institutional values « The FYE Collaborative

institutional values

Bryce

Measuring what matters: How much should we really care about retention?

In his February 2010 TED talk, CEO and author Chip Conley tells a fascinating story about the nation of Bhutan and their transformation from an isolated, undeveloped nation to a modern, technologically rich nation that still manages to maintain the essence of their original culture and traditions. Bhutan’s story is one of striking the balance between progress and innovation, while stilll maintaining core elements of an identity (a rare feat for any country, organization, or school in today’s rapid-paced world). One of the most interesting parts of Conlee’s telling of the story is his reason for Bhutan’s ability to transorm in these ways. Quite simply, he believes that it is because Bhutan has learned to “count” the right thing, gross national happiness. Forty years ago, Bhutan’s King coined the term rather off-handedly to describe his commitment to building an economy that would allow for growth, while staying true to Bhutan’s Buddhist roots. Bhutanese officials ran with the concept, developed sophisticated instruments to measure the concept, and used it as a model for the development plan that brought Bhutan into the 21st century. This all stands in stark contrast to most nations’ preoccupation with Gross Domestic Product and their belief that it stands as the supreme indicator of a nation’s well-being.

There seems to be a lesson for higher education in all of this, particularly the first-year experience movement. Like anyone else, we count what is easily countable. So, in many ways “retention” has become our GDP. We work hard to measure it, argue over how it should be measured, showcase (or hide) it in reports to our administrations, and tout it at conferences. This isn’t to say that we shouldn’t care about retention–the reality is that enrolled students bring money to the institution and that money keeps us running. But, there seems to be some danger in retention becoming what Conlee describes as a “misplaced metric,” an easy to count measure that gives little indication as to the real health of an institution.

So, what should we be counting? In many ways this question hinges on how we define success in the FYE movement and the factors that we believe contributes to a vibrant campus community. What does a “successful” student look like at the end of their first year? What skills, habits, and attitudes would they possess? While the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) has contributed greatly to institutions’ ability to measure certain behaviors and attitudes of students, we don’t seem to do much on our individual campuses to measure the equivalent of the “gross national happiness” for our campuses.

What would these “intangibles” on our campuses be? While they will vary slightly across institutions, some possibilities might include

A personal reason for being at a particular institution. Do students know why they decided to come to your school? Their purpose and commitment to the educational ideals and objectives at your institution will make a huge difference in their engagement and persistence. If they don’t have a set of fairly good reasons for choosing a particular campus, there is likely to be trouble down the road.

Understanding of and investment in an institutional mission. This seems strongly correlated with the idea above, but it seems important for institutions to not only orient students to their physical surroundings, but to help them understand the culture and ideals of the institution they have enrolled in so they might become a part of the community and fulfill their role in it. So, if you are a faith-based institution that espouses character development, do students believe in that mission and pursue that growth? For liberal arts institutions, do your students value a well-rounded education and recognize the importance of breadth in their learning?

Passion for learning. What students believe and feel about learning are important. We want life-long learners that continue to grow and make contributions to society after they leave our institutions. Can the first-year experience nurture this passion? How would it be measured?

This is obviously not an all inclusive list. But, these would seem to be key indicators of the success of a FYE program. There are others including deep learning behaviors, formation of supportive mentoring relationships, and the development of grit and persistence. We probably can’t measure them all, but what for you are the key indicators on your campus? What could we start measuring on our campuses that would be meaningful and give us real insight into the success of our FYE programs?

Universities need leaders who know what to count.

Bryce

Original post

engaged learning / fyechat / institutional values / messaging — 29 Comments
2
Apr 10

How do we get young men to want to go to college and want to work hard once they get there?

Earlier this week I read an article about the challenge of engaging male students in a meaningful college experience. I saw the anti-intellectual attitude alluded to in this article displayed at the high school level when I was a teacher and coach, and I see it now in my work in higher education. It’s not that male students aren’t intelligent, don’t work hard, or aren’t prepared for college-level work. It’s just that, in far too many cases, being a good learner and being a “man” are mistakenly viewed as being mutually exclusive. This false dichotomy leaves young men feeling like they have to choose one role or the other. And, at 18 years old being “cool” or “chill” generally wins out. This means that participating in class, being seen in the library, or having any sort of academic conversation outside of class is strictly taboo (Note: many will do “academic” things when no one is looking, but my experience has been that the best kind of learning is, at least part of the time, public and social).

Really, there are two related problems here: (1) Getting males to want to go to college, trade school, technical training, etc. and (2) Helping those that do go to take full advantage of the opportunity rather than doing enough to not kicked out, but without looking like they really care all that much. I realize that my mentioning these problems is not earth-shattering and that there are a lot of people thinking about the same thing. The shortcoming I see is in the way we go about trying to remedy these problems.

This made me wonder how we could package some of our basic messages about the value of education and deliver them in ways that would resonate with the students we are trying to reach, particularly male students. The Inside Higher Ed article I linked to above mentions a strategy employed by Morehouse College in Atlanta, Georgia wherein students are introduced to the concept of a “Morehouse Man” that embodies a set of core values that the institution believes are characteristic of the type of men they hope to graduate (Morehouse is an all-male institution). The intent is to help students see and believe that being a man includes being well-dressed, well-spoken, well-educated, etc. and that to become that sort of man a student needs to do certain things while they are in college. The question I would have is whether the audience they are intending to reach (those students that for whatever reason aren’t living up to the ideals held out by the institution) really want to become a “Morehouse Man” or at least the image of a “Morehouse Man” that has been created by this messaging.

An example of this same sort of challenge is outlined in Made to Stick, by Chip and Dan Heath. In a nutshell, the state of Texas wanted to decrease the amount of litter on their highways. And, they knew which Texans were most likely to litter, so they targeted their campaign at “Bubba.” Bubba represented the 18 – 35 year old male, pickup truck driving, country music listening demographic that seemed to be at the heart of the litter problem. The idea was to give the standard “don’t litter” message using both language and messengers that “Bubba” would relate to. So, they brought in members of the Dallas Cowboys, Mike Scott of the Houston Astros, and Willie Nelson and the now well-known phrase “Don’t mess with Texas” was born. These weren’t just famous people, they were people that Bubba saw as real Texans, men that Bubba wanted to be like. The strategy worked and visible litter along Texas roadways had decreased 72% within five years.

So, the question am left with in all of this is who our Bubbas are and how we can package two old messages (education is valuable and education means doing things that lead to good learning) in new ways. Who would male students respond to and what could that person or group of people say that would make an 18 year-old male student want to be a scholar?