Student Success in College: Creating Conditions That Matter

(review)

Evan Baum, Jeffrey F. Milem

The Review of Higher Education, Volume 29, Number 2, Winter 2006, pp.
242-243 (Review)

Published by Johns Hopkins University Press

For additional information about this article

Access provided by New England, Univ of (8 Oct 2018 18:07 GMT)

George D. Kuh, Jillian Kinzie, John H. Schuh, tutional-level measures obtained from IPEDS data,
Elizabeth J. Whitt, and Associates. Student Suc- the institutions they selected “add value” (p. 10)
cess in College: Creating Conditions That Matter. to the undergraduate experience and are therefore
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005. 400 pp. Cloth: worthy of in-depth examination. However, the
$38.00. ISBN: 0-7879-7914-7. authors ignore a critically important determinant
of the outcomes of interest in their regression
REVIEWED BY EVAN BAUM, COMMUNITY DIRECTOR, analyses: the input characteristics of the students
COMMUNITY LIVING AND LEARNING CENTER, THE who attend these institutions.
GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, AND JEFFREY MILEM, After identifying the 20 institutions, team
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, EDUCATION POLICY AND LEADER- members conducted a series of site visits that
SHIP, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
yielded the data for the analyses provided in the
book. Notably absent is a description of steps the
Similar to the earlier work Involving Colleges team took to ensure that the 24 different team
(Kuh, Schuh, Whitt and Associates, 1991), Stu- members were consistent in their approaches,
dent Success in College presents the findings of observations, and interpretations across the vari-
a multi-institutional study aimed at identifying ous sites. Another key concern is that the authors
programs and policies at colleges and universities do not provide enough information about the
that enhance student learning and achievement. methodology used in selecting institutions and
The Documenting Effective Educational Practice analyzing the case study data for readers to have
(DEEP) project, the focus of this work, has a a good sense of what those methods were and
relatively straightforward purpose: “to discover whether they were appropriate. In fact, the descrip-
what a diverse set of institutions does to promote tion of the methodology is tucked away in a short
student success so other colleges and universi- appendix to the book. The authors direct readers
ties that aspire to enhance the quality of the who are interested in specific information about
undergraduate experience might learn from their the regressions that they conducted to a website for
example” (p. 18). a full description of the methods and findings.
The findings presented in the book offer a The book is organized into three major sec-
wealth of information about the institutional tions. Part 1 introduces the DEEP initiative. In
policies and practices designed to promote student Part 2 (chaps. 2–7), the authors illustrate the
success and achievement in higher education. This commonalities in institutional practices found
book strives to extend our understanding of the across the 20 institutions in their sample. They
important linkages between organizational char- divide these common pratices into six broad
acteristics and student learning outcomes. While categories: “A ‘living’ mission and a ‘lived’ educa-
Student Success in College is written to appeal to tional philosophy; An unshakable focus on student
a dual audience of higher education practitioners learning; Environments adapted for educational
and scholars, practitioners in the field of higher enrichment; Clearly marked pathways to student
education are likely to derive the greatest benefit success; An improvement oriented ethos; and,
from the book’s content. Shared responsibility for educational quality and
Using regression analysis, the authors identi- student success” (p. 24).
fied institutions that scored above predicted levels Of the institutional characteristics reviewed
on the five clusters of student engagement used by the authors, two seem to provide a foundation
by the National Survey of Student Engagement for considering the rest: “(1) clearly articulated
(NSSE): level of academic challenge, active and educational purposes and aspirations, and (2) a
collaborative learning, student interaction with coherent, relatively well understood philosophy
faculty members, enriching educational experi- that guides ‘how we do things here’” (p. 25). As an
ences, and supportive campus climate. After this example, the authors argue that these characteris-
initial cut, they devised a second regression model tics of DEEP colleges can be illustrated by consid-
accounting for institutional inputs to determine ering institutional hiring practices that “carefully
which of the institutions from the list also had choose newcomers, bringing into the community
higher-than-predicted graduation rates. people whose values and aspirations are compat-
The project team, composed of 24 individuals ible with the institution’s mission, philosophy, and
from across the country, then selected 20 insti- educational purpose” (p. 158).
tutions about which to conduct in-depth case While the observations offered by the authors
studies. They selected diverse institutional types can be very useful, we are concerned that the
in order to make comprehensive observations authors fail to ground their analyses in previous
about effective educational practices. They did research from the field of higher education—some
not, however, include two-year institutions, which of it unquestionably foundational. For example,
limits the book’s potential audience. The authors Burton Clark (1970, 1972) made similar observa-
assert that, after accounting for differences in insti- tions about the potentially powerful socializing
BOOK REVIEWS 243

impacts of strong institutional cultures and the in different ways by the environmental conditions
influence of symbolic dimensions of organiza- with which they interact while in college.
tional behavior. Similarly, during discussions of the
impact of peers and the process of acculturation
at DEEP schools, the authors fail to reference the REFERENCES
expansive scholarship done on the saliency and
impact of peer groups. Unfortunately, the absence Birnbaum, R. (2001). Management fads in higher
of the connections to existing literature in the education: Where they come from, what they do,
field of higher education, in combination with the why they fail. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
methodological shortcomings noted above, may Clark, B. R. (1970). The distinctive college. Chicago:
weaken the appeal of Student Success in College Aldine.
for higher education scholars. Clark, B. R. (1972). The organizational saga in
Nonetheless, college and university admin- higher education. Administrative Science
istrators are likely to consider the text useful, Quarterly, 17, 178–184.
particularly if their institution already possesses Kuh, G. D., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., & Associates.
its own benchmarking data on student engage- (1991). Involving colleges: Successful approaches
ment from participating in NSSE. In Part 3 (chaps. to fostering student learning and development
8–12), the authors feature additional programs outside the classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-
and policies of note at each of the 20 institutions Bass.
using the five NSSE clusters. Practitioners looking
to improve levels of student engagement in any of
these five clusters should find these chapters useful Charles W. Sorensen, Julie A. Furst-Bowe, and
for generating ideas on their own campuses. Dian Moen, Eds., Quality and Performance Excel-
Additionally, Chapter 13 provides principles lence in Higher Education: Baldridge on Campus.
for student success along a typology of approaches: Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing, 2005. 200 pp.
tried and true, sleepers, and fresh ideas. However, Cloth: $39.95. ISBN: 1-882982-80-0.
based on our concerns with the methodology
described in the study, it is not clear that the REVIEW BY JOSEPH C. BURKE, DIRECTOR, HIGHER EDU-
programs and practices described by the authors CATION PROGRAM, NELSON A. ROCKEFELLER INSTITUTE
actually account for the greater-than-predicted OF GOVERNMENT
levels of student engagement or persistence. Hence,
a classification system of principles such as the last Quality and Performance Excellence in Higher
one could potentially lead other institutions to Education describes the processes used by six
quickly adopt “fads” (Birnbaum, 2001) that lack diverse colleges and universities to implement
solid empirical evidence which would support the criteria of the Malcolm Baldridge National
their implementation. Chapter 14 summarizes Award program. The editors aptly call them “true
the authors’ work and provides a host of further pioneers” for pursuing the difficult path that few
recommendations for those interested in develop- colleges and universities have dared to take.
ing programs and policies like those described These pioneering schools include two relatively
throughout the book. However, readers will have small regional comprehensives (the University of
to search elsewhere for the literature on change Wisconsin-Stout and Northwest Missouri State
in higher education to best establish strategies for University), a small two-year branch campus
institutional reform at the local level. of New Mexico State University at Carlsbad, a
Certainly, Student Success in College will foster two-year technical college with mostly part-time
continued conversations among those in the field enrollment (Western Wisconsin Technical Col-
of higher education about pedagogical approaches, lege), National University, a private multi-cam-
programs, and institutional policies that facilitate pus institution devoted to educating adults, and
student success. The book provides a relatively Montfort College of Business at the University of
comprehensive, though at times overly broad, Northern Colorado. Two of the six actually won
picture of what 20 diverse four-year institutions are Baldridge Awards. The University of Wisconsin-
doing on their own campuses and, while lacking Stout became the first higher education institution
in empirical verification for the levels of student to achieve that honor in 2001; and Monfort College
engagement and persistence at the institutions joined it in 2004.
studied, the practices and programs described In her Foreword, Katherine Lyall, then presi-
throughout the book may merit consideration for dent of the University of Wisconsin System, details
implementation elsewhere. Lastly, the book is also the difficulties of pursuing continuous quality
likely to refocus the need for continued studies at improvement: the lack of committed leaders, the
the institutional level that examine how the learn- rigidity of campus cultures, and the strength of fac-
ing outcomes of different students are influenced ulty resistance. An introductory chapter describes