identified perplexities of the issue and possible solutions, the nation continues to
struggle in its attempts to maximize the human capital of our citizens through
education. Social scientist, Gail Thomas (1987) argues that the theoretical context for
comprehending the status of those seeking higher education must be framed by a
perspective of continuing competition between (and among) Blacks, other minority,
and majority groups for increasingly scarce educational resources and opportunities
(for example, finances for higher education and admission to colleges and
universities) (p. 213). Within these considerations, the national challenge then
becomes how to best utilize these limited resources of higher education to serve the
needs of the country.
Interestingly, one of the major efforts by the federal government to extend
higher educational opportunities to more citizens came with the passage of the
Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (Pub. L. No. 88-452). As a part of President
Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty" strategy to eliminate economic deprivation in
2


America, the Economic Opportunity Act initiated an education program that prepared
economically disadvantaged high school students for entry to college. This program
entitled, Upward Bound, was the original component of what became TRIO
programs. Later, the second arm of TRIO was authorized by the Higher Education
Act of 1965. Special Services (now titled Student Support Services [SSS]) as the
third component of the TRIO programs was enacted during the first reauthorization of
the Act in 1968 (20 U.S.C. § 402[d] [1970]). Although educational in nature, these
programs were originally viewed as economic mechanisms (DiNitto, 2000) to
improve the plight of impoverished citizens. It was this recognition of the impact of
postsecondary education on economic prosperity that has continued to govern the
legislative thinking in the reauthorization of these programs. This initiative of
providing economic opportunity through the implementation of programs that support
higher educational success for economically disadvantaged students remains the
central eligibility criterion for SSS participation. Additionally, since research
indicated that students from families where parents did not have a baccalaureate
3


degree were less likely to attend college than others, the criterion of "first-generation
to college"1 was added for participation eligibility.
Many colleges joined this effort by the federal government to increase higher
education opportunities for more citizens. Recognizing that large segments of the
population who were low income and/or from ethnic minority backgrounds still were
not being educated at the college level, many institutions of higher education
implemented strategies for increased access and retention to correct the situation2.
These methods, developed to increase educational opportunities, often included
college sponsored programs designed to identify students earlier than the last year of
'The Code of Federal Regulations (34 C.F.R. § 646.3, [d] [2001])
indicates that eligible students must be a low-income individual; a first- generation
college student; or an individual with disabilities.
2Thomas (1987) discusses the trend to provide higher education opportunities
for under represented students, in particular Black students. She states that in 1950
only 13 percent of Black college-age youth attended college, whereas 21 percent
attended in 1970. Between 1973 and 1975, Black enrollment in colleges and
universities increased more rapidly than White enrollment (American Council on
Education, 1986, p.l 8). "The striking progress of Blacks during this time was due to a
variety of federal and civil rights initiatives, such as the 1965 Higher Education
Act...and the Adams decision, which mandates public higher-education desegregation
(p. 226).
4


high school and prepare them for college entry and success3. One of the most
comprehensive studies on state-sponsored early intervention programs designed to
increase educational opportunities for economically and educationally disadvantaged
students was conducted by Alisa Cunningham, Christina Redmand and Jamie
Merisotis (2003). The study reported on 17 programs in 12 states that had been in
operation since 1995. These researchers observed that the delivery site for programs
services was frequently at an institution of higher education, but warned of potential
problems with such arrangements by noting:
The involvement of higher education institutions can be an asset to
state early intervention programs...(but cautioned) it is important for
them (the colleges) to maintain ties with the elementary and secondary
3In their research William Tiemey and Alexander Jun (2001) identify three
basic models of college preparatory programs with distinct emphases of test
preparation, science and math preparation and counseling and academic foci. They
observed that a missing element in these models is a consideration for the
background and culture of the child (who) enters into college preparation (4). They
advance a fourth model that employs the idea of cultural integrity as the central
scaffolding to build a college preparation program specifically for youths who
otherwise would not go on to college (p. 4) should be encouraged. Their example of
the Neighborhood Academic Initiative (NAI) that is a six year program sited on the
University of Southern California campus fosters the idea that elite institutions such
as USC belong to children from south central as they do for youths from Beverly
Hills (p. 10).
5


schools participants are attending (Cunningham, Redmand and
Merisotis, 2003, (p. 4).
In collaboration with high schools, some colleges began bridge programs that
brought students to the campus during the summer months for orientation sessions
and college prep classes in an effort to assist students with the transition from high
school to college.
According to much of the research (Johnson, 1996; Darden, Bagakas, & Li,
1997; Antley, 1999; Nolan, 1999), academic support services have been designed to
ease the transition into undergraduate studies, as well as graduate and professional
schools. These services have two primary goals. The first is to improve student
retention that usually results in higher graduation rates. A second goal is to raise the
level of academic performance so that those who are retained ultimately graduate and
are more competitive in their future aspirations, e.g., graduate studies, internships,
and employment opportunities. However, as the number of these programs has
increased findings from evaluation research have fostered the development by
colleges of more comprehensive services to more effectively address the primary
6


goals. For example, in her analysis of academic support services at six institutions4
social scientist, Nina Reyes (1997) notes that according to the USA Group Noel-
Levitz research more than 37 percent of the students who left school had grade-point
averages higher than 2.5" (p. 3). Based on institutional responses she concluded that
academic support services must include a concern for non-academic challenges faced
by students i.e., socialization issues, faculty preparation, and student motivation.
College strategies that focus on student retention and performance have often
meant developing partnerships with state, as well as federal agencies that can assist in
helping students achieve success in college. Many of these relationships have been
forged over a number of years and have proven effective for students and the
institutions.
4The study examined retention programs at North Carolina State, University of
Michigan, University of South Carolina at Columbia, San Francisco State, Alabama
A&M University and the University of Missouri at St. Louis using enrollment and
retention data obtained from the National Collegiate Athletic Association that is noted
for maintaining some of the most accurate national figures on undergraduates.
7


The Student Support Services5 (SSS) program sponsored by the U.S.
Department of Education's Office of Higher Education Programs is an example of a
long standing partnership between colleges and the federal government. Through the
concerted actions of this collaboration, knowledge regarding how to address the
higher education needs of students from low income backgrounds who are
overwhelmingly members of ethnic minority groups, has been developed and applied
resulting in most SSS program students completing baccalaureate studies. (A
discussion of the programs track record is presented in the SSS Programs History
section of Chapter 2.) Host institutions that have participated in the development and
implementation of SSS programs may have acquired information that is useful to
higher education in its goals of assisting students from diverse backgrounds become
more successful in their college pursuits. In some instances, knowledge about how to
foster success with this group of students may have been transferred and applied to
5The C.F.R. defines the purpose of Student Support Services Program as a
program that provides grants to- (a) Increase the retention and graduation rates of
eligible students; (b) Increase the transfer rate of eligible students from two-year to
four-year institutions; and (c) Foster an institutional climate supportive of the success
of low-income and first generation college students and individuals with disabilities
through services such as those described in § 646.4. (34 C.F.R § 646.1).
8


other non-program students in the form of enhanced support services for all students.
When this kind of institutional learning occurs, it has the impact of leveraging the
effects of programs such as SSS so that the host institution receives added benefits
from their presence. To date, an examination of this phenomenon, the potential
indirect benefits of such programs, is not available in the body of research on SSS
programs.
Current literature on SSS and other academic support programs focuses on
student outcome measures, i.e., college retention and graduation rates of program
participants to evaluate program effectiveness. For example, comprehensive reports
on the SSS program beginning in 1983 (Systems Development Corporation) followed
by the U.S. Department of Educations review in 1985 up to the most recent Westat
evaluation (1997) all assess SSS based on student outcomes, i.e., grade point average,
credits earned, retention and graduation. In spite of a growing interest among
colleges, policy makers and SSS directors to more accurately demonstrate the
effectiveness of the program, there remains a void in the body of literature on SSS
programs that examines the impact of these programs beyond the student outcomes
criteria. This research is designed to address these concerns. It will therefore, fill the
gap in providing empirical research to determine if the presence of SSS programs
9


tends to provide value added benefits for the hosting campuses that have influenced
decision making that produces similar services for non-program students. This is the
kind of information that has the potential capacity to increase the foundation of
knowledge needed to improve current student services or develop new ones in a more
informed manner.
Statement of the Problem
Assessment of the effectiveness of SSS programs traditionally has been
grounded in an examination of student outcomes, e.g., persistence and graduation
rates, GPA, etc.6 Such research has been critical to building the body of information
essential to articulating the success of the program. Approximately every five years
during the re-appropriations sessions of Congress, TRIO presents the most recent
student outcome data to demonstrate the success of the program. These data and the
inclusion of student testimonials that were presented in the
6Using retention and graduation rates this report evaluates SSS programs from
1964-93 (Department of Education, 1994).
10


most recent TRIO congressional briefings rely on program assessment based on
benefits received by the participant. However, as funding to TRIO programs declines7
the programs leadership may need to take a broader view in determining how the
success of the program is demonstrated. In an environment where the competition for
funding (particularly federal dollars) higher education initiatives is keen, limiting
strategies used to document program success could be problematic. Exclusive
attention to analyses that focus only on student outcome data may be myopic in
reporting the positive influences of SSS in higher education.
Essentially, program evaluation based on student outcomes fails to disclose
the other benefits that might have been realized by colleges as a result of having a
SSS program on the campus. Although SSS, as a component of TRIO, has enjoyed
longevity with federal support (continuous funding since 1968) the recent decline in
its allocation increases suggests perhaps a need to document success using a more
comprehensive perspective. This study is designed to determine if there are other
The Bush Administrations 2005 fiscal year budget funded TRIO at $836
million (less than two percent of its base) representing the smallest percentage
increase for TRIO in its history (www.thomas.loc.gov).
11


criteria that might be considered in evaluating SSS program success and thereby
broaden the methods used currently.
Specifically, the purpose of the study is to test the hypotheses that there are
additional benefits realized by the institutional hosts of SSS programs and that these
settings provide learning opportunities for the colleges to further their educational
objectives for not only program participants, but for all students. Summarily, the
research problem is to investigate the influence of SSS on academic support services
for non-program students.
Research Overview
This investigation was an effort to develop an understanding of whether or not
colleges view the presence of SSS programs supportive in helping to attain their
educational goals of research, teaching, service and accountability. In an environment
of increasing justification for the use of financial resources (particularly public
dollars) for support, colleges and universities must develop strategies that
demonstrate an ability to address student success as a critical factor in the
accountability goal. To that end, the study explored if the presence of Student
Support Services (SSS) programs on college campuses had impacted the
12


provision of support services for non-program students. Additionally, the research
sought to identify institutional characteristics that might be commonly associated with
indicators of the most successful SSS programs8 and the adoption of SSS-type
services for non-program students. That is, in those circumstances where the college
had implemented SSS-type services for all students what, if any, predominant
characteristics (student body composition, type or control, selectivity, faculty to
student ratio, etc.) do they have?
Data for the research were produced from responses to the mail survey and the
structured telephone interviews. Use of this limited mixed method approach
ultimately helped uncover information that was not disclosed with either approach
individually. Use of these two approaches proved beneficial and informed the
findings more comprehensively.
Characteristics of the most successful SSS programs will be those program
factors identified in the Muraskin (1997) research as commonalities among successful
projects. The six best practices identified in the Muraskin work will be used as most
successful program indicators for the purposes of this investigation. In addition to
these six a set of eight indicators will be used that includes student outcomes. A
discussion of these applications is detailed in Appendix A entitled Definition of
Terms.
13


Organization of the Study
Beyond an initial assumption that support services for college students
enhance the success of the student, the study explores the question of whether such
services have additional value to the institution. Starting with a review of the
literature, Chapter 2 provides a discussion of factors that have influenced the
changing role of higher education in the nation. Since the impetus for the study
emerges from the concepts associated with diffusion theory, what follows is a
discussion of those theoretical principles most pertinent to this investigation.
Evidence of the diffusion of program benefits suggests that organizational learning is
occurring, necessitating a discussion of relevant concepts related to organizational
learning theory. To that end, an overview and description of those concepts that are
germane to these changes are detailed. The next section describes the research that
depicts the merits of support services. Additionally, the section explains how
institutions measure goal or mission attainment, i.e., increased quality and
accountability and utilizing strategies of access and equity to assess what is of value
or benefit to the college. This information describes the concepts related to access
issues as they apply to quality and accountability at the individual, organizational, and
14


societal level in this study. These relationships help to explain how college support
services enhance institutional goals of equity, access, quality and accountability.
Student Support Services (a component of the TRIO Program) Programs is the
subject of investigation because of its longevity (over 30 years) in the business of
providing academic support services for select students9. A comprehensive
discussion is presented on the history, success record, and research endeavors
associated with this program.
The methodology section (Chapter 3) presents the overarching research
question of whether there is a relationship between the presence of SSS programs and
the implementation of similar services for non-program students at the same
institution. Essentially, is there a difference in the kinds of services provided for non-
program students after the start of SSS? Are there differences between host and non-
host colleges in the quantity and kinds of SSS-type services provided for non-program
students? Furthermore, the study investigates several questions related to these
inquiries. These additional research questions are: (1) Where host schools have
Specific SSS program eligibility requirements are presented in the "History
of SSS Programs section located in the next chapter (2).
15


implemented similar services for non-program students after the start of SSS, what
kinds of value-added benefits to the institution are identified as program impacts on
the college? (2) Is SSS perceived as helping the college attain its educational goals of
instruction, research and service within the context of improving quality,
accountability, student equity and student access? (3) Has the presence of SSS
improved and/or increased academic support services for non-program students? (4)
Are there common institutional characteristics evidenced by schools that recognize
value-added benefits from hosting SSS programs? (5) Are there differences in the
academic support services provided by non-host schools than those available at host
colleges? and (6) What implications for policy directions might arise from the
findings? These questions were investigated by surveying 105 host schools and 68
non-host colleges. Ten host schools participated in follow-up structured interviews.
Additionally, the methodology section presents the study hypotheses and
research design that includes a description of the population sample, selection criteria,
and data collection and analysis methods. This chapter also includes a discussion of
independent variables on the dependent variables in relation to each hypothesis.
The results section (Chapter 4) describes and analyzes responses to the survey
of institutions using several statistical methods. Rationale for the application of each
16


statistical method is discussed in relation to the research question being addressed.
For example, descriptive statistics provided a method of examining the various
institutional characteristics, i.e., student composition, public or private control,
selectivity, etc. Use of independent samples t-tests and chi-square analyses provided
opportunities to examine differences between host and non-host schools on the
research questions related to academic support services for program and non-program
students. Analysis of variance methods were used to examine college perceptions of
what, if any, added benefits were realized from hosting SSS programs. Structured
interviews served to confirm information reported on the survey, i.e., whether selected
services were available to non-program students pre or post-SSS and to identify the
involvement of SSS program personnel in the decision making process for
implementation of such services. Furthermore, the structured interview provided an
opportunity to ascertain common perspectives, ideas and thinking10 about SSS
programs. Perceptions from the interview respondents on the influences of SSS
programs on academic support services and attainment of institutional goals are
discussed as they help to inform and verily data from the survey.
10Janesick (1998) encourages the researcher using a qualitative approach to
"look for the meaning and perspectives of the participants in the study (p. 103).
17


The last section (Chapter 5) is a presentation of the research findings and a
discussion of their implications in this study. This is followed by a considration of
the significance of the study and some suggestions for future research directions that
might provide additional information on the contributions of SSS programs to higher
education. Finally, this concluding chapter identifies areas needing further
investigation outside the scope of this study but clearly related to student success. For
example, colleges that seek to improve student learning experiences and achievement
may need to examine issues associated with institutional cultural characteristics that
tend to undermine student success.
18


CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
The Changing Role of Higher Education
Although there have been numerous social and political influences that have
precipitated substantial changes in higher education during the last 15 years, there are
three that have had perhaps the most prominent influence on the way post-secondary
education conducts the business of education. Alone each would have had a
significant impact, but together in a relatively short period of time, changes in the
governance of colleges, what functional roles they assume and the demographic
makeup of student bodies have precipitated what is likely to be a permanent shift in
the essential goals and processes of higher education (Joint Information Systems
Committee, 1995). Effective institutional response to these changes requires a
reflective critical evaluation of what is needed and the development and application of
educational resources that best support goal attainment.
Colleges are now confronted with educating a student body that is more
19


diverse across all socio-economic stratifications than it was just 15 years ago11.
Scholars Carole Leathwood and Paul OConnell indicate that construction of the
student are changing...there has been a shift away from the generally accepted, but
one-dimensional, definition of the student and the university towards a range of
possibilities that reflect and create much uncertainty(p. 598). This influx of new
students challenges the academic resources of the institution to meet learning needs
more effectively. At the same time the world of higher education has experienced a
decrease in financial resources to support many of its institutional objectives. Efforts
11 According to the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) two of
the primary factors that have contributed to the diversity of the college student
enrollment are the increases in women and older student attendees. NCES researchers
indicate that aggregate gender differences in degree awards largely reflect differences
in the majority or White student population and that from 1980 to 2001 enrollment
of women in undergraduate studies increased from 52 percent to 56 percent.
Additionally, the report specifies that by 2001 regardless of racial or ethnic group,
women received the majority of the associate and baccalaureate degrees (Peter, Horn
and Carroll, 2005, p. iv). Economist, Jonathan Kelinson (1998) states that
Traditionally aged college students, those between the ages of 18 and 24, made up
the majority of students on college campuses. But the number of older students
increased significantly. In 1985 15 percent of college students were over 35 years of
age and by 1994 this age group represented 21 percent of enrollments in college
(p.4).
20


to address demands by stakeholders external to the college12 have motivated many
universities to re-prioritize their goals to focus on student learning as the number one
institutional goal. These influences on higher education impact the ways in which
colleges and universities are governed, function and address student success. In many
ways student success drives college governance and function. Higher education
oversight bodies often evaluate institutional effectiveness and efficiency based on
student related issues such as quality of the educational experience, accountability,
equity, accessibility. As institutions learn how to build student success they increase
their abilities to access resources that allow them opportunities to achieve their goals.
When campuses have programs that target special populations from which they are
able to adopt best practices to all students these colleges demonstrate a kind of
comprehensive understanding of these concerns and how to resolve them. This type
of learning arises from theoretical concepts related to organizational learning
l2In their examination of issues related to making higher education more
flexible researchers Minna Takala, David Hawk and Yannis Rammos identify three
stakeholders that drive the quality assurance system: the federal government that is
linked through financial aid support for students; (the) states (that) charter and
monitor activities and certify or license programs; and accrediting bodies...as a
method for strengthening the quality of higher education (p. 295)
21


theory. When understandings from this kind of learning are applied it evidences
tenets of diffusion theory13.
This review of the research and theories for this study addresses these
concerns by first presenting an overview of those issues related to governance,
function and student demographics that currently challenge higher education. The
review of the literature from diffusion theory and organizational learning theory helps
to explain the rationale of colleges modeling academic support services for all
students after observing their effectiveness in specialized programs. The conceptual
structure of the thesis is further developed by a review of the literature that addresses
the merits of academic support services for students in the context of quality
assurance, institutional goals and student success.
Governance
Historically, higher education in the United States has operated using models
13Credited with advancing much of the contemporary research on diffusion
theory scholar Everett Rogers (1995) defines diffusion as the process by which a
innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members
of a social system...communication is a process in which participants create and share
information with one another in order to reach a mutual understanding(pp. 5-6).
22


of self-governance. This independent nature of colleges and universities prevailed
until the mid-1980s, when state higher education agencies, in response to public and
political pressures, began to demand closer scrutiny and accountability from these
institutions (Benjamin and Carroll, 1996). Donald Kettl (2004) identifies the two
critical issues that traditional public institutions that manage postsecondaiy
education (p.22) must handle. One is that the market for education has become far
more diverse and competitive and the other issue is that as budgets get tighter and
the twenty-first -century economy demands better trained workers, the pressure to
produce better education without spending more will grow. Postsecondary education
will have no choice but to reinvent itself. (p.22). It was during this same period that
the public began to question the mission of universities that described their priorities
in the context of research first and teaching second. State residents were beginning to
demand that public colleges and universities focus on teaching as a priority
(Johnstone, 1997). Such a perspective captures the concerns of quality assurance
particularly as it relates to student access and success. Here the public goals for
colleges are to provide an environment of higher education that is both attainable and
one in which students can meet learning outcomes. Policies, programs and initiatives
23


that advance these assumptions then help serve the public demand for enhancing
quality assurance.
The public, and often government, demands for a refocus on teaching14 and
student learning in higher education has been accompanied by additional concerns for
quality assurance. During the last ten years the academic community, that had
become accustomed to self-regulation and assessment by regional or specialization
accrediting bodies, has become increasingly concerned that government agencies
might take over the evaluation function and eventually control higher education.
David Dill, et.al., (1996) summarizes the 1990s climate
...as concerns over the rising costs of higher education and the relative
priority given to undergraduate education and student learning have
spread across the country, there has been increasing criticism of
institutional accreditation as a primary means for assuring quality in
colleges and universities. The 1992 amendments to the Higher
Education Act mandated that the states and voluntary regional
accreditation agencies assume new responsibilities in the enforcement
of federal standards related to higher education. Congress authorized
the states to establish new State Postsecondary Review Entities
14David Kember and Jan McKay (1996) indicate that governments have
moved to make universities and colleges more accountable for the finances they
receive from state coffers. Concern about the qualityu of teaching has been
particularly strong as many have begun to suspect that teaching has been relegated to
a poor second place behind research (p.528).
24


(SPREs) with authority to conduct comprehensive reviews of
institutions that violated certain standards embodied in the law (p. 17).
Although the SPREs were eliminated in 1998 when the Higher Education Act (1998
Amendments to Higher Education Act of 1965, Pub. .L. No. 105-244, § 114, [1998])
was reauthorized, the public concerns regarding the rising costs of higher education
and quality assurance of undergraduate learning continue to be raised. It was during
this time that a group of college presidents frustrated with the demands of SPREs and
the failure of the Council for Postsecondaiy Accreditation created a national
organization whose only responsibility was accreditation. Hopes are high that this
newly established group, the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA)
will be more effective than the Council for Postsecondary Education that was
disbanded in 1993 (McMurtrie, 1999). Critics indicate that the group has no real
enforcement power since it is not government sponsored and relies on the regional
and specialization accrediting bodies to join it. CHEA supporters say that because the
council is not affiliated with government or an existing accrediting body it is in a
unique role of being able to more effectively resolve frequent conflict that occurs
between these groups. Despite the desire by many colleges to be allowed to manage
without interference, the reality is that higher education institutions cannot operate
25


effectively without these external resources. This view seems supported by the 1997
research by James Volkwein and Shaukat Malik that asked the question Have
regulatory practices changed in the past decade and does flexibility make a difference
in campus effectiveness? They reported ...our most prominent finding is the lack of
connection between campus autonomy and measures of effectiveness. Instead, our
measures of faculty and student quality are substantially correlated with each other
and influenced by indicators of size and resources (p. 40).
The sentiment of less government voiced by the Congress elected in 1994
reduced the willingness of federal involvement in higher education with implications
of devolving authority to the state level. A major limitation with such an arrangement
is that the process might not include private colleges that comprise the majority of
higher educational institutions. In order to balance the quality assurance issues that
imply a need for improvement, Dill and his colleagues suggest two approaches,
promoting regional academic audits and encouraging quality assessments of teaching
and learning at the institutional level. The second method that focuses on
assessments of teaching quality-the evaluation of the quality of student study
programs and the campus provision of teaching and leaming(p. 8) would require
self-assessment and regulation at the institutional and programs level. Schools and
26


programs would be responsible for evaluating the relationship between program aims,
course delivery, course content, and student learning (Dill, 1996). Decision making
regarding the allocation of campus resources would be governed by the assessment
results. Many institutions that have adopted this approach indicate that the problems
tend to occur in the necessary follow-up of allocation of campus resources based on
the conclusions derived from the assessment results. Often there are other authorities,
such as elected policy makers or external accrediting bodies15, that determine where
campus resources should be allocated. Decision making based on such influences
often does not support or in some instances might directly contradict the conclusions
from the self-evaluations conducted by the schools or programs themselves. Effective
implementation and quality assurance then become undermined. In their review of
quality assurance and quality enhancement strategies Kember and McKay (1996)
indicated that quality assurance strategies, e.g., external examiners, teaching
,5Kettl (2004) found that As part of their broader reinvention efforts, state
policymakers have identified performance goals for many programs and have worked
to hold managers more accountable for results. In the 1990s, some state legislatures
asked university systems to produce performance reports. Many state university
systems on their own have identified performance measures, such as graduation and
time-to-graduation rates, and have written performance reports. Legislators, however,
have shown a much greater interest in requesting these reports than in reading them
(p.29).
27


portfolios and even student feedback questionnaires have limitations because they
concentrate on bringing the poorest teachers and courses up to some level of
minimum acceptance...but there is no mechanism for giving real rewards to teams
preparing outstanding programs (p. 529). They advocate for a quality enhancement
perspective that aims for an overall increase in the quality of teaching..and are (not)
imposed from above, either by university administrators or by external bodies (p.
530).
Functional Role
Alan Lindsay and Ruth Neuman (1988) discuss what seems to be a changing
focus in higher education as the relationship between the perceptions of excellence
(the research endeavor to broaden knowledge) and utility (teaching the application of
knowledge). According to these writers, the nexus between research and teaching has
changed throughout the history of higher education and has varied from harmonious
coexistence to direct conflict (p. 45). They argue that from medieval universities
into the 19th century the notion of excellence was connected to the pursuit of
knowledge purely for its own sake while teaching was valued for its utilitarian
function that did not include an assumption of excellence associated with its
28


activities. Lindsay and Neumann advance that America has made a distinct
contribution to higher education by advancing the concept of high quality or
excellence in research and teaching and the need to appreciate the integrative nature
of both.
Jeannette Seabeny and Joe Davis (1997) note that by the mid 1800s in the
United States higher education began to appear different from the training and
research traditions typically associated with universities and higher education...these
(new) types of institutions were committed to liberal arts education and teacher
training (p. 6). Congress assisted in the advancement of these new schools created to
train citizens to develop expertise in agriculture and mechanical engineering with the
passage of the Morrill Acts (1862 and 1890) establishing land colleges across the
nation. With one land grant institution in every state the number of citizens who
could access higher education greatly increased (Cohen and Brawer, 1982). Seabeny
and Davis (1997) further indicate that the nineteenth-century utilitarian approach of
American universities combined the strong components of the research characteristics
of the German system and the liberal arts approach popular in British universities (p.
7). Since these early years the role of higher education has broadened its scope of
training to include thousands of disciplines and a similar number of research
29


initiatives and directions. Generally, the intended goals of these functional roles in
higher education have remained consistently to provide learning experiences for
individuals that ultimately benefit citizens and the society.
Higher learning in the United States was conceptually a view of excellence in
the service of the nation...(and that) excellence is just as important in problem solving
as in the advancement of abstract fields (p. 46). These writers suggest that it has only
been in the last 30 years that the concepts of excellence and utility have begun to
narrow. In large part due to the post World War II financial support for research from
government and businesses much of the effect within the universities was to
reinforce epistemological philosophy...excellence came to be increasingly judged and
in extreme cases, solely judged in terms of a contribution to the disciplines
framework (p. 51). However, with the economic decline of the 1980s, research has
become more dependent on businesses (and government to a lesser extent) to fund
more applications focused on research. Such relationships continue to raise concerns
regarding the academic freedom and independence traditionally held by universities.
Interestingly, the current public imperatives to have higher education refocus on
teaching and learning that has the potential outcome of students capable of
30


contributing to the society are similar to the values, i.e., applied research, teaching,
and service articulated in the rationale for the establishment of land grant institutions.
Student Demographics
The growing income disparity between those with college
degrees and those without college degrees has already turned us into a
nation of colllege-haves and college-have-nots. In the next 15 years, 1
million to 2 million additional young adults will be seeking access to
higher education, a large proportion of them from low-income and
minority families. (Camevale, A.and Fry, R.,1999, p. 5).
The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) produces several survey
instruments that provide data estimating enrollments in higher education, e.g., Current
Population Survey (CPS), the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System
(IPEDS), the National Household Education Surveys program (NHES), etc. Datasets
from these surveys may indicate inconsistencies because of the differences in the
sources used for information collection, e.g., NHES is based on information collected
from households while IPEDS gathers its information from institutions (Hurst, 2005).
Other factors according to NCES that contribute to data inconsistencies include
whether data are gathered over a period of time or one point in time, how
31


postsecondary institution is defined and what criteria is used to determine a status of
enrollment (Hurst, 2005). Applying these considerations NCES (using the IPEDS
survey data) reported that from 1969 to 1989 enrollment of the 18 to 24 -year-olds in
degree granting postsecondary institutions as a percentage of the resident population
grew slightly (about 9 percent overall with a 16 percent peak from 1979-89) despite a
25 percent increase in this age group (Snyder, 2002). Diane Macunovich (1997)
explains that such slight increases in total college enrollment rates are not surprising
and should be interpreted within the context of birth cohort size and college wage
premium16. According to Macunovich this economic theory explains why fewer
individuals in large birth cohorts and more persons in smaller birth cohorts attend
college. Over many years the result is a kind of leveling effect on enrollment rates so
that anticipated spikes in college attendance are not realized generally. This
researcher allow that factors such as the perception of relative income (where the
l6Macunovich (1997) defines college wage premium (as the) the additional
earning a college graduate over those of a high school grad. Economic theory predicts
that the return from a college education will depend on demand and supply and on
suitability the degree to which one type of worker can be used in place of
another(p. 35). She argues high schools graduates who are young can be more easily
exchanged for older workers with high school diplomas. On the other hand, young
college graduates are not easily exchanged for the more experienced worker who is
also a college graduate.
32


adult individual evaluates personal economic status based on the income of the home
in which he/she was reared) and level of international trade can and do influence
those from large birth cohorts to enroll in college despite the college premium wage
issue. Additionally, women and members of ethnic minority groups from large birth
cohorts have accounted for the greatest increases in college enrollments. This
demand trend for a college education is expected to continue with a projection of a
total demand for college enrollment in the 18 to 24 age group...to increase by 30
percent in the next decade (Macunovich,p. 44).
Between 1988 and 1998 although the college enrollment growth rates had
started to level off showing an increase of merely 11 percent, the percentage of
women attending grew by 16 percent compared to only six percent for men (U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics {NCES}, 1999).
By 1997 females constituted more than half of the entering students. Additionally,
although projections by NCES indicate that the growth rate for 18 to 24 year old
college enrollees will out pace those over 25 years of age by 13 percent by 2010, the
growth rate during the 1990s for students over 25 years of age grew substantially
(eight percent) and was only one percent less than the growth rate for the younger
33


group (NCES, 1999). The vast majority of these non-traditional, mature17 students
were employed and had parenting responsibilities for minor children. These students,
who were making personal and financial sacrifices, as well as, juggling family
responsibilities to attend college, often could not place higher education as their
number one priority consistently and had different expectations of what education
should provide than the group of younger students who preceded them.
Moreover, since the late 1990s, colleges are beginning to feel the impact of the
large K-12 population and have begun to see greater numbers of recent high school
graduates entering higher education for the first time. Compounding this situation is
the fact that more students than ever before are entering post-secondary education in
17For the purposes of this study the following are used for operating
definitions of traditional and nontraditional student with the acknowledgment that
other definitions might vary slightly by including additional criteria, i.e., level of
income or member of an ethnic minority group. Researchers Emily Morris, Peggy
Brooks and James May (2003) define nontraditional college students as those 22
years of age or older and as having more multiple roles (i.e., parents, spouses,
employees)...with a mean age of 28...while traditional college students were defined
as those between the ages of 18 and 22 who resided on the college campus (or in the
home of the parents)...(having) a mean age of 19.5 years of age (p. 4).
34


need of developmental18 course work. The traditional student population has now
become one that is quite diverse with a host of learning needs for which many
institutions are not prepared.
A New Perspective: The University as a
Community of Learners
In response to these concerns many colleges, both public and private, amended
their objectives to reflect an emphasis on teaching and learning as the highest priority.
With this refocus on student learning, institutions of higher education in the 1990s
began to move away from the hierarchal implications of a teaching institution, where
the expert imparts knowledge, to an environment in which learning becomes more
collaborative. W. Norton Grubb (2001) notes that the older conception of
18National Center for Developmental Education researchers, Patrick Saxon
and Hunter R. Boylan (2005) have indicated college students who need
developmental education are also referred to as remedial, at-risk, underprepared,
low-achieving, disadvantaged, non-traditional and skill-deficient...(and that
regardless of the term used to describe these students they all are) academically
underprepared for college level work...estimates that 40% of first-time students
entering the average community college (needs remediation course work)...less than
2% of remedial students had SAT total scores of 900 or more, average high school
GPA is 2.4, average college GPA at graduation is 2.28 (and) 68 % are full-time
(p.l).
35


institutional responsibility for learning where institutions provide a specified
curriculum, imparted by teachers to students... has been modified by one that places
greater responsibility for success on the institution itself (p. 2). The trend toward
collaborative learning environments or the university as a community of learners is
cited by researchers as a fundamental attribute of high-quality programs in higher
education19. Many such colleges and universities that now describe themselves in this
manner also recognize the supportive infrastructure essential in supporting a
community of learners. These innovations in learning approaches involve not only
providing the educational resources that include the student academic support services
necessary for community learning but the establishment of an institutional
infrastructure in which collaborative decision-making can occur. Marvin Lazerson,
19 As part of a national study of master's education Haworth and Conrad
interviewed 781 faculty, institutional administrators, program administrators,
students, alumni, and employers, representing eleven fields of study, and 31
institutions to determine their perspectives on what constituted high-quality learning
experiences in higher education. Their findings indicated that "...a' community of
learners' is another fundamental attribute of high-quality programs. Interviewees
across our sample told us that an ethic of collegial teaching and learning imbued the
culture of their programs such that faculty, students, and administrators interacted
with one another more or less as partners within a community of learners.
Membership in such a community greatly enriched students' learning experiences and
positively affected their growth and development", (p. 69)
36


Ursula Wagener and Nichole Shumanis (2000) caution that institutional systems have
moved slowly to support collaborative and cooperative learning that necessitates a
more primary role on college campuses. They argue that
...a genuine teaching-learning revolution seems far away. The
disjunctive between lots of assessment activities and faculty
teaching and reward systems is substantial. Campus conversations
about teaching may be occurring, but the dialogue on professional
responsibility for student learning appears modest at best. There are
active classrooms where students take responsibility for their
learning but where there also is little serious assessment of what
students are actually learning (p. 23).
Advocates for supplemental instruction (Ramirez, Gen 1997, Maxwell,
William 1998, Yockey, Frances and George Archie 1998) indicated that supplemental
instruction provides a natural venue for the development of learning communities.
Maxwell (1998) indicates one of the central benefits of a learning organizations is that
it fosters social integration and that many four-year college studies have found
moderately strong correlations between social integration variables and several
academic outcomes (p. 1). His recent study that examined the impact of
supplemental instruction using a learning community format in a community college
setting showed a moderate but not large (impact on social integration where).,.the
effects of supplemental instruction focused on...limited objectives of many
37


commuting students: their coursework and the social relations that supported their
studies (p. 11). In their research comparing colleges and universities with high
graduation rates (HGRs) to those with low graduation rates (LGRs) Lana Murakin,
John Lee, Abigail Wilner and Watson Scott Swail (2004) cite developmental
education and supplemental instruction as two among 12 common factors that
contributed to the high success rates of students at the HGR institutions. Despite the
new restrictions by some states on offering remedial course work at four year colleges
these researchers found that in those situations where the such constraints existed the
HGR schools were more likely than the LGR colleges to offer educational innovations
that included strategies such as tutoring, groups study, supplemental instruction or
mastery classes ...and learning communities (p. 45). They concluded that in their
investigation of these colleges that all had a large share of low-income students:
much of the difference in student outcomes may be due to factors so
basic that they are hardly amenable to tweaking institutional policies
or practices. They may require, at least in public institutions,
systematic consideration at the state level. These factors include prior
student performance, available institutional resources, and items that
are directly affected by resources such as levels of full-time faculty (p.
47).
38


Challenges that colleges must face by the realities of external constraints can be used
to inform the development of innovative opportunities that enhance student success20
at the institutional level. Institutional capacity building for such an infrastructure to
develop and be implemented effectively depicts many of the characteristics associated
with the theoretical principles of diffusion of innovation and organizational learning
theories.
Higher Education and Diffusion Theory
Although originally conceptualized as a process by which individuals make
decisions to adopt a change in an organization, diffusion concepts were eventually
applied to examine the processes that are involved at the organizational level when
assessing the feasibility of an innovation (Schon, DeCanio, Dibble and Amir-Atefi,
2000; Barnett, 1978 ). Much of this early research focused on innovations related to
20In an effort to improve student success some scholars indicate that colleges
should not use student outcomes as the exclusive criteria for assessment, but must
pay attention to the process...it would be of little value to gather information on
student outcomes without gathering and utilizing the equally important information
on the student experiences, classroom teaching techniques, and institutional and
environmental conditions that lead to the outcomes (Banta, Lund, Black and
Oblander, p. 25).
39


technologies in business industries. A similar focus on technology has dominated the
research on diffusion of innovations in education as computers have become more
available and prevalent in the world of learning. Researchers studying the impact of
technologies in education suggest that they will have the greatest influence on
changing how students learn and faculty teach (Levine, 1997). Here the assumption is
made that educational institutions will overwhelmingly implement technologies.
Rogers (1995) makes the point that decision making to use an innovation is quite
different than taking the actions necessary to implement the decision. Educational
institutions and in particular those at higher levels have learned that the capacity of an
educational system to diffuse innovations in learning technologies is very much
dependent on several factors. The internal resources (e.g., faculty, budgets, capital
improvements needed) and external environments (e.g., citizen support, policy
makers, accrediting bodies) of a college can limit its ability to effectively adopt an
innovation. For example, Prouix and Campbell (1997) found that most faculty use
computers for professional reasons, i.e., research, communication with colleagues,
and writing. In responding to reasons for beginning to use computers among the
high use faculty, only 29% indicated that they were motivated for instructional
purposes while 88% of this same group reported incentives related to professional
40


demands. These findings support the assertions of other studies (Geoghegan, 1994;
Persichitte, Tharp and Caffarella, 1999) on the faculty use of computer technologies
for instructional purposes. To a large extent the earlier predictions of the
revolutionizing effects of computer assisted learning technologies on teaching
strategies seem not to have materialized as anticipated. Explanation of the limited
diffusion results of this innovation on pedagogy remains an area where continued
research is needed. In his discussion of the criticisms related to diffusion research
Rogers (1995) provides some insight and direction for further investigation indicating
that
One of the most serious shortcomings of diffusion research is the pro-
innovation bias...(that is) the implication in diffusion research that an
innovation should be diffused more rapidly, and that the innovation
should be neither re-invented nor rejected (p. 100).
He argues that a method of dealing with the pro-innovation bias is to develop
alternative research approaches to after-the-fact data gathering about how an
innovation has diffused should be explored (p. 106). Here, Rogers observations
expand the perspective by which diffusion research is conducted.
For example, a better understanding of the limited outcomes for computer
technology on teaching strategies might be found in an examination of the
41


adoption of process innovations and what perspective is utilized in assessment.
Daniel Curry (1998) observes that innovations can, of course, be ideas, new practices
of unproved processes...Do instructional developers and technology users have
fundamental differences in the way they think about a particular innovation or about
technology in general (p. 11)? The optimistic view of technology developers who
tend to focus on the technology itself might be quite different than the perspective of
the user whose evaluation of the utilitarian value of the proposed innovation is
determined by assessing the anticipated consequences of the technology. Decision
making by organizations regarding the implementation of an innovation beyond the
trial phase might be determined by non-supportive feedback related to the perceptions
by users of the results of the innovation. Attention to this issue by the organizational
research community has not placed sufficient emphasis on this perspective in further
developing concepts of organizational change (Hage, 1999).
42


In his work Rogers (1995) identifies five characteristics21 associated with
innovation rate of adoption. Each characteristic is governed by the adopters
perception of the innovation. An analysis of student perceptions of computers using
the Rogers characteristics associated with assessing adoption might disclose that the
average college student has some history of using this kind of technology. The past
experiences of students with computers are not in conflict with their needs or values
and that student use is not limited to the resources of the educational institution, but
that students access and use this technology extensively outside of their educational
lives. A significant finding by the Prouix and Campbell study indicated that students
tended to be high users of computer technology with or without the institutional
infrastructure to support their use. On the other hand, high user faculty were
evidenced most predominately in those settings where the institution provided
sufficient resources to support their usage.
21Rogers (1995, pp.15-16) explains the rate of adoption based on five
characteristics that are determined by the perception of the adopter: advantage of
innovation compared to status quo; compatibility of the innovation with needs, values
and past experiences; ease of understanding and using the new idea; suitability to
phasing-in; and visibility to others of the innovation.
43


In his study on change implementation strategies George Lueddeke (1999)
indicates that organizational change and diffusion of innovation theoretical concepts
have been used extensively in higher education research that examines the cultural
realities of academic leadership and decision making...and that university culture and
organization, underscores the necessity ...for organizational improvements to occur
(p. 236). Essentially supporting Rogers view on the difficulty of change Lueddeke
indicates since the current environment of higher education tends to foster uncertainty
those responsible for managing change would benefit from a better grasp of the
change process itself, in particular how the inevitable tensions that result can be
sources of strength rather than weakness (p. 237).
Innovation can be applied as a strategy to facilitate organizational change if
the users can perceive results that are beneficial. Higher education has numerous
examples (e.g., distance learning, service learning, developmental studies, etc.) of the
successful implementation of new ideas and practices where the intended goals for
learning have been attained. Of particular importance to this study is the diffusion of
academic support services for college students as an innovation that began in the mid-
1960s when ethnic minority students began to enter higher education in significant
numbers. Early academic support programs on campuses tended to be those funded
44


initially by the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity and later by the U.S. Department
of Education when OEO was disbanded in 1978 (a detailed discussion of this history
is presented later in this chapter). Ten years later, many colleges and universities had
developed similar services for all students. By applying the concepts of diffusion
theory in organizations to this phenomena an assessment could be made that the
implementation of academic support services is also an example of diffusion of an
innovative practice in higher education.
Foundations of Organizational Learning Theory
This re-conceptualization of the role of colleges and universities as
collaborative learning organizations or communities suggests 4 critical principles that
characterize the evolving knowledge on organizational learning theory. The first
principle is that of dialogue as defined by philosopher and physicist David Bohm
(1991). This principle requires a spirit of inquiry and a commitment to respecting
others and self that is sufficiently solid to allow dialogue that challenges the current
paradigms and their inconsistencies. The second principle relates to Edgar H. Sheins
work (1993) on organizational culture. Schein proposes that change in the culture of
an organization requires a process of articulating counterproductive beliefs in a group
45


setting where the organizational members have the opportunity to participate and
contribute to the dialogue.
Joint efforts by Chris Argyris (also known for his on the theory of reasoning
and action science, 1982) and Donald Schon (best known for his work on reflective
practice theory, 1983) on methods for producing effective learning in an organization
(1974,1978) conceptualizes a third principle that focuses on the development of
individual strategies that facilitate a more productive level of interpersonal
competence from a systematic perspective. Competence is demonstrated through
what Argyris and Schon termed action learning. Their theory of organizational
learning focuses on how conflict is managed in organizations when individuals must
deal with uncertainty in the pursuit of resolution. This type of learning process is
through the experience of working together with colleagues using effective reasoning
(problem assessment), learning (the response to the problem), and action (method of
implementing solutions).
Organizational learning theory has made a tremendous contribution in
advancing understandings of organizational behavior. Lars Steiner (1998) describes
the impact of organizational learning as
46


...possibly the most powerful ideology for developing organizations
during the nineties...(it) is processual in its character, explaining
structural change processes in organizations. Therefore it is possible
to understand the complex developing competence relations between
individuals and groups in an organization trying to serve its customers
in a more efficient way. (p. 194).
With a focus on individuals the organizational learning models of Arguris and Schon
seem limited in their ability to address problem-solving at the structural level of
organizations. Steiner (1998) indicates that Argyris and Schon define competence as
solving problems in such a way that they remain solved and increase the
organizations capacity for future problem solving (p.194). Given the uncertainty of
higher education environments most colleges and universities would not meet the
threshold required in the above definition of competence. Some critics of the Argyris
and Schon work believe that their theoretical perspective fails to carefully examine
the values that underlie the actions of individuals in the organization. Higher
education organizations would find acceptance of such a perspective most
challenging, particularly given the role of higher education in teaching ideas
associated with advancing a careful examination of values in all disciplines. In
assessing application of the Argyris and Schon thinking in higher education Davydd
Greenwood (1997) makes the point that discussion by these researchers (Argyris and
47


Schon) on the reluctance of the academic community to thoroughly address the
relationships between theory and practice implies that universities are particularly
unlikely to ever become learning organizations in any meaningful sense (p.701).
Although important considerations these limitations do not preclude the merits of
applying organizational learning theory concepts in understanding college decision
making regarding which services should be offered to foster the success of students.
The fourth principle associated with learning organizations is an extension of
Argyris work that has been developed by Peter Senge (1990). In his work on the
learning organization, Senge argues that effective organizations are those that are able
to rid themselves of irrationalities and cognitive biases and conduct decision making
with a systematic view of the entire organization. Senge recommends intervention
processes that require personal growth and team building. The five disciplines of
organizational development that Senge has identified of systems thinking, personal
mastery, mental models, shared vision and team learning (Senge, 1997) seem
particularly applicable to a college setting. Some of the difficulties that might be
encountered in the adaptation of these disciplines however, must be considered. For
example, colleges are complex environments with multiple structures. Institutions
must pay attention to the possibility of existing silos (where departments view
48


themselves as independent of other college areas) and encourage a perspective of
interdependency and institutional wholeness. Although sometimes challenging
academic personnel need to seek the meaningfulness in the communication and
thinking of others not just those with which they agree. This requires an attitude for
tolerance of differences that must be understood before adoption of a shared vision
can be accomplished. Acceptance of the uncertainty that may be present in
operationalizing Senges disciplines provides the opportunity for team learning to
develop.
Each principle advanced by these scholars has contributed to the development
of those theoretical tenets associated with organizational learning theoiy. Inherent in
this concept is the idea that, in order to take advantage of this approach to learning,
one must be part of the community. It is at this intersection of inclusion and
membership in the community of higher education that has the greatest potential of
limiting this new found role of colleges. Who is included in the learning community
is directly related to what might be learned and the quality of the content and
experience.
49


Quality Assurance and Support Services
Despite the struggle for authority over regulation, there has been a general
consensus in the higher education community that the quality of education received
by students that can be measurably demonstrated using various outcomes is highly
dependent on not only what the student brings to the setting but also the environment
in which the education occurs22. Access to environmental resources such as support
services and supplemental instruction can and does have an impact on student
performance and subsequent success. When the Colorado Commission on Higher
Education released its Interim Master Plan in October, 1999 it listed as one of the
goals the establishment of a Quality Indicator System which, at a minimum, will
measure achievement in five basic areas. In the second area cited, the Commission
indicated student satisfaction and success, including access to services at all levels
and affordability of the institution (p. 8).
22In his report to the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices
Kettl (2004) observes that many colleges and universities have worked especially
hard to introduce a customer orientation to their student support services...streamlined
registration and improved advising have been especially important in improving
students satisfaction with the system and in heightening the confidence of their
parents (p. 25).
50


Studies examining retention and persistence indicate the importance of these
support services throughout the college experience. For example, Oregon State
Universitys investigation of retention predictors for almost 9,000 students from
1991-96 concluded that attrition decreased with higher high-school and first-quarter
grades, and attendance in a freshman orientation course, a support service available to
all students (Murtaugh, et.al., 1999). Gen Ramirez (1997) investigated specifically
whether the impact of supplemental instruction enhances persistence and found that
this service had a substantial impact (p. 3) on the performance and retention of
special admit students.
Institutions that provide services that assist students in entering and being
successful in college demonstrate the quality assurance that the public seeks in higher
education. In some instances institutions have produced programs that enhance the
success of students by being critically observant of programs designed to serve a
specialized population and replicating the appropriate program components making
them available for all students. This kind of behavior is indicative of learning and
implementation concepts associated with the theories of organizational learning and
diffusion of innovations.
51


Higher Education Learning Goals and Support
Services for Students
Institutions that provide support services often explain their actions from a
perspective that it is not only the smart thing to do, but that it is the right thing to do.
This sentiment recognizes that the college has invested significant resources in
bringing students to campus through the recruitment and admissions functions. From
one perspective, failure to provide every opportunity for students to be successful
wastes those investments. From another view, a students ability to gain knowledge
that could be of value to the society may be a loss forever. Since higher education
institutions are charged with providing higher learning, failure to do so would mean
that they have not met their responsibilities to citizens and the nation. Levels of
success and the capacity to produce high quality learners are ultimately measured by
the skills, abilities, and performance of the exiting student. Such institutions seem to
operate from a perspective of assuring the quality of their product while serving the
needs of the nation.
Political scientist Mary Hawkesworth (1988) presents a theoretical approach
that explains the individual and issues of justice from a public policy view.
52


Hawkesworths concept of the individual from a distributive justice perspective23
seems compatible with that of the col leges that are committed to providing support
services. While colleges are quite aware that individual effort plays a large role in
what skills and abilities the student brings to higher learning, they are also cognizant
that what experiences a student might have had is often well beyond the control of the
individual. In recognition of such circumstances that acknowledge historical
23 Here Hawkesworths concept of socialized individuality suggests that the
individuals identity, expectations, and aspirations are formed within the context of a
host of intersubjective understandings incorporated in a language, a culture, and a
particular history (99). Additionally, this view of the individual allows that the
ability to choose is governed by a host of subjective and objective forces over which
the individual has limited control. This concept of individuality draws from the tenets
of distributive justice theory to "justify not only affirmative action, but preferential
treatment...which simultaneously recognizes that such a policy will cause white males
to lose certain advantages, yet denies that the loss violates individual rights...because
they had no right to the advantages afforded by a racist and sexist society, no rights
are being violated be removing those advantages (115).
53


contexts24, some institutions are committed to making assistance available to students
who enter and have need. This kind of action by colleges suggests an understanding
of the level of student preparedness is essential to supporting the success of the
students they admit.
In the literature, the importance of historical context is most often related to
representation and the democratic process. The application of concepts in the
discussion of representativeness is pertinent to those issues that surround the goals of
higher education. Social scientist, Melissa Williams (1996) makes the point that
consideration of equality in representativeness must be determined by two important
factors, the "contemporary inequality (of the group) as compared with other social
groups, and a history of discrimination and oppression" (p. 86). In making an
assessment of historical discrimination, Williams "use(s) the terms 'memory' and
24 Steinhom and Diggs-Brown argue a consideration of the historical
contextual perspective in their recent text, By the Color of Our Skin. They indicate
that affirmative action was designed to "provide someone with an
opportunity...whatever the compelling justification for it, some affirmative action
involves actual or potential discrimination." These researchers make the compelling
argument that in order "for affirmative-action supporters to retrieve the high moral
ground,...they must make the case that the sacrifice involved may not serve the
individual good of affected whites but does serve the common good of all Americans"
(p. 245). Such a perspective extends the earlier position by Hawkesworth on
distributive justice wherein there is an inherent consideration of the historical context.
54


'history' to signify that there are two different aspects to the relevance of the past for
contemporary equality among citizens" (p. 86). She argues that it is an understanding
of both the subjective (the meaning that the past has for members of a group) and
objective (empirical evidence, laws and other documentation of discrimination)
components that "provides criteria for assessing the relative merits of different groups
claims for recognition (as victims of discrimination)" (p. 86). This conceptualization
incorporates the thinking of Hawkesworth and develops the idea that organizational
structures and policies can contribute to adverse discrimination. For example, if the
admissions process of a college advantages those with letters of recommendation
from alumni, it intentionally puts students who are less likely, (e.g., first generation
students) to have such connections in a less competitive position for acceptance. Yet,
this is a common and acceptable practice, particularly among private institutions.
There are numerous factors, e.g., financial resources, personal motivation,
55


family support, etc. that affect retention and completion rates25 of college students.
The traditional government position of providing financial assistance cannot be the
only policy directive designed to assist disadvantaged students improve their
graduation rates. Other services are just a critical to supporting student success. In
their study of the improvements in minority participation in college from 1969 to
1985, Alan Ginsburg and Maureen McLaughlin (1992) conclude "Although student
(financial) assistance has been the principal federal policy instrument for encouraging
economically disadvantaged youth to attend college, it is clear that it alone will not
increase college participation of disadvantaged groups. Improving academic
achievement is essential. Poor academic preparation limits the benefits students
derive from continuing their education past high school" (p.102).
25 During the 1980s Vincent Tintos Student Integration Model (1975) was the
most popular conceptual framework for research on college student retention. At that
time Tinto theorized that college student persistence is a function of the compatibility
between the motivation of the individual and his/her academic ability and the social
and academic characteristics of the institution. By 1985 J. P. Bean was developing
another perspective on student attrition, the Model of Student Departure, and later
with Vesper produced study results indicating that non-intellectual factors influenced
student decisions to dropout, in particular family approval. Tinto (1987) later
amended his earlier thinking to include those issues that are external to the institution
as contributing factors to decisions to leave college. Tinto and his colleagues are
often credited with changing the focus of student services from recruitment to that of
retention.
56


In their 1996 research on wage discrimination Darity, Guilkey, and Winfrey
addressed the ideas advanced by sociologist Thomas Sowell (1981) that
discrimination is not the determining factor in the economic situation of blacks but
that human capital is a greater determinant. These investigators concluded that
"additional years of college appear to have a stronger effect on earnings than
additional years of schooling overall" (p. 417)...that "wage gap must be due to
discrimination" (p. 421)..."and to the extent that we have controlled for culture, race
appears to matter" (p. 422). This suggests that as the student is retained and persists
toward completion human capital is built that serves the society and the institutional
goals of higher education.
Teaming Environments and Organizational
Characteristics
As institutions of higher education move from teaching to learning
environments, "colleges and universities are facing the need to transform themselves
to adequately meet these challenges. That transformation is achieved through four
interrelated and inexorably intertwined subprocesses" (Rowley, Lujan, and Dolence,
1997, pp. 309-311) Two of these, "realigning the organization with the environment
57


and reengineering organizational processes to achieve dramatically higher
productivity and quality" are directly related to concepts of organizational learning.
These researchers indicate that organizations must realign their organizational intent
within the context of "individualized learning and the evident need for high-quality
and flexible enabling services." Reengineering "will necessitate structural changes",
particularly related to concepts of open access and the development of hybrid
disciplines and now degrees that allow students to reshape disciplines to meet their
individual needs. Additionally, as the organization is redesigned roles and
responsibilities of college personnel will be redefined and require strategic thinking
and strategic decision making management. These managers will be able to
58


effectively implement the concepts of "double-loop learning"26 and characteristics
associated with learning organizations27. Such changes in the organization are related
to the theoretical concepts of organizational development advanced by Nicholas
Henry (1995) and Hal Rainey (1997) whose works indicate that organizational
26 The concept of double-loop learning developed by Chris Argyris and
Donald Schon are those situations that require a critical analysis of complex situations
where the circumstances are unique and do not fit the usual parameters of a
recognizable problem. Reproductive problem-solving, where the individual is able to
apply prior solutions, does not resolve the issue. In double-loop learning the
individual utilizes productive problem-solving skills that incorporate the values and
ethics of self and others in making informed choices. This Model II "Theory-in-Use"
approach acknowledges that decision-making at the organizational level is more often
complex than straight forward. The model requires reflection on how personal
master programming (what one has come to believe is true or has merit) influences
decision-making. Additionally, the application of double-loop learning demands a
skilled level inquiry that examines the presentation of self in the process of problem
solving (an aspect of reflexivity that necessitates a consideration of the influence of
self on the subject or the setting). The early research by the Schon and Argyris team
in developing these concepts lead to Schon's (1983) later work on "reflection-in-
action" that attempts to define knowledge of practitioners and their abilities to
transmit these understandings and Argyris's (1982) development of "action science."
27 In adapting the work of Schon, David Bohm, and Argyris, Peter Senge in his
text, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization,
identifies the fundamental premises underlying the concept of organizational learning.
He indicates that there are five assumptions related to this concept that include;
systems thinking, shared vision, mental models, personal mastery, and team learning.
These principles emerge from in the theoretical concepts associated with action
science.
59


development stresses planned change that is throughout the organization and is
designed to increase organizational effectiveness and viability through calculated
interventions. Using a team building approach, Manual London applies similar
principles of organizational learning for higher education institutions that wish to
retain and increase their organizational vitality particularly in an environment of
limited resources and external pressures. London extends the concept of community
learners beyond students and faculty to the administration as a whole using a
combination of action learning and team-building strategies.
The research on transformational development in higher education is
supported by the 1992 investigations of Alexander Astin (1994, 1993), founding
director of the Cooperative Institutional Research Program. This study broadened
Astin's earlier database of college environment indicators by including three related to
the institution. These institutional characteristics included student services,
instructional services, as well as graduate programs, faculty salaries, and allocation of
budget approaches. Astin indicates that institutional characteristics are important
because they influence the values and relationships of the faculty in their development
and delivery of the curriculum, and the relationship of students to other students and
faculty in the academic community.
60


According to the most recent research by the Association of American
Colleges and Universities (Humphreys, 1997), although the earlier discussions
and subsequent research on diversity issues in higher education were directed toward
"programs designed to help new students adjust to the larger campus
community"...later "to include projects to transform the curriculum, diversify the
faculty, and improve campus climates," the current "purpose of many diversity
initiatives has been to frame initiatives in terms of institutional mission." Is the new
role of higher education institutions to prepare students for their responsibilities as
citizens in their own democracy or for their roles in an ever more interconnected
global society? To what extent does classroom heterogeneity help to facilitate diverse
perspectives? What is the promise of justice for a diverse and democratic society?
An Inclusion Perspective that Enhances Student Success
and Institutional Excellence
As early as 15 years ago in his study on college attrition of educational and
economically disadvantaged students, Richard Fox (1985) found that
academic integration was the most salient aspect of development for
this group of students...that it might be said that the mission of a
college in admitting disadvantaged or undeiprepared students is to
61


negate the predictions generated by the traditional regression
equations, which if taken literally, might result in decreased
educational opportunity for those who apply to college with less
advantaged backgrounds (6).
In a 1997 project at Stanford University designed to examine the social science
literature related to the intersection of race and higher education, Mitchell Chang and
his associates concluded, "1. there is clear evidence of continuing inequalities in
educational opportunity along racial categories; 2. test-based definitions of merit are
incomplete; 3. race is a major social psychological factor in the American
consciousness behaviors; and 4. racially diversified environments, when properly
utilized, lead to quantitative as well as qualitative improvements in educational
outcomes for all parties" (p. 16). Eight years ago, educational policy analyst William
Byron described the "uneasy triangle" that is closing in on higher education (as)
quality, diversity, and budgetary efficiency. He surmised that it was "the role of
government to balance the three objectives... (but concluded that) achieving balance
between and among desirable policy objectives is an unending challenge for
policymakers" (p. 177).
Many who are responsible for the development and implementation of higher
education policies, believe that barriers to degree attainment for disadvantaged
62


students could be eliminated if there was equality of access. However, mere
admission does not guarantee an opportunity for success. Such an approach alone
cannot and does not address the other obstacles faced by this group of students when
they enter college. As mentioned earlier, financing the cost of education is a huge
challenge for students with limited personal and family economic resources.
Much of the literature (e.g., Anaya, 1999; Cunniingham, Redmond and
Merisotis 2003; Terenzini, 1997) related to student success focuses on traditional
predictors based on high school performance and results of standardized achievement
tests. Colleges use such indicators to make decisions on admissions, and they are also
applied in determining how successful a student might be in the college, i.e., when
used as predictors of graduation rates. In their effort to identify student outcome
variables that might be useful at the post-secondary level the research team of
Cunningham, Redmond and Merisotis 2003 identified primary and secondary
outcomes to address the policy issue of quality and educational effectiveness. The
primary outcomes included the expected skills in communication, computation,
content learning and workplace. The secondary outcomes of attitudes, values, social
development, quality of life, economic benefits, civic development and psychological
development clearly seek to assess many of the citizenship and personal development
63


concerns of parents, policy makers and the students themselves. These outcomes
measures appear to be moving toward a more qualitative method of evaluating student
success that are included in the primary goals of student support services.
Other critical indicators for student success such a motivation, family
influences, financial resources, and institutional characteristics (that may include
support services) often are not factored-in as predictors. It is interesting that applying
these limited predictors seems to suggest that what the student brings to the setting is
more important than what occurs while the student is enrolled. If this is not accurate
and what happens to a student while attending a college speaks more to the success of
that student, then institutions of higher education would be well advised to re-
examine how they predict and assess student success. In doing so, colleges might find
an opportunity to develop admissions policies and retention strategies that focus on
their expectation to develop the talent a student brings to the campus. This "talent
development approach to excellence" that has been advanced by Astin (1990)
measures the excellence of an institution based on how well the college is able to
further develop talent that is demonstrated by the student upon entry. This
perspective is philosophically compatible with the objectives of SSS programs as they
relate to student goals. SSS programs also seem to serve the institution in attaining
64


the kind of excellence that most indicate they seek. These are the kind of benefits to
colleges that may have been facilitated by SSS programs that has not been developed
in the research literature. This study addresses such concerns. If SSS programs are at
the intersection of institutional goals of excellence and successful student outcomes, it
is quite possible that SSS programs have been instrumental in developing this
connection. To that extent, institutions may have learned how to better achieve
excellence from the experience of hosting SSS programs on their campuses.
Student Support Services (TRIO) Programs
History of SSS Programs
Access to higher education for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, i.e.,
minority, low-income, first-generation to college, and disabled, received its greatest
boost with the authorization by the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 of Upward
Bound programs. These programs were moved one year later into the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (34 C.F.R.§ 646). Convinced that education was the route to
equitable and full citizen participation, the Johnson Administration's War on Poverty
was one of the earliest efforts by the federal government to provide higher educational
65


opportunities specifically targeted for minority and other students who had been
traditionally underrepresented in colleges and universities. The Upward Bound
program was the first in a series of such outreach efforts that became known as
TRIO28 programs with the addition of Talent Search in 1965 and Special Services for
Disadvantaged Students (now entitled Student Support Services) in 1968. The Higher
Education Amendments of 1972 and 1976 established the Educational Opportunity
Centers and Training Programs for Federal TRIO Programs, and by 1986 the sixth
program, the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program was added.
During the last decade, additional programming has included the creation of the
Upward Bound Math/Science Program in 1990 and the TRIO Dissemination
Partnership program, authorized by the 1998 Higher Education Act Amendments (20
U.S.C.§ 402h).
28Although called TRIO reflecting the original three programs, today there are
actually eight programs, each with distinct and unique objectives. TRIO programs are
designed to identify promising, disadvantaged students (the Talent Search
component), prepare them to do college level work (the Upward Bound component),
provide information on academic and financial opportunities (the Education
Opportunity Centers), and provide tutoring and support services as the student arrives
on the college campus (the original Special Services for Disadvantaged Students and
now the Student Support Services component).
66


The original stated goal of the Student Support Services program is "to
identify qualified individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds, to prepare them
for a program of postsecondary education, (and) to provide support services for such
students who are pursuing programs of postsecondary education." (20 U.S.C. §
402A). This statement has been refined to include three specific objectives, 1. To
increase college retention and graduation rates for eligible students; 2. To increase
transfer rates of eligible students from 2 year to 4 year institutions; and 3. To foster an
institutional climate supportive of the success of low-income and first generation
students and individuals with disabilities (20U.S.C.§ 402D 1070a). Today SSS
projects may only be sponsored by institutions of higher education or combinations of
higher education institutions. (Office of Postsecondary Education. 2000.) Program
services include instruction in basic skills, tutorial services, counseling (academic,
financial, career, four-year college transfer planning, graduate/professional school
admission guidance financial aid acquisition and personal), mentoring, exposure to
cultural events and academic programs, and special services for students with limited
English proficiency. To be eligible the individual must be enrolled at one of the 796
grantee institutions of higher education, be first-generation college students, low-
income, or a student with a disability who evidences academic need. Two-thirds of
67


project participants must be either disabled or first-generation students from low-
income families and one-third of the disabled program students must also be low-
income (The Office of Higher Education Programs. 1998.)
Documentation of Success
Although several research studies confirm the success of TRIO programs,
specifically the Student Support Services component, there are also indications of
their limitations. One of the more comprehensive studies conducted by Frank Balz
and Melanie Esten (1998) of the National Association of Independent Colleges and
Universities compared TRIO29 student results and non-TRIO low-income, first
generation student results across institutional types, i.e., four-year, two-year, public,
and private to determine if there were differences in persistence, degree attainment,
and student satisfactions. Their findings indicate that TRIO participants attained the
bachelors degree at higher levels (a 30 percent graduation rate) than those who were
29The designation in this study of TRIO refers to only the Student Support
Services component of TRIO. It not unusual for institutions to refer to the SSS
program as TRIO, particularly if it is the only TRIO program component on the
campus. Institutions that host more than one of the TRIO programs use the specific
program name, i.e., Upward Bound, EOP Centers, SSS, etc.
68


non-TRIO, low-income, first-generation-college students (a 12.9 percent graduation
rate). This data suggests that students who participate in TRIO programs have more
than a 100 percent greater chance of completing the bachelors degree than those who
qualify for the program but do not participate. Balz and Esten conclude there are
many eligible students who are not being served by TRIO who require additional
assistance to get them into and through our nations institutions of higher learning.
The changing demographics of students entering U.S. colleges or universities over the
next decade will put an even greater demand on these services (p. 344). The Council
for Opportunity in Education (1999) estimates that only about 50 percent of those
eligible are currently being served by TRIO programs.
Furthermore, additional research indicates that it is not just underachieving
students who benefit from support services. At the University of Texas at Austin a
1994 study of receptivity to support services and success during the first year of
college determined that while high-ability students wanted and were more receptive to
receiving academic assistance than at-risk students, in both groups where students
ended the freshman year with grade point averages (GPAs) of at least 2.0, there was
no significant difference between the receptivity of each group to support services.
Although these findings are limited to one institution, they are consistent with other
69


research on the retention of high-risk students in higher education who are
overwhelmingly low income, minority, and/or first-generation (Abrams and Jemigan
1984; Clewell and Fricken 1986; Darden, Bagakas, et.al., 1994) that affirms the
critical need for support services to assist in the success of undergraduate students.
While student persistence is most valuable in assessing the success of college
students, the primary outcome measure of SSS programs has been graduation rates.
In a longitudinal study Rutgers Universitys Livingston College compared the
graduation rates of its first-time, full-time freshmen cohorts who were enrolled in the
Rutgers Student Support Services Program (RSSSP) to the same freshmen cohorts
who were not program participants. Their investigation revealed that the mean
graduation rate of 60.6 percent for the College was only 4.4 percentage points
higher that the 13-year mean of 56.2 percent for the RSSSP graduates(Thomas,
Farrow, et.al., 1998, p. 396) at five years. Except for two years, 1980 and 1981
(Thomas, Farrow, 1998), the Livingston College freshman cohorts graduated at rates
higher than the RSSSP cohorts. However, of critical interest to the studies of
graduation rates as determinants of student success was the finding that RSSSP
participants posted graduation rates at 100 percent after eight years. For the research
community this suggests the need to track undergraduate graduation rates beyond the
70


traditional six-year period for a more accurate assessment of this factor. Such an
approach to the study of graduation rates is substantiated by the work of Balz and
Esten, even when investigating these outcomes at private institutions, 49.6% of
TRIO...had attained their bachelors degrees 10 years later... 43%of non-TRIO
participants (p. 344).
In the U.S. Department of Educations Strategic Plan 1998-2002, TRIOs
Student Support Services programs were cited as being key in providing the services
needed to help disadvantaged students enter and complete postsecondary education
(p. 5) and served an important role in meeting DOEs objective of improving the
graduation rates and decreasing the gap in completion rates between low- and high-
income and minority and non-minority students (p. 4). Confidence in the ability of
the SSS program to assume such a primary role in advancing DOEs higher education
agenda is perhaps based on a thirty year track record of the programs success.
Research results on program effects indicate that SSS programs generally have a
positive effect on outcome indicators. Short-term studies on the program seem to
have been effective in refining research directions of long-term investigations so that
program contributions to the success of students can be more clearly identified. For
example, in their study of 1979-80 short-term effects of Student Support Services for
71


Disadvantaged Students (SSSDS), Coulson, Bradford and Kaye (1981) found that
there was a positive relationship between the outcomes of persistence rates, courses
attempted and completed and frequency of student use of services. This study also
determined that participants who received the most services had lower GPAs than
those who received fewer services or non-program students. In their follow-up study
of long-term effects of SSSD services (Coulson and Bradford, 1983) the team found
that although there was a positive relationship between a moderate level of services
during the freshman year and persistence rates and courses completed (contradicting
the 1975 work of Davis, Burkheimer, and Patterson indicating that the services were
helpful but not related to the success of disadvantaged students), that academic
services beyond the first year were associated with negative long-term outcomes.
Furthermore, they found that using non-academic services, i.e., cultural events and
student orientation to the campus, were positively related to long-term outcomes such
as career planning. On the other hand, other research (Martinez, 1999) has found that
the study skills course grade was a more effective predictor of graduation among SSS
participants than other factors.
One of the most recent comprehensive studies of SSS programs that
challenges the conclusions by Coulson and Bradford on long-term outcomes is the
72


one mandated by Congress and conducted by the research team of Chaney, Muraskin,
Cahalan, and Rak (1997) of Westat, Inc. Their longitudinal investigation examined
the characteristics of program participants, the types of services received, and the
impact of services on student grades, semester credits earned, and persistence in
college. The study included students from the 1991-92 academic year who were first-
time entrants and tracked their progress for three years. In comparing the
performance of 2,900 program participants at 47 sampled 2-year and 4-year
institutions with comparable non-program students, findings indicated the following:
SSS showed a small (because most students received only a modest amount of
services, mean number of service hours during the freshman year was 32 with a
median of 14; for nonffeshmen the mean was 15 hours and the median was 6 ) but,
positive and statistically significant effect for all three measures of student outcomes.
-GPAs were increased:
During the first year by a mean of 0.15 in the first year,
resulting in a mean GPA of 2.29;
During the second year the mean increase was 0.11 to a GPA of
2.44;
73


During the first three years combined, the mean increase was
0.11 to a mean GPA of 2.59.
-Earned semester hours were increased:
By a mean of 1.25 for a total of 20.91 during the first year;
By a mean of 2.25 for a total of 73.38 in the first three years
combined.
-Retention was increased: '
From 60 to 67 percent at the same institution to the second
year;
By 9 percent (from 40 to 49percent) to the third year at the
same institution and increased by 3 percent (from 74 to 77
percent) at any institution;
Programs that blended SSS and non-SSS services had
increased rates of retention at both the same and any
institution. (Chaney, et.al., pp. 7-11).
This study demonstrated that, although the greatest impact generally occurred
during the first year, when most SSS services were received, some SSS services
(including academic ones) received in the first year showed persisting impacts in later
74


years. For example, the peer tutoring component showed positive impacts on all
three outcomes over multiple years ...(and) though counseling failed to show a
positive and statistically significant effect in the first year, it did show such an effect
in later years (Chaney, et.al., p. 378). These findings not only demonstrate the
positive impacts of SSS programs on critical student short-term outcomes but also,
and most important the success of program services throughout the undergraduate
years.
Additionally, in this particular study, the researchers addressed issues
specifically related to the impact of SSS program services on other institutional
support services and concluded that SSS services did not supplant the offerings of
non-SSS services, and may well have encouraged the receipt of and offering of non-
SSS services (p. 374). In speculating why SSS participation was associated with
the increased of receipt of non-SSS services and (why) non-SSS students tended to
show higher participation in supplemental services at institutions that offered SSS
programs than at institutions without SSS programs, these investigators concluded
that SSS participation might be an indication of students willingness to make use of
supplemental services. That is, a willingness on the part of a student to participate in
supportive services suggests a receptivity by that student to accept assistance that has
75


the potential to facilitate his/her success. Put another way, a student who has
experienced positive benefits from one campus resource has a greater expectation of
similar benefits from other campus support services and is therefore, more likely to
pursue assistance from such resources.
These investigators did not address the second issue of why non-program
students evidenced higher participation in support services at institutions that have
SSS programs. A possible explanation might be that the value of seeking assistance
from college resources has become imbedded in the culture of SSS host institutions.
The demonstrated behavior of offering and utilizing academic support services has
acquired a higher or a more acceptable value at such colleges. A reflection of this as a
value may have been modeled by the SSS program, other institutional support
services or the offering of the service, say SSS, and may have influenced the
development of or emphasis on the value of seeking assistance. Failure to address
this issue is additional evidence of the need for research that explores the possibilities
of value-added benefits received by institutions that host SSS programs.
76


Limitations of the Research on SSS Programs
Although the work by the Westat team is commendable, it does not address
the issue of whether or not institutions that host SSS programs have been sufficiently
influenced by the merits of the program to then begin offering similar services to all
students. The research team speculates that some institutions have a strong
orientation toward providing supplemental services, i.e., a religious affiliated college
might have a mission of educating persons of the same faith. In such cases it may be
accurate to assess the presence of SSS programs as a reflection of the institutions
orientation. Again, institutional behavior seems to be a reflection of the cultural
values of the college. However, the majority of SSS programs are not located in
private college settings, but in public institutions. On this issue the Westat team
concludes some institutions may have a stronger orientation towards providing
supplemental services than others; the offering of SSS programs may (emphasis
added) be an indication of such an orientation rather than a cause of it (p. 376). The
research endeavor in this proposal has the potential of developing more accurate
information on this issue of what influences a host institution to provide support
services for non-program students.
77


In the 1994 Interim Report of a study for the U. S. Department of Education
by Westat, Inc. that surveyed 200 SSS project directors and conducted case studies on
30 SSS campuses and 20 non-SSS campuses, the major questions addressed were,
"What are the characteristics of Student Support Services participants, projects, and
institutions? What services do students receive? (and) Where do these projects fit
within the larger framework of campus-wide support services and efforts to improve
student performance?" Findings most germane to the topic of this research were
those that focused on the last question, where SSS programs fit. In that regard the
researchers indicated that although SSS was often among the first services available
on campus for disadvantaged students, at most institutions it is now one of several
service providers and there is little evidence of direct SSS efforts to shape larger
institutional policies. This research does not attempt to explain how or why
institutions that had SSS projects as early service providers currently had other
institutional resources as the primary support service providers. Additionally, if there
was no evidence of direct efforts by SSS projects to influence institutional policies,
then what influenced colleges to invest institutional resources in the provision of
support services? And, although the 1997 study by the Westat team focuses on
program impact, as mentioned earlier, their findings address primarily student
78


performance, student outcomes and program characteristics, but fails to explore
rationale that might account for non-program students having a higher participation
rate at schools with SSS than at colleges that do not have SSS. Investigation of issues
pertaining to how the presence of such programs impacts institutional decision-
making, regarding services for nonprogram students that evidence a dispersion of
service benefits, were not and have not been examined. If host institutions accrue
unintended benefits from the presence of SSS programs, and these facilitate a better
opportunity for the achievement of their primary mission for all students, this supports
the value of such programs beyond the traditional perspective that their primary worth
is in serving only the participants. Furthermore, the ability of the host institutions to
apply learning from the presence of SSS programs might suggest that such institutions
tend to have a common set of characteristics that facilitate the capacity to learn from
experiencing SSS programs and apply the new knowledge toward accomplishing
college objectives.
Potential Contributions of the Study
In an effort to demonstrate program success research that supports a rationale
to continue funding SSS programs has focused exclusively on program participants. It
79


is the intent of this study to uncover some of the other influences of SSS programs
beyond those related to program participants. This study first identifies the most
salient factors impacting changes in the world of higher education: governance;
function; and student demographics. These factors define the environment in which
the issues of institutional quality, accountability, equity and access are addressed. The
historical presence of SSS programs on college campuses provide the theoretical
structure for examining organizational learning theory and diffusion theory concepts
in higher education settings. It is within the context of diffusion theory that this study
first attempts to identify and document what influences SSS programs have had on
the colleges themselves that serve as host campus sites. Second, this study uses
primary data that is examined applying statistical analyses of multiple variables. The
database was developed from the survey that was distributed nationally to SSS
programs and to colleges that did not have SSS programs. Additional data was
produced from structured interviews that were conducted with SSS program directors.
Third, by expanding the body of knowledge that currently exists on SSS programs the
study could provide funding sources and the colleges with a more comprehensive
understanding of the benefits these programs provide for its students, as well as an
awareness of the indirect advantages non-program students receive that have the
80


potential of enhancing their success in undergraduate education. This third research
goal is based on institutional learning theory. Data from the perspective of how the
college is benefitted by SSS programs provides institutions with a more solid
rationale for informed decision making when allocating the resources of the university
and its potential funding sources. Furthermore, if the results of this research suggest
that host colleges have indeed made decisions to provide SSS-type academic support
services for non-program students after the start of the SSS program on their campus
it suggests that SSS programs have influenced institutional decision making clearly
implying the presence of institutional learning.
81


CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The aforementioned chapter indicates that the primary objective of SSS
programs has been to improve the academic performance of program participants so
that more students with program profile backgrounds are successful in attaining the
baccalaureate degree. This perspective in defining program effectiveness has focused
the SSS program research on student outcomes as the almost exclusive measure of
program impact (Chaney, Muraskin, Cahalan, and Rak, 1997; Martinez, 1999).
Although this method of program evaluation has merit (particularly for funding
purposes) it fails to identify and assess the possible influence these programs might
have at the institutional level of student or academic services departments where
decision making that affects all students occurs.
This investigation explores whether or not the presence of successful SSS
programs on college campuses have influenced these same institutions to provide
82


similar SSS-type services for non-program students. Furthermore, for host colleges
that evidence influences from SSS programs by providing similar services for non-
program students, the study seeks to determine whether there are common perceptions
about the role of these programs in assisting colleges to attain their educational goals.
Finally, the study asks whether or not there are differences in support services
between host and non-host schools and what institutional characteristics do these
schools share.
Research Questions
As evidenced in the previous chapter this investigation, that examines
potential indirect benefits of SSS programs, is missing from the literature. Using
student outcome measures as indicators the current research literature attempts to
imply what impact SSS program services have had the host institutions. This
research, that limits its scope to making inferences from data collected for other
purposes, does not demonstrate through the use of direct measures if and in what
ways the presence of SSS programs influence the institutions. Services that enhance
the success of students are of value to and benefit the college. Evidence that supports
83


the replication of SSS-type program services to non-program students provides a
method of measuring the direct affects of SSS programs on host colleges.
The following questions establish the research framework for the study:
1. What are the differences in SSS-type services provided for non-program students
prior to and after the commencement of SSS programs?
2. What are the differences between SSS host and non-host colleges in the quantity
and the kinds of SSS-type services provided for non-program students?
3. Do schools perceive that the presence of SSS helps the college attain its
educational goals of instruction, research, service by improving quality,
accountability, student equity and student access?
4. Do colleges believe that the presence SSS has improved and/or increased academic
support services for non-program students?
5. What institutional characteristics e.g., student body composition, type or control,
selectivity, faculty to student ratio, ecetera are predominant among those schools that
identify value-added benefits?
6. What are the policy implications of the findings?
84


Research Hypotheses
Through the use of survey research methods and structured follow-up
interviews, this study explores whether or not there have been indirect benefits
derived by colleges that sponsor SSS programs. Specifically, it seeks to determine if
the presence of SSS programs has influenced the host institutions to provide similar
services for all students.
Based on the research (Muraskin, 1997) indicating the best practices of the
most successful SSS programs (also see Appendix A) 12 SSS-type services have been
identified as the independent variables that are used to examine services for non-
program students provided prior to the start of SSS and after the advent of SSS.
Hi SSS-type support services30 for non-program students were
provided by more institutions after the arrival of the SSS program on campus than
before the advent of SSS.
As mentioned earlier SSS research has been limited to examining
student outcomes. Comparative research on academic support services at host and
non-host schools does not exist. This query uses the 12 SSS- type services to evaluate
30 Definitions of SSS-type services are presented in Appendix A Definition
of Terms.
85


how host and non-host schools compare on services for non-program students and is
expressed as the following two hypotheses:.
Irk There are differences in the number and kinds of SSS-type
services provided for non-program students at SSS host institutions than at non-host
colleges with the host schools offering more SSS-type services for non-program
students than non-host colleges.
Activities that assist colleges in attaining their primary goals of instruction,
research and service are viewed by the institution positively and considered a benefit.
To what degree institutions perceive that SSS programs have contributed to
achievement of their goals by assisting the college to improve quality, accountability,
student equity and student access is expressed by the following hypothesis:
H3 Colleges that implemented support services for non-
program students after hosting a SSS program will identify value-added impact
benefits of SSS programs that assisted the institution in achieving its educational
goals by improving quality/accountability and access/equity.
The literature indicates that colleges generally consider supporting students
academically is an essential function of the school and is directly related to advancing
its educational goals. The degree to which SSS host schools compare to non-host
86


schools on their perception of the value of such services and whether the perceptions
are associated with any predominate institutional characteristics31 is articulated by the
following hypothesis:
H4 Among all schools that provide SSS-type services for all
students those that are SSS host colleges perceive such services as beneficial to the
college in attaining its educational goals and evidence certain predominant
institutional characteristics.
Research Design
Data Collection
Survey research methods were selected for this investigation. The goal of this
method is to produce data from those institutions that have a higher potential for
providing knowledge on indicators related to the most successful SSS programs, SSS-
type services for non-program students, attitudes about the role of SSS programs and
institutional missions, and the selected institutional characteristics. This method has
^Definitions of institutional characteristics are indicated in Appendix A.
87


Full Text

PAGE 1

THE EFFECTS OF STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICES : ASSESSING PROGRAM BENEFITS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION by Arlene Estel Newsome Rhodes B.S. University of Dubuque 1969 MSW University oflllinois at Chicago 1972 A thesis submit t ed t o th e University of Colorado a t Denver and Health Sciences Center in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy Public AffaiJs 2005

PAGE 2

I i I I t i I i I This thesis for the Doctor of Philo so ph y degr ee by Arlene Estel Newsome Rhode s has been approveJ by Da te

PAGE 3

Rhodes Arlene Estel Newsome (Ph.D. Public Affairs) The Effects of Student Support Services : Assessing Program Benefits for Higher Education Thesis directed by Professor Richard J. Stillman ABSTRACT This study examines the effects of the federally funded Student Support Services (SSS) programs on colleges that serve as hosts. Ind i cators of program success have focused on student outcome data to evaluate program success. Research on if and how these programs have influenced their host institutions in providing similar services for non-program students has been missing in the data used to measure program effectiveness. Applying a conceptual framework based on diffusion and organizational learning theories the study conceptualizes learning b y institutions of higher education as an iterative process where the system develops potential for change each time it is influenced by new information that the system generates knowledge after this cycle and is repositioned for potential change. The study tests several hypotheses to explore the effects of SSS programs on higher education. Academic support services were compared between two groups of institutions host and non-host schools lll

PAGE 4

Additionally the groups of schools were compared for perceptions ofvalue-added benefits to the college in achieving institutional missions. Analysis collected from the survey of host and non host schools and structured interviews found strong support that more host colleges provided more support services for all students after the arrival of SSS than before its advent. The study found moderate support for differences between the perceptions of value-added benefits by schools that provided s upport services to all students prior to SSS and those that offered such services after SSS arrived on the campus. Findings indicated that host schools did not provide more SSS-type services than non-host colleges. When colleges are influenced by the presence of SSS to develop similar services for all students it means that a kind of institutional learning has occurred. Such learning has the impact of leveraging the effects of SSS programs well beyond the funded students furthering the college's educational objectives for all students, and disbursing the consequences of public dollar spending that results in unintended benefits for citizens. As institutions of higher education attempt to develop strategies that enhance achievement of their mission of teaching research and service they must acquire more accurate information about which efforts are most productive. This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidate s thesis. I recommend its publication. IV

PAGE 5

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It is with a humble spirit that I take this opportunity to thank most sincerely those who have supported my journey of education in the pursuit and completion of my doctoral studies and this dissertation. First and foremost to the members of my dissertation committee who shared their knowledge, expertise, time, patience and encouragement my deepest thanks. They are: Franklin James who served as my original committee chairman until his untimely passing who, as a benevolent guide, constantly motivated me to think in more and more challenging ways; Richard Stillman who generously took on the chairmanship of my committee serving as an encourager and all important coach and master educator who would not let me give up; Lloyd Burton who encouraged me to pursue the qualitative aspects of my research and whose sharp analysis held my work to the highest of scholastic standards; Joan Foster who provided her insights and expertise on the challenges of supporting college student success, particularly in urban environments; Danny Martinez who is a living historian on the development and implementation of student support efforts at the Auraria campus in Denver; and Jennifer Wade who brought her enthusiasm for

PAGE 6

the topic and keen research critique in evaluation of my work. In addition, my sincerest of thanks to Jeffrey Wilson my colleague at Arizona State University who taught me how to truly appreciate the power and limitations of statistical analyses. Any successful completion of this dissertation could not have been possible without the support of those who did not enroll in one course and did not sit for any exams They are my family especially my parents and brother and my friends whose unconditional support kept me moving forward. Finally I extend a very very special thanks to my wonderful son, Anwar who kept me firmly grounded in the reality of family and parenthood and constantly reminded me of how proud he was of my efforts.

PAGE 7

CONTENTS Figures .................................................... xt Tables ................................... ................. xii CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Statement of the Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Research Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Organization of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2. LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 The Changing Role ofHigher Education ..................... 19 Goveillance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Functional Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Student Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 A New Perspective: The University as a Community ofLeamers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Higher Education and Diffusion Theory . . . . . . . . . . 39 V11

PAGE 8

Foundations of Organizational Learning Theory ............... 45 Quality Assurance and Support Services . . . . . . . . . . 50 Higher Education Learning Goals and Support Services for Students ................................... 52 Learning Environments and Organizational Characteristics ........................................ 57 An Inclusion Perspective That Enhances Student Success and Institutional Excellence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Student Support Services (TRIO) Programs .................. 65 History ofSSS Programs .......................... 65 Documentation of Success . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Limitations of the Research on SSS Programs ........... 77 Potential Contributions of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................. 82 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Research Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 V1ll

PAGE 9

Longevity of SSS Programs as a Criterion for Inclusion in San:tple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Selection of San:tple Institutions . . . . . . . . . . 95 Surveys ........................................ 98 Corroboration ofData Collected : Follow-up Structured Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Methods ofData Analysis ......................... 101 Relationship of Independent Variables to the Dependent Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Validity Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 05 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 4. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ............................... 108 Analysis ofHypotheses ................................. 110 Hypothesis 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Hypothesis 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Hypothesis 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Hypothesis 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 5. CONCLUSIONS ........................................ 129 lX

PAGE 10

Expectations of the Investigation ....... .... ............. 129 Research Limitations ........... .... ................. 130 Research Findings .... . ................ ............... 132 Significance of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 Implications for Future Research .............. ........ . 136 LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 APPENDIX .................... ................. . .............. 173 A. DEFINITION OF TERMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 B. SURVEY OF STUDENT ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAMS FOR HOST INSTITUTIONS . . . . . . . . . 180 C. SURVEY OF STUDENT ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAMS FOR NON-HOST INSTITUTIONS . . . . . . . 189 D. INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ..... ....................... . 196 E. RESPONSES TO INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ............... 199 REFERENCES ...................................... ....... .... 217 X

PAGE 11

FIGURES Figure 3 .1 Conceptual View of the Effect of Independent Variables on the Dependent Variables ............................... 1 04 3.2 Relationship Among the Variables for HI ............................ 105 4.1 Response of Colleges IfSSS Funding Ended .......................... 122 XI

PAGE 12

TABLES Table 1 Characteristics of the Institutions .............................. .. 141 2 Academic Services Provided by SSS & Non-SSS Schools: Institutional Group Statistics ............................. 142 2a Academic Services Provided by SSS & Non-SSS Schools: Independent Samples Test .............................. 143 3 Services Begun Prior to or After SSS (TRIO) Program: Group Statistics ................................ 144 3a Services Begun Prior to or After SSS: Independent Samples Test ...................................... 145 4 Services Provided by Public and Private Colleges: Descriptive Statistics .................... ................... 148 4a Services Provided by Public and Private Colleges: Correlations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 5 Services Provided by SSS Schools: Statistics ....................... 149 5a Services Provided by SSS Schools: Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . 150 6 Benefits of Academic Support Services: T-Test Group Statistics .............................................. 151 xii

PAGE 13

6a Benefits of Academic Support Services: T-Test Independent Samples Test ................................ 152 7 Benefits for Private & Public Schools: Group Statistics ............... 153 7a Benefits for Private & Public Schools: Independent Samples Test ...................................... 154 8 Higher Education Mission Goals: ANOV A ......................... 155 8a Higher Education Mission Goals: Descriptives ...................... 157 8b Higher Education Mission Goals: Test of Homogeneity ofVariances ...................................... 159 8c Post Hoc Tests Higher Education Mission Goals: Multiple Comparisons Dunnett C ................................ 160 9 Years Hosting SSS Oneway ANOV A: Descriptives .................. 162 9a Years Hosting ANOVA ....................................... 167 1 0 Support Services for Non-program Students: T-Test Group Statistics ........................................ 171 1 Oa Support Services for Non-program Students: Independent Samples Test ...................................... 172 Xlll

PAGE 14

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background A critical factor in determining the prosperity of individuals in the United States is education Today an ability to earn a living that allows for meeting the essential and important (i.e., housing food clothing, an occasional vacation, and savings) needs of an individual requires skills and knowledge that are beyond the educational level reached in high school. The economic gap between those with a college degree and those without has continued to widen. Twenty years ago college degreed workers earned 38 percent (National Center for Education Statistics, 1999) more than those with a high school diploma. Today the difference has expanded to 73 percent. One of the greatest challenges facing the nation today is that of finding a way to develop the intellectual and social potential of each member of our society through education. The world of higher education is one of limited resources where all cannot

PAGE 15

enter. Conflict in the allocation of these resources is expected and must be understood. Although many researchers (e.g., Blandin 1990; Aschroft, Biggert & Coates 1996; Oliver & Shapiro 1995; Orfield & Whitla 1999; Gandara, 1994) have identified perplexities of the issue and possible solutions, the nation continues to struggle in its attempts to maximize the human capital of our citizens through education. Social scientist, Gail Thomas (1987) argues that the theoretical context for comprehending the status of those seeking higher education must be framed by a perspective of"continuing competition between (and among) Blacks, other minority, and majority groups for increasingly scarce educational resources and opportunities (for example, finances for higher education and admission to colleges and universities)" (p. 213). Within these considerations, the national challenge then becomes how to best utilize these limited resources of higher education to serve the needs of the country. Interestingly, one of the major efforts by the federal government to extend higher educational opportunities to more citizens came with the passage of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (Pub. L. No. 88-452). As a part of President Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty" strategy to eliminate economic deprivation in 2

PAGE 16

America, the Economic Opportunity Act initiated an education program that prepared economically disadvantaged high school students for entry to college . This program entitled, Upward Bound, was the original component of what became TRJO programs. Later, the second arm of TRJO was authorized by the Higher Education Act of 1965. Special Services (now titled Student Support Services [SSS]) as the third component of the TRJO programs was enacted during the first reauthorization of the Act in 1968 (20 U.S.C. 402[d] [1970]). Although educational in nature, these programs were originally viewed as economic mechanisms (DiNitto, 2000) to improve the plight of impoverished citizens. It was this recognition of the impact of postsecondary education on economic prosperity that has continued to govern the legislative thinking in the reauthorization of these programs. This initiative of providing economic opportunity through the implementation of programs that support higher educational success for economically disadvantaged students remains the central eligibility criterion for SSS participation. Additionally, since research indicated that students from families where parents did not have a baccalaureate 3

PAGE 17

degree were less likely to attend college than others the criterion of "first-generation to college"1 was added for participation eligibility. Many colleges joined this effort by the federal government to increase higher education opportunities for more citizens Recognizing that large segments of the population who were low income and/or from ethnic minority backgrounds still were not being educated at the college level many institutions of higher education implemented strategies for increased access and retention to correct the situation2 These methods developed to increase educational opportunities often included college sponsored programs designed to identify students earlier than the last year of 1The Code of Federal Regulations (34 C.F.R. 646.3 [dJ [2001]) indicates that eligible students must be "a low-income individual; a firstgeneration college student; or an individual with disabilities. 2Thomas (1987) discusses the trend to provide higher education opportunities for under represented students in particular Black students She states that in 1950 only 13 percent of Black college-age youth attended college whereas 21 percent attended in 1970. Between 1973 and 1975 Black enrollment in colleges and universities increased more rapidly than White enrollment (American Council on Education 1986 p.18) "The striking progress of Blacks during this time was due to a variety of federal and civil rights initiatives such as the 1965 Higher Education Act...and the Adams decision which mandates public higher-education desegregation (p. 226). 4

PAGE 18

high school and prepare them for college entry and success3 One of the most comprehensive studies on state-sponsored early intervention programs designed to increase educational opportunities for economically and educationally disadvantaged students was conducted by Alisa Cunningham, Christina Redmand and Jamie Merisotis (2003). The study reported on 17 programs in 12 states that had been in operation since 1995. These researchers observed that the delivery site for programs services was frequently at an institution of higher education but warned of potential problems with such arrangements by noting: The involvement of higher education institutions can be an asset to state early intervention programs ... (but cautioned) it is important for them (the colleges) to maintain ties with the elementary and secondary 3In their research William Tierney and Alexander Jun (2001) identify three basic models of college preparatory programs with distinct emphases of test preparation science and math preparation and counseling and academic foci They observed that a missing element in these models is a "consideration for the background and culture ofthe child (who) enters into college preparation" (4). They advance a fourth model that employs the idea of cultural integrity as the central scaffolding to build a college preparation program specifically for youths who otherwise would not go on to college (p. 4) should be encouraged. Their example of the Neighborhood Academic Initiative (NAI) that is a six year program sited on the University of Southern California campus fosters the idea that "elite institutions such as USC belong to children from south centra] as they do for youths from Beverly Hills (p 1 0). 5

PAGE 19

schools participants are attending (Cunningham Redmand and Merisotis 2003 (p. 4). In col1aboration with high schools some colleges began bridge programs that brought students to the campus during the summer months for orientation sessions and college prep classes in an effort to assist students with the transition from high school to college According to much of the research (Johnson 1996 ; Darden Bagaka's, & Li, 1997 ; Antley 1999 ; Nolan, 1999) academic support services have been designed to ease the transition into undergraduate studies as well as graduate and professional schools These services have two primary goals. The first is to improve student retention that usuall y results in higher graduation rates. A second goal is to raise the level of academic performance so that those who are retained ultimately graduate and are more competitive in their future aspirations e.g ., graduate studies internships and employment opportunities. However as the number of these programs has increased frndings from evaluation research have fostered the development by colleges of more comprehensive services to more effectively address the primary 6

PAGE 20

goals. For example, in her analysis of academic support services at six institutions4 social scientist Nina Reyes (1997) notes that according to the USA Group NoelLevitz research more than 37 percent of the students who left school had grade-point averages higher than 2.5" (p. 3). Based on institutional responses she concluded that academic support services must include a concern for non-academic challenges faced by students i .e., socialization issues faculty preparation and student motivation. College strategies that focus on student retention and performance have often meant developing partnerships with state as well as federal agencies that can assist in helping students achieve success in college. Many of these relationships have been forged over a number of years and have proven effective for students and the institutions. 4The study e x amined retention programs at North Carolina State University of Michigan, University of South Carolina at Columbia San Francisco State Alabama A&M University and the University of Missouri at St. Louis using enrollment and retention data obtained from the National Collegiate Athletic Association that is noted for maintaining some of the most accurate national figures on undergraduates. 7

PAGE 21

The Student Support Services5 (SSS) program sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Higher Education Programs is an example of a long standing partnership between colleges and the federal government. lbrough the concerted actions of this collaboration, knowledge regarding how to address the higher education needs of students from low income backgrounds who are overwhelmingly members of ethnic minority groups, has been developed and applied resulting in most SSS program students completing baccalaureate studies. (A discussion of the program's track record is presented in the SSS Programs History section of Chapter 2.) Host institutions that have participated in the development and implementation of SSS programs may have acquired information that is useful to higher education in its goals of assisting students from diverse backgrounds become more successful in their college pursuits. In some instances, knowledge about how to foster success with this group of students may have been transferred and applied to 5The C.F .R. defmes the purpose of Student Support Services Program as a program that "provides grants to(a) Increase the retention and graduation rates of eligible students; (b) Increase the transfer rate of eligible students from two-year to four-year institutions; and (c) Foster an institutional climate supportive of the success of low-income and first generation college students and individuals with disabilities through services such as those described in 646.4." (34 C.F.R 646.1). 8

PAGE 22

other non-program students in the form of enhanced support services for all students. When this kind of institutional learning occurs, it has the impact ofleveraging the effects of programs such as SSS so that the host institution receives added benefits from their presence. To date, an examination of this phenomenon, the potential indirect benefits of such programs, is not available in the body of research on SSS programs. Current literature on SSS and other academic support programs focuses on student outcome measures, i.e. college retention and graduation rates of program participants to evaluate program effectiveness. For example, comprehensive reports on the SSS program beginning in 1983 (Systems Development Corporation) followed by the U.S. Department ofEducation's review in 1985 up to the most recent Westat evaluation (1997) all assess SSS based on student outcomes, i.e., grade point average, credits earned retention and graduation. In spite of a growing interest among colleges, policy makers and SSS directors to more accurately demonstrate the effectiveness of the program, there remains a void in the body ofliterature on SSS programs that examines the impact of these programs beyond the student outcomes criteria. This research is designed to address these concerns. It will therefore, fill the gap in providing empirical research to determine if the presence of SSS programs 9

PAGE 23

tends to provide value added benefits for the hosting campuses that have influenced decision making that produces similar services for non-program students This is the kind of information that has the potential capacity to increase the foundation of knowledge needed to improve current student services or develop new ones in a mor e informed manner Statement of the Problem Assessment of the effectiveness ofSSS programs traditionally has been grounded in an examination of student outcomes e g ., persistence and graduation rates GP A, etc. 6 Such research has been critical to building the body of information essential to articulating the success of the program Approximately every five years during the re-appropriations sessions of Congress TRIO presents the most recent student outcome data to demonstrate the success of the program These data and the inclusion of student testimonials that were presented in the 6Using retention and graduation rates this report evaluates SSS programs from 1964-93 (Department of Education, 1994 ) 10

PAGE 24

most recent TRIO congressional briefmgs rely on program assessment based on benefits received by the participant. However as funding to TRIO programs declines7 the program s leadership may need to take a broader view in determining how the success of the program is demonstrated. In an environment where the competition for funding (particularly federal dollars) higher education initiatives is keen limiting strategies used to document program success could be problematic. Exclusive attention to analyses that focus only on student outcome data may be myopic in reporting the positive influences of SSS in higher education. Essentially, program evaluation based on student outcomes fails to disclose the other benefits that might have been realized by colleges as a result of having a SSS program on the campus. Although SSS as a component of TRIO has enjoyed longevity with federal support (continuous funding since 1968) the recent decline in its allocation increases suggests perhaps a need to document success using a more comprehensive perspective. This study is designed to determine if there are other 7The Bush Administration s 2005 fiscal year budget funded TRIO at $836 rni11ion (less than two percent of its base) representing the sma11est percentage increase for TRIO in i ts history (www thomas.loc.gov). 11

PAGE 25

criteria that might be considered in evaluating SSS program success and thereby broaden the methods used currently. Specifically, the purpose of the study is to test the hypotheses that there are additional benefits realized by the institutional hosts of SSS programs and that these settings provide learning opportunities for the colleges to further their educational objectives for not only program participants, but for all students. Summarily, the research problem is to investigate the influence of SSS on academic support services for non-program students. Research Overview This investigation was an effort to develop an understanding .ofwhether or not colleges view the presence of SSS programs supportive in helping to attain their educational goals of research, teaching, service and accountability. In an environment of increasing justification for the use of financial resources (particularly public dollars) for support, colleges and universities must develop strategies that demonstrate an ability to address student success as a ciitical factor in the accountability goal. To that end the study explored if the presence of Student Support Services (SSS) programs on college campuses had impacted the 12

PAGE 26

provision of support services for non-program students. Additionally, the research sought to identify institutional characteristics that might be commonly associated with indicators of the most successful SSS programs8 and the adoption of SSS-type services for non-program students. That is, in those circumstances where the college had implemented SSS-type services for all students what, if any, predominant characteristics (student body composition type or control, selectivity, faculty to student ratio, etc.) do they have? Data for the research were produced from responses to the mail survey and the structured telephone interviews. Use of this limited mixed method approach ultimately helped uncover information that was not disclosed with either approach individually. Use of these two approaches proved beneficial and informed the findings more comprehensively. 8Characteristics of the most successful SSS programs will be those program factors identified in the Muraskin (1997) research as commonalities among successful projects. The six "best practices" identified in the Muraskin work will be used as most successful program indicators for the pmposes of this investigation. In addition to these six a set of eight indicators will be used that includes student outcomes. A discussion of these applications is detailed in Appendix A entitled "Definition of Terms." 13

PAGE 27

Organization ofthe Study Beyond an initial assumption that support services for college students enhance the success of the student the study explores the question of whether such services have additional value to the institution. Starting with a review of the literature Chapter 2 provides a discussion of factors that have influenced the changing role of higher education in the nation. Since the impetus for the study emerges from the concepts associated with diffusion theory what follows is a discussion of those theoretical principles most pertinent to this investigation. Evidence of the diffusion of program benefits suggests that organizational learning is occurring necessitating a discussion of relevant concepts related to organizational learning theory To that end an overview and description of those concepts that are germane to these changes are detailed. The next section describes the research that depicts the merits of support services. Additionally the section explains how institutions measure goal or mission attainment i .e., i ncreased quality and accountability and utilizing strategies of access and equity to assess what is of value or benefit to the college. This information describes the concepts related to access issues as they apply to quality and accountability at the individual organizational and 14

PAGE 28

societal level in this study. These relationships help to explain how college support services enhance institutional goals of equity, access quality and accountability Student Support Services (a component of the TRIO Program) Programs is the subject of investigation because of its longevity (over 30 years) in the business of providing academic support services for select students9 A comprehensive discussion is presented on the history success record and research endeavors associated with this program. The methodology section (Chapter 3) presents the overarching research question of whether there is a relationship between the presence of SSS programs and the implementation of similar services for non-program students at the same institution. Essentially is there a difference in the kinds of services provided for nonprogram students after the start of SSS? Are there differences between host and nonhost colleges in the quantity and kinds of SSS-type services provided for non-program students? Furthermore the study investigates several questions related to these inquiries. These additional research questions are: (I) Where host schools have 9Specific SSS program eligibility requirements are presented in the "History of SSS Programs section located in the next chapter (2) 15

PAGE 29

implemented similar services for non-program students after the start of SSS, what kinds of value-added benefits to the institution are identified as program impacts on the college? (2) Is SSS perceived as helping the college attain its educational goals of instruction research and service within the context of improving quality, accountability student equity and student access? (3) Has the presence of SSS improved and/or increased academic support services for non-program students? (4) Are there common institutional characteristics evidenced by schools that recognize value-added benefits from hosting SSS programs? (5) Are there differences in the academic support services provided by non-host schools than those available at host colleges? and (6) What implications for policy directions might arise from the fmdings? These questions were investigated by surveying I 05 host schools and 68 non-host colleges. Ten host schools participated in follow-up structured interviews. Additionally the methodology section presents the study hypotheses and research design that includes a description of the population sample, selection criteria, and data collection and analysis methods. lbis chapter also includes a discussion of independent variables on the dependent variables in relation to each hypothesis. The results section (Chapter 4) describes and analyzes responses to the survey of institutions using several statistical methods. Rationale for the application of each 16

PAGE 30

statistical method is discussed in relation to the research question being addressed. For example descriptive statistics provided a method of examining the various institutional characteristics i.e. student composition public or private control selectivity etc. Use of independent samples t-tests and chi-square analyses provided opportunities to examine differences between host and non-host schools on the research questions related to academic support services for program and non-program students. Analysis of variance methods were used to examine college perceptions of what if any added benefits were realized from hosting SSS programs. Structured interviews served to confinn information reported on the survey i.e. whether selected services were available to non-program students pre or post-SSS and to identify the involvement of SSS program personnel in the decision making process for implementation of such services. Furthermore the structured interview provided an opportunity to ascertain common perspectives ideas and thinking10 abput SSS programs Perceptions from the interview respondents on the influences of SSS programs on academic support services and attainment of institutional goals are discussed as they help to inform and verify data from the survey. 10Janesick (1998) encourages the researcher using a qualitative approach to look for the meaning and perspectives ofthe participants in the study (p. 103). 17

PAGE 31

The last section (Chapter 5) is a presentation of the research fmdings and a discussion of their implications in this study. 'Ibis is followed by a considration of the significance of the study and some suggestions for future research directions that might provide additional information on the contributions of SSS programs to higher education. Finally, this concluding chapter identifies areas needing further investigation outside the scope of this study but clearly related to student success. For example, colleges that seek to improve student learning experiences and achievement may need to examine issues associated with institutional cultural characteristics that tend to undernline student success. 18

PAGE 32

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The Changing Role of Higher Education Although there have been numerous social and political influences that have precipitated substantial changes in higher education during the last 15 years there are three that have had perhaps the most prominent influence on the way post secondary education conducts the business of education. Alone each would have had a significant impact but together in a relatively short period of time changes in the governance of colleges what functional roles they assume and the demographic makeup of student bodies have precipitated what is likely to be a permanent shift in the essential goals and processes of higher education (Joint Information Systems Committee, 1995). Effective institutional response to these changes requires a reflective critical evaluation of what is needed and the development and application of educational resources that best support goal attainment. Colleges are now confronted with educating a student body that is more 19

PAGE 33

diverse across all socio-economic stratifications than it was just 15 years ago11 Scholars Carole Leathwood and Paul O'Connell indicate that "construction of the 'student' are changing ... there has been a 'shift away from the generally accepted, but one-dimensional definition of 'the student' and 'the university' towards a range of possibilities that reflect and create much uncertainty"(p. 598). This influx of"new'' students challenges the academic resources of the institution to meet learning needs more effectively. At the same time the world of higher education has experienced a decrease in financial resources to support many of its institutional objectives. Efforts 11 According to the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) two of the primary factors that have contributed to the diversity of the college student enrollment are the increases in women and older student attendees. NCES researchers indicate that "aggregate gender differences in degree awards largely reflect differences in the majority or White student population" and that from 1980 to 2001 enrollment of women in undergraduate studies increased from 52 percent to 56 percent. Additionally the report specifies that by 2001 regardless of racial or ethnic group, women received the majority of the associate and baccalaureate degrees (Peter, Hom and Carroll, 2005 p. iv). Economist, Jonathan Kelinson (1998) states that "Traditionally aged college students, those between the ages of 18 and 24, made up the majority of students on college campuses. But the number of older students increased significantly." In 1985 15 percent of college students were over 35 years of age and by 1994 this age group represented 21 percent of enrollments in college (p .4 ). 20

PAGE 34

to address demands by stakeholders external to the college12 have motivated many universities to re-prioritize their goals to focus on student learning as the number one institutional goal. These influences on higher education impact the ways in which colleges and universities are governed, function and address student success. In many ways student success drives college governance and function. Higher education oversight bodies often evaluate institutional effectiveness and efficiency based on student related issues such as quality of the educational experience, accountability, equity, accessibility. As institutions learn how to build student success they increase their abilities to access resources that allow them opportunities to achieve their goals. When campuses have programs that target special populations from which they are able to adopt "best practices" to all students these colleges demonstrate a kind of comprehensive understanding of these concerns and how to resolve them. This type of learning arises from theoretical concepts related to organizational learning 12ln their examination of issues related to making higher education more flexible researchers Minna Takala, David Hawk and Yannis Rammos identify three stakeholders that drive the quality assurance system: "the federal government that is linked through financial aid support for students; (the) states (that) charter and monitor activities and certify or license programs; and accrediting bodies ... as a method for strengthening the quality of higher education" (p. 295) 21

PAGE 35

theory. When understandings from this kind of learning are applied it evidences tenets of diffusion theory13 This review of the research and theories for this study addresses these concerns by first presenting an overview of those issues related to governance, function and student demographics that currently challenge higher education. The review of the literature from diffusion theory and organizational learning theory helps to explain the rationale of colleges modeling academic support services for all students after observing their effectiveness in specialized programs. The conceptual structure of the thesis is further developed by a review of the literature that addresses the merits of academic support services for students in the context of quality assurance, institutional goals and student success. GovemanC(! Historica11y higher education in the United States has operated using models 13Credited with advancing much of the contemporary research on diffusion theory scholar Everett Rogers (1995) defmes diffusion as ''the process by which a innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system ... comrnunication is a process in which participants create and share information with one another in order to reach a mutual understanding"(pp. 5-6). 22

PAGE 36

of self-governance. This independent nature of colleges and universities prevailed until the mid-1980s, when state higher education agencies, in response to public and political pressures, began to demand cJoser scrutiny and accountability from these institutions (Benjamin and Carroll, 1996). Donald Kettl (2004) identifies the two critical issues that "traditional public institutions that manage postsecondary education" (p.22) must handle. One is that ''the market for education has become far more diverse and competitive" and the other issue is that "as budgets get tighter and the twenty-first -century economy demands better trained workers, the pressure to produce better education without spending more will grow. Postsecondary education will have no choice but to reinvent itself." (p.22). It was during this same period that the public began to question the mission of universities that described their priorities in the context of research first and teaching second. State residents were beginning to demand that public colleges and universities focus on teaching as a priority (Johnstone, 1997). Such a perspective captures the concerns of quality assurance particularly as it relates to student access and success. Here the public goals for colleges are to provide an environment of higher education that is both attainable and one in which students can meet ]earning outcomes. Policies, programs and initiatives 23

PAGE 37

that advance these assumptions then help serve the public demand for enhancing quality assurance. The public, and often government, demands for a refocus on teaching14 and student learning in higher education has been accompanied by additional concerns for quality assurance. During the last ten years the academic community, that had become accustomed to self-regulation and assessment by regional or specialization accrediting bodies, has become increasingly concerned that government agencies might take over the evaluation function and eventually control higher education. David Dill, et.al. (1996) summarizes the 1990s climate ... as concerns over the rising costs of higher education and the relative priority given to undergraduate education and student learning have spread across the country, there has been increasing criticism of institutional accreditation as a primary means for assuring quality in colleges and universities. The 1992 amendments to the Higher Education Act mandated that the states and voluntary regional accreditation agencies assume new responsibilities in the enforcement of federal standards related to higher education. Congress authorized the states to establish new State Postsecondary Review Entities 14David Kember and Jan McKay (1996) indicate that "governments have moved to make universities and colleges more accountable for the finances they receive from state coffers. Concern about the qualityu of teaching has been particularly strong as many have begun to suspect that teaching has been relegated to a poor second place behind research" (p.528). 24

PAGE 38

(SPREs) with authority to conduct comprehensive reviews of institutions that violated certain standards embodied in the law (p. 17). Although the SPREs were eliminated in 1998 when the Higher Education Act (1998 Amendments to Higher Education Act of 1965 Pub .. L. No 105-244 114, [1998]) was reauthorized the public concerns regarding the rising costs ofhigher education and quality assurance of undergraduate learning continue to be raised. It was during this time that a group of coJlege presidents frustrated with the demands of SPREs and the failure of the Council for Postsecondary Accreditation created a national organization whose only responsibility was accreditation. Hopes are high that this newly established group the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) will be more effective than the Counci1 for Postsecondary Education that was disbanded in 1993 (McMurtrie 1999). Critics indicate that the group has no real enforcement power since it is not government sponsored and relies on the regional and specialization accrediting bodies to join it. CHEA supporters say that because the council is not affiliated with government or an existing accrediting body it is in a unique role of being able to more effectively resolve frequent conflict that occurs between these groups. Despite the desire by many colleges to be allowed to manage without interference the reality is that higher education institutions cannot operate 25

PAGE 39

effectively without these external resources. This view seems supported by the 1997 research by James Volkwein and Shaukat Malik that asked the question "Have regulatory practices changed in the past decade and does flexibility make a difference in campus effectiveness"? They reported ... our most prominent finding is the lack of connection between campus autonomy and measures of effectiveness. Instead, our measures of faculty and student quality are substantially correlated with each other and influenced by indicators of size and resources" (p. 40). The sentiment of less government voiced by the Congress elected in 1994 reduced the willingness of federal involvement in higher education with implications of devolving authority to the state level. A major limitation with such an arrangement is that the process might not include private colleges that comprise the majority of higher educational institutions. In order to balance the quality assurance issues that imply a need for improvement, Dill and his colleagues suggest two approaches, promoting regional academic audits and encouraging quality assessments of teaching and learning at the institutional level. The second method that "focuses on assessments of teaching quality-the evaluation of the quality of student study programs and the campus provision of teaching and learning"(p. 8) would require self-assessment and regulation at the institutional and programs level. Schools and 26

PAGE 40

programs would be responsible for evaluating the relationship between program aims, course delivery course content, and student learning (Dill, 1996). Decision making regarding the allocation of campus resources would be governed by the assessment results. Many institutions that have adopted this approach indicate that the problems tend to occur in the necessary follow-up of allocation of campus resources based on the conclusions derived from the assessment results. Often there are other authorities such as elected policy makers or external accrediting bodies15, that determine where campus resources should be allocated. Decision making based on such influences often does not support or in some instances might directly contradict the conclusions from the self-evaluations conducted by the schools or programs themselves. Effective implementation and quality assurance then become undermined. In their review of quality assurance and quality enhancement strategies Kember and McKay ( 1996) indicated that quality assurance strategies, e.g., external examiners, teaching 15Kettl (2004) found that "As part of their broader reinvention efforts, state policymakers have identified performance goals for many programs and have worked to hold managers more accountable for results. In the 1990s, some state legislatures asked university systems to produce performance reports. Many state university systems on their own have identified performance measures, such as graduation and time-to-graduation rates and have written performance reports. Legislators, however, have shown a much greater interest in requesting these reports than in reading them" (p.29). 27

PAGE 41

portfolios and even student feedback questionnaires have limitations because "they concentrate on bringing the poorest teachers and courses up to some level of minimum acceptance ... but there is no mechanism for giving real rewards to teams preparing outstanding programs" (p. 529). They advocate for a quality enhancement perspective that "aims for an overall increase in the quality of teaching .. and are (not) imposed from above either by university administrators or by external bodies" (p. 530). Functional Role Alan Lindsay and Ruth Neuman (1988) discuss what seems to be a changing focus in higher education as the relationship between the perceptions of excellence (the research endeavor to broaden knowledge) and utility (teaching the application of knowledge). According to these writers, the nexus between research and teaching has changed throughout the history of higher education and has "varied from harmonious coexistence to direct conflict" (p. 45). They argue that from medieval universities into the 19th century the notion of excellence was connected to the pursuit of knowledge purely for its own sake while teaching was valued for its utilitarian function that did not include an assumption of excellence associated with its 28

PAGE 42

activities. Lindsay and Neumann advance that America has made a distinct contribution to higher education by advancing the concept of high quality or excellence in research and teaching and the need to appreciate the integrative nature ofboth. Jeannette Seaberry and Joe Davis (1997) note that by the mid 1800s in the United States higher education began to "appear different from the training and research traditions typically associated with universities and higher education ... these (new) types of institutions were committed to liberal arts education and teacher training" (p. 6). Congress assisted in the advancement of these new schools created to train citizens to develop expertise in agriculture and mechanical engineering with the passage of the Morrill Acts (1862 and 1890) establishing land colleges across the nation. With one land grant institution in every state the number of citizens who could access higher education greatly increased (Cohen and Brawer, 1982). Seaberry and Davis (1997) further indicate that "the nineteenth-century utilitarian approach of American universities combined the strong components of the research characteristics of the German system and the liberal arts approach popular in British universities" (p. 7). Since these early years the role of higher education has broadened its scope of training to include thousands of disciplines and a similar number of research 29

PAGE 43

initiatives and directions. Generally, the intended goals of these functional roles in higher education have remained consistently to provide learning experiences for individuals that ultimately benefit citizens and the society. Higher learning in the United States was conceptually a view of excellence in the service of the nation ... ( and that) excellence is just as important in problem solving as in the advancement of abstract fields" (p. 46). These writers suggest that it has only been in the last 30 years that the concepts of excellence and utility have begun to narrow. In large part due to the post World War IT fmancial support for research from government and businesses "much of the effect within the universities was to reinforce epistemological philosophy .. excellence came to be increasingly judged and in extreme cases solely judged in terms of a contribution to the discipline s framework (p. 51). However, with the economic decline of the 1980s research has become more dependent on businesses (and government to a lesser extent) to fund more applications focused on research. Such relationships continue to raise concerns regarding the academic freedom and independence traditionally held by universities Interestingly the current public imperatives to have higher education refocus on teaching and learning that has the potential outcome of students capable of 30

PAGE 44

contributing to the society are similar to the values i.e. applied research teaching and service articulated in the rationale for the establishment of land grant institutions. Student Demographics The growing income disparity between those with college degrees and those without college degrees has already turned us into a nation of col11ege-haves and college-have-nots. In the next 15 years 1 million to 2 million additional young adults will be seeking access to higher education, a large proportion of them from low-income and minority families. (Carnevale A.and Fry, R.,1999 p. 5). The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) produces several survey instruments that provide data estimating enrollments in higher education e.g. Current Population Survey (CPS) the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (!PEDS) the National Household Education Surveys program (NHES), etc. Datasets from these surveys may indicate inconsistencies because of the differences in the sources used for information collection e.g. NHES is based on information collected from households while !PEDS gathers its information from institutions (Hurst, 2005) Other factors according to NCES that contribute to data inconsistencies include whether data are gathered over a period of time or one jx>int in time, how 31

PAGE 45

postsecondary institution is defmed and what criteria is used to determine a status of enrollment (Hurst, 2005). Applying these considerations NCES (using the !PEDS survey data) reported that from 1969 to 1989 enrollment of the 18 to 24 -year-olds in degree granting postsecondary institutions as a percentage of the resident population grew slightly (about 9 percent overall with a 16 percent peak from 1979-89) despite a 25 percent increase in this age group (Snyder, 2002). Diane Macunovich (1997) explains that such slight increases in total college enrollment rates are not surprising and should be interpreted within the context ofbirth cohort size and college wage premium16 According to Macunovich this economic theory explains why fewer individuals in large birth cohorts and more persons in smaller birth cohorts attend college. Over many years the result is a kind of leveling effect on enrollment rates so that anticipated spikes in college attendance are not realized generally. This researcher allow that factors such as the perception of relative income (where the 16Macunovich (1997) defmes "college wage premium (as the) the additional earning a college graduate over those of a high school grad. Economic theory predicts that the return from a college education will depend on demand and supply and on 'suitability'-the degree to which one type of worker can be used in place of another"(p. 35). She argues high schools graduates who are young can be more easily exchanged for older workers with high school diplomas. On the other hand, young co11ege graduates are not easily exchanged for the more experienced worker who is also a college graduate. 32

PAGE 46

adult individual evaluates personal economic status based on the income of the home in which he/she was reared) and level of international trade can and do influence those from large birth cohorts to enroll in college despite the college premium wage issue. Additionally, women and members of ethnic minority groups from large birth cohorts have accounted for the greatest increases in college enrollments. Tbis demand trend for a college education is expected to continue with a projection of a "total demand for college enrollment in the 18 to 24 age group ... to increase by 30 percent in the next decade" (Macunovich,p. 44). Between 1988 and 1998 although the college enrollment growth rates had started to level off showing an increase of merely 11 percent, the percentage of women attending grew by 16 percent compared to only six percent for men (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics {NCES}, 1999). By 1997 females constituted more than half of the entering students. Additionally, although projections by NCES indicate that the growth rate for 18 to 24 year old college enrollees will out pace those over 25 years of age by 13 percent by 2010, the growth rate during the 1990s for students over 25 years of age grew substantially (eight percent) and was only one percent less than the growth rate for the younger 33

PAGE 47

group (NCES, 1999). The vast majority ofthese "non-traditional, mature"17 students were employed and had parenting responsibilities for minor children. These students, who were making personal and financial sacrifices, as well as, juggling family responsibilities to attend college, often could not place higher education as their number one priority consistently and had different expectations of what education should provide than the group of younger students who preceded them. Moreover, since the late 1990s, colleges are beginning to feel the impact of the large K-12 population and have begun to see greater numbers of recent high school graduates entering higher education for the first time. Compounding this situation is the fact that more students than ever before are entering post-secondary education in 17For the purposes of this study the following are used for operating definitions of traditional and nontraditional student with the acknowledgment that other definitions might vary slightly by including additional criteria, i e. level of income or member of an ethnic minority group. Researchers Emily Morris, Peggy Brooks and James May (2003) define nontraditional college students as those "22 years of age or older and as having more multiple roles (i.e., parents, spouses, employees) ... with a mean age of28 ... while traditional college students were defined as those between the ages of 18 and 22 who resided on the college campus (or in the home of the parents) ... (having) a mean age of 19.5 years of age" (p. 4). 34

PAGE 48

need of developmental18 course work. The "traditional student" population has now become one that is quite diverse with a host of learning needs for which many institutions are not prepared. A New Perspective: The University as a Community of Learners In response to these concerns many colleges, both public and private, amended their objectives to reflect an emphasis on teaching and learning as the highest priority. With this refocus on student learning, institutions of higher education in the 1990s began to move away from the hierarchal implications of a teaching institution, where the expert imparts knowledge, to an environment in which learning becomes more collaborative. W. Norton Grubb (200 I) notes that the older conception of 18National Center for Developmental Education researchers, Patrick Saxon and Hunter R. Boylan (2005) have indicated college students who need developmental education are also referred to as "remedial, at-risk, underprepared, low-achieving, disadvantaged, non-traditional and skill-deficient" ... (and that regardless of the term used to describe these students they all are) "academically underprepared for college level work ... estimates that 40% of first-time students entering the average community college (needs remediation course work) .. .less than 2% of remedial students had SAT total scores of 900 or more, average high school GPA is 2.4, average college GPA at graduation is 2.28 (and) 68% are full-time" (p. 1). 35

PAGE 49

institutional responsibility for learning where institutions provide a specified curriculum imparted by teachers to students ... has been modified by one that places greater responsibility for success on the institution itself' (p. 2) The trend toward collaborative learning environments or the university as a community of learners is cited by researchers as a fundamental attribute of high-quality programs in higher education19 Many such colleges and universities that now describe themselves in this manner also recognize the supportive infrastructure essential in supporting a community of learners. These innovations in learning approaches involve not only providing the educational resources that include the student academic support services necessary for community learning but the establishment of an institutional infrastructure in which collaborative decision-making can occur. Marvin Lazerson 1 9 As part of a national study of master's education Haworth and Conrad interviewed 781 faculty institutional administrators program administrators students alumni and employers representing eleven fields of study and 31 institutions to determine their perspectives on what constituted high-quality learning experiences in higher education. Their fmdings indicated that ... a community of learners' is another fundamental attribute of high-quality programs. Interviewees across our sample told us that an ethic of collegial teaching and learning imbued the culture of their programs such that faculty, students and administrators interacted with one another more or less as partners within a community of learners Membership in such a community greatly enriched students' learning experiences and positively affected their growth and development". (p. 69) 36

PAGE 50

Ursula Wagener and Nichole Shumanis (2000) caution that institutional systems have moved slowly to support collaborative and cooperative )earning that necessitates a more primary role on college campuses. They argue that ... a genuine teaching-learning revolution seems far away. The disjuncture between "lots of assessment activities" and faculty teaching and reward systems is substantial. Campus conversations about teaching may be occurring, but the dialogue on professional responsibility for student learning appears modest at best. There are "active" classrooms where students take responsibility for their learning but where there also is little serious assessment of what students are actually learning (p. 23). Advocates for supplemental instruction (Ramirez, Gen 1997, Maxwell, William 1998, Yockey, Frances and George Archie 1998) indicated that supplemental instruction provides a natural venue for the development of learning communities. MaxweJJ (1998) indicates one of the central benefits of a learning organizations is that it fosters social integration and that "many four-year college studies have found moderately strong correlations between social integration variables and several academic outcomes (p.1 ). His recent study that examined the impact of supplemental instruction using a learning community format in a community college setting showed a "moderate but not large (impact on social integration where) ... the effects of supplemental instruction focused on .. .lirnited objectives of many 37

PAGE 51

commuting students: their coursework and the social relations that supported their studies" (p.ll ). In their research comparing colleges and universities with high graduation rates (HGRs) to those with low graduation rates (LGRs) Lana Murakin, John Lee, Abigail Wilner and Watson Scott Swail (2004) cite developmental education and supplemental instruction as two among 12 common factors that contributed to the high success rates of students at the HGR institutions. Despite the new restrictions by some states on offering remedial course work at four year colJeges these researchers found that in those situations where the such constraints existed the HGR schools were more likely than the LGR colleges to offer educational innovations that included strategies such as "tutoring, groups study, supplemental instruction or mastery classes ... and learning communities" (p. 45). They concluded that in their investigation ofthese colleges that all had a large share of low-income students: much of the difference in student outcomes may be due to factors so basic that they are hardly amenable to "tweaking" institutional policies or practices. They may require, at least in public institutions, systematic consideration at the state level. These factors include prior student performance, available institutional resources, and items that are directly affected by resources such as levels of full-time faculty (p. 47). 38

PAGE 52

Challenges that colleges must face by the realities of external constraints can be used to inform the development of innovative opportunities that enhance student success20 at the institutional level. Institutional capacity building for such an infrastructure .to develop and be implemented effectively depicts many of the characteristics associated with the theoretical principles of diffusion of innovation and organizational learning theories. Higher Education and Diffusion Theory Although originally conceptualized as a process by which individuals make decisions to adopt a change in an organization diffusion concepts were eventually applied to examine the processes that are involved at the organizational level when assessing the feasibility of an innovation (Schon DeCanio Dibble and Amir-Atefi 2000 ; Barnett, 1978 ). Much of this early research focused on innovations related to 2 0In an effort to improve student success some scholars indicate that colleges should not use student outcomes as the exclusive criteria for assessment but must pay attention to the process .. .it would be oflittle value to gather information on student outcomes without gathering and utilizing the equally important information on the student experiences classroom teaching techniques and institutional and environmental conditions that lead to the outcomes (Banta Lund Black and Oblander p. 25) 39

PAGE 53

technologies in business industries A similar focus on technology has dominated the research on diffusion of innovations in education as computers have become more available and prevalent in the world of learning. Researchers studying the impact of technologies in education suggest that they will have the greatest influence on changing how students learn and faculty teach (Levine 1997) Here the assumption is made that educational institutions will overwhelmingly implement technologies. Rogers {1995) makes the point that decision making to use an innovation is quite different than taking the actions necessary to implement the decision. Educational institutions and in particular those at higher levels have learned that the capacity of an educational system to diffuse innovations in learning technologies is very much dependent on several factors. The internal resources (e.g. faculty budgets capital improvements needed) and external environments (e.g. citizen support, policy makers accrediting bodies) of a college can limit its ability to effectively adopt an innovation. For example Prouix and Campbell (1997) found that most faculty use computers for professional reasons i.e. research communication with colleagues and writing. In responding to reasons for beginning to use computers among the high use faculty only 29% indicated that they were motivated for instructional purposes while 88% of this same group reported incentives related to "professional 40

PAGE 54

demands." These findings support the assertions of other studies (Geoghegan, 1994; Persichitte, Tharp and Caffarella, 1999) on the faculty use of computer technologies for instructional purposes. To a large extent the earlier predictions of the revolutionizing effects of computer assisted learning technologies on teaching strategies seem not to have materialized as anticipated. Explanation of the limited diffusion results of this innovation on pedagogy remains an area where continued research is needed In his discussion of the criticisms related to diffusion research Rogers (1995) provides some insight and direction for further investigation indicating that One of the most serious shortcomings of diffusion research is the pro innovation bias ... (that is) the implication in diffusion research that an innovation should be diffused more rapidly, and that the innovation should be neither re-invented nor rejected (p. 1 00). He argues that a method of dealing with the pro-innovation bias is to develop "alternative research approaches to after-the-fact data gathering about how an innovation has diffused should be explored" (p. 106). Here Rogers' observations expand the perspective by which diffusion research is conducted. For example, a better understanding of the limited outcomes for computer technology on teaching strategies might be found in an examination of the 41

PAGE 55

adoption of process innovations and what perspective is utilized in assessment. Daniel Curry (1998) observes that "innovations can, of course, be ideas, new practices of improved processes ... Do instructional developers and technology users have fundamental differences in the way they think about a particular innovation or about technology in general" (p. 11 )? The optimistic view of technology developers who tend to focus on the technology itself might be quite different than the perspective of the user whose evaluation of the utilitarian value of the proposed innovation is determined by assessing the anticipated consequences ofthe technology. Decision making by organizations regarding the implementation of an innovation beyond the trial phase might be determined by non-supportive feedback related to the perceptions by users of the results of the innovation. Attention to this issue by the organizational research community has not placed sufficient emphasis on this perspective in further developing concepts of organizational change (Hage, 1999). 42

PAGE 56

In his work Rogers (1995) identifies five characteristics21 associated with innovation rate of adoption. Each characteristic is governed by the adopter's perception of the innovation. An analysis of student perceptions of computers using the Rogers characteristics associated with assessing adoption might disclose that the average college student has some history of using this kind of technology. The past experiences of students with computers are not in conflict with their needs or values and that student use is not limited to the resources of the educational institution, but that students access and use this technology extensively outside of their educational lives. A significant finding by the Prouix and Campbell study indicated that students tended to be high users of computer technology with or without the institutional infrastructure to support their use. On the other hand, high user faculty were evidenced most predominately in those settings where the institution provided sufficient resources to support their usage. 2 1Rogers (1995 pp.l5-16) explains the rate of adoption based on five characteristics that are determined by the perception of the adopter: advantage of innovation compared to status quo; compatibility of the innovation with needs, values and past experiences; ease of understanding and using the new idea; suitability to phasing-in; and visibility to others of the innovation. 43

PAGE 57

In his study on change implementation strategies George Lueddeke (1999) indicates that organizational change and diffusion of innovation theoretical concepts have been used extensively in higher education research that examines ''the cultural realities of academic leadership and decision rnaking ... and that university culture and organization, underscores the necessity ... for organizational improvements to occur "(p. 236). Essentially supporting Roger's view on the difficulty of change Lueddeke indicates since the current environment of higher education tends to foster uncertainty "those responsible for managing change would benefit from a better grasp of the change process itself, in particular how the inevitable tensions that result can be sources of strength rather than weakness" (p. 237). Innovation can be applied as a strategy to facilitate organizational change if the users can perceive results that are beneficial. 1-ligher education has numerous examples (e.g., distance learning, service learning, developmental studies, etc.) of the successful implementation of new ideas and practices where the intended goals for learning have been attained. Of particular importance to this study is the diffusion of academic support services for college students as an innovation that began in the mid1960s when ethnic minority students began to enter higher education in significant numbers. Early academic support programs on campuses tended to be those funded 44

PAGE 58

initially by the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity and later by the U.S. Department of Education when OEO was disbanded in 1978 (a detailed discussion ofthis history is presented later in this chapter). Ten years later, many colleges and universities had developed similar services for all students. By applying the concepts of diffusion theory in organizations to this phenomena an assessment could be made that the implementation of academic support services is also an example of diffusion of an innovative practice in higher education. Foundations of Organizational Learning Theory This re-conceptualization of the role of colleges and universities as collaborative learning organizations or communities suggests 4 critical principles that characterize the evolving knowledge on organizational learning theory. The first principle is that of dialogue as defined by philosopher and physicist David Bohm ( 1991 ). This principle requires a spirit of inquiry and a commitment to respecting others and selfthat is sufficiently solid to allow dialogue that challenges the current paradigms and their inconsistencies. The second principle relates to Edgar H. Shein's work (1993) on organizational culture. Schein proposes that change in the culture of an organization requires a process of articulating counterproductive beliefs in a group 45

PAGE 59

setting where the organizational members have the opportunity to participate and contribute to the dialogue. Joint efforts by Chris Argyris (also known for his on the theory of reasoning and action science 1982) and Donald Schon (best known for his work on reflective practice theory 1983) on methods for producing effective learning in an organization (1974 1978) conceptualizes a third principle that focuses on the development of individual strategies that facilitate a more productive level of interpersonal competence from a systematic perspective. Competence is demonstrated through what Argyris and Schon termed action learning. Their theory of organizational learning focuses on how conflict is managed in organizations when individuals must deal with uncertainty in the pursuit of resolution. This type of learning process is through the experience of working together with colleagues using effective reasoning (problem assessment) learning (the response to the problem) and action (method of implementing solutions) Organizational learning theory has made a tremendous contribution in advancing understandings of organizational behavior. Lars Steiner (1998) describes the impact of organizational learning as 46

PAGE 60

... possibly the most powerful ideology for developing organizations during the nineties ... (it) is processual in its character, explaining structural change processes in organizations. Therefore it is possible to understand the complex developing competence relations between individuals and groups in an organization trying to serve its customers in a more efficient way. (p. 194). With a focus on individuals the organizational learning models of Arguris and Schon seem limited in their ability to address problem-solving at the structural level of organizations. Steiner (1998) indicates that Argyris and Schon define competence as "solving problems in such a way that they remain solved and increase the organization's capacity for future problem solving" (p.194). Given the uncertainty of higher education environments most colleges and universities would not meet the threshold required in the above definition of competence. Some critics of the Argyris and Schon work believe that their theoretical perspective fails to carefully examine the values that underlie the actions of individuals in the organization. Higher education organizations would fmd acceptance of such a perspective most challenging, particularly given the role of higher education in teaching ideas associated with advancing a careful examination of values in all disciplines. In assessing application of the Argyris and Schon thinking in higher education Davydd Greenwood (1997) makes the point that discussion by these researchers (Argyris and 47

PAGE 61

Schon) on the reluctance of the academic community to thoroughly address the relationships between theory and practice "implies that universities are particularly unlikely to ever become 'learning organizations' in any meaningful sense" (p. 701 ). Although important considerations these limitations do not preclude the merits of applying organizational learning theory concepts in understanding college decision making regarding which services should be offered to foster the success of students. The fourth principle associated with learning organizations is an extension of Argyris' work that has been developed by Peter Senge (1990). In his work on the learning organization, Senge argues that effective organizations are those that are able to rid themselves of irrationalities and cognitive biases and conduct decision making with a systematic view of the entire organization. Senge recommends intervention processes that require personal growth and team building. The five disciplines of organizational development that Senge has identified of systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models, shared vision and team learning (Senge, 1997) seem particularly applicable to a college setting. Some of the difficulties that might be encountered in the adaptation of these disciplines however, must be considered. For example, colleges are complex environments with multiple structures. Institutions must pay attention to the possibility of existing "silos" (where departments view 48

PAGE 62

themselves as independent of other college areas) and encourage a perspective of interdependency and institutional wholeness Although sometimes challenging academic personnel need to seek the meaningfulness in the communication and thinking of others not just those with which they agree. This requires an attitude for tolerance of differences that must be understood before adoption of a shared vision can be accomplished. Acceptance of the uncettainty that may be present in operationalizing Senge s disciplines provides the opportunity for team learning to develop. Each principle advanced by these scholars has contributed to the development of those theoretical tenets associated with organizational learning theory. Inherent in this concept is the idea that, in order to take advantage of this approach to learning, one must be part of the community. It is at this intersection of inclusion and membership in the community of higher education that has the greatest potential of limiting this new found role of colleges. Who is included in the learning community is directly related to what might be learned and the quality of the content and experience 49

PAGE 63

Quality Assurance and Support Services Despite the struggle for authority ov e r regulation there has been a general consensus in the higher education community that the quality o f e ducation received by students that can be measurably demonstrated u5ing various outcomes i s highly dependent on not only what the student brings to the setting but also the environment in which the education occurs22 Access to environmental resources such as support services and supplemental instruction can and does have an impact on student performance and subsequent success When the Colorado Commission on Higher Education released its Interim Master Plan in October 1999 it listed as one of the goals the establishment of a Quality Indicator System which at a minimum will measure achievement in five basic areas. In the second area cited the Commission indicated student satisfaction and success, including access to services at all levels and affordability of the institution (p. 8) 22In his report to the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices Ketti (2004) observes that many colleges and universities have worked especially hard to introduce a customer orientation to their student support services .. streamlined registration and improved advising have been especially important in improving students satisfaction with the system and in heightening the confidence of their parents (p. 25). 50

PAGE 64

Studies examining retention and persistence indicate the importance of these support services throughout the coJlege experience. For example Oregon State University s investigation of retention predictors for almost 9 000 students from 1991-96 concluded that attrition decreased with higher high-school and first-quarter grades, and attendance in a freshman orientation course, a support service available to all students (Murtaugh et.al. 1999). Gen Ramirez (1997) investigated specifically whether the impact of supplemental instruction enhances persistence and found that this service had a "substantial impact (p 3) on the performance and retention of special admit students. Institutions that provide services that assist students in entering and being successful in college demonstrate the quality assurance that the public seeks in higher education. In some instances institutions have produced programs that enhance the success of students by being critically observant of programs designed to serve a specialized population and replicating the appropriate program components making them available for all students. This kind of behavior is indicative oflearning and implementation concepts associated with the theories of organizational learning and diffusion of innovations. 51

PAGE 65

Higher Education Learning Goals and Support Services for Students Institutions that provide support services often explain their actions from a perspective that it is not only the smart thing to do but that it is the right thing to do. This sentiment recognizes that the college has invested significant resources in bringing students to campus through the recruitment and admissions functions. From one perspective, failure to provide every opportunity for students to be successful wastes those investments. From another view, a student s ability to gain knowledge that could be of value to the society may be a loss forever. Since higher education institutions are charged with providing higher learning failure to do so would mean that they have not met their responsibilities to citizens and the nation. Levels of success and the capacity to produce high quality learners are ultimately measured by the skills abilities and performance of the exiting student Such institutions seem to operate from a perspective of assuring the quality of their product while serving the needs ofthe nation. Political scientist Mary Hawkesworth ( 1988) presents a theoretical approach that explains the individual and issues of justice from a public policy view. 52

PAGE 66

Hawkesworth's concept of the individual from a distributive justice perspective23 seems compatible with that of the colleges that are committed to providing support services. While colleges are quite aware that individual effort plays a large role in what skills and abilities the student brings to higher learning, they are also cognizant that what experiences a student might have had is often well beyond the control of the individual. In recognition of such circumstances that acknowledge 23 Here Hawkesworth's concept of"socia1ized individuality" suggests that the "individual's identity, expectations, and aspirations are formed within the context of a host of intersubjective understandings incorporated in a language, a culture, and a particular history" (99). Additionally, this view of the individual allows that the ability to choose is governed by a host of subjective and objective forces over which the individual has limited control. This concept of individuality draws from the tenets of distributive justice theory to "justify not only affirmative action, but preferentia1 treatment... which simultaneously recognizes that such a policy will cause white ma1es to lose certain advantages, yet denies that the loss violates individual rights ... because they had no right to the advantages afforded by a racist and sexist society, no rights are being violated be removing those advantages" (115). 53

PAGE 67

contexts2 4 some institutions are committed to making assistance available to students who enter and have need. This kind of action by colleges suggests an understanding of the level of student preparedness is essential to supporting the success of the students they admit. In the literature the importance of historical context is most often related to representation and the democratic process The application of concepts in the discussion of representativeness is pertinent to those issues that surround the goals of higher education Social scientist, Melissa Williams (1996) makes the point that consideration of equality in representativeness must be determined by two important factors the "contemporary inequality (of the group) as compared with other social groups and a history of discrimination and oppression" (p. 86). In making an assessment of historical discrimination Williams "use(s) the terms 'memory and 24 Steinborn and Diggs-Brown argue a consideration of the historical contextual perspective in their recent text, By the Color of Our Skin. They indicate that affrrmative action was designed to "provide someone with an opportunity ... whatever the compelling justification for it some affrrmative action involves actual or potential discrimination." These researchers make the compelling argument that in order "for affirmative-action supporters to retrieve the high moral ground, ... they must make the case that the sacrifice involved may not serve the individual good of affected whites but does serve the common good of all Americans" (p. 245). Such a perspective extends the earlier position by Hawkeswortb on distributive justice wherein there is an inherent consideration of the historical context. 54

PAGE 68

'history' to signify that there are two different aspects to the relevance of the past for contemporary equality among citizens" (p. 86). She argues that it is an understanding of both the subjective (the meaning that the past has for members of a group) and objective (empirical evidence, laws and other documentation of discrimination) components that "provides criteria for assessing the relative merits of different groups' claims for recognition (as victims of discrimination)" (p. 86). This conceptualization incorporates the thinking of Hawkesworth and develops the idea that organizational structures and policies can contribute to adverse discrimination. For example if the admissions process of a college advantages those with letters of recommendation from alumni it intentionally puts students who are less (e.g. first generation students) to have such connections in a less competitive position for acceptance. Yet, this is a common and acceptable practice particularly among private institutions. There are numerous factors e g. financial resources, personal motivation 55

PAGE 69

family support, etc. that affect retention and completion rates2 5 of college students. The traditional government position of providing fmancial assistance cannot be the only policy directive designed to assist disadvantaged students improve their graduation rates. Other services are just a critical to supporting student success. In their study of the improvements in minority participation in college from 1969 to 1985 AJan Ginsburg and Maureen McLaughlin (1992) conclude "Although student (financial) assistance has been the principal federal policy instrument for encouraging economically disadvantaged youth to attend college, it is clear that it alone will not increase college participation of disadvantaged groups. Improving academic achievement is essential. Poor academic preparation limits the benefits students derive from continuing their education past high school" (p.1 02). 25 During the 1980s Vincent Tinto's Student Integration Model (1975) was the most popular conceptual framework for research on college student retention. At that time Tin to theorized that college student persistence is a function of the compatibility between the motivation of the individual and his/her academic ability and the social and academic characteristics ofthe institution. By 1985 J.P. Bean was developing another perspective on student attrition the Model of Student Departure, and later with Vesper produced study results indicating that non-intellectual factors influenced student decisions to dropout, in particular family approval. Tinto (1987) later amended his earlier thinking to include those issues that are external to the institution as contributing factors to decisions to leave college. Tinto and his colleagues are often credited with changing the focus of student services from recruitment to that of retention. 56

PAGE 70

In their 1996 research on wage discrimination Darity, Guilkey and Winfrey addressed the ideas advanced by sociologist Thomas Sowell (1981) that discrimination is not the determining factor in the economic situation ofblacks but that hwnan capital is a greater determinant. These investigators concluded that "additional years of college appear to have a stronger effect on earnings than additional years of schooling overall" (p. 417) ... that "wage gap must be due to discrimination" (p. 421 ) ... "and to the extent that we have controlled for culture race appears to matter" (p. 422) This suggests that as the student is retained and persists toward completion hwnan capital is built that serves the society and the institutional goals of higher education. Learning Environments and Organizational Characteristics As institutions of higher education move from teaching to learning environments "colleges and universities are facing the need to transform themselves to adequately meet these challenges. That transformation is achieved through four interrelated and inexorably intertwined subprocesses" (Rowley Lujan, and Dolence 1997 pp. 309-311) Two ofthese, "realigning the organization with the environment 57

PAGE 71

and reengineering organizational processes to achieve dramatically higher productivity and quality" are directly related to concepts of organizational learning. These researchers indicate that organizations must realign their organizational intent within the context of "individualized learning and the evident need for and flexible enabling services." Reengineering "will necessitate structural changes" particularly related to concepts of open access and the development of hybrid disciplines and now degrees that allow students to reshape disciplines to meet their individual needs. Additionally as the organization is redesigned roles and responsibilities of college personnel will be redefmed and require strategic thinking and strategic decision making management. These managers will be able to 58

PAGE 72

effectively implement the concepts of "double-loop learning"2 6 and characteristics associated with learning organizations2 7 Such changes in the organization are related to the theoretical concepts of organizational development advanced by Nicholas Henry ( 1995) and Hal Rainey ( 1997) whose works indicate that organizational 2 6 The concept of double-loop learning developed by Chris Argyris and Donald Schon are those situations that require a critical analysis of complex situations where the circumstances are unique and do not fit the usual parameters of a recognizable problem. Reproductive problem-solving where the individual is able to apply prior solutions does not resolve the issue. In double-loop learning the individual utilizes productive problem-solving skills that incorporate the values and ethics of self and others in making informed choices This Model II "Theory-in-Use" approach acknowledges that decision-making at the organizational level is more often complex than straight forward The model requires reflection on how personal master programming (what one has come to believe is true or has merit) influences decision-making Additionally the application of double-loop learning demands a skilled level inquiry that examines the presentation of self in the process of problem solving (an aspect of reflexivity that necessitates a consideration of the influence of self on the subject or the setting). The early research by the Schon and Argyris team in developing these concepts lead to Schon's (1983) later work on "reflection-in action" that attempts to define knowledge of practitioners and their abilities to transmit these understandings and Argyris's (1982) development of "action science." 2 7 In adapting the work of Schon, David Bohm and Argyris Peter Senge in his text The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization identifies the fundamental premises underlying the concept of organizational learning. He indicates that there are five assumptions related to this concept that include; systems thinking shared vision mental models personal mastery and team learning. These principles emerge from in the theoretical concepts associated with action science. 59

PAGE 73

development stresses planned change that is throughout the organization and is designed to increase organizational effectiveness and viability through calculated interventions. Using a team building approach, Manual London applies similar principles of organizational learning for higher education institutions that wish to retain and increase their organizational vitality particularly in an environment of limited resources and external pressures. London extends the concept of community learners beyond students and faculty to the administration as a whole using a combination of action learning and team-building strategies. The research on transformational development in higher education is supported by the 1992 investigations of Alexander Astin (1994, 1993) founding director of the Cooperative Institutional Research Program. 1bis study broadened Astin's earlier database of college environment indicators by including three related to the institution. These institutional characteristics included student services, instructional services, as well as graduate programs, faculty salaries, and allocation of budget approaches. Astin indicates that institutional characteristics are important because they influence the values and relationships of the faculty in their development and delivery of the curriculum, and the relationship of students to other students and faculty in the academic community. 60

PAGE 74

According to the most recent research by the Association of American Colleges and Universities (Humphreys 1997) although the earlier discussions and subsequent research on diversity issues in higher education were directed toward "programs designed to help new students adjust to the larger campus community" .. .later "to include projects to transform the curriculum diversify the faculty and improve campus climates the current "purpose of many diversity initiatives has been to frame initiatives in terms of institutional mission." Is the new role of higher education institutions to prepare students for their responsibilities as citizens in their own democracy or for their roles in an ever more interconnected global society? To what extent does classroom heterogeneity help to facilitate diverse perspectives? What is the promise of justice for a diverse and democratic society? An Inclusion Perspective that Enhances Student Success and Institutional Excellence As early as 15 years ago in his study on college attrition of educational and economically disadvantaged students Richard Fox (1985) found that academic integration was the most salient aspect of development for this group of students ... that it might be said that the mission of a college in admitting disadvantaged or underprepared students is to 61

PAGE 75

negate the predictions generated by the traditional regression equations which if taken literally might result in decreased educational opportunity for those who apply to college with less advantaged backgrounds ( 6) In a 1997 project at Stanford University designed to examine the social science literature related to the intersection of race and higher education Mitchell Chang and his associates concluded "1. there is clear evidence of continuing inequalities in educational opportunity along racial categories ; 2. test-based definitions of merit are incomplete; 3. race is a major social psychological factor in the American consciousness behaviors ; and 4 racially diversified environments when properly utilized, lead to quantitative as well as qualitative improvements in educational outcomes for all parties" (p. 16) Eight years ago educational policy analyst William Byron described the "uneasy triangle" that is closing in on higher education (as) quality diversity, and budgetary efficiency. He surmised that it was "the role of government to balance the three objectives .. (but concluded that) achieving balance between and among desirable policy objectives is an unending challenge for policymakers" (p. 177). Many who are responsible for the development and implementation of higher education policies believe that barriers to degree attainment for disadvantaged 62

PAGE 76

students could be eliminated ifthere was equality of access However, mere admission does not guarantee an opportunity for success. Such an approach alone cannot and does not address the other obstacles faced by this group of students when they enter college. As mentioned earlier financing the cost of education is a huge challenge for students with limited personal and family economic resources Much of the literature (e .g., Anaya 1 999; Redmond and Merisotis 2003 ; Terenzini 1997) related to student success focuses on traditional predictors based on high school performance and results of standardized achievement tests. Colleges use such indicators to make decisions on admissions and they are also applied in determining how successful a student might be in the college i.e. when used as predictors of graduation rates. In their effort to identify student outcome variables that might be useful at the post-secondary level the research team of Cunningham, Redmond and Merisotis 2003 identified primary and secondary outcomes to address the policy issue of quality and educational effectiveness. The primary outcomes included the expected skills in communication, computation, content learning and workplace. The secondary outcomes of attitudes values social development quality of life economic benefits civic development and psychological development clearly seek to assess many of the citizenship and personal development 63

PAGE 77

concerns of parents policy makers and the students themselves. These outcomes measures appear to be moving toward a more qualitative method of evaluating student success that are included in the primary goals of student support services. Other critical indicators for student success such a motivation, family influences, financial resources, and institutional characteristics (that may include support services) often are not factored-in as predictors. It is interesting that applying these limited predictors seems to suggest that what the student brings to the setting is more important than what occurs while the student is enrolled. If this is not accurate and what happens to a student while attending a college speaks more to the success of that student, then institutions of higher education would be well advised toreexamine how they predict and assess student success. In doing so, colleges might fmd an opportunity to develop admissions policies and retention strategies that focus on their expectation to develop the talent a student brings to the campus. This "talent development approach to excellence" that has been advanced by Astin (1990) measures the excellence of an institution based on how well the college is able to further develop talent that is demonstrated by the student upon entry. This perspective is philosophically compatible with the objectives of SSS programs as they relate to student goals. SSS programs also seem to serve the institution in attaining 64

PAGE 78

the kind of excellence that most indicate they seek. These are the kind of benefits to colleges that may have been facilitated by SSS programs that has not been developed in the research literature. This study addresses such concerns. If SSS programs are at the intersection of institutional goals of excellence and successful student outcomes, it is quite possible that SSS programs have been instrumental in developing this connection. To that extent, institutions may have learned how to better achieve excellence from the experience of hosting SSS programs on their campuses. Student Support Services (TRIO) Programs History of SSS Programs Access to higher education for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, i.e., minority, low-income, first-generation to college, and disabled, received its greatest boost with the authorization by the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 of Upward Bound programs. These programs were moved one year later into the Higher Education Act of 1965 (34 C.F.R. 646). Convinced that education was the route to equitable and full citizen participation, the Johnson Administration's War on Poverty was one of the earliest efforts by the federal government to provide higher educational 65

PAGE 79

opportunities specifically targeted for minority and other students who had been traditionally underrepresented in colleges and universities. The Upward Bound program was the first in a series of such outreach efforts that became known as TRI02 8 programs with the addition ofTalent Search in 1965 and Special Services for Disadvantaged Students (now entitled Student Support Services) in 1968. The Higher Education Amendments of 1972 and 1976 established the Educational Opportunity Centers and Training Programs for Federal TRIO Programs and by 1986 the sixth the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program was added. During the last decade additional programming has included the creation of the Upward Bound Math/Science Program in 1990 and the TRIO Dissemination Partnership program authorized by the 1998 Higher Education Act Amendments (20 U S.C 402h) 28Although called TRIO reflecting the original three programs today there are actually eight programs each with distinct and unique objectives TRIO programs are designed to identify promising disadvantaged students (the Talent Search component) prepare them to do college level work ( the Upward Bound component) provide information on academic and fmancial opportunities (the Education Opportunity Centers) and provide tutoring and support services as the student arrives on the college campus (the original Special Services for Disadvantaged Students and now the Student Support Services component). 66

PAGE 80

The original stated goal of the Student Support Services program is "to identify qualified individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds, to prepare them for a program of postsecondary education, (and) to provide support services for such students who are pursuing programs of postsecondary education." (20 U.S.C. 402A). This statement has been refmed to include three specific objectives, "1. To increase college retention and graduation rates for eligible students; 2. To increase transfer rates of eligible students from 2 year to 4 year institutions; and 3. To foster an institutional climate supportive of the success oflow-income and frrst generation students and individuals with disabilities" (20U.S.C. 402D 1070a). Today "SSS projects may only be sponsored by institutions of higher education or combinations of higher education institutions." (Office of Postsecondary Education. 2000.) Program services include instruction in basic skills, tutorial services, counseling (academic, financial, career, four-year college transfer planning graduate/professional school admission guidance financial aid acquisition and personal), mentoring, exposure to cultural events and academic programs and special services for students with limited English proficiency. To be eligible the individual must be enrolled at one of the 796 grantee institutions of higher education, be first-generation college students, low income, or a student with a disability who evidences academic need. Two-thirds of 67

PAGE 81

project participants must be either disabled or first-generation students from lowincome families and one-third of the disabled program students must also be income (The Office of Higher Education Programs. 1998.) Documentation of Success AJthough several research studies confmn the success of TRIO programs, specifically the Student Support Services component, there are also indications of their limitations. One of the more comprehensive studies conducted by Frank Balz and Melanie Esten (1998) ofthe National Association oflndependent ColJeges and Universities compared TRI029 student results and nonTRIO low-income, first generation student results across institutional types, i.e., four-year, two-year, public, and private to determine if there were differences in persistence, degree attainment, and student satisfactions. Their findings indicate that TRIO participants attained the bachelor's degree at higher levels (a 30 percent graduation rate) than those who were 29The designation in this study of TRIO refers to only the Student Support Services component of TRIO. It not unusual for institutions to refer to the SSS program as TRIO, particularly if it is the only TRIO program component on the campus. Institutions that host more than one of the TRIO programs use the specific program name, i.e., Upward Bound, EOP Centers, SSS, etc. 68

PAGE 82

non-TRIO, low-income, frrst-generation-college students (a 12.9 percent graduation rate). This data suggests that students who participate in TRIO programs have more than a 1 00 percent greater chance of completing the bachelor's degree than those who qualify for the program but do not participate. Balz and Esten conclude ''there are many eligible students who are not being served by TRIO who require additional assistance to get them into and through our nation's institutions ofhigher learning. The changing demographics of students entering U.S. colleges or universities over the next decade will put an even greater demand on these services" (p. 344). The Council for Opportunity in Education (1999) estimates that only about 50 percent ofthose eligible are currently being served by TRIO programs. Furthermore, additional research indicates that it is not just underachieving students who benefit from support services. At the University of Texas at Austin a 1994 study of receptivity to support services and success during the first year of college determined that while high-ability students wanted and were more receptive to receiving academic assistance than at-risk students, in both groups where students ended the freshman year with grade point averages (GPAs) of at least 2.0, there was no significant difference between the receptivity of each group to support services. Although these fmdings are limited to one institution, they are consistent with other 69

PAGE 83

research on the retention of high-risk students in higher education who are overwhelmingly low income minority and/or first-generation (Abrams and Jernigan 1984 ; Clewell and Fricken 1986 ; Darden Bagaka s et.al. 1994) that affirms the critical need for support services to assist in the success of undergraduate students. While student persistence is most valuable in assessing the success of college students the primary outcome measure of SSS programs has been graduation rates. In a longitudinal study Rutgers University's Livingston College compared the graduation rates of its first-time full time freshmen cohorts who were enrolled in the Rutgers Student Support Services Program (RSSSP) to the same freshmen cohorts who were not program participants. Their investigation revealed that the mean graduation rate of 60.6 percent for the College was only 4.4 percentage points higher that the 13-year mean of 56.2 percent for the RSSSP graduates (Thomas Farrow et.al. 1998 p. 396) at five years. Except fortwo years 1980 and 1981 (Thomas Farrow 1998) the Livingston College freshman cohorts graduated at rates higher than the RSSSP cohorts. However of critical interest to the studies of graduation rates as determinants of student success was the fmding that RSSSP participants posted graduation rates at 100 percent after eight years. For the research community this suggests the need to track undergraduate graduation rates beyond the 70

PAGE 84

traditional six-year period for a more accurate assessment of this factor. Such an approach to the study of graduation rates is substantiated by the work of Balz and Esten even when investigating these outcomes at private institutions," 49 .6% of TRIO ... had attained their bachelor s degrees 10 years later ... 43o/oOfnon-TRIO participants" (p. 344). In the U.S. Department of Education's Strategic Plan 1998-2002 TRIO s Student Support Services programs were cited as being key in providing the services needed to help disadvantaged students enter and complete postsecondary education (p. 5) and served an important role in meeting DOE's objective of improving the graduation rates and decreasing the gap in completion rates between lowand high income and minority and non-minority students (p. 4). Confidence in the ability of the SSS program to assume such a primary role in advancing DOE s higher education agenda is perhaps based on a thirty year track record of the program's success. Research results on program effects indicate that SSS programs generally have a positive effect on outcome indicators. Short-term studies on the program seem to have been effective in refining research directions of long-term investigations so that program contributions to the success of students can be more clearly identified. For example in their study of 1979-80 short-term effects of Student Support Services for 71

PAGE 85

Disadvantaged Students (SSSDS) Coulson, Bradford and Kaye (1981) found that there was a positive relationship between the outcomes of persistence rates courses attempted and completed and frequency of student use of services. This study also determined that participants who received the most services had lower GP As than those who received fewer services or non-program students. In their follow-up study of long-term effects of SSSD services (Coulson and Bradford 1 983) the team found that although there was a positive relationship between a moderate level of services during the freshman year and persistence rates and courses completed (contradicting the 1975 work of Davis Burkheimer and Patterson indicating that the services were helpful but not related to the success of disadvantaged students) that academic services beyond the first year were associated with negative long-term outcomes. Furthermore they found that using non-academic services i.e. cultural events and student orientation to the campus were positively related to long-term outcomes such as career planning. On the other hand other research (Martinez 1999) has found that the study skills course grade was a more effective predictor of graduation among SSS participants than other factors. One of the most recent comprehensive studies of SSS programs that challenges the conclusions by Coulson and Bradford on long-term outcomes is the 72

PAGE 86

one mandated by Congress and conducted by the research team of Chaney Muraskin Cahalan and (1997) of Westat, Inc. Their longitudinal investigation examined the characteristics of program participants the types of services received and the impact of services on student grades semester credits earned, and persistence in college. The study included students from the 1991-92 academic year who were first time entrants and tracked their progress for three years. In comparing the performance of2, 900 program participants at 47 sampled 2-year and 4-year institutions with comparable non-program students, fmdings indicated the following: SSS showed a small (because most students received only a modest amount of services mean number of service hours during the freshman year was 32 with a median of 14; for nonfreshmen the mean was 15 hours and the median was 6) but, positive and statistically significant effect for all three measures of student outcomes. -GP As were increased: During the first year by a mean of 0.15 in the first year resulting in a mean GP A of 2.29; During the second year the mean increase was 0.11 to a GPA of 2.44 ; 73

PAGE 87

During the first three years combined the mean increase was 0.11 to a mean GPA of2.59. -Earned semester hours were increased: By a mean of 1.25 for a total of 20.91 during the first year; By a mean of2.25 for a total of73.38 in the first three years combined. -Retention was increased: From 60 to 67 percent at the same institution to the second year; By 9 percent (from 40 to 49percent) to the third year at the same institution and increased by 3 percent (from 74 to 77 percent) at any institution ; Programs that blended SSS and non-SSS services had increased rates of retention at both the same and any institution. (Chaney et.al. pp. 7-11). This study demonstrated that although the greatest impact generally occurred during the frrst year when most SSS services were received some SSS services (including academic ones) received in the frrst year showed persisting impacts in later 74

PAGE 88

years. For example the peer tutoring component showed positive impacts on all three outcomes over multiple years ... (and) though counseling failed to show a positive and statistically significant effect in the first year it did show such an effect in later years" (Chaney et. al. p 378). These fmdings not only demonstrate the positive impacts of SSS programs on critical student short-term outcomes but also, and most important the success of program services throughout the undergraduate years. Additionally in this particular study the researchers addressed issues specifically related to the impact of SSS program services on other institutional support services and concluded that SSS services did not supplant the offerings of non-SSS services and may well have encouraged the receipt of and offering of non SSS services (p. 374). In speculating why SSS participation was associated with the increased of receipt ofnon-SSS services and (why) non-SSS students tended to show higher participation in supplemental services at institutions that offered SSS programs than at institutions without SSS programs ," these investigators concluded that SSS participation might be an indication of students willingness to make use of supplemental services. That is a willingness on the part of a student to participate in supportive services suggests a receptivity by that student to accept assistance that has 75

PAGE 89

the potential to facilitate his/her success. Put another way, a student who has experienced positive benefits from one campus resource has a greater expectation of similar benefits from other campus support services and is therefore, more likely to pursue assistance from such resources. These investigators did not address the second issue of why non-program students evidenced higher participation in support services at institutions that have SSS programs. A possible explanation might be that the value of seeking assistance from college resources has become imbedded in the culture of SSS host institutions. The demonstrated behavior of offering and utilizing academic support services has acquired a higher or a more acceptable value at such colleges. A reflection of this as a value may have been modeled by the SSS program, other institutional support services or the offering of the service, say SSS, and may have iirlluenced the development of or emphasis on the value of seeking assistance. Failure to address this issue is additional evidence of the need for research that explores the possibilities of value-added benefits received by institutions that host SSS programs. 76

PAGE 90

Limitations of the Research on SSS Programs Although the work by the Westat team is commendable it does not address the issue of whether or not institutions that host SSS programs have been sufficiently influenced by the merits of the program to then begin offering similar services to all students The research team speculates that some institutions have a strong orientation toward providing supplemental services i e. a religious affiliated college might have a mission of educating persons of the same faith. In such cases it may be accurate to assess the presence ofSSS programs as a reflection of the institution s orientation. Again institutional behavior seems to be a reflection of the cultural values of the college. However the majority of SSS programs are not located in private college settings but in public institutions On this issue the Westat team concludes "some institutions may have a stronger orientation towards providing supplemental services than others ; the offering of SSS programs may (emphasis added) be an indication of such an orientation rather than a cause of it (p 376). The research endeavor in this proposal has the potential of developing more accurate information on this issue of what influences a host institution to provide support services for non-program students 77

PAGE 91

In the 1994 Interim Report of a study for the U. S. Department of Education by Westat, Inc. that surveyed 200 SSS project directors and conducted case studies on 30 SSS campuses and 20 non-SSS campuses, the major questions addressed were, "What are the characteristics of Student Support Services participants, projects, and institutions? What services do students receive? (and) Where do these projects fit within the larger framework of campus-wide support services and efforts to improve student performance?" Findings most germane to the topic of this research were those that focused on the last question, where SSS programs "fit". In that regard the researchers indicated that "although SSS was often among the first services available on campus for disadvantaged students, at most institutions it is now one of several service providers and there is little evidence of direct SSS efforts to shape larger institutional policies." This research does not attempt to explain how or why institutions that had SSS projects as early service providers currently had other institutional resources as the primary support service providers. Additionally, if there was no evidence of direct efforts by SSS projects to influence institutional policies, then what influenced colleges to invest institutional resources in the provision of support services? And, although the 1997 study by the Westat team focuses on program impact, as mentioned earlier, their fmdings address primarily student 78

PAGE 92

performance, student outcomes and program characteristics, but fails to explore rationale that might account for non-program students having a higher participation rate at schools with SSS than at colleges that do not have SSS. Investigation of issues pertaining to how the presence of such programs impacts institutional decision making, regarding services for nonprogram students that evidence a dispersion of service benefits, were not and have not been examined. lfhost institutions accrue unintended benefits from the presence of SSS programs, and these facilitate a better opportunity for the achievement of their primary mission for all students, this supports the value of such programs beyond the traditional perspective that their primary worth is in serving only the participants. Furthermore, the ability of the host institutions to apply learning from the presence of SSS programs might suggest that such institutions tend to have a common set of characteristics that facilitate the capacity to learn from experiencing SSS programs and apply the new knowledge toward accomplishing college objectives. Potential Contributions of the Study In an effort to demonstrate program success research that supports a rationale to continue funding SSS programs has focused exclusively on program participants. It 79

PAGE 93

is the intent of this study to uncover some of the other influences of SSS programs beyond those related to program participants. This study first identifies the most salient factors impacting changes in the world of higher education: governance; function; and student demographics. These factors defme the environment in which the issues of institutional quality, accountability, equity and access are addressed. The historical presence of SSS programs on college campuses provide the theoretical structure for examining organizational learning theory and diffusion theory concepts in higher education settings. It is within the context of diffusion theory that this study frrst attempts to identify and document what influences SSS programs have had on the colleges themselves that serve as host campus sites. Second this study uses primary data that is examined applying statistical analyses of multiple variables. The database was developed from the survey that was distributed nationally to SSS programs and to colleges that did not have SSS programs. Additional data was produced from structured interviews that were conducted with SSS program directors. Third by expanding the body of knowledge that currently exists on SSS programs the study could provide funding sources and the colleges with a more comprehensive understanding of the benefits these programs provide for its students, as well as an awareness of the indirect advantages non-program students receive that have the 80

PAGE 94

potential of enhancing their success in undergraduate education. This third research goal is based on institutional learning theory. Data from the perspective of how the college is benefitted by SSS programs provides institutions with a more solid rationale for infonned decision making when allocating the resources of the university and its potential funding sources. Furthennore, ifthe results of this research suggest that host colleges have indeed made decisions to provide SSS-type academic support services for non-program students after the start of the SSS program on their campus it suggests that SSS programs have influenced institutional decision making clearly implying the presence of institutional learning. 81

PAGE 95

CHAPTER3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Introduction The aforementioned chapter indicates that the primary objective of SSS programs has been to improve the academic performance of program participants so that more students with program profile backgrounds are successful in attaining the baccalaureate degree. This perspective in defining program effectiveness has focused the SSS program research on student outcomes as the almost exclusive measure of program impact (Chaney Muraskin, Cahalan, and Rak, 1997; Martinez, 1999). Although this method of program evaluation has merit (particularly for funding purposes) it fails to identify and assess the possible influence these programs might have at the institutional level of student or academic services departments where decision making that affects all students occurs. This investigation explores whether or not the presence of successful SSS programs on college campuses have influenced these same institutions to provide 82

PAGE 96

similar SSS-type services for non-program students. Furthermore, for host colleges that evidence influences from SSS programs by providing similar services for non program students the study seeks to determine whether there are common perceptions about the role of these programs in assisting colleges to attain their educational goals. Finally the study asks whether or not there are differences in support services between host and non-host schools and what institutional characteristics do these schools share Research Questions As evidenced in the previous chapter this investigation, that examines potential indirect benefits of SSS programs is missing from the literature. Using student outcome measures as indicators the current research literature attempts to imply what impact SSS program services have had the host institutions. 1bis research that limits its scope to making inferences from data collected for other purposes does not demonstrate through the use of direct measures if and in what ways the presence of SSS programs influence the institutions. Services that enhance the success of students are of value to and benefit the college. Evidence that supports 83

PAGE 97

the replication of SSS-type program services to non-program students provides a method of measuring the direct affects of SSS programs on host colleges. The following questions establish the research framework for the study: 1. What are the differences in SSS-type services provided for non-program students prior to and after the commencement of SSS programs? 2. What are the differences between SSS host and non-host colleges in the quantity and the kinds of SSS-type services provided for non-program students? 3. Do schools perceive that the presence ofSSS helps the college attain its educational goals of instruction, research service by improving quality accountability student equity and student access? 4. Do colleges believe that the presence SSS has improved and/or increased academic support services for non-program students? 5. What institutional characteristics e.g. student body composition type or control selectivity faculty to student ratio ecetera are predominant among those schools that identify value-added benefits? 6. What are the policy implications of the findings? 84

PAGE 98

Research Hypotheses 1brough the use of survey research methods and structured follow-up interv i ews this study explores whether or not there have been indirect benefits derived by colleges that sponsor SSS programs. Specifically, it seeks to determine if the presence of SSS programs has influenced the host institutions to provide similar services for all students. Based on the research (Muraskin, 1997) indicating the best practices of the most successful SSS programs (also see Appendix A) 12 SSS-type services have been identified as the independent variables that are used to examine services for nonprogram students provided prior to the start of SSS and after the advent of SSS. HI SSS-type support services3 0 for non-program students were provided by more institutions after the arrival of the SSS program on campus than before the advent of SSS. As mentioned earlier SSS research has been limited to examining student outcomes Comparative research on academic support services at host and non-host schools does not exist. This query uses the 12 SSStype services to evaluate 30 Definitions of SSS-type services are presented in Appendix A Definition of Terms ." 85

PAGE 99

how host and non-host schools compare on services for non-program students and is expressed as the following two hypotheses:. H2 There are differences in the number and kinds of SSS-type services provided for non-program students at SSS host institutions than at non-host colleges with the host schools offering more SSS-type services for non-program students than non-host colleges. that assist colleges in attaining their primary goals of instruction, researcfi and service are viewed by the institution positively and considered a benefit. To what degree institutions perceive that SSS programs have contributed to achievement of their goals by assisting the college to improve quality, accountability, student equity and student access is expressed by the following hypothesis: H3 Colleges that implemented support services for nonprogram students after hosting a SSS program will identify value-added impact benefits of SSS programs that assisted the institution in achieving its educational goals by improving quality/accountability and access/equity. The literature indicates that colleges generally consider supporting students academically is an essential function of the school and is directly related to advancing its educational goals. The degree to which SSS host schools compare to non-host 86

PAGE 100

schools on their perception of the value of such services and whether the perceptions are associated with any predominate institutional characteristics3 1 is articulated by the following hypothesis : H4 Among all schools that provide SSS-type services for all students those that are SSS host colleges perceive such services as beneficial to the college in attaining its educational goals and evidence certain predominant institutional characteristics. Research Design Data Collection Survey research methods were selected for this investigation. The goal of this method is to produce data from those institutions that have a higher potential for providing knowledge on indicators related to the most successful SSS programs SSS type services for non-program students attitudes about the role of SSS programs and institutional missions, and the selected institutional characteristics. This method has 3 1Definitions of institutional characteristics are indicated in Appendix A. 87

PAGE 101

I the potential of obtaining information from a broad representation of the population in a direct manner that allows for statistical analysis of the results. The research attempts to identify what has occurred in the provision of academic support services for all students at colleges that host SSS programs. Survey information, a preferred research strategy ''when the research goal is to describe the incidence or prevalence of a phenomenon" (Yin, 1994, p. 6), were collected from selected institutions to address this question. Since there is no existing data base that provides the kind of information needed by this study (the kind that examines the development of services as indicators of successful SSS programs with the implementation of similar services for non-SSS students) for analysis and the population is quite large, the use of a survey allows for the collection of data in an efficient manner. Additionally, survey information provides the opportunity to develop a foundation of parameters for the folJow-up structured interviews that will seek confirmation and clarification of 88

PAGE 102

questionnaire responses of a sample group of colleges32 These follow-up interviews provide an opportunity to confirm data analysis from the survey and explore in more detail themes such as those on decision making processes that require elaboration for clarity Longevity of SSS Programs as a Criterion for Inclusion in Sample The parameters of this investigation included SSS programs where students are enrolled at the undergraduate level and where the host institution has operated the program for consecutive funding cycles Although students in this study who have participated in a SSS program may also have received services from other TRIO 32Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998 p.46) describe type of research design as a sequential mixed method approach where the researcher conducts a qualitative phase of a study and then a separate quantitative phase or vice versa. Because the two phases are clearly distinct, this allows the investigator "to present thoroughly the paradigm assumptions behind each (Creswell, 1995 p. 177). 89

PAGE 103

programs, e.g., Educational Opportunity Centers or Upward Bound33 this study is confined to only the Student Support Services program component of TRIO. In comparison to other TRIO program components, SSS is unique because SSS participants actually are enrolled at the college. This status makes them similar to other enrolled students and fosters an institutional perspective of responsibility and accountability for student success that is directed toward all other students. Since participants in other components of TRIO programs might have been specially or temporarily enrolled at the host institution, they are not part of that cohort of students who have a status of regular enrollment whose privileges include use of college facilities, student governance voting, evaluation of faculty and services, and eligibility 33Educational Opportunity Centers and Upward Bound are also TRlO programs each with a distinct mission and objectives. Educational Opportunity Centers are usually based resource centers that provide persons who are at least 19 years of age (two-thirds must also be low-income and first generation) with assistance in the application process for college and fmancial aid, academic advising, career information and guidance and personal counseling. Upward Bound provides services for eligible (two thirds must be low-income and first generation) 9th through 12th grade students. This program focuses on tutoring, supplemental instruction, mentoring, and encouraging and assisting students to pursue a program of study at the postsecondary level. Participants in SSS programs if eligible at the time may have participated in either of these programs that are components of the entire TRIO offerings.(Office ofHigher Education Programs: Access and Retention Programs for Disadvantaged Students) 90

PAGE 104

for participation in any school sponsored activity. Therefore, institutions may not have tile same commitment and vested interest in these "visitors" to their campuses as they do to their own students. Enrolled students can and do influence the colleges or universities where they attend. In most instances SSS program students have unique personal backgrounds and life experiences that are not present in the traditional population of undergraduates. Just as a college impacts these students through an exposure to the environment of higher education, so too, the students influence the institutions with their unique backgrounds and perspectives. Often host institutions have found that they must make changes in the ways that they have delivered higher education in order to assure the success of SSS program students, who are, after all, their students. Many of these institutions have hosted SSS programs for at least ten years. Continued funding is usually indicative of projects that have successfully met program objectives. A major factor in being refunded over a consecutive funding cycle period has been the demonstrated ability of the college to construct successful SSS programs, ones that produce students who attain the baccalaureate degree. Providing an environment in which SSS programs can accomplish their intended goals often requires that the institutions solve problems resulting in the effective removal ofbarriers to success in the program. Such 91

PAGE 105

solutions may require changes34 in the organizational structure of the college, particularly in areas related to student services and academic affairs. If such organizational changes are going to occur and enhance the success of a SSS it is most likely that these will happen on campuses that have hosted the program over a long period of time. Institutions that are not in their first funding cycle of hosting a SSS program provides a reasonable amount of time for the institutional host to recognize and implement significant organizational changes over the duration of the program's presence. For comparison purposes the institutions have been grouped by the number of years that they have hosted SSS programs, e.g .. less than five, five to nine and more than nine years. Additionally, many of the hoSting institutions have discovered that the unintended benefits of SSS program presence have enhanced the services that they 34Mary Levin, Joel Levin and Scalia (1997) indicate that there are five critical components of a comprehensive academic-support program. These include proactive interventions, small-group instructional format, contextually-based learning strategies, language skills emphasis and excellence in teaching. Each has its own potential barrier e.g., faculty may resist any modifications in their teaching strategies and curriculum content, advisors might think that assertive student assistance undermine the independence of students, and administrators might believe that they are losing control over their budgets when allocation of financial resources might be assigned such initiatives. 92

PAGE 106

provide to non-program participants. For example some colleges may have learned that faculty who receive additional instruction in multiple pedagogies use the knowledge in all of their classes, not just in those for SSS program students. The application of this knowledge enhances the educational success of all students who have the specially trained faculty member as an instructor or advisor It is the intent of this study to explore how the presence of SSS programs related to similar issues have had comparable influences on the academic and service areas of the college and in what ways the resulting changes may have benefitted the college. The Office of Higher Education has indicated that the most successful Student Support Services programs are those that have aspects of program "institutionalization" or ownership that often require changes in the organization. These characteristics of program ownership range from providing centrally located space for the program to fully equipping computer labs. For colleges that have hosted SSS programs through consecutive funding cycles it is possible that the kind of thinking that facilitated change to better assure the success of SSS programs strongly resembles the theoretical assumptions related to organizational learning. Social scientists David Birchall and Laurence Lyons (1997) apply the tenets of Argyris and 93

PAGE 107

Schon's reasoning and action theotY5 when they defme organizational learning as "the ability of the organization to develop strategies and tactics to respond to the changing environment and for members to learn collectively from a range of impulses, translating the many cues into appropriate action" (pp. 162-163). For example, Arthur Hauptman and Patricia Smith (1994, pp. 99-1 02), in their discussion of the role of TRIO programs in student persistence, indicate that SSS programs serve on average only 50 percent of eligible students because of the lack of funding (perhaps as a federal encouragement to have colleges provide more support). At the program level directors find it difficult to turn away needy students and attempt to stretch limited funding to serve more than the intention of the award. Institutions sensitive to these issues often establish services similar to those in SSS program or provide additional resources to the SSS program to assist nonparticipants who clearly need the services. This behavior seems to demonstrate the assumptions associated with organizational learning and has the affect of leveraging SSS program benefits for the host college. 35Researchers Chris Argyris and Donald Schon are credited with developing theory related to connecting reasoning, learning and action at the individual, group, and organizational levels. Their work helped develop definitions of learning within the context of action. It was their belief that learning could only occur "when you can produce what it is you claim to know" (Argyris, 1993, p. 8 ). 94

PAGE 108

Selection of Sample Institutions The fo1Iowing criteria were used to select host and non-host institutions for the study: 1. Only four year colleges or universities that award the baccalaureate degree were considered (approximately 75 percent or 600 ofSSS programs are located in such institutions). Four-year institutions have established a central goal of educating students for a bachelor's degree. To that end they attract students whose educational objectives are a four-year degree. These students are neither usually attending only for enrichment purposes nor are they are taking a few courses to enhance job skills, as is often the situation for students in community college or proprietary schools. Students in four year colleges overwhelmingly are intent on obtaining a baccalaureate degree and to that extent are typical of students with similar educational goals across the nation. 2. Those colleges or universities with undergraduate enrollments between 1,500 and 10,000 only were considered (about 40 percent of the host institutions that are four-year colleges have enrollments within these limits). Institutions with enrollments within these parameters must establish an organizational structure that has the resources to manage the demands of such a population. Essentially, schools 95

PAGE 109

with enrollments of this size must have department areas or divisions that address student services (i.e., admissions/registration, advising/counseling, fmancial aid and accounts, career planning, etc.) and academic or instructional concerns (i.e., academic departments, faculty development/training, academic programs, etc.). In that capacity the organizational structure requires numerous personnel with designated duties that do not overlap the responsibilities of others. Their duties are clearly defined and are generally standard throughout the nation. There can be a reasonable expectation that responses by these college personnel to survey questions might be from a similar perspective, i.e., SSS program director and students services administrator, in relation to similar job related responsibilities. Universities with student undergraduate enrollments larger than 10,000 may have organizational structures so vast that multiple or duplicated support services operate in each college or school and student services officers may not have adequate knowledge of program operations outside of their own areas of responsibility. College personnel needed to have a fairly comprehensive understanding of the organizational structure of their entire institution in order to respond meaningfully to these specific areas on the survey. 3. Review of the roster of the 1999 SSS Program Grantees (Office of Postsecondary Education Higher Education Programs 2000) indicated that at least 96

PAGE 110

half or 400 were four-year institutions with undergraduate enrollments between I ,500 and 1 0, 000. A total of 481 of the schools that met the enrollment criteria were surveyed although it was anticipated that only 200 will have been funded for 1 0 uninterrupted years. 36 4. A comparison group of approximately 300 randomly selected four-year colleges or universities with enrollments between 1 ,500 and 1 0,000 that did not have (and have not had) SSS programs approximating a proportional representation of private and public, and regional (northeast, south, central!Midwest, and western sectors) colleges were surveyed Data collected from this group were compared with the information obtained from the SSS host college group to determine if there are differences in academic support services provided these students after the advent of 36 The usual funding cycle for SSS programs is three years. Exceptional programs have received five-year awards. Programs that have operated for ten uninterrupted years have demonstrated a level of success sufficient to obtain continuous refunding. Having met this standard assures a level of acceptable endorsement by the U.S. Department's Office of lligher Education. Additionally, ten years allow for the presence of the program during a time when higher education institutions were beginning to recognize the need to rethink their primary objectives (particularly as they related to supporting student success) and the organizational arrangements that supported them. Assessment of a potential influence of SSS programs on transitional organizational changes requires that SSS programs have been present during the time period in which these changes may have occurred. 97

PAGE 111

the SSS program (H 1) and other differences in the number of SSS-type services (lli), perception of value-added benefits {H3 ), perceptions of the SSS program benefits for the college (H4) and other institutional characters, public/private, number of years hosting, etc Surveys ?,.n initial pilot of20 SSS col1eges were surveyed (using e-mail as the primary response format and standard mailing as the follow-up format for non-respondents) to identify those institutions that established SSS-type services for nonprogram students after having a SSS project (identified as post SSS institutions) on the campus. FolJow-up telephone contacts with respondents and non-respondents on the ease of using this format indicated that many thought that the format was too difficult to folJow online and ended up printing the survey and returning it by mail. As a result of this feedback a decision was made to send the final survey by mail to host and non host institutions with a return addressed envelope enclosed. It was this population of respondents (and the responses from the pilot since the survey content did not change) from which data were collected for analysis. 98

PAGE 112

Additionally, the survey solicited the perceptions of SSS program directors on the changes that they believe had occurred related to improving services for nonprogram students and their perceptions of the impacts of SSS program presence might have had on these changes. The director of the SSS program at each institution was solicited for response to the survey (See Appendix B "Survey of Student Academic Support Programs for Host Institutions"). A total of 481 schools were sent surveys in order to keep the numbers sufficiently high for evaluation. A 21 percent response rate is within the limits of statistical guideline procedures indicating an acceptable power of results37 A similar survey of 432 colleges that did not have SSS programs was conducted to develop data on the types of student services provided, student outcomes, institutional characteristics, and an identification of the value-added benefits such services provide. Directors of Student Services/Student Affairs at these colleges were asked to complete the survey questionnaire (See Appendix C "Survey of Student Academic Support Programs for Non-host Institutions"). Information from 37Factors that should be addressed to improve response rates were adhered to in this study. These included issues on relevance, length, layout, format, cover letter and return envelope (O'Sullivan ans Rassel, 1999). 99

PAGE 113

these institutions were analyzed to determine if there is a tendency for more support services to be provided at host schools rather than non-host colleges and whether there is a difference in the perception of benefits to the college between these two groups of institutions. Institutional characteristics were collected from all surveyed colleges to determine if any provide a high confidence level for predicting which would be more likely to provide support services for non-program students at host or non-host schools and which viewed academic support services as helpful in attaining institutional goals Corroboration of Data Collected: Follow-up Structured Interviews From the completed questionnaires ten SSS schools were contacted for follow-up interviews (See Appendix E "Responses to Interview Questions") The purpose of the sessions were to provide respondents with an opportunity to confirm clarify and/or elaborate on information they have reported in the questionnaire. Additionally this session was used to solicit a more detailed perceptions by the 100

PAGE 114

respondents of the ways in which they believed that the institution had received value added benefits or been impacted by the presence of SSS programs on the campus. Methods of Data Analysis This study examines the effect of SSS programs on SSS-type services for non program students by analyzing responses to the questionnaire applying the standard statistical analysis methods. Responses from the follow-up interviews were used to corroborate results of the survey analyses. Since many of the hypotheses testing required an evaluation of the differences between groups independent t-test to examine the differences between the overall group means. Using t-statistic based on "t distribution" that was developed by W.S. Gossett "writing under the name of Student ... now know as the Student's t distribution" (Welch and Comer, 1988, p. 210) allows for the observation of the differences in means between the sample populations to determine whether the null hypothesis of SSS programs having no effect on SSS type services for non-program students. Since groups were not equal SPSS software automatically weights the variance of each sample or uses a pooled variance estimate t-test (Field, 2000, Shanna, 1996). Additionally, ANOV A is used when there are more than three variables e.g., in H4 where benefits of SSS programs are analyzed 101

PAGE 115

and "the ANOV A can fmd a significant difference among several group means even when no two of the means are significantly different from one another" (Barry Cohen, 1996, p. 457). Relationship of Independent Variables to the Dependent Variables The study assessed the impact of the independent variables of the presences or absence (formats of prior/post SSS experiences and host/non-host also used) on the provision of SSS-type services for non-program students. Using t-test allowed for the assessment of the variability of sample means based on standard error and therefore allows for a prediction of confidence level in applying the results of sample data to the population. The independent samples test (Levene's Test) that is similar tot-test allowed for assessment of whether the variances of groups were equal. If the Levene test reports significance at p 0.05 the null hypothesis was rejected and endorsement that the variances were significantly different was affinned. For tbe purposes of this study, based on the standard error, if the difference between the sample means is greater than expected, confidence of the impact of SSS programs on SSS-type services for non-program students should increase allowing a rejection ofthe null hypothesis. Additionally, the inclusion of non-host colleges 102

PAGE 116

should allow for a similar analysis of those variables particularly related to the perceptions by schools of the value-added benefits of academic support services. Using Hlas an example, the below Figure 3.1 provides a depiction of the relationship for Hl of the independent variables to dependent variables from a geneml conceptual perspective while Figure 3.2 shows the relationships of independent variable to dependent variables. 103

PAGE 117

Figure 3.1 Conceptual View ofthe Effect of Independent Variables on the Dependent Variables Independent Variables of SSS-type services For Post SSS SSS-type Services Provided Pre or Post SSS Dependent Variables of Post-program SSS-type Services for Non-program Students 104

PAGE 118

Figure 3.2 Relationship Among the Variables for HI Variables Structured Freshman Year Assigned advisor Freshman seminar Taught by regular faculty Supplemental instruction Study (group learning) groups Subject tutoring Computer assisted labs Study tcchrllqucs Test-taking strategies Targeted recruitmeJJt Early admission Priority for financial aid Priority for on-campus employment opportunities Development of learning contracts & curriculum planning SSs-type Srvs for non-program students PriorSSS PostSSS Validity Considerations Relationship Independent Independent Independent Independent Independent Independent Jndcpmdcm Independent Independent Independent Independent Independent Depmdcnt Dependent Internal validity might be compromised by the numerous perceptions of respondents regarding what has influenced changes in the provision of academic support services and how such changes intersect the attainment of institutional goals. At the same time internal validity could be undermined because survey responses were limited to SSS directors and chief officers of academic support services 105

PAGE 119

divisions. Restricting the survey to SSS directors precludes perspectives from other personnel. For example observations from a SSS counselor a college case manager or a faculty member who teaches supplemental education courses could provide more diverse perspectives on the possible contributions of SSS on student success. Collecting this information might strengthen internal validity. Additionally, the diffusion of benefits might be attributed to many factors other than the presence of SSS programs External validity was limited in terms of generalizability because of the relatively small sample size. One way to address this would be to extend the survey to all SSS programs Groups could then be clustered for analysis based on funding longevity size of program student population, ecetera. Conclusion The methods that were selected to investigate the impact of SSS programs were intended to explore the potential impact such programs might have on their host institutions particularly as these impacts relate to assisting in the attainment of college mission and goals. The approach was designed to uncover information about other criteria that might be used in evaluating the effectiveness of such programs as 106

PAGE 120

institutions seek to better understand which activities facilitate the achievement of institutional goals. Additionally in a time of limited resources higher education must develop strategies that assist more purposeful decision making that results in more effective and efficient policies 107

PAGE 121

CHAPTER4 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS Activities that support student college success are a primary concern for students parents and particularly institutions of higher education. As the cost of a college education continues to rise and the potential student pool populations for post secondary education becomes more diverse institutions ofhigher education have continued to develop more efficient and effective strategies for enhancing the success of students. These approaches have included colleges hosting Trio s Student Support Services program for over thirty years. This dissertation examines what such hosts colleges have learned from exposure to SSS programs and if such knowledge has benefitted non-program students. Therefore, this study undertakes an investigation of selected characteristics of SSS programs and non-SSS programs to explore what, if any are the differences in similar services for non-SSS program students Using the selection criteria identified in the preceding methodology chapter surveys were mailed to SSS program directors at 481 institutions ofhigher education. 108

PAGE 122

In addition, 432 (142 to the American College Personnel Association members and 290 to members of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators) surveys were sent to the student services director at colleges that did not have a SSS program. SSS program directors completed and returned 105 surveys (a 21.8 percent return rate) and students services directors returned 68 surveys for a 14.6 percent return rate. The majority of respondents were from public colleges/universities (see Table I for complete details on institutional characteristics). However, more of the respondents from col1eges that hosted SSS programs were from public institutions (74.5 percent) compared to only 55.6 percent of the respondents from schools that did not have SSS programs (non-host) who were from public col1eges. Enrollments for female students were almost identical for both respondent groups with females representing slightly over 56 percent of the student bodies. Additionally, host colleges reflected a higher minority student enrollment (31.67 percent) than non-host schools (23 percent). Seventy-three percent of the students at host colleges received financial aid compared to 67 percent at non-host schools. Selectivity criteria of high school GP A and SAT I ACT were almost identical for both groups. 109

PAGE 123

From the SSS respondents ten were randomly selected for follow-up structured interviews. These interviews were conducted in an effort to further document specific areas of inquiry and to expand on the respondents' perceptions of the involvement of SSS program personnel in decision making at the college, specifically as it relates to academic support services. Responses to the interview questions are provided in Appendix E "Responses to Interview Questions." Findings are discussed in four main sections as they relate to each research hypothesis, by order of the hypothesis not necessarily in the order of the question on the survey or the interview. Subsections that report on specific topics also include documentation provided by the structured interviews under each hypothesis. Analysis of Hypotheses Hypothesis 1 Colleges and universities, for the most part, recognize the need for student support services and provide these (or some combination of these) for enrolled students. Definitions for each of the 12 services surveyed are presented in Appendix A. These services tend to fall in one of three general categories of 1. A structured 110

PAGE 124

freshman year experience; 2. Supplemental instruction; and 3. Recruitment incentives. Although specific services were assigned in the survey instrument to one of the three categories the analysis of this data is by specific service. For example, in the category of"A Freshman Year Experience", are the services of: I. An assigned academic advisor; 2. A freshman seminar or orientation class and; 3. Orientation classes taught by regular (rostered) faculty. H1 SSS-type support services for non-program students were provided by more institutions after the arrival of the SSS program on campus than before the advent ofSSS. Host colleges had higher mean scores38 for services after the arrival of the SSS program than on services provided prior to the start of the SSS program (details at Table 3) on alll2 services, confirming the primary hypothesis, HI. Assigned faculty advisors and advice on career and curriculum planning had mean differences that were statically signi:ficanf9 the 5 percent level. The mean difference was statistically 38 Means have been reported from the t-tests or tests of significance that were conducted. 39 T -tests assume both equal and unequal variances. Significance is reported using 1 or 5 percent levels. omplete results of all tests are reported in the Tables. Ill

PAGE 125

significant at the I percent level on three services; techniques of study sessions, testtaking strategies and priority for on-campus employment (see Table 3a). The correlation coefficient40 for study sessions and test-taking strategies was statistically significant, r(56)= .96, p <.001 while there was not a statistically significant correlation coefficient for on-campus employment to either study sessions or testtaking strategies (see Table 4a). Only four of the ten SSS program officers who participated in the structured interviews indicated that study techniques and test-taking strategy sessions were started for all students after the start of the SSS program. Four reported that these services were begun before the advent of the SSS program and two indicated that they did not know (see Appendix E, Box 1, Question I for details). Eight out often of the interview participants indicated that regardless of when these services were started for non-program students the college involved SSS program personnel in the planning and implementation stages. The one respondent who did not know was also one of the two respondents who did not know whether or not the study skills services in 40 Many colleges consider study sessions and test-taking strategies to be identical or sufficiently similar to offer as a single service. Given that perspective this high positive correlation is not surprising. In his discussion of correlation coefficients Sharma (1996) notes that "high value represents similarity." 112

PAGE 126

Question 1 were offered before or after SSS started. The other respondent who answered "do not know" to Question 1 was able to report on the implementation of the services indicating that it ''varied, depending on the service, SSS personnel served on task groups and committees" in the construction of the delivery method. This same institution reported by indicating (Questions 4 and 5) that SSS was "represented on task groups and committees to redesign support services" and that SSS could be described as "completely within" (Questions 6 and 7) in relation to the organizational model at the college. Only one respondent indicated that SSS was not involved in the planning or implementation of these services, but did report on Question 3 that the impact of these services aligned the college goals with those of SSS when ''the institution developed retention goals as a priority for all students.'..t1 For this college, moving SSS to the "academic services side of the institution" when it was refunded in 2003 41 since the qualitative process involved in proving funher explanation to the quantitative analysis requires references to content from the interviews these are cited as drawn from a particular theme or topic regardless of the numerical order of the questions. This approach applies the guidance of Rubin and Rubin on theory elaboration and concepts or themes discussed together where the directive is to "carefully examine what the interviewees say as you link themes together and pull out broader meanings from their comments." (p. 232) 113

PAGE 127

"improve( d) communication with non-program staff and increase( d) the and quality and quantity of services." The experience of this college suggests that learning occurred and was demonstrated from the advent of SSS in 1993 to the time of its relocation, albeit ten years. Respondents from the three schools that offered these services prior to the start of the SSS program described the services as random, not well organized, embedded in a development course where the topical emphasis was determined by the strengths and perspectives of the course instructor (see Appendix E, Questions 1 and 2). Additionally each of these schools described (Question 3) the services as having evolved into more structured formats where the advent of SSS formalized efforts to provide such services or SSS personnel were involved developing implementation strategies for services outside of SSS. All ten of the colleges reported that SSS was involved in decision making regarding the change and implementation of services for non-program students (Questions 4 and 5). Furthermore, nine of the ten schools described SSS "completely within" the organizational model at their institutions (see Questions 6 and 7). Only one described SSS as "somewhat" within the organizational structure of the college. This same college offered services before the advent of SSS and since its arrival "the college has developed a new format for academic services 114

PAGE 128

that includes a Student Success Program, an Enrichment Center .... and a general education all university seminar for all students." Extensive changes that this college has made in the area of academic support services for all students suggest an appreciation of the value these services contribute to the college and its students and that this can be achieved within an organizational model where SSS is "somewhat" (Questions 6 and 7) self contained. Hypothesis 2 H2 There are differences in the number and kinds of SSS-type services provided for non-program students at SSS host institutions than at non-host colleges with the host schools offering more SSS-type services for non-program students than non-host colleges. The first section of the survey was designed to determine which SSS-type academic support services were currently being offered at each of the colleges surveyed. Non-host institutions had higher mean scores on eight of the 12 services (see Table 2). These services were assigned academic advisor, freshman seminar, orientation class taught by a regular faculty member, study groups, computer labs, opportunity for early admission, priority for fmancial aid/scholarships and priority for 115

PAGE 129

on-campus employment. The mean difference was statistically significant at the 5 percent level for assigned academic advisor while mean differences were statistically significant at the I percent level for the support services of freshman orientation orientation class taught by regular faculty computer labs and priority for on-campus employment (see Table 2a) Although non-host schools had a slightly higher mean on fmancial aid it was not statistically significant. Hosting colleges had higher means on tutoring study techniques test taking strategy sessions and curriculum planning guidance services (see Table 2) Curriculum planning was the only service in this group that evidenced a statistically significant mean difference and that was at the 1 percent level. Means were higher for schools that hosted SSS more than ten years in only two (freshman seminar and priority for on campus employment) of the 12 services evaluated and no statistical significance was evidenced.(see Tables 9 and 9a). The performance by non-host schools to provide more SSS-type services than the host schools is of interest since the general expectation might be the reverse. However these observations could support a perspective that some services have been adopted for all students by host institutions removing the need for the SSS program to provide them. Analysis of data related to SSS-type services prior to and after the arrival of the SSS program provides further information on this issue. 116

PAGE 130

Of the 1 05 SSS program directors who returned questionnaires 49 indicated that academic support services were provided for non-program students in a formal program format while 45 stated that services were provided in a format that was not fonnal. Whether the format was formal or informal 94 colleges reported that SSS type services were provided at their schools for all students The top services where at least 50 percent of the colJeges offered the service are ranked as follows (see Table 5 for details): 1. Advising for career planning85 % 2. Subject tutoring 85% 3 Faculty advising80% 4 Freshman seminar/orientation course-76% 5. Dedicated computer labs-73% 6. Assigned academic advisor-71% 7 Study techniques sessions-69% 8 Test-taking strategies-63% The other four services : group study sessions early admission priority for financial aid/scholarship and priority for on campus employment were reported at levels of 44 percent, 38 percent 34 percent and 24 percent respectively 117

PAGE 131

Responses from the 63 student services officers of non-host colleges revealed that the following SSS-type services were provided at a 50 percent level or higher (details at Table 5a): 1. Dedicated computer labs88% 2. Freshman seminar/orientation course83% 3. Assigned faculty advisor79"/o 4. Study techniques76% 4. Test-taking strategies76% 5. Curriculum planning71% 6. Subject tutoring sessions70% 7. Assigned advisor65% 8. Priority for early admissions-62% 9. Orientation course taught by rostered faculty56%42 Services not attaining the 50 percent threshold were study group sessions at a 48 percent level, priority for fmancial aid at 43 percent and priority for on campus 42 Although this variable appears in this section of data reporting it is not included in comparison made between host and non-host since data on this specific variable,"orientation taught by rostered faculty," was not collected for host institutions. 118

PAGE 132

employment at 33 percent. These results are compatible with the analysis reported earlier. Based on this evidence H2 was not confirmed. Host and non-host institutions had in common three services that less than 50 percent of them offered.. These were study group sessions, priority for financial aid and priority for on campus employment. This might have occurred for similar reasons for both groups of institutions. Group study tends not to be a college wide activity but occurs at the classroom or dormitory level whether organized by a faculty member or by students. On the other hand, fmancial aid and on campus employment are usually packaged together and often have strict eligibility criteria so that all students cannot avail themselves of those services. Hypothesis 3 H3 Colleges that implemented support services for non-program students after hosting a SSS program will identify value-added impact benefits ofSSS programs that assisted the institution in achieving its educational goals by improving quality/accountability and access/equity. Host colleges had higher mean scores on four out of the six surveyed areas regarding the benefits of academic support services (see Table 6), only partially 119

PAGE 133

confirming lb. These were that the presence of academic support services and SSS programs helped the college attain its educational goals of teaching, research and service by improving quality, accountability, student equity and student access. The mean difference was statistically significant at the 5 percent for improving student equity (see Table 6a). This fmding is compatible with the primary SSS goals of providing services that enhance the success of criteria eligible students who have already been admitted to college43 Four of the ten interview respondents indicated that any barrier to organizational change (see Box 8, Questions 13, 14 and 15) at their college would have the greatest impact on student success (one additional respondent cited student success along with "institutional quality and institutional accountability as all equally impacted"). Four of the ten respondents stated that they could not identify any barriers in this area Additionally, the following responses seen in Figure 2 were reported on the question of what the college would do if federal funding 43 SSS (Trio) programs are not allowed to recruit non-enrolled students. When asked about the affect of this regulation on program effectiveness all but one of the ten interviewees indicated the restriction did not impair program effectiveness. The one respondent who reported a problem with the regulation indicated that "Most of the institution's students are not low income so there is a relatively small selection pool." (see Box 7, Question 12). 120

PAGE 134

ended for SSS programs and if the college had sufficient funds: 53 percent retain selected services; 26 percent retain SSS program; 17 percent dissolve the program (total more than 100 percent due to selection of more than one choice by four respondents). Given the top SSS-type services offered that were reported previously in hypothesis two (H2), one might speculate that some of these might be retained as selected services if SSS funding terminated. On the other hand, the strategy for selecting which services to retain might be driven by the college's need to strengthen some of the areas where there might be service gaps, e.g., in the area of priority for on campus employment. Decision making on this issue might provide the college additional opportunities to explore and demonstrate its educational goals. 121

PAGE 135

Figure 4.1. Responses of Colleges If SSS Funding Ended 60 so 40 30 20 10 Retain Selected Srvs Retain SSS Dissolve SSS Dev Alternative Non-host institutions had higher means on the areas of academic support services improving services for students not in a specialized retention program and increasing academic support services for all students (see Table 6) However neither of these potential value-added benefits evidenced statistical significance. These results 122

PAGE 136

indicate that non-host schools agreed more strongly than the host schools that academic support services provide the two identified added benefits. Although these responses seem to contradict the wealth of literature reporting that colleges favor academic support services they might mean that the respondents believe that the services provide other kinds of benefits. Although means (see Table 7) were higher for respondents from private colleges on the six topics of SSS program benefits there was no statistical significant between means for private and means from the public sector respondents (see Table 7a). This might suggest that colleges, regardless of control or type have similar perspectives in supporting student success. Hypothesis 4 H4 Among all schools that provide SSS-type services for all students those that are SSS host colleges perceive such services as beneficial to the college in attaining its educational goals. An examination ofthe benefits ofSSS programs revealed that the overall ANOVA was significant for increased academic services F(2, 95) = 6.153, p < 0.01 and for improving student access to higher education F(2,97) = 2 .. 749, p < 0.05 (see Tables 8 and 8a). Dunnet's C (see Table 8c) did not report significant differences on 123

PAGE 137

the means of these two responses to SSS program benefits despite the Levene results of significance (see Table 8b). Additionally non-host schools had higher means for increased academic services and the mean difference was significant at the 5 percent level (see TableslO and lOa). Mean differences were not significantly different between host and non-host schools on the affect of SSS or academic support programs in improving academic support services for all students. Although these findings indicate that both host (tending to confirm H4) and non-host schools find benefit in having academic support services for all students they view that such services have a greater impact on increasing services rather than improving services for all students. This suggests that respondents from both types of institutions seem to believe that the mere presence of academic support services does not assure improvement. lf improvement is viewed as a component of quality additional information is needed on this potential concern e x pressed by the respondents. Investigation that identifies what other factors or criteria might be needed to better assure a higher quality of these kinds of services for all students could be utilized in building constructive solutions. 1 2 4

PAGE 138

Summary The results of this research study to explore the affect of SSS programs on academic support services for students has been presented in this chapter. The following is a summary of the results of the analysis on each research hypothesis. Ht SSS-type support services for non-program students were provided by more institutions after the arrival of the SSS program on campus than before the advent of SSS. This hypothesis was supported by the analysis on mean differenc..es, but statistical significance of those differences were only evidenced on five of the twelve services. Although the hypothesis was generally confirmed the lack of significance in the majority of services means that these findings must be considered conditional. While all of the services were considered important to provide it seems that some might be viewed as more critical than others. Students, particularly during the first year, who are able to establish a meaningful relationship with a faculty or staff member (who usually assist them in curriculum planning) greatly increase their chances for success. The high correlation of study techniques and test-taking strategies logically connects students, particularly those less prepared academically, to 125

PAGE 139

opportunities to master course content. Additionally, on-campus employment opportunities not only assist students to manage the fmancial demands of higher education, but also facilitate their ability to establish those meaningful relationships with faculty and staff. H2 There are differences in the number and kinds of SSS-type services provided for non-program students at SSS host institutions than at non host colleges with the host schools offering more SSS-type services for non-program students than non-host colleges. Evidence produced from the analysis did not support this hypothesis. Non host schools clearly provided more SSS-type services than did the host schools. On the surface this might suggest that the predominance of private schools in the non host population might allocate fmancial resources to student success in a more dedicated manner than public sector institutions given the often specialized missions of many private schools. It is, however, just as likely that because private schools rely more heavily on private funding they may have different limitations on spending than the public colleges experience and that these restrictions are the most influential factors in decision making. For example, some donors make contributions that must 126

PAGE 140

be allocated for very visible results such as a computer lab, when in fact, the college might prefer to hire another academic advisor. H3 Colleges that implemented support services for non-:prognun students after hosting a SSS program will identify value-added impact benefits of SSS programs that assisted the institution in achieving its educational goals by improving quality/accountability and access/equity. The analysis of the hosting institutions evidenced strong support in the area of improving student equity and only moderate support in the areas of improving institutional quality institutional accountability and student access. This analysis evidenced an unpairing of student equity and student access related to the impact of SSS services confirming the priori!)' of the program s central goal to support the success of enrolled students. However, where selection pools are limited (as with some private schools) SSS program might not be the best fit for the college. Such institutions may need to focus on developing increased access opportunities instead. H4 Among all schools that provide SSS-type services for all students those that are SSS host colleges perceive such services as beneficial to the college in attaining its educational goals. 127

PAGE 141

Analysis of survey data provided marginal support this hypothesis. The analysis by variables indicates that host as well as non-host schools believe that providing academic support services for all students has merit. ANOV A identified between group significance in only the two areas of improving student access and improving student equity. On the areas of SSS-type services improving institutional accountability and improving institutional quality the survey data analysis did not report any significance. 128

PAGE 142

CHAPTERS CONCLUSIONS This chapter presents a discussion of the expectations of the investigation, limitations of the research, fmdings of the study, the significance of the study and, finally implications for future research and policy directions. Expectations ofthe Investigation This study was undertaken with the goal of exploring if and how SSS programs have influenced higher education in the general area by improving services for non-program students. The idea was to explore whether this program of over thirty years has had an impact on the landscape of higher education in ways that have yet to be documented beyond its program participants. This study had an expectation that the presence of a SSS program on a campus could provide the opportunity for influencing that institution in several ways. One of these was that the presence of SSS programs might affect decision making regarding the allocation of resources of 129

PAGE 143

the host colleges, particularly in its efforts to foster an environment in which program participants can be successful. Additionally, there was an expectation that colleges with track records of having successful SSS programs have internalized the value of student success and have demonstrated this value by intentionally making changes to assure not only the success of program students but all students by implementing or strengthening academic support services for non-program students. Furthermore it was anticipated that these modifications might have included changes in the organizational structure of the institution particularly in the areas of academic affairs and services. Finally, there was an expectation that such changes to accommodate the needs of SSS programs has resulted in indirect benefits to non program students e.g. implementation ofSSS-type services Research Limitations Generalizability of the findings is limited for several reasons and may not be applicable to all college settings. For that reason there are a number oflimitations that should be noted. First limiting the institutional size left out the larger universities that are often considered the flagship models of higher education in their states These schools with their enormous resources are often viewed as providing 130

PAGE 144

leadership directions for the smaller colleges. Inclusion of these larger universities might have provided very different kinds offmdings. For example some ofthe large state universities in an effort to personalize the education experience have established programs for scholars with their own dormitory space (for details on program at Arizona State University and the University oflowa see their website homepages) A second limitation of the study was the sample size for nonhost schools. Giv en the universe of over 20 000 colleges (Office of Postsecondary Education, 2003 ) with undergraduate enrollments between five and ten thousand the study sample size of 381 non-host colleges was relatively small. For that reason caution should be exercised in generalizing the fmdings to all similar sized institutions. Restricting the respondents at host colleges to SSS program directors provided another limitation ofthe study. Solicitation of responses from other college personnel e.g. the chief academic or student services officers might have provided an opportunity to compare perspectives of SSS programs within institutions Despite these limitations the research supports concepts associated with diffusion and organizational learning theories and provides a foundation of data that demonstrates the application of these tenets in higher education settings. 131

PAGE 145

Research Findings A central finding in the investigation indicated that data produced from the survey and that solicited by the interviews showed a definite similarity in the perceptions of respondents on the influence of SSS programs on higher education institutions. For example, although data analysis in some instances did not reveal statistical significance on some of the SSS-type services started after the arrival of SSS a clear majority of SSS-type services were implemented for non-program students post SSS presence. An unexpected fmding on a related topic was that non host schools actually provided more SSS-type services than host institutions. Although the data analysis in some instances did not reveal a statistically significant difference, it is clear that there were mean differences on many of the services offered by host and non-host colleges. The data do support, however, that host schools offered more services after the start of SSS programs suggesting that concepts associated with organizational learning theory might have merit. Structured interviews seem to endorse this also. The majority of respondents in the interviews firmly expressed the belief that SSS program presence has served as a model for the design and implementation of academic support services for all students. 132

PAGE 146

A second finding of merit was that survey data evidence supporting the spread of SSS program benefits was statistically substantiated in the areas of increasing academic services and improving student access. The clear majority of SSS program officers identified that support services assist the college in attaining institutional goals on several levels. Both groups, host and non-host schools, showed statistical significance by indicating that academic support services assisted the college achieve its educational goals by improving student access. An unexpected finding in this area was that neither of these groups, to a level of significance, thought that these services assisted the school by improving the accountability and quality of the institution. This suggests that these representatives of the colleges do not link, at least not at a statistically significant level, academic support services and student success to these institutional goals. A third finding was the influence that SSS has had on decision making related to academic support services for all students. Interview respondents additionally confirmed the value ofSSS programs for the colleges indicating that many ofthe SSS staff served leadership roles by providing expert knowledge on academic support services. Recognition of their value was reported by the institutional respondents in various ways. For example, some schools utilized SSS staff as faculty for orientation 133

PAGE 147

courses required for all students. Others included SSS staff in critical decision making related to support services while others moved the SSS function into the academic division of the college. These actions all suggest that there is early diffusion of program benefits to all students and that colleges value the advantages received by the institution as a result of SSS programs being located on their campus. On whole, SSS programs enjoy ardent support from their hosting institutions, and non-host schools clearly appreciate the value that providing academic support services has had in advancing higher education and institutional goals. Significance of the Study The information uncovered in this study should be of value to institutions and program funding sources in supporting efforts to identify more meaningful goals for higher education and perspectives on the values and added benefits that SSS programs bring to host institutions. This knowledge might be of assistance to colleges who are assessing the need for academic support services that might be funded from current resources or from external sources, e.g., Office of Higher Education, state, foundations, etc. Furthermore, such knowledge might provide guidance for establishing stronger relationships and learning opportunities between SSS projects 134

PAGE 148

/ and broader efforts by institutions to improve performance and retention of all students. Evaluation of federally funded programs are often so narrowly focused that they miss the opportunity to discover broader benefits provided by these programs. This study has provided an example of such an opportunity. By moving in this direction federal grant sources might become more informed regarding the methods they use to assess program effectiveness. These agencies might be able to determine more accurately the institutional characteristics of colleges that have a greater chance of being successful sponsors ofSSS programs, thereby using public money more efficiently and effectively. Federal sources might be able to accurately identify institutions in need of technical assistance to facilitate the building of institutional capacity that positions them to increase their chances of having a successful SSS program. Additionally information from this study might be instructive in assisting colleges to re-examine how they link student success with institutional issues of accountability and quality. 135

PAGE 149

Implications for Future Research In addition to providing some evidence on how generally diffusion theory and organizational learning theory tenets can be demonstrated in higher education settings by SSS, this study uncovered a number of questions that might be addressed through additional research. The .fJISt of these questions is related to what accounts for non-host institutions providing more SSS-type services for all students than host schools. One consideration might be that non-host schools have more financial resources to provide such services without having to rely on external funding. For example, the study revealed that the top service provided by non-host schools was dedicated computer labs. This high cost item that supplements college education ranked only fifth for host schools. Another consideration is that schools with fewer resources are more likely to apply for and receive SSS funding. Additional research could assist in developing an understanding how these concerns might influence decision making in non-host schools on issues of providing resources that supplement the basic education or are there other considerations such as a narrowly focused mission that governs the decision making. 136

PAGE 150

A second area for additional research might address whether organizational models for specialized programs in higher education that are self-contained function as well as those that are more completely integrated within the larger organization. Interviewees who described SSS as self-contained seemed to have similar relationships of inclusion as those who identified their organizational fit as completely within. What additional factors beyond structural descriptions are more influential in defining the relationship outcomes? Several of the interview subjects identified college policies and practices of sharing monetary, personnel and equipment resources as methods of establishing relationships of inclusion with specialized programs. These strategies might suggest aspects of institutional culture that enhance theoretical perspectives related to the college as a community of learners. Although this research only uncovered some limited perspectives further investigation might examine thoroughly what specific criteria do college per.sonnel (specifically administrators) use in evaluating whether the institution is accomplishing its intended goals. What factors do these individuals believe foster achievement of college goals? 137

PAGE 151

Finally another area for further investigation has to do with how does the college address a culture of not supporting student academic needs in specific disciplines. What impact might such a culture have on the many layers of student success? What benefits might be acquired by maintaining such a culture? The goal of this study was to investigate what indirect benefits result from the experience of having SSS programs on college campuses and how the dispersion of these affect decision making for all students. SSS host and non-host colleges were selected for the sample study group. Major findings did confirm that there is a spread of program benefits that influence institutional choice to provide similar services for all students. 138

PAGE 152

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Characteristics of the Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 2 Academic Services Provided by SSS & Non-SSS Schools: Institutional Group Statistics ..................... ........ 142 2a Academic Services Provided by SSS & Non-SSS Schools: Independent Samples Test .... ....... ............ . ..... 143 3 Services Begun Prior to or After SSS (TRIO) Program: Group Statistics . .......... .................... 144 3a Services Begun Prior to or After SSS: Independent Samples Test ........ .... ........ .......... ....... 145 4 Services Provided by Public and Private Colleges: Descriptive Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 4a Services Provided by Public and Private Colleges : Correlations .... .................................... ......... 148 5 Services Provided by SSS Schools: Statistics .............. ......... 149 Sa Services Provided by SSS Schools: Statistics ..... .................. 150 6 Benefits of Academic Support Services: T-Test Group Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 139

PAGE 153

6a Benefits of Academic Support Services: T-Test Independent Samples Test ................................ 152 7 Benefits for Private & Public Schools: Group Statistics ............... 153 7a Benefits for Private & Public Schools: Independent Samples Test ...................................... 154 8 Higher Education Mission Goals: ANOVA ......................... 155 8a Higher Education Mission Goals: Descriptives ...................... 157 8b Higher Education Mission Goals: Test of Homogeneity ofVariances ...................................... 159 8c Post Hoc Tests Higher Education Mission Goals: Multiple Comparisons Dunnett C ................................ 160 9 Years Hosting SSS Oneway ANOVA: Descriptives .............. : ... 162 9a Years Hosting ANOVA ....................................... 167 10 Support Services for Non-program Students: T-Test Group Statistics ........................................ 171 1 Oa Support Services for Non-program Students: Independent Samples Test ...................................... 172 140

PAGE 154

Table 1. Characteristics of the Institutions Institutional Characteristics Colleges that Host SSS Colleges that do not have SSS Programs Programs Public/ Private 74 .5% 55 .6% Commuter/ Resid/Both 35.8o/o/43.3o/o/20.9% J 4.3o/o/76.2o/o/1.6% Faculty Ratio mean 20.6 35.8 Student Demographics Female 56 .73% 56.14% Ethnicity 8 .97% 9.35% African American 4 .96% 5.56% Asian American 5.08% 2.73% American Indian 12 .66% 5.36% Hispanic 71.4% 76 34% White 24 22 Average Age 72 .94% 66.75% Receiving Financial Aid 3 0 3.2 A vg High School GPA 1010/2 2 .9 J I I 5/21.5 SAT/ACT Score 141

PAGE 155

Table 2 rosfac stdygrp complab earlyadm finaid currpiD Academic Services Provided by SSS & Non-SSS Schools: Institutional Group Statistics Std. SSS institutioos/Noo-SSS iost N Mean Dnilltioll sss-institution 104 .5288 .5016 ass-institution 63 .6508 4805 su-iMtitwtioll 104 .5673 .4978 IW-iastit1olioe 63 8254 .3827 sss-institution 104 2885 .4552 ass-institution 63 5556 .5009 sss-iastltlltioll 104 4135 1.1458 ass-institution 63 .4762 1.3058 sss-i.Dstitutioo 104 5577 5182 oss-iastitotioa 63 .8730 .3356 sss-institution 104 2981 .4803 ass-institution 63 6190 .4895 su-illstitutioa 104 .4231 4964 ass-institution 63 4286 .4988 sss-iastitution 104 3558 .3530 IISS-iastittJiioe 63 7143 .4554 142

PAGE 156

Table 2a w aua nd v rruem rot fat: o td yarp cornp1a b e art y odm nno l d c urrpln Academic Services Provided by SSS & NonSSS Schools : Independent Samples Test Love n e'o Test for Equaty I t t.,t for Equality or M ea n o ofVaritnc n tS % Conlldenu Inte rval of' the Dllfeno .. t F Sl1 I Sll (2 talled) Mean Difference Lo .... Upper !qual v arttnc a uaumtd 8 950 003 I.H7 1 24 1219 2776 3 3 7 0B-02 Equal vartanctt notaOJumed 1.563 .120 1219 2 762 3 .232B-02 Equal v ariances uomed 61.744 000 3 530 .001 258 1 -.40 2 5 1137 E qu1l v.rltnces not lltumed 3 762 00 0 258 1 3 9 36 1 226 !:q u a l v ariances u"med 11.200 .001 .S38 .001 .2671 4 162 1180 Equ a l variances not as oumed -3.455 00 1 2671 .4 201 .1141 Equal vtrltnces attumtd .176 616 325 14 5 27291!.02 -.4436 .318 2 E qual v arlanceo not Illumed 315 .753 27291!-02 4572 3318 Equal vartanceo med 100 872 000 4 .311 000 3153 .459 8 1109 Equal variances not u a umed -4. 770 000 -.3153 .44SK .ll4 8 E q u al vart anceo u o umed 2 471 .117 -4.156 000 -.3210 -.4735 1685 Equal v arian ces not 1 11umed -4. 136 000 3 210 -.4745 1 614 Equal var .. nceo uoumed .019 .891 069 945 -5.494 51!.03 1623 1513 !:qual varlanceo not 111umed 069 9 4 5 -5.49 4 51!.03 1628 I SIS Equal va r .. nceo numed 19 010 000 2 2 4 6 02 6 1 415 1.7091!.02 2659 tqual varlancn not Jttumed 2 .111 037 1415 8 6471!0 3 2743 ---

PAGE 157

Table 3. Services Begun Prior to or After SSS (fRIO) Program: Group Stamtics r-N Mea Sed. DmltiMo Scd.EmorM ... -1.00 28 .3929 4973 9 .399-m ""-.00 14 3571 4 972 1329 1.00 31 2903 4614 8.287..02 foca
PAGE 158

....... Vl a d van1 n r aea dvn 1 orlentne a rp styoeu sub j tut Table 3a Services Begun Prior to or After SSS: Independent Samples Teat Levene's T .. t ror Equ ality or tt .. t re r Equa lity o r Mean s Varince 51 MHn F S lg. I dr (l-teiled) D lft'el"f:nct Lower U ppe r tquol vorlon ctt UIDmed .209 .650 .219 4 0 .827 3J71E..()2 .2933 3647 tqu l Vlrlt n cet not 1uumed .219 26.112 .828 3 .571E-02 2988 .3702 Equal v arlon ctt Ulamed 0 2 0 1.05S 43 .297 .1475 1 344 .4293 Equal v arlonett not a .. umed !.ISS 31.591 .257 .1475 .1126 .4076 tqual v arian eel 11t11mtd 2 .055 .159 2 4 8 3 41 017 .3657 6 .830E..()2 .6632 l:quolvorlon tot not " umed 2.411 28.818 .023 .3657 S 5 4IE..()2 6761 E qu 1 l vtrllnCH as .. med 3 .338 .079 1.069 27 .295 1 895 .1742 .5532 E qual v trla n cet not 1ssumed 1.000 U .389 .333 .1895 2 135 .5924 l:quolvorlont et u11med .426 SI7 2 .881 45 006 .4208 .1266 .71SI qu 1 l varlt n cet not auumed 2 .911 28.203 .007 .4208 .1248 .1169

PAGE 159

....... .;:. 0'1 lablcmpt te t hofotd y straiOJYifll Table 3a (Cont.) : Services Begun Prior to or After SSS: Independent Samples Test Levene's Tnt tor t -IHI for Equollty or Meooo Equollty or Vorlontes F Sit-I df Sla. (1-tallod) Mean Dllferente lower Equolvorlan
PAGE 160

. ....... -...J I a d mist a l dochlar onc:mpemp ad vurplng Table 3a (Cont.) Services Begun Prior to or After SSS: Independent Samples Test Levene's Tnt f o r Equ a lit y o f V ariances t-tell l'or Eq u a lity of M e101 I F t df Slg (2t a lled) Mean Dlfl'erentt Lower U ppe r E qual v ari a nces .412 528 .488 20 .631 1294 .4238 6826 assumed Equal varia nces .471 6 240 6S4 1 2 94 5370 7958 not as .. mtd Equal variances '133 719 1.338 21 1 95 2917 1617 .7451 a ssumed Eq ual variance s 1.313 13. 674 .21 I 2917 1859 7692 not a t .. med Equal vari a nces 416 000 000 2 550 13 024 5556 8 480E-02 1.0263 astumtd Equalvarl a n
PAGE 161

Table 4 Services Provided by Public and Private Colleges: Descriptive Statistics M-Sld.DnUiioe N tedoe6tdy 753 8 4 341 6 5 stratqytat 728 8 4484 59 _, 2609 449(\ 23 Table 4a Services Provided by Public and Private Colleges: Correlations teciMfold7 ___ -dy r..,_c.ndolieoo 1.000 957(00) 299 Sic-(l-taial) 000 244 S. el Squra .... Croo.pnd-12. 062 10. 862 882 Covllliluoce 1 88 .191 5 5 1 SE..O:Z N 65 58 1 7 lb'atqytal r-c. 957( .. ) 1.000 32 4 Si-(l-talal) 000 .22 1 S. eiSqura-er--pr.d-10. 862 11.661 93 8 CeYariatlc:e .191 201 6 250E..Q2 N 58 59 1 6 ..... _, Pamooo c.ndolieoo 299 .324 1.000 Si-(2-uilod) 244 221 S. eiSqura-Crwo-prod. 882 938 4 4 35 Covllliluoce 5 .515E..Q2 6 250E-02 202 N 17 16 23 Comlation is significont .. the 0 .01 Je.a ( 2-Wied ) 148

PAGE 162

Table 5 Services Provided by SSS Schools: Statistics tech servs adv adv fac orient grp subj Jab aid oncmp of strategy IIOt car assgn advng crse stysess tut scmpt admlss sehlar emp stdy test formal ping 67 76 71 41 80 69 65 59 45 36 32 23 80 Valid N Miss-38 29 34 64 25 36 40 46 60 69 73 82 2S lng 1.0 Mean 2237 6620 .7561 5507 7288 .4222 .4722 .46 88 .2609 .4179 5250 7538 2250 Median 0000 1.000 1.000 1.0000 .0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0000 0 0 Mode 00 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 00 00 00 00 00

PAGE 163

Table Sa Services Provided by SSS Schools: Statistics ..... Vl 0 Valid N Misslng Mean Median Mode Sum assigne d adv 63 0 .6508 1 .0000 1.00 41.00 fac rostered fresh adv fac sem 63 63 63 0 0 0 .5556 .7937 .8254 1 .000 1.000 1.0000 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 35.00 50.00 52.00 stdy grp 63 0 .476 2 .000 0 .00 30. 0 0 sbj stdy test early nn curr comp emp tut tech tkng adaid ping lab loy miss 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .6984 .333 .8730 .7619 .7619 .6190 .4286 .7143 3 1 .000 1.000 1.000 1.000 000 1.000 1.0000 .0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .00 00 1.00 44.00 21.0 55.00 48.00 48.00 39.00 27.00 45.00 0

PAGE 164

Table 6 Benefits of Academic Support Services: T-Test Group Statistics institutional type N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error improved aca support nonsss 62 3.1935 .7648 9.713E-02 !ISS 103 3.1068 1.0282 .1013 increased aca srvs nonsss 62 3.225 8 .7557 9.598E-02 sss 100 2.9900 1.0396 .1040 improved inst quality nonsss 63 2.8254 1.1714 .1476 I !ISS 98 3.0714 .9765 9.864E-02 : improved inst account nonsss 62 2.6290 1.2444 .1580 ....... sss 99 2.9091 1.2379 .1244 Vl ....... impr stu equity nonsss 61 2.5984 1.2544 .1606 sss 102 3.0588 1.0227 .1013 imprv stu accesss nonsss 61 2.8197 1.1182 .1432 sss 102 3.3725 .9326 9.234E-02 ---------

PAGE 165

Table 6a Benefits of Academic Support Services: T-Test Independent Samples Test Vl N Impr'\' acac support lncnd aca srvs imprv quality i mprvaccnt impr stu equity imprv stu ace assumed Equal variances not Equal variances Equal variances not Equal variances Equal variances Equal variances Equal variances not Equal variances Equal variances not !!qual variances assumed Equal variMCes not Levene's Test F Sig. 3 .707 .056 1.751 2.411 .520 6.540 .389 t-test for Equality of Means t df Sig. Mean Difference Std. Error .575 163 8.675E-02 .1508 .566 .618 155.711 8 675E-02 .1403 1 .549 160 .2358 .1522 1 .667 155.886 .2358 .1415 -1.442 159 .2460 .1707 -1.386 115.088 .2460 .1775 -1.394 159 .2801 .2009 -1.392 129.157 .2801 .2011 -2.552 161 .4605 .1804 -2.425 107.131 .4605 .1899 -3.396 161 .5529 .1628 -3.245 109.090 .5529 .1704 95% Confidence Interval of Lower Upper .2111 3846 .1905 .3640 -6. 4752E-02 .5364 -4. 3674E-02 .5153 -.5831 9 .102E-02 .5977 .1056 -.6768 .1167 .6780 .1179 -.8168 -.1042 .8368 -.8744 .2314 .8905 -.2152

PAGE 166

Table 7 Benefits (or Private & Public Schools: Group Statistics privatol Std. Erro.public N Mua Std. Dniatiou Muu imp.-oved academic .00 75 3 1067 1 0472 1209 support 1.00 26 3 0769 1.0168 .1994 .00 73 2 9178 1.1150 1305 inc.-used aea srvs 1.00 25 3 2000 8165 1633 .00 71 2 9718 1.0552 1252 improved quality 1.00 25 3..2800 6782 .1356 improved .00 72 2 8472 1.2744 .1502 accountability 1.00 25 3.0000 1.1547 2309 .00 74 3 0000 1 0337 .1202 imp.stu equity 1.00 26 3 1538 1.0077 .1976 .00 75 3.3067 1.0263 .I 185 imprv stu access 1.00 25 3 5200 5859 1172 Private = 0 ; Pubbc = 1 153

PAGE 167

....... Vl -----Improved aca aupport lncreHed ICI rv Improved quality Improved accountablllt y lmpr etudent equity lmprv atu acceea Table 7a Benefits for Private & Public Schools: Independent Samples Test Levene' Teat for Equality of t-t .. t for Equality of Mean Var IS% Confidence Interval Slg Mean Std. F Slg I df of the Difference (2-talled) Difference Error Dtff Lower Upper Equal varlanc .. aaaumed 069 793 126 99 900 2 974E.02 .23G6 -.4 397 4992 Equal va not ... umed 128 44 722 699 2 974E.Q2 2332 4400 .4995 Equal varlancH aaaumed 705 .403 -1. 162 96 246 2822 2429 7644 2000 Equal varlancH not -1. 350 56. 729 162 2822 2090 7006 1 364 aaaumed Equal varlancaa aaaumed 272 603 -1. 362 94 176 3082 2263 7574 .1411 Equal variance not -1. 669 65 926 100 3082 1646 .67EI8 6 044E.Q2 IllUmed Equal varlancea a .. umed 616 .435 528 95 596 1 528 .2891 7267 .4211 Equal varlancea not 555 45 825 562 1 528 2755 7074 4018 aaaumed Equel verlenc" .. aumed 627 .430 657 96 513 1538 2342 -.6185 3108 Equel varlancea not -.665 44 806 509 153 8 2313 6197 3120 aaaumed Equel varlancll a11umed 1 548 2 1 6 965 96 327 2133 2 1 66 643 1 2165 Equal varlanc11 not -1. 260 73 319 205 2133 1667 -.5455 1188 aeaumed -------

PAGE 168

Vl Vl Improved academic support Increased academic services Improved quality Table 8 Higher Education Mission Goals: ANOV A Sum of df Mean Square Squares Between Groups 4.210 2 2 .105 Within Groups 102.800 98 1.049 Total 107.010 100 Between GroUPs 12.269 2 6 .135 Within Groups 94.721 95 .997 Total 106.990 97 Between Groups 2 .4S4 2 1.227 Within Groups 88.286 93 .949 Total 90.740 95 F Slg. 2 .007 .140 6 .153 .003 1 .292 .279

PAGE 169

Ul 0'\ Improved accountability impr stu equity imprv stu access Table 8 (Cont.) Higher Education Mission Goals: ANOV A Sum of Mean df Squares Square Between Groups 3 546 2 1.773 Within Groups 144 206 94 1.534 Total 147 .753 96 Between Groups 2 246 2 1.123 Within Groups IOI.S94 97 1.047 Total 103. 840 99 Between Groups 5.498 2 2.749 Within Groups 81.542 97 .841 Total 87 040 99 F Sig. 1.156 319 1.072 346 3 270 042

PAGE 170

....... Vl -...) Improved atademic npport lnc:reated aca ,,., Improved quality -----N 1 .00 7 1.00 IS 3.00 79 Toul 101 1.00 7 1.00 14 3.00 77 Toto! 98 1.00 7 1 00 14 3.00 75 Toto! 96 Table 8a. Higher Education Mission Goals: Descriptives C onfidence Interval for Mun MHn Std. Deviation Std. Error Upper Bound Minimum Lower Bound Mulmum 2 4286 1.3973 .5281 1.1363 3 7201 00 4 00 2.9333 1.0998 2840 2.3243 3 5424 1.00 4 00 3 1899 9750 1097 2 9715 3 4083 00 4 00 3 0990 1.0345 1029 2 8948 3.3032 00 4 00 1.7143 1.7043 6442 1380 3.290$ 00 4 00 3 0714 9169 2450 2 5420 3 6001 2 00 4 00 3 0909 9345 .1065 2 1788 3.3030 00 4 00 2 9898 1.0502 .1061 2 7192 3 2004 .00 4 00 2 .85?1 1.3452 5084 1.6131 4 1012 .00 4 00 3.4216 9376 2506 2 1872 3 9699 1.00 4 00 3 .0000 9444 1090 2 7827 3 2173 00 4 00 3 .0521 9713 9 975E-02 2 .8541 3 2501 00 4 00

PAGE 171

Table Sa (Cont.) Higher E ducation Mission Goals : Descriptives 95'/o Conftdtnct for Meon U pper Bound N Mean Std. D .. lotlon St d Error Minimum Matlmam Lower Baud lmproe d 1.00 6 2 8333 1.4720 6009 1.2886 4 3781 .DO 4 00 aoun tab lllty 2.00 IS 3 3333 8165 2108 2 8812 3 7855 I. DO 4 00 3 .00 76 2 8026 1.2860 1475 2 5088 3 0965 .DO 4 00 Total 97 2 8866 1.2406 1260 2 6366 3 1366 .DO 4 00 lmpr Ita 1.00 7 2 8!71 1.3452 5084 1.6131 4 1012 .DO 4 00 equity 2.00 16 3 3750 8851 2213 2 9034 3 8466 I. DO 4 .00 3.00 77 2 9870 1.0195 1162 2 7556 3 2184 .DO 4 00 Total 100 3 0400 1.0242 1024 2 1368 3 2432 .00 4 00 -lmprvotu 1.00 7 2 5714 1.8127 6851 8950 4 2479 .DO 4 00 Vl 00 ICt:tsl 2 .00 16 3 6250 6191 1548 3 29 5 1 3 9S49 2 .DO 4 00 3 .00 77 3 3766 8590 9 789E -02 3 1817 3 5716 .00 4 00 Total 100 3.3600 .9377 9 J77E-02 3 1739 3 5461 .DO 4 .00 -----

PAGE 172

Table 8b. Higher Education Mission Goals: Test of Homogeneity of Variances Levene Sutistic dfl dn Sig. improved ac:adeaic: 1.407 2 98 250 support increased 5 462 2 95 006 academic: srvs improved 1.056 2 93 352 quality improved .761 2 94 .470 acc:ounubility improved .431 2 97 .651 student c:q11ity improved 7 657 2 97 .001 student ac:c:c:ss 159

PAGE 173

Table 8c Post Hoc Tests Higher Education Mission Goals : Multiple Comparisons Dunnett C 95/o Confidence Interval (J) Mean Difference (I) Std. Error Dependent hosting yea rs (I..J) Lower Upper hosting Variable Bound Bound years improved 2.00 -.5048 4688 -22839 1.2744 1.00 academic 3.00 7613 4039 -2.4012 .8786 support 1.00 5048 .4688 -1.2744 2.2839 2.00 3.00 -.2565 2885 -1.0443 5312 1.00 7613 4039 8786 2.4012 3.00 2.00 .2565 2885 5312 1 0443 inc .rcased 2.00 -1.3571 4622 -3.4346 .7203 1.00 aca srvs 3.00 -1.3766 .3942 -3.3682 6150 1.00 1.3571 4622 7203 3.4346 2.00 3.00 -1.9481E-02 .2901 -.7144 6754 1.00 1.3766 3942 6150 3 3682 3.00 2.00 1 948E-02 2901 -.6754 7144 improved 2.00 5714 4510 -2 2632 1.1204 1.00 quality 3.00 1429 .3851 -1.7229 1.4372 1.00 .5714 .4510 -1. 1204 2 2632 2.00 3.00 .4286 2837 2822 1.1394 1.00 1429 3851 -1.4372 1.7229 3.00 2822 2.00 -.4286 2837 -1.1394 160

PAGE 174

Table 8c. (Cont.) Post Hoc Tests Higher Education Mission Goals : Multiple Comparisons Dunnett C 95/o Coofideoee Interval (J) Mean Differeatt (I) Std. Error Dependent hosting rs (1-.J) Lower Upper hosting Vuiable Bound Bound years improved 2.00 -.5000 .5983 -2.5278 1.5278 1.00 aeeountabil 3.00 3.070E-02 5252 -1.9524 2 0138 ity 1.00 5000 5983 -1.5278 2.5278 2.00 3.00 .5307 .3499 -.1236 1.1850 1.00 -3. 0702E-02 .5252 -2 0138 1.9524 3.00 2.00 5307 3499 -1.1850 1236 imprstu 2.00 -.5179 .4638 -2 1776 1.1419 1.00 eqllity 3.00 -.1299 .4040 -1. 7126 1.4528 1.00 5179 .4638 -1.1419 2 1776 2.00 3.00 .3880 2812 2500 1.0259 1.00 1299 .4040 -1.4528 1.7126 3.00 2.00 .3880 2812 -1.0259 2500 2.00 -1.0536 .4155 -3. 1926 1 0855 1.00 imprv stu 3.00 8052 3620 -2 9193 1.3089 attess 1.00 1.0536 4155 -1.0855 3 1926 2.00 3.00 2484 .2519 -.2165 7133 1.00 8052 .3620 -1.3089 2 9193 3.00 2.00 2484 2519 7133 2165 161

PAGE 175

Table 9 Years Hosting SSS Oneway ANOVA: Descriptlves 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Std. Upper N Mean Std. Error Mini Maxi Deviation Lower Bound mum mum Bound assgnadv l.OO 7 .4286 .5345 20 2 0 .9229 00 1.00 -6 5779E-02 ....... R3 2.00 16 6250 .5000 .1250 .3586 .8914 .00 1.00 3.00 78 5256 5026 5 691E-02 .4123 6390 00 1.00 101 5347 .5013 4 988E-02 .4357 6336 .00 1.00 Total fresem 1.00 7 2857 .4880 1844 1656 7370 00 1.00 2.00 16 5000 .5164 1291 .2248 7752 00 1.00 3.00 78 .5897 .4951 5 605 E02 .4781 7014 .00 1.00 101 .5545 .4995 4 970E-02 .4558 6531 .00 1.00 Total

PAGE 176

Table 9 (Cont.) Years Hosting SSS Oneway ANOVA: Descriptives 0'1 w rosfac stdygrp tutoring --1.00 2.00 3.00 Total t.OO 2.00 3.00 Total 1.00 2.00 3.00 Total N 7 16 78 101 7 16 78 101 7 16 78 101 Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error .2857 .4880 .1844 .3125 .4787 .1197 .2821 .4529 5.128E-02 .2871 .4547 4.524E-02 .4286 .5345 .2020 .4375 .5123 .1281 .4103 1.2937 .1465 .4158 1.1599 .1154 .7143 .4880 .1844 .8125 .4031 .1008 .7564 .461 I 5.221E .7624 .4505 4.483E-02 Confidence Interval for Mean Mini Maxi QprBml mum mum Lower Bound -.1656 .7370 .00 1.00 5.741E-02 .5676 .00 1.00 .1799 .3842 .00 1.00 .1974 .3769 .00 1.00 -6.5779E-02 .9229 .00 1.00 .1645 .7105 .00 1.00 .1186 .7019 .00 u.oo .1869 .6448 .00 11.00 .2630 1.1656 .00 1.00 .5977 1.0273 .00 1.00 .6524 .8604 .00 2.00 .6734 .8513 .00 2.00

PAGE 177

Table 9 (Cont.) Years Hosting SSS Oneway ANOV A: Descriptives 95/o Conndence Interval for Mean Std Std. Upper Bound N Mean Mini Maxi Deviation Error Lower Bound mum mum complab 1.00 7 .4286 .5345 .2020 -6.S779E-02 9229 .00 1.00 2.00 16 .6875 .4787 .1197 .4324 9426 .00 1.00 3.00 78 .5385 .5270 5.967E-02 .4196 .6S73 .00 2 .00 Total 101 .5545 5 191 5 .166E-02 .4520 .6S69 .00 2 .00 stdytech 1.00 1 .8571 3780 .1429 .5076 1.2067 .00 1.00 ....... 2.00 16 .8125 .4031 .1008 .5977 1.0273 .00 1.00 3 .00 78 .8333 .4082 4 .623E-02 .7413 .9254 .00 2 .00 Total 101 .8317 .4017 3 997E-02 .7524 .9110 .00 2 .00 testkng 1.00 7 .8571 3780 .1429 .5076 1 .2067 .00 1.00 2.00 16 .8750 3416 8 .539E-02 .6930 I .OS?O .00 1.00 3.00 78 .8205 .4185 4 .739E-02 .7262 9149 .00 2 .00 Total 101 .8317 4 017 3.997E-02 .7524 .9110 .00 2 .oo 1 L--

PAGE 178

,_. 0'1 Vl Table 9 (Cont.) Years Hosting SSS Oneway ANOV A: Descriptives N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error earlyadm 1.00 7 .1429 .3780 .1429 2.00 16 .3750 .5000 .1250 3.00 78 .2949 .4864 5.508E Total 101 .2970 .4805 4 .781E-02 flnald 1.00 7 .7143 .4880 .1844 2.00 16 .4375 .5123 .1281 3.00 78 .3974 .4925 5 .577E-02 Total 101 .4257 .4969 4 945E-02 employ 1.00 7 .0000 .0000 .0000 2.00 16 .1875 .4031 .1008 3.00 78 .2051 .4064 4 602E Total 101 .1881 .3928 3 908E L-_. ____ 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Upper Bound Mini Maxi Lower mum mum Bound .2067 .4924 .00 1.00 .1086 .6414 .00 1.00 .1852 .4045 .00 2 .00 2 .00 .2022 3919 .00 .2630 1.1656 .00 1.00 .1645 .7105 .00 1.00 .2864 .5085 .00 1.00 .3276 .5238 .00 1.00 .0000 .0000 .00 .00 7304E-02 .4023 .00 1.00 .1135 .2968 .00 1.00 .1106 .2657 .00 1.00

PAGE 179

....... 0\ 0\ currpln -Table 9 (Cont.) Years Hosting SSS Oneway ANOVA : Descriptives 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Std. Std. Upper Bound N Mean Deviation Error Lower Bound 1.00 7 1.0000 .0000 .0000 1.0000 1.0000 2.00 16 .8750 .3416 8 .539E-02 .6930 1.0570 3.00 78 .8333 .3751 4 .247E-02 .7488 .9179 101 .8515 .3574 3.556E-02 .7809 .9220 Mini Maxi mum mum 1.00 1.00 .00 1.00 .00 1.00 00 1.00

PAGE 180

0'1 -.....) assgnadv fresem rosfac Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Table 9a. Years Hosting ANOVA Sum of df Squares 216 2 24 913 98 25. 129 100 .6SO 2 24.300 98 24.950 100 1.232E-02 2 20 661 98 20 673 100 Mean Square F Slg. 108 .424 655 254 325 1.311 274 .248 I 6.162E -03 .029 971 .211

PAGE 181

0'\ 00 stdygrp tutoring complab Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total BetweeJI Groups Within Groups Total Table 9a. (Cont.) Years Hosting ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Slg. 1.107E-02 2 5 536E-03 .004 .99 6 134 524 98 1 373 134 535 100 5 916E-02 2 2.9.58E-02 .143 867 20 238 98 .207 20.297 100 414 2 .207 .765 .468 26.536 98 .271 26 950 100

PAGE 182

_.. 0"1 \0 stdytech testkng earlyadm ------Between Groups Within Groups total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Table 9a (Cont.) Years Hosting ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig II 1 064E-02 2 5.319E-03 032 968 i 16.128 98 165 I I 16. 139 100 4 429E-02 2 2 215E-02 .135 .874 16 094 98 .164 16. 139 100 .264 2 132 567 569 22 825 98 233 23. 089 100

PAGE 183

Table 9a (Cont.) Years Hosting ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Slg. Between Groups 648 2 324 1 319 272 Within Groups 24 046 98 .245 fin aid I Total 24.693 100 I employ Between Groups 270 2 135 .874 421 Within Groups 15.155 98 155 I ---.] 0 Total I 5.426 100 currpln Between Groups 189 2 9.447 E -02 736 .482 Within Groups 12. 583 98 128 Total 12. 772 100 ---

PAGE 184

Table I 0 Support Services for Non-program Students: T-Test Group Statistics Std. Std. Error bost/nonbost N Mean Deviation Mean bostinst 105 3.2190 1.3007 .1269 VAROOO 02 non-bostinst 63 3.2857 1 0538 .1328 bostinst 105 3.2762 1.6379 .1598 VAROOO 03 non-bostinst 63 3.3175 1.0446 .1316 Improved Academic Support Srvs = Variable 2 ; Increased Academic Support Srvs. = Variable 3 171

PAGE 185

Table 1 Oa. Support Services for Non-program Students: Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of T -test for Equality of Means Variances 95% Confidence Sig. Mean Std. Error Interval of the I F Sig. t df (2-talled) Difference Difference Difference Lower Upper Equal variances 1.911 169 344 166 .731 .1935 4488 3154 -.....:) N -6.6667-02 assumed VARO I Equal I 0002 29631 variances not 363 717 1837 4296 151.623 -6 6667E-02 assumed Equal variances 3 934 049 -.179 166 858 .2303 -.4959 4134 -4.1270E-02 assumed VARO Equal 0003 variances not -.199 842 2070 -.4501 3675 165. 341 -4 1270-02 assumed improved Academic Support Srvs = Variable 2 ; Increased Academic Support Srvs. = Variable 3

PAGE 186

APPENDIX APPENDIX A DEFINITION OF TERMS ...................................... 174 APPENDIXB SURVEY OF STUDENT ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAMS FOR HOST INSTITUTIONS ........................ 180 APPENDIXC SURVEY OF STUDENT ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAMS FOR NON-HOST INSTITUTIONS ................... 1 89 APPENDIXD INTERVIEW QUESTIONS .................................... 196 APPENDIXE RESPONSES TO INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ...................... 199 173

PAGE 187

APPENDIX A DEFlNITION OF TERMS The following are the operational definitions that will be used in this study. SSS-type Services Recent research sponsored by the Office of Post Secondary Education ( 1998) indicates that "the most successful" SSS programs possess a cadre of services in common. This research (Muraskin 1997) examined best practices of SSS programs. Muraskin conducted case studies of five program sites drawn from a group of 30 that had been identified in the National Study of Student Support Services as successful programs. She identified the following as the most common practices at these sites: 1. A project designed freshmen-year experience; 2. An emphasis on academic support for developmental and popular freshman courses; 3. Extensive student service contacts ; 4. Targeted participant recruitment and participation incentives; 5 Dedicated staff and directors with strong institutional attachments ; and 6 An important role on campus. 174

PAGE 188

The first four of these common factors that could be specifically defined with demonstrated activities (the last two lacked this quality) have been adopted for use a s indicators to define and determine whether any of them have been duplicated or developed for non-program students since the advent of the SSS program to the campus For the purposes of this study the above four common factors have been articulated to the following twelve SSS-type services : 1. Structured Freshman Year 2. Freshman Seminar/College Orientation Class 3 Regular faculty assigned to support services courses Supplemental instruction 4 Study (group learning) groups 5 Subject tutoring 6 Computer assisted labs 7 Study techniques 8 Test-taking strategies Targeted recruitment 9 Early admission 10 Priority for financial aid 11. Priority for on-campus employment opportunities 12 Development of learning contracts & curriculum planning 175

PAGE 189

In addition to these factors information on those variables related to the spread of program benefits and institutional characteristics were included. Since institutional features have often been credited with being the most influential factor in the success of students, specified institutional characteristics were included for comparison across pre-SSS colleges post-SSS colleges and non-host schools that implemented SSS-type services for all students. Additionally there was an expectation that survey information would identify how changes in services helped achieve specific institutional goals. Pre-program Services These are those SSS-type services that have been provided for all students prior to the advent of hosting a SSS program on the campus. Post-program Services These are SSS-type services that have been provided for non-program students after hosting a SSS program. Structured Freshman Year 176

PAGE 190

A structured freshman year means the first year of undergraduate studies and must include an academic advisor assigned by the college that meets with the student at least twice every semester. This person has influence on the selection of courses and provides general guidance on adjustment and orientation to the institution. Regular Instructors Regular instructors for support services course/s means that rostered faculty members are assigned to courses specifically designated as a support service course e g. Freshman Seminar course. Supplemental Instruction Supplemental instruction is subject related and conducted by the course instructor a faculty member who would be qualified to teach the course or a teaching assistant who is supervised by a faculty member qualified to teach the course. Within supplemental instruction are the following : 1. Study (group learning) groups are those sessions formally organized and facilitated by a faculty member in the discipline or teaching assistant supervised by such a faculty member. The sessions are held on a regular basis 177

PAGE 191

during the semester. Student attendance and participation are included in the course grade. 2 Subject tutoring are sessions conducted for one to three students at a time by a faculty member or someone the faculty member designates as qualified to provide the service. 3. Computer assisted labs are those dedicated technology facilities made available to students for the purpose of enhancing their learning in a basic skill or subject area. These resources cannot be used for other institutional pwposes e.g. administration or academic advising. 4. Learning workshops or seminars are sessions that are held at periodically throughout the semester to provide students with information and skill development in Study techniques or -Test-taking strategies Targeted Recruitment Targeted recruitment means that the college provides incentives for participation i.e. early admission priority for class selection early consideration for fmancial aid and 178

PAGE 192

on-campus employment opportunities and the development of learning contracts and curriculum planning with students Value-added Benefits Value-added benefits include improving institutional quality improving institutional accountability improving student equity improving student access improving academic support services for non-program students and increasing academic support services for non-program students Diffusion/Spread of Value-added Benefits Spread of value-added benefits from SSS programs means that the respondent believes that the program has had a positive influence on the institution generally and/or for non-program students Institutional Characteristics Institutional characteristics include public/ private; student body demographics faculty to student ratio percentage receiving fmancial aid and selectivity 179

PAGE 193

APPENDIXB SURVEY OF STIJDENT ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAMS FOR HOST JNSTITUTIONS This survey contains four sections that address the following areas of concern: Section 1: Your knowledge of the Student Support Services (SSS) program on your campus. SSS is a component of TRIO Programs that is funded by the U.S. Dept. Of Education's Office of Higher Education. Section 2: Your knowledge of services similar to those provided by SSS that are available to ali students. Section 3: Institutional characteristics of your college. Section 4: Information on your background. Instructions for completion: Use the tab key to move to your choice. Then place an "x" in the box that most closely represents your choice or type in your response as appropriate. 180

PAGE 194

SECTION 1: Which of the following does your Student Support Services Program (SSS) provide? Structured Freshman Year 1. A structured freshman year that includes an advisor assigned by the college who meets with the student at least twice per semester? D 2. SSS courses such as a Freshman Seminar or College Orientation class. D 3. These classes are taught by a regular (rostered) faculty member? D Supplemental Instruction 4. Study groups: learning sessions facilitated by a faculty member or teaching assistant in the discipline, held on a regular basis, and student participation included in course grade. D 5. Subject tutoring: sessions conducted for one to ten students by the course faculty member or designee. 6. Computer assisted labs: technology facilities designated for student learning that are not used for administration or academic advising. D D Learning workshops: skill building sessions held periodically throughout the 181

PAGE 195

semester that focus on 7 .Study techniques &.Test-taking strategies Targeted Recruitment 0 0 9. Opportunity for early admission provided. 0 10. Priority given for financial aid award/scholarships. 0 11. Priority for on-campus employment provided 0 12. Students receive advice on curriculum planning for major/career interest. 0 SECTION 2: Changes in Academic Support Services for Non-SSS Program Students If any of the following services are offered at your college for non-SSS students indicate whether they were implemented before or after the start of the SSS program. If your college does not offer the service leave that question blank. Academic Support Services for Non-SSS Students 182 Service Begun Service Begun Prior to After SSS SSS Prg SSS Prg

PAGE 196

13. A formal support services program for students who are not in the SSS program? 14. Support services that are not in a formal program format? Whether in a structured program or not, if the college provides any of the following services indicate when they were begun. 0 0 0 0 15.Assigned advisors who meet with advisees at least 2 times/semester 0 0 16 Faculty advising to assist students in the development of curricular/ career planning. 17. General introductory or adjustment to the institution courses 0 0 18. Study groups: learning sessions conducted by a faculty member or teaching assistant in the discipline, held on a regular basis, and student participation included in course grade 19. Subject tutoring: sessions conducted for one to ten students by the course instructor or designee. 0 0 0 0 0 0 20. Computer assisted labs designated specifically for student learning 0 0 21. Skill building workshops that focus on -Study techniques 0 0 183

PAGE 197

-Test-taking Strategies 0 0 College Recruitment Strategies Recruitment strategies that have any of the following participation incentives, 22. Early admission offered 0 0 23. Priority for financial aid/scholarships 0 0 24. On-campus employment priority 0 0 25. Students advised on curriculum planning for major/career interest 0 0 SSS Program Benefits: Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement to the following statements: Strongly Agree Strongly Undecided Agree Disagree The presence of a SSS program on your campus has 26. Improved academic support services for non-program student. 0 0 Please feel free to further explain your response 27. Generally increased academic 184 0 0 0

PAGE 198

support services for non-program students? D D 0 0 D Please feel free to further explain your response. The presence of a SSS program on your campus has helped the college in attaining its educational goals of teaching, research and service 28. By improving quality. 0 0 0 0 0 29. By improving accountability. 0 0 D 0 D 30. By improving student equity. D D 0 0 D 31. By improving student access to higher education. o 0 0 0 0 Please feel free to further explain your responses to #s 28, 29,30, or 31. If the federal funding ended and your college has sufficient resources would it decide to 33. Retain the SSS programD 34. Retain selected services of the programD Give an example of which services you mean 35. Dissolve the programD 185

PAGE 199

36. Develop an alternative programO SECTION 3: Institutional Characteristics ofColJege (check or indicate information) How many uninterrupted years has your college hosted the SSS program? 3 7 Less than 5 years 0 38. Five to nine years 0 39 Ten years or more 0 Type/control 40.Public_D 41. Private (affiliation, if any) D 42. CommuterD 29 Residential (live on campus) 0 43. Faculty to student ratio ____ 44. Percentage of in-state students, __ 32. Percentage of out-of-state students __ 45. Percentage of female students Ethnicity percentages 46. African American __ 4 7. Asian American __ 48. American Native Alaskan Native __ 49 . Hispanic Latino Mexican Americ-an __ 186

PAGE 200

50. White (non-Hispanic) __ 51. Average age of student population __ 52. Percentage receiving financial aid (grants & loans) Admission selectivity average 53. Average HS GPA __ 54. Average SAT __ or Average ACT __ SECTION 4: Information on Individual Completing Form 55. What is your major area of responsibility? Administration (specify area/job title) _________ Student Support Services Program (specify position/job title), ________ Faculty (specify discipline)-------------56. How long have you worked for the college? Less than 3 yearsO 3-5 yearsO 6-10 yearsO More than 10 yearsO 187

PAGE 201

57 How long have you worked in your current position? Less than 3 yrsD 3-5 yearsD 6-10 yearsD More than 10 yearsD Your survey is completed. Many thanks for your assistance in gathering thls information. 188

PAGE 202

APPENDIXC SURVEY OF STUDENT ACADEMJC SUPPORT PROGRAMS FOR NON-HOST INSTITUTIONS lbis survey contains three sections that address the following areas of concern: Section 1: Your knowledge of the Academic Support Services for students on your campus. Section 2: Institutional characteristics of your co11ege. Section 3: Information on your background. SECTION 1: Check those services that your Academic Support Services Program provides. Structured Freshman Year 1. An advisor assigned by the college who meets with the student at least twice per semester? 0 2. Faculty advising to assist students in the development of curricular/career planning 0 189

PAGE 203

3. Support services courses such as a Freshman Seminar or College Orientation class. 4. The courses or classes in above# 3 are taught by a regular (rostered) faculty member? Supplemental Instruction 5. Study groups: learning sessions facilitated by a faculty member or teaching assistant in the discipline, held on a regular basis, and student participation included in course grade. 6. Subject tutoring: sessions conducted for one to ten students by the course faculty member or designee. 7. Computer assisted labs: technology facilities designated for student learning that are not used for administration or academic advising. Learning workshops: skill building sessions held periodically throughout the semester that focus on 8. Study techniques 9. Test-taking strategies 190 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PAGE 204

Targeted Recruitment 10. Opportunity for early admission offered 0 11. Priority given for fmancial aid award/scholarships. 0 12. Priority for on-campus employment provided. 0 13. Students receive advice on curriculum planning for major/career interest. 0 Benefits of Academic Support Services: Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement to the following statements: Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Undecided Agree Disagree The presence of academic support services on your campus has 14. Improved academic support services for students not in a specialized retention program e.g ., EOP First Generation etc. 0 0 0 0 0 Please feel free to further explain your respnse. J 191

PAGE 205

15. Generally increased academic support services for all of your students 0 0 0 0 0 Please feel free to further explain your response. Benefits of Academic Support Services: Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement to the following statements: Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Undecided Agree Disagree The presence of academic support services on your campus has helped the college in attaining its educational goals of teaching, research and service 16. By improving quality. 0 0 0 0 0 17. By improving accountability. 0 0 0 0 0 18. By improving student equity. 0 0 0 0 D 19. By improving student access. 0 0 0 0 D 192

PAGE 206

Please feel free to further explain your responses to #s 16, 1 7, 18, or 19. SECTION 2: Institutional Characteristics of College (check or indicate information) Type/control PublicO 21. Private (affiliation, if any)D 22. CommuterD 23. Residential (live on campus)O 24. Faculty to student ratio __ 25. Percentage of in-state students __ 26. Percentage of out-of-state students __ 27. Percentage of female students. __ Ethnicity percentages 28. African American __ 29. Asian American __ 30. American Indian, Native American, Alaskan Native __ 31 .. Hispanic, Latino, Mexican American __ 32. White (non-Hispanic) __ 193

PAGE 207

33. Average age of student population __ 34. Percentage receiving financial aid (grants & loans) __ Admission selectivity average __ 35. Average HS GPA __ 36 Average SAT __ or Average ACT __ SECTION 3: Information on Individual Completing Form 37. What is your major area of responsibility? Chief Administrative Officer for Student Services or Student Affairs for College (specify area/job title). ________ Other Administrative Officer (specify position/job title) 38. How long have you worked for the college? Less than 3 yrsD 3-5 yearsD 6-10 yearsO More than 10 yearsO 39. How long have you worked in your current position? Less than 3 yrsD 3-5 yearsO 194

PAGE 208

6-10 yearsD More than 1 0 yearsD 195

PAGE 209

APPENDIXD INTERVIEW QUESTIONS Institutional Code: _____ 1. Did your college offer study techniques or test-taking strategies for non-SSS students before __ or after do not know __ the SSS ofTrio came to your institution? 2 In its starting up either of these services what specific action did you observe the college taking to accommodate the implementation of the service? 3. Did the implementation of either service affect/impact how SSS was aligned with institutional policies and/or goals? Nature of change mechanism 4. Did the coJlege involve SSS in the decision making for considering the change: Yes ___ No __ for implementing either service Yes No __ 196

PAGE 210

for 5. If yes, describe how the organization involved SSS in the decision making Change Implementation Using the rating of: Completely (1) Somewhat (2) Not at all (3) How would you describe SSS in relation to the organizational model at the your college 6. Within existing organizational structures 7. Self contained Considering the following areas, to what extent do you believe that SSS is imbedded in the institution? 8. Activities 9. Structures 1 0. Internal funding 11.Extemal funding 12. Do you view the federal regulations that prohibit recruitment by SSS as a barrier to program effectiveness? Yes __ No __ If so, give an example of how the program has attempted to address this. 197

PAGE 211

13.What, if any, institutional barriers have prevented the spread ofSSS program benefits at your college? (Example of how?) 14. If you were to identify one barrier to SSS' ability to collaborate with the institution to facilitate organizational change what would it be? 15. Oftbe following four (4), which one has been impacted the most by the barrier you identified in your previous response? Please explain why? Institutional quality Institutional accountability Student equity Student success 198

PAGE 212

APPENDIXE RESPONSES TO INTERVIEW QUESTIONS IBox I. Responses to Interview Question 1 1. Did your college offer study techniques or test-taking strategies for non-SSS students before_ or after do not know __ the SSS of Trio came to your institution? Institution I Both services were offered before the SSS program started. Institution 2 After Institution 3 Do not know Institution 4 After and for the last few years have run a Freshman Orientation program Institution 5 Before. Offered kind of random no system or structure prior to SSS start, development course content determined by instructor choice Institution 6 After. SSS has always had a human development course and now all students are required to take it. 199

PAGE 213

Box I. (Cont.) Responses to Interview Question I Institution 7 Do not know Institution 8 Before. Trio started at university in I960s, but study skills were available possibly through the African American student organization before Trio Institution 9 After. Now there are also a full orientation program and peer advising for all students and a summer bridge program for at-risk students Institution I 0 Before, limited, not formal until SSS 200

PAGE 214

I Box 2. Responses to Interview Question 2 2. In its starting up either of these services what specific action did you observe the college taking to accommodate the implementation of the service? Institution I Since SSS the college has developed a new format for academic services that includes a Student Success Program, an Enrichment Center for students to address basic skills development and a general education all university seminar for all students. Institution 2 None-SSS personnel not involved Institution 3 Varied, depending on the service, SSS personnel served on task groups and committees Institution 4 SSS program staff served on planning committees Institution 5 Administration solicited SSS participation on planning and implementation teams and continuous participation in further development and evaluation of these services Institution 6 SSS staff were on the committees for planning these services Institution 7 Do not know 201

PAGE 215

Box 2. (Cont.) Responses to Interview Question 2 Institution 8 Possibly through the African American student organization. TRIO programs started in the 1960s which formalized academic support services. Institution 9 After. SSS as prototype for other services Institution 10 SSS was located from the start in the Academic Support Center, was a part of a main college division 202

PAGE 216

I Box 3. Responses to Interview Question 3 3. Did the implementation of either service affect/impact how SSS was aligned with institutional policies and/or goals? Yes_ No_ Institution 1 Not really, but SSS took on more responsibilities Institution 2 Not related to policies, but somewhat as related to goals. The institution developed retention goals as a priority for all students Institution 3 No Institution 4 Yes increased SSS involvement in crafting policy particularly related to increasing academic support and retention Institution 5 No, always viewed as student support experts Institution 6 Not really, SSS remains an integral component of establishing and implementing college goals Institution 7 Do not know Institution 8 Yes, in these services into an organized structure using SSS model. SSS staff lead planning Institution 9 No, SSS was always integral part of the university's academic student affairs area Institution I 0 No 203

PAGE 217

Box 4. Responses to Interview Questions 4 and 5 (reported together for clarity in understanding the respondents' perspectives on how changes occurred) Nature of change mechanism 4. Did the college involve SSS in the decision making for considering the change: Yes No __ for implementing either service Yes No __ 5. If yes describe how the organization involved SSS in the decision making for Change Implementation Institution 1 Yes and yes SSS staff designed and taught courses in the Student Success program Institution 2 No and no from 1993 when SSS first funded. Yes and yes since 2003 funding cycle when administration moved SSS to academic services side of institution resulting in improved communication with non program staff and increases in the quality and quantity of services Institution 3 Yes and yes SSS represented on task groups and committees to re design support services Institution 4 Yes and yes. SSS assisted in developing the curriculum in the Freshman Orientation course that is required for all students. SSS staff teach various components ofthe course including the study skills topics. 204

PAGE 218

Box 4 (Cont.) Responses to Interview Questions 4 and 5 Institution 5 Yes and yes. The university perception is that SSS staff were the masters in student support. For example SSS staff teach and train non-program personnel how to do advising. Institution 6 Yes and yes. Consulted with SSS staff in planning phases and duplicated SSS methods. An example ofthis is that SSS supplemented the freshman seminar required text, Becoming a Master Student with content on the Indian culture This supplemental material is now required for all students in the course regardless of assigned course section Institution 7 Yes and yes SSS staff input included in any decisions related to academic support services for all students at the school Institution 8 Yes and yes. All academic support services report to the same vice president who includes every area on teams to examine and improve services for all students. Institution 9 Yes and yes. SSS on planning committee from beginning to implementation still on academic support committee to monitor and evaluate progress. 205

PAGE 219

Box 4. (Cont.) Responses to Interview Questions 4 and 5 Institution 10 Yes and yes, SSS's location in the Student Academic Center communication easy, SSS staff were on related planning committees collaborating with non-program personnel daily, the relationship to re develop and implement new services was always cooperative resulting in seamless services for anyone can see any student who comes in 206

PAGE 220

Box 5 Interview Responses to Questions 6 and 7 (reported together for clarity in understanding the respondents' perspectives on the organization) Using the rating of Completely (1) Somewhat (2) Not at all (3) How would you describe SSS in relation to the organizational model at the your college 6. Within existing organizational structures 7. Self contained Institution 1 Somewhat for both. SSS is self contained, but receives supervision and reports to the VP for Student Services Institution 2 Completely within, no longer self contained. for both. With the move of SSS to the academic side of the college the program is integrated with the entire organization resulting in increased visibility and coJJaborative efforts with the faculty. Institution 3 Completely within. Institution 4 Completely within and somewhat self contained. SSS remains autonomous although it is clearly a unit of the university Institution 5 Completely within, a seamless fit in the organization Institution 6 Completely within since first funding of SSS in early 1990s 207

PAGE 221

Box 5 (Cont.) Interview Responses to Questions 6 and 7 Institution 7 Completely within SSS has been a part of the student affairs operations for over twenty years when first funded. Institution 8 Absolutely (completely) within. Institution 9 Completely wifully integrated Institution I 0 Completely within SSS fully integrated/infused in organizational structure 208

PAGE 222

Box 6. Responses to Questions 8 thru 11 (grouped together for clarity in understanding responses ali related to which areas are viewed as those where SSS is imbedded in the institutuion) Considering the following areas, to what extent do you believe that SSS is imbedded in the institUtion? 8. Activities 9. Structures I 0. Internal funding 11.Extemal funding Institution 1 All four completely. Federal grant programs such as SSS and college funded programs all receive benefits from foundation and other grants that support the college. Institution 2 Ail four now completely. Institution 3 Ail four completely. Institution 4 Activities and structures completely. Internal and external funding somewhat. School provides in-kinds and some salary support, but relies on the refunding ofSSS Institution 5 Ail four completely. Institution 6 Ail four completely. Institution 7 All four totally (completely). 209

PAGE 223

I Box 6. (Cont.) Responses to Questions 8 thru 11 Institution 8 All four completely, but SSS supported primarily by (small percentage from the institution) and counts on SSS refunding Institution 9 All four completely. Institution provides financial support for space upkeep and equipment and funds 20 percent of the SSS budget. Institution 1 0 All four completely. It has taken 14 years of cooperation resulting in seamless services. Even share costs for equipment and personnel. 210

PAGE 224

I Box 7. Responses to Interview Question 12 12. Do you view the federal regulations that prohibit recruitment by SSS as a barrier to program effectiveness? Yes __ No __ If so, give an example of how the program has attempted to address this. Institution 1 No. Recruitment within the university results in plenty of students. Institution 2 No. Since 1993 word-of-mouth works. Also use Freshmen Orientation classes to recruit students. Institution 3 No. Institution 4 No. Strong relationship with admissions, SSS staff actually evaluate admission folders. Possibly could reach more students at high school, but admissions does good job. Institution 5 No. Have dedicated admission resources to recruit. Rural nature of the institution is unique among SSS programs and requires entire university outreach to enroll all students. Institution 6 No. SSS works with college's recruitment office and the Upward Bound program (before it ended in 2001). College TRIO still has SSS and Talent Search programs working together to increase student access and success once enrolled. 211

PAGE 225

Box 7. (Cont.) Responses to Interview Question 12 Institution 7 No. College has more than enough students to supply the grant needs Institution 8 Yes. Most of institution's student are not low income so there is relatively small selection pool. Institution 9 No. Thirty to 40 students (already admitted to college) on the wait-list all the time. SSS involved in college sponsored 3 1/2 day orientation program where students are recruited for SSS. Institution 10 No. Can contact students once on campus and do summer mailings to admitted students. There are more than enough eligible students. 212

PAGE 226

Box 8. Responses to Interview Questions 13, 14 and 15 (responses clustered under the topic of barriers to the spread of program benefits for a more comprehensive understanding of the issue) 13. What, if any, institutional barriers have prevented the spread of SSS program benefits at your college? (Example of how?) 14. If you were to identify one barrier to SSS' ability to collaborate with the institution to facilitate organizational change what would it be? 15. Of the following four (4), which one has been impacted the most by the barrier you identified in your previous response? Please explain why? Institutional quality Institutional accountability Student equity Student success Institution 1 13. Not sure of any institutional barriers, good rapport with school administration. 14.Perception by a few that SSS is outside of university. They have limited awareness of program services. 15. Institutional quality, but accountability and student success are close seconds. Institution 2 13. Campus politics of''will they (SSS) be around" 14. Political environment, territorial and turf problems 15. Institutional quality. Before SSS program relocation it had a reputation that SSS had best support services with a more committed staff. This sometimes made others competitive to detriment of students. 213

PAGE 227

Box 8. (Cont.) Responses to Interview Questions 13, 14 and 15 Institution 3 13. There is a problem when SSS cannot serve a student (due to ineligibility) who has been referred by one of the other academic units (schools or programs). The referring party might agree with the SSS disposition and complain to the dean or administrator. 14 None, except when #13 happens and a student is denied SSS services. Referring academic unit may not agree with disposition, but continues to refer other students. 15. Institutional quality. Denying students SSS services might decrease student success in an academic program and put at risk the program's accreditation and/or funding. Institution 4 13. None, fortunate in having cooperation from entire institution and the administration is supportive of SSS program goals. 14. Cannot identify any. 15. N/A Institution 5 13. None, SSS director highly respected, provost at institution for 23 years believes in TRIO goals, university provided technical assistance for successful writing ofthe Upward Bound grant. 14. None viewed. 15. N/A Institution 6 13. None, institution puts in a 25% match on grant, SSS director is dean of Student Services. 14. Lack of ability to impact all academic departments where the is a culture of not seeking services for students who need academic assistance. 15. Student success given response in question number 14. Such programs do not take intitiative to provide support services themselves and do not advise student of support 214

PAGE 228

Box 8. (Cont.) Responses to Interview Questions 13, 14 and 15 services available outside of the department that are available at the all university level. Institution 7 13. In the past support was present. New college President that started four years ago does not seem to understand SSS goals well, needs more time to learn about program. 14. Stance and role modeling of institutional leader critical in facilitating organizational change. 15. Institutional quality, institutional accountability and student success are all equally impacted. Institution 8 13. To a degree some SSS-type services are replicated in other colleges at the university, but these services tend to be restricted to traditionally under-represented students, i.e., minorities and women in some disciplines, particularly engineering, business and life sciences. 14. None identified. 15. N/ A The provost has begun a new initiative to explore diversity from an institutional perspective. Programs across the university are benefiting from this college-wide effort and being given an opportunity to participate in and frame the discussion Institution 9 None, complete cooperation with college administration, support excellent. 14. Cannot identify one. 15. N/A 215

PAGE 229

Box 8. (Cont.) Responses to Interview Questions 13, 14 and 15 Institution 10 13. Informal perspective by some (not administration or Academic Center personnel) that grant programs are temporary. 14. Politics that exist in academia viewing grant programs as time limited, "they may not be here next year" perspective. Soft money funding is for temporary programs. 15. Institutional quality. Perspective in question #13 has some thinking, "What happens ifSSS is not funded? Would other areas have to help support it"? 216

PAGE 230

REFERENCES Abrams H. & Jernigan. J. (1984). Academic support services and the success ofhighrisk college students. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 261-274 Anaya, G. (1999). College impact on student learning : Comparing the use of self reported gains standardized test scores and college grades. Research in Higher Education 40(5) 499-526. Antley H. (1999). The de_velopment of a predictive model for one-year freshman retention rate: A macro-approach. Proceedings from the Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research. Seattle W A : AIR. Argyris C. (1969) The incompleteness of social-psychological theory: Examples from small group cognitive consistency and attribution research. American Psychologist 24(1 0) 893-908. Argyris C. (1974) Theory in practice. San Francisco CA: Josses-Bass Argyris C. (1982) Reasoning learning and action: Individual and organi z ational San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass. Argyris C. (1993) On organizational learning Cambridge MA: Black-well Publishers. Argyris C. & D. (1978) Organi z ational learning Reading MA: Addison Wesley. Ashcroft K. Bigger S ., & Coates D. (1994). Researching into equal opportunities in colleges and universities. London: Kogan Page Limited. Astin A. (1993). How are students affected? Change 25(1 ) 44-50 217

PAGE 231

Astin, A. (1994). Educational equity and the problem of assessment. In M. Justiz, R.Wilson, and L. Bmjk (Eds.), Minorities in higher education. Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education and Oryx Press. Balz, F. & Esten, M. (1998). Fulfilling private dreams, setving public priorities: An analysis of TRIO students' success at independent co11eges and universities. The Journal of Negro Education, 67(4), 333-345. Banta, T ., Lund, J ., Black, K., & Oblander, F. (1996). Assessment in practice: Putting principles to work on college campuses. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Bean, J.P. (1985). Interaction effects based on class level in an exploratory model of college student dropout syndrome. American Educational Research Journal, 22,35-64. Benjamin, R. & Carroll, S. (1996). Impediments and imperatives in redesigning higher education. Santa Monica, CA: Rand. Birchall, D. & Lyons, L.. (1995). Creating tomo"ow s organization: Unlocking the benefits of future work London: Pitman Publishing. Blandin, D. (1993). Three realities: Minority life in the United States-the struggle for economic equity. In C. R. Wharton (Ed.), Minorities in higher education. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Bowen, W. G. & Bok, D. (1998). The shape of the river: Long-term consequences of considering race in college and university admissions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Byron, W. J., (1992). Needed: Creative policy ideas to resolve the competing claims of quality, diversity, and efficiency in higher education. In David H. Finifter, Roger G. Baldwin, and John R. Thelin (Eds.), The uneasy public policy triangle in higher education. New York, NY: MacmiiJan Publishing Company. 218

PAGE 232

Carnevale, A. P. & Fry, R. A. (1999). Economics demography and the future of higher education policy National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. Retrieved 10/20/02 from www nga.org Chaney B. Muraskin L. Cahalan M. & R. (1997). National study of student support services : Third-year longitudinal study results and program implementation study update. Washington, DC: Department of Education. Chang M. J., Witts-Sandis, D., & Hakuta, K. (1999). The dynamics of race in higher education: An examination of the vidence. Equity & Excellence in Education 12-16. Clark B. (1995). Places of inquiry: Research and advanced education in modern universities. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Clewell, B & Fricken, M. S. (1986). Improving minority student retention in higher education: A search for e.ffective institutional practices Research Report #7. NJ: Educational Testing Service. A. M. & Brawer, F.B. (1982). The American community college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc Publishers. Cohen B. (1994). Explaining psychological statistics. Pacific Grove CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Colorado Commission on Higher Education. (1999, October). Interim master plan. Denver, CO: CCHE Retrieved September 6, 2001, from http://web.uccs.edu/blade/cfac/cche-masterplan/ . J. E. & Bradford C. (1983). Evaluation ofthe special services for disadvantaged students (SSDS) program: Final r e port. Santa Monica, CA: Systems Development Corp. 219

PAGE 233

Coulson, J. E., C. Bradford, & Kaye, J. (1981). Evaluation ofthe special services for disadvantaged Students (SSDS) program: 1978-79 academic year Santa Monica, CA: Systems Development Corp. Council for Opportunity in Education (1999, March) What is TRIO?. Washington, DC. Council for Opportunity in Education. Washington, DC: Council for Opportunity in Education Cunningham, A., Redmond, C. & Merisotis, J. (2003). Investing early: Intervention programs in selected U.S. states. Montreal, Canada : The Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation. Darden J., Bagaka's, J., Armstrong, T., & Payne T (1994). Segregation of American Indian undergraduate students in institutions of higher education. Equity & Excellence in Education 27(3) 61-68. Darden, J., Bagaka s, J. & Li, C. (1997). Racial inequality of enrollment in selected U.S. institutions of higher education. Equity & Excellence in Education, 30(1), 47-55 Darity W., Guilkey, D. & Winfrey, W. (1996). Explaining differences in economic performance among racial and ethnic groups in the USA : The data examined. American Journal of Economics and Sociology 55( 4), 411-427. Davis, J. Burkheimer G., & Borders-Patterson, A. (1975) 1he impact of special services programs in higher education for disadvantaged students. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Center. Dill D. Massy W. Williams P., & Cook, C. (1996). Accreditation and academic quality assurance: Can we get there from here? Change 28(5), 16-25 Dimond P R. (1995). A new challenge for American education. Daedalus Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 124 (4), 119-129. 220

PAGE 234

DiNitto D. (2000). Social welfare : Politics and public policy Boston: Allyn and Bacon Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 Pub L. No. 88-452 United States Statutes at Large (Vol.78) Washington DC: United States Government Printing Office Etzioni A. (1967). Mixed-scanning : A third approach to deci s ion ma i ng. Public Administration Review 27, 385-392. Field A. (2000). Discovering statistics using SPSS for windows Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc. Fox R. (1985 March). Application of a conceptual model of colleg e withdrawal to disadvantaged students Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association Chicago IL Gandara, P. (1994 ). Choosing higher education: Educationally ambitious Chicanos and the path to social mobility. Educational Policy Analysis Archives 2(8). Retrieved March 18, 2004 from http://olam ed.asu.edu/epaa/v2n8.html Ginsburg, A. & McLaughlin, M. (1992). Improving minority postsecondary outcomes: The need for a comprehensive approach The uneasy public policy triangle in higher education. New York, NY; Macmillan Publishing Company Golembiewski R., Proehl C. & Sink D. (1981). Success ofOD app1ications in the public sector: Toting up the score for a decade more or less. Public Administration Review 41, 681-692. Greenwood, D. (1997) Organizational learning ll: Theory method, and practice Industrial and Labor Relations Review 50(4) 701-703. Grubb W. (2001). From black box to Pandora s box : Evaluating remedial/developmental education New York NY : Community College Research Cen t er. Columbia University 221

PAGE 235

Hauptman, A. & Smith, P .. (1994). Financial aid strategies for improving minority student participation in higher education. In M. Justiz, R Wilson, & L. Bmjk (Eds.), Minorities in higher education (pp. 78-106). Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education and Oryx Press. Hawkesworth, M.E. (1988). Theoretical issues in policy analysis. Albany NY: State University of New York. Higher Education Act of 1965. 1998 Higher Education Act Amendments, Subpart 2Federal Early Outreach and Student Services Programs, Chapter 1Federal TRIO Programs, Sec. 402A. 20 U.S.C. 1070a-l 1. Higher Education Act, 1998 Amendments, Pub. L. No.1 05-244, 114 (1998). Higher Education Act, 34 C.F.R Sec. 646 (1965). Higher Education Act, 34 C.F .R. 646.3 (d) (200 1 ). Higher Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 402H 1070a-18 (1965). House Panel Backs Increasing GI Bill Payments for Vets. (2000, May 12). Congress Daily/AM, p. 1. Humphreys, D. (1997). General education and American commitments: A national report on diversity courses and requirements. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities Hurst, David. (2005). Estimating undergraduate enrollment in postsecondary education using National Center for Education Statistics data: Research and development report. (NCES 2005-063). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. US Department ofEducation. Institute of Education Sciences. Janesick, V. J. (1998). "Stretching" exercises for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications 222

PAGE 236

Johnstone, D. (1997). The United States. In M. Greene (Ed.) Transforming higher education : Views from leaders around the world (pp. 65-83). Phoenix: The American Council on Education and the Oryx Press. Johnson, I. ( 1996). Leveling the playing field: Promoting academic success for students of color. In !. Johnson & A. Ottens (Eds ), New directions for student services (pp. 9-17). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. Joint Information Systems Committee. (1995). Exploiting information systems in higher education. An Issue Paper. Bristol: JISC. Katz D. & Kahn R. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Kelinson, J. (1998). Trends in college degrees Occupational Outlook Quarterly, 42(2), 23-28. Lazerson, Wagener, U. & Shumanis, N. (2000). "What makes a revolution? (movement to improve quality of higher education). Change 32(3), 12-22. Leathwoo
PAGE 237

Martinez, M. (1999). Correlates of persistence and achievement: Student support services at a New England research university. Journal of Educational Opportunity, 17(2), 9-23. Maxwell W. (1998). Supplemental instruction, learning communities, and students studying together. Community College Review, 26(2) 1-18. McMurtrie, B. (1999). Assessing the group that assesses accreditation. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(12), A41-43. M & Schapiro, M. ( 1991 ). Keeping college affordable : Government and educational opportunity. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Morris, E., Brooks, P. & May, J. (1997). The relationship between achievement goal orientation and coping style : Traditional vs. nontraditional college students. College Student Journal, 37(1), 3-9. Muraskin, L. (1997). "Best practices in student support services: A study of five exemplary sites. Rockvillt: MD: \Vestat Inc Muraskin, L., Lee, J., Wilner, A.& Swail W. (2004). Raising the graduation rates of low-income college students. Washington, DC: The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education. Murtaugh, P., Bums, L. & Schuster, J. (1999). Predicting the retention ofuniversit'J students. Research in Higher Education, 40(3) 355-371. National Center for Education Statistics. (1998 March). Gender differences in earnings among young adults entering the labor market. Washington, DC: NCES. National Center for Education Statistics. (1999, November). Fall enrollment in postsecondary institutions 1997 Washington, DC: NCES. 224

PAGE 238

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. (2004). Creating high performance postsecondary education. Retrieved Febmary 18, 2005 from WWW.NGA.org/center. Nolan, R. (1999). Helping the doctoral student navigate the maze from beginning to end. Journal of Continuing Education, 48(3), 27-32. The Office ofHigher Education Programs. (1998). Federal TRIO programs. Access and retention programs for disadvantaged students. Washington, DC: Department ofEducation. Office of Postsecondary Education Higher Education Programs. (2000 May 1 6). Student Support Services Program. Retrieved June 10,2001, from http://www.ed.gov/offices/OPFJHEP/trio/studsupp.html Oliver, M. & Shapiro, T. (1995). Black wealth/white wealth : A new perspective on racial inequality. New York: Routledge. Orfield, G., & Dean, W. (1999, August). Diversity and legal education: Student experiences in leading law schools. The Civil Rights Project Harvard University. Retrieved December 2, 2000, from www.law.harvard edu/groups/civilrights/publicationSt1awsurvey : html O'Sullivan, E. & Rassel, G. (1999). Research methods for public administrators (3rd ed.) New York: Longman. Ozbejhan, H. (1969). Toward a general theory of planning. In E. Jantsch (Ed.), Perspectives of planning. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Peter, K., Hom, L., & Carroll, C (February, 2005). Gender differences in participation and completion of undergraduate education and how they have changed over time. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. 225

PAGE 239

Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pitman Publishers. Rainey, H. (1997). Understanding and managing public organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Ramirez, G. (1997). Supplemental instruction: Long-term impact. Journal of Developmental Education, 21(1), 2-10. Rawls, J. (1971 ). A theory of justice Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Rawls, J. (1985). Justice as fairness: Political not metaphysical. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 14(3), 225. Reyes, N. (1997). Holding on to what they've got : Analysis of programs implemented by six institutions to keep college students in schooL Black Issues in Higher Education, 13(26), 36-41. Robertson, P. &Seneviratne, S. (1995). Outcomes of planned organizational change in the public sector: A meta-analytic comparison t o the p1ivate sector. Public Administration Review, 55, 547-558. Rowley, D., Herman, M. & Dolence, L. (1998) Strategic choices for the academy : How demand for lifelong learnihg will re-create higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Rubin, H. & Rubin, I. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing. D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action New York: Basic Books, Inc. Seaberry, J. & Davis, J. (1997). The metropolitan university: History, mission, and defining characteristics. New Directions for Student Services, 79 5-13. 226

PAGE 240

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday. Sharma, S. (1996). Applied multivariate techniques. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Simon, H. (1960). The new science of management decision. New York: Harper and Row. Snyder, T. (2002).JPEDS estimates. U.S. Department ofEducation. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. Stead, W. & Stead, J. ( 1992). Management for a small planet: Strategic decision making and the environment. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Steinborn, L. & Diggs-Brown, B. (1999). By the color of our skin: The illusion of integration and the reality of race. New York, NY: Dutton, Penguin Group. Takala, M., Hawk D. & Ramos, Y. (2001). On the opening of society: Towards a more open and flexible education system Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 18(4), 291-306. Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage Publications. Terenzini, P. (1997). Student outcomes iriformationfor policy-making: Final report of the national postsecondary education cooperative working group on student outcomes from a policy perspective. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Thomas, E., Farrow, E. & Martinez, J. (1998). A TRIO program's impact on participant graduation rates: The Rutgers University student support services program and its network of services. Journal ofNegro Education, 67(4), 389403. 227

PAGE 241

Thomas, G (1987). Black students in U.S. graduate and professional schools in the 1980s: A national and institutional assessment. In N. Hildalgo, C. McDowell and E. Siddle (Eds.), Facing racism in education. (pp. 210-231). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review. Tierney, W. & Jun A.. (2001). A university helps prepare low income youths for college. Journal of Higher Education, 72(2), 205-225 Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45,89-125. Tinto V. (1987). Leaving college. Chicago : The University of Chicago Press. U.S. Department of Education. (1997, September). US. Department of Education strategic plan 1998-2002. Retrieved October, 27 2004 from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/StratPln/goal_3.htm1. Veblen, T. (1965). The engineers and the price system. New York: A. M. Kelley. Welch, S. & Comer, J. (1988). Quantitative methods for public administration (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA : Brooks Cole Publishing Co. Weston D. (1993). Organizational/earning as strategy (Publication R827). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International Business Intelligence Program. Williams, M. (1996). Memory, history and membership : The moral claims of marginalized groups in political representation. In Juha Raikk.a (Ed.), Do we need minority rights?: Conceptual issues The Hague, The Netherlands: Martinus NijhoffPublishers. Yin R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 228

PAGE 242

Yockey, F., & George, A. (1998) The effects of a freshman seminar paired with supplemental instruction. Journal of the First-Year Experience in Transition, i0(2), 57-76. 229