Standing Committee on Student Success and Retention
Institutional Factors for Undergraduate Student Success and Retention University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
Slices of the Pie Student success and retention are achieved in part by providing meaningful opportunities that challenge and support students’ learning and development, which are “inextricably intertwined and inseparable” (ACPA, 1994). Staff, faculty, and administrators who are highly trained and skilled should work cooperatively to create a culture of high expectations, support, and accountability that creates clear pathways for students to achieve the learning and development outcomes while graduating in a timely manner. Each Principle under each Institutional Factor can be viewed as a slice of pie. When all principles are thoroughly represented, student success and retention will be achieved. If a principle is missing or not thoroughly represented, student success and retention will be more difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. Purpose The purpose of Institutional Factors for Undergraduate Student Success and Retention is to provide a set of commonly understood factors that promote student success and retention based on experiences and research from leading scholars. The document provides a snapshot of nationally effective institutional characteristics and practices that are commonly cited and have shown great potential for increasing student success, retention, and graduation rates. The intent is to add to and apply the information to enhance services, policies, procedures, and practices.
Table of Contents How to Use This Document
02
Factor:
03
Factor: Factor: Factor: Factor: Factor: Factor: Factor:
Access, Affordability, & New Student Support Support for Diverse Populations Academic, Career, & Personal Support Engagement Learning & Instruction Clear Expectations Talent Development Accountability & Evidence
Committee Members Key Performance Indicators and Benchmarks Bibliography
04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 13 16
Methodology Members of the Standing Committee on Student Success and Retention (see Appendix A) brainstormed institutional factors that have been shown to increase student success and retention. The members also read several common articles on student success and retention (see Appendix C) and determined a set of common themes, which we call Institutional Factors. Members then read additional articles to define principles and generate a thorough list of organizational characteristics that have shown promise of increasing student success and retention at other institutions, which we call Characteristics of Highly Effective Practices. The themes and characteristics included in this document were selected by consensus of the members. Objectives Guide our practices Establish a common language Teach effective characteristics that University constituents can build upon Add to existing knowledge of student success, retention, and graduation rates Provide seminal scholarly articles and expert recommendations Highlight promising practices at the University
Office of
Undergraduate Education DRAFT 1
Standing Committee on Student Success and Retention
Institutional Factor for Undergraduate Student Success and Retention University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
How to Use This Document Example Ways of Using the Document Campus administrators can determine diagnostic questions for relevant factors and do analysis to determine the effectiveness of the program, policy, procedure, etc. compared to the highly effective practices listed on the document under the relevant principle. Then, officials could consider the promising practices to develop a network to help improve their own practices. Campus administrators could determine current key performance measures (KPIs), set benchmarks, and complete a gap analysis between the KPIs and benchmark. Then, administrators could consider the Characteristics of Highly Effective Practices and Promising Practices to help close any negative gaps. Faculty could use the document to determine highly effective practices in teaching and instruction while understanding the principle of highly trained employees. Faculty then could determine where they need development and how to get it. Student support staff could use the document as a worksheet where they check off all items that they feel pertain to their own work and develop a training action plan where needed. The document can also be used to expand their framework and toolkit for student success. Everyone can use the document to develop intentional educational partnerships.
Definition of Practice Categories Best Practice Empirical evidence demonstrating correlation to increased retention, persistence, and/or graduation at the University; and Empirical evidence demonstrating students are satisfied to highly satisfied with program Promising Practice Anecdotal evidence demonstrating correlation to increased retention, persistence, and/or graduation at the University; and Empirical evidence demonstrating students are satisfied to highly satisfied with program Best Value Practice Either Best Practice or Promising Practice; and Lower administrative cost compared to other programs with similar objectives; and Developed, Implemented, and/or maintained in part due to low administrative cost
Office of Undergraduate Education DRAFT 2
Standing Committee on Student Success and Retention
Institutional Factors for Undergraduate Student Success and Retention University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
Factor: Access, Affordability, and New Student Support Principle Strategic admissions, enrollment planning, financial aid packaging, and transitional services are aligned with institutional mission and goals and influence access, affordability, retention, and graduation rates. (National Association for College Admission Counseling, 2009). Promising Practices Communication Channels: Associate
GOAL
Deans and Admissions, One Stop, Housing, Parent Services, Orientation & First-Year Programs, Classroom Management, International enrollment group, Orientation Advisory Committee, Welcome Week Advisory Committee, Council for Undergraduate Deans meetings, Student Support Advisory Committee Technology Support: Orientation Tracking Database Class Search Tutorial, Scholarship Search, Graduation Planner, Imagining, Right Now CRM, CLA’s Undecided Assessment Tool Academic and Student Support Programs: First Year Seminars, Take Your Professor to Lunch, Required advising appointments in some colleges, Nature of Life Programs, Living/Learning Communities, SMART Learning Commons, Welcome Week, engage.umn.edu
INSTITUTIONAL KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS/BENCHMARKS
2010
Characteristics of Highly Effective Practices Connects students major early in the admission and transitional stages Aligns funding, policies, and procedures to support enrollment management plan Aligns with missions and goals of the institution Creates small pools of emergency funds in “real time” for students in need Aligns student support services with the strategic admission plan Puts in place early alert/warning systems to identify students who are high risk, and outreach begins within the second week of courses Grounded in research and institutional data Links academic planning, program evaluation, and accountability measures Intersects with tuitionpricing and leveraging financial aid Carries strong channels of communication with timelines of key activities Keeps up with trends on the state and federal levels Centrally coordinates enrollment processes and procedures to identify and eliminate barriers for students Assesses and eliminates institutional barriers that inhibit student persistence and retention
Student retention
%
%
Student persistence
%
%
Student graduation rates
%
%
Student satisfaction
%
%
Number of applicants
#
#
Quality of applicants
#/%
#/%
Number of admits
#
#
Quality of admits
#/%
#/%
Admitted to firstchoice college
%
%
Diversity of students admitted
%
%
Data Sources
Office of Undergraduate Education DRAFT 3
Standing Committee on Student Success and Retention
Institutional Factors for Undergraduate Student Success and Retention University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
Factor: Support for Diverse Populations Principle “…high levels of student–staff/faculty interaction, perceptions that the campus environment is supportive of students’ academic and social needs, and a network of intrusive educationally effective policies and practices” (Kuh, 2009, p. 691) are common place throughout the institution. INSTITUTIONAL KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS/BENCHMARKS
GOAL
Promising Practices Collaborative Learning or Supplemental Instruction (ChemFoundations, CEHD courses), Instructional Centers (SMART and MCAE’s Instructional Center), Firstyear Seminars (SEAM), Living Learning Communities (American Indian Cultural House, Lavender House and Casa Sol Community of Scholars program), Research programs (McNair and MSROP), Scholarship programs (Wallin, MEP), Bridge to Academic Excellence, Community engagement opportunities (MCEP, Multicultural Family Literacy Program, America Reads), Precollegiate programs (Welcome events, Welcome Week, and the Multicultural Kickoff), Ethnic Studies departments, Celebration programs to acknowledge academic excellence (MCAE recognition event and OED’s Celebration of Academic achievement), Universal Design
2010
Characteristics of Highly Effective Practices Analyzes policies and practices that hinder or enhance participation (barriers) Provides clear, consistent messaging regarding services Creates proactive approaches to making services available (e.g., for first-generation students who do not have necessary social capital to be aware of services on campus) Personalizes the college experience by connecting students to the social fabric of the University through engagement both academically and socially Embeds multicultural content into the curriculum and rewards faculty for doing so Adopts the Guiding Principles of Multicultural Awareness Project for Institutional Transformation (MAP IT) (www.cehd.umn.edu/CRD EUL /pdf/map_it.pdf )
Student retention
%
%
Student persistence
%
%
Student graduation rates
%
%
Student satisfaction
%
%
Enriching educational (NSSE)
%
%
experiences Supportive campus environments (NSSE)
%
%
Data Sources
Office of Undergraduate Education DRAFT 4
Standing Committee on Student Success and Retention
Institutional Factors for Undergraduate Student Success and Retention University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
Factor: Academic, Career, and Personal Support Principle Institution provides developmental and holistic support through shared responsibilities and partnerships among all student support services. (Campbell and Nutt, 2008). INSTITUTIONAL KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS/BENCHMARKS
GOAL
Promising Practices UROP, CAPE project, CEHD First Year Experience, CCLC internship reflection course, Welcome Week, CLA internship grant, all career planning courses throughout the colleges (e.g., ID 1201, BIOL 1301), leadership minor, engagement initiative (engage.umn.edu), ETS (Enrollment tracking system) and midterm alert system, Access to Success, MLK, MCAE, Smart Learning Commons, Retreat on Student Support, Tate Professional Development Conference, Academic Advising and Career Counseling initiatives (e.g., mentorship, training and professional development coordination, administrative handbook, etc.)
2010
Characteristics of Highly Effective Practices Integrates student development and instruction Provides individual support and care for each undergraduate Ensures access to advising and student support services Connects coursework to career and skill development Ensures that all students are treated as if they are at risk of attrition Assesses learning and development outcomes Shares a vision of student success Works to provide a community where students feel supported Supports and expects meaningful interactions, and allows for reflection and student development Connects resources to support curricular to cocurricular Sets expectation that faculty, staff, and administrators will support students Makes decisions based on data Requires career course or curriculum infusion for all students Ensures manageable adviser/advisee loads
Student retention
%
%
Student persistence
%
%
Student graduation rates
%
%
Student satisfaction
%
%
Enriching educational (NSSE)
%
%
experiences Supportive campus environments (NSSE)
%
%
Data Sources
Office of Undergraduate Education DRAFT 5
Standing Committee on Student Success and Retention
Institutional Factors for Undergraduate Student Success and Retention University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
Factor: Engagement Principle “On the basis of the extensive body of evidence reviewed, one of the most inescapable and unequivocal conclusions we can make is that the impact of college is largely determined by the individual’s quality of effort and level of involvement in both academic and nonacademic activities” Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991, p. 610). INSTITUTIONAL KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS/BENCHMARKS
GOAL
Promising Practices First Year Programming, Learning Communities/Living Learning Communities, Service-Learning Courses, Community-based Learning, Internships, Co-Op, Learning Abroad & Away, Mentor Programs, Sophomore Year focus on career, major and purpose, Capstone Experience, travel scholarships for students, Community Engagement Scholars Program, UROP, student groups, student leadership programs, Leadership Minor, campus jobs, Solar Decathlon House
2010
Characteristics of Highly Effective Practices Expects quality interactions with faculty and staff Offers avenues for meaningful peer interaction Provides opportunities for active and collaborative learning on an active problem or within a meaningful context Provides opportunities to synthesize experience (reflective learning) Provides opportunities to practice learned skills Continually assesses and then gives prompt feedback Communicates high, consistant expectations Respects diverse talents and ways of learning Helps students build coherent values and ethical lifestyles
Student retention
%
%
Student persistence
%
%
Student graduation rates
%
%
Student satisfaction
%
%
Enriching educational (NSSE)
%
%
Experiences Supportive campus environments (NSSE)
%
%
Data Sources
Office of Undergraduate Education DRAFT 6
Standing Committee on Student Success and Retention
Institutional Factors for Undergraduate Student Success and Retention University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
Factor: Learning and Instruction Principle Frequent student-faculty contact in and out of class is a most important factor in student motivation and involvement (Whitt, E. J. et. al., 2008). Meaningful engagement, feedback, and reflection in and out of classroom among students and teaching staff and faculty INSTITUTIONAL KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS/BENCHMARKS
GOAL
Promising Practices Freshman Seminars, First-year experience initiatives that include curricular and cocurricular strategies (CEHD, CBS), Welcome Week, Senior Capstones, UROP, McNair Scholars, Faculty Mentorship Programs (President’s Distinguished Faculty Mentor Program), Teaching and Advising Awards, Center for Teaching and Learning, Independent Learning
2010
Characteristics of Highly Effective Practices Establishes a culture of collaborative learning and engaging pedagogy Shapes instructional methods around diverse learning styles Has high expectations Provides continual feedback Makes applications and connections to students’ lives Has a pedagogy of shared responsibility to learning Incorporates students’ knowledge and experiences Measures students’ timeon-task Clearly communicates what students need to do to succeed Incorporates peer interaction in learning processes Infuses diversity into pedagogy, curriculum, classroom activities, and assignments Implements manageable student/faculty ratios Implements meaningful faculty rewards, through tenure processes, for engaging in high-impact curricular and cocurricular strategies Sets high institutional expectation and faculty motivation for ongoing professional development
Student retention
%
%
Student persistence
%
%
Student graduation rates
%
%
Student satisfaction
%
%
Levels of academic challenge (NSSE)
%
%
Active and collaborative learning (NSSE)
%
%
Student – faculty interaction (NSSE)
%
%
Data Sources
Office of Undergraduate Education DRAFT 7
Standing Committee on Student Success and Retention
Institutional Factors for Undergraduate Student Success and Retention University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
Factor: Clear Expectations Principle “Important to student learning are institutional environments that are perceived by students to be inclusive and affirming, where expectations for performance are clearly communicated and set at reasonably high levels” (Kuh, 2005, p. 44). INSTITUTIONAL KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS/BENCHMARKS
GOAL
Promising Practices Various administrative handbooks, University Policy Library, University Relations e-communication standards and graphic standards, HR policies and forms, academic calendar,
2010
Characteristics of Highly Effective Practices Creates intentional education experience by matching student aspirations with what we can do to outcomes Links student services (advising, etc) with faculty messaging Creates a transparent definition of student success Fosters collaboration among staff and faculty focused on student success Ensures that everyone sees student success as important Includes students and staff in decision making Encourages students to take responsibility/ownership (self-authorship) Empowers and engages students Provides students prompt, meaningful feedback that challenges and supports Sets high expectations and provides meaningful support Communicates a clear path to success Teaches how to be successful
Student retention
%
%
Student persistence
%
%
Student graduation rates
%
%
Student satisfaction
%
%
Levels of academic challenge (NSSE)
%
%
Active and collaborative learning (NSSE)
%
%
Student – faculty interaction (NSSE)
%
%
Data Sources
Office of Undergraduate Education DRAFT 8
Standing Committee on Student Success and Retention
Institutional Factors for Undergraduate Student Success and Retention University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
Factor: Talent Development Principle “…every individual understands what is expected, is fully engaged in his or her work, is empowered and encouraged to innovate and continuously improve, understands how performance will be assessed and rewarded” (Transforming the U, 2007, p. 22). INSTITUTIONAL KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS/BENCHMARKS
Employee satisfaction
GOAL
Promising Practices CLA’s Orientation Training, OED Training, Retreat for Academic Advisers and Career Counselors, Tate, OHR Trainings, OIT Training, Faculty Orientation, Center for Teaching and Learning, Academic Advising Network Professional Development Seminars, Career Development Network Professional Development Seminars, Colloquium Series, CEHD Student Services: (CEHD Welcome Week: TRIO program, Block Party, Developmental advising model, StrengthQuest
2010
Characteristics of Highly Effective Practices Provides employees with a well-defined expectation of training and professional development in their job description Provides ongoing assessment of employee competencies Provides meaningful training that supports primary work competencies and fosters development to the next level Provides avenues to seek out knowledge and demonstrate expertise Institutes a mentorship program for all staff Institutes a cross-training program Provides meaningful avenues for faculty and staff to collaborate Offers awards for innovation Employees know how they contribute to the University mission and vision Uses a developmental frame Provides staff sufficient time to participate, reflect, practice, and master Thrives on shared responsibility Is flexible and implements things swiftly Links work to goals and mission of the institution Provides sufficient budget Uses technology appropriately
%
%
Data Sources
Office of Undergraduate Education DRAFT 9
Standing Committee on Student Success and Retention
Institutional Factors for Undergraduate Student Success and Retention University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
Factor: Data-Driven and Accountability Principle Easy access to current, relevant data, meaningful analysis, and intuitive reporting tools that are consistent across campus will help constituents establish appropriate priorities, make informed decisions, and ensure outcomes are being met. (National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, 2000). INSTITUTIONAL KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS/BENCHMARKS
GOAL
Promising Practices Student Development Outcomes, Student Learning Outcomes, Promise Scholarship Program (financial support for students), 13 Credit Policy (high expectations for students) College delivery of students, services (integration of student affairs-academic affairs), Welcome Week (create a sense of community among students), interactive classrooms, clickers (active involvement in learning), alcohol policy at new stadium (high expectations for students), Graduation/retention goals (Institutional commitment to student success), college initiatives (NOL, others - create a sense of community among students), Student Learning Outcomes required for new courses.
2010
Characteristics of Highly Effective Practices Uses several forms of measures (e.g., graduation, retention, student opinions, accreditation) Measures outcomes Directly links to the institution’s mission and goals Is collaborative, flexible, and reflective Provides ongoing and strategic communication Is data-driven Provides tools to measure progress Implements a continuous improvement process to identify and remove barriers (in, e.g., curriculum, policies/procedures) to degree completion Considers current research literature/trends, and best practices Connects resources to expectations and accountability measures Associates key performance metrics to key questions (touchstones, representing policy objectives) Establishes an ethos of leadership that collaborates and brings diverse opinions forward Integrates Student Affairs/Student Services with Academic Affairs Rewards faculty for focusing on enhancing student persistence
Student retention
%
%
Student persistence
%
%
Student graduation rates
%
%
Student satisfaction
%
%
Levels of academic challenge (NSSE)
%
%
Active and collaborative learning (NSSE)
%
%
Student – faculty interaction (NSSE)
%
%
Employee retention
%
%
Employee satisfaction
%
%
Data Sources
Office of Undergraduate Education DRAFT 10
Appendix A Committee Members
DRAFT 11
Standing Committee on Student Success and Retention
Institutional Factors for Undergraduate Student Success and Retention University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
Members of the Standing Committee on Student Success and Retention Judy
Beniak
Academic Health Center
Chris
Buckley
College of Liberal Arts
Mark
Bultmann
College of Education and Human Development
Andy
Howe*
Office of Undergraduate Education
Chris
Kearns
College of Liberal Arts
Laura Coffin
Koch*
Office of Undergraduate Education
Andre
Leroux
Office of Undergraduate Education
Nikki
Letawsky Shultz
College of Biological Sciences
Beth
Lingren Clark
Office of Orientation & First-Year Programs
Tracene
Marshall
College of Food, Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences
LeeAnn
Melin
Office of Student Affairs/Office of Undergraduate Education
Les
Opatz
College of Liberal Arts
Bob
Poch
College of Education and Human Development
Jerry
Rinehart
Office of Student Affairs
Chris
Schlichting
College of Design
Mark
Sorenson-Wagner
College of Science and Engineering
Ellen
Sunshine
College of Liberal Arts
Patrick
Troup
Multicultural Center for Academic Excellence
Jean
Underwood
College of Biological Sciences
Kris
Wright
Office of Student Finances
Leslie
Zenk
Office of Undergraduate Education
*Co-chairs
Office of Undergraduate Education
DRAFT 12
Appendix B Key Performance Indicators and Benchmarks
DRAFT 13
INSTITUTIONAL KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS/BENCHMARKS COLLEGE/DEPARTMENT/UNIT TWIN CITIES CAMPUS ……………………………………………..
GOAL
2010
GOAL
2010
%
%
%
%
/////////
////////
/////////
////////
2nd to 3rd year
%
%
%
%
3rd to 4th year
%
%
%
%
4th to 5th year
%
%
%
%
/////////
////////
/////////
////////
4th year
%
%
%
%
5th year
%
%
%
%
6th year
%
%
%
%
A
Student retention
B
Student persistence
C
Student graduation rates
D
Student satisfaction
%
%
%
%
E
Levels of academic challenge (NSSE)
%
%
%
%
F
Enriching educational (NSSE)
%
%
%
%
G
Experiences Supportive campus environments (NSSE)
%
%
%
%
H
Active and collaborative learning (NSSE)
%
%
%
%
I
Student – faculty interaction (NSSE)
%
%
%
%
J
Number of applicants
#
#
#
#
K
Quality of applicants
/////////
////////
/////////
////////
Average ACT
#
#
#
#
Average High School Rank
%
%
%
%
L
Number of admits
#
#
#
#
M
Quality of admits
/////////
////////
/////////
////////
Average ACT
#
#
#
#
Average High School Rank
%
%
%
%
DRAFT 14
N
Admitted to first-choice college
O
Students of color
P
Q
R
S
%
%
%
%
/////////
////////
/////////
////////
Admitted
#
#
%
%
Retention
%
%
%
%
/////////
////////
/////////
////////
Admitted
#
#
%
%
Retention
%
%
%
%
/////////
////////
/////////
////////
Admitted
#
#
%
%
Retention
%
%
%
%
Transfer students (NAS)
/////////
////////
/////////
////////
Admitted
#
#
%
%
Retention
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
International students
Pell recipients
Employee satisfaction
Notes
NHS is assumed unless otherwise indicated More information on O, P, Q, and R can be found on the State of the Student website
Data Sources
DRAFT 15
Appendix C Bibliography
DRAFT 16
Standing Committee on Student Success and Retention
Institutional Factors for Undergraduate Student Success and Retention University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
Bibliography Common Articles Read by Members Braxton, J. M., Brier, E. M., and Steele, S. L., (2007). Shaping retention from research To practice. Journal of College Student Retention, 9(3), 377-399. Braxton, J. M., and Mundy, M. E. (2002). Powerful institutional levers to reduce college student departure. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 3(1), 91-118. Engle, J. and O’Brien, C. (2007). Demography Is Not Destiny: Increasing the graduation rates of low-income college students at large public universities. Washington, DC: The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education. Hossler, D., Ziskin, M, and Gross, J.P.K., (2009). Getting serious about institutional performance in student retention. About Campus, 13(6), 2-11. Retrieved September 28, 2009, from http://www3.interscience.wiley.com.floyd.lib.umn.edu/cgi-bin/fulltext/122214074/PDFSTART. Kuh, G.D. (2005). Promoting student success. What campus leaders can do. (Occasional Paper No. 1). Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research. Kuh, George D., Kinzie, Jillian, Schuh, John H., Whitt, Elizabeth J., and Associates. (2005). Student Success in College: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Tinto, V., and Pusser, B. (2006). Moving from theory to action: Building a model of institutional action for student success. Washington, DC: National Postsecondary Education Cooperative. Other Articles and Reports that influenced the document 12 Questions to Measure Employee Engagement, Workforce Management, October, 2003, Retrieved September 25, 2009 from www. Workforce.com/section/09/article/23/53/40.html. Campbell, S. M. and Nutt, C. (2008). Academic advising in the new global century: supporting student engagement and learning outcomes achievement. Peer Review, Winter 2008, 4-7. Retrieved November 22, 2009, fromhttps://www.myu.umn.edu/public/nuttcampbell2008.pdf Deci, E. & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self determination in human behavior. New York:
Plenum.
Keeling, RP, Underhile, R, & Wall, AF (2007). “Horizontal and vertical structures: The organizational dynamics of higher education.” Liberal Education, 93(4), 22-31. Kuh, G. (2009). What Student Affairs Professionals Need to Know About Student Engagement. Journal of College Student Development.50(6), 683-706 Lloyd, J. (2005). Seven Tips to Begin Earning Employees’ Commitment, Initiative and Motivation, The Receivables Report. Locke, E. & Latham, G. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
DRAFT 17
Meyer, J., Becker, T., & Vandenberghe, C. (2004). Employee commitment and motivation: A conceptual analysis and integrative model, Journal of Applied Psychology, 89 (6), 991-1007. Returning to our roots: Toward a coherent campus culture. (2000). National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved November 22, 2009, from http://www.aplu.org/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=187 Statement of Principles of Good Practice (2009). National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC). Retrieved September 29, 2009, from http://www.nacacnet.org/ABOUTNACAC/POLICIES/Documents/SPGP.pdf The Bennington Curriculum: A New Liberal Arts. Speech by Elizabeth Coleman President of Bennington College Delivered at the Celebration of Bennington College’s 75th Anniversary, October 6, 2007 Whitt, E. J. et. al. (2008). "Principles of good practice" for academic and student affairs partnership programs. Journal of College Student Development 49(3), 235-249 Zepke, N., & Linda, L. (2007). Educational quality, institutional accountability and the retention discourse. Quality in Higher Education.13(3), 237-248.
Office of Undergraduate Education
DRAFT 18
