Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Improved student success at California State University, Dominguez Hills: a promising practice study
(USC Thesis Other)
Improved student success at California State University, Dominguez Hills: a promising practice study
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
1
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY,
DOMINGUEZ HILLS: A PROMISING PRACTICE STUDY
by
Troy McVey
____________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
July 2017
Copyright 2017 Troy McVey
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
2
Acknowledgements
I would first like to acknowledge my committee chair, Dr. Mark Robison, and committee
members, Dr. Tracy Tambascia and Dr. Robert Underwood. Your guidance helped me persevere
when I wavered.
At Dominguez Hills, I would like to acknowledge my key informants, Bridget Driscoll
and Paz Oliverez, as well as Ellen Junn, who gave initial consent to conduct this study, and
whose presentation inspired it. I’d also like to thank Maruth Figueroa for undergoing IRB
training protocol to serve as my co-investigator.
At the University of Guam, I would like to acknowledge my supervisor, Anita Borja
Enriquez, who appointed me co-chair of the Student Success Innovation Team (SSIT) and
allowed me work time to complete this program. I would also like to thank Kristina Sayama for
assistance in transcribing interviews, and all the members of the SSIT and the Title III grant
writing team for your collaborative energies, especially Gena Rojas, my partner in crime for the
past 19 months in understanding student success.
At the University of Southern California, I would like to thank the staff of the Global
Executive Ed.D. program, especially Nadine Singh, Sabrina Chong, and Robyn Lewis, for your
support for these 25 months. I would also like to thank Helena Seli, Ken Yates, Monique Datta,
Melora Sundt, and Cathy Krop for guiding us through portions of this dissertation journey.
Personally, I would like to acknowledge Laurie Raymundo for writing nights, Cathleen
Moore-Linn for reviewing early drafts, Velma Yamashita for chocolates, and Amy Romero for
listening.
Finally, I would like to thank my fiancé, Christian Santiago, for his support and love.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements 2
List of Tables 6
List of Figures 8
Abstract 9
Chapter One: Introduction 10
Background of the Problem 11
Importance of a Promising Practice Project 13
Organizational Context, Mission and Vision 14
Organizational Performance Status 14
Description of Stakeholder Groups 16
Stakeholder Group for the Study 18
Purpose of the Project and Questions 18
Conceptual and Methodological Framework 18
Definitions 19
Organization of the Dissertation 20
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 22
Understanding Completion Rates 22
Defining Student Success 24
Promising Student Success 27
High Impact Practices 29
Initiating Student Success 33
Stakeholder Influences 38
Knowledge and Skills 38
Motivation 41
Organization 44
Conclusion 46
Chapter Three: Methodology 48
Methodological Framework 48
Assumed Performance-Based Influences 50
Participating Stakeholders 52
Data Collection 53
Interviews 53
Document Analysis 53
Observations 54
Validation of the Performance Assets 54
Conceptual Framework for Inquiry Questions 55
Trustworthiness of Data 58
Role of Investigator 58
Data Analysis 58
Limitations and Delimitations 59
Chapter Four: Findings 60
Contextual Findings 60
Strategic Plan 61
Student Success Plan 64
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
4
Advising Plan 66
Campus Observations 70
Knowledge Findings 72
High Impact Practices 73
First Year Experience 74
Dream Seminars 77
University Convocation 77
College Receptions 78
Summer Bridge 78
GE Accelerate 81
Learning Communities 81
Undergraduate Research 82
Global Learning Experiences 83
Writing Intensive Courses 84
Enhanced Supplemental Instruction 84
Service Learning 86
Programs to Scale 88
Experienced Administrators 90
Summary of Knowledge Findings 91
Motivation Findings 93
Supporting Knowledge of HIPs 94
HIPs Symposium 97
HIPs Developmental Grants 97
Faculty Learning Communities 98
Faculty Coordinator Positions 99
Program Review 99
Graduation Initiative 2025 100
Strong Presidential Leadership 100
Cultivation of a Graduation Mindset 102
Summary of Motivation Findings 104
Organization Findings 104
AVP of Advising Position 110
Advanced Technology Classrooms 115
Commitment to Tenure Density 116
Grant Pursuits 117
Prioritization in the Budget 118
Summary of Organization Findings 119
Conclusion 120
Chapter Five: Transferable Practices 122
Practices Promising Enough to be Transferrable 126
Advising Initiative 128
Implementation Plan 129
Scale from an Existing Program 132
Implementation Plan 134
Evaluation Plan 136
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
5
Hire Additional Full-Time Faculty 137
Implementation Plan 137
Evaluation Plan 138
Faculty Development Focused on Student Engagement 139
Implementation Plan 140
Evaluation Plan 141
Transform Learning Spaces 142
Implementation Plan 143
Evaluation Plan 145
Establish a Student Success Fee 146
Implementation Plan 146
Evaluation Plan 148
Future Research 148
Conclusion 148
Appendix A: Interview Protocol 156
Appendix B: CSUDH IRB Approval 158
Appendix C: KMO & NSSE Combined Matrix 159
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
6
List of Tables
Table 1: NSSE Drivers to Student Success 26
Table 2: LEAP Essential Learning Outcomes 28
Table 3: CSU Graduation Initiative Core Strategies and Supporting Activities 35
Table 4: Most Adopted Student Success Strategies by CSUs 38
Table 5: Conceptual Framework for Knowledge Inquiry Questions 55
Table 6: Conceptual Framework for Motivation Inquiry Questions 56
Table 7: Conceptual Framework for Organization Inquiry Questions 57
Table 8: CSUDH Strategic Goals 62
Table 9: SWOT Analysis of CSUDH Advising Practices 69
Table 10: Assumed Knowledge Assets 73
Table 11: Discovered Knowledge Assets 73
Table 12: Programs within the Dominguez Hills First Year Experience 75
Table 13: Assumed Motivation Assets 93
Table 14: Discovered Motivation Assets 93
Table 15: Assumed Organization Assets 104
Table 16: Discovered Organization Assets 105
Table 17: Validated Assets 121
Table 18: HIPs Assets 122
Table 19: Advising Assets 123
Table 20: Faculty Development Assets 124
Table 21: Assets Demonstrating Institutional Commitment 125
Table 22: Proposed Timeline for Advising Initiative 130
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
7
Table 23: Evaluation Levels of An Advising Initiative 131
Table 24: Proposed Timeline for Expanding an Existing Program 135
Table 25: Evaluation Levels for Scaling an Existing Program 136
Table 26: Proposed Timeline for Hiring Additional Faculty 138
Table 27: Evaluation Levels of Adding Additional Faculty 139
Table 28: Proposed Timeline for Faculty Development 140
Table 29: Evaluation Levels for Faculty Development 142
Table 30: Proposed Timelines for Transforming Learning Spaces 143
Table 31: Evaluation Levels of Enhanced Learning Environments 145
Table 32: Proposed Timeline for Establishing a Student Success Fee 147
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
8
List of Figures
Figure 1. Gap analysis process flow chart (Yates, 2013) 49
Figure 2. Images of I’m A Toro campaign 70
Figure 3. Images of library lobby 72
Figure 4. DHFYE infographic. (CSUDH, 2016). Reprinted with permission. 76
Figure 5. Summer Bridge + Beyond conceptual model. (Driscoll & Oliverez, 2016) 79
Figure 6. Images related to Student Research Day 82
Figure 7. Images of Toro Learning Center 86
Figure 8. Images of the faculty development center 94
Figure 9. Image of a Class of 2017 graduation t-shirt 103
Figure 10. DHFYE advising outcomes (CSUDH, 2016). Reprinted with permission 114
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
9
Abstract
This case study of California State University, Dominguez Hills, examined the
institution’s efforts to improve the six-year completion rates of undergraduate students over 25%
in a four-year time frame. The purpose of the study was to uncover knowledge, motivation, and
organization assets employed by the institution that contributed to this improvement. A
qualitative approach of interviews, document analysis, and campus observations was utilized.
The conceptual framework was the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis. Fourteen administrators
participated in the study and four major documents were reviewed. Findings validated 20 of 23
assumed assets, and discovered nine more assets. Key assets were implementation of high-
impact practices, a robust first-year experience program, an ambitious advising initiative, and
multiple approaches to faculty development. Discovered assets included a strong institutional
commitment to student success in terms of budgetary resources, pursuit of grant funding, and
effective hiring practices. Recommendations of transferable practices to other institutions
include implementation and evaluation plans for improved advisement and faculty engagement
as well as transforming learning spaces and establishing a student success fee.
Key Words: Retention, Completion, First-Generation Student, Underserved Student, High-
Impact Practices, Intrusive Advising, Gap Analysis.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
10
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
In an increasingly global and competitive world, attainment of a college degree is
becoming more important. In the United States, though, while an increasing number of students
are afforded access to higher education, a report by the Education Trust stated that less than 40%
of U.S. students complete bachelor’s degrees in 4 years and barely 60% will complete in 6 years
(Carey, 2005). These completion rates, coupled with the desire for American youth to compete
in the global economy caused the President of the United States to launch the American
Graduation Initiative (Obama, 2009). Pursuant to this, the National Commission for Higher
Education Attainment released a report entitled “An Open Letter to College and University
Leaders: College Completion Must Be Our Priority” in which the authors were dismayed that
the United States was once a pioneer in expanding higher education access and is now losing
pace in completion rates. However, they were heartened at the number of intervention strategies
many colleges and universities have begun to explore and implement (NCHEA, 2013).
Completion rates are a problem for United States colleges and universities, and many higher
education institutions are taking up the challenge of improving this situation.
The focus of this study is to examine the promising practices put in place at California
State University, Dominguez Hills (CSUDH) to improve undergraduate completion rates. The
administration at CSUDH facilitated a rise in completion rates worthy of study as a promising
practice that may yield recommendations transferrable to other organizations. The study will
examine the assets at the university that support student success in the areas of knowledge,
motivational strategies, and organizational resources.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
11
Background of the Problem
Andreas Schleicher, head of the Indicators and Analysis Division of the OECD in Paris
concluded one reason for the change in U.S. standing in the international completion rankings
was due to rapid improvements in other nations (de Vise, 2011, pp. 10). This sentiment was
echoed by the Education Trust, “while this nation’s long commitment to higher education has
yielded the world’s best-educated workforce, recent data show that our competitors in the
industrialized world are catching up—fast” (Carey, 2005, p. 2).
A paper written for National Bureau of Economic Research, primarily concerned with
explaining the drop of U.S. degree completion rates, found that the two largest causal factors
were reduced institutional resources and decreased preparation among incoming students
(Bound, 2009). Since 2008, state support for public institutions has dropped by a quarter, 7.6%
in 2012 alone, making it difficult to improve services to improve completion rates (NCHEA,
2013). In the state of California, per-student funding is down 3% from 2008 levels (CBPP,
2016).
The National Bureau of Economic Research also found that although more women were
entering college, the decline in completion rates has been concentrated among men. The gender
disparity remains evident in current statistics (OECD, 2015). Another contributing factor is the
increased diversity of American students. While White and Asian students still complete degrees
at rates equal to global competitors, African-American, Latino, and Native American students
are far less likely to graduate in 6 years. Likewise, degree attainment among high-income
students have doubled since 1975, but only increased from 7% to 10% among low-income
students; this is while low-income students have more than doubled in college attendance and
high-income students have increased only slightly (Engle, 2009).
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
12
In studying this dilemma, the National Commission on Higher Education Attainment has
advocated that all leaders of higher education institutions need to place completion rates as a
higher priority while continuing to provide access to higher education to an increasing diverse
population. Several themes of advice are offered, such as changing campus culture, improving
cost-effectiveness and quality, and making better use of data, with multiple strategies suggested
for each theme (NCHEA, 2013). The Association of American Colleges and Universities
embarked on a decade-long initiative called Liberal Education and American’s Promise, which
among other things, lead to the development of ten high-impact practices, often referred to as
High-Impact Practices, or HIPs (Kuh, 2008). The Lumina Foundation is also committed to Goal
2025, a vision to increase the proportion of Americans with degrees and certificates to 60% by
the year 2025. The foundation provides strategic data and planning to meet these objectives
(Lumina, 2013). Other groups studying this problem of improving student persistence are the
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the College Board, College Transition Collaborative and the
Mindset Scholars Network. They claim that major psychological findings indicate that fostering
a sense of belonging amongst students, regardless of ethnic or economic background, is one key
for success (Yeager, 2016). Further studies show that non-cognitive skills are also more crucial
to student success than previously understood.
In 2007, the members of the National Association of System Heads formed the Access to
Success Initiative. The initiative has two goals: increase degree attainment and ensure graduates
are demographically representative of their communities (Engle, 2009). There are 24
participating systems, including the California State University system, represented by the
Chancellor. The CSU Chancellor has set Graduation Initiative 2025, calling on all campuses to
improve their 6-year freshmen graduation rate to 60% and 4-year graduation rate to 24%
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
13
(CSUDH, 2014). Individual campuses throughout the system are now mandated to improve their
student services to provide new pathways to success, offering new redesigned general education
curricula, summer bridge programs for under-prepared students, enhanced peer tutoring and
counseling centers, and offer a more comprehensive array of co-curricular and non-curricular
activities to increase student sense of belonging and pride.
Importance of a Promising Practice Project
Studying retention and persistence to graduation are of critical importance to higher
education institutions around the country. It is crucial to prepare U.S. students to keep pace in
the evolving global marketplace. Having a college degree has become a necessity for entry into
the workforce. Graduates will also have larger incomes, be more productive citizens, and
contribute more to society (Carey, 2005).
In addition, the federal government is now reporting completion rates of colleges to
students interested in receiving financial aid as part of the Free Application for Federal Student
Aid process and on the College Scorecard website (U.S. DOE, 2016) as part of the enactment of
the 1990 Student Right to Know Act. Consequences of not studying student persistence in this
context are to risk the ability to recruit as many new students who may need financial aid to
attend college. At a time when state governments are also reducing funding for higher
education, this compounds an already difficult problem and increases competition between
schools for more students.
The National Council on Higher Education Achievement called on institutions to be more
active in college completion efforts, “Increasing the number of graduating students isn’t an
arcane science. It involves a mindset and a series of concrete actions…” (NCHEA, 2013, p. 9).
There is a myriad of intervention options to consider when trying to improve graduation rates,
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
14
and choosing the right options can difficult. To utilize evidence-based decision-making leaders
must understand why certain strategies are effective, and for whom they are effective, to
determine the best strategies for their own institutions. Utilizing the promising practices
approach allows for a targeted case study analysis of how one university made these
improvements.
Organizational Context, Mission and Vision
This study will focus on CSU Dominguez Hills, because it has demonstrably improved
student success. CSUDH is a regional comprehensive, Masters I institution located in the South
Los Angeles metropolitan city of Carson, California, serving a large and expanding, diverse
demographic population of lower income. It was founded in 1960 in Palos Verdes, intended to
be South Bay State College, but was moved after the August 1965 Watts uprising in Los Angeles
to the Dominguez Hill area, to better serve the minority population in the area (CSUDH, 2014).
The university’s mission is to “provide education, scholarship and service that are, by
design, accessible and transformative… [and to] welcome students who seek academic
achievement, personal fulfillment, and preparation for the work of today and tomorrow.” This
mission is underpinned by seven core values: accountability, collaboration, continuous learning,
rigorous standards, proactive partnerships, respect, and responsiveness (Hagan, 2014).
CSU Dominguez Hills also has a vision statement, to be “A vital educational and
economic resource for the South Bay, CSUDH will be recognized as a top-performing
Comprehensive Model Urban University in America” (Hagan, 2014).
Organizational Performance Status
Dominguez Hills has met its vision of being recognized as a top-performing university, as
evidenced by several 2014 media achievements, such as a Time magazine ranking of 33 of 100
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
15
top colleges in the country, a Washington Monthly ranking in the top ten institutions contributing
to the public good for three consecutive years, and a US News & World Report “Best College”
ranking of the 12
among ethnically diverse universities (CSUDH, 2014). Additionally, CSUDH
received the United States Presidential Award for General Community Service in 2014, directly
related to their adoption of service learning as an intentional high-impact practice (Junn, 2016).
As mentioned previously, all California State University satellites are bound to meet the
Chancellor’s standards for Initiative 2015. When that initiative was set, CSU Dominguez Hills
had the lowest 4-year graduation rate of any California public institution for cohort 2008 at 5%
(Reese, 2016). According to U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education
Statistics data, CSU Dominguez Hills had a 31.1% 6-year graduation rate for the 1997 cohort,
and an outbound transfer rate of 46.3%, more than double the national average of 23 percent
(Carey, 2005).
President Hagan convened a university planning council in 2014 under the co-cChairship
of Provost Ellen Junn and Dr. William Franklin, vice president of enrollment management and
student affairs. This council was charged with creating the 2014-2020 University Strategic Plan,
Defining the Future, and updating the president on the progress on a bi-annual basis. This
strategic plan outlined six goals with improved academics, support to students, improve the
learning environment, stabilize finances, improve operational effectiveness, and improve the
visibility of the university. Of concern for this study is the second goal, to “Promote student
graduation and success through effective recruitment, transition, and retention of our diverse
student population” (CSUDH, 2014).
Dominguez Hills implemented considerable change to support student success. The first
objective of this goal (2.A) is to improve the 6-year completion rate to 60% not in the timeline
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
16
set by the Chancellor, but in 6 years. Beginning with the cohort graduating in 2012 with an
IPEDS graduation rate of 27.8%, there has been a steady increase, to 29.4% in 2013, 32.2% in
2014, 34.7% in 2015, to 42% in 2016, a 14.2% increase in 4 years (NCES, 2017). The former
provost credits the focus on the objective 2.B, to “Provide every student with the opportunity to
participate in at least to innovative high-impact practices before graduation” for much of this
progress (Junn, 2016). In February 2016, President Hagan was bestowed the City of Los
Angeles Hall of Fame Outstanding Achievement in Education Award for leading the
improvements in student and community engagement (Browning, 2016). The institution has also
received a $3 million Higher Education Award from the Educational Delivery Institute
supporting collaboration between academic affairs, student affairs, information technology and
administration and finance (Driscoll, 2016).
Description of Stakeholder Groups
At nearly any university, there are three primary stakeholder groups primarily related to
student success: students, faculty, and administration. The student population of Dominguez
Hills is educationally underprepared: approximately 82% of students enter in remedial math,
English or both. The campus serves 12,682 undergraduates and 2,005 graduate students. In
terms of gender, 65% are female and 35% are male. It is classified as both a Hispanic-serving
institution, with 54% of Fall 2014 enrollment identified as Hispanic, and a minority-serving
institution, with an additional 14% identified as Black or African-American, 10% identified as
Asian, and only 11% of the student population reporting as White. The overall percentage of
first-generation college students is 51%, 62% of their students are Pell Grant eligible, and 30%
are part-time (NCES, 2016). These factors point to an under-prepared group of students who
need substantial support to complete their degrees.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
17
Faculty are involved in improving student success. There were 303 full-time faculty and
464 part-time faculty in fiscal year 2014 (NCES, 2016). In the University Strategic Plan, faculty
were engaged in enabling campus practices through adopting intentional HIPs via the faculty
development center training innovation, pedagogy and evidence-based, peer-to-peer training.
There were collaborations with student affairs, academic and information technology support
staffs, and increase part-time faculty engagement activities. There were improvements in
defining the centrality and importance of departmental program reviews as well as the
importance of general education (Junn, 2016). Objective 1.A of the University Strategic Plan
was to increase the number of tenured and tenure-track faculty from 41.9% in 2013 to a goal of
60% (Hagan, 2014). Faculty fellowships were created for a HIPs coordinator and a writing
coordinator.
The administration of CSU Dominguez Hills refers to their approach to this problem as
“partnership by design,” referring to a strong sense of collaboration between student affairs and
academic affairs. With their new president, provost, and vice president for student affairs, armed
with the university’s strategic plan, a new executive position was created as the Assistant Vice
President of Academic Advising, who led a campus-wide advising task force. As a result of the
work of this task force, a new First-Year Experience program was launched, which created
summer experiences to improve the academic preparation of underprepared students, made
coursework more relevant, increased academic support, added intrusive advising and peer
mentoring, improved access to technology, and required campus engagement. The
administration has also created collaborative professional development programs for faculty and
advisors and started an advising summit (Driscoll, 2016).
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
18
Stakeholder Group for the Study
Ideally, a complete study into improving completion rates would analyze data from all
the stakeholder groups, but this study will focus on those members of the administration directly
responsible for achieving the goal pertaining to improving student success, especially given the
notable success and recognition of the senior leadership.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project is to study the performance of CSU Dominguez Hills related
to the national problem of low completion rates, especially among first-generation college, non-
White students. The study will be concerned with the assets that the university has created that
will support it in the rubric areas of knowledge, motivational strategies employed, and
organizational resources made available. While a complete study would focus on all
stakeholders, for practical purposes the stakeholder to be focused on in this analysis is the
administration. As such, the questions that guide this study are the following:
1. What knowledge, motivation and organizational assets underpin the CSUDH
administration’s efforts to increase the undergraduate six-year graduation rate to 60% in
six years?
2. What practices in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources may
be transferrable to other organizations?
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis provides a systematic, analytical method that
helps to understand organizational goal achievement. This analytical approach will be
implemented as the conceptual framework, having been adapted to suit the needs of a promising
practice study. The methodological framework is a qualitative case study with descriptive
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
19
statistics. Assumed knowledge, motivation and organizational assets will be generated based on
personal knowledge and related literature. These influences will be assessed by using surveys,
document analysis, interviews, and literature review. Research-based solutions will be
recommended and evaluated in a comprehensive manner.
Definitions
In 2010, the National Governor’s Association created an initiative “Complete to
Compete” to standardize college completion metrics (Reyna, 2010), which also helps to
standardize the vocabulary surrounding college persistence to completion. Many of the
definitions below have been created based on this document.
Access: The ability of high school graduates to attend a higher education institution,
including factors such as geographical proximity, entry standards, and the inclusion of remedial
coursework.
Completion: The ability of admitted to students to complete their degree or certificate.
The National Center for Education Statistics most commonly reports completion rates for
bachelor’s degrees in 4-year and 6-year increments. It can be significant that completion,
persistence, and retention rates are reported in relationship to an entering class of full-time
students, especially as an institution with a sizeable part-time population.
Developmental student: A student who is under-prepared for college education,
especially in basic English and mathematics skills.
First-generation college student: A student who is the first person in their family to
attend college is referred to as a first-generation student. There are some ethnic and socio-
economic trends, in that first-generation college students among White students occurred as a
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
20
wave with the baby boom generation, especially in the middle class, while first-generation
college students of other origins have increased more recently, especially since the 1990s.
Intrusive Advising: Sometimes also called, proactive advising, intrusive advising is a
system of creating contact with students who may not others seek help, such as weekly sessions
mandated in developmental courses or phone contact initiated by an advisor when a student is
showing signs of struggling in courses.
Persistence: The ability of a student to continue to make progress toward their degree.
This is usually discussed individually, as a concept for discussing progress in a degree, and
persistence rates differ from completion or retention rates in that they track individual student
progress rather than aggregated data. Persistence rates are more time-consuming to calculate,
and often used when an institution is exploring intervention options.
Retention: Retention refers to the fall-to-fall enrollment comparisons in a cohort of full-
time students. Retention rates are often measured because there is a correlation between
improving retention to improve completion.
Success: This is synonymous with completion, the attainment of a degree or certificate.
Organization of the Dissertation
Five chapters will be used to organize this dissertation. This chapter oriented the reader to
the key concepts and terminology routinely addressed in discussing student success initiatives.
CSUDH’s mission, goals and stakeholders as well as the initial concepts of gap analysis were
introduced. Chapter Two provides a review of current literature surrounding the scope of the
study. Topics related to challenges first-generation students, “students of color,” and
developmental students will be discussed, as will national trends in addressing many of these
issues. There will also be exploration of the literature related to student persistence and self-
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
21
motivated learning, regardless of demographic origin. There will also be discussion of the
existing research utilized as assets by the CSUDH administration. Chapter Three details the
assumed assets for this study as well as methodology when it comes to choice of participants,
data collection and analysis. In Chapter Four, the data and results will be assessed and analyzed.
Chapter Five will provide examples of transferrable practices, based on data and literature as
well as suggestions for implementation and evaluation plans.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
22
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This chapter will review the literature related to student retention and college completion.
The first section will examine completion rates from a global context through a national context.
The second section will discuss the evolving definition of student success in a national context,
grounded in Tinto’s theory of why students leave college and the National Survey Student
Engagement (NSSE) drivers for student success. The third section will turn to the Liberal
America America’s Promise initiate, sponsored by the American Association of Colleges &
Universities (AAC&U), highlighting Kuh’s high-impact educational practices and Gardner’s
work in first-year experiences. Then then CSU Graduation Initiative 2025 will be explored. The
final section will examine stakeholder influences through the theoretical lenses undergirding
knowledge, motivation, and organization assets.
Understanding Completion Rates
There have been significant increases in both the number of students attending college
and completing degrees throughout the world, especially in Asian nations. South Korea and
Singapore, and two cities in China, Shanghai and Hong Kong, for example, are showing
exceptional improvements in world educational standings. Japan is also very strong in the global
higher education arena. In part, President Obama’s challenge to improve U.S. college
completion rates was in response to the 2008 rankings in which the United States was replaced
by South Korea as the nation with the highest percentage of degrees completed at 60%. It is
worthy to note that 60% became the U.S. college 6-year completion goal and that the U.S. had
always been on top of the list until that year, when it slipped to the #9 spot.
In the global context, the focus is on completing any degree program, which includes
many options other than a 4-year degree. This focus is especially true in the European system,
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
23
and throughout the global commonwealth heritage of universities in former British colonies. It is
important in the United States context because the president has begun an initiative to increase
completion rates for 2-year degrees and certificate programs as well as traditional 4-year
bachelor’s degrees. The Lumina Foundation was created to improve degree attainment rates by
2025 by building a social movement, mobilizing stakeholders to improve college success,
advancing state and national policies, creating new models of financial and student support, and
designing new systems of quality credentials (Lumina, 2013). Lumina promptly created the
degree qualification profile, encouraging the development and realignment of degrees at the
associate and bachelor’s levels amongst the following criteria: specialized knowledge, broad and
integrative knowledge, intellectual skills, applied and collaborative learning, and civic and global
learning (Lumina, 2014). Their work is grounded in efforts by European Universities to align
curricula, formalized by the Bologna Process (Lumina, 2014).
In the United States, there were significant increases in access to and attendance at
colleges and universities in the 1970s, and as a result, the completion rates dropped in the 1970s
and maintained the same levels for several decades. In that time, the demographics of students
have expanded beyond predominately White, male students of middle to higher incomes to
include many more women and students of other ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds.
Wealthy, White students, particularly those whose parents have attended college, complete
college at much higher rates than students of other ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds,
therefore, the critical need is to improve the success for the less privileged groups, including
first-generation college students.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
24
Defining Student Success
It is nearly universally understood that a student who completes a degree is statistically a
success. Some definitions of student success expand to include other measurable qualities, such
as academic accomplishments and post-graduate achievements, such as graduate test scores, job
placement rates, and advanced degrees. More contemporary definitions include less quantifiable
characteristics, such as whether students feel comfortable, satisfied, and affirmed by their
experiences (Kuh, et al., 2006).
From the sociological perspective, Vincent Tinto developed the theory of student
departure (1987) to explain that students of different cultural background have different skills
and expectations, so need different types of interventions. His work was largely validated by the
work of Pascarella and Terenzini (1991, 2005) in their studies on How College Affects Students,
which utilized empirical methodology studying student change in college, the extent changes
could be attributed to college experiences versus life experiences, the relationship of the change
to institution, the relationship of the change to student experience at an institution, differences in
student characteristics, and how long the changes last.
Braxton (2006) distilled Tinto’s theory into a taxonomy for the National Post-Secondary
Education Cooperative Initiative. This taxonomy defines student success largely in terms of
curricular outcomes, such as academic attainment, acquisition of general education, development
of academic competence, cognitive skills, and intellection dispositions, occupational attainment,
preparation for adulthood and citizenship, personal accomplishments, and personal development.
From a psychological perspective, Dweck’s (2006) mindset theory has become imbued in
academic discourse for the past decade. Findings from NSSE suggest that “Students with strong
Growth Mindset were most likely to use effective learning strategies & engaged in reflective and
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
25
integrative learning more often” (Kinsey, 2016, p. 31). Mindset theory is discussed more fully
later in the motivation synthesis section of this chapter. Strayhorn (2012) expands Maslow’s
sense of belonging into several cultural groups, notably African-Americans, resonating with
Tinto’s theories that different groups need different interventions.
From a standpoint of student engagement, and based on the premise that engaged
students will succeed, NSSE publishes an annual report on results from the surveys. The survey
is now administered annually to 560 schools and college in the United States, Canada, and Qatar
(NSSE, 2017). One major finding is “Students who engage more frequently in educationally
purposeful activities both in and outside the classroom get better grades, are more satisfied, and
are more likely to persist and graduate” (Kinzie, 2016, p. 17). To dig deeper into these findings,
the NSSE Institute for Effective Educational Practice launched the Documenting Effective
Educational Practice (DEEP) initiative, “to discover, document, and describe what strong
performing institutions do to achieve their notable level of effectiveness” (p. 15). There were
two guiding questions to the DEEP project: “(1) What do ‘strong-performing’ institutions do to
promote student success? And (2) What campus features – policies, programs, practices – are
related to higher-than-predicted retention and grad rates & student engagement?” (p. 15).
The DEEP findings, based on 5 years of study across 20 institutions, were that six
essential conditions were necessary to build student success, shown below (Kuh, et al, 2010).
• “Living” mission & “lived” educational philosophy
• Unshakeable focus on student learning
• Environments adapted for educational enrichment
• Clearly marked pathways to student success
• Improvement-oriented ethos
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
26
• Shared responsibility for educational quality
At the most recent National Symposium on Student Retention, Kinzie (2016) proposed a
comprehensive system of drivers and supporting drivers, shown in Table 1, to provide “a
conceptual structure that offers a comprehensive representation of the key structural components
for student success, emphasizing how student success will be achieved” (p. 41).
Table 1
NSSE Drivers to Student Success
Development of a comprehensive, integrated approach
• Greater consideration for evidence about the quality of student engagement in student
success.
• Emphasis on assessment data informing the sustainability and implementation.
• Greater integration of curriculum and co-curriculum.
• More interconnected policies and programs, less isolated initiatives.
• Enhanced relationships between faculty, staff, and student affairs.
Implementation of literature-informed, empirically-based approach
• Greater reliance on and reliable implementation of empirically-based approach.
• Systematic early college exposure and support networks with P-16.
• Effective orientation and transition experiences.
• Reformed gateway courses and developmental education.
• Greater use of engaging pedagogies.
Enactment of a cultural system of student success
• Strategic relationships with P-12 systems, community partners, and college preparation.
• More collaboration between 2-year and 4-year institutions.
• Greater attention to transitions between high school and college.
• Promotion of asset-based narrative about students.
• More communication with prospective students about enrollment.
Application of clear pathways for student learning & success
• Maps to guide student transition to college and through majors and careers.
• Require students to make “big choices” about whole programs offered.
• Greater specification of step-by-step road maps and use of intrusive advising.
• Greater use of student information such as past performance and curricular involvements,
and other beneficial experiential learning.
• More comprehensive data and information systems accessible.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
27
Table 1, continued
Enactment of a Student Success Mindset
• Encouragement of the belief that all students can succeed
• Greater attention to grit, growth mindset orientation to promote completion.
• Faculty and staff development to foster student success mindset.
• Pervasive culture of student support across faculty, administrators, and staff.
• Involvement of students in success planning and in institutional advising.
(Kinsey, 2016, p. 49)
Promising Student Success
The American Association of Colleges & Universities (AAC&U) began the Liberal
Education and America’s Promise in 2005 in response to changing workforce needs for college
graduates. Ten years later, AAC&U issued the LEAP Challenge in 2015 to the nearly 1,400
member schools to adopt the LEAP Principles of Excellence. This includes the LEAP States
Initiative and several global partners, the Asian Cooperative Program, Japan Association for
College and University Education, and the Core Curriculum Program at Qatar University,
intended to serve as a general education hub for the Middle East and Northern Africa.
The LEAP States Initiative has been adopted in 13 states, ranging from a voluntary
consortium in Texas to large state school systems in Minnesota and California. The initiative
fosters collaboration across systems and institutions, transformational change, and aligning
curriculum and assessment to raise academic quality. LEAP States has two major projects
working from differing approaches. The Quality Collaborative project is testing curriculum and
degree frameworks, using the criteria set forth in Lumina’s Degree Qualification Profile (DQP),
as well as LEAP’s Essential Learning Outcomes, explained below. The Faculty Collaborative
project is more interested in faculty leadership and learning, also using the DQP and other LEAP
initiatives to study and promote the links between student engagement and student persistence
(AAC&U, 2017).
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
28
There are four cornerstones of the LEAP Vision: Essential Learning Outcomes, High-
Impact Educational Practices, VALUE Assessments, and Inclusive Excellence. Essential
Learning Outcomes are intended to serve as national benchmarks for college learning, and set
forth a type of curricular taxonomy. HIPs have been proven to challenge students. Valid
Assessment of Learning in Undergraduate Education (VALUE) rubrics
1
form a rigorously
developed and substantially validated framework for assessing student work, shown below in
Table 2. Inclusive Excellence is the commitment that “all students at every kind of institution
should benefit from a deep, hands-on, and practical liberal education that provides them for
success in work, life, and citizenship” (AAC&U, 2015, p. 7).
Table 2
LEAP Essential Learning Outcomes
Knowledge of human cultures and the physical and natural world
• Through study in the sciences and mathematics, social sciences, humanities, histories,
languages, and the arts
Intellectual and practical skills, including
• Inquiry and analysis
• Critical and creative thinking
• Written and oral communication
• Quantitative literacy
• Information literacy
• Teamwork and problem-solving
1
The VALUE rubrics include Inquiry and Analysis, Critical Thinking, Creative Thinking,
Written Communication, Oral Communication, Quantitative Literacy, Information Literacy,
Reading, Teamwork, Problem-Solving, Civic Knowledge and Engagement—Local and Global,
Intercultural Knowledge and Competence, Ethical Reasoning and Action, Global Learning,
Foundations and Skills for Lifelong Learning, and Integrative Learning (AAC&U, 2015).
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
29
Table 2, continued
Personal and social responsibility, including
• Civic knowledge and engagement—local and global
• Intercultural knowledge and competence
• Ethical reasoning and action
• Foundations and skills for lifelong learning
Integrative and applied learning, including
• Synthesis and advanced accomplishment across general and specialized studies
(AAC&U, 2015)
High-Impact Practices
The AAC&U has embedded ten intentional HIPs into Liberal Education America’s
Promise (Kuh, 2008). The HIPs, described below, are first-year experiences, common
intellectual experiences, learning communities, writing-intensive courses, collaborative
assignments, undergraduate research, global learning, experiential learning, internships, and
capstone courses.
First-year seminars and experiences. Continuing the work begun in the 1980s by John
Gardner and the First-Year Experience Institute, improving the quality of contact and frequency
of interactions between faculty and students in students’ first year is the most effective strategy
in improving student experiences and completion (Kuh et al, 2010; Strayhorn, 2012; Upcraft,
Gardner & Barefoot, 2005). Quite often, first-year experiences include many of the other HIPs
listed below. The term first-year “experience” is the broadest description, initially meant to be
inclusive of extra- and co-curricular activities. Many first-year experiences center around first-
year seminars with additional activities surrounding them. The term “first year” is also evolving,
as universities attempt to capture students earlier, so the first year for some begins during
summer bridge programs.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
30
Seminar courses are often the cornerstones of first-year experience initiatives. Early
models of first-year seminars were essentially expanded college orientations. More sophisticated
models emerged capturing a “seminar” essence of student-driven conversation facilitated by a
professor rather than lecture (Upcraft et al., 2005). There are several variations on this theme,
depending on how the seminar is integrated into the general education curriculum or even a
learning community.
Beyond the seminar, first-year experiences are intentional practices designed to improve
retention from the first year to second. Some examples include holding orientations, first-year
convocations, Dean’s receptions, student activity fairs, and advising fairs for first-year students
(Upcraft et al., 2005).
In this expanded definition of first-year experiences, emerging practice is to blend
recruiting and retention activities by extending the first year into the summer before a student
begins, especially students who need developmental coursework in English or math, or meet
some other indicator of a student who might experience academic issues. Many schools call this
a summer bridge program (Upcraft et al., 2005).
Common intellectual experiences. Evolving from the general education model
common in U.S. universities since the 18th century, common intellectual experiences can be a
more focused experience that relates more tightly to the institution’s mission, identity, or
purpose. Common intellectual experiences provide a themed learning experience. These
experiences can be imbedded into general education frame works, but often in a transformed
fashion to include a more “vertical” course work and sometimes include learning communities,
explained below. One typical common intellectual experience is a shared text or set of text
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
31
studied by all students, which can be especially useful in establishing a sense of regional or
cultural identity amongst students (Kuh, 2008).
Learning communities. Expanding beyond the idea of team teaching, learning
communities involve the same group of students taking two or more courses as a cohort or
group. These communities are often courses grouped thematically, or exploring a similar
problem or question from a variety of disciplinary approaches. As an example, a learning
community could include a science course, a humanities course, and a professional course
studying a contemporary regional problem. Students would enroll in all three courses, and the
instructors of the courses would work collaboratively to plan activities and coordinate learning
experiences for the students. Another approach would include the idea of a common intellectual
experience, like studying a seminal text from a variety of perspectives (Kuh, 2008).
Writing-intensive courses. Some universities have “Writing Across the Curriculum”
programs, with the intention of advancing writing skills beyond first-year composition courses.
At least one upper-level writing-intensive course is embedding into each major program, often a
discipline-specific research writing or professional writing course (Kuh, 2008).
Collaborative assignments and projects. Well-designed collaborative learning
accomplishes two goals, according to Kuh, “learning to work and solve problems in the company
of others and sharpening one’s own understanding by listening to the insights of others,
especially those with different backgrounds and life experiences” (2008, p. 10). While it is still
common to have “group work” team assignments, another approach could be to establish study
groups within a course or establish a cooperative research projects.
Undergraduate research. With the goal to engage students in debated problems, latest
technologies, empirical observation, and expose students to professional work behaviors early,
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
32
many colleges are establishing research experiences for students across many disciplines (Kuh,
2008).
Diversity/global learning. There is growing acknowledgement of the increasingly
global world as well as the diversity of cultures, experiences and worldviews that exist, even
within a specific community. Diversity and global learning programs provide opportunities to
expose students to life experiences significantly different than their own. Often, this approach
will include exploring human differences in race, ethnicity, or gender or more global struggles
for human rights, freedom, and power. Programs vary from study abroad options to more
intentional thematic study augmented by experiential learning (Kuh, 2008).
Service learning or community-based learning. Grounded in the notion that giving
something back to the community is a valuable college experience and prepares students to be
good citizens, many colleges are increase community engagement programs. Pedagogically, it is
important that students get to experience field-based learning, immediately applying what they
are learning, and reflecting in a classroom setting on these experiences. It has been shown that
experiential learning improves student motivation and persistence by offering students a chance
to feel pride in giving back to their communities in an important way and excitement at working
with a working professional (Kuh, 2008).
Internships. For many of the reasons cited above, internships are also valuable forms of
experiential learning. Internships are often more directly related to student career interests, more
closely supervised by working professionals, and require more time as well as more formal
reflective experiences, such as a project of full-length paper (Kuh, 2008).
Capstone courses and projects. An important intention of capstone courses is creating
an experience that integrates prior learning and requires student to apply what they have learned
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
33
to some sort of project, such as a research paper, portfolio, or artistic performance or exhibition.
Often, these capstone projects are taken at the end of a student’s major course of study, but more
and more general education programs have begun including capstone projects as well. Not only
is this useful for assessment purposes, but also in building a student’s levels of confidence and
accomplishment (Kuh, 2008).
To reiterate, AAC&U recommends all ten of these HIPs, as does the CSU Chancellor.
Kuh (2008) identifies six characteristics that all the above practices share, which make them
“high-impact.” First, each practice is effortful. Students must strive to achieve them. Second,
each practice builds substantive relationships, especially with faculty and professional
supervisors, and with their peers. Third, each practice helps student engage across differences.
Fourth, each practice provides student with rich feedback. Fifth, each practice helps students
apply their learning and assess their understanding. Sixth, each practice provides opportunities
for self-reflection.
Initiating Student Success
The California State University is the largest system of higher education in the world,
with 474,571 students (CSU, 2017). As such, CSU is a leading member of NASH, AASCU, and
AAC&U, with direct access to information and influence over initiatives and policies. In 2009,
the Chancellor launched a Graduation Initiative. This initiative was quite successful, record
graduation rates were obtained, the 6-year graduation rate goal was exceeded, and there was a
11-point improvement in baccalaureate completion rates, translating to 5,500 more students
graduating annually (CSU, 2016).
A second Graduation Initiative was launched in January 2016 with the added goal of
closing achievement gaps for underrepresented, low-income and first-generation students by
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
34
2025. The new Graduation Initiative is driven by a plan which includes key principles, core
strategies and supporting activities, key improvement areas, timelines, accountability metrics,
and leadership and support from the chancellor’s office. The key principles are to close
achievement gaps, retain high quality of learning, maintain access for underserved populations,
meet students at their level of academic preparation, respect campus differences, and provide a
high new standard of leadership, so that the system will “become the recognized national leader
in student success” (p. 8).
There are four core strategies, to increase the number of courses students take, increase
enrollment in summer and winter, increase coursework that contributes to degree completion,
and follow the timelines. Each strategy has activities orchestrated to support them, detailed on
Table 3 on the following page. An additional strategy for college readiness would include
pipeline partnerships with K-12 feeder schools. Further, scalable promising practices will be
shared, whether from the individual campuses or from national initiatives.
Likewise, there are four broad areas targeted for improvement: enrollment management,
improved advising, data capacity, and focused leadership. Expectations and target campus
audiences are specified in the plan for each area. The plan includes a detailed matrix of activities
and target audiences in an appendix. The CSU acknowledges there is not a “magic bullet” (p. 9)
for student success, but rather the need to coordinate several student programs to increase overall
effectiveness. Enrollment management areas are the highest priority area, expected to involve
planning from recruitment to graduation by spring 2017. Specifically, campuses will need to:
improve infrastructure for prediction of courses students need and organize class schedules to
meet these needs. Campus advising systems will need to predictive analytics to support
improved proactive advising to enroll students in the courses they need and intrusive advising
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
35
efforts to assist students in need. Data capabilities have been improved by the CSU system in
the form of student dashboards. Campus leaders need to engage faculty and staff in using and
understanding the data available, and determine how best to strategically utilize the data.
Campus leaders also need to hold discussions regarding leadership structures and campus-wide
collaborations supporting student success, and revise their student success plans accordingly.
Table 3
CSU Graduation Initiative Core Strategies and Supporting Activities
Strategy 1: Increase the average number of courses students earn during the academic year
(a) adding courses in the academic year,
(b) using proactive advising to encourage students to take additional courses,
(c) developing online courses to make added course-taking more convenient for students, and
(d) supporting students in higher course loads with general and targeted student support services.
Strategy 2: Increase summer/winter course enrollment
(a) adding in-demand courses to summer and winter schedules,
(b) using proactive advising to encourage students to add courses,
(c) developing online courses to make added course-taking more convenient, and
(d) exploring and implementing a system-based financial assistance program to facilitate time to
degree for freshmen who are projected to graduate in 4.5 years and transfers who are projected to
graduate in 2.5 years to help defray the cost of summer school and/or intersessions.
Strategy 3: Replace course-taking that may not contribute to degree requirements with
courses which do contribute within the target timeframe
(a) developing the capabilities to accurately forecast class needs,
(b) managing enrollment to ensure all needed seats are provided,
(c) proactive and intrusive advising,
(d) developing programs to reduce major-changing and prompt earlier choice of majors by
students,
(e) reducing exploratory course-taking through advising,
(f) working with K-12 and community colleges to promote early major and career selection, and
(g) benchmarking curriculum against appropriate peer curricula and streamlining where
appropriate.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
36
Table 3, continued
Strategy 4: Increase student success rates in courses within the target time frame,
especially in gateway and past high failure rate courses
(a) working with K-12 to reduce remediation in math and English,
(b) innovations in remediation such as “stretch” courses,
(c) improved student screening and placement in key courses,
(d) more support, including tutoring,
(e) innovative pedagogy toward more active learning and high-impact practices,
(f) developing physical spaces to encourage study and engagement, and
(g) ensuring that faculty hires are prepared to work with diverse students. Costs include faculty
time to redesign courses, tutoring staff, supplemental instruction, and learning communities.
(White, 2016, p. 8-9)
There are immediate, short-term, and long-term timelines specified in the plan, with
responsibilities identified for the chancellor’s office and the campuses. Some immediate goals
are focusing advisement to more timely completion of degrees (i.e., from 6-year to 4-year
timeframes for bachelor’s degrees), improving course scheduling to meet student demand,
rolling out dashboards, and revising student success plans. Short-term goals include a system-
wide symposium on student success and workshops and webinars delivered by the chancellor’s
office for the highest priority improvement areas. Long-term goals are related to annual
reporting and revisions of plans to meet the targets.
The Graduation Initiative has identified key metrics to track cohort progress at each
campus, disaggregated by underrepresented, low-income, and first-generation populations, as
well as by freshmen and transfer cohorts. These metrics include 2- and 4-year graduation
numbers and rates, fall-to-fall average unit load, summer course-taking units, 1-year retention
numbers and rates, and metrics related to campus-specific implementation milestones.
To support these various activities, and strive towards a national model of excellence, the
chancellor’s office will “(a) provide leadership, (b) support campus plans in specific
improvement areas, (c) develop key metrics, and (d) summarize and use data both for
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
37
improvement and for accountability” (p.11). One form of support is in the form of professional
development workshops and webinars related to the specific improvement areas, grounded in
best practices from the literature, national experts, and within specific campuses.
The CSU expects to add significant resources, “between $400 and $500 million in
ongoing baseline funding. The CSU hopes to begin to approach this level of support through
gradual, sustained annual increases in student success funding” (p. 12). This estimate was
calculated by synthesizing three approaches. The first was to extrapolate added funds needed per
pupil to achieve the campus graduation rate goals by comparison to CSU peer universities. This
calculation estimates $1500 more needed per student per year, totaling more than $500 million.
The second approach was to analyze historical expenditures within CSU, particularly related to
strengthening advising and other academic and student services, which would require $425
million. The third approach was a cost analysis of each campus student success plan.
Each campus was tasked with submitting a revised Student Success Plan to achieve long-
term goals related to improving graduation rates and eliminating achievement gaps by 2025, as
well as short-term goals to improve the pace to completion for currently enrolled juniors and
seniors. According to the CSU, “The plans reflect campus introspection as the campuses embark
towards achieving (and exceeding) the revised system and campus goals set forth in the 2025
graduation initiative. The proposed actions are non-trivial and will require sustained and
predictable resources to achieve. All campuses recognize the magnitude of impact resulting from
the pursuit of their goals and, at the same time, recognize that every CSU student deserves the
authentic opportunity to achieve their personal collegiate goals” (p. 13). Shown below in Table
4 are strategies adopted by most CSU campuses.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
38
Table 4
Most Adopted Student Success Strategies by CSUs
• All 23 long-term campus plans include strategies to strengthen advising such as adding
advisors, using digital advising tools, enhancing digital degree planners, increasing career
advising, expanding early alert systems, and/or expanding orientations.
• Nineteen campuses identified a need to strengthen the use of data to plan student success
strategies and monitor student progress, often in support of advising strategies.
• Eighteen campuses included strategies related to enrollment management including
expanding summer and winter sessions, using degree planner data to plan class schedules
to meet student needs, eliminating or reducing bottleneck courses, and creating incentives
for students to increase course-taking.
• Fourteen campuses identified strategies related to faculty development including high-
impact practices, changing pedagogy, improving outcomes in low completion rate
courses, and improving student writing.
(White, 2016, p. 13)
Stakeholder Influences
This section will examine the major knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences that might affect how administration approaches the goal of improving undergraduate
student completion rates. Each influence will be discussed in terms of a basic theoretical
perspective followed by reframing relevant literature in student success to the knowledge,
motivation, and organization factors of the gap analysis.
Knowledge and Skills
Faculty and administration need to have certain fundamental knowledge to achieve their
goal of improving completion rates. This section will examine the types of knowledge needed
by administration and faculty using the work of Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) as a conceptual
framework. This framework presents four types of knowledge—factual, conceptual, procedural
and metacognitive. Factual knowledge is concerned with terms and definitions. Conceptual
knowledge is related to categorizing information and distinguishing relationships between facts.
Procedural knowledge articulates processes and “how to” strategies. Metacognitive knowledge
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
39
is the awareness of thinking, often self-awareness and planning towards goals as well as
understanding and evaluating progress towards those goals. It is important to discuss each type
of knowledge in this section because each knowledge type is assessed differently and requires
different types of training and validation.
Factual knowledge. The most basic form of knowledge identified by Anderson and
Krathwohl (2001) is factual knowledge, or the acquisition of facts and data. Administrators need
factual knowledge related to student success to achieve their goal. Without this knowledge,
faculty, staff and administrators would not be able to make improvements on their goals. The
following facts are useful to enacting student success: the types of students they have, the
overall success rates, and how students fare now in completing their degrees. They also need to
know factual knowledge about challenges facing first-generation students and the needs of
under-privileged students.
Conceptual knowledge. According to Anderson and Krathwohl (2001), conceptual
knowledge includes understanding the underlying structure or theoretical of an area of field, as
well as categorizing information and distinguishing relationships between facts. Some of this
factual knowledge has been disseminated by initiatives created by the CSU chancellor’s office
and the AAC&U HIPs described in the previous section.
Administrators need to know the following concepts and their relationship to student
success, Gardner’s (2005) interventions in the first-year experience, building Strayhorn’s (2012)
sense of belonging, and Tinto’s (1987, 2012) theory of student departure. Tinto asserts that
students leave because they do not have enough positive touch point experiences with faculty,
and that first-generation students in particular do not have the skills nor the understanding of
college-level work to succeed. Gardner’s work in first-year experiences span several decades of
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
40
research in building a more inclusive environment for students, especially first-generation
students, including interventions such as first-year seminars with senior faculty as well as
incorporating undergraduate research into the curriculum. Strayhorn’s work builds on the work
of Tinto in providing examples of how to build a sense of belonging at a university that increases
the likelihood of success.
Procedural knowledge. Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) define procedural knowledge
as the ability to perform the techniques, methods, and necessary steps of a certain process.
Understanding how to maintain success and implement change amongst student and faculty is a
central function of administration. This understanding includes translating student success
theories into actionable plans within the processes and policies of their university.
Administrators need to know the following procedures to enact student success: how to
change curriculum, how to integrate HIPs into courses, how to inspire faculty to make change,
and how to inspire staff to make change. Tinto describes methods of analyzing transcripts to
identify blockage points in the curriculum. Tinto (2012) suggests how to create faculty
development to sustain improvements in the classroom. Gardner (2014) explains how to
establish first-year seminars in great detail, as well as writing-intensive courses. Kuh’s (2008)
work provides guidance on how to set up learning communities and expanding service learning
into beneficial community-based experiential learning.
Metacognitive knowledge. Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) describe metacognitive
knowledge as the ability to reflect on and adjust necessary skills and indicate that setting goals,
planning approaches, and monitoring progress is evidence of metacognitive knowledge.
Metacognitive approaches have become acculturated in higher education through accreditation
processes requiring academic master plans, periodic program review, and student learning
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
41
assessment. The national impetus to improve student completion rates focuses attention on
learning that occurs outside of the classroom, often referred to as co-curricular assessment.
Administration must utilize both types of assessment as part of a cyclical metacognitive process
to create on-going student success (Braxton, 2014; Kuh, 2008).
Administrators need to know the following meta-ideas to enact student success: planning
for improvement, assessing success, and adjusting when something does not work well (Tinto,
2012). Braxton (2014), Kuh (2008), and Strayhorn (2014) all provide workable examples of
how to design, execute, and analyze interventions appropriate under various conditions.
Motivation
Pintrich and Schunk define motivation as “the process whereby goal-directed activity is
instigated and sustained” (2008, p. 4). Pintrich (2003) further refines the three indicators for
motivation as choice, persistence, and mental effort. Choice is the first step, to make a task
personal, to begin of one’s own free will. Persistence is the fortitude to see a task through to
completion. Mental effort is the work expended to generate new learning and knowledge. To
address the indicator of choice involved in student engagement, the expectancy-value theory of
achievement motivation (Eccles et al., 1983) is examined. For persistence, Bandura’s (1982)
self-efficacy theory may illuminate the underlying psychological influencers affecting ethnically
diverse, first-generation students’ pursuit of a goal in light of other life events and influencers.
Finally, Dweck’s (2006) mindset theory is discussed as a means for improving student and
faculty mental effort, and relates to research on the presented in the previous section of this
chapter.
Expectancy – value theory. Eccles (1983) proposed the expectancy-value theory to
demonstrate that all three indicators of motivation (choice, persistence, and mental effort) can be
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
42
explained by individuals’ pre-existing expectation of success and perceptions of value. If
individuals do not expect that they will succeed, internal motivation may be difficult to generate.
Likewise, if the individuals do not value the task highly, they will not be motivated to undertake
the task. Expectations of success are influenced by the cultural milieu of stereotypes related to
gender, culture, subject matter, and occupational characteristics as well as previous success in
similar activities. The subjective task value is influenced by incentive and task value, utility
value, and cost of participation.
Administration needs to value increasing student completion rates. They need to place
importance on the entire effort, respect the intrinsic value of the goal, understand the utility
value, and assess the cost associated with and without the improvements.
Self-efficacy theory. Initially developed in the early twentieth century, Bandura’s
several works on self-efficacy has been often cited in many fields as a powerful theoretical
construct able to predict an individual’s ability to choose to engage in a task and persist in the
task in the face of difficulty. Simply, self-efficacy is one’s belief in his or her ability to
successfully complete a given task. Bandura (1982) showed that those who have confidence in
their abilities will be able to exhibit motivational self-control.
In light of Bandura’s (1982) research, administrators need to have confidence in their
ability to create a climate in which student completion rates will improve. One finding that
could improve this confidence is that interventions are successful when large numbers of
students use them. Also, using students as paraprofessionals enhances the climate for learning.
Schools able to have faculty collaborate produced more powerful innovations through a sense of
common purpose. Similarly, administrators need to have confidence that a sense of place
connects students to the institution and one another, and support this “sense of place” with a
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
43
commonality of purpose that students believe they can pass but feel special about their school
(Kuh, 2010).
Mindset theory. With grounding in social-cognitive behavior theory, Dweck (2006)
proposed two essential views of success as fixed and growth mindsets. People with a fixed
mindset, she explains, believe success is linked to natural intelligence and abilities, while those
with growth mindsets believe success is malleable and changeable and linked to personal effort.
The implications are that those with growth mindsets hold more positive expectations that they
can increase their knowledge and overcome challenges, so are more willing to expend effort to
succeed. People with a fixed mindset believe that natural intelligence and abilities are often
perceived by individuals as permanent and unchangeable; they are not willing to expend effort to
increase knowledge and overcome challenges. Further, those with fixed mindsets are more
likely to blame failure on others. Pintrich (2000) proposed a similar duality in his goal
orientation theory, with mastery and performance orientations, as part of achieving self-regulated
learning.
Administrators need to have a growth mindset that the institution can change to improve
the completion rates. Seeking professional development and participating in system initiatives
and national conferences can help improve administrative mindset, as does accepting
responsibility for leading the change. Tinto (2012) recognizes that a growth mindset in faculty
and staff is facilitated by seeing quantitative data, but it further enhanced when they also hear
from students directly, so he suggests workshops, lunches, and more social occasions where
faculty and staff can talk directly to students. Likewise, administration needs to believe that
students can be challenged to succeed. Kuh (2010) says this can be promoted “by setting and
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
44
holding students to standards that stretch them to perform at high levels, inside and outside the
classroom” (p. 269).
Organization
This section will review literature focusing on organization- and culture-related
influences pertaining to a university’s ability to improve the percentage of students graduating in
a timely manner. Clark and Estes (2008) remark that while work processes and material resource
management are key factors in institutional effectiveness, studying organizational culture is
needed to improve performance. Rueda (2011) provides a useful guide to applying gap analysis
to educational institutions, emphasizing the need to examine practices and policies as a
component of organizational learning. The two major theoretical constructs that will be
discussed in this section are Gallimore and Goldenberg’s (2001) cultural model and settings
framework and resource alignment theory supported by Collins (2001), Dickeson (1999), and
Clark and Estes (2008).
Cultural models and settings. It is useful to note that Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001)
propose their theoretical analysis in the context of improving the performance of minority
students, one of the underlying tenants of the literature to improve student completion rates.
Cultural models are values, beliefs, and attitudes in an institution that have developed over time
in response to changing circumstance, that have become unnoticed by those work within the
model. Cultural settings are the manifestations of the models, which can be observed and
analyzed. As an outside researcher, it is useful to study the settings to frame the cultural models
in an institution.
Administration exists within a California State University cultural setting, with
centralized authority in the chancellor’s office and a recent turnover in the executive leadership
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
45
team. Cultural models that can be explored are what the administration thinks about completion
rates and their ability to solve the completion rate problems. The CSU chancellor’s office
provides initiatives, guidance and modeling, to set the goals for each campus as well as
guidelines and professional development to support the needed improvements. Kuh (2010)
suggests key administrators should personify organizational values and commitments, and that
change initiatives need to meaningfully connect interventions into the campus culture. Further,
an institution needs complementary policies and practices to provide students support from
multiple sources, in academics, socially, financially, and with moral support. Kuh (2010) also
advocates a student success culture that values talent development, academic achievement, and
respect for human differences. Tinto (2012) adds the need for sufficient buy-in and financial
support to scale up a program.
Resource alignment. Jim Collins (2001) proposed a model to create change he calls
good to great. The premise is that to achieve success, the organization needs to put the right
people in the right positions, with a well-defined goal, and to stop undertaking tasks that don’t
support that goal. This model corresponds with the ideas postulated by Clark and Estes (2008)
that organizational process and procedures should align with goals. Dickeson (1999) applies
similar thinking to an academic prioritization process, which applies something of a paradigm
shift of considering financial factors such as student enrollment and degree completion as factors
for determining an academic program’s merit.
Administration should focus energies into having the right personnel needed to improve
student completion rates. All three models call for a tightly focused mission and concentrating
resources to only what will support the mission. For example, Kuh (2010) notes that student
success is enhanced when the operating philosophy of student affairs aligns with mission of the
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
46
institution. Correspondingly, Tinto (2012) states that improving retention and graduation rates
requires resourcing the units that most directly impact students, particularly instruction and
support. Kuh (2010) further postulates, that meaningful student-faculty interactions are
cultivated and supported by administration over time. Widespread use of paraprofessional
student support staff enhances the climate for learning (Kuh, 2010). Student success programs
should include funding that allow for development over time, as it could take several years for an
initiative to take hold (Kuh, 2010; Tinto, 2012).
Conclusion
This chapter has reviewed most of the major literature and national initiatives related to
student success. The global and national context of completion rates was discussed, the
theoretical constructs were explored, several national initiatives as well as the CSU graduation
initiative explained. The last portion of the chapter focused on aligning the literature to the gap
analysis construct.
In trying to define student success, various perspectives were examined. Tinto’s theory
of student departure, as was Braxton’s revision, began the discussion. From a psychological
perspective, mindset theory and establishing a sense of belonging were discussed. From a
standpoint of student engagement, NSSE drivers and DEEP findings were explained.
The AAC&U Liberal Education America’s Promise was discussed in depth, with its
Essential Learning Outcomes, VALUE rubrics, and Inclusive Excellence components briefly
examined, while the HIPs discussed thoroughly.
Then the CSU Graduation Initiative, with its four core strategies, was explained. In
addition to general improvement in completion rates, the graduation initiative requires campuses
to eliminate performance gaps in underrepresented, low-income, and first-generation
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
47
populations. The chancellor’s office will provide support and resources. Each campus is
required to have its own student success plan; all of them are strengthening advising, and most
are adopting HIPs.
These retention theories were then examined through the lenses of stakeholder influences,
relating them to the four levels of knowledge, three popular theories of motivation (expectancy-
value, self-efficacy, and mindset), and two organizational principles of cultural models and
setting, and resource alignment.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
48
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this project was to study how the administration of CSU Dominguez Hills
fostered an environment conducive to improving completion rates. The study employed a
promising practice gap analysis of the knowledge and motivational assets used, and organization
cultural shifts. The questions that guided this project were the following:
1. What knowledge, motivation and organizational assets underpin the CSUDH
administration’s efforts to increase the undergraduate six-year graduation rate to 60% in
six years?
2. What practices in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources may
be transferrable to other organizations?
This chapter will first explain the gap analysis as the methodological framework and
present the assumed influences on the performance objective within that framework. The
participating stakeholders will be examined. The approaches to data collection will be
introduced, including the types of instruments to be used, validation and trustworthiness, the role
of the investigator, analysis techniques, and limitations and delimitations of the project.
Methodological Framework
The methodological framework adopted for this study was developed by Richard Clark
and Fred Estes (2008) for solving organizational performances problems known as the gap
analysis. The predication behind this analysis process is that most organizations implement
solutions too quickly, without first finding the underlying causes. Their process, shown below,
provides a framework to uncover the root causes of performance problems and develop
evidence-based solutions to those problems.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
49
Figure 1. Gap analysis process flow chart (Yates, 2013).
The first step in this problem-solving process is to clarify the organization’s goals in a
way that quantifiably defines success. Once that has been accomplished, then the current
achievement level of that goal needs to be measured to form a baseline. It would be anticipated
the baseline achievement would be below the organization goal, and that the difference between
the goal and the achievement would be the gap to be analyzed.
The most distinctive and critical portion of the gap analysis is how the assumptions of
causes of the gap are filtered to discover the root causes. Clark and Estes offer a framework of
three types of factors that cause organizational problems. The first factor is whether people have
adequate knowledge and skills to meet the goal. The second factor is whether people are
properly motivated to accomplish the goal. The third factor is whether the organization has
barriers that may be inhibiting completion of the goal, such as redundant processes, lack of
management of a critical area, or insufficient resources to accomplish the goal. Their process is
to use a rigorous, research-based approach to first hypothesize assumed causes of the problem,
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
50
build appropriate instruments to test those assumptions, and use those instruments to validate
those assumptions.
After the root causes have been identified, then solutions can be developed based on best
practices and the specific circumstances of the organization. It would then be up to the
organization to implement those proposed solutions, which would then be evaluated some time
later for determination as to whether the gap has been met, and if the goals need to be re-
examined for further analysis.
This process was modified to fit the context of a promising practice study. The steps
remained intact, but some important adjustments occurred in the analytical process. First, this
promising practice organization has already demonstrated considerable reduction in the gap, or
improvement toward the goal. Second, the organization has assets that have contributed to the
higher performance. The same knowledge, motivation, and organizational barrier analysis was
conducted to validate the effect of those assets. The solutions presented may be of use to other
organizations.
Assumed Performance-Based Influences
As discussed in previous chapters, the administration of CSU Dominguez Hills deployed
a number of interventions believed to be positive influencers to reducing the performance gap in
the 6-year graduation rate. Many of these assets are included below, grouped by the appropriate
knowledge, motivation, or organization factor of the gap analysis.
Knowledge and skills. Again, like many of its sister CSU campuses, Dominguez Hills
adopted many HIPs and best practices in first-year experiences. The first-year experience (itself
also a HIP) initiatives include a required “Dream seminar” first-year intensive-learning course, a
university convocation, college receptions, and early start options such as a summer bridge for
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
51
developmental students and a “GE Accelerate” option for college-prepared students.
Additionally, learning communities are being implemented for first-year and transfer students.
Other HIPs that have been deployed include opportunities for undergraduate research, global
learning experiences, and writing-intensive courses. The summer bridge program offers
expanded supplemental instruction, which has been expanded to bottleneck courses in the regular
semester curriculum.
Motivation. Administration has improved motivation for faculty participation by
supporting knowledge and empowering faculty. To support achieve a broad base of participating
faculty in HIPs, an annual HIPs Innovation Symposium was started, departmental HIP
development grants, and 12 new faculty learning communities were begun. Additionally, faculty
positions were created for HIP development as well coordination composition courses and a
“writing across the curriculum” initiative. Another way to motivate faculty participation was to
instill HIPs into the periodic program review process, holding faculty and programs accountable
to their development and participation. The initiatives set forth by the CSU Chancellor are
motivation for the administration to commit to making change and improvements.
Organization. The most significant organizational asset at CSUDH is the synergy
created between the academic affairs and student success divisions. This synergy is most evident
in the installing of an assistant vice president of advising who reports to the provost and leads a
task force with deans and faculty, and has the authority to train and set policy for counselors,
professional advisors, as well as registration staff. There is a complementary hire with the
summer bridge coordinator housed in student affairs who has influence over faculty involved in
the program. Other organizational assets are not known now, except that new classrooms have
been built incorporated technology in a space configuration conducive to active learning.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
52
The provost and several vice presidents shared assets noted above during well-received
presentations at the American Association of State Colleges & Universities winter 2016 meeting
as featured presentations in the “Re-Imagining the First Year” initiative (Junn, 2016; Driscoll &
Oliverez, 2016). This study sought to validate these influencers as well as those discussed in the
review of literature, and found in tables elsewhere.
Participating Stakeholders
The primary stakeholders of focus for this study are administrators related to the student
success initiative. The president and former provost participated in interviews. Other
participating administrators from academic affairs included the vice provost, two associate
deans, the assistant vice president for faculty affairs, and the assistant vice president of retention,
academic advising & learning. Student affairs participants included the vice president of student
affairs, assistant vice president of student success and assistant vice president of enrollment
management. Mid-level advisors and supervisors were also interviewed, including advisors from
the university advising center as well as college-based advisors. The Graduation Specialist was
interviewed, as was the director of the Toro Learning Center.
These participants were involved with the planning and deployment of the assets used to
improve student success. Their insight was critical to understanding why decisions were made,
enacted upon, and responded to. As perspectives from academic, faculty, and student affairs
were represented, as well as senior, mid-level, and lower administrative echelons, the researcher
is satisfied with the stakeholder pool. There was also a nice range (2 months to 28 years) of
experience with the campus and with the CSU system. The racial and gender composition of the
respondents were also balanced.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
53
Data Collection
This study employed qualitative methods. Institutional Review Board approval was
obtained from the University of Southern California as well as the CSUDH to collect data by
administering interviews, reviewing documents, and conducting site observations. A visit was
conducted in November 2016 to hold interviews with key stakeholders and observe the campus
environment. Documents were collected during and after the initial site visit. Data files are
stored on the researcher’s personal computer, which is password protected, and backed up on a
thumb drive stored in the researcher’s office.
Interviews
Confidential interviews were conducted on campus and via telephone with 14
administrators between November 12, 2016 and January 12, 2017. Each interview was
conducted following the same protocol, found in Appendix A, which included a consent form.
All subjects were over 18 years of age and participated voluntarily. Interviews began with
demographic identification questions to establish years in the CSU system, at CSUDH, and in
their current positions. Interviewees gave consent to record the session, and all but one of the
interviews were audio recorded. The recorded interviews were transcribed. Solicitations were
sent to eight additional stakeholders who were non-responsive or declined to participate in
interviews.
Document Analysis
During data collection, materials were collected for review related to the graduation
initiative. There were four primary documents reviewed. The 2014-2020 Strategic Plan outlines
the goals and objectives of the university, with several of them tied directly to student success.
The CSUDH 2025 Graduation Initiative Student Success Plan is written in context of the CSU
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
54
Graduation Initiative 2025. The Encounter With Student Success Report essentially lays the
foundation for adopting HIPs at Dominguez Hills. Finally, the Report of the Task Force to Seek
Best Practices and Improved Outcomes from Advising spring-boarded the president’s initiative
on advising into action and established the associate vice president (AVP) for advising position.
Many, many brochures were collected, and issues of the student newspaper. The most
substantial documents obtained on campus were a brochure on student success initiatives and
one on undergraduate research. The website was also accessed to validate specific assets. Other
documents used in the findings are cited and included in the references.
Observations
Observations were conducted on several days over a two-week site visit in November
2016. Campus was visited in the early morning, during peak hours, and in the early evening.
Campus was also visited in January and July 2017. There was little interaction with campus
staff. The advanced technology classrooms were visited with academic administrators. A
meeting of the Graduation Innovation Team was observed.
Validation of the Performance Assets
Performance assets were deemed validated if there was high frequency of interview
responses, or agreement among a certain group of participants, or if there was documentation of
the asset and its impact. Three points of agreement were sought before declaring an asset
validated in most cases.
This binary arrangement is used as part of the larger gap analysis procedure, but in the
case of this promising practice study, the determination is used to demonstrate that a certain level
of veracity has been achieved that an asset exists and that administrators interviewed believe the
asset had a significant impact on student success.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
55
Conceptual Framework for Inquiry Questions
Below are three tables which include the inquiry questions underpinning the two major research
questions. They, too, have been sorted by knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences,
and formed the basis for the interview and observation protocols.
Table 5
Conceptual Framework for Knowledge Inquiry Questions
Knowledge Questions Interviews
Document
Review Observation
To what degree do administrators understand High-
Impact Practices?
X X X
How well does administration know how to provide
supplemental instruction?
X X X
To what extent does the institution understand
challenges facing first-generation students?
X
Do administrators know how to support under-
privileged students?
X
Do administrators know how to create long-term
investment in faculty development?
X X
Does the institution know how to use data to guide
reflection and action?
X
How well does administration know how to measure
student performance through assessment?
X
Does the institution know how to direct curricular
improvements that enhance student learning? To
what degree does administration know how to align
courses patterns and intensity of course-taking? Has
the institution identified blockage points, or
bottleneck courses, in the curriculum? Identified
momentum points or milestones?
X X
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
56
Table 6
Conceptual Framework for Motivation Inquiry Questions
Motivation Questions Interviews
Document
Review Observation
How does administration support knowledge growth
and empower faculty leadership related to HIPs?
X X X
How does administration foster a synergy between
academic affairs and student services?
X X X
Have positions been created to coordinate faculty
development of HIPs and writing instruction?
X
Has the institution developed an annual HIPs
innovation symposium?
X X
Are support grants available for HIP development? X X
Have faculty learning communities been created? X X
What is being done to make faculty, staff and
students feel more confident and comfortable with
HIP activities and how they relate to the current
practices?
X X
How are instructors encouraged to set and hold
students to high standards, inside and outside the
classroom?
X
How are faculty encouraged to collaborate in
creating new student success practices?
X
In what ways has the institution created a sense of
place and belonging about the school?
X
Have informal, low-stakes conversations about
proposed changes been held?
X X
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
57
Table 7
Conceptual Framework for Organization Inquiry Questions
Organization Questions Interviews
Document
Review Observation
In what ways have competent personnel been
cultivated?
X X
How has the institution made student success a
priority?
X X X
In what ways are substantive, educationally
meaningful student-faculty interactions expected,
nurtured, and supported?
X
How much time has been allowed time for initiatives
to succeed?
X X
Has change become a part of campus culture? In
what ways?
X X
How are curricular and non-curricular student
support activities assessed?
X X
Have student success programs been made an on-
going, part of the budget? Are financial and moral
support provided for specific programs?
X X
Do large numbers of students use the programs and
supports at the institution?
X
Are student paraprofessionals used in peer
mentorship or advising positions? As teaching
assistants?
X
How aligned are student affairs’ operating
philosophy to the institution’s academic mission?
X
Are the policies and practices in place to support
students complementary? Do they support students
academically and socially?
X X X
In what ways are the development of talent,
academic achievement, and respect for human
differences valued?
X
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
58
Trustworthiness of Data
It is important to establish that data is trustworthy. There are three ways in which the
researcher ensured trustworthy data, as suggested in Merriam (2009). First, the methods of data
collection were triangulated between interviews, observations, and document analysis. Second,
interviews were strictly voluntary and confidential, as was affirmed during the interview
protocol. Third, respondent validation was undertaken by checking with key informants to
ensure responses were interpreted authentically by the researcher.
Role of Investigator
The researcher, with over 10 years of education leadership and experience in higher
education, served as primary interviewer and conducted the on-campus observations. The
researcher’s role in this project was to conduct a problem-solving investigation to validate
assumed influences on the organization’s improved performance. The researcher has no
relationship to the institution being studied, and will therefore examine the institution in a
relatively unbiased, objective manner. Further, the CSUDH IRB required a co-investigator who
was affiliated with the campus, and Dr. Maruth Figueroa filled that role by monitoring
solicitations of participants and reviewing the findings chapter.
Data Analysis
The data collected from interviews was coded to correspond to the assumed assets
identified in chapter two using the Clark and Estes (2008) knowledge, motivation, and
organization factors. The National Survey of Student Engagement Drivers (Kinzie, 2016) were
used to sort and filter questions, revealing the need for further document analysis in some
instances. A matrix was created showing the alignment of knowledge, motivation, and
organization factors with the drivers, and can be found in Appendix C.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
59
Limitations and Delimitations
The focus of this project was to conduct a gap analysis to examine root causes of
successful student success interventions. Some limitations resulted from the design of this
project. The project was limited by the self-selective nature of the interview respondents.
Finally, the project was limited by any bias resulting from participants providing answers they
believed to in the best interests of the institution which may not be a true reflection of their
experience.
The primary delimitation of the project is that it is context specific to CSU Dominguez
Hills and addresses this specific organization’s context, mission and organizational goals and
cannot be generalized. However, other institutions may benefit from the application of this
project’s use of Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis process to bring about performance
improvement.
The project is also delimited by the focus on one stakeholder group, the administration.
Faculty and student perspectives are invaluable to an inquiry into student persistence and
completion, but not tenable due to the available resources to commit to this study.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
60
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
The purpose of this chapter is to present findings from the qualitative data collection.
The first section of this chapter provides a contextual overview of the campus grounded in two
planning documents and campus observations. Findings from the assumed assets related to
knowledge, primarily HIPs, are presented next. Motivation-related assets, centered around
faculty development activities and expectations of Graduation Initiative 2025, are then discussed.
Finally, assets related to organizational settings are presented. Much of these findings are related
to a campus advising initiative. A summary of validated assets concludes the chapter.
The findings will show that 20 of the 27 assumed assets were validated. The only assets
that were not validated were Dream Seminars, college receptions, and writing-intensive courses.
Furthermore, nine additional assets emerged in course of data collection and analysis,
contributing to the case that Dominguez Hills is a model for student success.
Contextual Findings
This introductory section provides additional context grounding student success efforts at
CSUDH. A comprehensive review of the 2014-2020 University Strategic Plan briefly examines
the history, mission, and values of the institution. A discussion of the goals demonstrates the
importance of improving retention and graduation outcomes to the administration. Likewise, a
review of the CSUDH 2025 Graduation Initiative Student Success Plan displays the variety of
assets deployed by administration to combat this problem. An initial glimpse of campus
observations underscores the comprehensive efforts of administration to improve student
engagement.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
61
Strategic Plan
The university’s strategic plan is an attractive, full-color display. Symbolically, it is
important to note that the cover picture features the newly renovated library, with pictures
interspersed throughout the document, showing the renovated student services center, advanced
technology spaces, and students engaged in study, practical applications, and community events.
The planning council that prepared the document was led by Provost Junn and student
affairs VP William Franklin, and included representation from faculty, the academic senate, the
student association, as well as the vice presidents of information technology, administration and
finance, and university advancement. It should be noted that three members of the council
participated in this study.
The plan includes a brief history of the university, establishing that the although it was
originally intended to be South Bay State College to support WWII veterans, their families, and
the industrial growth opportunities emerging in aerospace and defense, and initially opened as
California State College at Palos Verdes, it became CSU Dominguez Hills in 1966 on the Watt
Campus, in direct response to the Watts Riots in 1965. It is important to the identity of CSUDH
to understand that it was founded to serve minority students, and intentionally placed where there
were high populations of African-Americans and Latinos.
The plan is anchored by the mission, to “Provide education, scholarship and service that
are, by design, accessible and transformative. We welcome students who seek academic
achievement, personal fulfillment, and preparation for the work of today and tomorrow.” The
plan is grounded by a vision statement, “To be recognized as a top-performing Comprehensive
Model Urban University in America,” and known as a campus celebrating diversity, technology,
and sustainable practices. Other elements of the vision include a commitment that “Students
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
62
from our community who aspire to complete a college degree are provide the pathway and
guidance to succeed” and “Faculty and staff across the university are engaged in serving the
dynamic needs of the surrounding communities”.
The plan is driven by the core values of accountability, collaboration, continuous
learning, rigorous standards, proactive partnerships, respect, and responsiveness.
There are six goals in the plan, listed in Table 8 below. Each goal is supported by
measurable objectives, in turn supported by specific strategies. The first three goals tie directly
into student success initiatives, and will be discussed separately. The last three goals will be
discussed together.
Table 8
CSUDH Strategic Goals
1. While honoring CSUDH’s historic roots, continue to support, enhance and develop academic
programs that culminate in globally relevant degrees, by becoming an innovative, high-touch,
high quality comprehensive urban university serving the South Bay region and beyond.
2. Promote student graduation and success through effective recruitment, transition, and
retention of our diverse student population.
3. Expand and support the use of effective, innovative teaching and learning environments and
pedagogies for students both in and out of the classroom.
4. Ensure, stabilize and grow the university’s fiscal resources by diversifying and increasing
revenue sources.
5. Achieve operational and administrative excellence, efficiency and effectiveness across all
campus divisions.
6. Effectively promote, publicize and celebrate the distinctiveness and many strengths of
CSUDH through visible and engaging communications and marketing.
(Hagan, 2014)
The first goal focuses on academics. The first objective is to increase the overall
percentage of tenured and tenure-track faculty, by analyzing faculty patterns, developing a multi-
year plan, and support faculty retention. The second objective is to develop new programs in
response to student interest and local workforce needs. The third objective is to increase the
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
63
number of international students, and the number of faculty and students who have participated
in a global learning experience.
The second goal focuses on student success. The first objective is to increase the 6-year
graduation rate to 60% and the 3-year transfer graduation rates to 80% in 6 years, and cut the
minority achievement gap in half. The four strategies are to adopt national student success
strategies, coordinate and enhance student learning support units, implement the
recommendations from the advising task force, and find more effective ways of tracking non-
traditional students. The second objective is to ensure students can participate in two HIPs
before graduation, by providing training and incentives for faculty to develop HIPs, to create a
comprehensive writing program, institutionalize the office of undergraduate research,
scholarship and creative activities, increase student engagement through service learning. The
third objective is to increase job placement rates.
The third goal is to create and foster innovative learning environments. The first
objective is to create or renovate at least 20 learning spaces, such as classrooms, labs, or studios.
The second objective is to increase student participation in, and assess the academic
effectiveness of, co-curricular activities. The third objective is increase the training and use of
instructional technologies and innovative pedagogies.
The remaining goals support the institution therefore affect student success. Goal 4 is
related to improving financial health with more grants and fundraising efforts, goal 5 is
improving administrative support functions, and goal 6 is about improving the public image of
the university.
The strategic plan is an important document because it demonstrates the priority the
institution places on student success. It is also notable that each goal has a set of clearly
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
64
measurable objectives related to it, and very specific strategies to follow. The history and values
help demonstrate the institution’s commitment to its surrounding community and the people who
live there. The professional quality of the plan also demonstrates commitment to improving the
quality and prestige of CSU Dominguez Hills.
Student Success Plan
The CSUDH 2025 Graduation Initiative Student Success Plan was prepared in response
the CSU Chancellor’s Graduation Initiative. It makes a bold statement, that “Under the banner
of institutional intentionality, CSUDH continues to focus on student success as our highest
priority and has made significant and impactful progress in increasing student retention and
graduation” (p. 1), and proceeds to lay out a nine-point plan for how to accomplish a projected 6-
year graduation rate of 52.09% in 2019 (more than double the 2012 graduation rate) as well as
improving 2-year and 4-year graduation goals set by the Chancellor.
Enrollment management. The plan calls for strengthened TRIO collaborations, a new
high school and community college recruiting plan, concentration on STEM initiatives, analysis
of Smart Planner advising data, invest in the campus dashboard, and better plans for offering
courses when students need them. “This represents a campus shift and redefines how classes are
scheduled by implementing a class scheduling system that will optimize the use of space and
ensure all classes needed can fit into a proper schedule for students” (p. 2).
Intrusive and developmental advising. The plan acknowledges the work of the
advising task force as impactful. “We have made significant culture shifts from passive and
prescriptive advising to intrusive proactive advising” (p. 3). Other successes from advising are
highlighted: 98% of Fall 2015 freshmen cohort demonstrated proficiencies in the Student
Advising Learning Outcomes, all fall 2015 students were served by Dominguez Hills First-Year
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
65
Experience, where they connected with academic advisors on a weekly basis, participated in
Early Start courses, weekly College Knowledge workshops, and meetings with peer mentors.
The DH Transfer Learning Community initiative is hiring additional advisors.
Educational Advisory Board. This board seeks to provide data to advisors, in
collaboration with the CSUDH dashboard and the Chancellor’s dashboard, “where we have
identified bottlenecks, high-enrollment/high-failure courses, gateway courses, and interventions
for undeclared students” (p. 3) so that intrusive advising can be effective, using such preventative
campaigns as Early Warning and Alert systems.
Toro Ambassadors. This includes the “Finish in Four” and “Through in Two”
initiatives, which seek to improve 2-year and 4-year graduation rates by committing to offer the
needed courses to students who participate in the needed academic and leadership activities.
Transfer students (i.e., the “Through in Two” participants) commit to balance responsibilities for
school, work, and personal life to be able to finish. The plan calls for additional advisors to
support these initiatives.
AASCU’s Re-Imagining the First-Year Experience. Dominguez Hills was a selected
campus for the Re-Imagining the First-Year Experience program, which provides collaborative
opportunities and funding for the DHFYE program, Freshman Convocation, improved First-Year
Seminars, and the Passport to Leadership program.
Targeted support services. To better support underrepresented, high-risk students,
CSUDH will target improvements in the Male Success Alliance (for African-American males),
Toro Guardian Scholars (for foster care students), Veterans Resource Center, and Toro Dreamers
Success Center (for undocumented students).
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
66
Academic affairs interventions. The academic affairs division is focusing its attention
and resources on improving tenure density, continuing to improve curriculum through more HIPs
and less bottlenecks, providing more faculty development, “focusing on pedagogical innovations
and technological opportunities that optimize student engagement” (p. 5), and improving
facilities.
2025 Graduation Initiative data fellows program. This program is intended to foster
better flow of information from Institutional Research to and from faculty regarding student
learning, so that programs are easily accessing needed data for making decisions.
Technology solutions. Increased focused will be placed on student success technology,
including tracking and support software, smart classrooms and instructional technology
infrastructure.
The student success plan is important not only because of its thoroughness, but also
because it shows tight alignment to NSSE drivers and AAC&U initiatives. The plan also
provides evidence of meta-cognitive knowledge of approaches to student success, sets the stage
for high expectancy-value motivation for administrators, and provides some insights into the
organizational setting of the Graduation Initiative across the California State University.
Advising Plan
The Report of the Task Force to Seek Best Practices and Improved Outcomes from
Advising was released in June 2014. The task force worked with a consultant, Dr. Joe Cuseo of
AVID for Higher Education, who wrote a letter to the chairs framing the work. The task force
engaged in focus groups targeted to students, professional advisors, and deans and department
chairs, held an open forum at the academic senate, and conducted a faculty survey on academic
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
67
advising. The task force also participated in a retreat and workshop about advising at CSU
Sacramento.
Cuseo’s (2014) letter commends CSUDH for promoting student success, including
academic advisement, and a strong ethos of student-centeredness. He also credits “President
Willie Hagan’s high-priority institutional goals of increasing student retention and reducing time
to graduation at CSUDH, couple with his recognition that academic advisement is integral to
achieving these goals” (p. vii). Cuseo further finds that the report’s recommendations embody
eight “powerful principles of effective student-success initiatives: mission-centered, intrusive,
proactive, sustained, diversified, collaborative, systematic, and empirical” (p. viii) and provides
definitions for each of those principles. He concludes that “If the major recommendations of the
task force report are put into practice, CSUDH will have created a model advising program
worthy of emulation by other CSU campuses” (p. xiii).
The report of the task force provides an insight into the motivational factors driving the
academic advising initiative. “The existing strategic plan, a new president, increasing interest
system-wide in student success, anecdotes heard in the campus academic senate, a sense that the
campus may be rebounding from the depths of tragic budget cuts: these and more came together
to define a renewed interest in improving academic advising as a route to improving student
success” (Weber et al, 2014, p. 3).
The report made four general conclusions about advising at CSUDH. First, the quantity
of advising services varied remarkably, from the intense experiences for student participating in
select programs to “remarkably thin” amongst most students. Second, many needs seem un-met,
especially for developmental students not participating in select programs. Third, the system
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
68
relies considerable on faculty and non-professional advisors. Fourth, data management needs to
be improved.
The report conveys 117 specific strategies, recommendations, and actions for
consideration among four themes: serving first-time freshmen, serving transfer students,
strengthening advisors, and improving access to information and data analysis. For serving first-
time freshmen, the primary strategy is to hire a senior administrator to lead efforts to clarify
policies, simplify operations, and build student pathways to graduation with appropriate
milestones. The second strategy is to seek ways to supplement faculty advising with
professionals. There is also a strategy for making sure transfer and other upper-level students
have very clear advice towards timely graduation. This also calls for clarifying the substance of
transfer policies and providing better communication about these policies, especially related to
registration holds. Strategies for strengthening advisors include hiring additional trained,
professional advisors and providing more training for faculty advising specialists. The final
strategy is to coordinate between department chairs, deans and information technology to create
needed advising information easily to the people who need it.
The report includes appendices, documenting the charge of the task force, findings
describing advising practices, a graphical chart of those practices, a data report on the student
advising experience, finds from the focus groups, key results from the faculty advising survey,
and materials from the Advising Practices at CSU Sacramento retreat. The report engaged in a
SWOT (Strength, Weakness, Opportunities, and Threat) analysis, as illustrated below.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
69
Table 9
SWOT Analysis of CSUDH Advising Practices
Strengths
1. Student Success is a keen faculty
interest, and the university out-
performs expectations.
2. Well-Identified successes in advising
at CSUDH (Bridge, EOP, Athletes).
3. Placement of Student Success in
CSUDH Strategic Plan.
4. Embrace of & affection for this
university, by students, faculty, staff,
and the community.
5. Regular state support is growing.
Opportunities
1. New potential opportunities for
funding from CSU and student
success fee.
2. CSUDH Information Technology is
leading an effort to bridge functional
and technical outcomes for student
success.
3. The value of a baccalaureate degree,
relative to high school only, or some
college, continues to be high, and may
increase.
Weaknesses
1. Student deficits: weak academic
preparation, first-generation, low-
income. More communication and
advising opportunities are needed.
Need incentives to graduate in a
timely manner.
2. Professional advisor deficits: need
more advisors, stronger support, and
better communication.
3. Faculty deficits: low proportion of
full-time faculty, poor incentives for
advising, and no training.
4. Lack of policy clarity, and policy.
5. Modern information tools for effective
advising need upgrades.
Threats
1. Low graduation rate per IPEDs may
endanger access to California grants.
2. Future plunges in state funding.
3. Decreases in federal grants and loans
to students; and in grants to fund
focused student support programs
(e.g., EOP).
4. Public understanding of higher
education as essentially a private
good, not a public good, may be
growing.
(Weber, 2014, p 56-59)
This SWOT analysis provides an empirical assessment of the state of advisement at
CSUDH. The list of weaknesses is interesting in that it is organized by stakeholder groups,
students, professional advisors, and faculty, to fold in more weaknesses in parallel structure with
the strengths, opportunities, and threat findings.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
70
Campus Observations
The case study site was visited once in April 2016, on numerous occasions in early
November 2016, once in January 2017, and once in July 2017. While many of the buildings are
older, the student center, new library, and administration buildings stand out as new, exciting
structures. The “I’m a Toro” banner campaign, documented below, is immediately visible.
Despite the age of many of the buildings, there is a visible sense of repair and cleanliness
throughout campus. It is clear that campus care and physical plant units are committed to the
university’s plans to be a regional model, and participate accordingly.
The center courtyard is clean, with deep, lush grass. Each trash can has the logo on it,
and every lamp post an “I’m a Toro” banner, shown in Figure 2 below. Most banners depict a
successful alumnus and an impressive job title. There appeared to be just as many women as
men, and most seemed African-American and Hispanic. On the side of the quad nearest the
student union, the lawn is littered with undergraduate research placards, shown in Figure 6.
Figure 2. Images of I’m A Toro campaign.
The university is cultivating a sense of pride on campus. From the large LED screen
positioned on the street corner, advertising theatre events (a production of Hairspray was being
mounted the weeks of the site visit), important programs, events, and dates to the EOP site in
semi-permanent portable classrooms, the CSUDH logo was prominent. A farmer’s co-op was
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
71
held on Thursday morning; the researcher noted it had many of the same vendors as a co-op held
on campus at USC the morning before. The campus borders the StubHub Center on one side and
a small high school on the other. The athletics center is nestled in the corner between them; the
lobby is full of trophies, but it did feel a little worn. The far side of campus houses a new
residential dorm, and there is undeveloped acreage, some of which is marked for research
projects.
Student union. The Student union was full of life. Except very early in the morning, or
on Friday, the union was full of students. Many tables and booths were wired for power, so that
students could charge their phones, and there was wifi. There were several flat-screen TVs on
the walls, showing important announcements from financial aid and admissions & records.
There was an impressive selection of food vendors, from the typical Asian, pizza, smoothie, and
sandwich shops to a Toro-themed cafeteria/special vendor, a DH sports-themed bar, and a
faculty club. On one busy afternoon, there was an international fair outside on the walkway
between the student union and the library.
Libraries. The library complex was newly expanded. The old library still had some
collections in it, but now housed the Toro Learning Center, Writing Across the Curriculum
faculty office, and some of the faculty and administrative offices for the College of Arts and
Humanities. The entrance floor to the new library included an open concept coffee shop and
lounge area, full of white boards, comfortable, movable furniture, and group working rooms in
many places. The first floor continued back, past both indoor and outdoor spaces with
comfortable furniture and students working comfortably in groups, to an open computer-lab
space and the reference section. The stairs and elevators led to the levels with stacks. The
Veteran’s Center was located on the third floor, with several students inside. Study carrels were
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
72
full of students studying individually, and each floor had easily accessible group work rooms
with a conference table and flat-screen display.
Figure 3. Images of library lobby.
This background section provided a more thorough context of the CSUDH, the strategic,
student success, and advising plans were reviewed, and general campus observations. It is
noteworthy that the plans and campus environment exhibit are aligned with the institution’s
serious focus on achieving retention and graduation goals in a systematic, intentional manner.
Knowledge Findings
The findings presented in this section will be related to the 12 knowledge-related assets
assumed in chapter two, summarized below in Table 10. As is clear from the table, nine of the
assets were validated. During the interviews and site visit, other knowledge-related assets
emerged. These findings are described below, and summarized in Table 11.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
73
Table 10
Assumed Knowledge Assets
Assumed Asset Validated Not Validated
High-Impact Practices X
First-Year Experience X
Dream seminar X
University convocation X
College receptions X
Summer Bridge X
GE Accelerate X
Learning communities X
Undergraduate research X
Global learning experiences X
Writing-intensive courses X
Expanded supplemental instruction X
The three knowledge-related assets which emerged during the site visit were a strong
service learning program, model programs ready to be expanded to serve all incoming students,
and administration made a concerted effort to hire a new senior leadership team composed of
people with proven track records in student success initiatives.
Table 11
Discovered Knowledge Assets
Discovered Asset Validated Not Validated
Service learning X
Scalable, successful programs X
Hiring experience administrators X
Each of these assets, both assumed and discovered, will be presented in the order
summarized in the tables above, with evidence gathered from interviews, observations, and
supporting documents.
High-Impact Practices
Every administrator spoke about HIPs, “We know the HIPs, need to work on
operationalizing them.” One senior, academic administrator could name eight practices on the
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
74
tips of her fingers, and announced that “HIPs are just good pedagogy wrapped up in a new
blanket.” Kuh’s name was mentioned more than once, and one administrator mentioned meeting
him.
The Encounter with Student Success Committee Report was prepared in 2014 by a
committee of seven faculty and one dean, representing each academic college. One of the
faculty participants later became the faculty development center director.
The “Big Idea” was that students would take the UNV101 courses, and either a service
learning or undergraduate research course, to graduate, in addition to the university’s two-course
intensive writing requirement. To sustain this big idea, and the four signature HIPs, the
committee recommended a standing student success committee, integrating HIPs in the
“Teaching Effectiveness” section of the promotion and tenure process, and establishing ongoing
assessment protocols for student success initiatives.
One goal of the committee was to recommend HIPs for adoption based on a review of
literature and alignment with values, mission, and institutional goals. The recommended HIPs
included learning communities, effective advising, service learning, and undergraduate research.
This asset was validated.
First-Year Experience
The Dominguez Hills First Year Experience (DHFYE) is a constellation of activities
designed to serve all incoming freshmen at CSUDH. The program is part of the AASCU Re-
Imagining the First Year initiative, a competitive process with only 44 state institutions across
the nation invited to participate. Several programs work together to provide all freshmen with
key activities: academic advising, peer mentoring, college orientation workshops, faculty-led
academic workshops, and the opportunity to check out a free laptop until you graduate
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
75
(insideCSUDH, 2016). These programs are targeted at slightly different student populations to
be able to serve all incoming students: Summer Bridge, Educational Opportunity Program
(EOP), Encounter to Excellence (ETE), and GE Accelerate. As shown in Table 12 below, the
programs are designed to meet students who enter at any time of the year, at any level of
placement, and with any financial eligibility.
Table 12
Programs within the Dominguez Hills First Year Experience
Program Placement Eligibility Timeline
Summer Bridge Early Start Any Eligibility Summer
Educational Opportunity Program Early Start Pell Eligible Academic Year
Encounter To Excellence Early Start Any Eligibility Academic Year
General Education Accelerate College-Ready Any Eligibility Year-Round
Administrators seemed proud of DHFYE, with comments like, “Where your heart is
where your treasures are.” The program won a $3 million award for Innovation in Higher
Education for Improving Student Success. As a senior-most administrator observed,
Right now, you can look at our retention numbers for freshmen and you will see
that the investments made, the business practices that we changed, and the sheer
focus on ensuring that freshmen were connected early and dealt with often, we’re
seeing the fruits of our labor and the results of that investment.
The work that has been put into DHFYE is paying off.
While Summer Bridge and EOP receive state funds, the investments made included
funding the GE Accelerate program out of the university budget, to ensure that “DHFYE is
helping every student, every incoming student, from the get-go.” Figure 4 on the following page
is an infographic detailing statistics related to DHFYE. These statistics provide evidence that
most freshmen were served; students met with advisors, faculty, and peer coaches; most took
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
76
course work; laptops were available for students to use; and most participated in supplemental
instruction.
Figure 4. DHFYE infographic. (CSUDH, 2016). Reprinted with permission.
Some important pieces of information from figure 4 speak about the Dominguez Hills
student population: 61% are first-generation students, 75% receive remediation placement, 87%
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
77
are from under-represented minority groups, and 72% are Pell eligible. Taken together, this
means that a majority (53%) of CSUDH students are poor, minority, and underprepared, the
highest of any California State University.
This asset was validated.
Dream Seminars
Another common experience for incoming students are Dream Seminars. These
credit/no credit seminars included thematic research topics, taught by tenured and tenure-track
faculty, or lecturers who hold a doctorate. Reportedly, “there’s a lot of interactive stuff in the
class. The whole idea is to motivate them, get them excited about school, get them excited about
what is out there.” The first faculty learning communities, discussed further in the motivation
section of this chapter, were arranged around designing these courses, which required including
major writing components and co-curricular activities. One professor found the writing from her
seminar students rivaled her junior and seniors, “When you challenge students and you expect
them to do the best they can, and you build in that support they will surprise you each and every
time.” A drawback about the seminars observed by one administrator was that although they
work incredibly well, they may cost too much to scale. The Fall 2017 faculty development
center webpage offers more faculty training opportunities in what are now referred to as First-
Year Seminars.
This asset was not validated because so few interviews mentioned the Dream Seminars.
University Convocation
This highly successful event brought students to the site of their graduation, where they
received an induction to the university led by the president, “See the person next to you? You’re
going to help them get along. They’re going to be the ones that are helping you get to the finish
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
78
line.” Alumni provide ten tips on success. Planning convocation was also mentioned as an
important collaborative event helping to unite student and academic affairs, “there definitely was
a partnership between the Provost and Vice President of Student Affairs to get 30 people from
different divisions around the table to plant that seed.” This spirit had not existed previously on
campus.
This asset was validated.
College Receptions
The designed follow-up to Freshman Convocation was college-based “Freshmen
receptions.” The College of Business and Public Policy seeming set the standard with their first
reception. There were more inspirational speakers, free lunch, and 150 students showed up. In
the second year, though, only 10 students showed up; less than the number of faculty and staff
working the event. The theory is that in between the two receptions, too many other engaging
activities were implemented in the DHFYE, so there in now a little bit of fatigue and too few
unanswered questions to spark student interest.
This asset was not validated.
Summer Bridge
Summer is for students who are unprepared for college, as at most CSUs. Dominguez
Hills pairs it with the EOP program for financially needy students and the Accelerate program
for college-ready students to make sure all students can participate, as mentioned in the
preceding DHFYE section. The administrators with direct responsibility for summer bridge have
previously been EOP directors before establishing this program. In Figure 5, the conceptual
model illustrates the satellites of activities incorporated in summer bridge.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
79
During the interviews, many respondents credited Summer Bridge as being the most
effective activity leading to improved student success at Dominguez Hills, due to its intentional
design, and multiple activities to assist students in transitioning from high school, including the
six-week summer courses, and supplemental instruction components, as well as the orientation to
college life, academic advisement, and peer mentoring services provided. Many of these
activities are also assumed assets, discussed elsewhere in this section. Advising is also discussed
in the organization section of this chapter.
Figure 5. Summer Bridge + Beyond conceptual model. (Driscoll & Oliverez, 2016).
Used with permission.
The most-referred to component of Summer Bridge, interestingly, was the mandatory
orientations. Whether directly or not, nearly every interview touched on a component of the
summer orientations. The orientation became mandatory, on the advice of Education Trust,
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
80
“Freshmen students, especially first-generation and under-represented freshmen students, they
don’t do optional well.”
There was a sense that the advisors knew that for their students, providing the
orientations to family members would be just as important as providing the orientations to
students. A senior administrator observed:
So, we spent a lot of time, we redid our entire new student orientation program to
that focus: to help students be successful, what do they need to know? And it’s
not necessarily what the rule is, it’s how to find that rule. And, so, we do a lot of
support with student’s parents as well and their family organization. So, we do a
lot of work around that, especially at our orientation pieces in terms of helping
parents know how they can successfully help their students.
The schedule for orientations was redesigned, to support students and their families. It is now
more integrated, intense, and intentional, with social activities, academic advising, financial
literacy presentations, and the various compliance programs interspersed throughout the day.
Presenters were given the advice to be active and engaging, and forbidden from the use of
PowerPoint. Associate Deans were on-hand to assist with academic advising. The atmosphere
was universally described as fun, for the students and organizers.
Summer Bridge provided an unexpected success in that students were better prepared for
the start of the semester in that they knew how to navigate campus and they knew people,
faculty and peers. Long registration lines were a thing of the past, because the summer bridge,
orientation, and advisement had served most students. It served as a hub for the various
components that would later expand to become the DHFYE.
This asset was validated.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
81
GE Accelerate
The General Education Accelerate program was an assumed asset, because it was the
lynch-pin for assuring that any student could be served by DHFYE. Students who had college-
ready placement weren’t being served by any program, even though comparisons of GPAs
showed that students in Summer Bridge or EOP were doing better after three semesters than their
peers who were college-ready when they started. Accelerate was put into place to serve the
students who may have performed better in their placements, but still needed the same skills as
their peers who didn’t pass the test. A junior administrator commented, “We’ve seen a huge
increase in retention among them and in terms of the number of units they’re being able to
support.” Increasing the number of units is also a key to on-time graduation.
The GE Accelerate program allowed Dominguez Hills to serve all first-year students with
the support programs proven to help under-prepared minority students. While EOP and Summer
Bridge received funding from the CSU, though, CSUDH had to fund Accelerate students from
their own funds. The estimated cost was $3 million to serve those students, but the president
remained committed to those funds.
This asset was validated.
Learning Communities
Encounter with Student Success recommendations for learning communities included
requiring UNV101 as the only means of satisfying a general education requirement, essentially
requiring that course for all students. The general education committee would explore how this
First-Year Experience type of course would link with other courses. This evolved into the
Dream Seminars described earlier, where it was discussed that the co-curricular activities and
peer mentoring groups formed learning communities.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
82
These same sorts of activities constitute the basis of the Dominguez Hills Transfer
Learning Communities. Where the #DHFYE is able to capture all incoming freshmen, #DHTLC
is able to capture incoming sophomores and juniors. In this program, students begin working
with advisors at their respective community college, cross-enroll in CSUDH courses, attend
workshops, and have a peer coach.
This asset was validated.
Undergraduate Research
There was evidence of undergraduate research on campus. Signs were all over campus,
announcing abstracts due for the Twelfth Annual Student Research Day. There were also
brochures, book marks, and flyers in every building visited, including administrative offices,
library spaces, the student center, and entry ways to academic buildings. There was also a
display for Student Research Day in the College of Business and Public Policy building,
showcasing the winners of the previous year.
Figure 6. Images related to Student Research Day.
Encounter with Student Success recommended a transcript notation for undergraduate
research courses, including directed reading and directed research courses. The office of
undergraduate research, scholarship, and creative activity was noted as an institutional
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
83
commitment to undergraduate research. Another recommendation to support this HIP was to
encourage more courses using undergraduate research as a primary pedagogy.
Several administrators mentioned undergraduate research day, each with pride. One
academic administrator pointed out that he had worked for several universities, and he had never
seen a more robust undergraduate research agenda:
So, the students participate in these sessions. Some are poster sessions, and some
are presentation. And I mean, it has gone viral, if you want to use that word. It’s
amazing how many papers, how many students are involved. I mean, this is my
third school. I’ve never seen the amount of involvement of undergraduates in that
type of research. And it’s just so amazing. So, the students are excited, faculty
are excited. So that’s high impact.
These sentiments were echoed by the other academic administrators. In response to a question
that asked more generally about HIPs, each of them mentioned undergraduate research. A senior
administrator revealed that faculty were paid to run the program.
This asset was validated.
Global Learning Experiences
The strategic plan calls for increases in the number of international students as well as the
number of faculty and students who have participated in a global learning experience. Progress
toward this goal is guided by the 2015-2020 Strategic Plan for Internationalization, as
recommended by the Internationalization Task Force. This plan has five primary goals, tightly
aligned to the university’s strategic plan. In fact, only the last goal is new language, and it is
concerned with demonstrating alignment of global learning with the university’s major priorities.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
84
A new senior international officer was hired, a prestigious expert in the Los Angeles area,
who established the Center for Global Education at CSUDH, which is conducting research
connecting the impact of international experiences on student retention and degree completion,
most notably as part of the California Community College Student Outcomes Abroad Research
(CCC SOAR) Project.
This asset was validated.
Writing-Intensive Courses
The Encounter With Student Success Report indicated that since writing-intensive courses
were in place before the student success initiative called for HIPs, there was no special focus
needed to improve them. Although the writing aspects of the Dream Seminars provide some
exposure to writing, this initiative seems to have fallen behind the others because it was not
initially included with them.
Three interviews referred to writing-intensive courses, one to list them as an asset,
another to indicate that little headway had been made, and the third to refer to the importance of
using more tenure-track faculty in teaching in the First-Year Experience. Unfortunately, the
Writing Across the Curriculum faculty coordinator office, and attached faculty lounge, were not
open during the two-week site visit.
This asset was not validated.
Enhanced Supplemental Instruction
Supplemental instruction is an important component of the First-Year Experience
programs. Based on the experience with EOP, Dominguez Hills adopted the University of
Missouri, Kansas City model for supplemental instruction. Supplemental instruction is
especially helpful with first-generation students because it targets at-risk courses instead of at-
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
85
risk students (UMKC, 2017). Almost all the interview participants mentioned that the peer
mentoring/tutoring/coaching activities were a large part of the success of the first-year
intervention programs.
Peer mentors. All freshmen are assigned to a peer mentor, who is responsible for 25-50
students, for reaching out, supporting, and inviting to events. They also connect with students
flagged in the system as struggling to go talk to their professor. One advisor explains that the
peer mentors help new students make many connections:
We have our—they’re called peer coaches. So, they’re current students and they’re
upper division classes. And they are also connecting with our incoming freshmen and
helping them. They’re just another lay of support for them--they’re too intimidated to
come to us and ask questions. They’re kid of that medium where they can help us
connect to the students. They kind of understand what it’s like to be a student at
Dominguez Hills. They know the ropes, and they can help connect our students with
campus jobs. Just how to use our services, where they can find the cheapest books, just
the ins and outs of being a student on campus.
This passage was the most complete description of peer mentors, but it is worthy to note that all
the respondents who were involved with academic advising mentioned peer coaches, in the
context of positively impacting student engagement.
Toro Learning Center. The Toro Learning Center arranges workshops and drop-in
tutoring, and trains peer mentors, “You train peers and you train them well; they are different
than tutors.” The center is spread throughout the library. Test Services and the administrative
offices were in a corner of the 4
th
floor while the main tutoring center was in an outdoor-access
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
86
room across from the basement level of the library. The administrative offices were painted with
an inspirational acronym for SUCCESS, also shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7. Images of Toro Learning Center
The Director provided a tour of the tutoring center late in the afternoon and remarked that
it would have been busier in the early afternoon, but there were still 15-20 students using the
center after 4pm. There was an open space, again with white boards throughout, with tutors and
students working comfortably in respectfully audible conversations. There were faculty offices
in the back, computers for printing, and carrels for private working. Attached to the space was
an open classroom, primarily used for tutoring math courses. The intention was to paint the
entire wall with dry-erase paint. In fact, the director indicated that there were renovations and
upgrades planned to the entire center, including better utilization of the already pleasant covered
out door space.
This asset is validated.
Service Learning
Dominguez Hills has an extensive community engagement public service program. It
won a national award in 2015, by creating local business internships, with organizations like
Northrop Grumman, and with government agencies. While not initially listed individually as an
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
87
assumed asset, it is a HIP, and one of the HIPs identified by CSUDH as a target for all students
to participate in.
According to Encounter with Student Success, the Service Learning, Internship and Civic
Engagement (SLICE) office, has history of valuing service learning. The recommendations
related to service learning are to indicate service learning courses on transcripts, create an upper-
level peer mentoring course for the students in the First-Year Experience, and to have
departments and the general education committee review courses for service learning
designation. A senior administrator felt most of these pieces had been put in place:
There are some more things we can add, but when you think about internship
opportunities, work opportunities, research programs, we’ve got all of those
things. If the student makes the most of those things, they can go great places.
This was followed up by establishing the Toro Ambassadors program. Funded by a Title
V grant, using the model of the California Promise, the Toro Ambassador program is aimed at
providing sophomores student learning opportunities, and combatting attrition problems between
the fourth and fifth semesters. A senior advisor described participation in the program:
They’re going to do the Passport for Leadership and finish it, which if they ever
want to be a leader in our institution, in any student organization, if you don’t
have this, you can’t go into leadership. They get a really cool medallion for
graduation. Once they complete it, yes, they’re going to do 10 hours of
community service and service learning. Sophomores that are involved, that are
applying what they’re learning, they stay till their junior and senior year because
they get it.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
88
The idea that upper-level students were supporting first-year students as a way to participate in
student leadership positions was affirmed by several interviews. Passport to Leadership is based
in a Leadership and Stewardship course, which includes “Social Justice issues that the students,
faculty, staff and administrators support on our campus…lots of grassroots, and it’s impressive.”
So, I think it’s changed that culture too, where students are more prepared, but
then they’re providing again that support ongoing, which wasn’t necessarily the
case. They weren’t necessarily responsible for the next generation.”
One incentive for participation is requiring the course for any student who wants to hold
a leadership position in a student organization; another is a mini-grant completion built into the
course. One mini-grant launched the Dominguez Hills Dream Center, for undocumented
students.
This asset is validated.
Programs to Scale
An asset that emerged during the interviews was that several successful programs existed
that served a portion of the student population well, and had demonstrable experience improving
student success, such as the EOP and TRIO programs. The advising task force also mentioned
that advising programs for financially needy students, certain minority groups, and athletes
functioned quite well. And where there wasn’t a program, the administration was not afraid to
pilot a small program before bringing it to scale.
EOP/Summer Bridge. In the California State University system, there is a long-
standing Education Opportunity Program, established in 1969, which has a demonstrable history
of positively impacting student success, particularly for financially challenged, first-generation
students (CSU, 2017). The top leadership in Student Affairs at Dominguez Hills have previous
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
89
experience as EOP directors, and the Summer Bridge program is grounded in its structure.
These administrators described how much of the success attributed to summer bridge is due to
the long history of EOP at CSUDH, and their prior involvement with the program. Likewise, the
administrators most closely associated with Summer Bridge noted that this program was the core
of the DHFYE program, “I think the fact that Bridge was there to start off with, like we already
had a model that we could kind of build off.” This unfolding of models, until ultimately all
students were served, began with EOP.
Pilot programs. The senior administrators spoke about piloting programs first, and
making them work before scaling them, was a key to improvements, although none were specific
about which programs had been developed as part of a pilot. One of these administrators discuss
pilots as part of the change process at CSUDH.
Change for change’s sake, I’m not interested in. People are always interested in
the next new thing, the next new-fangled… But change that facilitates success,
I’m all for. I’m fortunate to work for a president who does not run away from the
word “pilot.” So, let’s pilot it, let’s look at the metrics of it. If it’s moving the
needle, the next thing he wants to hear is how in the hell do we scale it up so it
can reach more students and that the change will bring success.
Student affairs administrators in particular agreed with this idea that the president supported
pilots that improved outcomes. Another administrator discussed pilots when asked to describe
what may not have worked, by saying that “it isn’t so much what didn’t work, as pilots that have
not been fully evaluated for further implementation,” implying that some may still be revisited
for future scaling activities.
This asset is validated.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
90
Experienced Administrators
Another asset that emerged from the interviews were that the president formed a new
team of senior leadership, each of whom had previous accomplishments at their respective role
related to student success. The key administrators discussed bellowed are the provost, the vice
president of student affairs, the AVPs of advising, enrollment management, and student success,
the associate dean for international education, the senior international officer, and the director of
the Center for Global Education.
Provost. During the search that led to Ellen Junn’s appointment, the president had
indicated that he would not hire an inexperienced provost. He hired Dr. Junn, who had previous
experience as provost at CSU Fullerton, and perhaps more importantly, vice provost at Fresno
State where she was directly responsible for creating, implementing, and tracking student success
efforts which led to a 10-year accreditation.
VP student affairs. William Franklin had previous experience as faculty, but found
working on the student affairs side more fulfilling. He worked his way up as EOP director, and
created the Male Success Alliance, before his appointment.
AVP student success. Paz Oliverez also worked her way up from EOP director to
Summer Bridge coordinator to the AVP for student success at CSUDH carrying with her the
skills and experiences from the level below. Paz is also frequent presenter for building Summer
Bridge and safe space programs undocumented students for Magna Publications.
AVP advising. Bridget Driscoll did not rise through the ranks at CSUDH, but she is a
veteran of the CSU system from CSU Fullerton, where she was very involved in programs to
retain and graduate students, helping to improve Fullerton’s completion rate by close to 10% in a
year once.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
91
AVP enrollment management. Not only did Brandy McLelland not rise through the
ranks at CSUDH, she is an outsider to CSU, and came to her post from outsider academia, from
a software company. Much of her work has been to provide training to her staff how to better
use the registration software, so that meaningful data can be extracted from the dashboard
systems that are helpful to faculty and academic administrators.
Director of global learning. Gary Rhodes comes to Dominguez Hills after an extensive
career at Loyola Marymount, and after establishing a reputation for conductive excellent
research into global education through his Center for Global Education.
This new leadership team, with expertise that was brought to campus, was critical to
expanding the administration’s knowledge related to student success.
This asset is validated.
Summary of Knowledge Findings
Most of the assumed knowledge assets were validated. The First-Year Experience,
Dream Seminars, University Convocation, Learning Communities, GE Accelerate, Summer
Bridge, and expanded supplemental instruction are all components of the successful Dominguez
Hills First-Year Experience program. It should be noted that first-year experiences, seminars,
and learning communities are also HIPs. The convocation helped establish a graduation mindset
in students. The GE Accelerate program completed the net to serve all incoming students, and
the summer bridge brought all of these student support pieces together, including the expansion
of supplemental instruction.
The other HIPs-related assets include undergraduate research, global learning, writing-
intensive courses, and the discovered asset, service learning. Undergraduate research was
validated because of the strong student research day, and service learning is an award-winning
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
92
program. In the case of global learning and writing-intensive courses, although work has been
put in place to build capacity in these endeavors, they seem behind many of the other student
success initiatives.
It is worth noting that these programs involve significant personnel and monetary
resources. Findings in the next section will demonstrate some of the activities undertaken at
CSUDH to provide these necessary assets. It is unclear how sustainable many of these programs
are, especially if the grant, state, or federal funding becomes less available. Even the service
learning programs depend a certain amount on the willingness of large employers to have
internship or some sort of immersive program in place.
The DHFYE is a signature program, and most of the respondents interviewed credited the
summer bridge as the central pillar of the first-year experience, and the larger student success
initiative. The revised student orientations and peer mentoring programs seem to provide the
greatest return on investment because their costs are more sustainable without external funding.
The intrusive advising portion of the program also holds great impact, but requires significant
investment in full-time advisors.
Two other knowledge assets were discovered during the study. The commitment to hire
administrators with laudable experience in student success initiatives in building a senior team
really seemed to help create a new level of expectations from the institution, and value-added
leadership. The existence of successful programs like EOP and summer bridge allowed for a
strong model to emulate and expand outward to serve all students.
As nine of the 12 assumed assets were validated, and three more emerged during the
study, there is clearly evidence of significant knowledge in the CSUDH administration related to
improving completion rates.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
93
Motivation Findings
The findings presented in this section will be related to the eight motivation-related assets
assumed in chapter two, summarized below in Table 13. As is clear from the table, all but one of
the assets were validated. During the interviews and site visit, other motivation-related assets
emerged. These findings are described below, and summarized in Table 14.
Table 13
Assumed Motivation Assets
Assumed Asset Validated Not Validated
Supporting knowledge of HIPs X
Empowering faculty leadership X
HIPs symposium X
HIPs developmental grant X
Faculty learning communities X
Additional faculty positions X
Program review X
CSU Graduation Initiative X
The two motivation-related assets which emerged during the site visit were strong
presidential leadership and the cultivation of a graduation mindset. Evidence emerged that
suggested that there was a strong sense of their students and commitment to their community, but
these findings will not be discussed separately as found assets.
Table 14
Discovered Motivation Assets
Discovered Asset Validated Not Validated
Strong presidential leadership X
Graduation mindset X
Each of these assets, both assumed and discovered, will be presented in the order
summarized in the tables above, with evidence gathered from interviews, observations, and
supporting documents.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
94
Supporting Knowledge of HIPs
The methods used by Dominguez Hills to support faculty knowledge of HIPs are also
assumed assets listed in this section, namely, the HIPs symposium, HIPs developmental grants,
faculty learning communities, and faculty coordinator positions. One primary vehicle for
supporting this knowledge growth is the faculty development center.
All the academic administrators referred to the re-establishment of the faculty
development center. One noted that it was a “Safe environment for faculty to come together and
share and be courageous enough to explore” while another observed, “I think that people did like
the fact that our faculty development center was doing a tremendously ramped-up set of
activities, programs, and so forth.” A review of the Fall 2016 faculty development opportunities
reveal 21 different topics taught online and face to face.
The center is on the ground level of the “new” library, with direct street access. It was
plainly visible from the main walk-ways, and shared the space with an alternating cultural/art
exhibit. During early November, the exhibit on display had to do with elections, particularly
from a California political perspective. Also inside the center was a conversational area, the
director’s office, a presentation room, and a work room. The exhibit and presentation room are
pictured in Figure 8.
Figure 8. Images of the faculty development center
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
95
The work room had a student work-study attendant, flyers, and a cozy, inviting
atmosphere. The director was working with a faculty member during one visit, and was
boisterous and full of energy. The presentation room had an open, flexible layout. One day it
was set up for a lecture, another there were groupings of tables. Somehow, the DH seal on the
podium gave the small room a sense of gravitas. Due to the glass wall design of the entire new
library, the entire space had a pleasant natural light setting. Directly across from the main
entrance to the library was a faculty teaching lab, with new conference furniture and two large
flat-screen TVs. Whether this was part of the faculty development center or an additional
classroom for reservation from the library was unclear, but a photo is included in Figure 8.
Another approach to supporting faculty knowledge of HIPs is to tie incorporating HIPs
into the promotion and tenure process, which was mentioned in a couple of interviews, most
elegantly below by a senior administrator:
If you treasure high-impact practices then we must make sure that we incentivize
faculty participation by ensuring that it means just as much to publish an article as
it does to be involved in undergraduate research with students who are at the
university.
Others share this sentiment, but a policy was not easily accessible to verify. Another
administrator advocated for creating programs that supported the scholarship of teaching, and
then “encouraging faculty to understand that the stuff that they implement in their classes is very
publishable.”
The third theme which emerged from interviews was the need to provide more resources.
The same senior administrator shared an important observation on that matter.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
96
Well, I think from my experience, and particularly my experience here on this
campus, our faculty are already supportive and interested in helping our students
succeed. So, it was never about trying to encourage them or incentivize them. It
was all about, “How do we support them?”, because if faculty aren’t doing more
or doing better, it’s probably because they don’t have the resources to do that.
Requires reallocating the money.
The faculty development center provides training on HIPs, incorporating HIPs into
promotion and tenure provides both incentive and quality assurance, and the administration
works to find the funding necessary to support knowledge of HIPs.
This asset is validated.
Empowering Faculty Leadership
As in the section above, some of the assets discussed below are related to empowering
faculty leadership, especially the faculty coordinators and faculty fellows. Several academic
administrators referred to supporting faculty to get through the tenure process.
We look at development and engagement for our new faculty coming in that are
not tenured, we’ve got opportunities for them. We’re making sure we bring in a
lot of stuff that’s relevant and going on across the nation into our faculty as well
because we can’t send everybody to travel.
Likewise, the faculty development center website declares, “Faculty Success begins with
mentoring and resources supporting each faculty to establish their professional identity at
CSUDH.” This is a strong statement of support for empowering faculty leadership.
This asset, because it is intertwined with others, is validated.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
97
HIPs Symposium
The first symposium in 2015 reached over a hundred faculty, and led to substantial
revision in coursework for most those participants. In line with the California Innovation Grant
CSUDH received, in the 2016 the event was recast as the Innovative Teaching Symposium.
There are plans to continue this symposium in 2017, “to celebrate all of the interesting things
CSUDH faculty are doing to facilitate student engagement and active learning.”
No one mentioned the symposium in interviews, and there is no mention of it on the
website. Beyond the initial 2016 presentation, there is no direct validation of this asset.
HIPs Developmental Grants
Most of the senior administrators also made comments about engaging faculty through a
commitment to provide them more resources. As one put it, “There were faculty who knew what
needed to be done, and they were doing it, but they didn’t always have the resources.” Some
mentioned specific resources that had been allocated, such as research funding and teaching
grants, focused on improving bottleneck courses, innovations in the classroom, and course
development. The following quote from a senior, academic administrator is representative of
many of the viewpoints expressed.
So, I think that incentivizing them, giving them the opportunity, the monetary
compensation which definitely they do need because it is extra work. That is not
just doing the same thing, it is extra work. That is one of the ways that we
incentivize our faculty.
Many of these incentives were increased from $250 per course per semester to $1000 per
course per semester, which included two days of training before the semester began, and then
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
98
submission of a course redesign, to include HIPs and co-curricular activities. There was an
observation that while some felt this was too much incentive, the fee has not been reversed.
This asset was validated.
Faculty Learning Communities
Encounter with Student Success recommended that faculty learning communities be
formed through the faculty development center and the office of undergraduate research,
scholarship, and creative activity.
Provost Junn reported that in 2015, there were seven faculty learning communities, with
50 participating faculty members, a mix of full- and part-time, in alignment with the strategic
plan. The topics chosen for exploration by the learning communities were Assignments &
Projects for Students; HIPs in English; Study Abroad; Service Learning; Undergraduate
Research; and two topics under the theme of diversity, Watts Rebellion and Counterstorytelling.
The results were that 93% of the faculty modified a course with a HIP and 80% understood the
connection between HIPs and student success. This represents a measurable shift in HIPs
implementation on campus.
In a listing of Fall 2016 FDC Opportunities, the learning community focused on effective
online teaching. Another type of learning community offered was a brown bag lunch series to
“Increase Student Engagement through Service Learning” and an e-academy for “Peer to Peer
sharing of Best Practices for Online Learning.” There are Fall 2017 learning communities on
First-Year Seminars, the persisting name of the Dream Seminar.
This asset was validated.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
99
Faculty Coordinator Positions
Under Provost Junn, there was an administrative fellows program, used to fund course
releases for a HIPs Coordinator and Writing Across the Curriculum Coordinator. The writing
position was discussed earlier, in that the office was located and a couple of administrators
referred to the position.
The faculty fellows program was described by two senior administrators, wherein faculty
would receive course release time to work in the advisement center. A new administrator
described using course release as an incentive in the learning center, signing up 16 faculty
liaisons from English and math to work on supplemental instruction.
Some of the comments are like, “It’s such a different feel to have office hours in
the center versus behind my desk.” And we do have a faculty office that rarely
gets used by the faculty because they’re out there in the center. They’re sitting on
the tables. They’re sitting with the students. And so that is one way that we have
just really encouraged the faculty to come in.
These programs demonstrate not only the excitement of faculty and students, but the
administration’s commitment to empowering faculty leadership.
This asset was validated.
Program Review
New program review guidelines were adopted in April 2017, incorporating questions
about student engagement and HIPs. One question asks about program retention rates while
another asks about integrating HIPs, and there is an entire bank of questions asking if programs
serve student needs through scheduling courses at opportune times, co-curricular activities,
research or internship opportunities, honoring student achievement, or soliciting student
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
100
feedback in making programmatic decisions. These guidelines were referenced in the interviews
with the top three academic administrators.
This asset was validated.
Graduation Initiative 2025
It was assumed that directives and guidance from the CSU chancellor’s office would be
motivational for Dominguez Hills administrators. This was validated in many ways, as every
senior administrator referred to at least one directive during their interview. Many of the
programs undertaken at Dominguez Hills are present in other CSUs, such as the mandatory
Summer Bridge for developmental students, intrusive advising efforts, and Educational Advisory
Boards.
The most omnipresent driver, however, was Graduation Initiative 2025. Nearly every
plan or printed document referred to it, often including the target goals for 6-year first-time
freshmen, 4-year first-time freshmen, 3-year transfer student, 2-year transfer student completion
rates as well as performance gap goals (of 0%) for Pell Grant and minority students. The CSU
2025 report was presented in the literature review of chapter 2, and the CSUDH 2025 report was
discussed at the beginning of this chapter.
The presence of this initiative is a motivational factor for administration, in that it creates
clear expectations, provides support, and monitors for progress.
This asset was validated.
Strong Presidential Leadership
Although acknowledging the student success initiatives started under President Mildred
Garcia, as well as providing praise for former Provost Junn’s knowledgeable role on the
academic side, the senior administrators interviewed gave kudos to President Hagan for his
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
101
energies in leading the transformational change needed to improve student success rates. One
academic administrator comments,
We have an incredible president in Dr. Hagan – he is amazing. And the team that
he has put together has made a huge difference in the feel of the campus. And in
the fact that we are a population that serves the area we live in and that is where
our focus is. And that’s a good thing. And look at what we can achieve working
together. He has brought people from the community in and I think that coming
top-down he has made a huge difference.
Another administrator in student affairs, describing the effort put into the summer
orientations, mentioned the president by name.
So many people on campus on the weekend and on a hot day. Everybody out and
having a good time and that does include our President Willie Hagan. You know
he’s just always right there front and center greeting the people and talking to the
families… talking to any of the educators that come to the campus. He’s just
right there in the middle of the fun.
While there were several other comments about interspersed throughout the interviews,
confirmed President Hagan’s motivational and supportive role in improving the campus
atmosphere and providing clear guidance, one administrator gave a moving testimony about his
leadership. “Again, I have to give credit to President Hagan – and I always do, because I wasn’t
here a long time before he got here, but I was here for 2 years, and I feel like this campus has
completely changed since he has been here.”
She describes his selection as president, when faculty advocated and cheered for his
selection to the Chancellor on campus, because they had seen a positive change on campus. This
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
102
was especially evident in changing people’s attitudes toward the campus, which had been quite
negative before. He taught them to believe in Dominguez, “We have to believe we’re a great
institution before other people believe we’re a great institution. He has helped to change that
mindset – Dominguez is a great campus; our students have great potential.”
She describes how his vision helped bring them together, “You can see real life examples
of how the strategic plan is being implemented and it really does guide the work that we do.”
She attributes some of his success to the team he brought to campus to implement that change,
people committed to making positive change, and able to bring about that change. She
concludes by saying this leadership allowed her staff to do the work they needed to do to support
students.
This asset was validated.
Cultivation of a Graduation Mindset
Another asset which emerged from interviews was the change of mindset in faculty, staff,
and administrators. Pride and energy was instilled in the work they were doing. “Our student
focus isn’t what we do, it’s who we are. We placed a great emphasis on getting things done.”
As mentioned in the previous section, some of this was due to the leadership of the president and
his team. Some of it, though, was related to organizing these changes around the one thing
everyone can agree on, the students. One senior-most administrator put it aptly, “It's all about
the students. And I think that if we continue to focus to that, folks-- it might take a little bit of
time, but they'd get there.” One of the most consistent, remarkable facets to all the interviews
were how passionate every participant was about the Dominguez Hills students and community.
In a meeting with high school and community college counselors, a STEM professor,
very proud of Dominguez Hills, said, “I don’t know why you wouldn’t send your students here.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
103
Why would you not send them here? We can do with them the best thing for them, ever. No
other institution can give them what we can give them.”
This pride marked a change from the institutional outlook from previous years, said one
administrator reasonably new to the institution. “We’re going to make do with what we have,
which is kind of the mentality that was going on when I got here. We just do the best we can
with what we have. It’s just not that mindset anymore.”
Among students, administration was able to foster a graduation mindset. Some of this
was set in the student convocations, and the degree and career planning from the DHFYE, but
other modeling exhibits can be found in the bookstore in Figure 9.
Figure 9. Image of a Class of 2017 graduation t-shirt.
The class of 2017 t-shift shown above could be considered pretty typical apparel to be found in a
university bookstore around graduation season, but what is notable about the Dominguez Hills
shirts is that there is different shirt for each college, naming all the graduates alphabetically.
This is important not just in establishing alumni loyalty, but gives new students and parents
something to aspire to, to see their names on a shirt.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
104
This asset was validated.
Summary of Motivation Findings
All the assumed assets were validated, and two more assets emerged during the
interviews. Many of the motivational assets cluster around the general theme of faculty
development, such as supporting knowledge of HIPs, the HIPs symposium, and faculty learning
communities. Others cluster around the idea of providing incentives to faculty, through
empowering faculty leadership, HIPs developmental grants, and faculty positions. The
integration of student engagement into program review speaks to quality control and assessment,
as does the need to comply with the CSU initiatives, although the CSU also provides support and
guidance to each campus. The discovered assets, of strong presidential leadership and changing
the mindset of faculty and administrators, are also related.
Organization Findings
The findings presented in this section will be related to the eight organization-related
assets assumed in chapter two, summarized below in Table 15. As is clear from the table, each
of the assets were validated. During the interviews and site visit, other organization-related
assets emerged. These findings are described below, and summarized in Table 16.
Table 15
Assumed Organization Assets
Assumed Asset Validated Not Validated
Academic & student affairs synergy X
AVP of Advising position X
Advanced Technology Classrooms X
The four organization assets which emerged during the site visit were a commitment to
tenure density by hiring additional faculty, aggressive pursuit of grants and external funding,
establishment of a student success fee, and prioritizing student success spending in the budget.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
105
Table 16
Discovered Organization Assets
Discovered Asset Validated Not Validated
Tenure density X
Grant pursuits X
Student success fee X
Priority in the budget X
Each of these assets, both assumed and discovered, will be presented in the order
summarized in the tables above, with evidence gathered from interviews, observations, and
supporting documents.
Synergy between Academic and Student Affairs
The change in energy in academic and student affairs was validated in part by the two
joint presentations given at the AASCU meeting, one by the provost and vice president of
student affairs, and one by the AVPs of advising and student success, one housed in student
affairs and the other in academic affairs. These relationships were mentioned by a senior leader,
as well.
They are great examples of what we needed to have happen at this campus. People who
knew their jobs individually well, but knew if they worked together, they could really
make a difference and understood that’s what we wanted and that’s the reward.
The quote speaks to the fact that it wasn’t just the creation of the positions, but the people
selected who helped create a collaborative atmosphere, because of their commitment.
The AVPs were both primary informants in this study, providing supplemental
information, referring other stakeholders to provide testimony, and conducting extensive,
engaging interviews themselves. They spoke fondly and highly of each other. “I think the AVP
of student affairs and the AVP of retention and advising have made tremendous strides to bring
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
106
together the campus,” said one of them, and described that students could feel the tension
between academic and student affairs before and that the collaborations between the two were
having an impact felt by the students.
This parallel structure, of highly placed leaders, in each division, allowed for more
effective collaboration and cooperation between the two units. The AVP of advising position in
academic affairs, filled by someone with faculty experience, was key to engaging faculty,
department chairs, and deans in improving academic advising and learning new ways of
supporting and engaging students. Likewise, the AVP of student success, also with faculty
experience and prior leadership experience with the EOP program, could help elevate the
conversation on the student affairs side of the university. “We were very intentional to ensure
that academic affairs and student affairs collaborated around some key issues that impacted
students,” and advising was the first place they started, according to senior administrators,
So, we partnered around advising strategies. We ended up having a huge advising
task force that was made up of academic affairs and student affairs partnered. We
came up with 117 recommendations on how to improve advising. I mean, you
may think 117. How the hell do you get to 117 recommendations? Some of those
recommendations we were already doing, we just weren’t doing collaboratively.
And, so, we started doing things together, started meeting frequently, becoming
good stewards of our data and information.
They were able to focus the units on collaborative projects, such as the First-Year
Experience, Summer Bridge, and convocations for new students. A senior academician said:
I think that the bridging of academic and student affairs is certainly another part
of the initiative that that really has brought great results because not only is now
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
107
ensuring all freshmen get a first-year experience, summer bridge, etc., but we’ve
also incorporated in their freshmen convocation…
This comment also speaks to the synergy needed between academic and student affairs to
create the summer bridge program. The collaboration on the Summer Bridge has been the core
of the collaborative efforts. A senior student affairs administrator observed,
We have our program that works six weeks with them, and then we support them
through every single student that comes in that’s a freshman will have their
advisor, their peer coach, and they do connect them to their faculty.
The AVPs refer to their collaborative efforts, and the new spirit of synergy as
“partnership by design.” In addition to the major programs mentioned above, there are two other
initiatives that required the joint efforts of academic & student affairs, the Through in Two /
Finish in Four programs and the Saving Senior initiatives, both discussed below.
Through in Two / Finish in Four. These programs, so named by the CSU system, are
part of the national 15 to Complete initiative to drive conversations back to 4-year completions
for Bachelor’s degrees and 2-year obtainment of a bachelor’s degree after completing
community college. Many students receiving financial aid become acculturated to the idea that
12 credits are a full-time load, so the 15 to Complete initiative seeks to inform students that you
need to take 15 credits each semester to maintain steady progress towards a 4-year goal, even if
that includes taking credits in winter or summer terms to keep up.
These programs came up in more than half of the interviews as having a positive effect
on graduation and retention efforts. Targeting the entering cohorts of 2014, 2015, 2016 to make
the Chancellor’s goal for 2020 added incentive for developing the support programs to improve
the 6-year rates faster than anyone anticipated. One administrator added, “I think this trend is
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
108
just going to continue because they have reviewed everything they did and will make next year
even better.” These initiatives also involved the academic programs more, because as the
provost worked with the deans and associate deans and the proposals went through committee
review and the academic senate, faculty were forced to look at the sequencing of courses and
pass rates of their students, not just the curricular structure and content of their degree programs.
Initiative to save seniors. This initiative involves providing interventions to students
who had completed more than 120 credits, but still hadn’t graduated. It was based on a similar
program at CSU Fullerton, who had found 500 students who “hadn’t actually graduated” and
supported them until 3 years later, 75% of them had graduated. In practice, advisors follow up
and support when they lose students, fold in a financial team to offer support, and create courses
in the summer so that these students can complete their academic programs. The intervention at
CSUDH aimed at 298 seniors to get them to finish, and last year we brought back 140 students
who had left. The initiative also helped frame intrusive advisement to be inclusive, “Please
invest in them even though we’re not talking about this cohort right now,” administrators would
have to coach staff, “It’s all of them. It’s all of them.” One administrator commented:
I think everything has some salutary effects. The one that had the most positive
effect was working backwards. And then that was what pushed us over the edge
into the 30
th
percentile mark, which was critical in that first semester.
The percentile mark is significant, in that the institution faced losing the ability to award Pell
Grants without a 6-year completion rate above 30 per cent.
There is clearly ample evidence to suggest the synergy of academic affairs and student
affairs contributed to the overall improvement of student success at CSUDH. However, a small
number of people interviewed hinted that some pockets of resistance remained, and most
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
109
indicated that it was a tough, long road to change the culture of the units. Since student affairs is
composed primarily of staff members, who have held their positions for many years, and done
their jobs very competently, there was very little incentive to change, and negative reactions to
suggestions that they needed to. Likewise, faculty felt overworked and undervalued at being
asked to undertake tasks that would not necessarily contribute to their research. A senior
administrator summarized:
There was just a difference in philosophy between the two units, that one was
seen as subservient to the other, so to pretend that we’ve completely eliminated it,
we haven’t. There will always be different areas but the fact that we have
intentionally created designs for advisors across units to work together on
research projects that help collection your research.
In general, though, administrators feel a sense of pride about the creation of synergy, and
pride in the combined efforts to improve student success. A senior administrator concluded:
We had to move graduation to a larger venue. “Now we’re not going to fill it up
but we have so many more students graduating, so many more students—again,
since so many of our students are first in their family, everybody comes, the
mother, the father, the aunts, the friends, the grandparents. And so, it’s one of the
things most people don’t notice, but when they told us we’d outgrown that place
because we had too many people graduating, I thought, “Wow, that’s cool.”
That’s what you want. And again, that’s all the result of synergy and a lot of
good folks working together.”
This “partnership by design,” building (summer) bridges, convocations, orientations, the
DHFYE, and the completion initiatives, is clear evidence of a synergistic relationship.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
110
This asset was validated.
AVP of Advising Position
The first strategy of the advising task force was the installation of a senior administrator
in charge of expanding working advisement programs, referred to as a dean of advising position
in their report. Ultimately, an AVP level position was hired, someone with previous, successful
experience at sister CSU Fullerton. Under this strategy were three recommendations, and 20
specific tasks for implementation. The first recommendation called for the administrator to work
with a standing committee to better plan and assess advising at CSUDH. The second
recommendation call for the administrator to map and improve business processes related to
advising and registration. The third recommendation calls for a priority on freshman advising.
Every single interview mentioned the AVP of advising, in complementary terms. Just
over half of the respondents credited the advising initiative as being the most effective
component of the student success efforts. Findings related to the AVP of advising will be
presented according the recommendations above. First, the Graduation Innovation Team will be
discussed as the standing committee. Second, the WASC Advising Team will be described as a
vehicle for mapping and finding efficiencies in the advising process. Third, the advising efforts
of the DHFYE will be described.
Graduation Innovation Team. Initially formed as part of the initiative targeted at
saving wayward seniors, the Graduation Innovation Team (GIT) is intentionally structured with
all levels of academic advising, both centralized and in the colleges, as well as multiple levels of
enrollment management, the registrar’s office, and financial aid. The leader’s philosophy for this
group is “Okay, what’s the issue? How can we solve it?” Several of the lower-level staff
advisors interviewed were grateful for this all-inclusive team structure, because it allowed for
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
111
their concerns to be on the agenda, and the opportunity for letting the higher-ups know the
bureaucratic struggles faced in daily work.
A GIT meeting was observed in the provost’s conference room. Over 20 people were in
attendance, ranging from AVPs to college advising specialists, faculty representation from each
of the academic colleges, personnel from the registrar’s office, associate deans, and student
representatives. The meeting began with reading aloud two quotes that are found on each agenda
and on the GIT webpage.
During the meeting, there were several conversations about bottlenecks, in the curriculum
process, and in the registration process. It was announced that the chancellor’s office had
provided funding for assisting seniors towards completion. There were conversations about
Academic Requirements Reports, and how to most effectively use them. There was an
interesting exchange when a College advisor brought up an inquiry about changing the
curriculum over a matter involving frequent course substitutions. After through conversation
from each of the stakeholders, the college advisor was instructed in how to write a memo to
effectuate this change. A robust articulation data table was displayed. After about 40 minutes,
the main group broke up into smaller college-level work groups, each consisting of a faculty
member, Associate Dean, advisor, and registration person. A consultant, Randy Swing, was
mentioned. This consultant works with understanding student data.
Comments made in interviews about GIT were positive, such as “I feel personally, by
being involved in these meetings, that we’re getting there and identifying those bottleneck
courses and creating action.”
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
112
Only one respondent voiced a reservation, indicating that there were “too many people at
the table, and this decreases individual participation.” Most comments speak to how the GIT is
useful in problem-solving. Two comments from advisors are shared below.
Every college has their own bottlenecks, their own roadblocks, like our
substitution request and curriculum, the way it’s built and the way it’s built into
the system. And sometimes they don’t align.
Having multiple stakeholders at GIT meetings adds perspective. For
example, Advisors and faculty may make a change that allows to students to
complete academic coursework more quickly, and go into clinical year, but this
has a financial aid impact.
These viewpoints underscore the usefulness of the GIT to the larger goals of improving
academic advising, streamlining registration, and standardizing policies.
WASC Advising Policy Team. The university’s accreditation review by the Western
Association of Schools & Colleges (WASC) Senior Commission is up for reaffirmation in July
2017, so preparations were well underway during the site visit. Partially in response to the
advising task force recommendation to better map and articulate the process, and partially
preparation for the accreditation visit, the WASC Advising Policy Team was formed. The
primary purpose of this team is to update advising policy. This made one administrator very
happy, predicting “the end result for the campus is going to be phenomenal. We will have a
clean policy and there’s enough student affairs, faculty affairs, and students at the table to make
sure that it’s user-friendly for all. So that will be remarkable.” Additionally, there are IT people
involved to ensure that the policy changes can be implemented. This team demonstrates the
AVP’s ability to map and assess advising policy.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
113
DHFYE. Although the Dominguez Hills First-Year Experience was explained in the
knowledge section of this chapter, it is worthy to note that the advising task force had
specifically charged the new administrator with improving first-year advising efforts. By
strengthening the supplemental instruction and peer support portions of Summer Bridge, and
introducing the GE Accelerate program, the AVP of advising helped Dominguez Hills achieved
“equity for all freshmen, and level the playing field.”
Figure 10, on the following page, is another infographic illustrating some of the advising
outcomes related to the DHFYE program. Some of the important numbers from the infographic
on the following page include the fact that over 90% of students received advising, can identify
campus resources, know how to use the catalog and academic calendar, and understand their
academic requirements report. Other important metrics reported GPAs and retention rates for
GE Accelerate students, the percentage of freshmen who understand their financial aid situation,
and the number of developmental students taking progressing with full credit loads. Another
interesting piece of information is the top responses for what a CSUDH education can provide
students.
The Graduation Innovation Team, WASC Advising Policy Team, and the creation of the
Dominguez Hills First-Year Experience are all outcomes of the installation of an AVP of
advising, directly related to the recommendations of the advising report.
This asset was validated.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
114
Figure 10. DHFYE advising outcomes (CSUDH, 2016). Reprinted with permission.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
115
Advanced Technology Classrooms
The third goal in the strategic plan is to create and foster innovative learning
environments. The first objective is to create or renovate at least 20 learning spaces, such as
classrooms, labs, or studios. The second objective is to increase student participation in, and
assess the academic effectiveness of, co-curricular activities. The third objective is increase the
training and use of instructional technologies and innovative pedagogies.
The campus strategic plan included a goal to create more Interactive Technology
Classrooms. Academic administrators from two colleges provided guided tours through several
of those spaces. Shown in Figure H are some of the advanced technology classrooms in the
College of Business and Public Policy (CBAPP) as well as the more centralized university
spaces, found in the administration building as well as in the old library.
A typical classroom and a showcase classroom were visited in CBAPP. The typical
classroom had two students in it, working on projects, and ready to converse with the
administrator. The showcase classroom was described as an “older-style” of technology
classroom, with just projection screens and flat-screen TVs at the front of the classroom, and
individual computer units at each student seat. The impressive feature was that the monitors for
the student computers could raise and lower, much like a projector screen. The administrator
excitedly described a classroom in the library, where students could work in groups on projects,
and each see the work they were doing, and then the instructor could pull the group work to
show on the main screen, or all the screens. Faculty and students were described as enjoying this
“interactive, flipped” use of technology. The graduate Case Study Room was in use during the
tour, but was reportedly the crown jewel of the CBAPP suite of classrooms.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
116
In the tour of university technology classrooms, each of the public-access spaces also had
students in them, albeit usually receiving an admonishment from the administrator about eating
and drinking where they weren’t supposed to. As impressive as the rooms themselves was the
fact that lab technicians were on duty, walking around and working on issues. The rapport
between administrator and workers seemed genuine, as evidenced when we concluded the tour in
the student union, where two installation technicians were eating, and the administrator lavished
praises upon them. “It’s all for the students,” they sheepishly responded.
The model for the integrative technology classrooms was the University of Minnesota. It
was reported that a team of eight faculty and three administrators visited the campus in part of an
iterative vetting process, in which consideration of student, faculty, and IT perspectives were
considered, as well as the budget considerations.
Commitment to Tenure Density
The first objective of the strategic plan is to improve the tenure density rate from 41.9%
to 60% by hiring 64 additional faculty. As one senior administrator put it, “tenure density is
correlated with student success. Correlation is not causation but certainly having full-time
faculty who can engage students on many different levels, is the key—you know that is the key.”
The key he speaks of is improving student success. This administrator went on to say, “We
don’t have all the money we want, but we are a $200 million operation, so we have money. We
avoid irritation by committing to strategic plan.” His spoke in no uncertain terms about the
importance of hiring more faculty, especially in the courses where students needed them the
most, the general education and gateway courses. It should be noted that another aspect of the
Graduation Initiative calls for better alignment of course offerings to student needs.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
117
Another senior administrator agreed with the difficulty of trying to increase tenure lines
when the CSU was under budget constraints, but also tied the importance of improved tenure
density directly to student success. As he observed:
When there’s a structure deficit and you already have fewer full-time faculty than
part-time faculty it is very hard to prioritize. Yet we know it works. That’s the
carrot about all of this. We know tenure density is important, but we can’t afford
that. But hey, you need to raise the graduation rates.
Almost every academic administrator understood that the literature indicated that meaningful
student contact with full-time faculty increased persistence and graduation rates.
This asset is validated.
Grant Pursuits
When describing ways to support faculty, the top academic administrators all spoke in
some fashion about finding more funds, because the need to provide training and support to
faculty is more effective than just encouraging them. “We found a lot of faculty interested in
doing more for our students; we just had to find a way to get more of them and to provide
additional support.” For these administrators, additional support meant finding grants.
One senior administrator described how the work being done to bring in those funds
benefited the faculty and the institution.
We’ve got key personnel on staff writing grants, bringing in funds, which allows
for professional development opportunities, we get to present at conferences, we
get to write up the data that we’re finding, share that with our colleagues and our
peers across the nation.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
118
I think that’s critical. I think that all the work we’re doing is ready for
publication. I think the work that we’re doing at the associate vice president and
vice president level allows for all of our faculty across campus to have
opportunities to get involved in something new.
The institution had received several high-profile grants related to student success, such as
a Title V grant supporting the Toro Ambassador program and the State of California Innovation
Grant supporting STEM innovation learning centers on campus.
This asset is validated.
Student Success Fee
Some of the funding issues discussed in the prior sections were resolved by the addition
of a student success fee, one of the lowest in the CSU. The Dominguez Hills student success
fee was enacted by CSU Executive Order 1094 in 2014, to be phased in $35 increments until it
reached $280 per semester. The fee is expected to generate about $5 million over a 5-year
period. A senior administrator described how the fee was to be used, “We hire faculty with
those dollars. We hired advisors in numbers they never had before poor advising can a student
back like nothing else.” Others described that funds raised by the fee were invested in
supplemental instruction, additional course offerings, and advanced technology classrooms.
This asset is validated.
Prioritization in the Budget
Every administrator referred to the difficult financial position of the California State
University, and many also pointed to the fact that since CSU campus appropriations are based on
estimated seat counts, and tuition is banded from 12 to 18 credits, the improvement in student
retention was initially a financial burden for Dominguez Hills, because they had more students to
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
119
teach than they had estimated, and those students were now taking additional courses without
paying more tuition. Each of those administrators felt the situation had been resolved, though,
and plans now also included financial impact.
As one administrator put it, “We talk about them regularly because everything at some
point in time comes down to a little bit of money,” before going to add, “We can say
coordination, eliminating silos, all this, but at some point in time you've got to spend money on
stuff, and so we try to make sure we spend it on the most important things.” The most important
things being the students, and faculty engagement activities.
Another administrator also felt that the while budgets were always an issue, the
president’s leadership in this area was influential, “one of the best things that has happened to
this campus is to have a president who believes that investing in student success is the most
important thing we can do.” Another senior administrator concurred by observing that “the
president and the cabinet has made student success their number one, and so there’s been a lot of
investment in infrastructure to that.” Both senior leaders described tough decisions made to
improve the student success infrastructure while another senior leader felt that obtaining buy-in
for these investments, especially during lean times, was in part due the initiative to become a
national model of student success.
This asset is validated.
Summary of Organization Findings
Each of the three assumed organizational assets were validated, and four more emerged
during the site visit. The implementation of the AVP of advising position, hiring someone
external to the organization, and the appointment of the AVP of student success, hiring someone
deeply knowledgeable about the institution, worked together to create a sense of synergy
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
120
between academic affairs and student affairs at the two units collaborated on many initiatives
together, in an intentional fashion not seen before at Dominguez Hills. The building of
advanced technology classrooms also increased student expectations, and the planning and
execution of these rooms created a collaborative experience for faculty and IT personnel, and an
opportunity for ongoing, intentional faculty development in active learning and technology.
The emerged assets were all related in some way to funds, the commitment of funding, or
the efforts to secure outside funds. The initiative to improve tenure density by hiring more full-
time faculty, to teach the courses that students need to take, is an expensive proposition, but
shows an alignment of organizational structure and resources, as does the senior administration’s
commitment to put student success, and its related infrastructure, as the highest budgetary
priority for the institution. The aggressive pursuit of external funds through grant applications
and the implementation of the student success fee, show dedication and perseverance on part of
the CSUDH administration.
Conclusion
Findings were presented among the knowledge, motivation, and organization assets in
place at CSUDH, as collected by interviews, document review, and site observations. The
chapter began with a comprehensive review of key planning documents used by CSUDH to drive
the student success initiative. Twenty of the 23 assumed assets were validated, and almost a
dozen other assets began to emerge, with nine of those validated enough to be included in the
findings. Table 17 shows the validated findings, both assumed and discovered.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
121
Table 17
Validated Assets
Domain Assumed Assets Discovered Assets
Knowledge High-Impact Practices Service Learning
First-Year Experience Scalable, Successful Programs
Dream Seminar Experienced Administrators
University Convocation
Summer Bridge
GE Accelerate
Learning Communities
Undergraduate Research
Supplemental Instruction
Motivation Supporting Knowledge of HIPs Strong Presidential Leadership
Empowering Faculty Leadership Change of Mindset
HIPs Symposium
HIPs Developmental Grants
Faculty Learning Communities
Faculty Positions
Program Review
Chancellor’s Initiatives
Organizational AVP of Advising Position Tenure Density
Advanced Tech Classrooms Grant Pursuits
Synergy Across Divisions Student Success Fee
Priority in the Budget
As discussed in the section summaries, many of the assets group together around various
themes, which begin to suggest recommendations, or promising practices that may be
transferrable to other institutions. These groupings and themes will be discussed in chapter five.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
122
CHAPTER FIVE: TRANSFERABLE PRACTICES
Of the 23 assumed assets, 20 were validated, and more assets were discovered. Many of
the assets group together around a half-dozen themes or initiatives. The first themes are HIP and
the First-Year Experience. Two important institutional initiatives related to academic advising
and faculty development each contain several assets. Remaining assets are related to
institutional commitment.
A third of the assets group around the two major themes of HIPs and the Dominguez
Hills First-Year Experience. Of course, a First-Year Experience is itself a HIP, but it is such a
large and complicated undertaking that it becomes its own initiative, with seminar courses, a
convocation, learning communities, and supplemental instruction all built in, and summer bridge
and GE Accelerate as programs ensuring all first-year students are exposed to the experience. Of
the other four HIPs employed at Dominguez Hills, undergraduate research, service learning,
global learning, and writing-intensive courses, the research and service components were tightly
aligned with the university’s mission and purpose, so completely enveloped in the student
success initiatives. While there was evidence of global learning and writing-intensive courses,
they have not been as enthusiastically deployed.
Table 18
HIPs Assets
First-Year Experience Other HIPs
Dream Seminars Undergraduate research
University convocation Global learning
Learning communities Writing-intensive courses
GE Accelerate Service learning
Summer bridge
Supplemental instruction
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
123
Although these have been highly successful initiatives for CSUDH, they will not be
explored further in this study, because describing a full implementation plan is beyond the scope
of this study. Many credible, national-profile organizations, such as AAC&U and NSSE, have
many excellent resources available pertaining to HIPs. Likewise, AASCU’s Reimagining the
First Year initiative and the John N. Gardner Institute for Excellence in Undergraduate
Education offer a multitude of resources for creating robust first-year experience programs. The
Gardner Institute offers targeted programs on teaching, retention performance management,
gateway courses, analytics, and foundations for an excellent first-year experience (JNGI, 2017).
The next cluster of assets relates to a robust advising initiative. Dominguez Hills
undertook an extensive, empirical approach to creating their initiative, and made the
organizational commitment of hiring a senior administrator to lead this transformation.
Additionally, carrying out the initiative involved creating and refining an entire suite of activities
(summer bridge, orientations, convocation, and the first-year experience) that a new
collaborative environment was created between academic affairs and student affairs. In this
collaborative frame of mind, in conjunction with the institution’s commitment to serving all
incoming students, the existence of EOP and Summer Bridge were strong models to emulate and
scale. All of this worked together to create a “graduation mindset” amongst the students.
Table 19
Advising Assets
Advising Initiative
Installation of an AVP of Advising
Synergy between academic affairs and student affairs
Existence of programs ready to scale
Cultivation of a graduation mindset
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
124
The advising initiative will be explored further in this chapter, as a promising practice
that can be transferred to other institutions. While some of the elements are specific to the
institutional context of CSUDH within the California State University, any minority-serving or
first-generation serving institution could improve student success by transforming their advising
practices.
An impressive seven assets were related in some way to supporting and developing
faculty. Rather vaguely worded, the assumed assets of supporting HIPs knowledge and
empowering faculty leadership were validated by the activities of the faculty development center
and other related assets. The faculty learning communities were successful at garnering faculty
participation in HIPs. The HIPs developmental grants provided incentive for participation. The
faculty coordinator positions, with their related course releases, provided time and
acknowledgment for participation. The integration into program review provide quality control
and assurance of participation.
Table 20
Faculty Development Assets
Faculty Development
Supporting HIPs knowledge Empowering faculty leadership
Faculty Development Center Faculty learning communities
HIPs developmental grants Faculty coordinator positions
Integration with program review
Creating a robust faculty development agenda will be discussed more at length, as an
organizational means of providing faculty the knowledge and motivation to participate in a
student success program.
There are six remaining validated assets demonstrating the institutional commitment to
the student success initiative, including strong presidential leadership. Hiring more faculty as
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
125
part of the tenure density objective and only hiring experienced administrators are more evidence
of modified hiring practices. Creating a student success fee and aggressively pursuing grant and
other external funding is evidence of making student success a priority despite declining budgets.
Building advanced technology classrooms supports more active learning environments, when
coupled with appropriate faculty development and incentives.
Table 21
Assets Demonstrating Institutional Commitment
Hiring Priorities Budget Priorities Other Validated Assets
Tenure density initiative Student success fee Strong presidential leadership
Experienced administrators Grant pursuits Advanced Tech Classrooms
Of these, creating a student success fee, hiring additional faculty directly related to
gateway courses, and advanced technology classrooms are assets which will be explored further
in this chapter. Creating strong leadership and hiring management practices are clearly entire
fields of study, and an entire industry of grant writing help is available.
The 29 validated assets have been divided into four themes: HIPs, advising, faculty
development, and institutional commitment. The HIPs theme also includes the first-year
experience. Improved advising includes new leadership, collaborative projects, and professional
development. Faculty development includes training activities, incentives, leadership
opportunities, and quality control. Institutional commitment includes strong presidential
leadership, strengthening hiring practices, finding funds to fill budget gaps, and building new
classrooms.
The remainder of this chapter will focus on presenting practices promising enough to be
emulated at other institutions, separate from the unique organizational context of CSUDH and
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
126
the CSU graduation initiative. There will also be a discussion of future research, and a
conclusion to this study.
Practices Promising Enough to be Transferrable
There are six promising practice recommendations in this section based on validated and
discovered knowledge, motivation, and organization findings at CSU Dominguez Hills which
could be of use to other minority-serving, comprehensive, state institutions. These practices are
recommended because they can be applied outside of highly structured environments like the
CSU system. The recommendations are listed below.
1. Launch an advising initiative;
2. Create a robust faculty development program related to student engagement;
3. Transform learning spaces that intentionally use technology to activate learning;
4. Expand an existing student support system to serve all first-year students;
5. Hire more full-time faculty to teach gateway courses; and
6. Establish a student success fee.
Although each recommendation will be discussed individually, it is instructive to
consider that the first five recommendations involve varying degrees of capital expenditure while
the last is the only one that provides funds for activities. Likewise, the suggestion to transform
learning spaces is the only suggestion that involves significant capital outlay, in a short period of
time; the four other practices involve investment into human resources, mostly faculty.
Institutions with the lowest retention rates will benefit the most from large outlays of cash,
because the tuition from the retained students will recoup those expenses. Institutions serving
relatively large first-generation and minority student populations will see the most gain from the
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
127
advising initiative. Institutions primarily serving undergraduates and receiving funding based on
students rather than grant interests will also benefit from the faculty development initiative.
The practices will be examined with a discussion concerning conditions to consider
before adoption or implementation. Action steps for implementation will be explained, including
timelines for implementation will be proposed. Policy implementation takes time, and
oftentimes, how you time the implementation is just as important as the approach taken. If the
organization does not move quickly, changing that pace without a compelling motivation will be
detrimental to the success of a new proposal. Any new policy proposal should consider the
resources needed for implementation. Each of the six solutions will be examined through the
perspectives of human resources needed, key stakeholders to involve, organizational structures
that may need to be created or modified, and financial costs to consider. Finally, an evaluation
plan for most of the transferrable practices related to student success will be proposed.
The evaluation plans will be grounded in the Kirkpatrick model of evaluation (2007).
The Kirkpatrick model includes four levels of evaluation, progressing from reaction, to learning,
to behavior, to results. It was developed initially to assess the effectiveness of corporate-style
professional development trainings, but can be expanded to other forms of educational and
academic training. The lowest level, reaction, gauges the reactions of the participants of the
training, often through a Likert-format questionnaire. The next level, learning, seeks to measures
if knowledge or skills were acquired during the training. This often requires a pre-test/post-test
format, grounded in specific learning objectives. The first two levels of evaluation can be tested
during the training period, but the third and fourth levels need to be evaluated after the training.
The third level, behavior, tests whether participants have changed their work behaviors as a
result of the training. This can be done by a test or survey, or through observations from an
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
128
evaluator or supervisor. The fourth level, results, measures the change in work output based on
the training. Strengths of the Kirkpatrick method are that it is a simple, intuitive model that has
been in wide-spread use for over 20 years. One Weakness is that it may be too simple; there are
many variations on the model that include levels added by various industries. Another weakness
is that it does not account for other interventions that may affect productivity.
After each promising practice is discussed, including the action plans, key resource
considerations, timelines, and evaluation plans, some future research considerations will be
considered, and the chapter will conclude with a brief discussion on the feasibility of carrying
out these initiatives.
Advising Initiative
One validated asset at CSU Dominguez Hills was the creation of synergy between
academic and student affairs as embodied in the AVP of advising, who brought with her
knowledge from improving retention rates at Cal State Fullerton, strong motivation from the
president, and the creation of the position and structure re-organizations from the provost. The
first proposed policy implementation is to use a student success-centered advising initiative to
bridge divides between academic affairs and student services.
Boyum and Weber (2014) found four existing conditions at CSUDH in the advising task
force report discussed at length in chapter 4. First, they found that while some undergraduate
students were in intense programs, services were thin to many undergraduates. They also found
that many needs were not being met, such as developmental needs for most students. They
found the advising system to be heavily reliant on faculty and other non-professional advisors.
Finally, they concluded that records of advisement were not well-kept.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
129
While the report uses the operational title of dean of advising, it is important to note that
an associate vice president-level position was ultimately selected. They developed several
thematic strategies, with underlying recommendations and other suggested actions for
consideration. Since much of the advising strategy was embedded in the First-Year Experience,
there was also a targeted strategy to support upper-level students. Another strategy targeted
revising policy substance and communicating policy better, engaging senior administrators to
clarify policies and procedures. A very important strategy involved prioritizing the hiring and
training of professional advisors. Likewise, the strengthening faculty advising strategy included
professional development and support specialists. The final strategies involved improved
coordination with the information technology department to provide better access to information
for advisors and students.
Creating an advising initiative should start with a definition of what the initiative is, with
clear, measurable objectives and timelines. Through advising summits, clear strategic planning,
an advising task list with over a hundred items for improvement, and a GIT comprised of
centralized advisors, the registrar, associate deans, faculty, college-based advisors, and financial
aid staff, the advising initiative was successful at instituting a student-centered culture of change
at CSUDH.
Implementation Plan
Immediately, an institution would need to define and set goals for the initiative, and begin
a campaign to get faculty and staff support. Within a year or two, an inter-departmental,
campus-wide committee would flesh out the operational aspects of the initiative, include
establishing a clear sense of responsibility and accountability. Once the new structures and
systems are in place, a coordinator or higher-level position would oversee on-going assessment
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
130
and adjustment of the program, to include student feedback, and faculty and staff training
recommendations. Table 23 takes turns these action steps into a proposed timeline including
responsible parties.
From a human resource perspective, clearly, more trained personnel are needed. A large
pool of knowledgeable people is needed during peak advising and registration times, as well as a
standing body of expert personnel engaged in more intense advising activities throughout the
year. Some of the key stakeholders who need to be involved in an initiative of this sort would
be the VP of academic affairs, VP of student affairs, academic deans, advising staff, counselors,
faculty who are active in advising, and registration staff, both those who are centralized and
those in academic units.
Table 22
Proposed Timeline for Advising Initiative
Action Responsible Person(s) Timeframe
Define the initiative VPs of Academic & Student
Affairs
1-2 months
Obtain buy-in for the
initiative
VPs of Academic & Students
Affairs
2-3 months
Set up a cross-campus
representative body to meet
regularly and monitor
progress
VPs 3-4 months (end of first
semester)
Set goals under the initiative VPs, Committee 4-8 months (end of second
semester)
Establish accountability VPs, Committee End of second year
Assess and revise Advising Coordinator End of third year, and
thereafter.
This proposal may involve a new structure, with a centralized advising center, perhaps
separating from behavioral counseling. There should be attention paid to creating a parallel
system, in the central administration and in the academic units. This system should extend
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
131
vertically from registration users up to decision makers. Seasonal costs are difficult to plan for
and sustain. Planning for duplicative personnel can be costly and seen as wasteful.
Evaluation Plan
An advising initiative would focus training attention on faculty as well as staff advisors,
and evaluation activities would measure both advisors and students at the various levels, as
illustrated in Table 25.
Table 23
Evaluation Levels of An Advising Initiative
Reaction Learning Behavior Impact
Satisfaction forms for
Advising Training
Satisfaction forms for
Student Registration
End of training
Assessment for
Advisors
Survey to students on
an annual basis,
asking preferences,
satisfactions, and
principles
Earlier registrations
More students
seeking advisement
Advisors providing
intrusive advisement
Less course
withdrawals
Improved retention
Decreased time to
graduation
Improved GPAs
The two recommended tools for the reaction level of the advising initiative are focused
on two audiences, the advisors and the students, because it is important to see the reaction of
both the people being trained and those receiving the end training. A well-designed instrument
for the students could serve as a tool for measuring learning and behavior of advisors. At
Dominguez Hills, they created Advising Learning Outcomes (ALOs) at four levels, for first-year
students, sophomores, juniors, and seniors. These ALOs were created in an interdisciplinary
advising summit, in accordance to advising best practices, and with attention to the AACU tenets
of a Liberal Education. These ALOs would serve as an excellent basis for learning of students
and advisors alike. Advisors should take a summative assessment at the end of training to
receive their certificates and demonstrate learning of the principles conveyed. Students should
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
132
be surveyed annually, to check not only for learning, but also to provide feedback on their
experiences. To gauge for changes in student behavior, tracking registration dates (or daily
credit hour production) would be able to identify if students enroll earlier, and for more courses.
Clearly, a log of students receiving advisement would be an indicator of student behavior
change. Tracking intrusive advising sessions or attempts, such as phone calls, emails, alerts, a
session in developmental courses, can also be tracked, demonstrating changes in advisor
behavior, if not individually, as a group. To gauge the overall effectiveness of advising efforts,
metrics such as course withdrawals, retention rates, persistence to graduation, and GPAs can be
tracked. At Dominguez Hills, one arm of the intrusive advising initiative was focused on seniors
who had less than 6 or 9 credits remaining to graduate, and advising them appropriately into
courses that could be taken (at CSUDH’s cost) into summer courses helped attain early successes
in the retention and graduation numbers.
Scale from an Existing Program
A discovered asset at CSU Dominguez Hills was their ability to scale an existing student
support program to serve all first-year students. As discussed in the previous chapter, CSUDH
expanded EOP services to other first-year students meeting similar criteria of financial need and
academic under-preparedness using $2 million of their own budget in the ETE program, and then
expanded that to also include the few remaining first-year students (22%) who not served by
EOP or ETE into the Accelerate program, which serves college-ready, financially-stable
students; therefore, all of their first-year students have access to student support programs under
the umbrella of their First-Year Experience (CSUDH, 2016).
The second proposed solution is to start with an existing program within your institution
which works well and expand it to serve more students. One benefit of starting with an existing
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
133
program is that there are very specific guidelines and established empirical approaches to
impacting students to consider. Another is that an institution will have already dealt with some
of the issues regarding how to make the program work within their organizational setting. A third
benefit is that it allows for more robust implementation planning. For institutions outside of the
CSU, another program with a broad history of impacting student success is the U.S. Department
of Education’s TRIO program. Beginning in the 1964 with Upward Bound, and adding the
Educational Talent Search and Student Support Services programs in 1965, these three programs
established what is now known as TRIO, which has expanded to a total of eight student support
programs throughout the country. By mandate, two-thirds of the students served must be low-
income and demonstrate financial need by Pell eligibility. Over a thousand institutions have
TRIO programs, which are awarded through a competitive grant process (COE, 2017).
Considerations that may affect which program you choose to adopt may include whether
the federal or state guidelines align well with institutional culture. In many cases, aligning to the
external program may in fact be worthwhile to removing unseen institutional barriers. Reporting
structure needs to also be considered, especially if there is a duplication of existing services, such
as advisement or tutoring. The institution would need to carefully discuss how to improve a
larger-scale system using the trainings and professional development provided by the program,
as there would likely be resistance and resentment from the personnel in the larger, institutional
program. Another consideration is expense. The EOP and TRIO programs mentioned before are
often considered expensive, which is why they need state and federal funding to support their
existence. Scaling would reduce the per-student expense, but financial forecasting would also
need to account for revenue increases from improved retention.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
134
Implementation Plan
Scaling from an existing program will first require identifying the program to begin with.
If the institution does not have a program like EOP or TRIO, then an internal inventory of
programs needs to be taken, because a specific program or school (like a business school or
education school) may have a strong student support system in place that can serve as a good
model. If no such program exists, research into an external program can be done. In any event,
after the program is identified, it needs to be fully understood. A team needs to be created to
plan the implementation of this expansion, and its members need to be comprised of leaders of
both the successful program and the program to be renovated or created (an example would be
the head of the counseling program, if academic advising is housed there). The leader of the
team would be the director of the new program. The team should also include those with
technical expertise from both programs, and maybe a day-to-day office manager type person. If
resources permit, the personnel from outside of the program should go to a program conference,
training or site visit to another institution. The next step would be to set up a pilot program, or
expand the existing program is some small way, that is still significant, such a creating a second
satellite office, or adopting a portion of the program instead of the entire thing. This gives time
for a change mentality to take place, but also to allow the existing structure time to grow and
adapt. There may need to be further incremental steps leading to full scale implementation, but
by the time scale is achieved, the program assessment and revision process should be established.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
135
Table 24
Proposed Timeline for Expanding an Existing Program
Action Step Responsible Person(s) Timeframe
Identify the program.
VPs of Academic & Student
Affairs
1-2 months
Create a team to plan
implementation, of leadership
and support personnel of the
target and expanded program.
VPs of Academic & Student
Affairs
2-3 months
Send non-program personnel
to a program training.
VPs of Academic & Student
Affairs
Within a Year
Set up a pilot program, or
expand existing program
some minor way.
VPs, Team Within six months of the
external training
Professional Development to
existing staff on the new
program and techniques.
VPs, Team Within a year of the external
training
Scale the program to include
all students.
VPs, Team Within three-four years
Assess and revise. VPs, Team On-going
Whatever program is chosen, the goal should be to provide services to all incoming
students. It is unclear if new staffing will be needed, or strengthened staffing and better training
and clarity in objectives. Planning for new personnel could be threatening to existing staff, but
existing staff may need to be retrained or moved around with new expectations. It is not
envisioned that a new organizational structure would be added, but again, there may need to be
alignment of functions from the “model” unit to the units undergoing transformation. There
would need to be funds expended on training, and there may need to be “new” administrator
positions, as the organizational alignment unfolds.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
136
Evaluation Plan
Taking a program such as the CSU’s EOP to scale, as CSUDH did, involves training
existing and new staff in student support activities, with the intended impact of improving
student retention and completion. This activity also would measure staff participants as well as
students.
Table 25
Evaluation Levels for Scaling an Existing Program
Reaction Learning Behavior Impact
Survey to program
staff
Survey to program
participants (adopt
style of current
reporting form)
Compare
assessments from
program
interventions against
non-interventions.
Focus group
conversation with
pilot group
participants
Exit survey or
interviews provide
evidence of help-
seeking behavior
Less course
withdrawals
Improved retention
Decreased time to
graduation
Improved GPAs
At the reaction level, surveys would be used. The results would be compared between
existing staff members and newer staff in the program. EOP and TRIO have valid, reliable
instruments for offering participants that can also be used to gauge reaction, as well as learning.
Other methods of gauging learning would include comparing the student learning assessment
results in certain gateway courses between students who are participating and those who are not.
Certainly, in the piloting phase, holding focus group conversations would reveal information
about participant learning (and reactions to the program). Changes in behavior or attitude could
be measured at a pre-/post-survey or an exit interview from the program. Impacts can be
measured by comparing course withdrawal, retention, time to completion, and GPAs of
participants and non-participants. Across all levels of evaluation, there should be comparisons of
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
137
participants in the original program, participants in the local/expanded program, and non-
participating students.
Hire Additional Full-Time Faculty
At least in part, CSU Dominguez Hills could impact student success by the institutional
commitment to improving tenure density, by committing to increasing the number of full-time,
tenure-track positions. This was a discovered asset during data collection. The first goal in the
strategic plan was to improve “tenure density,” meaning full-time, tenure-track hires, based in
the research that the best student-teacher experiences were with full-time faculty (Hagan, 2014).
During a period of CSU budget constraints, this is remarkable. The institutional commitment
was evidenced by the fact that this was the first objective of the strategic plan, and almost all
academic administrators discussed improving tenure density in their interviews. This policy
recommendation is to prioritize hiring of full-time faculty positions, particularly in the courses
students will take in the first year of their college experience.
Implementation Plan
On the new hiring side, a goal needs to be set by the provost, by identifying the ideal
needs for faculty/student ratios, and comparative data from peer institutions, to start to build a
compelling case. Another aspect of building that compelling case for additional faculty is to
create a cost-benefit analysis of students served, especially if there can be favorable projections
for increased retention improving the bottom line. These arguments will be necessary as the new
faculty positions are proposed in the budget.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
138
Table 26
Proposed Timeline for Hiring Additional Faculty
Action Responsible Person(s) Timeframe
Set A Goal for increased
number of faculty.
President, other VPs (First semester.)
Create a cost-benefit analysis
of students served.
President, other VPs (First semester.)
Consider space and admin
support needs for new faculty.
President, other VPs (First semester.)
Propose new faculty positions
in the budget.
President, other VPs At next budget cycle
Establish new positions. President, other VPs At commencement of fiscal
year
Assess and revise. President, other VPs Each Budget cycle
New faculty will be needed. It is conceivable that re-prioritization needs to be
considered. Key stakeholders to implementation include the president, VP of academic affairs, a
ranking member of the faculty, VP finance, budget office, deans, and associate deans. No new
structures needed, but if a faculty development center is created, it needs to be determined to
whom the center reports. Faculty lines are costly. This is an enormous consideration.
Evaluation Plan
While adding additional faculty could seem to not to require evaluation further than
tracking impact numbers, there can be some illuminating information to be gleaned from
considering student reactions and behaviors related to having the additional courses. As noted in
Table 27, there are no evaluation activities proposed at the learning level, beyond the
assessments used in the courses.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
139
Table 27
Evaluation Levels of Adding Additional Faculty
Reaction Learning Behavior Impact
In student survey,
check for
responses related
to course
availability.
Check student
evaluations to see
if averages scores
improve.
No evaluation
proposed at this
level.
More students
enroll in First-
Year Seminars,
English, and math
courses in their
first semester.
More students
complete First-
Year Seminars
Increased
completion rates
of developmental
English and math
courses
Increased
completion rates
of college-level
English and math
courses
At the reaction level, students can be surveyed to see how they feel about course
availability and scheduling options. This may be part of an ongoing, systematized survey offered
through the registration office. Also, student evaluations of courses could be reviewed, to see if
the overall reactions (or reactions among selected criteria) improve with having more sections.
A behavior change that can be tracked would be higher enrollments in the first year and gateway
courses, or at an earlier point in their academic careers, with the impact being increased
completion of these courses, and overall decrease in time to completion, contributing to
improved retention and graduation rates.
Faculty Development Focused on Student Engagement
Another example of commitment to faculty was the extensive faculty development
opportunities. This was a validated asset at DH. Paxton and colleagues (2013) created a report
making recommendations to improve student success at CSUDH. They recommended faculty
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
140
learning communities be created among three themes: research, HIP, and course development
and assessment.
The Fall 2016 opportunities in the faculty development center included sessions among
themes of pedagogy, technology, blackboard support, and research productivity, amongst a
variety of methods, including online presentations, lectures, brown bag lunches, an ongoing write
day Fridays event, and two faculty learning communities, for effective online teaching and
journal article writing (Paxton, 2016).
Implementation Plan
On the faculty development side, the institution should ideally pursue two types of needs
assessment, a self-assessment survey administered to faculty and an external consultant’s
assessment of gaps in faculty training. With the assessments in mind, the institution should
immediately begin providing faculty development, with an experimental / pilot mentality, as
planning for a more systematic approach is developed. In this plan, physical pace needs and
administrative support needs should be considered. As more faculty are trained, the program
should be assessed and revised.
Table 28
Proposed Timeline for Faculty Development
Action Step Responsible Person(s) Timeframe
Establish a faculty
development program.
Conduct needs assessment
from the faculty.
VP of Academic Affairs, or
someone responsible for
Faculty Affairs
Within a year.
Have a consultant recommend
development based on
institutional goals.
VP of Academic Affairs, or
someone responsible for
Faculty Affairs
Within a year.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
141
Table 28, continued
Begin providing faculty
development, with an
experimental/pilot mentality.
VP of Academic Affairs, or
someone responsible for
Faculty Affairs
In Second Year.
Consider space and admin
support needs for
development program.
VP of Academic Affairs, or
someone responsible for
Faculty Affairs
In Second year.
Train more faculty.
VP of Academic Affairs, or
someone responsible for
Faculty Affairs
In Third Year.
Move from an experimental
model to a model
institutionalized model.
VP of Academic Affairs, or
someone responsible for
Faculty Affairs
In fourth year.
Assess and revise. VP of Academic Affairs, or
someone responsible for
Faculty Affairs
On-going
A professional development director may need to be added. If so, it would be best if this was a
faculty appointment. Key stakeholders to implementation include the president, VP of academic
affairs, a ranking member of the faculty, VP finance, budget office, deans, and associate deans.
No new organizational structures would be needed, but it needs to be determined to whom the
center reports. Professional development is usually under-funded, but initiatives to require
professional development opportunities in grant proposals or college budgets may be helpful.
Evaluation Plan
Evaluation activities related to improved faculty development, would focus on the faculty
participants, until the impact level, which would measure students.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
142
Table 29
Evaluation Levels for Faculty Development
Reaction Learning Behavior Impact
Faculty responses on
feedback forms
Faculty survey for
needs analysis
Review syllabi for
mention of improved
technologies
Review student
evaluations for
evidence of
improvement
Improved retention
of students from
faculty who have
been developed.
At the reaction level, faculty feedback would be tracked on forms to be completed at the
trainings, during informal conversations with the faculty development coordinator, and perhaps
in follow-up conversations with department chairs or associate deans. A faculty survey for needs
analysis could be used not only to inform the faculty development program what directions to
provide training, but could also be used to gauge faculty learning, by requests for more specific
trainings, or second or third levels of certain topics. An administrative way of evaluating
improved faculty development would be reviewing syllabi for mention of key strategies or
technologies. Student evaluations could be reviewed for participation instructors, to look for
improved overall scores, among key indicators, or for increased mention of strategies and
technologies. The impact measures would be the same for the other initiatives, improved
completion of the courses, retention of students, and graduation rates, with GPA as a more
immediate gauge.
Transform Learning Spaces
Related to supporting students and faculty together, this policy recommendation is to
transform learning spaces. Dominguez Hills chose to create four advanced technology
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
143
classrooms, a validated asset in terms of this study, as well as to renovate the library to include a
coffee shop and lounge area on the first floor, and tutoring spaces.
More than simply creating a high-tech classroom or buying new furniture, this
recommendation is to intentionally design learning spaces that are more interactive than the
traditional lectern and chairs in rows. Clusters of seats, dry-erase boards, and moveable,
comfortable seating are just as advantageous as a new flat-screen TV to replace the projector and
screen, so that the videos look nicer. Considerations for how to approach this recommendation
need to involve faculty in the design and include experts in technology and instructional design.
Implementation Plan
Transforming learning environments also involves significant faculty development and a
need for faculty buy-in. At least some of the CSUDH inspiration is drawn from the University of
Minnesota model, where they sent a team of eight DH faculty to the Midwestern campus to
observe. In addition to soliciting faculty expertise in these areas, faculty development needs to
be offered, and ways of motivating faculty resistance need to be built into the plan.
Table 30
Proposed Timelines for Transforming Learning Spaces
Action Responsible Person(s) Timeframe
Set a target and overall
budget amount.
President, VPs of Academic
and Student Affairs,
1-2 months
Determine strategic
environments for most
impact.
President, CIO, VPs of
Academic and Student
Affairs, VP Finance, CIP
officer
2-3 months
Create a plan; involve faculty. Above, plus committee 4-8 months
Transform at least one
environment.
CIP, CIO, Appropriate Dean
or Director
6-12 months
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
144
Table 30, continued
Create buy-in before wider
implementation; involve more
faculty.
Committee 6-18 months
Inquire about professional
development needed.
Committee 6-8 months, ongoing
Enact Transformation plan. President, VPs, Deans 12-24 months
Assess and revise. Committee ongoing
First, the institution should set a target # of spaces to transform and an overall budget
amount. This will allow the committee working on the plan to understand the scope and
resources the institution is willing to commit, and strategically determine which spaces or
environments will have the greatest impact. For example, it is conceivable that renovating a
dozen classrooms from English and math may be more cost effective and have more of an impact
than renovating the library. Again, the team developing the plan needs to include multiple
expertise and faculty, including support services and library faculty or administrators. As part of
the buy-in process, there should be at least one environment transformed quickly or early on.
This allows the institution to show its commitment, and provides a showcase space, where
faculty development can also happen. It might be wise to create more buy-in before proceeding,
and involving more faculty consultation at this point, and to use this opportunity to inquire about
professional development needed for interactive teaching and educational technology. The plan
should be enacted, assessed, and revised according to ongoing developments.
Key stakeholders responsible for implementation would include IT professionals,
Contractors for improvements, Short-term experts to train faculty and other users in the
technology. Key stakeholders responsible for oversight and guidance would include IT
professionals, instructional designers, faculty involvement, plant & facilities, deans and, most
importantly, the CIO, VP of IT, or equivalent. Whoever oversees physical master plan or capital
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
145
improvements needs to be consulted. No new organizational structure is needed, but it should be
considered which office has the responsibility for the initiative, to balance between being too
technical oriented in nature versus uninformed about technology. A substantial initial
investment, to start the initiative may be needed from an executive. Existing IT and CIP funds
should be examined to align with new priorities.
Evaluation Plan
The evaluation of enhanced learning environments would focus on both faculty and
students, because each group experiences the learning environment, but in different ways.
Table 31
Evaluation Levels of Enhanced Learning Environments
Reaction Learning Behavior Impact
Compare student
evaluations in
classrooms with and
without new
technology
Survey faculty who
teach in the new
classrooms.
Compare
assessments and
common assignments
of students in new
spaces.
Survey faculty about
use of interactive
learning techniques.
Focus group
conversations with
faculty about using
interactive learning
techniques.
Compare retention
rates of students who
have taken courses in
the spaces versus
those have not.
At the reaction level, student evaluations could again be reviewed, looking at certain
indicators or general comments, comparing students in enhanced learning classrooms versus
those enrolled in the same courses who are not in the classrooms. Faculty and students could be
surveys. At the learning level, there could be a sample of assessments and common assignments,
to see if there is generally more learning occurring, and specifically, check technology and
information literacy learning objectives. Surveys and focus groups of the faculty would gauge
changed behaviors / pedagogies. Of course, measuring the intended impacts of course
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
146
completion, retention, and persistence to graduations is consistent throughout this evaluation
plan.
Establish a Student Success Fee
Each of the preceding recommendations has financial implications. In the current climate
of higher education, resources are being constrained, not expanded. Many of the initiatives
referenced above are under-funded based on pragmatic needs for funding elsewhere. Therefore,
some institutions, including almost all the CSU campuses, are instituting a student success fee.
This fee is similar to computing fees or athletics fees. Whether individual students use the
services, all students contribute for their maintenance. Another discovered asset was partial
funding for these initiatives by using a student success fee (CSU, 2015).
Considerations about adopting this type of fee would include the institutional process for
establishing such fees, the fee structures for other activities, and the cost of tuition. An
institution would have to consider the merits and timing of introducing a student success fee
versus raising tuition or raising existing student fees. A problem with either of those approaches
is that there is no safeguard against the funds being diverted to the same higher priority needs
that cause student success and support activities to be under-funded now while a student success
fee would provide a restricted funds account for supporting activities.
Implementation Plan
In many ways, establishing a student success fee is the most straight-forward
recommendation to plan for, but has the most potential for political fallout, especially outside the
institution, because it asks students to pay for services that they should arguably should already
be receiving—or the counter argument that if they need these services, they shouldn’t be in
college in the first place.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
147
The first step is to develop the budget proposal, using existing models and identifying a
wish list of new or expanded services. The next step is to engage in the consultative process for
enacting a fee, which differs from institution to institution, but at the very least student and
faculty representatives need to be engage in both steps. After approval is given, establish the fee,
assess, and revise.
Table 32
Proposed Timeline for Establishing a Student Success Fee
Action Responsible Person(s) Timeframe
Find existing models.
VPs of Academic Affairs,
Student Affairs, and Finance
1-2 months.
Identify ideal program desires
and create wish list.
VPs of Academic Affairs,
Student Affairs, and Finance
1-3 months.
Create a budget proposal;
involve students or student
government, and at least one
faculty representative.
VPs of Academic Affairs,
Student Affairs, and Finance
2-4 months.
Engage in consultative
process for enacting a fee.
VPs of Academic Affairs,
Student Affairs, and Finance
3-6 months
Establish. VPs of Academic Affairs,
Student Affairs, and Finance
6-9 months
Assess and revise. VP or Dean who controls the
fees
12 months; On-going
Little to no additional human resources are needed for this initiative, and policy
development can occur at the highest levels. Existing account managers will be able to manage
account set-up and tracking. Depending on the amount of funds available, an additional
bookkeeper may be needed or additional administrative staff within a unit. Key stakeholders are
the president, VP of academic affairs, dean or VP of student affairs, and VP of finance. No new
organizational structure would be needed, and funds would likely be housed in the student affairs
portfolio. This new fee can fund some of the initiatives mentioned before.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
148
Evaluation Plan
There is no recommended evaluation plan for establishing a student success fee because
the evaluation will occur within the programs funded by the fee.
Future Research
There are several follow-up studies that can be conducted related to this initial case study.
Targeted studies using the Clarkes and Estes (2008) gap analysis into the advising initiative or
DHFYE program could be very illuminating, with examinations from multiple stakeholder
groups, particularly students and faculty, to yield insights into improving these programs.
Another avenue for further research would be measuring which initiatives have the greatest
impact on student success. The former provost had begun just that work before she moved on, in
partnership with a researcher from University of California, Santa Barbara to utilize “Structural
Equation Modeling (SEM) to model return on investment (ROI) for different types of
interventions and HIPs” (Junn, 2016). A third avenue could be to implement one of the
transferrable practices discussed in this chapter, and track its success using the ideas presented in
the implementation and evaluation components. Finally, an alternate analysis of the Dominguez
Hills case study could be devised, using the NSSE Drivers as the conceptual framework.
Conclusion
This study examined 23 assumed assets into the improved student success at CSUDH. It
was found that 20 of them were validated, and nine more emerged as discovered assets. Three of
the assumed assets and three of the emerged assets were recommended as transferrable to other
institutions, that could be adopted without massive systems change or needing the strong external
pressures and supports offered by the California State University system.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
149
As evidenced by the strong increase in graduation rates, Dominguez Hills is doing
something right. With almost textbook precision, the administration is employing nearly every
recommendation of the major, national academic organizations. In a sense, they are doing
everything right. These efforts are being funded by external sources, internal prioritizations, and
additional fees levied on the students.
In a small number of interviews, though, there were reservations that expressed the
expenses were not sustainable.
So, I would say, when you look at the budget, there's been funds that have been
allocated, and I don't know if they've been allocated at a sustainable level, because
we are currently—all 23 Cal States—underfunded, and when we look at this, our
tenure density is so incredibly low, that our budget really needs to focus on so
much.
Additionally, In the advising task force report, attention is drawn to the both the
opportunity presented by increasing value being placed on the personal attainment of a
bachelor’s degree and the threat posed by the increasing perception that college education is a
private good, not a public good. All institutions of higher education, especially public
institutions, most especially minority-serving institutions, need to advocate more strongly about
the public benefits of higher education, using the “Greater Good” guidance of McMahon (2009)
to underscore their arguments.
If, however, an institution can find and sustain the funds, there are numerous successful
examples to follow at CSUDH, to improve undergraduate completion rates.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
150
References
American Association of Colleges & Universities. (2015). LEAP Challenge.
American Association of Colleges & Universities. (2017). Liberal Education America’s
Promise. Retrieved from aacu.org.
Anderson, L. & Krathwohl, D., ed. A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision
of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37,
122-147.
Bolman, L. & Deal, T. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bound, J., Lovenheim, M., & Turner, S. (2009, Dec.). Why have college completion rates
declined? An analysis of changing student preparation and collegiate resources.
National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 15566.
Braxton, J.M.; Doyle, W.R.; Hartley, H.V.; Hirschy, A.S.; Jones, W.A.; & McLendon, M.K.
(2014). Rethinking college student retention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Browning, P. (Feb. 4, 2016). CSUDH President Willie J. Hagan inducted into L.A. Hall of
Fame during African American Heritage Month celebration. CSUDH News website.
http://www.csudhnews.com/2016/02/hall-of-fame-award/
Carey, K. (January 2005). One step from the finish line: Higher college graduation rates are
within our reach. Washington, DC: The Education Trust.
California State University. (2017). Educational Opportunity Program. Retrieved from
http://www.csumentor.edu/planning/eop/.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
151
California State University, Dominguez Hills. (2016). 2025 Graduation Initiative Student
Success Plan.
California State University, Dominguez Hills. (2016). insideCSUDH, Preparing Students for
Success.
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (2016). Cuts to California’s Higher Education System
Jeopardize Our Economic Future. Retrieved from cbpp.org.
Council for Opportunity in Education. (2017). TRIO. Retrieved from
http://www.coenet.org/trio.shtml
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Dweck, C.S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Ballentine Books.
Hagan, W. (Dec. 2014.) Defining the Future: 2014-2020 University Strategic Plan. Retrieved
from http://www4.csudh.edu/president/strategic-planning/index
de Vise, D. (Sept. 13, 2011). U.S. falls in global ranking of young adults who finish college.
The Washington Post.
Driscoll, B. & Oliverez, P. (Feb. 5, 2016). When two worlds collide: a robust academic
affairs/student affairs partnership to support student success. AASCU winter meeting,
Austin, TX.
Eccles, J.S., Adler, T.F., Futterman, R., Goff, S.B., Kaczala, C.M., Meece, J.L., & Midgley, C.
(1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J.T. Spence (Ed.),
Achievement and achievement motivation (pp. 75-146). San Francisco: W.H. Freeman
Engle, J. and Lynch, M. (December 2009). Charting a necessary path: the baseline report of
the access to success initiative. NASH. The Education Trust.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
152
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational
Psychologist, 36(1), 45-56.
Habley, W.R., Bloom, J.L., & Robbins, S. (2012). Increasing persistence: Research-based
strategies for college student success. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment. (2017.) Academic Program Review Procedures.
Retrieved from csudh.edu.
Junn, E., Franklin, W., & Kaul, G. (Feb. 6, 2016). Re-inventing the first year experience from
the inside out: intentionally integrating high impact practices in a joint partnership with
academic affairs and student affairs. AASCU winter meeting, Austin, TX.
Kinzie, J. (Nov. 2, 2016.) Student Success in Colleges & Universities: Advancing know-what
and know-how. 12
th
Annual National Symposium on Student Retention. Keynote
address.
Kirkpatrick, D. & Kirkpatrick, J. (2006). Evaluating Training Programs: The Four
Levels (3
rd
Edition). San Francisco, CA: Brett Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Kuh, G., Kinzie, J, Schuh, J., and Whitt, E. (2010). Student success in college: Creating
conditions that matter. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2006, July). What matters
to student success: A review of the literature. In Commissioned report for the national
symposium on postsecondary student success: Spearheading a dialog on student success.
Kuh, G.D. (2008). High-Impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them,
and why they matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and
Universities.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
153
Lumina Foundation. (Feb. 3, 2013). Strategic plan 2013-2016. Indianapolis, IN: Lumina
Foundation.
Lumina Foundation. (October 2014). Degree Qualification Profile. Indianapolis, IN: Lumina
Foundation.
Keyantash, J., Paxton, K., et al. (2013). Encounter with Student Success Scholarship Committee
Report.
Maki, P., ed. (2010). Coming to terms with student outcomes assessment: Faculty and
administrators’ journeys to integrating assessment in their work and institutional culture.
Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McMahon, W. (2009.) Higher Learning, Greater Good: The private and social benefits of
higher education.
McLaughlin, G., et al., ed. (2016.) Building Bridges for Student Success: A sourcebook for
colleges and universities. University of Oklahoma: The Consortuim for Student
Retention Data Exchange.
National Center for Education Statistics. (Jul. 2017). IPEDS Data for California State
University-Dominguez Hills, Academic Year 2014-15. Washington, DC.
National Commission on Higher Education Attainment. (2013). An open letter to college and
university leaders: College completion must be our priority. Washington, DC: American
Council on Education.
Newton, F.B. & Ender, S.C. (2010). Students helping students: A guide for peer educators on
college campuses, 2
nd
edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
154
Obama, B. (2009, July). Remarks by the President on the American Graduation Initiative,
Macomb Community College, Warren Michigan, July 14, 2009. The White House, Office
of the Press Secretary, http://www.whitehouse. gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-
President-on-the-American-Graduation-Initiative-in-Warren-MI.
OECD (2015), Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2015-en
Pacarella, E.T. & Terenzini, P.T. (1991). How College Affects Students: Findings and Insights
from Twenty Years of Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pacarella, E.T. & Terenzini, P.T. (2005). How College Affects Students: A Third Decade of
Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pintrich, P. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In Boekaerts,
Monique (Ed); Pintrich, Paul R. (Ed); Zeidner, Moshe (Ed), (2000). Handbook of self-
regulation, (pp. 451-502). San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press.
Quaye, J. & Harper, S., ed. (2015). Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical
perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations, 2
nd
edition. New York:
Routledge.
Reese, P. (Feb. 10, 2016). Which California colleges tend to graduate students in four years?
Sacramento Bee Data Tracker.
Reyna, R. June 2010. Complete to compete: Common college completion metrics. National
Governors Association Center for Best Practices.
Rueda, R. (2011). The three dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. New York: Teacher’s College Press, Columbia
University.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
155
Schuh, J. (2009). Assessment methods for student affairs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Seidman, A., ed. (2012). College student retention, 2
nd
ed. New York: Rowman & Littlefield,
published in participation with the American Council on Education.
Strayhorn, T. (2012). College students’ sense of belonging: A key to educational success for all
students. New York: Routledge.
Tinto, V. (2012). Completing college: Rethinking institutional action. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition, 2
nd
edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Upcraft, M.L., Gardner, J.N., Barefoot, B.O. (2005). Challenging and supporting the first-year
student: A handbook for improving the first year of college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
U.S. Department of Education. (accessed July 24, 2016). College Scorecard. Retrieved from
https://collegescorecard.ed.gov.
Weber, C., et al. (June 17, 2014). Report of the Task Force To Seek Best Practices and
Improved Outcomes from Advising.
White, T. (September 9, 2016.) California State University Graduation Initiative 2025: CSU
system and campus completion goals and plans, Draft Report.
Williams, G.L. (2010). The campus history series: California State University, Dominguez
Hills. San Fransisco: Arcadia Publishing.
Yeager, D.S. (Feb. 6, 2016). The Psychology of College Persistence. AASCU winter meeting,
Austin, TX.
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
156
Appendix A
Interview Protocol
Background Questions
For the recording, you would please state your name and title?
How long have you been …
_______ in your present position?
_______ at this institution?
_______ with the CSU system?
Briefly describe your role as it relates to student success or retention initiatives.
Inquiry Questions
(1) What aspects of the student success initiative have yielded the greatest results? (O)
Probing Questions:
• Have student success programs been made an on-going, part of the budget? Are
financial and moral support provided for specific programs? (O)
• How much time has been allowed time for initiatives to succeed? (O)
• Are student paraprofessionals used in peer mentorship or advising positions? As
teaching assistants? (O)
(2) In what ways has fostering synergies between academic affairs and student affairs
contributed to improved retention and graduation rates? (M)
Probing Questions:
• In what ways has the university cultivated the skillsets of key personnel to support
student success? (O)
• Are the policies and practices in place to support students complementary? Do
they support students academically and socially? (O)
• In what ways are the development of talent, academic achievement, and respect
for human differences valued? (O)
(3) How does the university encourage and/or incentivize faculty to support and
contribute to student success practices? (M)
Probing Questions:
• Have informal, low-stakes conversations about proposed changes been held? (M)
• Have faculty learning communities been created? (M)
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
157
• Do administrators know how to create long-term investment in faculty
development? (K)
• How are instructors encouraged to set and hold students to high standards, inside
and outside the classroom? (M)
• In what ways are substantive, educationally meaningful student-faculty
interactions expected, nurtured, and supported? (O)
(4) How does the administration support knowledge growth and empower faculty
leadership related to HIPs? (M)
Probing Questions:
• Are support grants available for HIP development? (M)
• To what degree do administrators understand High-Impact Practices? (K)
• What is being done to make faculty, staff and students feel more confident and
comfortable with HIP activities and how they relate to the current practices? (M)
(5) In what ways has fostering synergies between academic affairs and student affairs
contributed to improved retention and graduation rates? (K)
Probing Questions:
• Please describe the process for designing and implementing curricular
improvements that enhance student learning. (K)
• Summarize how to align courses patterns and intensity of course-taking. (K)
• Has the institution identified blockage points, or bottleneck courses, in the
curriculum? Identified momentum points or milestones? (K)
• How are curricular and non-curricular student support activities assessed? (O)
(6) What specific strategies does the university utilize to support under-represented
students? (K)
(7) What specific challenges do first-generation students face and how do you address
those barriers? (K)
(8) What role does supplemental instruction play in your student success initiatives,
and how is it implemented? (K)
(9) In what ways has change become a part of campus culture? (O)
(10) What unexpected developments may have occurred during the implementation of
the student success initiatives?
(11) Can you describe anything that may not have worked?
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
158
Appendix B
CSUDH IRB Approval
IMPROVED STUDENT SUCCESS AT CSUDH
159
Appendix C
KMO & NSSE Combined Matrix
DRIVER ASSUMED INFLUENCE KNOWLEDGE MOTIVATION ORGANIZATION DOCUMENT
16-Mar
Development of a comprehensive,
integrated approach to student success Integration into Program Review
In what ways has fostering synergies between academic affairs
and student affairs contributed to improved retention and
graduation rates?
How much time has been allowed time for initiatives to succeed?
Have student success programs been made an on-going, part of
the budget? Are financial and moral support provided for
specific programs? Encounter with Student Success Scholarship Committee Report
Synergy between Academic and Student Affairs
How are curricular and non-curricular student support activities
assessed?
CSUDH 2025 Graduation Initiative Student Success Plan
In what ways are substantive, educationally meaningful student-
faculty interactions expected, nurtured, and supported?
23-Mar
Implementation of literature-informed,
empirically-based approaches High Impact Practices
Do administrators know how to create long-term investment in
faculty development?
How are instructors encouraged to set and hold students to high
standards, inside and outside the classroom?
CSUDH Report of the Task Force To Seek Best Practices and
Improved Outcomes from Advising
Dream Seminars
To what degree do administrators understand High-Impact
Practices?
What is being done to make faculty, staff and students feel more
confident and comfortable with HIP activities and how they
relate to the current practices? Student Advising Learning Outcomes
First Year Experiences
GE Accelerate
Global Learning
Summer Bridge
Undergrad Research
Writing Intensive Courses
30-Mar
Enactment of cultural system of student
success Advising Task Force Report
CSU 2016 Student Success Symposium program
2014-2020 University Strategic Plan
6-Apr
Application of clear pathways for
student learning and success AVP of Advising / Advising Initiatives
Please describe the process for designing and implementing
curricular improvements that enhance student learning.
Are the policies and practices in place to support students
complementary? Do they support students academically and
socially?
DHFYE flyer
Summarize how to align courses patterns and intensity of course-
taking.
In what ways are the development of talent, academic
achievement, and respect for human differences valued? insideCSUDH: Preparing Students for Success
Has the institution identified blockage points, or bottleneck
courses, in the curriculum? Identified momentum points or
milestones? insideCSUDH: Students Starting Strong
What role does supplemental instruction play in your student
success initiatives, and how is it implemented?
13-Apr
Enactment of a student success mindset
HIPs Symposium
What specific strategies does the university utilize to support
under-represented students?
Are student paraprofessionals used in peer mentorship or
advising positions? As teaching assistants?
Faculty Development Center Fall 2016 Opportunities
Department HIPs Grants
What specific challenges do first generation students face and
how do you address those barriers?
Have informal, low-stakes conversations about proposed changes
been held?
Student Affairs – Fall 2016 Report (PPT)
Faculty Learning Communities
In what ways has fostering synergies between academic affairs
and student affairs contributed to improved retention and
graduation rates?
In what ways has change become a part of campus culture?
How does the university encourage and/or incentivize faculty to
support and contribute to student success practices?
How does the administration support knowledge growth and
empower faculty leadership related to HIPs?
Are support grants available for HIP development?
Have faculty learning communities been created?
In what ways has the university cultivated the skillsets of key
personnel to support student success?
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This case study of California State University, Dominguez Hills, examined the institution’s efforts to improve the six-year completion rates of undergraduate students over 25% in a four-year time frame. The purpose of the study was to uncover knowledge, motivation, and organization assets employed by the institution that contributed to this improvement. A qualitative approach of interviews, document analysis, and campus observations was utilized. The conceptual framework was the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis. Fourteen administrators participated in the study and four major documents were reviewed. Findings validated 20 of 23 assumed assets, and discovered nine more assets. Key assets were implementation of high-impact practices, a robust first-year experience program, an ambitious advising initiative, and multiple approaches to faculty development. Discovered assets included a strong institutional commitment to student success in terms of budgetary resources, pursuit of grant funding, and effective hiring practices. Recommendations of transferable practices to other institutions include implementation and evaluation plans for improved advisement and faculty engagement as well as transforming learning spaces and establishing a student success fee.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Faculty internationalization at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST): a promising practice study
PDF
Advancing Black identity and culture in predominantly White colleges and universities: a promising practice study
PDF
Increasing the number of petroleum engineering students in the United Arab Emirates: an improvement model
PDF
Attracting and retaining talent: improving the impact of workplace mentorship
PDF
Linking shared governance and strategic planning processes: an innovation study
PDF
Advancing retention strategies at a historically Black university
PDF
Closing the achievement gap for marginalized students using the college-going culture: a promising practices study
PDF
First-generation college students: perceptions, access, and participation at urban university
PDF
Building national capacity in student affairs at a local university in Qatar: A gap analysis
PDF
Supporting administrators in successful online co-curriculum development: a promising practices study of contributing factors
PDF
The importance of being a global citizen: creating and implementing a global curriculum for the Cutting Edge Youth Summit
PDF
Coaching to increase retention in online degree completion programs
PDF
Teaching quality in Zhejiang University of Technology
PDF
The Bridge Program and underrepresented Latino students: an evaluation study
PDF
Systemic multilayered assessment of global awareness in undergraduate students: an innovation study
PDF
Creativity and innovation in undergraduate education: an innovation study
PDF
Senior university officials' approaches to global engagement: a case study of a private and a public research university
PDF
Examining liberal arts colleges achievement of student learning outcomes for a global perspective: an innovation gap analysis study
PDF
Creating a community of practice: serving student veterans in higher education
PDF
Increasing international student application and enrollment to a branch campus
Asset Metadata
Creator
McVey, Troy
(author)
Core Title
Improved student success at California State University, Dominguez Hills: a promising practice study
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Global Executive
Publication Date
08/01/2017
Defense Date
08/01/2017
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
completion,first-generation student,gap analysis,high-impact practices,intrusive advising,OAI-PMH Harvest,retention,underserved student
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Robison, Mark Power (
committee chair
), Tambascia, Tracy (
committee member
), Underwood, Robert A. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
tmcvey@triton.uog.edu,troy_mcvey@hotmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-421346
Unique identifier
UC11265172
Identifier
etd-McVeyTroy-5667.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-421346 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-McVeyTroy-5667.pdf
Dmrecord
421346
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
McVey, Troy
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
completion
first-generation student
gap analysis
high-impact practices
intrusive advising
retention
underserved student