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
/
Bridging the gap: a formative evaluation of the productivity-based funding model’s support for academically underserved students
(USC Thesis Other)
Bridging the gap: a formative evaluation of the productivity-based funding model’s support for academically underserved students
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Bridging the Gap: A Formative Evaluation of the Productivity-Based Funding Model ’s Support
for Academically Underserved Students
by
Christopher D. Smith
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
December 2019
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To my Creator and provider of strength and faith:
Thank you for affording me the opportunity to pursue and complete this journey as a
doctoral candidate working as champion for academically underserved students. I am confident
that with you, all things are possible.
To my highly esteemed committee chair, Dr. Kathy Stowe:
Thank you for believing in my study and assuring me that I was on the path to
completion. I am truly appreciate how you challenged me to immerse myself in this study and
tell a most convincing narrative. May you continue educating and guiding distinguished scholars
as they cross paths with you.
To my committee members, Drs. Eugenia Mora-Flores and Lawrence Picus:
Thank you for agreeing to serve on my committee. Your experience and vast knowledge
are well respected and appreciated. I am truly grateful for your input and belief in my study.
To Dr. Eric Canny:
Thank you for the many revisions and challenging me as a researcher. May you continue
providing thoughtful insight to others who pursue this revered degree.
To my students past, present, and future:
Thank you for allowing me to serve as your advocate. In spite of all obstacles, be
confident in yourselves. I vow to continue to serve you and I ask that you do the same for others.
To my dear family, friends, and USC OCL Cohort 8:
Thank you for all you have done for me. You are truly a part of my journey and for that, I
am grateful. Fight on!
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................. i
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................v
Introduction to the Problem of Practice ...........................................................................................1
Organizational Context and Mission ...............................................................................................2
Importance of the Evaluation ...........................................................................................................4
Purpose of the Study and Questions ................................................................................................4
Organizational Performance Goal....................................................................................................5
Stakeholder Group of Focus ............................................................................................................5
Review of the Literature ..................................................................................................................6
Overview of Productivity-Based Funding Model ......................................................................7
Analysis of Retention and Academically Underserved Students ..............................................9
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Influences ..................................................................10
Knowledge Influences .............................................................................................................10
Motivation Influences ..............................................................................................................14
Organization Influences ...........................................................................................................18
Research Questions ........................................................................................................................23
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................................24
Data Collection and Instrumentation .............................................................................................27
Interviews .................................................................................................................................28
Documents and Artifacts..........................................................................................................30
Findings..........................................................................................................................................30
Realignment With the Mission of the University of the Southern States ......................................31
Creating a Sense of Belonging .................................................................................................32
iii
Emphasis on Recognizing Academically Underserved Students ..................................................34
Identifying Academically Underserved Students ....................................................................34
The Importance of Policy Alignment ......................................................................................35
Validating the Importance of Retention .........................................................................................37
Value in Student Support Efforts .............................................................................................37
Creation of the University of the Southern States Retention Taskforce ..................................39
Finding Gaps in Student Success Efforts .................................................................................39
Impacting the Culture at the University .........................................................................................41
Buy-in Transforms Culture ......................................................................................................41
Summary ........................................................................................................................................43
Recommendations ..........................................................................................................................44
Knowledge Recommendations ................................................................................................45
Motivation Recommendations .................................................................................................50
Organization Recommendations ..............................................................................................54
Summary ........................................................................................................................................60
References ......................................................................................................................................62
Appendix A: Participating Stakeholders With Sampling Criteria for Interviews With
Participating Stakeholders .............................................................................................................72
Appendix B: Protocols ...................................................................................................................75
Appendix C: Credibility and Trustworthiness ...............................................................................78
Appendix D: Ethics ........................................................................................................................79
Appendix E: Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ......................................................81
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Class Progression Rates for Academically Underserved Students
With Reported ACT Scores .............................................................................................................3
Table 2. Higher Education Professional Participants ....................................................................28
Table 3. Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations ...........................................46
Table 4. Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations............................................51
Table 5. Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations ........................................56
Table 6. Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes...........................82
Table 7. Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation .................................84
Table 8. Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors ..............................................................85
Table 9. Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program...........................................89
Table 10. Components to Measure Reactions to the Program. ......................................................90
Table 11. University Professional Policy Implementation Accountability Report Card ...............93
Table 12. Admissions and Retention Policy Evaluation and Implementation
Training Workshop Evaluation Survey .........................................................................................94
Table 13. Admissions and Retention Policy Evaluation and Implementation
Program Evaluation .......................................................................................................................96
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Knowledge influences, types, and assessments for USS. ...............................................13
Figure 2. Motivational influences, types, and assessments for USS. ............................................17
Figure 3. Organizational influences, types, and assessments for USS. .........................................23
Figure 4. Conceptual framework: Knowledge, motivation, and organization influences
in a dm i n i s t ra t ors ’ implementation of the productivity funding model for USS. ...........................26
1
Introduction to the Problem of Practice
Bridging the Gap: A Formative Evaluation of the Productivity-Based Funding Model ’s
Support for Academically Underserved Students involves an assessment of the response by the
leaders of the University of the Southern States (USS; actual name disguised to conceal the
identity of the university) regarding the new productivity-based funding model in Arkansas. This
study includes an introduction of the problem of practice, the organizational context and mission,
and the importance and purpose of this work. Next are the definitions of the goals for the
organization and stakeholders, followed by a review of the supportive literature of productivity-
based funding models and the analysis of retention and academically underserved students.
Following the literature review, the author considers in detail the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences of the stakeholders at the institution, and then provides the research
questions and conceptual framework along with the data collection methods. The manuscript
concludes with a presentation of the findings and recommendations for the problem of practice.
The new funding model features a more heightened sense of accountability for institutional
leaders at the USS to retain students with an emphasis on academically underserved students.
The USS has a low first-year rate of completion for academically underserved students.
The academically underserved students in this study earned institutionally recorded American
College Test (ACT) composite score ranging from 1 to 18 out of a possible 36. Due to an
increase in admission standards, academically underserved students did not receive full
admission to USS. As a result of the funding model ’s metric of the progression of these types of
students, the institution offered conditional admission instead. According to the institution ’s
records, the graduating class of 2017 had a fall-to-fall completion rate of 79.6% in 2013 and
2
24.9% in 2017 (Persistence Fall to Fall, 2017).1 The term progression rates in this study refers to
the fall-to-fall progression, or continuation from fall semester to fall semester, for academically
underserved students. According to the institutional statistics, USS must address its retention
efforts, which requires an examination of the organization ’s context and mission.
Organizational Context and Mission
The mission of the USS is to create impactful leaders through education in and out of the
classroom. Founded in 1919, USS transitioned from a 2-year institution into a 4-year university
offering more than 70 undergraduate and graduate degrees. According to the university ’s
website, the average incoming freshman ’s ACT score is 24.1 and the average incoming student ’s
grade point average is 3.27. USS has current enrollment of over 9,000 students.
The average USS student is academically successful without requiring significant
academic and social support to progress. However, academically underserved students often fail
to progress in comparison to their academic counterparts. Historically, academically underserved
students are first-generation college students who come from low-income families (Wolniak,
Flores, & Kemple, 2016). As mentioned, academically underserved students have an
institutionally recorded final high school grade point average of 3.0 or below and an ACT
composite score ranging from 1 to 18. ACT scores are the metric of focus in this study. At the
university, the average academically underserved student ’s ACT score is 16.1. Based upon their
low scores, these students must attend remedial courses in reading, composition, and
mathematics upon entering college and require more institutional support for class progression
(Chen, 2005). According to the university ’s institutional effectiveness office, the progression rate
for full-time, first-time (FTFT) freshman classes from fall 2014 through fall 2017 are as listed in
1 These data are from the or ga ni z a ti on’ s website; providing the actual URL would reveal the identity of the
organization.
3
Table 1. The progression rate for the 2017 FTFT academically underserved freshman class first
semester at USS is 100%. The progression rate for the 2016 FTFT academically underserved
freshman class started at 85.1% for the first year, but then fell to 57.3% in the second year. The
progression rate for the 2015 FTFT academically underserved freshman class from fall 2015 to
fall 2017 (i.e., their third year at the university) was 45.1%. The progression rate for the 2014
FTFT academically underserved freshman class also fell from 90.4% the first year to 32.1% for
the third year. Identifying the reasons for such low progression rates is necessary to define the
the efforts needed to close the performance gaps, based on the metrics of the productivity-based
funding model. Table 1 indicates the annual class progression statistics for academically
underserved students with reported ACT scores.
Table 1
Class Progression Rates for Academically Underserved Students With Reported ACT Scores
Number
ACT
composite
(avg.)
Retention
Cohort
beginning
freshmen
(N)
1st year
spring (%)
2nd year fall
(%)
3rd year fall
(%)
3rd year fall
(%)
Fall 2017 16 16.7 100.0 – – –
Fall 2016 46 16.6 85.1 57.3 – –
Fall 2015 48 15.8 93.2 59.4 45.1 –
Fall 2014 61 15.3 90.4 76.8 32.1 –
In Table 1, academically underserved students represent only 0.019% of the student
population. In addition, Table 1 shows the decreasing number of admitted academically
underserved students with their average reported ACT scores and evidence that their class
progression is needing attention from university professionals at USS. These facts indicate the
need for administrative attention to increase the annual class progression rates for academically
4
underserved students at USS. Moreover, the aforementioned data include just 0.019% of the
student population by focusing on those who meet the identifying criteria of an academically
underserved student with reported ACT scores. This group is a small sample; however, current
retention policies at USS may affect other student groups, as well. Table 1 indicates the
importance of implementing effective retention policies that range from addressing the financial
gap on student accounts to academic- and student support –related policies to address proper
academic advising, tutoring, cultural enrichment, and student development initiatives.
Importance of the Evaluation
Addressing the low progression rate for academically underserved students is vital for
USS to obtain state-appropriated funding. Although attending to low progression is significant,
identifying the causes for it is beneficial, as well. The new funding model makes it possible for
institutions to focus on improving student retention in innovative ways. The new model affirms
the significance of institutions aligning with the model ’s objectives. The productivity-based
funding model allows USS to prioritize degree completion, incorporate specific performance
metrics, and receive rewards for moderate success. According to a 2017 study, Arkansas is
ranked 47 out of 50 states whose graduates have earned a high school diploma, associate degree,
bachelor ’s degree, or graduate/professional degree (Bernardo, 2018). Public colleges and
universities, particularly USS, find it advantageous to maintain state funding by achieving the
programmatic measurements of the productivity funding model.
Purpose of the Study and Questions
This study covers an evaluation of the degree to which USS will achieve its goal of
increasing class progression rates for academically underserved students by 10% by August
5
2021. The study included specific questions to help university professionals complete their
organizational goals. The questions guiding this study were as follows:
1. To what extent is USS meeting its goal of increasing class progression rates for
academically underserved students by 10% by August 2021?
2. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational elements related to USS
achieving its organizational goal?
Organizational Performance Goal
By August 2021, USS intends to increase class progression rates for academically
underserved students by 10%. According to the university ’s institutional effectiveness office, the
current retention rate for its academically underserved FTFT students from fall 2014 to fall 2017
is 40%. In response, the organizational performance goal for USS aligns with meeting the
productivity-based funding model policy measures established by the Arkansas Department of
Higher Education in October 2017. Achieving the organizational performance goal will hold
stakeholders accountable and ensure the institution receives state funding. Equally important, the
organizational goal impacts the stakeholders of this study and their goals.
Stakeholder Group of Focus
By December 2019, the stakeholders at USS will implement policies to satisfy the state-
defined effectiveness measures of the productivity-based funding model to support academically
underserved students. The USS stakeholder focus group included 13 senior and midlevel
influential university administrators from the areas of finance, academics, and student support.
This group ’s relevance came from their respective positions within the university, their ability to
align current institutional policies to meet the metrics of the funding model, and their daily
academic and social interactions with students. These stakeholders also had rich, diverse
6
educational backgrounds and professional experience, which enhanced their perception of
student engagement and success (Dougherty & Reddy, 2013). As a result, each of these
stakeholders may have approached the cultural relevancy of the admission and retention policy
implementation differently. These attributes are significant because a lack of higher education
experience and higher education policy knowledge may reflect in the inability to fundamentally
change the perception of USS leadership.
Purposeful selection of stakeholders was to obtain a representative group of professionals
who influence institutional-based policies related to student support and retention. According to
Creswell (2014), the procedure of not randomly selecting individuals creates a quasiexperimental
design. Data came from 13 in-person qualitative interviews, document collections from meeting
updates, student-focused workshops, calendar of student activities and participation data, and
retention data from the university ’s institutional effectiveness office. Material gathered from this
sample group provided richly descriptive and reliable information regarding the needed
successes for academically underserved students (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Review of the Literature
Productivity-based funding in higher education has been in place for decades. In the early
2000s, productivity-based funding models received much attention, leading to a call for more
accountability from institutions of higher education and much discussion among legislators and
public policy professionals. This section includes a discussion of the impact university
professionals have to increase class progression for academically underserved students,
particularly with regard to statewide implementation of the productivity-based funding model.
Included here are analyses of productivity-based funding models as well as retention and
academically underserved students. The section concludes with an analysis of organizational
7
assessment through the gap analysis framework, examining the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences on university professionals ’ efforts to increase class progression for
academically underserved students.
Overview of Productivity-Based Funding Model
For decades, legislators and leaders have sought new ways to secure improved
performance from higher education institutions (Burke, 2005; Heller, 2011). The design of the
funding model must be such to the issue of low student progression rates at colleges and
universities. The cost of higher education has increased over previous decades. In addition,
higher education accountability has created numerous valid concerns pertaining to higher
education efficiency, effectiveness, productivity, and responsiveness to the public, state, and
market ’s demands, needs, and interests (Burke, 2005; McLendon, Hearn, & Deaton, 2006;
Weeden, 2015). Due to the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of higher education institutions,
various initiatives, policies, and programs emerged to examine specific aspects of higher
education and hold these institutions more accountable for their performance (Burke, 2005;
Lasher & Sullivan, 2005; McLendon et al., 2006; Schmidtein & Berdahl, 2011; Weeden, 2015).
Accountability programs have shifted over time, ranging from system efficiency and educational
quality, to organizational productivity and external responsiveness to public priorities or market
demands (Burke, 2005). As a result, higher education institutions have sought to improve their
performance and meet certain anticipated outcomes.
One of the efforts in meeting those outcomes was the adoption of performance
accountability (McLendon et al., 2006; Weeden, 2015). Policymakers continue to address the
performance efficiency and effectiveness of higher education institutions by enacting
performance-accountability models to increase efficiency, effectiveness, and productivity based
8
on a set of predetermined measures. Accordingly, higher education institutions are more
accountable for their performance on the specified indicators (Barr, 2002; Lasher & Sullivan,
2005; McLendon et al., 2006; Weeden, 2015). For nearly three decades, the three forms and
models of performance-accountability used were performance funding, performance reporting,
and performance budgeting (McLendon et al., 2006).
This study centered on an examination of performance funding, better known as
performance-based funding. According to the Arkansas Productivity Funding Model Policy,
productivity-based funding (i.e., performance-based funding) includes aligning institutional
funding with statewide priorities for higher education institutions by incentivizing progress
toward statewide goals (Productivity, 2017). According to the productivity funding model, state
funding ties directly to predetermined measures and metrics representing institutional outcomes
such as student retention rate, attainment of certain credit hours, student graduation rate, degree
completions, and job placement (Barr, 2002; Burke, 2002; Dougherty & Hong, 2006; Dougherty
& Reddy, 2013; Harnisch, 2011; Weeden, 2015). More than 30 U.S. states have implemented
this type of productivity-based model (Dougherty & Natow, 2015; Dougherty & Reddy, 2013).
To successfully meet the aforementioned outcomes, university professionals must
configure their retention policies and programs to meet the specific needs of academically
underserved students. Thus, it becomes imperative to identify the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences that impede USS stakeholders from increasing class progression rates
for academically underserved students by 10% by August 2021. In conclusion, achieving the
10% goal requires university professionals to assess their knowledge of the productivity-based
funding model and the institution ’s efforts to retain its population of academically underserved
students.
9
Analysis of Retention and Academically Underserved Students
In this study, academically underserved students are students with a final high school
grade point average of 3.0 or below and an ACT composite score between 1 and 18. These
students face an inordinate number of challenges, such as gaining access to and transitioning to
college. In response to these challenges, federal, state, and local governing bodies have
established policies, practices, and programs to increase the number of academically underserved
students who participate in higher education. Most academically underserved students attend
community colleges over 4-year institutions, numbers that are increasing as the national
population experiences demographic shifts, leading to a more racially and ethnically diverse
college-going population than ever before (Laden, 2004).
For academically underserved students, adjusting to the academic and social demands of
college poses many challenges. In addition, these students often have less preparation than their
high-achieving peers and are therefore in need of remedial courses. As a result, unprepared
students often must remain in college longer, which may discourage them from completing their
degree (Chen, 2005; Twigg, 2005; Venezia, Callan, Finney, Kirst, & Usdan, 2005). The culture
and climate of college environments traditionally are geared toward prestigious and academically
successful students, leaving academically underserved students with a myriad of insecurities and
a lack of belonging (Laden, 2004). Equally important, institutional leadership, as well as college
and university systems, can integrate an asset model that incorporates positive language and
labels within the organizational nature. Such an asset model is visionary, strategic, and, most
importantly, student centered. The asset model provides academically underserved students with
academic opportunities, which may otherwise be unavailable to them (Green, 2006).
10
Studies that move beyond simply collecting numerical data, such as enrollments, grades,
and test scores, are needed to better understand the complex issues affecting the scholastic
achievements of academically underserved students. Surveys, interviews, and observation data
provide researchers and educators with a more complete picture of the academic culture,
resources, attitudes, and behaviors promoting or hindering achievement for academically
underserved students. An inquiry into the necessary ways for university professionals to foster an
organizational culture can center on attitudes and behaviors among faculty, staff, and
administrators who help academically underserved students adjust to college. A researcher must
also assess how well specific pathways help academically underserved students access and
succeed in college, and whether an optimal combination of curricular pathways and support
services, such as mentoring or tutoring, is possible for improving the likelihood of academic
success (Green, 2006).
The literature reviewed indicates that the adoption and development of productivity-
based funding policy is a means to increase the efficiency, effectiveness, productivity, and
responsiveness of institutions to the ever-changing needs of society and markets. The
institution ’s policies must accommodate its academically underserved population and provide the
necessary support to ensure the class progress rate increases. Interestingly, almost all the studies
reported in this review were consistent in findings and conclusions.
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Influences
Knowledge Influences
Research shows knowledge influences are essential to accomplish an organization ’s
stakeholder and organizational goals. According to Clark and Estes (2008), knowledge is the first
component of an organizational change approach, which focuses on the knowledge, motivation,
11
and organization aspects used when evaluating performance problems and their solutions.
Theoretically, three types of knowledge influences exist. In the context of this study, the
examined knowledge influences were declarative, procedural, and metacognitive.
University professionals need to know the number of academically underserved
students who do not complete college credentials. According to Krathwohl (2002), factual
knowledge, as noted in Bloom ’s taxonomy, includes an i ndi vi du a l ’s essential knowledge within
a discipline necessary to solve problems. An example of factual knowledge for university
professionals is their need to know the terminology and number of academically underserved
students who do not complete college credentials (Rueda, 2011). Earning an educational degrees
prove a student has satisfied the academic requirements at a college or university (Robinson,
2004). Once stakeholders examine retention rates provided by the university ’s institutional
effectiveness office, they can more knowledgeably assess the problem. University professionals
must also understand the trend data and disaggregate the information to identify gaps within the
university ’s areas of student support. As the stakeholders increase knowledge, they can focus on
developing more student-centered policies conducive to the new funding model. With the
implementation of more student-centered policies and a central focus on credential completion,
the retention rate for academically underserved students will increase.
University professionals need to know how to develop new policies that align with
the productivity-based funding model. As gained from the productivity-based funding model,
procedural knowledge entails knowing how to complete a task: the methods of inquiry and
criteria for using skills, algorithms, techniques, and methods (Krathwohl, 2002). An example of
s t a ke hol de rs ’ procedural knowledge is the ability to develop policies for how the university will
improve services to retain academically underserved students. The stakeholders must focus on
12
the initial first-year to second-year progression and retention for academically underserved
students and examine the current policies for supporting these students (Robinson, 2004).
According to Tinto (2007), offering policies and programs for engaging students and providing
an adequate amount of supportive resources results in academic success. University professionals
must know how to enact policies to serve academically underserved students beginning in the
first year of college, thus producing a higher retention rate. As the stakeholders implement
supportive resources such as programs, services, and policies that align with the metrics of the
productivity-based funding model, the class progression rate for academically underserved
students should increase.
University professionals need to know how to reflect on their effectiveness in the
implementation of policies. Metacognition is the knowledge of cognition in general, as well as
awareness and knowledge of one ’s own cognition or thinking about thinking (Baker, 2008;
Krathwohl, 2002). Understanding an i ndi vi du a l ’s cognition is a vital part of being a productive
professional (Mayer, 2011). Stakeholders need to self-assess their = ability to implement
admission and student support policies to determine the policies ’ effectiveness in retaining
academically underserved students. Stakeholders should reflect upon their effectiveness in light
of the Arkansas Department of Higher Education ’s new productivity-based funding model,
which previously supported public colleges and universities based upon enrollment to
accomplish a set of productivity measures. Having this knowledge enables stakeholders to be
more effective in their admission and retention policy development.
Figure 1 provides the organizational mission, organizational goal, and information
specific to knowledge influences, knowledge types, and knowledge influence assessments. As
13
Figure 1 indicates, various knowledge influences were necessary to gain insight into the
knowledge of the USS identified stakeholders.
Organizational Mission
The University of the Southern States creates impactful leaders through education in and out of the
classroom.
Organizational Global Goal
By August 2021, the University of the Southern States will increase class progression rates for
academically underserved students by 10%.
Stakeholder Goal
By December 2019, university professionals will implement policies that satisfy the state-defined
effectiveness measures of the productivity-based funding model to support academically underserved
students.
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type
Knowledge-Influence
Assessment
University professionals need to
know the number of
academically underserved
students who do not progress
academically.
Declarative (factual) University professionals were
asked to share their perspective
on academically underserved
students. A document analysis
was performed.
University professionals need to
know how to develop new
policies in alignment with the
productivity-based funding
model.
Procedural The researcher asked university
professionals which policies
aligned with the productivity-
based funding model and
improved the retention of
academically underserved
students. The researcher
conducted interviews.
University professionals need to
self-assess their effectiveness in
the implementation of the
productivity-based funding
model.
Metacognitive University professionals were
asked to judge their alignment
with the funding model using
student data from USS Fall-to-
Fall Completion Rate and
determine their effectiveness in
retaining underserved students.
The researcher conducted
interviews.
Figure 1. Knowledge influences, types, and assessments for USS.
14
Motivation Influences
Motivation is the second component of the knowledge, motivation, and organization
(KMO) conceptual approach used when evaluating organizational performance (Clark & Estes,
2008). The university ’s stakeholder goal is to implement policies to satisfy the state-defined
effectiveness measures of the productivity-based funding model, thereby supporting
academically underserved students by December 2018. According to Mayer (2011), motivation
is an internal state that initiates and maintains goal-directed behavior. Among the various
components of motivation are personal, activating, energizing, and directing. Motivation is
reflected in the amount of effort exerted by the USS professionals. The two theories of
motivation discussed in this literature review are utility value and attribution theory.
Evaluating the utility value of university professionals. According to Eccles (2006),
utility value is the relationship between a task or undertaking and the goals and plans of an
individual. In the context of this study, stakeholders must value the provision of effective
policies and measures serving academically underserved students at USS. Utility value is a part
of the expectancy value theory, with task values measured according to the interests, needs, or
perceptions of an individual (Pintrich, 2003). The expectancy value theory places emphasis on
four distinct measures. First, intrinsic interest measures the individual ’s interest in the task. The
second measure is importance, which emphasizes the individual ’s drive to do well and the
relatedness between the task and self-identity. The third measure is cost, which pertains to
perceptions of negative consequences resulting from engaging in the conduct. The final measure
is utility, which relates to perceptions of the usefulness of the task (Pintrich, 2003; Turner, 2017).
Regarding EVT, motivation drives individuals to engage from the onset of a task until
achieving the desired outcome (Mayer, 2011). Individuals with high expectations for task
15
performance have a greater motivation to complete the task (Rueda, 2011). The foundation of the
utility theory relates to the perceptions of what a certain task can do for individuals. Utility value
applies to the reasoning of why individuals perform certain tasks or projects as described to the
question “What is in it for me?” Utility value is a part of attainment value, or the evaluation of
who individuals are, what their goals are, and how they self-identify (Eccles, 2006). The desired
outcome for university professionals is to increase class progression rates for academically
underserved students. Achieving this goal affects the personal satisfaction of the stakeholders
implementing policies to improve the credential completion of students; in addition, achievement
provides the institution with state funding based upon the measures of the productivity-based
funding model. Evaluating the sources of motivation allows stakeholders to see the value in their
pursuit of achieving the goals outlined in this study.
Analyzing attribution theory for USS professionals. University professionals attribute
the low class progression rates to efforts at admissions and retention policy implementation.
Rueda (2011) suggested the attribution theory related to individuals who believed they impacted
the success or failure of a task or activity in relation to the level of control they had in
determining the outcomes. Attribution theory has a focus on an i ndi vi du a l ’s beliefs regarding
why certain events occur, subsequently correlating those beliefs to motivation. People want to
understand their surroundings and gain a better perception about why certain events occur
(Meece, Anderman, & Anderman, 2006). An important component of attribution theory is
individuals who perceive that not meeting a particular goal is not the final result; rather, they are
influenced by increased effort and are more likely to persist and persevere (Rueda, 2011).
According to attribution theory, individuals acknowledge their reasons for pursuing
specific tasks and duties, particularly with regard to helping shape policies for supporting
16
academically underserved students. In this study, stakeholders attributed low progression rates to
personal efforts in retention policy implementation. The significance of the stakeholders ’ tasks
indicate how much the job task affected both them and the university (Fornaciari & Dean, 2005).
Thus, examining the s t a ke hol d e rs ’ efforts provided a more sustainable sense of motivation,
leading to greater effort to surpass the next set of administration-established goals.
Figure 2 provides the organizational mission, organizational goal, and information
specific to motivation influences and motivation influence assessments. As Figure 2 indicates,
various motivational influences provided insight into the motivation of USS stakeholders.
17
Organizational Mission
The University of the Southern States creates impactful leaders through education in and out of the
classroom.
Organizational Global Goal
By August 2021, the University of the Southern States will increase class progression rates for
academically underserved students by 10%.
Stakeholder Goal
By December 2019, university professionals will implement policies that satisfy the state-defined
effectiveness measures of the productivity-based funding model to support academically underserved
students.
Motivational Indicators
Utility value: University professionals must see the
value in implementing supportive policies and
programs for academically underserved students.
Interview items
“ Ta l k about a time when university professionals
shared their thoughts on the retention efforts of the
i nst i t ut i on.”
“ Te l l me your perception of the administrative
response to the retention of academically
underserved students within your or ga ni z a t i on.”
Attribution theory: University professionals should
feel low class progression rates are a result of their
efforts at admissions and retention policy
implementation.
Interview items
“ Te l l me your perception of the administrative
response to the retention of academically
underserved students within your or ga ni z a t i on.”
“ S ha r e your thoughts on any of the retention
policies that the University of the Southern States
have in pl a c e .”
“ S ha r e your thoughts on the retaining of
academically underserved st ude nt s.”
“ W hy do you think academically underserved
students are not continuing their education at
U S S ? ”
Figure 2. Motivational influences, types, and assessments for USS.
18
Organization Influences
According to Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001), one analysis of organizational culture is
based on its current cultural settings and cultural models. Cultural models refer to cultural
practices and shared mental schemas within the organization (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001).
Cultural settings consist of the organization, its employees, their tasks, their reasons for
completing tasks, and the social context for task performance. Clark and Estes (2008) suggested
that performance problems can occur when organizational goals and policies conflict with
organizational culture. This section contains a discussion of the primary cultural model and
setting that may contribute to organizational stakeholder influences. The section concludes with
a illustrative summary of the organizational influences and assessment methods used in the
research.
Cultural model influences for University of the Southern States. Culture comprises
core values, goals, beliefs, and processes developed and learned over time (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Attitudes and behavior, as well as the operational patterns people develop and support, can
impact organizational culture (Clark & Estes, 2008). University professionals are responsible for
imposing structures, systems, and processes, which then become shared parts of the
organizational culture (Schein, 2010). The power of culture comes from the notion of sharing
assumptions and thereby mutually reinforcing them (Schein, 2010). Moreover, people identify
individually confirmed beliefs and values as shared social experiences of common groups, thus
creating a sense of social validation (Schein, 2010). This climate is affected by the notion that the
s t a ke hol de rs ’ social experiences are not fully understood. Therefore, the stakeholders must instill
trust as a fundamental trait among faculty, staff, and administrators to effectively influence the
institution.
19
Gaining institutional buy-in. In addition to a culture of trust, stakeholders must have a
general acceptance and willingness to participate to craft and change existing academic and
student support policies. Buy-in is a critical step leadership adopting the use of social channels to
connect with beneficiaries for the new service or goal (Martin, 2012). Furthermore, Lewis (2011)
stated that the frequent communication of implemented changes in policies and procedures helps
gain the trust and buy-in for the organization. Bolman and Deal (2013) suggested focusing on the
significance of framing issues and working within the political context to affect change and
coalition-building. Gaining buy-in from other administrators, faculty, and staff is critical for the
success of the institution and policy sustainability when it comes to student progression and
graduation (Ewell, 2005; Sujitparapitaya, 2014).
Organizations require an integrated approach to drive systematic, constructive change,
minimize barriers to change, and address the consequences of making the change and
implementing various policies and stakeholder buy-ins (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015;
Fitsimmons, 2009; Mathews & Crocker, 2016). As proposed by Mathews and Crocker (2016),
the buy-in continuum is a conceptual model rooted in personal change theory. Developed to
provide practitioners with a roadmap for gauging employee buy-in during change efforts, the
continuum is specifically relevant to organizational-level change . According to Mathews and
Crocker, buy-in is not a dichotomous dimension; instead, it exists along a spectrum according to
the cognitive and behavioral stages of change of an individual who affects the organizational
culture.
Incorporation of trust. Incorporating a culture of trust is necessary among university
administrators, faculty, and academic and student support staff members. Hoppes and Holley
(2014) suggested organizational trust results from the distinctive culture of a specific institution.
20
A culture of trust is necessary to increase and maintain academic progression rates for
academically underserved students by 10% at the beginning of August 2021. Building trust
requires university professionals to articulate the course of change, subsequently achieving the
organizational goal by managing meaning, networks, and practice (Hoppes & Holley, 2014;
Lewis, 2011). The presence of trust in the relationship between stakeholders and other members
of the institution increases the likelihood of expected outcomes. Through these mediating KMO
influences, individuals nurture trust on multiple levels (Hoppes & Holley, 2014).
According to Lewis (2011), managing the meaning shapes the message of organizational
change to address the question asked by all —“What is in it for me? ” —which correlates with
utility value. Aldrich and Ruef (2006) recognized that an institution contains an array of social
networks contributing to its operations. When networks exhibit strong ties linking various
stakeholders, then trust will likely become a consistent component of the institutional culture
(Aldrich & Ruef, 2006; Hoppes & Holley, 2014). According to Tierney (2006), some of these
networks are obligatory, including governance structures and academic departments. Managing
these networks calls for stakeholders to build a team of supporters within the organization who
trust the direction of the change as a specific course of action (Lewis, 2011). Managing practice
is the practical application and implementation of practices and policies needed for change to
occur. The more individuals within the organization trust the implemented change by university
professionals, the more organizational buy-in will occur.
Cultural setting of University of the Southern States. Culture helps people define how
they see themselves and how to behave, which is why the prospect of cultural change is
challenging (Schein, 2010). The cultural setting at USS must be such that everyone is an
invaluable part of the s t ude n t s ’ success. Setting goals, celebrating institutional and member
21
progress, and echoing USS core values will initially increase employee productivity and
retention (Mathews & Crocker, 2016). This reinforcement helps organizational and stakeholder
goals align with funding policy and ultimately increase class progression rates for academically
underserved students.
Aligning organizational practice to meet funding policy measures. When work
processes and procedures do not support policies, there is a conflict between some aspect of
organizational culture and current performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Stakeholders need
time away from nonadministrative responsibilities to revise university policies and programs for
supporting academically underserved students in alignment with the new, productivity-based
funding model. Another influence is the need for effective role models within the institution who
are experienced in the integration of policies and programs for supporting academically
underserved students. A final component involves examining the productivity-based funding
model as implemented in other states (Burke, 2005; Romzek & Dubnick, 2000; Salmi, 2009).
Policymakers must address these influences because the university must reflect its
mission and harness its stakeholders ’ talents to better understand and communicate with the
students. Within the organization ’s mission, some values complement the pulling force of the
vision by pushing the company to reach a specific goal (Graham & Fredrick, 2007; Lucas &
Ogilvie, 2006; Marquardt, 2002). Core beliefs characterizing organizational culture can guide
decisions about goal selection in policy as well as with regard to the processes and procedures
used to achieve the organizational goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Although some individuals may
not be aware of the mission, goals, and funding model policy, some of the most critical elements
of organizational culture involve underlying assumptions about the measurement and
achievement of efforts and goals ( Clark & Estes, 2008; Schein, 2010). A lack of support within
22
the culture creates a significant barrier that affects the stakeholders ’ behavior, effectiveness, and
their overall understanding of higher education policy. Effective organizational change requires
leadership ’s continuous involvement, as they act as champions in communicating the importance
of the need for improvement (Clark & Estes, 2008). The manifestation of the productivity-based
funding policies in organizational culture may reflect whether stakeholders will follow through
on the changes necessary to meet challenging goals and the value placed on meeting funding
model metrics.
Despite the proposed changes, some individuals may resist the accepted dominant belief
or existing cultural assumptions formed around accomplishing goals. However, when processes
have remained in place for so long, they become ingrained elements of culture, which are the
hardest to alter (Schein, 2010). It is crucial for USS stakeholders to embrace the modification
accompanying alignment to the productivity-based funding model. The funding model ’s
implementation requires buy-in from stakeholders and experienced staff and faculty who can
assist in fully integrating academic and student support programs for academically underserved
students.
Figure 3 provides the mission, goal, and information specific to organizational influences
and influence assessments. As Figure 3 indicates, the researcher used various organizational
influences to gain insight into the USS cultural setting and model.
23
Organizational Mission
The University of the Southern States creates impactful leaders through education in and out of the
classroom.
Organizational Global Goal
By August 2021, the University of the Southern States will increase class progression rates for
academically underserved students by 10%.
Stakeholder Goal
By December 2019, university professionals will implement policies that satisfy the state-defined
effectiveness measures of the productivity-based funding model to support academically underserved
students.
Assumed Organizational Influences Organizational Influence Assessment
Cultural model influence 1: The organization
needs acceptance and willingness among university
professionals to change existing academic support
policies.
Interview questions were asked to tease out the
willingness to change and align policies with
funding model. A review of policies from year to
year occurred to see if any have changed.
Cultural model influence 2: The organization
needs a culture of trust between the administration
and the faculty.
Stakeholders were asked their thoughts of fellow
professionals and their perceptions of U S S ’ s
mission and retention efforts of academically
underserved students.
Cultural setting influence 1: The organization
needs to provide stakeholders enough time from
their nonadministering responsibilities to revise
their policies and programs for supporting
academically underserved students.
Stakeholders were asked about their experiences in
student retention and their perceptions of the
retention of academically underserved students.
Cultural setting influence 2: The organization
needs to provide stakeholders with adequate role
models within the institution who have previously
integrated policies and programs for supporting
academically underserved students.
Stakeholders were asked about their experience
with integrating supportive policies that align with
funding model, their identification of any role
models within the organization, and how they
contribute to the alignment between the
organization and the funding model.
Figure 3. Organizational influences, types, and assessments for USS.
Research Questions
This project ’s examination required specific questions to help the university professionals
complete their organizational goal. The questions that guided this study are as follows:
24
1. To what extent is University of the Southern States meeting its goal of increasing the
class progression rates for academically underserved students by 10% by August
2021.
2. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational elements related to
University of the Southern States achieving this organizational goal?
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholder Knowledge,
Motivation, and the Organizational Context
A conceptual framework operates as a working theory of the interaction and relationship
system of concepts, assumptions, expectations, and theories to support and inform research
(Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The conceptual framework combines the ideas
presented in the literature to enable goal assessment, develop relevant research questions, select
appropriate methods, and substantiate the research (Maxwell, 2013). Selecting the conceptual
framework for the present study entailed consideration of the previous body of research on the
productivity-based funding model and the conditions that led to low class progression rates for
academically underserved students at USS. Within past literature, the researcher identified the
appropriate methods for the particular organizational needs. Placed in the context of prior
research, this constructed theory was a means to determine how the study can further build on or
contribute to previous work (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The conceptual framework justified the
research and assisted in identifying the most appropriate methods for exploring the research
questions (Maxwell, 2013). Accordingly, the framework provided an overarching structure and
outlined influencers of the study as described by Clark and Estes (2008). Analysis of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences was a means to help university professionals achieve
institutional performance and goals. Although each of thes potential influencers was independent
25
of the other, they do not remain in isolation from each other. The knowledge and motivational
factors of the stakeholders influenced the organization, which ultimately impacted the
stakeholders ’ goal of understanding and addressing the effectiveness of the implementation of
valuable retention policies.
As a result of this, the stakeholder goal, identified in Figure 4 by the red arrow that
transitions into a blue arrow, carries over into the USS organizational goal, denoted by the blue
box. Located within the large blue circle are two red dashed circles that represent stakeholder
motivation and knowledge influences, two influences that simultaneously interact with one
another. As a result, this particular interaction impacts the organizational goal, which transitions
from red to blue. A red arrow guides the motivation and knowledge influences into the
stakeholder goal, denoted by the red box, which cycles back into the influences. Achieving the
stakeholder goal comes from obtaining knowledge for the funding model and effective policies
to bring about organizational change. Once that aspect is complete, the motivation influences
then enable the stakeholder goal to come to fruition. (see Figure 4).
26
Figure 4. Conceptual framework: Knowledge, motivation, and organization influences in
administrators ’ implementation of the productivity funding model for USS.
As shown in Figure 4, directional arrows indicate the impact one influence has on
another. Such engagement leads to the achievement of the stakeholder and organizational goal.
The cultural influences at USS include organizational culture around valuing organizational
27
change and organizational communication (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015; Le Fevre, 2014;
Schein, 2004). Organizations continually strive to align their operations with a changing
environment. As a result, USS is aligning its academic and student support policies to meet the
metrics for the new productivity-based funding model implemented by the state of Arkansas
(Ackoff, 2006; Burnes, 2004).
Data Collection and Instrumentation
This study comprised a sample of 13 USS professionals who held respected positions
within the institution in the areas of administration, academics, finance, and student support. All
participants received invitation through e-mail requesting their participation, along with an
overview of the study ’s purpose. Once the respondents agreed to participate, the researcher
established a mutually agreed upon time and location for the interview. The researcher informed
the participants that the interviews would be semistructured and audio-recorded, they would be
identified only by a pseudonym to protect their identity, and that their responses were for
research purposes only. Written excerpts from the recordings factored into the results. Upon
conclusion of the interview, the researcher provided each participant with a handwritten greeting
card and gift card for their participation. Table 2 includes the list of higher education
professionals participating in the study. Participants had a combined total of nearly 180 years of
higher education experience. Table 2 identifies the pseudonyms of the participants, their
departments, and their respective years of experience in higher education. The diverse experience
of participants allowed the researcher greater insight into both the admissions and retention
policy structure at USS, and how those policies and efforts affected the class progression of
academically underserved students.
28
Table 2
Higher Education Professional Participants
Name Department of focus Years of experience
Eli Allen Administration 32
Ida Inman Academics 20
Erik Owens Student support 20
Mya Pace Academics 16
Don Vick Student support 6
Nia Ellis Student support 7
Ray Tate Academics 25
Ana Atkin Student support 4
Alan Inez Student support 10
Oda Cox Finance 20
Dan Hill Student support 3
Cali Ross Student support 11
Eve Avery Student support 13
Interviews
The researcher selected the interview environment for the purpose of putting the
participants in the most comfortable position possible. The participants completed interviews in
their respective offices, which provided privacy and minimal distractions. All interviews took
place at scheduled dates and times at the convenience of the participants. The researcher selected
participants based upon their level of expertise and the rich data they could contribute to the
study. Each interview was a maximum duration of 60 minutes. The researcher informed all
participants that participation was voluntary and they could terminate the interview at any time
or decide not to answer a particular question. Participants could also drop out of the study
without penalty.
29
During each interview, the researcher took handwritten notes that resonated with the
study, including nonverbal cues to add value to the research. Upon the conclusion of all
interviews, the researcher used Rev.com to transcribe the audio recordings, subsequently using
Creswell ’s (2009) six-step process to analyze data, thus creating a story for the reader. According
to Creswell, the first step requires organizing and preparing the data. The second step involves
reading through the data and developing a general sense of overall meaning. The third step
includes coding the data and the analysis. The fourth step involves generating particular themes.
The fifth step requires a written narrative passage to deliver specific findings, and the sixth step
initiates data interpretation (Creswell, 2009).
The researcher developed a codebook to analyze the data more thoroughly. The codebook
allowed for the disaggregation of data and identification of open, axial, and selective codes.
Identifying open coding entailed selecting significant words, phrases, and statements from the
data. After identifying words, phrases, and statements, the researcher developed a definition for
each item. Upon the completion of the open coding, axial coding became evident from the
themes. After establishing the axial codes, the researcher then identified the selective codes,
which included the failure of USS professionals to account for the needs of academically
underserved students. The students have not connected with USS professionals, nor have they
undergone successful integration into the college campus culture.
The interviews provided information from the participants to provide firsthand
knowledge of USS access and retention programs to effect class progression for academically
underserved students. The researcher also explored whether the present policies and programs
addressed the factors contributing to the retention rates of academically underserved students.
The researcher triangulated the data by utilizing various effective and qualitative collection
30
techniques to ensure the trustworthiness of the data collection. Maxwell (2013) suggested
utilizing triangulation of different sources to ensure the strengths and limitations of all methods
supported a single conclusion. Using multiple methods helps a researcher obtain insight about
different aspects of a study (Maxwell, 2013).
Documents and Artifacts
Document collection helped elucidate USS retention and student support efforts. The
analysis of 2017 and 2018 Retention Task Force updates, calendar of campus events, Policy and
Procedures Manual, and a First-Year Experience Orientation Booklet helped to verify
organizational information about policies and procedures that may have an effect on the class
progression of academically underserved students. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) suggested using
content analysis to reveal authentic and accurate data within a study. As a result, these
documents underwent analysis using a matrix of assumed knowledge, motivation, and
organization influences, which indicated identified influence in the collected documents. The
researcher recorded results on the document analysis grid in a separate appendix.
Findings
The research questions served as a guide to organize the findings based on a particular
theme. For the first research question, the emerging themes were realignment of the mission of
USS, identification of academically underserved students, validation of retention, and the impact
of USS culture on academically underserved students. Organization of findings for the second
research question occurred by using the Clark and Estes (2008) model, which indicates KMO
influences related to increasing class progression rates for academically underserved students.
The research questions that guided this study were as follows:
31
1. To what extent is University of the Southern States meeting its goal of increasing the
class progression rates for academically underserved students by 10% by August
2021.
2. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational elements related to
University of the Southern States achieving this organizational goal?
The KMO (Clark & Estes, 2008) framework guided the process of interviews and
document collection. The researcher examined the findings to determine whether effective
practices or gaps existed in KMO influences listed in that section. Any existing gaps, validated
through the gathered evidence, indicated the lack of specific knowledge, motivation, or
organizational skills of the university professionals. In this study, the researcher did not
substantiate assumed causes that led to considering unvalidated gaps an asset if the evidence
determined university professionals had possessed the required knowledge, motivation, or
organizational support. The recommendations section includes a discussion of the significant
findings and provides potential solutions for addressing performance gaps.
Realignment With the Mission of the University of the Southern States
The relationship between the organizational mission and organizational performance
requires a jointly supportive alignment. USS ’s mission was to create impactful leaders through
education. Without such alignment, the institution would suffer from declining class progression
rates of academically underserved students, negatively impacting the state-appropriated funding
for the university. The interviews aligned with the organizational mission, indicating the creation
of impactful leaders through education in and out of the classroom.
From the 13 participant interviews, a realistic, yet altruistic outlook emerged on the
future of the institution. Throughout the one-on-one discussions, various themes appeared, such
32
as realigning the mission of the university, recognizing academically underserved students,
explaining why retention matters, and the organizational influence impacting the culture of the
university in relation to the retention of academically underserved students. According to Kahan
(2002), the payoff for aligning with the mission statement occurs when institutions prioritize
satisfying institutional objectives while delivering tangible results. Mya Pace showed concern
about the alignment of the mission and preparing academically underserved students to progress
and graduate. “That ’s the thing that keeps a lot of us up at night . . . have we really equipped
them to be able to leave? To me that ’s . . . the mission statement.” USS must be mindful of the
state-defined measures that determine the amount of state funding, if any, provided to public
institutions within the state of Arkansas (Financial Conditions Report, 2017).
Creating a Sense of Belonging
According to Anderman and Freeman (2004), a sense of belonging should have increased
significance in environments or situations that indivdiuals feel as being different, unfamiliar, or
foreign; belonging is also significant in contexts where specific individuals are likely to feel
marginalized, unsupported, or unwelcomed. An institution ’s inability to position itself in the best
possible way to create a sense of belonging for its students has negative consequences. For
example, such consequences result in students feeling disconnected from and not supported by
the institution. A feeling of abandonment can cause students to discontinue their education at
USS by dropping out or transferring to another institution. When asked about the fulfillment of
the mission by creating a sense of belonging, Mya Pace admitted, “ W e ’ve got some work to do.”
Nine of the 13 participants reflected on a misalignment of the mission and a need to
create a sense of belonging. Erik Owens summed up the thoughts of nine university
professionals: “ W e all understand what the mission is of our institution, but sometimes we
33
wonder, ‘Do [the administrators] really mean it? I don’t know sometimes how much I buy it
because of the struggles that my students have. ” In addition, Eve Avery explained university
professionals want academically underserved students to progress but reiterated the thoughts of
Erik Owen by stating, “I don’t know . . . we ’re just having a hard time with that . . . the students
are not able to connect with the people in the room. ”
Here Mya, Erik, and Eve indicated the institution realized the existence of a disconnect
with academically underserved students and the institutional mission. University administrators
must have an intentional desire to address the concerns and needs of academically underserved
students. Ana Atkin supported this claim of disconnection and addressing it. “[Students] haven ’t
connected really to the campus, so we ’re trying to make a conservative effort to help these
students establish some connection. ” She shared a list of student engagement activities that
included a set of cocurricular activities to address the organizational gap created by the
institution. Because a majority of the university professionals in this study believed there was a
gap regarding a sense of belonging for academically underserved students, the department
focused on student engagement needed to continue closing the belonging gap for academically
underserved students. Intentionally creating a sense of belonging for all students, especially
academically underserved students, allows university professionals to realign their efforts with
the mission of the institution (Freeman, Anderman, & Jensen, 2007). In addition, five of 13
university professionals with institutional authority to implement policies could satisfy the state-
defined effectiveness measures of the productivity-based funding model to support academically
underserved students.
34
Emphasis on Recognizing Academically Underserved Students
The researcher used qualitative interviews with the participating stakeholders to explore
the knowledge influences. The interview items supported the qualitative methods to establish a
comprehensive determination of whether the KMO influence was an asset or gap. The validity
rationale for the following themes and subthemes indicate the knowledge influences captured in
this study.
Identifying Academically Underserved Students
As related in the interviews, all 13 university professionals were aware of the population
of academically underserved students at the institution. In addition, the interview data, supported
by class progression data gathered from the USS institutional effectiveness office, provided
evidence for the subtheme of the identification of academically underserved students.
Accordingly, meeting updates from the USS Retention Taskforce revealed a population of
academically underserved students who did not progress in their education. In accordance with
the class progression data provided by the institution, Eve Avery affirmed university
professionals were more attentive in identifying these students, saying, “It ’s a lot of scrambling
right now to try and serve the underserved students .” Erik Owens explained that although
university professionals did not know the precise progression rate, they were aware of the
importance of supporting academically underserved students. In addition, Erik mentioned,
“We ’re trying to educate the community-at-large that this group exist [sic] on our c a m pus .” In
addition, Alan Inez stated, “I think it ’d be important to not only identify [academically
underserved students], but make sure we have the resources available to make sure they
succeed.” This type of knowledge and awareness attributed to the class progression rates
indicated a need to increase class progression for academically underserved students at USS.
35
The Importance of Policy Alignment
The interviews indicated that five out of 13 university professionals had the
administrative authority to incorporate decision-making strategies for aligning institutional
policies with the productivity-based funding model. However, 12 of them understood the
purpose for the new funding model, but felt unsure if their admissions and retention policy
changes would be effective due to the design and lifespan of the model. Alan Inez shared the
collective notion of the funding model bringing attention to every type of student, especially
academically underserved students. Inez stated, “In theory, I think the model is really good
because it forces institutions, who normally would not provide infrastructure for those
populations who need it most, to begin to look at them in a new w a y.” The importance of
retention policy alignment with the funding model would encourage university professionals to
enhance the execution of the mission of the university.
Although many university professionals agreed with the aforementioned notion, a
complexity exists in aligning with the productivity-based funding model (Kaikkonen, 2016).
University professionals must utilize their declarative knowledge to increase the class
progression rate of academically underserved students while adhering to the measures of the
productivity-based funding model. USS administrators implemented new admission standards,
which made the institution more accessible to a population of academically strong students. As a
result, academically underserved students did not receive admission into USS. To summarize the
notions of university professionals regarding admissions and retention policy alignment, Eve
Avery, sitting stoically at her desk surrounded by USS athletic paraphernalia, candidly replied:
When we raised our admission standards, we kind of shot ourselves in the foot with the
funding from the state, so now we ’re trying to go back and say, “We [sic] got these
36
conditional admissions, so we ’re going to let them get in here, “but we haven ’t really
prepared for what they need when they get in here, so now we ’re really working
backwards because we ’re like, “Oh, we can’t just get them here. ” We gotta get them here,
keep them, and get them degreed.
The admission standards of the institution led to the ostracizing of academically
underserved students. Eve provided more insight of the effect of ineffective retention policy
alignment, saying, “We ’re not losing students, we ’re losing dollars, which means . . . you’re
losing positions . . . so, what I ’ll say . . . we ’re concerned right now. ” Ava Atkin said the threat
of financial loss “shifts how you do your job —at least for me it has .” A noted reality provided
university professionals with motivation to be more aware of the effects of not properly serving
academically underserved students. A lack of inclusion and supportive resources caused students
to withdraw from the university, which affected the class progression rate and state appropriation
of funds for USS.
Self-assessment of policy implementation. In the interviews, nine of the 13 participants
shared an understanding of how to reflect on their respective job performance. Through
reflection, university professionals better understood any personal limitations and recognized
when to make appropriate decisions to help mitigate any possibly ineffective policies. More than
half of participants shared a common perspective. Ava Atkin summarized the perspective of the
nine professionals: “I can acknowledge that there ’s absolutely more we can do to assist that
student. ” The aspect addressed whether university professionals recognized how their respective
departments communicated the importance of the institutional mission and their experience in
student retention. The interviews revealed a common theme regarding the profe s s i ona l s ’
37
performance on the job, as well as the claim of shared responsibility for ineffective retention
policy implementation. Eve Avery reflected:
I think the campus has realized we ’ve not done enough in the past. I don’t know that we
know for sure what to do, but I think we know that we have to have the conversations and
that we really have to take a look at ourselves, our units, and see what is our purpose
today.
Several university professionals reflected on their individual and collective behaviors and
actions concerning admissions and retention policy development and implementation. Dembo
and Eaton (2000) indicated that successful individuals, in this case university professionals, can
monitor their behavior by setting goals, using alternative strategies, and developing a plan to
address a problem effectively.
Validating the Importance of Retention
The method used to determine the validity of the motivation influences was through
conducting interviews with the participating stakeholders. Validation occurred through the
specific motivation categories of utility value and attributions.
Value in Student Support Efforts
Interview transcripts showed nine of the 13 university professionals saw the usefulness of
implementing supportive policies and programs for academically underserved students. The
following summary indicates the value university professionals placed on their retention policies
and programs. Ana Atkin summarized the overall thoughts on the population of academically
underserved students.
38
I think, I hope, that the place that we ’re at in the university is that we ’re ready to learn.
We ’re ready to learn from the mistakes that we made in the past and move forward, and
actually be of assistance to the students that decide to call this place their home.
All 13 university professionals shared the value of implementing early alert systems,
establishing an academic learning center, conducting intentional reviews of retention data, and
developing solutions needed to address the low class progression rates for academically
underserved students. Eli Allen addressed the overall stakeholder commitment to seeing the
usefulness in supporting academically underserved students. According to Allen, “[University
professionals] are really committed to that goal of making sure that every student feels like they
count, that every student has a chance for s uc c e s s .” In addition, nine of the participants shared a
common belief in providing a strong sense of community that supports academically underserved
students. Alan Inez related:
Really defining what community meant, in this administration in particular, it means
making sure we serve the needs of our population, whether it be people of color, whether
it be people from low socioeconomic backgrounds, people from small rural areas, from
big cities —making sure that any individual who comes in contact with this institution,
that they have the infrastructure that there ’s to support them through matriculation for our
students and through employment for our backline staff.
Alan Inez ’s sentiment was consistent with research indicating that formative assessment
helps students self-assess and identify what they need to do to improve (Underwood & Burns,
2014). Although teachers saw the utility value of feedback, they also acknowledged challenges
with finding the time to give thoughtful and productive feedback rather than just assigning a
grade.
39
Creation of the University of the Southern States Retention Taskforce
An organizational element needed for the institution to achieve its organizational goal
was the creation of programs and initiatives to support student retention. Eli Allen said that
without proper alignment with the mission statement and funding model, the institution
unknowingly neglected its core stakeholders, the students —in particular, academically
underserved students. The university created the USS Retention Taskforce, a 25-member
committee designed to personify the motto of the institution: “ S e rv e Every Student at USS.” The
USS Retention Taskforce served as the ongoing workgroup to ensure a steadfast commitment to
the goal of increasing class progression of all students at the university. The committee
supported institutional commitment to provide organizational support to all students intending to
complete college. Eli Allen shared a common notion among university professionals, stating that
the taskforce “pinpointed people on the campus who touched, had a goal, something to do with
retention, and then brought them all t oge t he r.”
A reinforcement of the USS mission statement was necessary to provide the resources for
students to progress and graduate within 4 to 6 years and obtain a livable wage. These s t ude n t s ’
accomplishments tied into a financial motivation for the institution, as the productivity-based
funding model provided resources to colleges and universities based upon the performance and
progression of their students. Thus, the creation of the retention taskforce provided evidence that
retention was a priority at USS.
Finding Gaps in Student Success Efforts
In this study, 10 out of the 13 participants agreed the organization did not have a support
system for those students. As a result, the institution formed a chief diversity officer role to
advocate and provide a sense of inclusion for all academically underserved students. Alan Inez
40
shared his perspective on the importance of the role of chief diversity officer: “It means making
sure we serve the needs of our population, whether it be people of color . . . low socioeconomic
backgrounds . . . they have the infrastructure that there ’s to support them. ” According to Ebrahim
and Rangan (2014), the organizational mission is often not stated overtly. USS ’s mission must
enable the organization to measure its progress toward achieving its purpose.
The success of USS and the university professionals required an examination of several
factors, one in particular being the institutional attrition rate for academically underserved
students. Eli Allen shared, “I ’m getting a report every day on enrollment for the fall, but we have
never kept a daily report .” The attrition rate for academically underserved students at USS
caught the attention of university professionals to identify student success gaps. Due to
academically underserved students not qualifying for institutional scholarships, a noticeable gap
for student success emerged in finances. Cali Ross shared, “Whether it ’s financial holds, which
for the majority of them, that ’s what the issue is . . . if they have a balance that they can’t get
off. ” Ross continued listing gaps in the success of academically underserved students, saying, “If
there is some financial need for our students, they can ’t register for the fall semester because
they owe a balance. Our hands are tied; there ’s nothing . . . Our students are coming
conditionally [admitted], so there aren ’t any additional re s ourc e s .”
According to Hausmann, Schofield, and Woods (2007), a sense of belonging in school is
a complex construct relying heavily on the perceptions of students regarding their respective
educational environment, especially their relationships with other students. Strayhorn and
Mullins (2012) suggested that minority students who feel a sense of belonging adjust to college
more quickly. These students also tended to perform better academically and socially and rate
their college experience as “satisfactory ” (Strayhorn & Mullins, 2012). For example, Allen
41
confirmed his awareness of the knowledge component for the KMO lenses regarding the rate of
academically underserved students affected by the misalignment of the mission. He shared the
impact that supporting the inclusive efforts of the institution has had on the institution.
And this is part of our mission here, to get students to think, “I can go there [USS].”
There ’s a story out there, that University of the Southern States is not accepting of
minority students. And that might be true; I hope it ’s not. But part of that is related to the
fact that we used to have a minimum ACT of 19, and now it ’s 21, and some members of
the community think we did that on purpose.
Here, Allen acknowledged that academically underserved students —in this example, African
American students —needed to feel as if they belonged to the institution. He indicated the
institution welcomed students, but the increasing of the ACT admission score from 19 to 21
raised concern in the community of academically underserved students.
Impacting the Culture at the University
The researcher conducted qualitative interviews with the participating stakeholders to
explore organizational influences. Interview questions were sufficient to determine whether the
influence was an asset or gap. The validity rationale for the following themes and subthemes
address the organizational influences captured in this study.
Buy-in Transforms Culture
In the interviews, five of 13 participants stated buy-in was essential for the transformation
of the culture at the university. Buy-in addressed the organizational element of the second
research question. Buying into the vision of the leadership at the organization critically impacts
organizational culture and evinces trust. Nia Vance supported this claim by stating, “I just feel
42
like we need to get everybody on board with our approach. ” USS needed to adopt the
institutional approach to serving academically underserved students campuswide.
Lewis (2011) asserted that articulating goals served to chart a course for action, guiding
the path that leads in a specific direction and evaluating the distance and direction traveled in
pursuit of goals. In addition, institutions must monitor and articulate goals, develop strategic
messages and communication plans, analyze input, influence the implementation climate, and
confront myths about implementing planned change (Lewis, 2011). University professionals, as
well as other university faculty and staff, must buy in to implementing policies that satisfy the
state-defined effectiveness measures of the productivity-based funding model.
Eve Avery identified buy-in as personified in student engagement initiated by the support
staff; however, some professors did not. “It ’s one thing for me to pull together a forum, and . . .
students come, but it ’s something different for a professor to meet me at the table . . . [and] really
listen to what the students say, and we ’re not doing that. ” Having only the efforts of university
professionals to align with the institutional goal of increasing class progression for academically
underserved students by 10% by August 2021, not the entire institution, proved ineffective. For
example, in his interview, Eli Allen confirmed, along with the other four participants, the impact
supporting the organizational goals would have in transforming the culture at USS.
I think many of the faculty are [buying in] but not all the faculty, and that ’s not unusual . .
. and so, I feel like most of the staff, all of my leadership team and a large proportion of
the faculty, are buying into, or have bought into, this idea of student success.
Along with a majority of the university, Eli Allen was aware of a vastness of support for
student success concerning this study. As university professionals began crafting a message of
the importance of supporting academically underserved students and implementing supportive
43
measures, more buy-in and organizational trust occurred at the university. Alan Inez conveyed
varying responses to the message of buy-in by sharing that some university faculty and staff
think “this population is not persisting, so why the effort? ” Inez continued with the more student-
centered response of “They ’re not persisting; we need to put more effort into it. ” Thus, Inez
concluded his observation of the two stances. “It ’s communicated out, but like I said, I don’t
know how it ’s being viewed or what people on the ground are doing with that data. ” Although
the reality of 100% buy-in was inevitable, five of the 13 university professionals stated that USS
needed more organizational buy-in to effectively serve the population of academically
underserved students.
Summary
Findings from the analysis of interviews and document collection revealed a range of
university professional perspectives about the policies enacted to satisfy state-defined
effectiveness measures of the productivity-based funding model to support academically
underserved students. The findings in both instruments clearly showed university professionals at
USS possessed substantial knowledge of the significance of supporting academically
underserved students. With this knowledge, university professionals could intentionally develop
positive experiences in and out of the classroom for students intending to complete college
(Thomas, 2014). The level of relevance depended on the level of seniority and institutional
authority each university professional had obtained. The study showed university professionals
had assessed and identified the value in designing and implementing student support –related
policies.
Four formative points emerged as to why the class progression rate for academically
underserved students was low. First, university professionals identified a misalignment with the
44
mission of the USS. Second, university professionals felt a need for more recognition of
academically underserved students. Third, university professionals revealed the reasons that
retention of academically underserved students mattered. Finally, university professionals
recognized the importance of impacting the culture at USS. University professionals were aware
that accomplishing the respective stakeholder and organizational goal required a large-scale
organizational and cultural change over a duration of time. The next section includes an in-depth
discussion of the challenge, with recommendations to address obstacles and successfully
increase class progression rates for academically underserved students.
Recommendations
In the previous section, the researcher validated the assumed influences in the study
through qualitative data analysis and sorted the data into knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences. The recommendations section presents the significance of these
findings with regard to theoretical principles, providing suggestions to address areas in need of
improvement at the university. Organization of recommendations is by categories of validated
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. Recommendations are context-specific
and research-based to increase the probability of successful implementation. Appendix E shows
how USS can use the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) to
implement the recommendations and evaluate the impact. The university can utilize Kirkpatrick
and his four levels in reverse order: results, behavior, learning, reaction. Effective use of the
Kirkpatrick model could provide important information about whether the recommendations
deliver the desired results in equipping university professionals to increase class progression
rates for academically underserved students by 10% by August 2021.
45
Knowledge Recommendations
Administrators could use the knowledge recommendations to create a table stating the
declarative, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge influences and the context-specific
recommendations. Additionally, the table can indicate the validity of any knowledge influence.
Lastly, administrators can use the organizational influences to provide a table with a list of
assumed organization influences and their probability of validation based on the most frequently
mentioned organization influences. Each recommendation supports university professionals as
they aim to increase class progression for academically underserved students.
Introduction. The knowledge influences in Table 3 represent the complete list of
assumed knowledge influences, validation and probability, rank of priority, principle and
citation, and context-specific recommendation. The contents of Table 3 are based on information
provided during informal interviews and document collection and supported by the literature
review. Declarative, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge are necessary for university
professionals to achieve the organizational goal of increasing class progression for academically
underserved students.
46
Table 3
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed knowledge influence
Validated as a
gap? Yes (Y),
High Probability
(HP), or No (N)
Priority
Yes (Y),
No (N) Principle and citation Context-specific recommendation
University professionals must know
the percentage of academically
underserved students who do not
progress academically. (D)
HP Y Procedural knowledge increases when
declarative knowledge required to
perform the skill is available or
known. (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Provide an informational pamphlet or
one-page data sheet containing the
numbers and percentages of
academically underserved students
who do not progress.
University professionals must know
how to develop new policies in
alignment with the productivity-based
funding model. (P)
Y Y Acquiring skills for expertise
frequently begins with learning
declarative knowledge about
individual procedural steps (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Learning is highly dependent on
“ goa l-directed pr a c ti c e ” and “ t a r ge te d
f e e dba c k” (Ambrose, Bridges,
DiPietro, Lovett, & Norman, 2010).
Provide a checklist for university
professionals to develop new policies
that align with the productivity-based
funding model.
University professionals need to self-
assess their effectiveness in the
implementation of policies and
campus resources which align with
retaining academically underserved
students. (M)
HP Y Procedural knowledge includes
strategic knowledge (Anderson et al.,
2001).
Performance levels increase and
completion times decrease with
increased self-regulation skills (Clark
& Estes, 2008).
To develop mastery, individuals must
acquire component skills, practice
integrating them, and know when to
apply what they have learned (Schraw
& McCrudden, 2006).
Provide training to self-assess the
effectiveness of university
professionals in the implementation of
policies and campus resources that
align with retaining academically
underserved students.
Provide opportunities for learners to
engage in guided self-monitoring and
self-assessment.
47
Declarative knowledge solutions. The first knowledge to review is declarative
knowledge. The results and findings of this study indicated that 80% of university professionals
needed more in-depth declarative knowledge about the percentage of the progression rate for
academically underserved students. A recommendation rooted in cognitive load theory could
close this declarative knowledge gap. According to Krathwohl (2002), procedural knowledge
increases when declarative knowledge, required to perform the skill, is available or known.
Factual knowledge is best described as the ability to understand something in specific detail, and
then to use that knowledge to solve problems (Krathwohl, 2002). Declarative knowledge could
equip university professionals to increase the class progression rates of academically
underserved students.
Providing learners with a concept map or similar visual organizer could support their
learning. The next recommendation is providing a job aid to address the knowledge gap. The
recommended job aid is an informational pamphlet or one-page data sheet containing the
numbers and percentages of academically underserved students who do not progress. According
to Clark and Estes (2008), providing job-related information is most appropriate when such
knowledge is easy to incorporate without aid. As university professionals obtain more insightful
knowledge, they can develop more student-centered policies. Accessing progression rate
information that reveals turnover causality may help close gaps in student attrition. Additionally,
the use of Bloom ’s conceptual knowledge framework (Krathwohl, 2002) could allow university
professionals to apply retention strategies to problem areas, thus increasing efficiency in
retaining academically underserved students. Conceptual knowledge is also generalizable
(Krathwohl, 2002), which may support a more informed concept of turnover to apply to specific
causes as well as novel scenarios.
48
Procedural knowledge solutions. The second knowledge influence is procedural
knowledge. The results and findings of this study indicated university professionals needed more
in-depth procedural knowledge about the development of new retention policies that align with
the productivity-based funding model. A recommendation rooted in social cognitive theory could
close this procedural knowledge gap. Procedural knowledge entails recognizing when to take
specific steps, which skills to employ, and which techniques will be most effective (Krathwohl,
2002). The aforementioned recommendation provides learners with a concept map or similar
visual organizer to support their learning. The recommendation for this knowledge gap is the
utilization of another job aid in the form of a checklist for university professionals to develop
new policies that align with the productivity-based funding model.
According to Tinto (2007), offering policies and programs centered around engaging
students and providing an adequate amount of supportive resources can result in academic
success. To achieve such success, stakeholders must focus on the initial first-year to second-year
progression and retention for academically underserved students and examine the current
policies for supporting these students (Robinson, 2004). It is not enough to tell people what to
do; they must also know specifically how to do it. Procedural knowledge is possible with explicit
directions, demonstrations in actual classrooms, and guided practice. Training that transfers to
administrative practice includes the development of knowledge, modeling of skill, practice of
skill, and peer coaching (Joyce & Showers, 2002). Once university professionals utilize the job
aids and complete the training, they will become more aware of ways to improve admissions and
retention policy development and implementation. Job aids may not solve the problem of
practice, but they can increase the chances of achieving the organizational goal.
49
Metacognitive knowledge solutions. Metacognitive knowledge is concerned with
cognition, strategic knowledge, and self- knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002). The findings of this
study indicated a majority of university professionals needed to self-assess their effectiveness in
the implementation of policies and campus resources that align with retaining academically
underserved students. A recommendation rooted in information-processing theory could close
this metacognitive knowledge gap. According to Anderson et al. (2001), procedural knowledge
includes strategic knowledge. Clark and Estes (2008) suggested performance levels increase and
completion times decrease with increased self-regulation skills. According to Schraw and
McCrudden (2006), individuals must acquire component skills, practice integrating them, and
know when to apply what they have learned to develop mastery. Such acquisition would suggest
that providing learners with a concept map or similar visual organizer could support their
learning. Another recommendation is providing training to university professionals for self-
assessment and effectiveness in implementing policies and campus resources aligning with
retaining academically underserved students. These recommendations may provide opportunities
for learners to engage in guided self-monitoring and self-assessment.
An incorporation of assessing the metacognitive knowledge of university professionals
allows for learners to identify prior knowledge (what they know and what they do not know
about a topic) before a learning task (Mayer, 2011). According to Schraw and McCrudden
(2006), metacognitive knowledge helps individuals identify and understand important points for
retaining academically underserved students. Providing experiences to help university
professionals make sense of the material rather than just focus on memorization is another
opportunity to enhance metacognitive knowledge, which may be advantageous for retaining all
students.
50
These recommendations provide the necessary steps to close the knowledge gaps for
university professionals at USS. University professionals must receive professional development
training on how to analyze retention policies to support academically underserved students.
Appropriate training can help university professionals succeed in increasing the class progression
for academically underserved students.
Motivation Recommendations
The following recommendations address the motivation gaps at USS through a
theoretical lens. The researcher applied utility value and attribution theory to the identified gaps.
Each recommendation supports the motivation of university professionals in their pursuit of
increasing the class progression for academically underserved students.
Introduction. The motivation influences in Table 4 represent the complete list of
assumed motivation influences, validation and probability, rank of priority, principle and
citation, and context-specific recommendation based on achieving the stakeholder goal. The
contents of Table 4 come from information received during informal interviews and supported
by the literature review and the review of motivation theories. According to Clark and Estes
(2008), motivation is the second component in the KMO influences. Mayer (2011) suggested
motivation is an internal state that initiates and maintains goal-directed behavior. Table 4 shows
utility value and attribution theory as key influences in this study. As indicated in the table, some
motivational influences have a high probability of validation as well as a high priority for
achieving the stakeholder goal. Table 4 also includes recommendations for these influences
based on theoretical principles.
51
Table 4
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed motivation influence
Validated as a
gap? Yes (Y),
High Probability
(HP), or No (N)
Priority
Yes (Y),
No (N) Principle and citation Context-specific recommendation
University professionals must see
usefulness in implementing supportive
policies and programs for
academically underserved students.
(UV)
HP Y include a discussion of the importance
and utility value of the work or
learning can help learners develop
positive values (Eccles, 2006; Pintrich,
2003).
Learning and motivation are enhanced
if the learner values the task (Eccles,
2006).
Provide rationales about the usefulness
of implementing supportive policies
and programs for academically
underserved students.
University professionals should feel
low class progression rates are due to
their efforts at admissions and
retention policy implementation. (AT)
HP Y Rationales that include a discussion of
the importance and utility value of the
work or learning can help learners
develop positive values (Eccles, 2006;
Pintrich, 2003).
Feedback and actual success on
challenging tasks positively influences
the perceptions of a person and their
competence (Borgogni et al., 2011).
Provide attributional retraining with
relation to their efforts at admissions
and retention policy implementation.
52
Utility value solutions. Utility value is the first motivation influence of this study. Utility
value increases the usefulness of implementing supportive policies and programs. The results
and findings of this study indicated that less than half of university professionals must see
usefulness in implementing supportive policies and programs for academically underserved
students. A recommendation rooted in expectancy value theory is a means to close this
motivation gap. According to Eccles (2006) and Pintrich (2003), rationales that include a
discussion of the importance and utility value of the work or learning can help learners develop
positive values. In addition, Eccles suggested learning and motivation are enhanced if the learner
values the task. Accomplishing this task suggests providing professionals with the usefulness of
their admissions and retention policy implementation would support their learning. The
recommendation, then, is to provide rationales about the usefulness of implementing supportive
policies and programs for academically underserved students. The provision of rationales can
include a comprehensive report of financial consequences for the institution, impacts on
enrollment, and perception for not implementing supportive policies and programs for
academically underserved students within the community.
Clark and Estes (2008) stated that “ b e l i e fs are (almost) everything, ” suggesting when
individuals have positive beliefs about their ability to do something, they are more likely to
pursue the goal and increase performance. Mayer (2011) affirmed that motivation —in this case,
expectancy value theory —leads university professionals to pursue a task until reaching the
desired outcome. In this study, motivation involved increasing class progression for
academically underserved students at USS. Rueda (2011) posited that individuals with high
expectations for task performance will have greater motivation to complete the task. From a
theoretical perspective, increasing the usefulness of implementing more supportive policies for
53
retaining academically underserved students is of great importance. The implementation phase
receives in depth discussion.
Attribution theory solutions. Attribution theory is the second motivation influence of
the study. Attribution theory increases the efforts of implementing policies for supporting
academically underserved students. The results and findings of this study indicated over half of
university professionals should understand that low class progression rates are a result of their
efforts at retention policy implementation. As a result, a recommendation rooted in attribution
theory can close this motivation gap. Applying attribution theory entails providing professionals
with the usefulness of their retention policy implementation to support their learning. According
to Eccles (2006) and Pintrich (2003), rationales that include a discussion of the importance and
utility value of the work or learning can help learners develop positive values. According to
attribution theory, individuals can view challenges in one of two ways, either as a result of
variations in effort or lack of ability (Meece et al., 2006). If university professionals consider
themselves to have a lack of ability, then they are not likely to continue pursuing mastery of new
information for admissions and retention policy implementation. If individuals consider their
work to be effort-based, then they are prone to infer that, as they attain understanding of the
changing environment and the new information, they will gain competence to complete the task
at hand (Meece et al., 2006). Similarly, Borgogni et al. (2011) suggested feedback as well as
actual success on challenging tasks positively influences the perceptions of competence for an
individual. The recommendation, then, is to provide attributional retraining with relation to
university profe s s i ona l s ’ efforts at admissions and retention policy implementation.
Weiner (2006) suggested that attribution theory encourages certain actions influenced by
expectancy. Clark and Estes (2008) noted that i ndi v i dua l s ’ positive self-perceptions of
54
accomplishing certain tasks leads to improved performance. If university professionals perceive
their capability to influence attributional thought and awareness of motivational consequences of
attributions, then they could achieve the organizational goal at USS. From a theoretical
perspective, university professionals should perceive low class progression rates as being based
upon the uni ve rs i t y’s amount of effort to implement effective student support policies. By
addressing a shortcoming in effort, university professionals become much more likely to find
success with the current and future classes of academically underserved students. According to
Meece et al. (2006), the experiences of surmounting obstacles serve as a motivational incentive
that can lead to future successes. Applying attribution theory promotes instructional efficacy;
therefore, university professionals should believe they will become competent in retention policy
implementation, and that the changes in retention policies and programs are in the best interest of
USS.
Organization Recommendations
The following recommendations address the organization gaps at USS through a cultural
model and settings lens. Cultural models and settings are identified as organizational buy-in and
the trust needed within the organization. Each recommendation supports the organizational
aspects of the university professionals and their pursuit of increasing rates of class progression
for academically underserved students.
The organization influences in Table 5 represent the complete list of assumed
organization influences, validation and probability, rank of priority, principle and citation, and
context-specific recommendation based on achieving the stakeholder goal. The content in Table
8 comes from information received during informal interviews and document collection and
issupported by the literature review and the review of organization and culture theory. Clark and
55
Estes (2008) suggested organization and stakeholder goals often unachieved due to a lack of
resources, most often time and money, and because stakeholder goals are not aligned with the
organizational mission and goals. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) proposed two constructs
about organizational culture: cultural models, or the observable beliefs and values shared by
individuals in groups and cultural models; and the settings and activities in which performance
occurs. Thus, both resources and processes and cultural models and settings must align
throughout the organizational structure to achieve the mission and goals. As such, some
organizational influences have a high probability of being validated and a high priority for
achieving the stakeholder goal, as indicated in Table 5. The table also shows the
recommendations for these influences based on theoretical principles.
56
Table 5
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed organization influence
Validated as a
gap? Yes (Y),
High Probability
(HP), or No (N)
Priority
Yes (Y),
No (N) Principle and citation Context-specific recommendation
The organization needs acceptance
and willingness among university
professionals to change existing
academic support policies. (CM)
HP Y Effective change efforts use evidence-
based solutions and adapt them, where
necessary, to the organizational culture
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
Ensure that planning processes
identify key policies and elements of
the organization for consideration in
the change process.
The organization needs a culture of
trust between the administration and
the faculty. (CM)
Y Y Effective change efforts ensure all key
stakeholder perspectives inform the
design and decision-making process,
leading to the change (Clark & Estes,
2008).
Effective change efforts are
communicated regularly and
frequently to all key stakeholders
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
University professionals must
regularly meet with faculty and staff
from all areas of the organization to
share ideas and get feedback.
Incorporate new messages into already
existing forms of communication.
The organization must provide
stakeholders with adequate role
models within the institution who have
integrated policies and programs for
supporting academically underserved
students. (CS)
N N Effective change begins by addressing
motivation influencers; it ensures the
group knows why it needs to change.
It addresses organizational barriers
and knowledge and skills needs (Clark
& Estes, 2008).
Effective organizations insure
organizational messages, rewards,
policies and procedures governing the
work of the organization are aligned
with or supportive of organizational
goals and values (Clark & Estes,
2008).
Ensure planning processes identify key
elements of the organization that must
be considered in the change process.
Articulate how any evidence-based
change effort is being adapted for the
institution.
University professionals must
regularly meet with faculty and staff
from all areas of the organization to
share ideas and get feedback.
57
Cultural model recommendations: Buy-in. Increasing university professional buy-in
for revising academic support policies is the first cultural model recommendation in this study.
The results and findings indicated the majority of university professionals agreed with the need
to implement more supportive policies. As a result, a principle rooted in organizational change
theory is necessary to close this resource gap. Effective change efforts use evidence-based
solutions and adapt them, where necessary, to the culture of the organization (Clark & Estes,
2008). Applying this theory suggests that incorporating faculty and staff input into
implementation processes will increase university professional buy-in. The first recommendation
is identifying the key policies and elements within the organization for consideration in the
change process. According to Lewis (2011), frequent communication of changes to
organizational policies and procedures will build organizational trust and buy-in. Various forms
of communication of change exist, such as town hall meetings and postmortems, which may
serve as platforms for collaborative inputs between university professionals, faculty and staff,
and academically underserved students.
Clark and Estes (2008) stated when policies and procedures are aligned and
communicated from the top with all stakeholders, organizational performance increases. In the
case of USS university professionals, organizational performance has tremendous implications
on state-based institutional funding. Furthermore, just as university professionals present their
message of change through town hall meetings and postmortems, Ashford and Detert (2015)
identified seven tactics for gaining buy-in to change: tailoring the pitch, framing the issue,
managing emotions, getting the timing right, involving others, adhering to norms, and suggesting
solutions. In the process of communicating change, some individuals may resist a university buy-
in. The “ w hy” for university professionals is to help all academically underserved students learn.
58
University professionals, faculty, and staff must see how effective buying into revising academic
support policies promotes student learning and success over utility. As efforts for communicating
change are underway, university professionals must secure buy-in without forced compliance,
thereby establishing a culture of trust.
Cultural model recommendation: Trust. Increasing the university culture of trust is the
second cultural model recommendation. Less than half of the university professionals
interviewed stated a culture of trust is needed between the administration and the faculty. As a
result, the university needs a principle rooted in organizational change theory to close this
resource gap. Effective change efforts ensure all key stakeholder perspectives inform the design
and decision-making process leading to the change (Clark & Estes, 2008). In addition, Clark and
Estes (2008) suggested effective change efforts are those communicated regularly and frequently
to all key stakeholders. According to the principle, if university professionals have more
effective communication as to the direction of the institution, changed policies, professional
development, and resources, they could more effectively buy into the organizational goal of
increasing class progression rates for academically underserved students. One recommendation
is for university professionals to provide faculty with ongoing support, including resources on
effective academic policy implementation. With these recommendations, university professionals
can trust the direction of supporting academically underserved students both in and out of the
classroom. Such actions suggest that university professional buy-in increases the institutional
culture of trust. Another recommendation, then, is for university professionals to regularly meet
with faculty and staff from all areas of the organization to share ideas and receive feedback. A
third recommendation is to incorporate new messages into already-existing forms of
communication. As an example, town hall meetings and postmortems may serve as platforms for
59
collaborative inputs between university professionals, faculty, staff, and academically
underserved students.
Fix and Sias (2006) noted that effective leaders know how to build strong communication
skills among members of an organization to build capacity. Lewis (2011) and Hoppes and Holley
(2014) affirmed building trust requires articulating the course of change and managing meaning,
networks, and practice. In addition, university professionals must build trust through effective
communication of the mission and vision of USS or by strategically maintaining positive
relationships with other faculty and staff members. The effort could gain buy-in through an
established trust, which affords university professionals to reach their goal of increasing class
progression for academically underserved students.
Cultural setting: Retention policies. Increasing the utilization of experienced university
professionals and their knowledge of effective retention policies is the first cultural setting
recommendation. The results and findings of this study indicated less than half of university
professionals provided stakeholders with adequate role models who have integrated policies and
programs for supporting academically underserved students. As a result, a principle rooted in
organizational change theory is necessary to close this resource gap. According to Clark and
Estes (2008), effective change begins by addressing motivation influencers, ensuring the group
knows why it needs to change. Effective change agents address organizational barriers, and then
knowledge and skill needs. Equally important, effective organizations ensure organizational
messages, rewards, policies, and procedures governing the work of the organization are aligned
with or supportive of organizational goals and values (Clark & Estes, 2008). Such efforts suggest
university professionals need more experience in implementing effective retention policies. In
addition, another support for university professionals may come from observing other institutions
60
that have implemented revised retention policies in alignment with the productivity-based
funding model (Burke, 2005; Romzek & Dubnick, 2000; Salmi, 2009). The researcher does not
offer any recommendation to increase the utilization of experienced university professionals and
their knowledge of effective retention policies due to the administration ’s already- established
knowledge.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), effective change efforts ensure everyone has the
resources needed to do their job. If resource shortages exist, then resources are aligned with
organizational priorities. Utilizing the experience of university professionals in developing
effective retention policies is not a gap of focus in this study. The establishment of priorities to
increase the class progression rate of academically underserved students must remain at the
forefront and guide efforts at USS.
Summary
The researcher used the New World Kirkpatrick Model (2016) to plan, implement, and
evaluate the recommendations for USS to achieve its goal of increasing class progression rates
for academically underserved students by 10% by August 2021. The model is useful because it
focuses on whether the training met expectations for all four levels of evaluation: results,
behavior, learning, and reaction. Furthermore, in line with the model, administrators do not need
to wait until training completion to begin collecting data to assess the impact of the program.
With the help of early data collection, administrators can modify and adapt the training to ensure
it meets the expectations of both USS and university professionals. The systematic data analysis
can both increase the potential success of the program and enable organizations to maximize the
impact of future trainings and initiatives (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). By continuously
evaluating the effectiveness of the professional development and training on academic policy
61
design, implementation, and evaluation, the institution should see an increase in the effectiveness
of class progression for academically underserved students. In achieving the stakeholder goals,
the university professionals can implement policies to satisfy the state-defined effectiveness
measures of the productivity-based funding model to support academically underserved students.
62
References
Ackoff, R. L. (2006). Idealized design: How to dissolve t om or r ow’s crisis...today. Philadelphia,
PA: Wharton School.
Aldrich, H., & Ruef, M. (2006). Organizations evolving (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Al-Haddad, S., & Kotnour, T. (2015). Integrating the organizational change literature: A model
for successful change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28(2), 234-262.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-11-2013-0215
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How
learning works: 7 research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Anderman, L. H., & Freeman, T. M. (2004). S t ude nt s ’ sense of belonging in school. Advances in
Motivation and Achievement, 13, 27-63. Retrieved from
https://www.emerald.com/insight/publication/issn/0749-7423
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich,
P. R., . . . Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A
revision of B l oom ’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Complete edition). New York,
NY: Longman.
Ashford, S. J., & Detert, J. (2015, January/February). Get the boss to buy in. Harvard Business
Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2015/01/get-the-boss-to-buy-in
Baker, L. (2008). Metacognition in comprehension instruction. In C. C. Block & S. R. Parris
(Eds.) Comprehension instruction: research-based best practices (2nd ed., pp. 77-95).
New York, NY: Guilford.
63
Barr, M. J. (2002). The Jossey-Bass academic adm i ni s t r at or ’s guide to budgets and financial
management. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Bernardo, R. (2018). 2018’s most & least educated states in America. Retrieved from
https://wallethub.com/edu/most-educated-states/31075/
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2013). Reframing organizations: artistry, choice, and leadership
(5th edition). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Borgogni, L., Dello Russo, S., & Latham, G. P. (2011). The relationship of employee perceptions
of the immediate supervisor and top management with collective efficacy. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(1), 5-13.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1548051810379799
Burke, J. C. (Ed.). (2002). Funding public colleges and universities for performance: Popularity,
problems, and prospects. Albany, NY: Rockefeller Institute.
Burke, J. C. (Ed.). (2005). Achieving accountability in higher education. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Burnes, B. (2004). Managing change: A strategic approach to organizational dynamics (4th ed.)
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Chen, X. (2005). First generation students in postsecondary education: A look at their college
transcripts. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
64
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dembo, M. H., & Eaton, M. J. (2000). Self-regulation of academic learning in middle-level
schools. Elementary School Journal, 100, 473-490. https://doi.org/10.1086/499651
Dougherty, K. J., & Hong, E. (2006). Performance accountability as imperfect panacea: The
community college experience. In T. Bailey & V. S. Morest (Eds.), Defending the
community college equity agenda (pp. 51-86). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.
Dougherty, K. J., & Natow, R. S. (2015). The politics of performance funding for higher
education: Origins, discontinuations, and transformations. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University.
Dougherty, K. J., & Reddy, V. (2013). Performance funding for higher education: What are the
mechanisms? What are the impacts?. (ASHE Higher Education Report). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ebrahim, A., & Rangan, V. K. (2014). What impact?: A framework for measuring the scale and
scope of social performance. California Management Review, 56(3), 118-141.
https://doi.org/10.1525%2Fcmr.2014.56.3.118
Eccles, J. S. (2006). A motivational perspective on school achievement: Taking responsibility for
learning, teaching, and supporting. In R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds), Optimizing
student success in school with the other three Rs: Reasoning, resilience, and
responsibility (pp. 199-224). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Ewell, P. J. (2005). Assessing assessment: Successes, failures, and the future. Paper presented at
the North Carolina State University Assessment Symposium, Raleigh, NC.
65
Financial Conditions Report (2017). Retrieved from
https://static.ark.org/eeuploads/adhe/2017_FC_Report.pdf
Fitsimmons, G. (2009). Resource management: People: Gaining buy-in. Bottom Line: Managing
Library Finances, 22(1), 21-23. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/21889202/
Resource_Management_People_Gaining_Buy-in
Fix, B., & Sias, P. M. (2006). Person-centered communication, leader-member exchange, and
employee job satisfaction. Communication Research Reports, 23(1), 35-44.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17464090500535855
Fornaciari, C. J., & Dean, K. L. (2005). Experiencing organizational work design: Beyond
Hackman and Oldham. Journal of Management Education, 29, 631–653.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1052562904273378
Freeman, T. M., Anderman, L. H., & Jensen, J. M. (2007). Sense of belonging in college
freshmen at the classroom and campus levels. Journal of Experimental Education, 75,
203-220. https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.75.3.203-220
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45-56. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
Graham, C. M., & Fredrick, M. N. (2007). E m p l oye e s ’ perception toward the dimension of
culture in enhancing organizational learning. Learning Organization, 14, 281-292.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09696470710739435
Green, D. (2006). Historically underserved students: What we know, what we still need to know.
New Directions for Community Colleges, 135, 21-28. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.244
66
Harnisch, T. (2011). Performance-based funding: A re-emerging strategy in public higher
education financing (Higher education policy brief). Washington, DC: American
Association of State Colleges and Universities.
Hausmann, L. R., Schofield, J. W., & Woods, R. L. (2007). Sense of belonging as a predictor of
intentions to persist among African American and White first-year college students.
Research in Higher Education, 48, 803-839. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-007-9052-9
Heller, D. E. (2011). The states and public higher education: Affordability, access, and
accountability. (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.
Hoppes, C. R., & Holley, K. A. (2014). Organizational trust in times of challenge: The impact on
faculty and administrators. Innovative Higher Education, 39, 201-216.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-013-9275-y
Joyce, B. R., & Showers, B. (2002). Designing training and peer coaching: Our needs for
learning. Alexandria: VA: ASCD.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Ki r k pat r i c k ’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Talent Development.
Kahan, D. M. (2002). The logic of reciprocity: Trust, collective action, and law. John M. Olin
Center for Studies in Law, Economics, and Public Policy Working Papers, 281.
Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/lepp_papers/281
Kaikkonen, D. (2016). Shifting from enrollment- to performance-based funding in higher
education: What can we learn from W a s hi ng t on’s experience?. Education Finance and
Policy, 11, 482-498. https://doi.org/10.1162/EDFP_a_00190
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bl oom ’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41, 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
67
Krathwohl, D. R., & Anderson, L. W. (2010). Merlin C. Wittrock and the revision of Bloom's
taxonomy. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 64-65.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903433562
Laden, B. V. (2004). Serving emerging majority students. New Directions for Community
Colleges, 127, 5-19. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.160
Lasher, W. F., & Sullivan, C. A. (2005). Follow the money: The changing world of budgeting in
higher education. In Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 197-240).
Amsterdam, Netherlands: Springer.
Le Fevre, D. M. (2014). Barriers to implementing pedagogical change: The role of t e a c h e rs ’
perceptions of risk. Teaching and Teacher Education, 38, 56-64.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.11.007
Lewis, L. K. (2011). Organizational change: Creating change through strategic communication
(Vol. 4). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Lucas, L. M., & Ogilvie, D. T. (2006). Things are not always what they seem: How reputations,
culture, and incentives influence knowledge transfer. Learning Organization, 13(1), 7-24.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09696470610639103
Marquardt, M. J. (2002). Building the learning organization (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Davies-
Black.
Martin, A. (2012). For social media buy-in, lead with the “ w hy.” Harvard Business Review.
Retrieved from http://www.hbr.org
Mathews, B. W., & Crocker, T. (2016). Defining “ bu y- i n: ” Introducing the buy-in continuum.
Organization Development Journal, 34(2), 81-96. Retrieved from
https://uia.org/s/or/en/1100041869
68
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
McLendon, M. K., Hearn, J. C., & Deaton, R. (2006). Called to account: Analyzing the origins
and spread of state performance-accountability policies for higher education. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(1), 1-24.
https://doi.org/10.3102%2F01623737028001001
Meece, J. L., Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2006). Classroom goal structure, student
motivation, and academic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 487-503.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070258
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Persistence fall to fall. (2017). Retrieved from http://www.usstates.edu
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667-686.
https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-0663.95.4.667
Productivity funding model policy universities. (2017). Retrieved from
https://static.ark.org/eeuploads/adhe/Productivity_Funding_Policy_Universities1.pdf
Robinson, R. (2004). Pathways to completion: Patterns of progression through a university
degree. Higher Education, 47(1), 1-20.
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:HIGH.0000009803.70418.9c
69
Romzek, B. S., & Dubnick, M. J. (2000). Accountability. In J. M. Shafritz (Ed.), Defining public
administration: Selections from the international encyclopedia of public policy and
administration (pp. 382-395). Boulder, CO: Westview.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York, NY:
Teachers College.
Salmi, J. (2009). The growing accountability agenda: Progress or mixed blessing?. Higher
Education Management and Policy, 21(1), 1-21.
https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2008.50.8000
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey
Bass.
Schmidtlein, A. F., & Berdahl, O. R. (2011). Autonomy and accountability: Who controls
academe?. In Altbach, P. G., Gumport, P. J., & Berdahl, R. O. (Eds.), American higher
education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic challenges (pp. 69-
87). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University .
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006) Information processing theory. Education. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/information- processing-theory/
Strayhorn, T. L., & Mullins, T. G. (2012). Investigating Black gay male undergraduates'
experiences in campus residence halls. Journal of College & University Student Housing,
38/39(2/1), 140-161. Retrieved from https://www.acuho-i.org/journal
Sujitparapitaya, S. (2014). Achieving faculty buy-in: Motivation performance in learning
outcome assessment. Journal of Case Studies in Accreditation and Assessment, 3, 1-22.
Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1060582.pdf
70
Thomas, D. (2014). Factors that influence college completion intention of undergraduate
students. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 23, 225-235.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-013-0099-4
Tierney, W. (2006). Trust and the public good: Examining the cultural conditions of academic
work. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Tinto, V. (2007). Research and practice of student retention: What next?. Journal of College
Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 8(1), 1-19.
https://doi.org/10.2190%2F4YNU-4TMB-22DJ-AN4W
Turner, A. (2017). How does intrinsic and extrinsic motivation drive performance culture in
organizations?. Cogent Education, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1337543
Twigg, C. (2005). Increasing success for underserved students: Redesigning introductory
courses. Saratoga Springs, NY: National Center for Academic Transformation.
Underwood, J. B., & Burns, E. (2014). The disconnect between college and reality. Phi Delta
Kappan, 95(8), 80. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F003172171409500821
Venezia, A., Callan, P., Finney, J., Kirst, M., & Usdan, M. (2005) The governance divide: A
report on a four-state study on improving college readiness and success. San Jose, CA:
National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.
Weeden, D. (2015). Appropriation. National Conference of State Legislatures. Retrieved from
http://www.ncsl.org/
Weiner, B. (2006). Social motivation, justice, and the moral emotions: An attributional
approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
71
Wolniak, G., Flores, S., & Kemple, J. (2016). How can we improve college success for
underserved students?: Through early, sustained, and multifaceted support. New York,
NY: Education Solutions Initiative, NYU Steinhardt.
72
Appendix A: Participating Stakeholders With Sampling Criteria for
Interviews With Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholder group of focus in this study was USS university professionals.
Stakeholders included 13 senior and midlevel administrators from three institutional areas:
finance, academics, and student support. The relevancy of the group is in regard to their
respective positions within the university and their ability to adopt the funding model metrics for
USS.
The researcher has access to the stakeholder group due to professional ties with the
institution. The researcher purposefully selected the participant population. The number of
interviewees provided a good representation of university professionals who have the authority
to influence policies related to the productivity-based funding model. Explanation of the selected
group interviews appears in the following paragraph. Creswell (2014) identified data collected
through qualitative interviews and qualitative document collection as either random or
nonrandom. The process provides “ ri c h l y de s c ri p t i ve ” (Merriam ^ Tisdell, 2016) results for this
study.
Interview Recruitment Strategy and Rationale
Stakeholder interviews took place with 13 professionals during scheduled times at the
USS office of each stakeholder with one interview conducted via Zoom. In the event a selected
stakeholder was unable to participate, the researcher selected an alternative participant within the
respective administrative area. During the interviews, participants shared historical information
that granted the researcher more information to analyze and progress the study (Creswell, 2014).
The interview questions encouraged rich, thick descriptions of stakeholder goals, knowledge, and
efforts to achieve academic progression and timely graduation for academically underserved
73
students. The interviews are admissible because each portion of the experiment contributed to
results.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. USS stakeholders with at least 3 years of higher education experience to
share a diverse perspective of higher education admissions and retention policies.
Criterion 2. USS stakeholders with experience in retention policy implementation and
programming.
Criterion 3. USS stakeholders with knowledge of productivity-based funding models.
Documents Sampling Strategy and Rationale
The researcher obtained public documents, including meeting updates, calendar of
student activities and participation first-year experience guideline, and class progression data.
The researcher recorded information and obtained the language and words of the participants
(Creswell, 2014). According to Creswell (2014), the data collection from documents goes hand-
in-hand with the other parts of developing the qualitative study. The document collection did not
take the researcher a great amount of time due to previously accessible documented information.
However, throughout this timeframe, the researcher had to dissect the information because the
data were so dense and rich (Guest, MacQueen, & Namey, 2012).
Document Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. Minutes or updates from meetings of USS and the stakeholders regarding
the review of current retention data and policies.
Criterion 2. Reports and calendars from student activities at USS designed to increase
retention and belonging.
74
Criterion 3. Reports from the Office of Institutional Effectiveness at USS on the
academic progression and graduation rates for academically underserved students.
Explanation for Choices
The combined interviews and document collection methods were appropriate to provide more
data than one method alone . Other research choices, such as surveys and experiments, were not
beneficial for this study, as the research is an evaluation. Qualitative research consists of purposefully
selected individuals (i.e., stakeholders) to help the researcher understand the problem (Creswell, 2011).
Furthermore, descriptiveness and detail of qualitative research granted the researcher a more thorough
explanation of the data (Creswell, 2011; McEwan & McEwan, 2003). Thus, the data collection process
of this study centered more on capturing the depth and quality in the narrative to support the research
rather than the number of respondents.
75
Appendix B: Protocols
Interview Protocol
Thank you for taking the time to participate in this interview. Your insight is a crucial
piece to this study on the implementation of the productivity-based funding model. The focus is
on the institutional efforts to increase the progression and graduation rates for academically
underserved students. Just as a reminder, you do not have to answer any questions that you do
not feel comfortable answering, but know that all information will be protected. Pseudonyms
will protect the institution, your name, and position. Also, the data gathered will be saved on an
external flash drive and secured in a disclosed location. Please understand that the interviews are
recorded with an audio device, so please feel free to be completely honest. Despite the recording,
the measures that are in place will allow the university professionals to be honest in their
dialogue. However, because demographics are considered during the data analysis phase of this
study, please answer the following questions:
• What is your seniority in the institution?
• How long have you worked in higher education?
• What is your familiarity with funding models?
Thank you. Let us move on to the interview questions. First, let us talk about how institutional
leadership identifies with the mission and how it is discussed in your workplace.
76
Interview Protocol
1. The primary mission of the University of the Southern States is to create impactful
leaders through education in and out of the classroom. Describe what that looks like in
the operations of this administration.
2. In what ways do the members within your respective department communicate the
importance of the mission, if at all?
a. Do you think the mission is well-received? Why or why not?
3. Talk about a time when university professionals shared their thoughts on the retention
efforts of the institution.
4. What materials are available for educating the university on its class progression rates for
academically underserved students?
Next, let us talk about some cultural aspects regarding retention and how the productivity-
based funding model plays a role in the response of the leadership at the institution.
5. Can you tell me about your experience in student retention?
6. Tell me about the retention efforts the university has in place.
7. Tell me about the programs and activities designed for engaging first-year students.
a. Would you consider the programs and activities effective or ineffective?
8. Tell me about the programs and activities designed for engaging student residents.
a. Would you consider the programs and activities effective or ineffective?
9. Tell me your perception of the administrative response to the retention of academically
underserved students within your organization?
10. How do you think the instructors perceive the retention of academically underserved
students within the university?
11. Tell me about the procedure and guidelines for advising academically underserved
students.
12. Tell me about the universitywide response to the productivity-based funding model in the
state.
13. Share your thoughts on the productivity-based funding model.
77
a. How does retaining academically underserved students affect the institution
fiscally?
14. Talk about any alert systems that are in place for students who exhibit characteristics of
being academically at-risk.
Lastly, I have a few questions about your thoughts on the impact academically underserved
students have on the institution.
15. What are some of the impacts the population of academically underserved students has
on other areas of the campus?
16. Why do you think academically underserved students are not continuing their education
at USS?
17. How is retaining academically underserved students communicated with the other offices
and leaders at the university?
18. Share your final thoughts about the population of academically underserved students at
the university.
78
Appendix C: Credibility and Trustworthiness
According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), “In assessing the trustworthiness of qualitative
research, it is important to back up and ask what kinds of questions or problems qualitative
research is designed to a ddre s s ” (p. 52). The researcher notified university professionals about
the topic and variety of questions he planned to ask. This allowed stakeholders to have
familiarity with the questions. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), “Determining the
authenticity and accuracy of written documents is part of the research proc e s s ” (p. 175). Upon
receiving the documentation, the researcher began the process of the gathering of the data.
This process ensured the provided documentation was credible. Some university
professionals may not have wanted certain information provided because it may reflect
negatively on them as leaders and on the institution, which ultimately could lead to the tampering
or editing of documentation. A significant bias exists with leadership providing the required
information. To reduce the possibility of discrediting the institution, the leadership was ensured
of the protection of the school and the stakeholder s’ names in the study.
79
Appendix D: Ethics
According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), the validity and reliability of a study depend on
the ethics of the investigator. Also, all participants were informed, which determined their
participation in the study (Glesne, 2011; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The primary data collection
method of one-on-one interviews within this qualitative study required the researcher to capture
specific accounts from the participants. Thus, the researcher considered ahead of time the
protection of subjects from harm, the right to privacy, the notion of informed consent, and the
issue of deception (Glesne, 2011; Krieger & Casey, 2009; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Institutional Review Boards, also known as IRBs, seek to protect human subjects by informing
participants about the design and details of the research project and ensure the researcher adheres
to a set of prescribed ethical guidelines (Krueger & Casey, 2009; Rubin & Rubin, 2012). To
protect of rights of the participants, the University of Southern California IRB reviewed and
approved the preliminary proposal of this study. The researcher obtained informed consent
through a formal invitation to participants before the commencing of the study. Throughout this
process, interviewees received notification that participation was voluntary and their identity
would be kept confidential. Also, before the interviews, the participants were verbally reminded
their participation was voluntary, they could refrain from answering questions they did not want
to, and they had the option to withdraw from the study without any form of reprimand.
Another important ethical consideration is the researcher and his association with the
organization. As an outsider to the organization, the researcher recognized some difficulties
might exist with the data collection process. Participants in the study consisted of professionals
from various institutional departments. The lack of familiarity with the researcher to the
organization could have affected the quality and seriousness of information disclosed by the
80
participants. Thus, every effort was made to ensure all data collected from participants was
validated through feedback on the interview findings to rule out any form of misinterpretation
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The researcher transcribed interviews verbatim through Rev.com from audio recordings.
The protection of the responses was the primary concern for the research participants (Glesne,
2011). According to Glesne (2011), it is important to remind participants that the researcher will
ensure their trust is maintained and that any obtained information that can be traced to the
participant is only accessible to the researcher. Accordingly, the researcher alone has access to
all data on a password-protected computer. The researcher also provided small incentive a week
after each interview. The incentive amount was not disclosed to minimize the possibility of
participants feeling coerced to participate. Information or specimens maintained physically are
stored with appropriate physical safeguards, in a locked cabinet limited to authorized study
personnel. Electronic data are stored with appropriate electronic safeguards, such as unique
usernames/passwords, and limited to authorized study personnel with the utilization of dual-
factor authentication. Upon conclusion of the study, the researcher retained all records according
to the USC archive policy.
81
Appendix E: Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
The model informing this implementation and evaluation plan is the New World
Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), based on the original Kirkpatrick Four
Level Model of Evaluation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). The Kirkpatrick model suggests
evaluation plans start with the goals of the organization and work backward. As a result, the
“ l e a d i ng i ndi c a t ors ” bridging recommended solutions to the increasing of class progression rates
for academically underserved students are both easier to identify and more closely aligned.
Further, this “ re v e rs e orde r” of the New World Kirkpatrick Model allows for a sequence of three
other actions: (a) first, the development of solution outcomes that focus on assessing work
behaviors; (b) next, the identification of indicators proving learning occurred during
implementation; and (c) finally, the emergence of indicators for implementation strategies that
organizational members are satisfied with. Designing the implementation and evaluation plan in
this manner forces connections between the immediate solutions and the larger goal and solicits
proximal “ buy i n” to ensure success (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Expectations
USS aims to create leaders through education by taking a more concentrated interest on
increasing class progression rates for academically underserved students. The study provides
four levels of the Kirkpatrick Model: results and leading indicators, behaviors and required
drivers, components of learning, and reactions. First, the degree for the following plan identifies
the targeted outcomes for the training. Second, stakeholders identify the plan and its level of skill
application as a result of training. Third, stakeholders conduct an analysis of the acquisition of
intended knowledge, skills, attitudes, confidence, and commitment. Finally, stakeholders
ascertain the degree to which the faculty and staff find the training favorable and beneficial. In
82
conclusion, the following plan allows university professionals to implement the proper
procedures to equip the institution with the needed resources to increase the class progression
rate for academically underserved students.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 6 shows the proposed Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators in the form of
outcomes, metrics, and methods for both external and internal outcomes for university
professionals at USS. If the internal outcomes are met as expected as a result of the training and
organizational support for university professionals and their performance on the job, then the
external outcomes could also be realized.
Table 6
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric Method
External outcomes
Improved relationship with
the minority and
impoverished communities in
the state.
Number of minority and
impoverished students admitted.
Annual monitoring of numbers.
Internal outcomes
1. Increased amount of
institutional funds to support
academically underserved
students.
Percentage of state funding increase
year over year.
Solicit data quarterly from student
support offices.
2. Faculty and staff improved
their retention efforts of
academically underserved
students.
Number of students who attribute
staying in school to faculty and staff
retention efforts.
Quarterly monitoring of faculty and
staff retention efforts.
3. Town halls and feedback
sessions led by the chancellor
and university professionals.
Number of town halls and sessions
held.
Solicit data quarterly from the
attendees.
83
Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. University professionals are the stakeholders of focus at the
institution. First, university professionals must learn to correctly direct an application into the
appropriate review process. Next, university professionals must identify “ f a t a l fl a w s ” in the
application. Finally, university professionals must review the application for completeness,
correctly identify gaps, and complete the review on or before the deadline. Table 7 presents
specific metrics, methods, and timing for each of these outcome behaviors.
84
Table 7
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical behavior Metric Method Timing
1. Correctly review
departmental budgets and
expenditures.
The number of budgets
with unused funds that
affect academically
underserved students.
1a. University professionals
will review the unused funds
per department and assess
how the funds can be
utilized to support
academically underserved
students.
1a. Quarterly
2. Review of retention
efforts per campus
departments.
The number of programs
and services that improve
the class progression of
academically underserved
students.
2a. Faculty and staff employ
a minimum of two strategies
per month that are known to
be effective in supporting
academically underserved
students through literature,
training, and higher
education experience.
2a. Monthly
2b. Faculty and staff attend
campus programs at which
academically underserved
students are the target
audience.
2b. Quarterly
2c. Faculty and staff share
student retention success
stories among peers in
department meetings.
2c. Monthly
3. Attendance of town
halls and feedback
sessions.
The number of attendees
and number of completed
surveys.
3a. University professionals
develop an attendance list
for all faculty and staff.
3a. Biannually
3b. University professionals
collect survey responses
from faculty and staff.
3b. Data from surveys
collected after sessions
and shared biannually
Required drivers. University professionals need the support of their subordinates and
the entire institution to reinforce what they learn in training to improve services for increasing
the class progression rate for academically underserved students. University professionals also
must apply what they have learned by implementing policies that satisfy the state-defined
effectiveness measures of the productivity-based funding model and increase class progression
85
rates for academically underserved students by 10%. A recommendation is to establish rewards
for achievement of performance goals to enhance the organizational support of university
professionals. Table 8 shows the recommended drivers to support critical behaviors of university
professionals as they seek to build their capacity as advocates for academically underserved
students.
Table 8
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method Timing
Critical
behaviors
supported
Reinforcing
Job aid including the numbers and percentages of academically underserved students
who do not progress.
Quarterly 1, 2
Job aid including a checklist for developing new policies that align with the
productivity-based funding model.
Annually 2
Training for self-assessment of the effectiveness of university professionals in the
implementation of policies and campus resources that align with retaining
academically underserved students.
Annually 1, 2
Opportunities for university faculty and staff to engage in guided self-monitoring and
self-assessment.
Quarterly 2
Attributional retraining with relation to the efforts of university professionals at
admissions and retention policy implementation.
Quarterly 2
Encouraging
Rationales of the usefulness of implementing supportive policies and programs for
increasing class progression for academically underserved students.
Quarterly 2, 3
Incorporate new messages into already existing forms of communication. Quarterly 2, 3
Rewarding
Public acknowledgement by the chancellor when university departments hit an
organizational goal of retention.
Quarterly 2
Monitoring
University professionals schedule consistent time for individual and team meetings
for retention rate review.
Monthly 3
Conduct university meetings to monitor departmental compliance of retention-
supportive policy.
Quarterly 3
86
Organizational support. The aforementioned behaviors and required drivers to be
monitored for performance improvement are premised upon the implementation of
recommendations at the organizational level. In this case, for the stakeholders to achieve their
goals, the organization must: (a) accept and be willing to change existing academic support
policies, (b) create a culture of trust between the administration and the faculty, (c) provide
stakeholders with adequate role models within the institution who have integrated policies and
programs for supporting academically underserved students, and (d) evaluate departmental
missions and procedures for evidence of alignment with the mission of the university. The
method is consistent with the university professionals and their approach to the New World
Kirkpatrick Model, along with its commitment to Levels 3 and 4.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Following the completion of the recommended solutions, most notably
the increased class progression for academically underserved students, the university
professionals should have these abilities:
1. Recognize the percentage of academically underserved students who do not progress
academically with 100% accuracy. (D)
2. Correctly align new policies with the measures of the productivity-based funding
model. (P)
3. Plan and monitor their effectiveness in implementing and aligning policies and
campus resources with the intention to retain academically underserved students. (M)
4. Value the usefulness in implementing supportive policies and programs for
academically underserved students. (Value)
87
5. Indicate with confidence that they understand how low class progression rates are due
to their efforts. (Confidence)
6. Identify policies to satisfy the state-defined measures within the productivity-based
funding model. (Goal setting)
7. Identify organizational resistance and establish buy-in for changing ineffective
academic support policies. (Goal setting)
8. Establish a culture of trust between the administration and faculty. (Goal setting)
Program. The learning goals listed in the previous section are achievable with
a training program that employs a blended model of asynchronous and synchronous learning,
assessments, and job aids. Asynchronous learning explores in depth the retention policies and
programs for academically underserved students. University professionals, also known as the
learners, can study a broad range of topics pertaining to the review of the productivity-based
funding model and retention efforts that support the class progression of academically
underserved students. During the asynchronous e-learning modules, university professionals may
receive a job aid of key numerical class progression and retention data of academically
underserved students. Another job aid may contain a checklist in reference to the development of
policies that align with the measures of the productivity-based funding model and a chart of
different types of retention application processes.
The program may consist of online as well as in-person application trainings on effective
implementation strategies for aligning policies and campus resources to retain academically
underserved students (90 minutes); an understanding the value in implementing supportive
policies and programs for academically underserved students (45 minutes); and attribution
retraining with regard to understanding that low class progression rates are due to their efforts
88
(45 minutes). Furthermore, the program may provide another training on how to identify
organizational resistance and establish buy-in (60 minutes). Combining synchronous and
asynchronous learning, the total anticipated time for completion is 240 minutes (4 hours). As an
incentive, program attendees may receive paid time off for participating in the trainings.
Components of learning. A training design should include evaluation that confirms
intended learning for university professionals. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) identified five
components of Level 2 learning for such evaluation: knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and
commitment. Evaluating knowledge measures whether university professionals know and
understand the content presented in the training. Skills evaluation refers to university
professionals demonstrating their new knowledge by putting it into practice, even if just by
simulation. Evaluating attitude determines if participants see value in applying the training
content on the job. An evaluation of confidence and commitment helps determine whether
university professionals have enough practice and feedback to address any uncertainties. The
evaluation allows trainers to clear a path for faculty and staff to commit to and apply their new
learning. Level 2 evaluation is formative, occurring both during training, allowing trainers to
make adjustments, and after training. Table 9 presents the methods of evaluating learning and
timing for each component.
89
Table 9
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program.
Method or Activity Timing
Declarative knowledge: “I know it .”
Knowledge checks throughout live training discussions and activities. During the asynchronous webinars.
Procedural skills: “I can do it right now .”
Demonstration of utilizing the job aids to successfully develop retention
policies.
During the workshop.
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment survey asking participants
about their level of proficiency before and after the training.
One month after the workshop.
Attitude: “I believe this is w or th w hi le .”
Instructor ’s observation of participants and their statements and actions
which demonstrate how they see the benefit of what they are being asked
to do on the job.
During the workshop.
Discussions of the value of implementing supportive policies and
programs for academically underserved students.
During the workshop.
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment item. One month after the workshop.
Confidence: “I think I can do it on the jo b.”
Discussions following practice and feedback. During the workshop.
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment item. One month after the workshop.
Commitment: “I will do it on the jo b.”
Discussions following practice and feedback. During the workshop.
Create an individual action plan. During the workshop.
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment item. One month after the workshop.
Level 1: Reaction
The final area of training measurement captures participant reactions. Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick (2016) defined Level 1 as the customer satisfaction level, or the extent to which
trainees find the learning experience engaging, relevant to their real-world work, and favorable.
Such participant reactions are predictive of the level of learning achieved, perceived value of
training, and eventual application of learning on the job. Level 1 evaluation is both formative and
90
summative. It occurs throughout training to check participant comfort with aspects of the
learning environment, such as content, pacing, and instructor interaction, as well as allows for
trainer adjustment, and it occurs following training. Table 10 details methods and timing of
measuring Level 1 reactions.
Table 10
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program.
Method or Tool Timing
Engagement
Completion of online modules by required deadlines During training
Training attendance At the beginning of trainings
Observation of participants During trainings
Relevance
Brief “ pul s e c he c k ” with participants Periodically throughout live trainings
Post-training evaluation inquiring about relevance One month after online trainings
Customer satisfaction
Brief “ pul s e c he c k ” with participants Periodically throughout live trainings
Post-training evaluation inquiring about satisfaction with training
experience
One month after training sessions
Evaluation Tools
Immediately following program implementation. During the initial and follow-up
sessions, university professionals have access to a learning management system, used to answer
multiple choice and survey questions and as well as contribute to a discussion board. The
required data may indicate the level of engagement of university professionals with the content
of the various training sessions. Additionally, the researcher, along with the chancellor and select
university administrators, can serve as the administrators of the learning management system.
91
Administrators can observe engagement and discuss with university professionals the relevance
of the content of l e a rne rs ’ work. After the initial training and e-learning module, administrators
can administer a survey to assess the satisfaction and relevance of the training for university
professionals (Level 1), as well as their knowledge, confidence, and value of the training (Level
2).
During the asynchronous portion of the training, the administrator can set times for
university professionals to review and answer questions about the relevance of the material and
their overall satisfaction with the overall content of the training. In addition, the learning
management system can provide data about the amount of time spent on the learning modules.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. The administrator can
distribute a survey containing both open and scaled items utilizing the Blended Evaluation
Approach at 8 weeks after the initial training and again at 16 weeks,. The goal of the survey is to
obtain information from university professionals regarding satisfaction and relevance of the
training (Level 1), the confidence of university professionals in applying the training and the
value assigned to it (Level 2), application of the training to their grading practices (Level 3), and
the extent to which university professionals implement admissions and retention policy that align
with organizational standards and drive instruction (Level 4).
Data Analysis and Reporting
The program measures the Level 4 goal for university professionals by the level of
adherence to the implementation of policies and procedures that support academically
underserved students, and the quantity and quality of formative assessment used in admissions
and retention policy design. Each semester, university professionals can track the effectiveness
of new policies as well as the use of formative assessment during follow-up. The report card in
92
Table 11 can be a means to report data on university professionals and their admissions and
retention policy implementation practices as a monitoring and accountability tool, including
elements from all four levels of the Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) New World Model.
93
Table 11
University Professional Policy Implementation Accountability Report Card
100-90% 89-80% 79-65% <65%
Level 4: Results
Retention policies satisfy the state-defined measures within
the productivity-based funding model.
◻ ◻ ◻ ◻
Retention policies align with school procedures promoting
student engagement and class progression.
◻ ◻ ◻ ◻
Increase in funding and resource allocation to support
academically underserved students.
◻ ◻ ◻ ◻
Level 3: Behavior
The evaluation of respective departmental missions and
procedures to determine evidence of alignment with the
mission of the university by stakeholders.
◻ ◻ ◻ ◻
Faculty level of engagement inside and outside of the
classroom with academically underserved students increases.
◻ ◻ ◻ ◻
Staff level of engagement with academically underserved
students increases.
◻ ◻ ◻ ◻
Level 2: Learning
University professionals that demonstrated knowledge of
policies supporting the retention of academically underserved
students.
◻ ◻ ◻ ◻
University professionals display ability to implement newly
acquired knowledge to developing supportive retention
policies for academically underserved students.
◻ ◻ ◻ ◻
University professionals display value of implementing
supportive retention policies for academically underserved
students.
◻ ◻ ◻ ◻
University professionals display confidence that they can
implement supportive retention policies for academically
underserved students.
◻ ◻ ◻ ◻
University professionals display commitment to
implementing supportive retention policies for academically
underserved students.
◻ ◻ ◻ ◻
Level 1: Reaction
University professionals display engagement in the training
program.
◻ ◻ ◻ ◻
University professionals recognize the relevancy of initial
training.
◻ ◻ ◻ ◻
University professionals recognize that the training was
beneficial.
◻ ◻ ◻ ◻
94
Admissions and Retention Policy Evaluation and Implementation
Training Workshop Evaluation
The purpose of this survey is to evaluate the training provided regarding the design and
implementation of admissions and retention policies and procedures that support academically
underserved students. Your input and feedback are important to assess the quality of the training
as well as ongoing supports that are needed to reinforce your learning. Future training will
include consideration of your responses to this survey.
Table 12
Admissions and Retention Policy Evaluation and Implementation Training Workshop Evaluation
Survey
Strongly
disagree Disagree Agree
Strongly
agree
Level 1: Engagement
1. This program and the instructor held my interest. 1 ◻ 2 ◻ 3 ◻ 4 ◻
2. My participation was encouraged by the facilitator. 1 ◻ 2 ◻ 3 ◻ 4 ◻
Level 1: Relevance
3. What I learned from this training will help me apply new
practices to admissions and retention policy design.
1 ◻ 2 ◻ 3 ◻ 4 ◻
4. I am clear about what is expected of me when I get back
to my office.
1 ◻ 2 ◻ 3 ◻ 4 ◻
Level 1: Customer satisfaction
5. I would recommend this workshop to others. 1 ◻ 2 ◻ 3 ◻ 4 ◻
Level 2: Knowledge
1 ◻ 2 ◻ 3 ◻ 4 ◻
6. I clearly understand student-centered policies and
procedures.
1 ◻ 2 ◻ 3 ◻ 4 ◻
7. I clearly understand how to apply the policies and
procedures to my content area and department.
1 ◻ 2 ◻ 3 ◻ 4 ◻
8. University professionals display commitment to
implementing supportive retention policies for
academically underserved students.
1 ◻ 2 ◻ 3 ◻ 4 ◻
Level 2: Confidence
9. I believe that I can effectively implement these policies
and procedures.
1 ◻ 2 ◻ 3 ◻ 4 ◻
Level 2: Commitment
1 ◻ 2 ◻ 3 ◻ 4 ◻
10. I will support and implement the new policies and
procedures on campus.
1 ◻ 2 ◻ 3 ◻ 4 ◻
95
11. Please share what you liked about the program.
12. Please share how the program could be improved.
13. Please describe the institutional philosophy on policy implementation and examples of
practices that align with it.
96
Admissions and Retention Policy Evaluation and Implementation Program Evaluation
The purpose of this survey is to evaluate the ongoing training and professional
development you have participated in regarding admissions and retention policy evaluation and
implementation. Your responses will assist us in understanding your level of satisfaction, your
level of learning, how you have implemented the training in your position, and how successful
the program has been in helping you create effective admissions and retention policy design and
implementation that further the class progression of academically underserved students.
Table 13
Admissions and Retention Policy Evaluation and Implementation Program Evaluation
Strongly
disagree Disagree Agree
Strongly
agree
Level 1: Reaction
1. What I learned in the workshop has been useful in
modifying my admissions and retention policy
implementation.
1 ◻ 2 ◻ 3 ◻ 4 ◻
2. This program has been a good use of my time. 1 ◻ 2 ◻ 3 ◻ 4 ◻
Level 2: Learning
3. I find that the strategies learned in the workshop help me
focus my admissions and retention policy design and
implementation on student retention.
1 ◻ 2 ◻ 3 ◻ 4 ◻
Level 3: Behavior
4. I discuss with my colleagues the formative admissions
and retention policy evaluation strategies and practices
that I have implemented in my respective departments.
1 ◻ 2 ◻ 3 ◻ 4 ◻
Level 4: Results
1 ◻ 2 ◻ 3 ◻ 4 ◻
5. My admissions and retention policy implementation and
practices help academically underserved s tu de nt s ’
progress academically.
1 ◻ 2 ◻ 3 ◻ 4 ◻
6. What early signs of success have you noticed from your efforts?
7. How could this program have been improved?
8. What information from this program has been the most relevant to your job?
97
9. How have you used what you learned in training and professional development on the
job?
10. What has helped you implement what you learned?
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Social emotional learning curriculum implementation: an evaluation study of fidelity
PDF
Lack of African-American undergraduate male student retention: an evaluation study on perspectives from academic advisors
PDF
Building teacher competency to work with middle school long-term English language learners: an improvement model
PDF
The Bridge Program and underrepresented Latino students: an evaluation study
PDF
Closing the achievement gap for students with disabilities: a focus on instructional differentiation - an evaluation study
PDF
Support service representatives impact on first-generation low-income community college students
PDF
Satisfactory academic progress for doctoral students: an improvement study
PDF
Labor displacement: a gap analysis an evaluation study addressing professional development in a small business environment
PDF
Academic coaching for Pell-eligible, academically at-risk freshmen: an evaluation study
PDF
Practices supporting newcomer students
PDF
Embedded academic support for high school student success: an innovation study
PDF
First-year retention: Community college students -- a gap analysis
PDF
Explicit instruction’s impact on the student achievement gap in K-12 English language learners
PDF
The barriers and facilitators of academic success for Black male students at a community college: a gap analysis
PDF
The academic implications of providing social emotional learning in K-12: an evaluation study
PDF
Emerging adult peer provider specialists and successful college participation: An innovation study
PDF
Building academic vocabulary for English language learners through professional development: a gap analysis
PDF
The role of historically underserved students’ perceptions of their high school counselor in overcoming the equity gap in college admissions: an evaluative study
PDF
Academic department chair readiness to lead toward equity: a gap analysis
PDF
Strengths-based pedagogy for culturally marginalized groups
Asset Metadata
Creator
Smith, Christopher Derrell
(author)
Core Title
Bridging the gap: a formative evaluation of the productivity-based funding model’s support for academically underserved students
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)
Publication Date
11/15/2019
Defense Date
10/01/2019
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
academically underserved,funding model,OAI-PMH Harvest,productivity-based,underserved students
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Stowe, Kathy (
committee chair
), Mora-Flores, Eugenia (
committee member
), Picus, Lawrence (
committee member
)
Creator Email
iamchristophersmith@icloud.com,smit742@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-233118
Unique identifier
UC11673341
Identifier
etd-SmithChris-7928.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-233118 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-SmithChris-7928.pdf
Dmrecord
233118
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Smith, Christopher Derrell
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
academically underserved
funding model
productivity-based
underserved students