University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Improving college graduation rates: a smarter plan

(USC Thesis Other)

Improving college graduation rates: a smarter plan

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: GRADUATION RATE 1

Improving College Graduation Rates: A Smarter Plan
by
Denise G. Rattray

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

May 2019

Copyright 2019 Denise G. Rattray
GRADUATION RATE 2
Acknowledgements
What an incredible journey this has been. When I look back at this process and reflect on
the personal trials and tribulations, it is quite miraculous that I am finally writing this component
of my dissertation. That is why I owe the utmost gratitude to God. Without His unfailing love
and the shield of strength and protection He has given me, I would not be writing this today.
My parents secretly thought I was crazy to take on pursuit of a doctorate degree, but
nevertheless they have supported and loved me every step of the way. Halfway through this
journey I met my soulmate, Jake Wolf. He talked me out of quitting the program at least two
times. Jake has been my biggest cheerleader. When I have been down and in tears because doubt
has crept in, you were always there to pick me up. I owe you a mountain of gratitude. I am so
fortunate to have such a wonderful partner and future husband in my life. I am proud to soon be
Dr. Wolf!
I want to thank my dissertation chair Dr. Monique Datta. I really don’t know how you
managed supporting all of us, but you made me feel as if I was one of your only students. Your
advice was real, honest, and motivating. I appreciate all you have done to help get me here. I
would also like to thank the additional members of my dissertation committee, Dr. Mark Pearson
and Dr. Cathy Krop. Thank you Dr. Pearson and Dr. Krop for your contributions. Your guidance
has been invaluable.
Finally, I want to thank Brooklyn and Jameson, my children. They were four and two
years old when I began this journey. I sacrificed time with them to set an example and create the
best life possible for my family. I love you both very much.

GRADUATION RATE 3
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements……………………………………….................................................... …2
List of Tables………………………………………..................................................................6
List of Figures………………………………………................................................................7
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………......8
Chapter One: Introduction………………………………………..............................................9
Introduction of the Problem of Practice…………………....................................................9
Organizational Context and Mission………………….......................................................11
Organizational Performance Status………………….........................................................12
Related Literature……………………………………………………………....................13
Importance of Addressing the Problem…………………...................................................16
Organizational Performance Goal…………………...........................................................18
Description of Stakeholder Groups………………….........................................................18
Stakeholder Group Performance Goal…………………....................................................21
Stakeholder Group for the Study………………….............................................................21
Purpose of the Project and Questions…………………......................................................22
Methodological Framework…………………....................................................................20
Definitions…………………...............................................................................................23
Organization of the Project…………………......................................................................24
Chapter Two: Literature Review…………………..................................................................25
Influences on the Problem of Practice………………….....................................................25
Low Four-Year College Graduation Rates…………………..............................................25
Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences Framework……………………..31
GRADUATION RATE 4
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences…………………….32
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge,
Motivation and the Organizational Context………............................................................45
Conclusion……...................................................................................................................47
Chapter Three: Research Methods............................................................................................49
Participating Stakeholders……...........................................................................................49
Secondary Stakeholder Group…….....................................................................................51
Qualitative Data Collection and Instrumentation……........................................................51
Data Analysis……...............................................................................................................54
Ethics……...........................................................................................................................56
Limitations and Delimitations…….....................................................................................57
Chapter Four: Results and Findings…….................................................................................59
Participating Stakeholders…………………………………………………………….......60
Findings……………………………………………………………………………….......58
Impact of Smart Planner on Graduation Rates……………………………………………74
Effects of Smart Planner Adoption on Graduation Rates……………………………........75
Additional Findings and Results…………………………………………………………..78
Chapter Five: Evaluation and Recommendations…………………………………………….84
Introduction and Overview………………………………………………………………..84
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences……………………………..87
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan………………………………………….97
Limitations……………………………………………………………………………….110
Recommendations for Future Research………………………………………………….111
GRADUATION RATE 5
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….........112
References…………………………………………………………………………………..114
Appendices………………………………………………………………………………….124
Appendix A: Student Interview Questions……………………………………………...124
Appendix B: Faculty/Staff Interview Questions………………………………………...125
Appendix C: Observation Rubric………………………………………………………..126
Appendix D: Post-Lab Survey…………………………………………………………..127
Appendix E: Blended Evaluation………………………………………………………..128

GRADUATION RATE 6
List of Tables
Table 1. Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals…21
Table 2. Stakeholder Goal and Knowledge Influence, Influence Assessment for
Knowledge Gap Analysis…………………………………………………….35
Table 3. Stakeholder Goal and Motivation Influence, Influence Assessment for
Motivation Gap Analysis……………………………………………………..39
Table 4. Stakeholder Goal and Organizational Influence, Influence Assessment
for Organizational Gap Analysis…………………………………………......43
Table 5. Participant Pseudonyms and Demographics……………………………........60
Table 6. Participant Pseudonyms and Demographics…………………………………78
Table 7. Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations…………….…..88
Table 8. Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations…………………91
Table 9. Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations……………..94
Table 10. Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes….....100
Table 11. Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation…………101
Table 12. Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors……………………………102
Table 13. Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program…………….....105
Table 14. Components to Measure Reactions to the Program…………………….......106
Table 15. Stakeholder Goals, Smart Planner Lab Outcomes, and Graduation
Rate Increase………………..........................................................................109

GRADUATION RATE 7
List of Figures

Figure 1. Interaction of Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation within
Organizational Cultural Models and Settings…………………………...........47

GRADUATION RATE 8
Abstract
The low, four-year graduation rate at Redwood University is cause for concern. In 2018, it was
only 14% and that is an improvement from 9% in 2016 (Redwood University website, 2019).
Initiatives executed by the university have slightly increased the number of students graduating;
however, there are so many different factors influencing persistence to graduation that it is
difficult to create solutions that will be generalizable to 30,000 students. Focusing on First
Generation College Students (FGCS) allowed the researcher to gather data from a particular
student group, narrowing the vast population the campus serves. The goal of this research project
was to evaluate the problem of practice, assess the influences affecting graduation rates via the
Clark and Estes (2008) knowledge, motivation, and organizational gap analysis framework, and
then suggest recommendations and evaluations based on qualitative data collection. More
specifically, the research questions guided this study to investigate the influence degree planning
tool, Smart Planner, has had on graduation rates. The results revealed that a conceptual level of
understanding about degree requirements and procedural knowledge of advising and student
support services can influence students’ progress toward their degree. In addition, FGCS self-
efficacy and perceived value of degree planning were motivational factors revealed as important
influences. Numerous organizational influences emerged as well, including, course availability
and the culture of the university prohibiting progress toward change. Purposed recommendations
and evaluation procedures concluded this study, introducing degree planning labs and program
evaluation following the Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick New World model of evaluation (2016).
Keywords: college graduation rates, first generation college students, degree planning,
academic advising, peer mentorship, self-efficacy, course availability

GRADUATION RATE 9
Chapter One: Introduction
Introduction of the Problem of Practice
Colleges and universities around the United States are discovering that a significant
number of students are not completing their bachelor’s degree in four years. The four-year
graduation rate was 34.4% in 2012 for all public institutions in the United States (NCES, 2016).
After six-years at a public institution only 59.4% graduated in 2007 as reported by the National
Center for Education Statistics (2016). The time it takes a student to complete their degree is
important to address because in public university settings, future funding from the state and
federal government will be based on how many students are graduating in four years or less
(Scott, Bailey, & Kienzl, 2006). If public universities lose state funding, they will be forced to
increase tuition and cut programs and services.
The reeducation of the American labor force has become a crucial need for workforce
development, placing greater importance on college student degree attainment (Brown &
Kenney, 2014). The Bureau of Labor and Statistics (2017) stated in the “Employment
Projections: 2016-2026” report that employment is projected to grow by 11.5 million by 2026.
As the labor force continues to increase in age and retire, the overall labor force participation rate
is projected to decrease to 61% in 2026 (Bureau of Labor and Statistics, 2017). Of the 30 fastest
growing detailed occupations, 18 typically require some level of postsecondary education, such
as, nursing and engineering (Bureau of Labor and Statistics, 2017). If it is taking students longer
to earn their degree, then the increasing workforce needs are not being met.
The cost of earning a bachelor’s degree has increased substantially over the course of the
past several decades. In fact, from 2001 to 2012 the average cost of tuition rose 46% (Lucca,
Nadauld, & Shen, 2017). The increase in cost, has caused more students to rely on federal
GRADUATION RATE 10
financial aid to fund their education. In the 2014/2015 academic year, two-thirds of full-time
college students paid for college with the help of financial aid, 34% of the funds awarded were in
the form of federal loans (College Board, 2017). Student loan debt in the United States has been
increasing quickly since 2006, reaching 1.4 trillion dollars in 2016 (Lucca et al., 2017). The
increase in cost, coupled with the prolonged time to degree is going to increase the student loan
debt students leave college with, and some students may run out of funding before they even
finish their degree.
It is important to address that the population of the United States is changing and in turn
the demographics on college campuses. The nonwhite population in the United States has more
than doubled in the last thirty years (McGee, 2015). By 2023, nearly half of all high school
graduates will be of color, up from one-third in 2003 (McGee, 2015). With the shift of the
American population comes varying familial backgrounds and developmental needs of students
(Swanson, Vaughan, & Wilkinson, 2017). Because of this shift in the racial background of the
United States, colleges and universities will have to adjust their support mechanisms to retain
and graduate students.
Consequently, the vast majority of nonwhite college students are First Generation
College Students (FGCS). Defined as neither parent having attended college (Conefrey, 2017).
FGCS struggle to complete a college degree more than students who come from a college
educated family, Continuing Generation College Student (CGCS). Only one in ten FGCS will
have a college degree by age 25, as compared to one in two CGCS (Adams, Meyers, & Beidas,
2016). In addition, a substantial number of FGCS come from low income families, falling below
the poverty line (Kouyoumdjian, Guzman, Garcia, & Talavera-Bustillos, 2017). Not only are
these students struggling to adjust to a college environment that is foreign to them, but they are
GRADUATION RATE 11
challenged with financial stressors impacting their potential for successful college degree
completion.
Organizational Context and Mission
The organization used in this study was referred to by the pseudonym Redwood
University. It is a large, public university in the Western United States. Information from the
university website reports a total student population of 30,510, of which 91.4% are
undergraduates. Despite such a large volume of students, there is only room for 2100 students to
live on the campus, making Redwood a commuter campus. A commuter campus is defined as the
majority of students living off campus (Jacoby, 2015).
The published mission of Redwood University is “…we transform lives by preparing
students for leadership, service, and success.” Redwood University has approximately 70
undergraduate degree programs, as well as, master’s programs, and doctoral degrees in physical
therapy and educational leadership. Redwood University is known for strong business, criminal
justice, nursing, and construction management programs. Because of the large increase in
enrollment, the demand for certain majors has increased so rapidly that students must apply to
certain majors by achieving a certain grade point average (GPA), prerequisite courses, and unit
obtainment. These high demand bachelor’s degrees are referred to as “impacted majors” at
Redwood, and they include Biology, Business, Criminal Justice, Graphic Design, Health
Science, Nursing, and Psychology.
The demographics of the campus population play an important role in student degree
outcomes. According to the university website, the average age of undergraduate students in
2016 was 23, and 56% were female. The university reports the racial identity breakdown was as
follows: Latino 29.4%, White 28.2%, Asian 20.1%, Multi-racial 6.2%, and African-American
GRADUATION RATE 12
5.6%. It is also important to note that 14,058 students in fall 2016 were from low-income
backgrounds, and 9,535 were FGCS.
Organizational Performance Status
The current four-year graduation rate at Redwood University is 12% as reported by the
university for students entering the university in fall 2013 and graduating spring 2017; this is a
3% increase in a one-year period. The one-year retention rate for freshmen was 84% in 2016 and
has held steady at that rate since 2012. Transfer students were retained at 89% after their first
year at the university, rising 3% in four years. Transfer students are defined as admitted students
typically from two-year community colleges or having attended any college prior to Redwood. In
2015, 6,577 bachelor’s degrees were awarded, according to the university website. Finally, the
average GPA in 2015 for the entire university undergraduates was 3.11.
Redwood created a First Year Seminar program to help orient freshmen to college life
and success. It includes a three-unit course that earns general education credit. General education
is a portion of the requirements that all Redwood students must complete to earn their degree.
Students who take this course are retained to their second year at a higher rate than those that do
not, and they typically perform better academically. These seminar courses are paired with a
cluster of two other courses and the students enrolled in the cluster take all three courses
together. The idea behind the pairing of these courses is to create a learning community of peer
support for freshmen. Students in the seminars meet with a trained peer mentor several times
during the semester to get advice on a variety of topics from, adjusting to college life, dealing
with relationship issues, and academic guidance. The creation of the seminars and learning
communities was in effort to increase persistence and decrease time to degree.
GRADUATION RATE 13
Redwood University has a vast number of student success programs to address the
various needs of the diverse student population. There are programs for students who identify
with certain racial and ethnic backgrounds, socioeconomic status, and general services that guide
students through their academic degree requirements, financial aid needs, and career
development services.
In addition, the university has adopted the use of technology to serve the large population
of students more efficiently and effectively. One example of this is a degree planning tool called
Smart Planner that allows a student to visualize and interact with the course planning process.
Smart Planner data is designed to communicate with academic colleges and departments the
course needs of students in effort to better prepare for course registration.
Finally, it is important to note that the state university system that Redwood is a member
of has created a graduation initiative with the goal of increasing graduation rates at all of the
campuses. Redwood’s response to the initiative resulted in the appointment of an administrative
leader to guide the change and assess areas for improvement. The outcome resulted in the
creation of campaigns to encourage a commitment to four-year graduation from all new
freshmen. A benefit for commitment was a grant that students can use toward summer courses at
Redwood. The above described efforts are significant to the problem of practice and are
important to consider in this study.
Related Literature
Increasing access and enrollment in higher education has been a major focus for policy
makers and educational leaders for decades. The number of college students enrolled in a degree
program has increased roughly 300% from 1965 to 2005 (Brock, 2010). However, once students
arrive on campus, universities are struggling to retain and graduate them (Morrison, 2013;
GRADUATION RATE 14
Reardon, Melvin, McClain, Peterson, & Bowman, 2015). Students who do earn a degree are
reaching this achievement at a very slow rate. On average, public universities in the United
States are seeing less the 25% of their students graduate in four years and only 50% in six years
(Reardon et al., 2015). Universities are now shifting focus from access and enrollment to
increasing graduation rates.
The rising cost of public universities is making it more difficult for students to go to
college without needing to work, take out loans, or experience financial stress. These economic
factors have proven to directly impact the time it takes a student to graduate (Adams et al., 2016;
Kouyoumdjian et al., 2017). In fact, research reports that students listed financial problems four
out of the top five stressors in life that affected their academic progress and performance (Adams
et al., 2016; Letkiewicz, Heckman, Bartholomae, Fox, & Montalto, 2015). Financial stress for
college students can result from the net cost of attendance, financial aid issues, and the necessity
to work (Raikes, Berling, & Davis, 2012). As more students from low-income backgrounds are
attending college, this problem is only going to escalate.
Aside from financial strain, the racial, and ethnic composition of college campuses is
changing throughout the United States (McGee, 2017). The percentage of minority students
enrolled in college has more than doubled from 1976 to 2005 (Brock, 2010). The greatest
increase came from the Latino and Asian/Pacific Islander races, while White students declined
(Brock, 2010). It is important to address this shift in demographics and race on college campuses
because if colleges do not adjust, students will not feel that they belong, let alone succeed
(Kouyoumdjian et al., 2017).
Another changing demographic is First Generation College Students (FGCS).
Universities across the country are seeing a significant increase in the number of FGCS (Adams
GRADUATION RATE 15
et al., 2016). FGCS make up approximately 35% of most universities’ enrollment
(Kouyoumdijian, et al., 2017). FGCS struggle persisting to earn a degree because they lack the
familial support and guidance necessary to be successful in degree attainment (Adams et al.,
2016). Many also come from low-socioeconomic backgrounds, which connects to low-
performance high schools, and lack of preparedness for college level courses (Sanacore &
Palumbo, 2016).
Historical research on persistence to degree indicates that if students do not have a social
connection, sense of belonging, or involvement on campus, it could take them longer than four
years to graduate (Soria & Stubblefield, 2015). Astin’s (1984) Student Involvement Theory
states that when students get involved in campus activities both physically and psychologically,
they are more connected to the university culture and less likely to leave the university before
graduation. Therefore, lack of student involvement can lead to longer time to degree and higher
dropout rates (Cambridge-Williams, Winsler, Kitsantas, & Bernard, 2014; Reardon et al., 2015).
Research suggests that when students take a course their first year, such as a first-year
seminar course, they are more likely to graduate in four years as compared to their peers who do
not (Miller & Lesik, 2014). Cambridge-Williams et al. (2014) discovered that when students
took a first-year seminar course that 90% returned for their second year as compared to 78%, and
75% graduated after 5 years as compared to 68%. The study concluded that when students took a
first-year experience seminar course that focused on orienting them to campus, that students
graduated faster and continued to their second year at a higher rate as compared to their peers
who did not take such a course (Cambridge-Williams et al., 2014). The learning outcomes of the
courses were increased self-efficacy, self-regulation, motivation, and advocacy skills, resulting in
shorter time to degree (Cambridge-Williams et al., 2014). Tuckman and Kennedy (2011)
GRADUATION RATE 16
determined that an academic strategies course led to decreased time to degree, when taken in a
student’s first term. It was reported that those struggling academically who took the course had a
50% higher graduation rate than those who did not take the course (McGrath & Burd, 2012;
Tuckman & Kennedy, 2011). Furthermore, students are less likely to graduation in four years if
they are not guided through the college transition process and given tools that will help them be
successful.
There are many factors that influence time to degree. The most relevant to this study are
financial challenges, changing demographics and diversity of students, and establishing a
connection to the campus life (Adams et al., 2016; Swanson et al., 2017). College graduation
rates are a societal responsibility, and this next section will address the importance of this
problem.
Importance of Addressing the Problem
The outcomes that universities produce, such as, graduation rates and student
employment post-graduation, are becoming accountability measures to governing boards and
state legislatures (McGee, 2017). State and federal funding for universities will be dependent on
the percentage of students who graduate in four years (Letkiewicz et al., 2015; McGee, 2017). It
is important for universities to understand why they are not graduating more students, in order to
maintain funding and avoid tuition increases.
The demographics of public universities is shifting. Morrison (2013) and Scott et al.
(2006) report that 45% of students work 20 hours or more per week, the average age of
undergraduates is increasing, and more and more students are commuting to campuses. More
importantly, the racial and cultural composition of college campuses is changing. With the
changing population of students, comes issues of equity and service delivery that meets the needs
GRADUATION RATE 17
of all students (McGee, 2017). Latino students, for example, struggle the most to graduate from
college and yet they are the fastest grow population of college students (Kouyoumdjian et al.,
2017; Watt, Butcher, & Ramirez, 2013). Leadership on college campuses are not prepared to
address the challenges that come with shifting racial and demographic backgrounds, leading to
low graduation and retention rates (McGee, 2017).
The rising cost of higher education is causing more and more students to rely on student
loans, work throughout college, and many drop-out due to the inability to pay (Letkiewicz et al.,
2015). The financial stressors that students are faced with can create additional psychological
stress, that can directly affect a student’s ability to perform well academically, which can lead to
prolonged time to degree if obtained at all (Adams et al., 2016). Additionally, increased time to
degree, equals a higher amount of accrued debt for students who utilized financial aid, adding to
the trillion-dollar debt American’s hold for student loans (McGee, 2017).
Finally, time to degree has a negative impact on the economy, especially for low-income
and FGCS (Adams et al., 2016). Low-income and FGCS have the most to gain from earning a
college degree as the return on investment is higher compared to students with average economic
and CGCS status (Adams et al., 2016). The longer it takes degree bearing graduates to enter the
workforce, the greater the need for qualified individuals (Bohn, 2014). Employers around the
country are boasting a strong job market, and yet jobs are going unfilled. The unemployment rate
in the United States was 4.1% in December 2017 (Bureau of Labor and Statistics, 2017). An
indicator that there is a workforce skills gap that needs to be filled by degree bearing individuals
(McGee, 2017).

GRADUATION RATE 18
Organizational Performance Goal
The goal of Redwood University, as it pertains to this study, is to increase the 4-year
graduation rate to 30% by 2025 (Redwood website, 2016). However, the goal was influenced by
the state university system, holding all campuses accountable for their outcomes. The
administrative leaders of the campus recognized that there has been significant focus over the
years on retention and enrollment, and that the rate a student earns their degree had been less of a
focal point.
Redwood has already begun to address this problem by bringing a new degree planning
tool called Smart Planner to campus. The idea behind the implementation and adoption of Smart
Planner stems from the theory that if students are able to engage with their degree curriculum
and see their progression, then they will be more likely to graduate in four years or less. In
addition, this tool allows students to indicate what courses they plan on taking in future
semesters. The analytic information this provides academic departments can contribute to more
efficient course planning, ensuring that enough space is available in the classes students need
when they need them. However, in order for the analytic component to provide reliable results,
more students need to use their Smart Planner and plan out their courses.
Smart Planner was launched in the 2016-2017 academic year. Now that the tool has been
in place for two years, it is important for the university to evaluate the effectiveness of the tool,
the impact on graduation rates, and what influences impact students’ interactions with the tool.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
The stakeholders who contributed to and are impacted by the organizational performance
status of graduation rate at Redwood University are: undergraduate students, faculty, staff, and
administrative leaders. The undergraduate students will directly benefit from the improvement of
GRADUATION RATE 19
the problem of practice. They will get their degrees in a more efficient time frame, be able to
launch their careers, and take on less debt or financial investment in their education. However,
communicating and reaching students of such diverse populations and vast numbers can be
challenging. Smart Planner provides a way for students to access and interact with their degree
requirements. Providing a different method for students to learn and understand their degree
requirements.
Administrative leaders at Redwood are the stakeholders held responsible for the
graduation initiative. The leaders of the campus are expected to create the vision and action plan
for the initiative. In addition, the allocation of funding to create more course sections and
classroom spaces to schedule courses is managed by these stakeholders. If the graduation rate
goal is not reached or improved, then some of these stakeholders could lose their positions at the
university. Additionally, the leaders on campus vetted and introduced Smart Planner to the
campus. The decisions made by this group of stakeholders to bring this tool to campus directly
impacts the students and outcomes of the university. Goals focused on the use, adoption, and
evaluation of Smart Planner are important performance goals for this stakeholder group.
Faculty play a significant role in the experiences and outcomes of students. They are the
educators who stimulate intellectual growth within students. However, faculty should be aware
that the goal of many degree seeking students is focused around career outcomes. Faculty have a
responsibility to advise students on the proper courses to take within their major. The adoption
and use of Smart Planner can aid faculty to properly advise their students. Poor advisement or
lack of urgency or awareness of the students’ goals can be problematic for students and their
progression toward degree attainment. If faculty can support the universities efforts of increasing
graduation rates, then the cultural expectations around time to degree will shift. In addition,
GRADUATION RATE 20
faculty are responsible for the curriculum design for the degree programs. It will be up to them to
ensure it is feasible to complete all degrees in a four-year time frame. The content within Smart
Planner is dependent on academic departments and faculty to provide up-to-date roadmaps
indicating proper course sequences and reflecting any curriculum changes from year to year. It
essential that faculty commit to these updates and embrace the adoption of Smart Planner in their
own advising experiences.
Finally, staff are an important, influential stakeholder. Any staff member on campus who
engages with students in an advising capacity will have an impact on influencing students
academically, socially, and developmentally. Students look to staff for advice, direction, and
mentorship. Students develop relationships with staff through their exposure and utilization of
the various student success programs and services available to students. It is important for all
stakeholders to understand the problem of practice and why it is important to the future success
of the Redwood campus. Staff have the influential position on campus to guide students through
the adoption of Smart Planner, but staff must buy-in and use the tool to make it relevant.

GRADUATION RATE 21
Stakeholder Group Performance Goal
Table 1
Organizational mission, global goal and stakeholder performance goals
Organizational Mission
“… we transform lives by preparing students for leadership, service, and success”

Organizational Performance Goal
By fall 2025, the four-year graduation rate at Redwood University will increase to 30%.

Redwood
Administration
Redwood
Faculty

Redwood
Staff
Redwood
Students

By fall 2020, Smart
Planner will be
utilized to plan for
the course needs of
students to complete
their degrees, 100%
of all courses selected
in students’ planners
will be offered with a
sufficient number of
seats available for
everyone.

By fall 2020, 80%
of faculty will be
utilizing and
implementing
Smart Planner to
guide students
through their major
degree planning.

By fall 2020, 80%
of university staff
will be
knowledgeable of
Smart Planner and
utilizing in advising
sessions with
students integrating
degree planning
and requiring
student use of the
tool.

By fall 2020, 80%
of students will
complete their
Smart Planner to
allow for proper
course planning and
comprehension of
degree
requirements.

Stakeholder Group for the Study
The stakeholder group for this study was First Generation College Students (FGCS) at
Redwood University. It is important to note that transfer students were eliminated from this
group as they experience different factors and influences that play a role in their progress to
degree. In addition, only FGCS in their third year or later were included in the study stakeholder
GRADUATION RATE 22
group. First and second year students have not had enough experience yet at the university to
provide the depth of insight this study requires. The relevancy of targeting FGCS stems from the
research that indicates these students have greater challenges adjusting to college, navigating
support services, picking a major, and typically encounter greater financial struggles while in
school (Sanacore & Palumbo, 2016). FGCS are more likely than CGCS to have a prolonged time
to degree; therefore, they were an important stakeholder group to focus on for this study.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this research study was to evaluate the influence of Smart Planner on
four-year graduation rate for FGCS.
The following are the research questions that directed this study, addressing the
knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational elements for FGCS at Redwood University:
1. What were the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that interfere with
students’ effective use of Smart Planner?
2. What were the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions?
3. How has the implementation of Smart Planner influenced the graduation rate for FGCS?
Methodological Framework
Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis model, informed by knowledge and skills,
motivation, and organizational influences was the methodological structure utilized to research
the problem of practice. The data collection was achieved via qualitative methods. In particular,
this study conducted interviews, document analysis, and reviewed previous literature to research
the low graduation rate issue at universities around the United States. Chapter Two will go into
greater depth regarding the Clark and Estes framework, as well as, a literature review. The gap
analysis allows for further recommendations for organizational improvement to be presented.
GRADUATION RATE 23
Definitions
The following are research-based definitions for terms and concepts referred to in relation
to this study.
Continuing Generation College Student (CGCS): At least one parent has earned a college
degree (Stephens, Townsend, Hamedani, Destin, & Manzo, 2015).
First Generation College Student (FGCS): Neither parent has attended college
(DeAngelo, Franke, Hurtado, Pryor, & Tran, 2011).
First Year Seminar: academically-focused and tied to an intellectual theme, focused on
basic study skills, or serve as an extended orientation to campus; or a combination of the three
(Griffin & Romm, 2008). One of ten high-impact practices that increase student engagement and
learning (Kuh, 2008).
General Education: a selection of courses representing varying disciplines that college
students take as a portion of their degree requirements. The categories of courses are designed
with learning objectives and student learning outcomes of writing, communication, critical and
analytical thinking, sciences, arts, and cultural diversity (Most & Wellmon, 2015).
Smart Planner: an online course planning and scheduling tool (Redwood University
website, 2018).
Student Affairs: a student development division within colleges and universities that
focuses on student learning, wellbeing, and engagement (Roberts, 2012).
Transfer Student: describes students who move from one postsecondary educational
institution to another; most commonly from two-year to four-year institutions (Lee & Schneider,
2018).

GRADUATION RATE 24
Organization of the Project
Five chapters are used to organize this study. Chapter One gave an overview of the
problem of practice, the organization in context, stakeholders involved, and an introduction to
the literature review and methodology within the study. Chapter Two provides an in-depth
analysis of the literature pertaining to low college graduation rate and FGCS. It will also
elaborate on the Clark and Estes conceptual framework. Chapter Three presents the
methodological approach that will be used to conduct the qualitative data collection for this
study. Chapter Four analyzes the results of the research. Chapter Five concludes the study by
providing recommendations for improvement based on the conceptual framework, literature
review, and data collection.

GRADUATION RATE 25
Chapter Two: Literature Review

Influences on the Problem of Practice
Bachelors’ degree programs are designed to be completed in four-years; however, most
students across the United States are taking much longer to earn their degree. The review of
literature will begin with an introduction to the various factors that have caused students to take
longer than four years to graduate. The review will discuss, an in-depth, research-based analysis
of studies that have investigated the problem of time to degree at colleges and universities.
Following the Clark and Estes gap analysis model (2008), this research review will address the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that contribute to this problem.
Low Four-Year College Graduation Rates
Graduation rates in higher education have become a major concern for universities and
colleges around the United States. Less than half of the admitted students across the country are
completing their degrees in four years (National Center for Education Statistics, 2016). For the
past 60 years, universities and colleges around the country have made access and admission a
priority (Jones, 2015). In 1965 5.9 million students were enrolled in college, by 2005 that
number increased to 17.5 million; a 300% increase (Brock, 2010). Access and college enrollment
have become less of problem, but actually retaining and graduating students comes with a new
set of challenges to address.
Performance Funding
It is important for university and college administrators to pay attention to the graduation
rate dilemma because future funding will consider this metric (Hillman, Hicklin, & Crespin-
Trujillo, 2017; Jones, 2015; McGee, 2015). Historically, state government and taxpayer money
pay for a vast portion of public university funding (Jones, 2015). However, universities have not
GRADUATION RATE 26
been held accountable to produce successful student outcomes. An incentive based, performance
funding model has already been adopted in 35 states (Hillman et al., 2017; Jones, 2015). In order
to continue to receive funding, colleges and universities must put greater focus and effort toward
improving graduation rates.
It is important to look at states that have already implemented performance-based funding
to understand if the policy is working to increase retention and graduation rates. Hillman et al.
(2017) conducted a study to evaluate the effectiveness of this program in Ohio and Tennessee.
The results of the study indicated that the two states using performance funding did not
outperform states that did not have this policy in place (Hillman et al., 2017). Therefore, the
conclusion can be made that performance-based funding and incentives may not have a direct
effect on retention and graduation rates. Hillman et al. (2017) and McGee (2015) discuss that the
causes of low graduation rates are vast and some complex, so much so that financial incentives
are not enough to significantly impact performance results.
Labor Market and Economy
Not only will universities lose funding for low graduation rates, but they will fail to
produce educated, degree holders entering the labor market and contributing to the economy. As
stated by Adams et al. (2016) “College education is critical to economic success and upward
social mobility in America” (p. 362). Unskilled workers are more likely to collect unemployment
and welfare, as well as, commit crime and become incarcerated (Bettinger, Boatman, & Long,
2013). As a result, these individuals will rely on taxpayer dollars instead of contributing to the
economy. Over a lifetime, an adult with a bachelor’s degree will earn 2.1 million, that is roughly
one-third more than an adult who does not complete their college degree and twice as much with
someone who only has a high school diploma (Brock, 2010). The retiring workforce is leaving
GRADUATION RATE 27
gaps in the workforce that need to be filled by skilled and educated workers; therefore, the rate at
which college degrees are earned directly impacts the labor market and economy (McGee, 2015).
Upward mobility of the economy will suffer if graduation rates cannot be increased.
Changing Demographics
Along with financial and economic implications, college population demographics are
also very important to consider. The demographic background of the average college student is
changing dramatically (Kouyoumdjian et al., 2017; McGee, 2015; Swanson et al., 2017). The
percentage of racial or ethnic minority groups enrolled in colleges and universities more than
doubled from 1976 to 2005 (Brock, 2010). More inclusive racial and ethnic college campus
climates are beneficial to higher graduation rates (Kouyoumdjian et al., 2017). The “typical”
college student has been shifting. Now college campus populations are made up of students who
are working, have families and children to support, and are the first in their family to attend
college (McGee, 2015). There are particular groups and backgrounds of students who struggle
more than others to graduate in four years, and it is important to analyze these challenges for
universities to make change that will increase graduation rates.
Latino students. College enrollment for Latinos is on the rise; however, they have the
highest drop-out rate of any ethnic group (Kouyoumdjian et al., 2017; Pyne & Means, 2013).
Institutions with higher graduation rates for Latino students attribute the success to culturally
relevant resources that support their needs (Kouyoumdjian et al., 2017). Kouyoumdjian et al.
(2017) used a cultural deficit model in their study of Latino students and college completion
rates. The model contends that minority students are ill prepared to succeed in education due to
their inability to adapt and assimilate into mainstream society. Latino students have a higher
number of stressors related to familial obligations and financial security that distract them from
GRADUATION RATE 28
college completion (Kouyoumdjian et al., 2017). “Latinos use cultural wealth to navigate
through an institution when encountering microaggressions. They seek out family and a sense of
community to cope with a campus that marginalizes their experience.” (Kouyoumdjian et al.,
2017, p. 62). Latino students gain support from family, student service programs, financial
stability, self-determination, partnerships/friendships, and academic skills (Kouyoumdjian et al.,
2017; Storlie, Mostade, & Duenyas, 2015). Families are a source of support and challenge for
students, which indicates the complexity of the impact families have on student success
(Kouyoumdjian et al., 2017; Storlie et al., 2015). As the Latino college population continues to
rise, universities will need to adapt to the cultural needs of these students in order to help them
graduate at a higher rate.
Male college students. Male students have a more challenging time transitioning to
college than females, which in turn results in lower graduation rates. Historically, this was not
the case. In the 1970’s men were more likely to graduate college than woman, but now the trend
has reversed (Swail, 2014; Swanson et al., 2017). Men who persist take longer to finish their
degree than woman. The six-year graduation rate for men was 56% and for women 61% (NCES,
2016). Male students tend to struggle engaging with campus support services and faculty.
Swanson et al. (2017) concluded that male students will have greater chances of success by
engaging in help seeking behavior and those with a greater sense of self-efficacy.
First generation college students. One-third of most public university enrollment
consists of First-Generation College Students (NCES, 2016). FGCS students typically have more
challenges persisting and being retained in college than Continuing Generation College Students
(CGCS). Conefrey (2017) presented that 27.4% of FGCS completed their degree after four years,
whereas 42.1% of CGCS. The challenges that FGCS face stem from not growing up in an
GRADUATION RATE 29
environment that exposes them to a college education (Adams et al., 2016; Conley & Hamlin,
2009; Swanson et al., 2017). Because FGCS have likely not been exposed to the college
environment and structure, they struggle to adapt and tend to make mistakes learning tough
lessons of survival. Many FGCS dream of college and will be admitted, but then they have to
learn how to navigate an environment that is very foreign to them (Sanacore & Palumbo, 2016).
Many high schools and even middle schools have programming to expose future FGCS to the
world of college (Conefrey, 2017). These programs are designed to help educate and prepare
students for post-secondary education admission but lack the depth to prepare students for the
actual college experience. FGCS find themselves navigating two different cultures and most
often renegotiate relationships at college and home to manage the tension (Conley & Hamlin,
2009; Storlie et al., 2017). Latinas in particular find themselves overwhelmed with school, work,
and family obligations all competing for attention (Storlie et al., 2016).
Struggles start with growing up in a low socio-economic community (Haywood &
Sewell, 2016). Many FGCS are from low-income backgrounds and high schools; therefore, they
not only struggle with being the first in their family to attend college but also can lack college
preparatory skills. Math and English competencies tend to be below college level for many
FGCS students admitted to college (Luoch, 2017). Indicating that they will have to begin college
taking courses to get them caught up. These courses are commonly referred to as remedial or
developmental, typically in English and mathematics (Bettinger et al., 2017). FGCS are a very
important group to consider when evaluating low graduation rates, because often they go
unnoticed and do not realize they need extra support to be successful in college (Bettinger et al.,
2017).
GRADUATION RATE 30
Low-socioeconomic status. Another student demographic that struggles to succeed and
graduate from college is students from a low-socioeconomic background. The biggest factor
effecting college completion for students from low-socioeconomic upbringing, is the lack of
preparedness coming into college (Conley & Hamlin, 2009). Youth living in poverty tend to be
concentrated in low performing schools staffed by underprepared teachers (Dansby & Dansby-
Giles, 2011). There is a correlation between low performing high schools producing future
college students who are not college ready, requiring remedial or developmental coursework in
mathematics and English in order to reach college level (Bettinger et al., 2017). Students of low-
socioeconomic status tend to converge with other at-risk populations, such as, Latinos, First
Generation College Students (FGCS), and males; compounding the challenges students
experience in pursuit of graduation (Adams et al., 2016).
Remediation
Students who are underprepared for college experience more urgent problems. While
they are trying to adjust to college life, they are also trying to catch up and acquire college level,
academic skills (Bettinger et al., 2017). Remedial or development coursework is required of
students who have not tested into college level coursework (Jones, 2015). More than one-third of
college students are taking some form of remedial coursework in English or mathematics
(Bettinger et al., 2017). Of the 1.7 million students required to take remedial courses each year
only one in ten will graduate (Jones, 2015). Not only are students underprepared for the rigor of
college mathematics and English, but these developmental courses typically don’t count toward
graduation, resulting in prolonged time to degree (Bettinger et al., 2017). Underprepared college
students and attempts to get them caught up are additional factors influencing decreased time to
degree.
GRADUATION RATE 31
The increased access to higher education has created college campuses that reflect the
American population (Jones, 2015). However, universities have not adapted to support the needs
of the students they are admitting. While colleges have ensured that far more students can attend
college, not enough has been done to ensure completion (Adams et al., 2016; Jones, 2015).
Research indicates that students from varying racial and ethnic backgrounds, low-socioeconomic
status, and FGCS struggle the most to reach graduation in four years (Jones, 2015;
Kouyoumdjian et al., 2017). These once underrepresented populations are becoming the majority
at public institutions of higher education. It is crucial that universities adjust service delivery to
accommodate the cultural and developmental needs of these groups (Jones, 2015; McGee, 2015).
The complexity of most college populations and students’ developmental needs make the
problem of graduation rate challenging for universities to tackle.
Clark and Estes’ (2008) Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences Framework
The conceptual framework this research study will follow is the Clark and Estes (2008)
gap analysis framework. This conceptual framework evaluates the gap between performance and
organizational goals, through the lens of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
(Clark & Estes, 2008). To improve performance and reach organizational goals, it is important to
identify the cause of the gap and type of intervention necessary to close it (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Knowledge and skills in this model refer to whether people know how to do the task at hand.
There are four types of knowledge and skill enhancement; declarative factual, conceptual,
procedural, and metacognitive (Clark & Estes, 2008). Motivation is an internal desire and drive
that one has toward their task in support of the organizational goals. Clark and Estes (2008)
identified three motivational indexes, active choice, persistence, and mental effort. Finally,
GRADUATION RATE 32
organizational influences are providing employees with the proper tools and resources to do their
jobs, including organizational processes, and value chains and streams (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Components of this framework will be applied to the stakeholder group, First Generation
College Students (FGCS) at Redwood University, with the organizational goal of graduating in
four years. First, the knowledge and skill influences will be addressed as they relate to the
stakeholder group and graduation rate. Next, the motivational influences will be described, and
finally the organizational factors that impact FGCS time to degree.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
When conducting a gap analysis of an organizational problem it is important to evaluate
what knowledge and skills the stakeholder group might lack. The organizational goal for
Redwood University is to increase the four-year graduation rate to 30% by the year 2025. The
stakeholder group for this study is First Generation College Students. FGCS typically do not
have the guidance of a parent or family member when attending college, so there are many
obstacles to goal achievement created by a lack of knowledge and skills (Adams et al., 2016).
The following sections of this study will address two knowledge influences that are affecting the
graduation rate of FGCS at Redwood through literature review.
Knowledge and Skills
In evaluating the reasons students at Redwood are not graduating on time, two areas of
knowledge and skill influences have been identified and will be addressed in this study. The first
relates to students’ conceptual knowledge of their degree requirements. The second is procedural
knowledge of student support services and advising, also how and when to access and navigate
them.
GRADUATION RATE 33
Understanding degree requirements. Students who follow a set plan to complete their
degree requirements are more likely to graduate within four years (Donhardt, 2013). Most public,
four-year institutions of higher education have multiple facets to a degree program. Most
commonly, these components are general education, major and/or minor requirements, and
graduation requirements, such as, total units and Grade Point Average (GPA). When students can
understand their requirements, then they are more likely to take the appropriate courses that will
lead to degree completion (McGee, 2015).
Clark and Estes (2008) describe different types of knowledge and skill acquisition.
Education prepares the student for the unexpected, which is exactly what can happen with course
registration and course planning. Education provides students with the conceptual and analytical
knowledge to navigate the unexpected schedule changes in a way that will still help them move
forward without delaying their progress to degree (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Academic catalog. Universities use an online academic catalog that details degree
requirements. A group of faculty come together as the Academic Senate at Redwood University.
They approve of changes to requirements that are communicated via yearly revisions to the
catalog. Students have access to this catalog, but many do not know how to access or navigate it.
Because of this, the university has adopted various online advising tools to assist students with
their degree planning.
Online advising tools. Redwood University has implemented a variety of online tools to
help students’ access and understand their requirements. One tool recently adopted by the
university is called Smart Planner. It allows students to see all of the courses needed to complete
their degree; they can select the courses they want to take when choices apply. They can also edit
the number of semesters and units they will take to visualize how long it will take them to
GRADUATION RATE 34
graduate. The university does not yet know if this tool has helped increase the conceptual level
of knowledge students have in regard to their degree requirements. The research component of
this study will assess how students have engaged with their degree requirements and acquired a
conceptual level of understanding. Even though these tools make it easier for students to
understand their requirements, it is important for students to engage with an advisor to fully build
the conceptual level of knowledge necessary to reach graduation.
Awareness of resources and advising. The final knowledge influence is students’ lack
of awareness and procedural understanding of support services, such as, academic advising.
Previous research indicates that exposing students in their first semester to the support services
available, and targeting populations that would benefit directly, would increase graduation rates
(Burkholder, Lenio, Holland, Seidman, & Neal, 2013). Students need to be continuously engaged
in these programs and reminded of the support available on an ongoing basis.
Historically academic advising on college campuses has played an integral role in
guiding students through their course and degree planning. Intrusive or proactive advising leads
to positive academic outcomes (Kolenovic, Linderman, & Karp, 2013). Proactive advising
involves academic advisors reaching out to students to offer guidance, rather than waiting for the
student to come to them in crisis (McGee, 2015). That is why it is vital that advising programs
proactively reach out to students, especially freshmen, and require that they meet with an
advisor.
College advisors can support students in various ways. They prepare students for courses,
counsel them on how to improve study skills, and provide advice on how they can identify
additional academic resources on their own (Bettinger et al., 2017). However, many universities
have a 1 to 500 ratio of student to advisor (Bettinger et al., 2017). The integration of technology
GRADUATION RATE 35
will help students access the advising they need in an alternative way, when a professional
advisor may not be available (Jones, 2015).
There are several types of advising that take place on college campuses. Many
institutions break down the advising into two parts; general education and graduation
requirements via staff advisors and major advising via faculty. Faculty indicate that this can be a
burden because at some institutions, advising is not in their contract (Karr-Lilienthal,
Lazarowicz, McGill, & Menke, 2013). A lack of ownership and responsibility for advising
students on their major requirements, results in inconsistencies and misinformation. The
following Table 2 displays the knowledge and skill influences proposed by this study.
Table 2

Stakeholder Goal and Knowledge Influence, Influence Assessment for Knowledge Gap Analysis

Organizational Mission
“… we transform lives by preparing students for leadership, service, and success”

Organizational Goal
By fall 2025, the four-year graduation rate at Redwood University will increase by 25%.

Stakeholder Goal
By fall 2019, 80% of students will complete their Smart Planner to allow for proper course
planning and comprehension of degree requirements. Contributing to a 25% increase in four-year
graduation rate by 2025.

GRADUATION RATE 36
Table 2 (Continued)
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type
(i.e., declarative factual,
conceptual, procedural, or
metacognitive)
Knowledge Influence Assessment

Knowledge of degree
requirements

Conceptual

Interview questions:
1. Tell me about your
experience freshmen year
when you first became
aware of your degree
requirements.
a. What tools did you
utilize to guide your
understanding?
2. Tell me about your
experience with Smart
Planner.
a. What do you know
about it?
b. How do you use it?
c. How has it helped
you plan out your
courses?
3. What did the university do
to educate you about Smart
Planner and how to use it?

Knowledge of advising
and student support
services
Procedural
Interview questions:
1. What support services
(advisors, peer mentors,
etc.) did you engage with to
better understand your
requirements?

Motivation
Clark and Estes (2008) discuss three indicators of motivational influences; active choice,
persistence, and mental effort. This study will use the persistence and active choice as indicators
GRADUATION RATE 37
to explain the motivational challenges Redwood FGCS experience. When students get distracted
by too many goals such as making friends, joining a club, and getting good grades, they can
experience persistence problems (Donhardt, 2013).
There are various theories and concepts regarding motivation. One is McClelland’s
(2001) Need for Achievement (n Ach). Individuals with an increased level of n Ach, leads to an
increased level of self-esteem (McClelland, 2001). If a need is powerful enough within an
individual, then it will positively affect the intrinsic motivation to demonstrate behavior which
leads to satisfaction to accomplish the need (McClelland, 2001). If students come to college with
a powerful n Ach, then their self-efficacy and motivation will increase.
Motivation is a complex issue. There is no one exact, linear way to build motivation
(Petty, 2014). Not all students are motivated by the same desires and needs. It takes mindful
student advising and counseling interactions to begin to understand what drives students forward.
Some students are motivated by overcoming obstacles and some by having the support of others
(Petty, 2014). Students have social, esteem, and self-actualization needs (Petty, 2014). Maslow
described self-actualization as not only an end state but the process of actualizing one’s
potentialities at any time, and any amount (Maslow, 1965). Understanding motivation and self-
esteem is important to the investigation of the motivation factors that influence time to degree.
Social cognitive theory model. Using the social cognitive theory model, when students
feel confident about college and possess a positive outlook on their performance, they will be
more interested in their academic progress if the environment is supportive (Pinxten, De Fraine,
Van Den Noortgate, Boonen, & Vanlaar, 2015). It is important to engage freshmen in
programming and courses that will help build their vision of success in college.
GRADUATION RATE 38
Person, environment, and behavior interaction are bi-directional to create a fluid
relationship that can build self-efficacy. Brock’s (2010) study revealed the positive effect
learning communities (a cluster of three college courses, one developmental, one general
education, and one student success oriented) have on student self-efficacy, persistence, and time
to degree. The students who participated in the learning communities passed an average of 33.2
units of college courses in their first year as compared to the control group that passed 30.8 units
(Brock, 2010). The study demonstrates that small communities of students at similar
developmental stages, engaging with a faculty member to discover student success strategies
leads to increased persistence and retention.
College student self-efficacy. Entering a brand-new learning environment, leaving home,
and everything familiar can cause many college students to experience a decrease in self-
efficacy. Albert Bandura (1977) defines self-efficacy as “the evaluation of one’s competence to
successfully execute a course of action necessary to reach desired outcomes.” The Academic
Self-Efficacy (ASE Scale), can predict a student’s success over time by measuring their level of
confidence in academic achievement (Akbarov & Hadzimehmedagic, 2015). Students who can
demonstrate strong ASE are more successful; whereas, those who cannot, suffer from poor
performance, motivation, and depression (Akbarov & Hadzimehmedagic, 2015). If students
cannot build their self-confidence within their first year, then their motivation toward self-
discovery, degree persistence, and time to degree will suffer.
Expectancy-value theory. Expectancy-value motivational theory addresses the concept
of values as a strong predictor of active choice, and goal attainment (Petty, 2014). There are
different components of task value beliefs: attainment, intrinsic, utility, and cost belief value.
GRADUATION RATE 39
Attainment value most closely relates to self-schema, which is an important component of
student success.
College students and expectancy-value. If students believe they can achieve and be
successful studying a certain subject matter, then they are likely to excel (Jones, 2015). Students
who leave high school lacking the attainment value toward any discipline, will struggle finding
the motivation to achieve and make educational decisions (Adams et al., 2016). FGCS come to
college with great aspirations and visions of the future and their achievements (Swanson et al.,
2017). If they do not perform well academically, personally, or socially, in the first semester,
then their internal perception of outcome expectancy will be drastically altered in a negative way
(Plante, O’Keefe, & Theoret, 2013). It is vital that FGCS have a successful first semester to
reinforce the expectancy value of achievement they entered college with.
Table 3
Stakeholder Goal and Motivation Influence, Influence Assessment for Motivation Gap Analysis

Organizational Mission
“… we transform lives by preparing students for leadership, service, and success”

Organizational Goal
By fall 2025, the four-year graduation rate at Redwood University will be 30%.

Stakeholder Goal
By fall 2019, 80% of students will complete their Smart Planner to allow for proper course
planning and comprehension of degree requirements. Contributing to a 30% four-year graduation
rate by 2025.

GRADUATION RATE 40
Table 3 (Continued)

Assumed Motivation Influence Motivation Influence Assessment
Attainment Value:
Students’ should have an academic and career
goal that fosters ambition and drive toward
degree completion.
Interview questions:
1. How motivated were you to use
Smart Planner and plan out your
classes?
2. What semester do you plan on
graduating?
Self-efficacy:
Students’ confidence will increase through
engagement with campus support services, and
interactions with advising, faculty, and peers.
Interview questions:
1. Tell me about your level of
confidence, in regard to your
abilities to be a successful
student, when you got to college
here.
a. How did this impact
your engagement with
Smart Planner and
understanding your
degree requirements?

Organization
Organizational influences play an important role in the conceptual framework of this
study. At Redwood University, these influences do not directly impact the knowledge and
motivation influences of the stakeholder group, FGCS, but rather combine with them to impact
the stakeholder goal of four-year degree attainment. The organizational environment at higher
education institutions is very political in nature. There are a vast number of stakeholders, and the
biggest cultural challenges is bridging the gaps between these different groups. Communication
and relationship building play a significant role in bringing stakeholders together but
understanding what the other party values is key to successful collaboration.
GRADUATION RATE 41
Cultural model. Organizations develop cultural change over time (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Redwood University has been considered a “commuter” school for over 50 years. A “commuter”
school is defined as a campus that most students travel to for classes, and leave, not engaging in
the campus life. Redwood has marketed itself to the community and region as a “commuter”
school, embedding this cultural identity further. This cultural model directly impacts student
engagement, which connects to successful, timely degree completion. Organizational culture
influence in relation to time to degree is evident in the expected graduation term the university
would post on students’ online records. To this day, the university admits students and selects
degree completion dates six years from their admitted term.
Commuter Students. Three-fourths of college students do not live on campus and
commute every day to class, having to juggle work, family obligations, school, and commuting
to campus (Nelson, Misra, Sype, & Mackie, 2016). These challenges that a commuter student
faces, can result in delayed time to degree or not completing at all. The distance a student
commutes also directly impacts persistence and retention (Nelson et al., 2016). Newbold, Mehta,
and Forbus (2011) found that commuting students tend to be older and come from blue-collar
families, so they may already struggle to connect with the campus.
Students who live on campus are more integrated into the social and educational
environment of the campus, this has a positive impact on success in college and degree
completion (Bozic, 2007). At Redwood, there is only room for 1200 students out of 30,000 to
live on campus. This lack of resources to house students continues to keep them commuting and
builds on the “commuter” school cultural model.
Faculty and staff. Faculty and staff are the advisors and educators on campus. They have
the most interaction with students and exhibit the campus culture that many students will adopt.
GRADUATION RATE 42
If faculty and staff do not stress the importance of earning a degree in four years, then students
are not going to see it as an important goal. In addition, if certain faculty and staff struggle to see
the value in timely degree completion, then they will not utilize degree planning and advisement
techniques and tools to support the university’s goal of increasing graduation rates.
Cultural setting. At Redwood University, the cultural setting influence focused on in
this study is course availability and offerings. The university surveys students every year to
determine areas for improvement, and one of the top complaints from students is course
availability. There is not only a lack of sufficient sections to support student demand, but there
are certain required courses for certain majors that are only offered once a year. If a student does
not get into that required course, then it will likely delay their graduation.
Course availability. After the Great Recession, state funding for schools like Redwood
decreased significantly from 2008 to 2013 (Oliff, Palacios, Johnson, & Leachman, 2013). State
funded universities around the country experienced budget shortfalls during the Great Recession
(McGee, 2015). The decrease in funding resulted in deep cuts to programming, faculty, staff, and
classes. Students suffered as a result, financial aid was limited, student services were cut or
harder to access, and classes students needed to graduate were not available (Kouyoumdjian et
al., 2017). Budget and financial implications can play a major role in college completion.
Four-year institutions have been forced to reduce course offerings because of the
decrease in funding (Gurantz, 2015). During the Great Recession in 2008, public institutions of
higher education experienced deep budget cuts and tuition increases (Kouyoumdjian et al.,
2017). The result was the downsizing of faculty, staff, and student support services. A study by
the Pearson Foundation (2011) found that students attending California state institutions of
higher education were twice as likely to report being unable to get the classes they need in
GRADUATION RATE 43
comparison to the rest of the state educational systems in the United States. These organizational
influences indicate a lack of sufficient resources in the cultural setting to provide the classes
students need to graduate.
One approach that has been investigated in the literature to combat this issue, is to change
the way that course registration occurs. Bahr, Gross, Slay, and Christensen (2014) suggest setting
registration priority for students who engage in assessment, orientation, and academic advising
prior to registration. On the flip side, registration for those students who are not making progress
toward a degree and are underperforming would get the last available registration dates (Gurantz,
2015). Lack of course availability can impact a students’ entire academic plan and therefore time
to degree (Bahr et al., 2015).
Table 4
Stakeholder Goal and Organizational Influence, Influence Assessment for Organizational Gap
Analysis

Organizational Mission
“… we transform lives by preparing students for leadership, service, and success”

Organizational Goal
By fall 2025, the four-year graduation rate at Redwood University will increase to 30%.

Stakeholder Goal
By fall 2019, 80% of students will complete their Smart Planner to allow for proper course
planning and comprehension of degree requirements. Contributing to a 30% four-year graduation
rate by 2025.

GRADUATION RATE 44
Table 4 (Continued)
Assumed Organizational Influence Organizational Influence Assessment

Cultural Model:
The environment at Redwood has not
historically focused on degree attainment
as a measure of success. Some faculty
and staff are yet to embrace the cultural
shift toward timely degree completion.

Interview questions:

4. When you were entering
college, how many years did
you think it would take you to
graduate?
5. What support services (advisors,
peer mentors, etc.) did you
engage with to better understand
your requirements?

Cultural Setting:
The institution has struggled to provide
adequate classes for students when they
need them, prolonging time to degree.

Interview questions:
1. Describe your experiences with
the course registration process.
o If you were the
President, what would
you do differently to
ease course registration
and availability for
students?
2. What did the university do to
educate you about Smart
Planner and how to use it?
3. What do you think the
university could do to support
and encourage the use of Smart
Planner?

GRADUATION RATE 45
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge, Motivation and the
Organizational Context
It is important to follow a conceptual framework in this study to provide structure and
guidance for this research project. The purpose of this is to illustrate the interaction between the
stakeholder group and the organization. The outcomes of the stakeholder group are directly
impacted by the actions and decisions of the organization. The framework takes into
consideration both experiential and experimental research to develop strong factors of influence
between the organization and the stakeholder group. The conceptual framework guiding this
study, created a foundation for the research design and guidelines that were considered in the
construction of research.
The empirical research existing on FGCS informs this study of the knowledge and
motivational based influences impacting students time and progress toward degree. Through
previous research and experiential knowledge, this study has narrowed in on the influences
perceived to be the most important factors influencing graduation rate. Previous research on
FGCS and graduation rate has not utilized the knowledge, motivation, organizational framework.
The following addresses the general philosophical orientation or worldview of this study.
The researcher brought her own worldview or beliefs to this study, and it is important to
address this concept to thoroughly understand the application of the conceptual framework in
this study (Creswell, 2014). The worldview of the researcher follows both a social constructivists
and transformative worldview. Creswell states that social constructivists seek understanding of
the world in which they live and work (2014). Transformative worldview believes that research
inquiry should be embedded within political change to address social oppression (Creswell,
2014). Change occurs through motivation and drive for student success, a personal understanding
GRADUATION RATE 46
of student needs, and integration in the political bureaucracy that universities possess. The
researcher’s experience working with freshmen through graduating seniors, many of which are
FGCS, informed the influences presented in this framework. The transformative or political
worldview is presented in this study, because the stakeholder group is a marginalized population.
This group has an opportunity to be heard and influence organizational change through a
transformative lens. This viewpoint helps to bridge between the organizational political structure
and the stakeholder needs to narrow the equity gap and create positive change.
GRADUATION RATE 47

Figure 1. Interaction of Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation within Organizational Cultural
Models and Settings.
Conclusion
The rate at which students at Redwood University graduate with a bachelor’s degree is
concerning. Redwood is tasked with the goal of increasing four-year graduation rates to 30% by
2025 (Redwood University website, 2017). First Generation College Students (FGCS)
experience an even more challenging path to degree completion as compared to their Continuing
Generation College Student (CGCS) counterparts (Adams et al., 2017; Conley & Hamlin, 2009;
Swanson et al., 2017). The problem is not only at Redwood, but a nationwide epidemic. The
knowledge, motivation, and organizational framework this study follows identifies particular
Organizational Influences:
Culture (Cultural Model): The
organizational culture at
REDWOOD University,
historically has not supported four-
year graduation.
Resources (Cultural Setting): The
institution has struggled to provide
adequate class availability for
students when they need them,
prolonging time to degree.

FGCS Students at Redwood
Knowledge influences: degree
requirements (conceptual)
advising & support resources
(procedural).
Motivational influences: &
self-efficacy & expectancy
value.
Organization Goal:
Increase four-year graduation rates to 30%
by the year 2025.

GRADUATION RATE 48
areas of influences that guided the methodology and research conducted. FGCS struggle to
understand their degree requirements, and lack awareness of student support services and
advising available to them (Jones, 2015). They lack self-efficacy and struggle to identify the
belief that they can earn a degree (Petty, 2014). These are the knowledge and motivation factors
affecting FGCS. The organization’s role in the problem of practice lies within culture and course
availability that support four-year degree completion. The following chapter will describe the
methodology of this research study.

GRADUATION RATE 49
Chapter Three: Research Methods
The input from FGCS at Redwood University helped to inform and hopefully improve
the problem of low degree completion at Redwood. The following are the research questions that
guided the composition of the interview questions in the data collection stage of this study:
1. What were the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that interfere with
students’ effective use of Smart Planner?
2. What were the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions?
3. How has the implementation of Smart Planner influenced the graduation rate for FGCS?
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholder group of focus for this study was First Generation College Students at
Redwood University. It was important to narrow this group farther because the general
population of Redwood University students is too vast. In addition, research indicates that FGCS
have a lower rate of success obtaining a college degree in four-years. The experience a freshman
can report is going to vary from that of a senior who has been attending college for at least four
years. Therefore, it was important to focus on particular class levels of FGCS to collect data from
students who have had measurable experiences at Redwood and with Smart Planner.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. First Generation College Students (FGCS) was the first criteria for the
interview sample. Because the campus population is home to approximately 30,000 students, it
would have been impractical to select interview participants from such a vast number.
Additionally, FGCS struggle more than CGCS to succeed in college and graduate in four years.
Criterion 2. Students who the researcher had communication or an advising experience
with were excluded from the sample.
GRADUATION RATE 50
Interview Sampling Recruitment Strategy and Rationale
The sample was originated from data provided by the study site Office of Institutional
Research. From this sample, students were randomly selected and invited to participate. Students
were invited via email, followed up by a second email a week later. The communication began
with an explanation of the study’s purpose. It was articulated to potential participants that the
data collected would be utilized to help improve the campus graduation rates for future
generations of students. In addition, participants reported experience with degree planning and
usage of Smart Planner will inform future improvements of the advising tool. The data analysis
was not only used in this dissertation to culminate the requirements for the researcher’s doctorate
degree, but also to provide Redwood University information about FGCS experiences with
Smart Planner to help increase graduation rates. During the study invitation, potential
participants were informed both in writing and verbally that pseudonyms would be used to
protect their identity and confidentiality.
Incentives. It can be challenging to get students to commit and participate in research
studies. College students are already busy with class, studying, work, and social commitments.
The researcher found it necessary to provide an incentive to participants. Each student received a
ten-dollar gift card at the end of the interview. Marketing of this incentive took place in the
initial email invitation.
Participant recruitment limitations. It is important to address the challenges that the
researcher faced securing participants for this study. Despite the two email invitations and gift
card incentive, the researcher only got a response from one student out of the 2,000 that were
randomly selected and contacted. Due to the fact that this research project fulfills the dissertation
requirement for a doctoral program, this project was under strict time constraints. Therefore, the
GRADUATION RATE 51
researcher had to use convenience sampling in order to recruit more participants. Ultimately, the
study had five student participants. It is a recommendation of the researcher to consider going
into classrooms, residence halls, and student clubs to sign up participants for interviews.
Utilizing this approach may warrant an increase in participants. It is important to consider this
limitation as the results and findings are presented in Chapter Four.
Secondary Stakeholder Group
It is important to gain perception from Redwood faculty and staff regarding the
implementation of Smart Planner and the impact on graduation rate. Therefore, interviews were
conducted with Redwood faculty and staff. The researcher interviewed one faculty and three
staff members. Convenience sampling was used to reach out to members of the campus
community. The researcher received a referral from a colleague to contact the faculty person and
the other three staff participants are professional acquaintances of the researcher. The purpose of
the study was shared along with the assumed benefit to achieving further success increasing the
four-year graduation rate at Redwood. The only criterion used was experience using Smart
Planner with students. Incentives were not necessary as participants had a vested interest in the
problem of practice and the role that Smart Planner may play.
Qualitative Data Collection and Instrumentation
According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), a qualitative research method enhanced this
study because there is a lack of adequate descriptive evaluation that addresses the problem of
low college graduation rates. With that in mind, it is important to note that a number of studies
have been conducted on the Redwood campus, but all involved a quantitative survey method.
One mixed-methods study was done regarding Smart Planner; however, it focused on the
technological aspects of the tool and its use by advisors. Qualitative research tends to view the
GRADUATION RATE 52
world in terms of people, situations, and making connections between them (Maxwell, 2013).
Influential and relational connections for student participants, as they pertain to graduation rate,
are valuable to the design of this study and answering the research questions. Therefore, a
qualitative approach was selected because it solicited meaning and understanding surrounding
the problem of practice.
The researcher was the primary instrument for data collection in this inductive study, and
she has an understanding of the problem built from observation and experiential evidence of
having worked in higher education for a nine-year period of time. While checking for personal
biases, the researcher aimed to gather data to understand some of the reasons for low college
graduation rates.
Interview procedures. The researcher conducted one-time, semi-structured interviews.
The more structured approach and format of the formal interview process, but the flexibility of
semi-structured questioning allows for consistency and freedom to probe and tailor questions as
necessary (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher is highly sensitive and accustomed to
listening to participants and identifying areas that need further investigation in the conversation.
The researcher was able to probe in order to seek more detail and clarification if she sensed the
participant was heading in a significant direction that benefited the study (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016).
The participants were interviewed in the researcher’s office and a small conference room
on the Redwood campus. The interviews took place in September, after the fall semester had
begun and students had a chance to get settled into their courses. Upon arrival, participants were
greeted, and provided a confidentiality agreement. At this time, students were given notice that
they could withdraw from the study at any time. The consent restated the purpose of the study,
GRADUATION RATE 53
and the positive contribution the participant would make to the university. Finally, a second form
was provided that asked permission of the participant to be audio recorded to thoroughly analyze
the interview data. The interview began with small talk to build rapport and trust. The interviews
were scheduled for an hour each. However, the interviewer had flexibility within the schedule in
case the participant needed more or less time.
Documents
Another component of the data collection instrumentation was the analysis of documents.
Evaluating documents is a source of data collection that was already available for the researcher
to review (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In this study, the term “document” refers to online
resources available to the researcher. The Redwood University catalog was utilized to review and
reference degree requirements. The university catalog lists all of the degree programs and the
course work required to complete them. The document is located on the Redwood website, and it
is updated every year with new changes. It was important to assess how authentic and reliable
the document being considered is before including it in a research study (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). The authenticity of this document is evident by the fact that it is approved by the
Academic Senate at Redwood. Reviewing this document allowed the researcher to investigate
the complexities and intricacies of the various degree programs. A content analysis took place
that allowed the researcher to look for meaning in the document as it relates to the study
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The conceptual framework of this study suggested that there are
knowledge influences that impact time to degree completion. One of the influences presented in
this study was students’ conceptual knowledge of degree requirements. Reviewing this
information helped inform the researcher before the interviews took place.

GRADUATION RATE 54
Data Analysis
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Qualitative research is based on assumptions about reality in comparison to quantitative
research that is more factual in its presentation (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). It was important to
guide the research design of this study based on standards developed by research communities to
manage credibility and trustworthiness (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The interviews that were
conducted as a part of this study could have left room for interpretation when reported by the
researcher. That is why it is critical to present strategies that established the credibility and
trustworthiness of this study. Three strategies were utilized to control for credibility and
trustworthiness: adequate engagement, reflexivity, and peer examination.
Adequate engagement involved gathering enough data from participants to feel that the
study was representing a thorough understanding of the problem (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The
researcher attempted to hit a level of saturation with emergent findings (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). To reach this level the researcher continued to invite eligible participants to interview
until common themes began to emerge, and repetition became evident.
The next strategy the researcher used to ensure credibility was the researcher’s position
or reflexivity (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Reflexivity or researcher’s position relates to the
researcher’s own bias, position, and worldview and how the presence of that may affect the data
collection process and analysis (Maxwell, 2013). The researcher shares several commonalities
with the sample. She is a FGCS who graduated with a bachelor’s degree in four years. However,
she has worked in academic advising at Redwood University, which directly relates to the
research question of understanding degree requirements and advising. The researcher is now
working with the career center on campus, so is no longer directly tied to that particular
GRADUATION RATE 55
knowledge influence. Awareness of this connection to one of the research questions, helped the
researcher to avoid leading participants during the interviews. The researcher was committed to
clearing any bias or preconceived ideas regarding the causes of low graduation rate as to not
influence the responses of students. It was also important to note that the researcher excluded any
student from the sample that she had come in contact with outside of the study. The secondary
stakeholder group did include participants that the researcher has a professional relationship
with. The researcher set the stage for the interviews with this group confirming and assuring
confidentiality and that she would not place judgement on the individuals or comments they
chose to share. The researcher practiced mindful mediation to enter each interview with an open
and clear mind.
Finally, peer examination was utilized to maintain and establish credibility (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). The research conducted was reviewed by the researcher’s dissertation committee,
consisting of three faculty members within the researcher’s doctorate program. Additionally, the
researcher had her supervisor review the data analysis as she is familiar with the problem of
practice and has conducted her own research for a doctorate program.
Credibility and trustworthiness came from, not only the research method design and
execution, but also the integrity and intellectual precision of the researcher (Patton, 2015). The
researcher is an established, respected, and accomplished professional in the field of higher
education. The relationships that the researcher has built on campus with faculty, staff, and
students has positioned her as an expert on student success. The one challenge that the researcher
faced was not letting the experience bias the interview process.

GRADUATION RATE 56
Ethics
It was important to consider all ethical implications as a researcher to ensure the safety of
all participants in this study (Glesne, 2011). The study included students who had completed at
least three years at the university, as well as, faculty and staff. The researcher in this study is an
employee of Redwood University and works in a role that directly impacts student success. To
control for bias, participants included students who had not been advised by the researcher.
The risk of the participants was minimized through the submission of the study proposal
to the Institutional Review Boards (IRB) at both University of Southern California and Redwood
University. It was important to have the study vetted by the institutions connected to the
researcher and representing the participants. The review process provided an investigation into
the humane treatment of participants, and all ethical implications of the study to protect the
researcher, participants, and institutions.
Confidentiality
It was important to maintain confidentiality to protect the experiences and identity of the
participants. At the onset of the interviews, it was explained to the participants that pseudonyms
would be created to protect the information shared. The researcher explained to interviewees that
the information would be used to help improve the graduation rate at Redwood. The experiences,
opinions, and feedback of participants will help university leadership to improve practices and
outcomes for future generations of students. As previously mentioned, a confidentiality
agreement was provided to each participant. The interview only took place if the agreement was
signed. The researcher discussed the agreement points and gave the student time to ask questions
if necessary. It was also explained to participants that their responses to the questions would be
audio recorded, as well as, documented by a consent form.
GRADUATION RATE 57
Data Storage
The audio recordings, data analysis, and supporting documentation were protected to
maintain the integrity, confidentiality, and ethical commitments of this study. The audio
recordings were downloaded from the device, (which only functions as an audio recording
device with no internet or Bluetooth capability), to an external hard drive that is password
protected. Only the researcher has the password. All of the data analysis and student information
was downloaded to the external drive. The information was not shared with anyone or uploaded
to a cloud-based storage system. All of the efforts taken to protect the data were driven by the
need to uphold confidentiality and ethical obligations to the participants (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016).
Limitations and Delimitations
It is important to address several limitations within the design methods of this study.
With a campus of 30,000 students, only interviewing a small sample of the larger group limits
the amount of information the researcher was able to collect. Improvement of practices on the
Redwood campus could be made based on the recommendations that developed from this study.
However, with a small number of interviewees and a significantly larger student population,
applying ideas for improvement may only make sense for targeted populations, such as, FGCS.
The responses of the participants may have been biased because of the researcher’s role
on campus. The researcher has worked in student support services roles, such as, coordinating
freshmen advising and career counseling for the past three years. Even though the researcher
screened the student participants to ensure she had not counseled any of them in the past, they
may have known the researcher. The secondary stakeholder group already knew the researcher
and had a working relationship with the researcher. The potential bias this may have created
GRADUATION RATE 58
could have been avoided if the researcher would have interviewed faculty and staff that she did
not know. However, the time limitations and need to obtain participant commitment forced the
researcher to use convenience sampling and interview those she knew. Therefore, participants
may not have been as forthcoming regarding their experience because of the researcher’s
positionality on campus.
Through the researcher’s experience at Redwood, it was clear that there are many reasons
that students take more than four years to graduate. The interview method that was utilized in
this study only allowed for a small number of participant experiences and opinions to be shared.
Ideally, a mixed methods approach utilizing survey and interview design would reach a wider
range of students. However, due to the time constraints of the researcher’s degree program only
one method was implemented. Further study on the problem of practice and the impacts of
degree planning tools, like Smart Planner, would benefit from both a quantitative and qualitative
approach.

GRADUATION RATE 59
Chapter Four: Results and Findings
The purpose of this study was to assess the issue of low, four-year graduation rates at
Redwood University. First Generation College Students (FGCS) were of particular interest
within this study because they struggle even more than Continuing Generation College Students
(CGCS) to adapt and persist to graduation (Mehta et al., 2011). The university adopted a new,
online advising tool called Smart Planner two years ago as a way to help students plan and
visualize their degree progress. It was assumed by the university that adoption of such a tool
would help increase graduation rates on campus.
The research component of this study was aimed at evaluating the impact Smart Planner
has had on student outcomes, in particular graduation rate. The research questions guiding this
study were as follows:
1. What were the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that interfere
with students’ effective use of Smart Planner?
2. What were the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions?
3. How has the implementation of Smart Planner influenced the graduation rate for
FGCS?
Data was collected by conducting five, semi-structured interviews with FGCS at
Redwood University, document analysis of the course catalog, and additional interviews with
four university staff and faculty. Chapter Four presents an analysis of the qualitative data
collected and a presentation of the findings as they related to the research questions and
emerging themes identified as knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. Chapter
Five will follow with research-based recommendations and solutions for future practice and
address research question number two.
GRADUATION RATE 60
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholder group included in this study, was identified via a random sample of
Redwood FGCS that had been attending the university for at least one year. As noted in the
previous chapter, there were various criterion considered. The actual group that was inevitably
interviewed consisted of both students that began their college career at Redwood as freshmen
and those that transferred from other universities. The researcher’s intent was to only speak with
those that began as freshmen to eliminate the variety of problematic variables students are faced
with when they transfer versus start as freshmen. However, the researcher had difficulties getting
students to participate. The original data collection goal was to conduct five focus groups of five
students each. However, the low participation and limited time to complete data collection
resulted in five individual interviews with FGCS students in at least their second year at
Redwood.
The participants will be referred to by assigned pseudonyms to protect anonymity. The
following Table 5 reports the assigned pseudonyms and demographic data for the interviewees
that the researcher was able to collect.
Table 5
Participant Pseudonyms and Demographics
Participant Class Status Ethnicity Gender Major
Maria Senior Transfer White F Business/HR
Anna Junior Transfer Latina F Mech/Engineering
Julie Sophomore Freshmen White F History
Alex Junior Freshmen/Intl. Asian F Business/Finance
John Senior Transfer African American M Art
Note. Intl. = international; F = female; M = male; HR = human resources; Mech = mechanical

GRADUATION RATE 61
Findings

The following analysis presents the findings as they relate to the research questions and
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that emerged as themes. The knowledge
themes connect to research questions one and three, as they address graduation rates and the
influence of Smart Planner. The qualitative data analysis revealed the importance of a conceptual
understanding of degree requirements and the role that Smart Planner and orientation played in
the stakeholder groups developmental understanding. In addition, themes were discovered that
revealed varying levels of self-efficacy for FGCS as they entered college. However, as students
experience, performance, and knowledge of degree requirements increased, their level of
confidence did as well. Analysis also revealed that stakeholder motivation stemmed from utility
value and having a goal or sense of direction post-graduation. Finally, the organizational
influences discovered connected to faculty and their lack of support for Smart Planner and the
organizational goal of achieving higher four-year graduation rates. In addition, orientation,
course registration, and Smart Planner all emerged as organizational influences impacting
graduation rate and FGCS’ journey through college.
Knowledge Influences Effecting Graduation Rate
Degree requirements. One of the assumed knowledge influences was Redwood
students’ lack of a conceptual understanding of degree requirements. Redwood University, like
most universities in the United States, has 60 plus bachelor’s degree programs or majors
(Redwood University website, 2018). Each major has a set of requirements, some involving
specific sequencing of courses. If this order is altered in any way, it could impact the length of
time it takes a student to graduate. Anna shared that, “… I feel like if I didn’t know what classes
I had to take next semester, then I’d probable drop out because I don’t even know.” It was
GRADUATION RATE 62
evident from this statement from Anna that understanding degree and graduation requirements is
integral to persisting through to graduation.
It was discovered after speaking with the five student participants that the degree
requirements at Redwood are confusing. Julie said that “… I wasn’t finding an easy, convenient
way to search for classes or a print out of what a history major would do… and that was a little
confusing.” Each student had a different approach that they took to attempt to understand what
classes to take and when. Some of the approaches were using university resources, such as, the
catalog and online tools. Others were using specific department plans and roadmaps, and others
created their own system and tools to guide their course planning. The complexity of the
information and the variety of ways to gain knowledge around it, have led to confusion,
frustration, and mistakes.
All of the participants in this study are the first in their families to pursue a college
education. These students did not have a frame of reference to guide them as they entered college
and attempted to learn how to navigate the intricacies of it. They had to figure it out on their own
and hopefully gain the support of a staff or faculty advisor, or peer mentor. All of the participants
voiced the stress and anxiety they felt as they entered Redwood and were challenged with
adapting.
Orientation. It was apparent after interviewing all participants that new student
orientation was the first-time students were engaged in learning their degree requirements. Alex
stated that, “When I started, I didn’t know anything about the GE (general education) and stuff.
So, when I came to orientation, we talked about the academic requirements report.” Alex had this
to say about course planning at orientation, “They [orientation leaders-peer leaders] were like,
here it is, you figure it out, kind of thing. So, I just played around with it [academic
GRADUATION RATE 63
requirements] …” However, students are then expected to go home, learn and build knowledge
about their degree requirements on their own. According to the results compiled in this study,
students did not report a conceptual level of knowledge and understanding about degree
requirements after orientation.
At orientation students work with peer orientation leaders, staff, and faculty advisors to
prepare for course registration. Student participants voiced that they struggled to retain
information or obtain knowledge about their degree requirements as the day of orientation is long
and packed full of information. Maria shared this about her experience with orientation, “Ugh.
Orientation… It was such a waste of time, but you had to complete the whole day to register for
classes.” There was an error with Maria’s academic plan, and she could not sign up for classes
after waiting all day to do so, she was very frustrated. This was her first experience with Smart
Planner, other e-advising tools, and staff and faculty advisors. Because of this negative
experience, Maria sought her own ways to navigate her degree requirements, feeling as if she
could not rely on the tools the university provided her.
Based on the participants disclosed experience with degree planning and orientation, it
was clear that the environment is not conducive to learning degree requirements. However, it
exposes students to the idea that they have requirements. The main outcome of orientation, from
the student perspective, was to register for courses not to comprehend their degree requirements.
It can be generalized across the participants that all had to engage in self-discovery and learning
in order to understand their degree plan and path to graduation.
Student support services. Students learn how to navigate college and understand their
requirements to graduate through advising and student support services. FGCS in particular, need
to rely more heavily on the support of staff, faculty, and peer guidance in order to gain
GRADUATION RATE 64
knowledge that will help them persist to graduation successfully. John stated that he went to his
major department for advising when he began studying at Redwood. He disclosed that, “… they
[faculty advisors] were not always sure. It was kinda like, oh, well we’ll have to see, you know,
that kind of thing.” He then stated that this interaction proved to not be very helpful. John said
that for him, “… Smart Planner just kinda laid everything out.” John’s experience indicated that
his major advisor was not certain about the advice they were giving; therefore, he found he could
not rely on that form of advising for help navigating his degree plan. John sought out the tools at
his disposal and found Smart Planner to be more helpful than his advisor. The experience John
had with advising caused him to avoid any other forms of advising from staff or faculty because
he found it to be unreliable.
The other participants in the study found advising from a staff, faculty, or peer mentor to
be beneficial to their progress to degree. Alex stated that she gained more information regarding
her requirements through a workshop held in the resident life halls lead by staff advisors. Alex
enhanced her conceptual level of understanding by teaching a peer. She mentioned that, “… my
friend is in a worse state than me, so I helped her out and that helped me a lot because I started
explaining it to her and it made more sense to me.” The approach to learning that worked for
Alex is one that is rarely considered when it comes to advising and degree planning.
Where and from whom a student seeks advising is related to affiliations they may have. One of
the participants is a veteran and first sought assistance from a center on campus dedicated to
helping veterans pursue and obtain their degree. Other resources could be connected to where a
student lives, their ethnicity or cultural identity, as well as, certain majors and courses they
choose to take. Julie was in a first-year seminar course her first semester. Within this course, she
received guidance from both a peer mentor and her major advisor. Julie’s major advisor actually
GRADUATION RATE 65
helped her embrace Smart Planner. “I truly wasn’t a fan of Smart Planner, until I talked to my
major advisor. We figured some stuff out, how it would help me, and what I really wanted to
do,” stated Julie. Maria brought to light that she uses advising to help confirm what she has
planned on her own. She uses advising as a checks and balances system. “I seek out advising
usually to confirm what I think I already know. I usually try to find information first and then,
confirm am I right, off track, or missing something”, Maria shared. On the other hand, Anna was
required to meet with a major advisor every semester because of her major. Anna’s experience
with major advising did not seem to be significantly impactful toward her comprehension of
degree requirements or success in moving toward graduation. Anna utilized her major
department’s degree planning roadmap, and that tool seemed to have the most impact on Anna’s
progress. It is apparent that there is not one prescribed mode of advising that works universally
to guide students to graduation. The students interviewed in this study all had a different
experience, combination of resources they used, and preference toward the type of advising they
received. It was evident that advising and student support as a whole is helpful; however, it is up
to the student to discover what advising and support looks like for them.
Synthesis of findings. The student participants prodigiously felt that their degree
requirements were confusing. Students interviewed were anxious about planning out their
coursework, so they all sought out their own information and developed systems to more fully
understand their requirements. If the information given proved to be wrong, the student would no
longer feel they could rely on that resource. It was realized that the students’ conceptual level of
understanding their degree requirements increased as students engaged with online tools and
resources frequently. The students in this study fought to understand their requirements;
therefore, they have been successful in making timely progress toward their degrees. However,
GRADUATION RATE 66
other students that do not possess the same motivation to learn, struggle to graduate in four years
or less. The conclusion can be made that a lack of knowledge about degree requirements can lead
to prolonged degree completion.
No matter how many tools, charts, or catalogs students used to verify and plan their
degree requirements, interacting with a staff or faculty advisor was crucial to building solid
knowledge of degree requirements. After orientation, the participants shared that they interacted
with an advisor either at a workshop or advising session. Most of the student interviewees
expressed that advising helped to confirm their academic requirements and served as a checks
and balances system. Overall, advising proved to enhance understanding and was appreciated by
all of the students. However, it was concluded that advising is sought from a variety of resources
on campus. What works for one student, may not be the case for another. Chapter Five will
present recommendations to address these concerns.
Motivation Influences Effecting Graduation Rate
Utility value. Motivation is an important influence on graduation rates at Redwood. One
of the themes that emerged from this finding is that students will not be motivated to use Smart
Planner and engage in degree planning unless they see the purpose. One of the vital components
of pursuing a college degree is taking the right courses, at the right time, to meet the
requirements to graduate. FGCS in their first-year of college struggle to see the usefulness or
utility value in understanding their degree requirements. If students do not see the purpose
behind degree planning, then they likely will not be motivated to learn or understand their
requirements.
Overwhelmingly, the participants in this study did see the value in degree planning. In
fact, all of the participants were motivated by their desire to succeed. They all engaged in some
GRADUATION RATE 67
aspect of degree planning on their own prior to orientation. Julie actually started using her Smart
Planner before getting any direction or training on how to use it. She disclosed that, “Truly, I
didn’t have a lot of direction at first. I actually filled out the Smart Planner before orientation
because I saw it was a thing.” Julie was motivated to engaged in her Smart Planner and degree
planning because she saw the value in understanding what would be required of her to earn her
degree. Maria a transfer student from a community college and a veteran expressed, “I am
typically an organized person, so I just looked online for the requirements for a human resource
major.” Maria’s response indicated that it was not a big deal for her to do research and figure out
her requirements on her own. Anna also did her own research and used tools that she had learned
about in community college to guide her course planning at Redwood. Alex was admitted to
Redwood as an international student, so not only was college new for her but she was in an
entirely different country and educational system. Alex shared that, “When I started, I didn’t
know anything about the general education requirements and stuff.” She was motivated to
understand her requirements but did not know how to get started or what resources to utilize.
Alex, like the other participants, understood the value in learning her degree requirements. The
utility-value motivation drove her to keep seeking out resources, guidance, and learning
opportunities to engage in her degree planning process. Ultimately, Alex’s motivation led her to
become an orientation Leader and learn by teaching new students.
The requirements to earn a college degree are different than what a student experiences in
secondary education. Many students fail to graduate in four years or at all because of missing
courses or not meeting certain aspects of their degree requirements. FGCS in particular, come to
college faced with a vast assortment of requirements but do not have the context or experience to
make sense of them. Utility-value is an important aspect of motivation for students to be aware
GRADUATION RATE 68
of in order to take advantage of resources and opportunities to learn and engage with their degree
requirements. The students interviewed in this study all happened to have utility-value
motivation. They understand the importance of degree planning. As a result, all of them will be
graduating in four years or less.
Self-efficacy. Starting college for the first-time, comes with excitement for a new
beginning. However, for FGCS there is a fear of failure and a lack of confidence that students
exhibit at first. Some unfortunately struggle to build the confidence and end up leaving college
before they graduate. One reason why this occurs can be linked to imposter syndrome. Imposter
syndrome is a phenomenon in which one attributes their success to an external force (Parkman,
2016). Imposter syndrome is a very common issue that FGCS face. They feel as if their previous
successes were not of their own doing; therefore, FGCS lack self-efficacy to achieve and succeed
in college. The students in this study, all were able to overcome the struggles of the typical
FGCS. Most of the participants had so much success in high school or community college that
their confidence from those experiences carried over to their experience at Redwood. Julie made
this statement about her level of confidence to be successful at Redwood:
Pretty high. I got accepted to a lot of other schools and I decided to go to Redwood
because it was a place I could commute to. But I came in loving school and I felt like I
would continue to love school at Redwood.
In addition, both Anna and Maria felt confident as they began their education at Redwood. Alex
on the other hand, felt that her confidence was “terrible... because I didn’t know anything.” As an
international student she was faced with other challenges and fears that impacted her confidence,
but her motivation and determination to succeed was high. In Alex’s case her motivation was not
connected to her self-efficacy. Alex confirmed with the researcher that her confidence was lower
GRADUATION RATE 69
because she was unfamiliar with the American collegiate system. Alex said that, “Even though I
was scared and lacked confidence, I was motivated to figure it out. I knew that I had to help
myself to survive.” She immersed herself in the advising tools, workshops, and resources at her
disposable to fill the gap of unfamiliarity and eventually her self-efficacy improved. After
speaking with all of the participants, it was concluded that the self-efficacy of students did not
necessarily connect to the rate of persistence toward graduation. It seemed as if the lack of
confidence for some fueled the motivational drive and determination to work toward graduation.
Career motivation. A common theme that emerged within this finding was a connection
between clear career goals and graduation rate. When students have a career goal to pursue post-
graduation, it serves as a motivational driver moving students toward graduation in an efficient
and timely manner. All of the participants in this study expressed specific career goals as
motivating factors driving them to graduation. Julie exclaimed that, “… when I’m stressed, I like
looking at what the future is going to hold. My goal is to be a teacher and that motivates me to
see beyond the day-to-day stress and push through to the future.” Anna shared that she is
motivated because, “I want to start working, making money. I really want to work for Tesla.”
Finally, Maria shared Anna’s motivation to start working. Maria had this to say, “I like to look to
the future and think, okay what do I have to do, and then I get it done.” She stated this in
reference to completing her degree requirements and persisting toward graduation. For all of the
participants, a career goal motivated them to complete their degrees in four years or less. Many
students come to college for opportunity, to open up doors that otherwise would remain closed if
they did not have a bachelor’s degree. That opportunity and success is a result of a particular
career outcome, post-graduation. Based on the input from the participants in this study and
experiential knowledge of the researcher, it can be concluded that students with a career goal
GRADUATION RATE 70
have a higher level of motivation and determination to reach graduation and are more likely to
graduate in four years or less.
Synthesis of findings. The motivational findings discovered in this study indicate that
utility-value and career motivation influence graduation rates at Redwood. However, self-
efficacy did not present as significant a motivational influence as the researcher assumed based
on experiential and literature-based evidence. The participants in this study all exhibited utility-
value and all are graduating in four-years or less. It can be assumed from this finding that there is
a strong connection between the influence and the intended outcome. Additionally, career goals
and motivation have not been widely associated with degree attainment. Therefore, this finding
is uniquely significant to future research. Chapter Five will discuss areas for future research that
will expand on these findings.
Organizational Influences Effecting Graduation Rate
Faculty influence. Historically, the culture at Redwood has not focused on graduation
rate as a key measure of success. Three years ago, leadership and system-wide changes have
demanded a focus from all staff, faculty and administrators on graduating students in four years
or less. One of the biggest challenges has been getting all of the university employees on board
with the change. What has transpired is a slow adoption or push to encourage and support four-
year graduation. However, there are faculty and staff that have not embraced the change and in
fact outwardly express their lack of support for the effort. Alex brought this up in her interview.
She shared that, “… I feel like it would be better if all professors would cooperate because I
know a lot of professors that say bad stuff about Smart Planner and the efforts to graduate in
four.” Alex continued to say that, “I have heard other students say that their professors don’t see
the value in Smart Planner, so why should they use it.” Students look to their professors more
GRADUATION RATE 71
than anyone else at the university for guidance and wisdom. It is apparent that the culture at
Redwood needs to continue to shift and adopt the changes, such as Smart Planner, that have been
created to increase the graduation rates.
Course availability. Registering for courses every semester creates a lot of anxiety for
students at Redwood. It is very common for students to not get a course or two that they need to
take the next semester. Regardless of their degree plan, if students cannot get into the courses on
their plan when they are supposed to take them, it prolongs their graduation date. All of the
participants in this study recalled experiencing stress during their first course registration
experience at orientation. Maria recounted her frustration with orientation, “… at orientation… I
was kind of stressing out. I was expecting to leave knowing that for sure these are my classes. I
am signed up and can go get my books and not worry about anything, but that didn’t happen.”
Maria left orientation not registered for any courses because of a mix up with the honors program
she was in. However, this first impression and experience left Maria frustrated and uneasy about
Redwood. The first experience a student has at Redwood can significantly impact their
interaction and level of trust for the university for the duration of their education.
Course registration begins with academic departments planning who will instruct which
courses when and managing classroom space to accommodate the courses needed. Departments
use historical enrollment data to predict how many seats will be needed to provide enough spaces
for all students. However, this practice has not proven to be successful as some students wait
several years to take a specific course. Anna disclosed this about her experience with course
registration:
Super stressful! I am scared that I won’t get the classes I need because they fill up really
fast. Another thing, the classes don’t always list who the professor will be. That is super
GRADUATION RATE 72
important for engineering because I feel like the instructor could make or break your
grade.
Anna feels that she is signing up for her classes blindly. She is a mechanical engineering major
and this major has a high number of units required to graduate. The mechanical engineering
students have to take more units than most students and have an intense course load. Getting the
courses, they need, when they need them, with instructors they can trust, is very important to
students’ ability to graduate in a timely manner.
Course registration causes anxiety, stress, tension, and worry for many Redwood
students. As an international student, Alex could not register for her first semester at Redwood
until all of the other new students had attended orientation and registered for courses. Alex stated
that, “My first semester was terrible. Because I had to register in mid-August, which is when all
the classes are closed.” She continued to say that, “I had to take everything that’s left over. I
knew nothing about the general education and major requirements, so I didn’t know what I was
registering for. I was just taking classes to stay at the university. It was chaos!” She also revealed
that, “I remember staying up the whole night just to stare at the registration page cause I needed
to get an English class. Somebody actually dropped out of a section of English and I got a spot at
two in the morning.” International students like Alex, struggle to get courses that contribute to
their general education or major requirements. They are in a new country, trying to navigate a
collegiate environment for the first time, and now they cannot get courses that will move them
closer to graduation. Even though international students have a more difficult time their first
semester, this situation is true for many new Redwood students.
The problems with course availability and registration came up again when the researcher
asked students what change they would make if they were the President of Redwood University.
GRADUATION RATE 73
Julie shared that she would hire more professors to offer more sections of general education
courses. She made this statement about her experience:
The general eds are always so packed. I’m in an economics class right now where I sit on
the floor most days because I can’t get a chair. It is not very comfortable, but it is what is
happening in these general eds that are packed.
Julie’s experience does not describe an ideal learning environment. She may have gotten to stay
registered in the course, but she does not even have a desk or table to put her notebook on to take
notes. Julie is not set up for success and some students may not be able to pass the course
because of these conditions. It is clear, that organizational changes need to be made to open more
sections or high demand courses.
Synthesis of findings. The organizational influences revealed through this study,
illuminate findings that identify cultural models and settings that impact students’ ability to
graduate in four years. The culture that faculty, staff, and administrators create at Redwood must
support the graduation efforts and tools designed to support timely graduation, like Smart
Planner. Students in general look up to their faculty and value their opinions, so the influence
from certain faculty members was impacting student use of Smart Planner. Lack of buy-in began
when the President of Redwood announced the imperative mission of the university to increase
graduation rates. Course registration and availability emerged in this study as the most
significant organizational influence effecting graduation rates. Chapter Five will present
solutions and recommendations that focus on further implementation and adoption of Smart
Planner that will support more efficient course planning in future semesters.

GRADUATION RATE 74
Impact of Smart Planner on Graduation Rates
The supplemental interviews that took place with the staff and faculty participants
provided valuable insight as to the impact and adoption of Smart Planner at Redwood. The
feedback they shared complimented and enhanced the data collected from the student interviews.
The most significant findings related to the credibility and implementation process of Smart
Planner.
Credibility and Reliability
The most substantial finding discovered through the supplemental interviews was the
troubling lack of credibility and inconsistencies presented in Smart Planner. Staff and faculty
participants voiced their shared frustration with the errors, inconsistencies, and missing
components within Smart Planner. The faculty participant shared that her department had failed
to update their degree plans; therefore, impacting what could be displayed in those students’
Smart Planner. In addition, some voiced confusion that certain requirements are not included in
the Smart Planner, making it harder for students to rely on without intervention from an advisor.
Several staff members shared that they attempted to report errors that they found within Smart
Planner; however, they either could not be fixed, or the outcome of the repair was never
reported. A positive impact on graduation rates is not being realized yet because the content and
degree plans provided through Smart Planner are not reliable or credible. As the student
participants mentioned, students are not using the tool if they find an error or inconsistency with
it. To impact graduation rates in a positive way, Smart Planner needs to report accurate and
realistic degree plans.
Implementation and continuation. The staff and faculty participants voiced that they
would have liked more involvement in the early implementation phases of the Smart Planner
GRADUATION RATE 75
product. Because they all work with students daily, in an advising or teaching capacity, they felt
that their opinions should have been taken into consideration as the product was developed for
Redwood. Many shared that buy-in from various stakeholders on campus is limited because their
input was not considered. In addition, it was discovered that the participants believe that
continued adoption and implementation of Smart Planner should involve staff and faculty
feedback. Overall, it was made clear that lack of involvement from the appropriate stakeholders
has led to poor product development, implementation, and buy-in. All of these influences have
contributed to the errors and low student usage of Smart Planner.
Effects of Smart Planner Adoption on Graduation Rates
The third research question guiding this study asked what effects Smart Planner has on
improving graduation rates. Several years ago, Smart Planner was adopted at Redwood to give
students a dynamic degree planning tool that incorporated all the requirements necessary for
them to graduate. The administrative leadership at Redwood believed that bringing this tool to
campus would help increase graduation rates. In addition, the tool has the capability to collect
data that informs academic departments of future demand for the courses they sponsor. However,
students must use their Smart Planner and select the courses they want throughout their college
career in order for the data to be beneficial. The following section addresses the findings that
answer this research question.
Utilizing Smart Planner
Smart Planner is designed to help students visualize their academic plans and time to
graduation; however, some participants felt that errors and inconsistencies displayed in the
planner caused them to rely on other methods to plan their courses. “It [Smart Planner] was
useful, but I don’t think it’s as useful as it could be… I know you can take winter sessions here,
GRADUATION RATE 76
but it doesn’t show classes you can take until they’re posted,” stated Anna. The advanced
planning benefit of Smart Planner does not accommodate those taking winter and summer
sessions. When asked what she uses instead of Smart Planner, Anna said, “The engineering
department has like a roadmap thing that you can get off their website. So I put that [the
roadmap] on my iPad and I like color coded everything so I know which color is like, which
semester.” All but one participant had a similar experience and created their own system to keep
track of degree progress and planning. Maria shared that, “I am typically an organized person, so
I just looked online for… my major requirements. I went to the Redwood University catalog. It
lists all the requirements for all the majors.” Maria continued to say that, “I created a Google
document,” to keep track of her requirements. Students interviewed in this study found their own
ways to organize their requirements and create a degree plan. When the participants were
looking for a solution and clarity around their degree requirements, they were not knowledgeable
enough about Smart Planner and other advising tools and resources. Therefore, they created their
own solutions and plans using resources they could look up on the internet.
One of the participants, however, uses Smart Planner and values the information it gives
him. John was first exposed to Smart Planner at orientation. He had this to say about his
impressions, “Smart Planner is like really helpful because it actually does not just tell you like,
what areas you need to complete but it tells you which classes you can use to complete those. So,
it’s like really helpful.” Orientation seemed sufficient for John, a community college transfer
student to Redwood, to learn how to use Smart Planner. After orientation, he went home and
completed his Smart Planner by selecting courses for the next two years until John plans on
graduating. John mentioned that he likes Smart Planner because he can see what semester certain
classes are offered. As an Art major, he has certain degree requirements that are only offered
GRADUATION RATE 77
once a year. Smart Planner helped John plan for this. When John was asked about his confidence
level when he began his time at Redwood, he exclaimed that, “I wasn’t as confident at first. I
became surer once I started using Smart Planner because then I could see the different classes.”
John felt that he could rely on Smart Planner to be accurate, whereas, his experience with
advising for his major left him questioning the advice he was given because the advisor did not
seem confident. The experience and opinions that John shared were unique compared to the
other four participants.
Unreliability
Once introduced to Smart Planner at orientation, four of the student participants
discovered inconsistencies or errors within their plans that caused them to view Smart Planner as
an unreliable source. Maria provided an example of this, “I looked at Smart Planner to double
check I wasn’t missing something. I knew that I still needed my writing intensive course;
however, it wasn’t even listed on my Smart Planner.” She continued to say that, “If I were
relying strictly on that, then I would miss a really big requirement.” When asked if she felt that
Smart Planner played a role in her graduating, Maria exclaimed that, “It played very little role. I
think it could be helpful… had the information been correct for me.” Maria’s experience was a
theme that was identified for three of the other participants. Errors, inconsistencies, and false
information led these particular students to not use their Smart Planner.
The conclusion that can be made from this finding is that the first interaction or
experience a student has with Smart Planner is going to predict the rest of their experience with
the tool. If students, like John, have a positive experience that establishes Smart Planner as a
reliable resource, then students will be more likely to use it going forward.

GRADUATION RATE 78
Synthesis of Findings
It was a goal of this study to address the question of what effect Smart Planner had on
improving graduation rates at Redwood University. It was apparent that all participants except
for John felt that it did not have any impact on their success in reaching graduation. Most
participants did not use the tool because they found errors and inconsistencies that lead them to
believe that it was an unreliable resource for degree planning purposes. Chapter Five will discuss
recommendations and solutions that will address the training and exposure students have to
Smart Planner in order to speak to the perceived errors they see.
Additional Findings and Results
To gain greater understanding of the impact of Smart Planner, the researcher interviewed
additional participants outside of the stakeholder group. The additional interviewees consisted of
three staff members and one faculty member. All four have direct interactions with students in an
advising and teaching capacity. In order to maintain anonymity, pseudonyms were assigned and
any reference to identifying programs or affiliations were also given a pseudonym. Table 6
represents the assigned pseudonyms and relevant demographic information for the participants.
Table 6
Participant Pseudonyms and Demographics
Participant Position Years at Redwood Ethnicity Gender
Casey Staff 15 White F
Tiffany Staff 5 African American F
Alice Faculty 22 White F
Jake Staff 5 White M
Note. F = female; M = male.
GRADUATION RATE 79
The following analysis presents the findings from the interviews with the additional
participants to further answer research question number two: What impact has Smart planner had
on increasing graduation rates?
Smart Planner and Graduation Rates
The adoption of Smart Planner on the Redwood campus was supported by the focus on
improving graduation rates. The tool lays out a semester-by-semester plan of courses that leads
to graduation. The idea is that students can engage and interact with the tool to see what their
path to graduation entails. It also has the capability to provide analytics to academic departments
to inform them of demand for certain courses. However, students must engage with the tool and
select their courses. However, not enough students are doing this for the analytics to give an
accurate prediction. Unanimously, the participants shared that they feel Smart Planner can
positively impact graduation rates. However, they all felt that more needs to be done to
implement the tool in order to see the full benefits. Casey disclosed the following, “I don’t think
it is currently impacting time to degree in any positive or negative way. I don’t think there is
enough use of it to be able to say that there’s a connection between one and the other.” Jake had
this to say on the issue, “I think it can positively impact graduation rates.” He continued to share
that, “Even if its’ missing a few classes, at least students can see what to take the next semester
and can envision themselves down the path to graduation.” Jake believes in the potential of the
tool but does not feel that at this early stage of implementation that Redwood is truly seeing
significant impact on time to degree. However, Alice said that, “I think it [Smart Planner] has a
tremendous impact [on graduation rates].” She continued to exclaim that she believes
GRADUATION RATE 80
… it [Smart Planner] flips the model of advising on its head. Go full-time in order to
finish in four years. Anytime you remove classes, need to repeat, cannot get a class, that
upsets the apple cart and the plan is rearranged. It’s a domino effect.
Alice believes that the interactive and visual aspect that Smart Planner provides really helps
students understand time to degree completion and prompts the conversation with an advisor. It
is important to mention that Tiffany stated that, “I don’t know that it is having much of an impact
yet.” Overall, the staff and faculty interviewees do believe that Smart Planner can positively
impact graduation rates, but it hasn’t happened yet.
The participants shared some valuable information about the implementation and
continued adoption of Smart Planner that is important to present. They were able to provide a
different prospective than the students on the organizational influences. The following breaks
down the findings from these conversations as additional organizational influences that relate to
the adoption of Smart Planner and graduation rates.
Organizational Influences
Deciding to bring Smart Planner to Redwood. When deciding on new programs or
tools to bring to an organization it is vital to include the stakeholders that will be on the ground
level using the product or tool. In this case, there was a task force of selected Redwood
employees to make decisions about the adoption of the tool. However, many of the task force
members were not faculty or staff advisors working with students on a daily basis. They were
mid to upper-level managers and administrators. One of the themes that arose from this study
was that the participants felt that campus advisors who would be using Smart Planner the most
should have been included in the early decisions for adoption and implementation. Alice
divulged that, “I was part of the early majority, but I wasn’t even a tester unfortunately. I wish I
GRADUATION RATE 81
could say that I was even a beta-tester, but I wasn’t.” Alice expressed that she felt left out of the
process and wished she would have been included. Alice has several roles on campus that make
her an influential and important stakeholder. Others shared similar frustrations for not being
included earlier on. Jake communicated that, “I was at some of the initial meetings, but I had to
fight to get into those meetings.” He continued with, “That’s part of the problem, with
implementing something new is that they [campus leaders] forget that people on the ground need
to know what’s going on.” It clearly impacted the participants that they were not included in the
design and early discussion about Smart Planner. They believe that those seeing students as a
part of their daily job should have input on tools that will be embedded into their day-to-day
work with students.
Political implications. Redwood University is divided into different divisions; Student
Affairs and Academic Affairs are two of those that interact quite often. Student Affairs manages
all of the student support and services provided to students and Academic Affairs manages all of
the different degrees offered, course scheduling, and curriculum. The decision to bring Smart
Planner to campus initiated from the Student Affairs division. The faculty senate that governs the
Academic Affairs division was not involved and this created tension between the divisions.
To make Smart Planner work it requires up-to-date and accurate academic plans or
“roadmaps” as the university refers to them. These roadmaps are made and provided by all of the
academic departments within Academic Affairs. Casey shared her experience with this political
struggle between the two divisions, “… every implementation of Student Affairs, the biggest
problem is, that then faculty do not feel like they contributed to that discourse. And so, you will
then have resistance because there isn’t any buy-in from that side of the house [Academic
Affairs-faculty].” Casey brought up a very important theme and that is buy-in from all
GRADUATION RATE 82
stakeholders involved in the adoption and use of Smart Planner. She continued to mention that
she does not believe that many faculty are using Smart Planner because of the lack of buy-in.
The stakeholder interviews and the organizational themes that emerged all connected back to a
lack of buy-in from faculty.
Credibility. One of the issues that arose for the stakeholder group was the lack of
credibility and reliability they felt toward Smart Planner. The theme emerged again with the staff
and faculty participants. Overwhelmingly, they all shared concerns that the Smart Planner is not
always accurate. It does not properly show all general education and graduation requirements
because they can overlap with major requirements. However, a student may not notice that and
miss a vital requirement. Other participants shared that there are certain academic departments
that have not updated the plans for the majors they sponsor; leaving inaccurate information in
Smart Planner. Casey revealed that, “I think that is one of the main constraints is getting the
software to truly do what it should be doing to properly represent the student record, which it
does not do right now.” Tiffany articulated her challenges with Smart Planner, “I honestly call it
the not-so-smart planner. There are a lot of glitches with the system. It will recommend two or
three of the same chemistry courses in the same semester. Where one course is a pre-requisite for
another!” She continued to explain that these bizarre errors have been a real problem. There have
been attempts to clear up these errors; however, none of the participants felt certain that upgrades
and fixes were actually being made nor that they were even contacting the right office for help.
As with the stakeholder group interviews, the staff and faculty participants felt that the errors,
inconsistencies, and unreliability of Smart Planner was a significant problem impacting the use
of the tool.

GRADUATION RATE 83
Synthesis of Findings
The most relevant findings from the staff and faculty interviews were that Smart Planner
has the potential to positively impact graduation rates at Redwood. There were responses spread
across the spectrum, but overall the previous statement summarizes participants’ comments.
Three additional themes emerged that related to the organizational influences, impacting the
implementation and adoption of Smart Planner, which in turn, impact the tools ability to effect
graduation rates. Participants felt that input from staff and faculty advisors was not considered to
the extent necessary to understand what advising with Smart Planner would look like in reality.
Political challenges between Student and Academic Affairs negatively impacted buy-in from
faculty and deans. Finally, the participants had concerns about the errors and inconsistencies
present within the Smart Planner tool. These errors caused faculty, staff, and students to see
Smart Planner as an unreliable source and they chose not to use it any longer.

GRADUATION RATE 84
Chapter Five: Evaluation and Recommendations
Introduction and Overview

It is important to bring the problem of practice, research questions, and identified
influences together to present recommendations for future practice and evaluation at Redwood.
Based on the findings of this study, recommendations aligned with the Clark and Estes (2008)
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization framework and the Kirkpatrick New World (2016)
model of evaluation are discussed in the following section.
The knowledge and skills recommendations are based on confirmed influences: students
need to understand their degree requirements at a conceptual level and procedurally understand
what advising and student support resources are available to them. The recommendations
resulting from these influences are: training for students that allow them to gain conceptual
knowledge through repetition and continued exposure and use of degree planning tools, and
modeling use of advising services by peer mentors will help build procedural understanding of
university processes and resources.
The motivation recommendations are based on expectancy-value, in particular utility
value and self-efficacy. FGCS do not enter college understanding the importance or value of
degree planning and lack the confidence that they can succeed in navigating college. The
recommendations that stem from these influences are: simply explaining value to students and
what outcomes can be achieved by engaging in degree planning, and again modeling behavior of
other FGCS that have experience and success in college. The goal with these motivation
recommendations are to expose students to the value of degree planning and the use of their
Smart Planner, as well as, giving them peer examples of successful students to increase self-
efficacy.
GRADUATION RATE 85
The organizational recommendations are categorized by cultural setting and model. The
cultural setting influence relates to a lack of sufficient course offerings that students need and
when they need them. The resource deficiency can directly affect graduation rates as students
have to wait another semester or an entire year to take a course, they need to complete their
degree. The recommendation of this study is to require students to complete their course
selections in their Smart Planner. Performing this step will allow academic departments to more
accurately plan for future course demand. The cultural model influence presented in this study
addressed the issue of buy-in from some faculty and staff regarding the graduation rate crisis.
There are faculty and staff that do not see the low four-year graduation rates as an issue. If
faculty and staff have not bought in to the importance of the problem, then their attitudes toward
graduating on time will affect students and their beliefs about time to degree. The
recommendations of this study are to create video stories that showcase students that are
graduating in four-years and the path they have taken, including the achievements and benefits
they are receiving by achieving this goal.
Another significant finding that emerged and demands a solution, stems from the
feedback students provided indicating that Smart Planner doesn’t really work. It has errors and
when students try to use it and discover an invalid information, they are reluctant to trust it as a
resource. One reason this occurs is because there are certain general education requirements that
can overlap with other requirements the student may need to fulfill. Because of the overlap,
Smart Planner does not indicate certain requirements as separate line items. Rather it is assumed
that the student will account for these requirements within their plan. A solution would be to
embed all requirements within Smart Planner and if there is overlap the plan will alert the
GRADUATION RATE 86
student. The technical requirements to make such a change are unknown, but some effort to
include all requirements is necessary to develop students’ confidence.
Program Overview
The recommendations of this study influenced the creation of a program that Redwood
University could implement to address the problem of practice and the KMO influences. The
program is described in detail in the following sections. In brief, it is a planning lab that will
create an engaging learning environment for students to learn about Smart Planner and the
importance of degree planning. Peer mentors, small groups, and teach-backs would be suggested
strategies to support a strong learning environment. Teach-backs are opportunities for the
learner, in this case students, to practice what they learned by teaching peers (Dantic, 2014).
Advisors, student support staff, and faculty would play roles in these labs to attempt to shift the
cultural model. Prior to implementing these planning labs, Smart Planner will be updated with all
requirements in effort to eliminate perceived errors and alleviate the findings that revealed Smart
Planner is not reliable.
Evaluation Overview
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) reintroduce their levels of training and evaluation as
the New World Levels One through Four. The recommended program presented in this study
would be evaluated using the Four Levels to support learning and desired program outcomes.
Based on the New World Model, this study began with Level Four: Results and Leading
Indicators, Level Three: Behaviors, Level Two: Learning, and Level One: Reaction.

GRADUATION RATE 87
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
Knowledge Recommendations
Introduction. When evaluating the reasons students at Redwood are not graduating on time,
two areas of knowledge and skill influences have been identified and validated in this study. The
first relates to students’ conceptual knowledge of their degree requirements. The second is
procedural knowledge of student support services and advising, understanding how and when to
access and navigate them.
The procedural influence of understanding where and how to access advising and support,
had a significant impact on this study. The theoretical framework of social cognitive theory and
modeling is the guiding principle of this influence. Based on the concept of modeling, the
recommendation is to embed peer mentorship within students first few years at Redwood. In
addition, assigning peer mentors to groups of students that share similar backgrounds and
cultural identity will provide a credible model. Table 7 illustrates the assumed knowledge
influences, principles, and recommendations.

GRADUATION RATE 88
Table 7

Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Knowledge
Influence
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation

Students need to know
degree requirements
(Conceptual)

Information Processing:

How individuals organize
knowledge influences how they
learn and apply what they know
(Schraw & McCrudden, 2006).

To develop mastery, individuals
must acquire component skills,
practice integrating them, and know
when to apply what they have
learned (Schraw & McCrudden,
2006).

Continued practice promotes
automaticity and takes less capacity
in working memory (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).

Training:

Continued practice
integrating learned
skills, through hands-
on training labs, will
lead to increased
conceptual
knowledge of degree
requirements.

Assumed Knowledge
Influence
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Students need to know
how to access advising
and student support
services (Procedural)
Social Cognitive Theory:

Modeling to-be-learned strategies or
behaviors improves self-efficacy,
learning, and performance (Denler,
Wolters, & Benzon, 2009).

Modeled behavior is more likely to
be adopted if the model is credible,
similar (e.g., gender, culturally
appropriate), and the behavior has
functional value (Denler et al.,
2009).

Feedback that is private, specific,
and timely enhances performance
(Shute, 2008).

Model:

Students need to work
with peer mentors to
understand and model
how to access advising
and support services.
GRADUATION RATE 89
Declarative knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets. Students at
Redwood need to understand their degree requirements to create the most efficient path to
graduation (Conceptual-Declarative). Schraw and McCrudden (2006) found that to develop
mastery, individuals must acquire component skills, practice integrating them, and know when to
apply what they have learned. Mastery of skills and comprehending the content, at a conceptual
level, requires practice to integrate the various aspects of the skills desired. The recommendation
then is to create hands-on training labs for all freshmen to practice and engage with their Smart
Planner, preparing them for upcoming course registration and practicing the skills to reach a
conceptual level of understanding.
For students to master certain skills in a college environment, it is important to
understand the parameters in which each student is comfortable practicing the skills (Beck &
Gong, 2013). Creating intimate learning environments that encourage students to practice skills
over and over would lead to consistent mastery of the desired skills. The study supports the
recommendation to create Smart Planner practice labs that would allow engagement with degree
requirements, leading to a conceptual level of understanding.
Procedural knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets. Students need to
know how to seek guidance from the various student advising and support services at Redwood
(Procedural). Denler, Wolters, and Benson (2009) stated that modeling to-be-learned strategies
or behaviors improves self-efficacy, learning, and performance. Increased confidence,
knowledge, and greater achievement will result if desired skills and actions are modeled. The
recommendation is to have peer mentors, that are assigned to students in their first year, show
FGCS students how to access and utilize the various advising and support services on campus.
GRADUATION RATE 90
Snowden and Halsall (2016) present the concept of heutagogy, the study of self-
determined learning as a popular approach in higher education. The idea behind this concept is
that students direct their own learning based on their academic interests and values (Snowden &
Halsall, 2016). The complementary component of peer mentorship in a heutagogy environment
can enhance learning and application of skills. The research supports the recommendation that
peer mentorship can model procedural comprehension in support of a self-driven educational
environment.
Motivation Recommendations
Introduction. The motivational influences of the stakeholder group, First Generation
College Students (FGCS), are expectancy value, in particular utility value, and self-efficacy.
These influences were validated; however, self-efficacy proved to have little influence at least
for the participants interviewed. These influences are prioritized because if the students don’t
understand the need to perform the task of degree planning or have the self-efficacy to use Smart
Planner, they will certainly struggle to graduate and persist. A surprising influence that emerged
was the impact goals had on student motivation, in particular career goals. The Clark and Estes
(2008) gap analysis model of Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization has framed this study
and influence recommendations. Table 8 illustrates the motivation influences and the principles
related to them.

GRADUATION RATE 91
Table 8
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influence
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation

First Generation College
Students (FGCS) lack
motivation to engage with
their Smart Planner and
degree planning because
they don’t see what value it
holds for them (Expectancy
Value-Utility).

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).

A discussion of the
importance and value of Smart
Planner and understanding
degree requirements would
lead to increased student
motivation.

FGCS lack the confidence
to navigate their degree
requirements on their own
via Smart Planner and
other degree planning
tools (Self-Efficacy).

High self-efficacy
can positively
influence motivation
(Pajares, 2006).

Feedback and
modeling increase
self-efficacy
(Pajares, 2006).

Learning and
motivation are
enhanced when
learners have
positive
expectancies for
success (Pajares,
2006).

Modeling behavior of peer
mentors and delivering
feedback to one another, would
increase the confidence
students would have in degree
planning and their use of Smart
Planner.

Utility value. First Generation College Students (FGCS) lack motivation to engage with
their Smart Planner and degree planning because they do not see what value it holds for them.
The requirements to earn a college degree are vastly different than the requirements to graduate
high school. Therefore, FGCS typically struggle to understand the reason why they need to use
GRADUATION RATE 92
certain tools, like Smart Planner. Assumptions are made that a counselor or advisor will tell them
what to do every semester. 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). Utilizing this principle, the recommendation is to plan multiple discussions with students
within their first year explaining and demonstrating the value and purpose of utilizing Smart
Planner and comprehending degree requirements.
The concept of utility value can be applied to develop interest and motivation in new
tasks, that will strengthen over time throughout repetitive exposure to the subject matter
(Shechter, Durik, Miyamoto, & Harackiewicz, 2011). Shechter et al. (2011) conducted a study to
test the utility value theory. Participants were given a math problem and asked to solve it in two
minutes. Then they were given a new technique to try and solve two-digit multiplication
problems in their heads. A utility value intervention was embedded in the technique materials
that discussed the usefulness of the new technique for performance in future classes, preparation
for graduate school admissions exams, and careers. The outcome of the study indicated that the
participants worked harder after learning that the new technique held value for the future. The
recommendation of this study is to embed a utility value framework within advising and
education of degree requirements and adoption of Smart Planner. If students can see how this
information will lead to efficient degree progress and attainment, then they will be more
motivated to engage with degree planning tools.
Self-efficacy. FGCS lack the confidence to navigate their degree requirements on their
own via Smart Planner and other degree planning tools, thus decreasing their motivation to
engage in these activities. Learning and motivation are enhanced when learners have positive
expectancies for success (Pajares, 2006). FGCS should be exposed to the concept of degree
GRADUATION RATE 93
planning before college begins. The early exposure would give students the opportunity to build
their self-efficacy and in turn, motivation toward degree planning engagement. It is
recommended that FGCS attend a summer academy prior to required orientation to introduce
them to Smart Planner, enhancing their confidence in using the tool.
Lack of self-efficacy for FGCS students contributes to low degree completion and
prolonged graduation (Vuong, Brown-Welty, & Tracz, 2010). Development theory indicates that
students are supposed to be self-reliant, display purpose and identity. However, FGCS in their
second or sophomore year on campus have not developed a healthy reliance on the campus
community, because belief and confidence as a college student is low (Vuong et al., 2010).
Vuong et al. (2010) studied FGCS in their second year in college to assess their level of self-
efficacy to determine the effect on persistence. The study found that students’ perception of
themselves and their abilities to succeed in college directly impact success and persistence
(Vuong et al., 2010). Therefore, implementing an intervention that supports the growth of self-
efficacy would positively impact student motivation to engage in degree planning. The
recommendation of this study is to have FGCS in their first year connect with peer mentors that
will guide them and model successful student behavior. The outcome would result in new
students adopting these positive behaviors. The successful performance outcome of FGCS will
then increase self-efficacy for these students.
Organization Recommendations
Introduction. The assumed organizational influences affecting the FGCS stakeholder
group are cultural setting and model influences (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). The cultural
setting influence affecting the stakeholder group is a lack of course availability. If students
cannot get the courses, they need in the semester they need to take them, then their graduation
GRADUATION RATE 94
could be delayed. The cultural model influence is the assumption that some faculty and staff do
not understand why it is important to the university, students, and the community to focus on
increasing college graduation rates. The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis model this study
has been following continues to inform these organizational influences. Therefore, it is
recommended that staff and faculty be given the resources, such as more courses, to increase
course offerings that students need, when they need them to eliminate the course availability
dilemma impacting current graduation rates. The cultural model recommendation involves a
campaign to educate faculty and staff on the why’s behind implementing a technology-based,
degree planning tool, Smart Planner, to support increased graduation rates. Table 9 demonstrates
these organizational influences, principles in practice, and recommendations.
Table 9
Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Organization
Influence

Principle and
Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation

Cultural Setting:
The lack of course
availability is directly
affecting students’ time to
degree.

Insuring staff’s
resource needs are
being met is correlated
with increased student
learning outcomes
(Waters, Marzano &
McNulty, 2003).

Resources, such as, proper course
offerings and availability are directly
linked to student success. Therefore,
requiring students to complete their
Smart Planners during advising
sessions would allow the course
planning feature to predict demand
and inform planning.

GRADUATION RATE 95
Table 9 (Continued)
Assumed Organization
Influence

Principle and
Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation

Cultural Model:
Some faculty and staff do
not see graduation rate as
a problem; therefore, not
accepting the use of Smart
Planner for degree
planning

Adult learners resist
learning when they feel
others are imposing
information, ideas or
actions on them
(Fidishun, 2000).

A strong organizational
culture controls
organizational behavior
and can block an
organization from
making necessary
changes for adapting to
a changing
environment
(Schein, 2004).

Faculty and staff as a whole have not
fully embraced the goal of increasing
graduation rate and doing so via Smart
Planner, because they feel that the
solution and problem were imposed on
them. It also is a new technology that
can deter faculty and staff that resist
technology in advising. That in mind,
faculty and staff need to see case study
examples of Smart Planner use and the
correlation to timely graduation.

Cultural settings. There is a lack of available courses in high demand subjects like,
biology, chemistry, math, and even certain majors that are popular. If students cannot get the
classes they need when they need them, then their graduation date could be prolonged. The
university needs to hire more faculty in order to increase course offerings and availability,
without these resources, student outcomes could suffer (Waters et al., 2003). The Smart Planner
tool will inform academic divisions of future course demand if students select the courses, they
plan on taking (Redwood refers to this as “completing” your Smart Planner). Until more students
have completed plans, the course prediction analytics will not be useful. It is recommended that
the university require all students to complete their Smart Planner course selection within their
first year at the university. The recommendation does place ownership on the stakeholder group;
GRADUATION RATE 96
however, for the university to provide sufficient course sections they must know the needs of the
students.
First year college students need guidance and direction from others to successfully
navigate the university nuances (Fosnacht, McCormick, Nailos, & Ribera, 2017). Fosnacht et al.
(2017) utilized data from the 2013 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) to examine
the frequency of advising for first-year college students and correlation with student success
outcomes. It was identified that on average students engaged with academic advising twice per
semester, and those that were required to meet with an advisor in their first year were more
successful (Fosnacht et al., 2017). First-year students at Redwood are already required to attend
advising at least twice in their first year. The recommendation is to require students to complete
their Smart Planners during these mandatory advising sessions, but this is not happening
consistently. The outcome is informed analytics that will provide Redwood with the information
necessary to accurately plan courses for future semesters.
Cultural models. The President at Redwood imposed an imperative on the university in
2015 that all faculty and staff must contribute to creating a culture that supports and embraces
timely degree attainment. Many faculty and staff have resisted this decree. As adult learners,
many employees of the university are resisting acceptance of this cultural shift as they see it
being forced upon them without inclusive consideration (Fidishun, 2000). Schein (2004)
suggests that a strong organizational culture controls organizational behavior and can block an
organization from making necessary changes for adapting to a changing environment. The
recommendation is to share narratives, via case studies, from students that have used their Smart
Planner, graduated in four years, and how they transitioned to their career. The shift in cultural
GRADUATION RATE 97
model is being opposed by faculty and staff at Redwood. Their lack of acceptance trickles down
to the students they serve, affecting student exposure to degree planning via Smart Planner.
Smart Planner is a new technology that the university has chosen to implement and
expects adoption by all faculty and staff that work directly with students. Acquiring technology
does not lead to improved learning unless daily integration and tasks are changed as well (Karp
& Fletcher, 2014). Technology may be well implemented, but when end-users do not integrate it
into their daily workflow, adoption and impact is minimized (Karp & Fletcher, 2014). Karp and
Fletcher (2014) created a Readiness for Technology Adoption (RTA) framework that will be
applied to the cultural model influence at Redwood. The framework provides a way to assess
readiness for technology implementation and whether the end-user will actually adopt the new
technology. The framework involves implementation, adoption, and microcultures.
Implementation is the institutional deployment. Adoption is the integration of new technologies
in daily work flows. Microcultures are institutional subgroups with their own attitudes and norms
(Karp & Fletcher, 2014). Of the three stages in the Karp and Fletcher (2014) framework,
adoption is affected at Redwood because of the microcultures and their beliefs of how advising
should be delivered and opinions about increasing graduation rates. Creating and sharing success
stories from students via case studies could help to shift the norms and beliefs within the
microcultures, leading to increased adoption of Smart Planner.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
Recommendations and solutions are a part of change implementation; however, they
must be complimented and supported by an evaluation plan to have the chance of success. The
evaluation model this study followed is the New World Kirkpatrick Model and the Four Levels
GRADUATION RATE 98
of Evaluation: Results, Behavior, Learning, and Reaction (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The
model satisfies the need for organizations to assess training and change programs (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). The New World version of the model identifies that the model is best
executed starting from the bottom up with level four. Level Four focuses on the results and
assessing if the desired outcomes have been met. Also identifying the leading indicators that
define whether the outcome has been achieved or not (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Next,
Level Three is behaviors that are observed to determine if the change has been adopted by the
stakeholders. When implementing Level Three, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) suggest that
leaders should monitor behavior and make adjustments to attempt to reach the desired outcomes.
Adjustments can be made via on-the-job-training, encouragement, reward, and reinforcement
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Level Two is learning, paying attention to knowledge, skills,
attitude, confidence, and commitment (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Finally, Level One is
reaction. At this level the training is being evaluated to assess user satisfaction, relevance, and
level of engagement (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Following the Kirkpatrick New World
Levels allows for thorough evaluation and assessment of intervention and training programs to
determine effectiveness and integration into the organizational environment.
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
It is important and relevant to look back at Redwood’s mission, goals, and problem of
practice to frame the four-level evaluation. Redwood’s mission is “… we transform lives by
preparing students for leadership, service, and success”. The problem of practice is the driving
force behind this study. Redwood University reports a 12% four-year graduation rate. With an
average freshmen class of 3500, that is a very low number of students completing their degrees
in the time expected. Therefore, the organizational goal for Redwood states: by fall 2025, the
GRADUATION RATE 99
four-year graduation rate at will increase to 30%. More specifically, the stakeholder goal
provided by this study states that: by fall 2019, 80% of students will complete their Smart
Planner to allow for proper course planning and comprehension of degree requirements. The
assumption is made that accurate, mindful, and active degree planning through Smart Planner
will lead to an increase in the four-year graduation rate.
The desired outcomes of this study and evaluation were to understand the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences that affect student adoption of Smart Planner, apply
recommendations, and assess via Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of training evaluation. Through the
application of this model it will be clear how to assess and evaluate the recommendations of this
study.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Leading indicators that students have increased their views of Smart Planner would
inform the researcher that the tool has begun to be adopted more readily within advising sessions
and knowledge of the tool has elevated. Additional indicators would be increased attendance at
Smart Planner workshops, which in turn led to the conclusion that knowledge of degree
requirements has increased. Table 10 displays both the external and internal outcomes, the
metrics, and methods of assessment.

GRADUATION RATE 100
Table 10

Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes

External Outcomes

Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
Increased use of Smart
Planner will result in an
increase in graduation
rates.

Percentage of students
graduating in four years from
Redwood
State university system
graduation initiative report
Increased use of Smart
Planner will result in a
decrease in the job skills
gap.

Ratio indicating the job skills
gap has narrowed.
Job skills gap report, Economic
Development Department
Increased graduation rate
will create a more
productive society.

Number of individuals using
public services
Welfare applications
Internal Outcomes

Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
Increased student usage of
Smart Planner.
Number of completed Smart
Plans.
Smart Planner Report

Increased student
attendance at Smart
Planner workshops.

Number of students that attend
the workshops.
Customer Relation Management
system (EAB)
Increased student
knowledge of degree
requirements.

Course registration records. Registrar’s Office: Student
Transcripts
Increased faculty and staff
Smart Planner usage.
Number of times faculty and
staff open smart planner.
Smart Planner Report

Increase in the number of
completed Smart Plans
will lead to more informed
course planning.

Number of students selecting
particular courses.
Platinum Analytics Reporting

GRADUATION RATE 101
Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. Critical behaviors are a few select behavioral outcomes that are
reliable and will have the biggest impact on the problem of practice (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). The critical behavior changes that this study hopes to illicit within students at Redwood
are: Increased use of Smart Planner, and engagement with student support services and peer
mentoring. Table 11 illustrates these critical behaviors, metrics, methods of measurement, and
timing of the change.
Table 11

Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
1. Students are
consistently and
frequently using
their Smart Planner,
and completing
their plans

Number of students
with completed Smart
Plans
Smart Planner Report Every Semester
2. Students are
engaging with
student support
services and
advisors

Number of visits to
Student Support
Offices
EAB
(Customer Relationship
Management System)

Every Semester

Required drivers. Required drivers are processes and systems that monitor, reinforce,
encourage, and reward the critical behaviors (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Table 12
identifies these required drivers and where they fall along the support and accountability
spectrum.

GRADUATION RATE 102
Table 12
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing

Critical Behaviors Supported

Reinforcing

Student Center to-do list item
that reminds students to
complete their Smart Plans

Every Semester

1

Registration holds until Smart
Planners are complete

Every Semester 1
Encouraging

Peer mentoring and outreach

Every Semester

1, 2

Positive reinforcement from
academic advisors

Often, as students open their
Smart Planners
1, 2
Rewarding

Tuition waivers

Annually

1
Priority course registration

Every Semester 1
Monitoring

Smart Planner reporting

Monthly

1
Note. See Table 11 for Critical Behaviors
Organizational support. Redwood will support the adoption of the critical behaviors by
offering tuition waiver incentives to students that complete their plans. In addition, the university
could create a priority course registration time for students that have completed their plans;
giving students that exhibit the desired behavior a head-start on enrolling in the classes they need
GRADUATION RATE 103
for the upcoming semester. Additionally, the university can support the critical behaviors by
providing resources to hire enough academic advisors and peer mentors to be able to reach out to
students, in creative and generationally relevant ways, to offer encouragement and support. If
behaviors do not change after the previously discussed drivers, then a negative reinforcement
approach will be taken, such as, enrollment holds on students’ records, blocking course
registration until action is taken.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. After participating in the recommended solutions, Redwood students
will be able to:
1. Understand degree requirements (K-Conceptual)
2. Use advising and student support services (K-Procedural)
3. Value degree planning (M-Value)
4. Use Smart Planner and degree planning tools (K-Conceptual)
5. Be confident in using Smart Planner (M-Self-efficacy)
6. Complete the Smart Planner (K-Procedural)

Program. The above learning goals will be achieved via workshops (planning labs),
advising, and mentorship. The components of the recommended program will increase students’
knowledge and motivation to understand and engage in degree planning via Smart Planner. To
increase student knowledge and skills they will engage in an interactive planning lab that will
include staff advisors and peer mentors. Students will be provided with hands-on training and
practice, guidance and modeling from advisors and peers.
The planning labs will begin with video testimonials of students that completed their
Smart Planner and graduated in four years. The goal of these stories will be to show the value
GRADUATION RATE 104
behind mindful degree planning via the Smart Planner tool. The stories shared will demonstrate
that through the use of Smart Planner, timely and successful degree completion can be achieved.
A brief group tutorial of degree requirements and Smart Planner will lead into small group
interactions that will allow students to complete their plans under the guidance of a peer mentor.
The labs will take place every semester, as new students are admitted in both spring and fall
semesters. They will be 90 minutes in length to allow enough time for students to process the
information and put the learned skills and knowledge into practice with their own plan. At the
end of the planning lab, students will be given a brief evaluation that will allow them to share
their experience, and most importantly rate their level of confidence with their degree
requirements and interaction with Smart Planner.
Attending a lab would be a requirement for all new students and completing the
requirement would prohibit the placement of a registration hold. Students will be motivated to
attend the workshops so that their course registration will not be impacted. The Smart Planner
tool will be embedded within the course registration interface, resulting in students accessing
Smart Planner prior to registering for courses for the upcoming semester. It is the hope of this
study that the course registration and degree planning interface collaboration would motivate and
initiate student interaction with the Smart Planner tool.
As a measure to check knowledge obtained in the planning labs, students will meet with
an advisor in their second semester at Redwood and explain the requirements to the advisor
modeling a flipped classroom technique. The advisor would then fill in any gaps the student may
have missed, and possibly require future advising or next steps for the student.
Evaluation of the Components of learning. It is important to evaluate the learning
outcomes to determine how effective the program was at reaching the learning goals. Conceptual
GRADUATION RATE 105
and procedural knowledge, motivation, confidence, attitude, and commitment are all assessed via
specific measures as referenced in Table 13.
Table 13
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program

Method(s) or Activity(ies)

Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”

Students would explain their degree
requirements to their advisor, demonstrating a
conceptual understanding.

During the planning lab and in their second
semester.
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”

Peer mentor validates and checks that the
student completed their Smart Planner.

During the planning lab.
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”

The facilitator will observe attendees and their
interaction with the material and experience.

During the planning labs.
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”

Student self-evaluation will ask them to rate
their confidence with Smart Planner at the
beginning and end of the labs.

At the beginning and end of each planning lab.
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”

The post-lab evaluation will ask participants to
rate their level of commitment to using Smart
Planner.

At the end of the lab.

Level 1: Reaction
The final component of evaluation is Level 1: Reaction. This level is measuring
participant assessment of quality and value that the training had for their jobs (Kirkpatrick &
GRADUATION RATE 106
Kirkpatrick, 2016). To assess a successful training, it is important for the participants to share if
the training was engaging, relevant, and if they simply liked it. Observation and post-training
surveys will be the method utilized to assess engagement and satisfaction. The advisor leading
the planning lab will be able to observe behavior, reactions, demeanor, and mood of the students.
A rubric will be used to record observations. Post-training, a survey will be administered two
weeks after to measure engagement, relevance, and satisfaction. Students registration holds will
not be lifted until the survey is complete. Table 14 lists Level 1 reaction methods, tools, and
timing in relation to this study.
Table 14
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program

Method(s) or Tool(s)

Timing

Engagement

Observation (formative) During the planning labs

Survey

Two weeks after labs
Relevance

Observation During the labs
Survey Two weeks after labs
Customer Satisfaction

Observation (formative) During the planning labs

Survey

Two weeks after labs

GRADUATION RATE 107
Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. Evaluation will begin via
observation and survey methods in Level 1 and 2 of the recommended intervention. During the
planning labs, learning and reaction will be evaluated through observation by the training
facilitator. Once the session divides into small groups, the peer mentor will take over leading the
students. This allows the facilitator to conduct observation that will assess learning, engagement,
relevance, and satisfaction. The observation will follow a rubric or checklist that will structure
the facilitator’s feedback. This checklist can be found in Appendix C. Once students are in their
breakout groups, the peer mentor and lab facilitator will be able to check in to assess the
participants’ understanding of their degree requirements and functions of Smart Planner. In
addition, as students engage in teaching back the content to their peers, the facilitator and peer
mentor will be able to observe and assess learning via peer-to-peer teaching.
Level 1 engagement, relevance, and customer satisfaction as well as Level 2 confidence
and commitment will be further assessed via a post-lab survey. The assessment tool utilizes a
Likert scale model to ease and increase survey completion results. The survey can be found in
Appendix D.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. Approximately 16 weeks or
one semester after the planning labs, a brief survey will be administered to all students that
participated, (see Appendix E for survey questions). The survey will assess Levels 1, 2, 3, and 4
of this evaluation. This blended evaluation will assess in Level 1 if students felt that the lab was
a good use of their time, Level 2 to what extent students have used the knowledge gained from
the labs, Level 3 how frequently they engage with their Smart Planner and student support
GRADUATION RATE 108
services and advisors, and Level 4 have they completed their Smart Planner and when do they
plan on graduating.
Data Analysis and Reporting
The post-lab survey and observation will provide immediate insight to the satisfaction,
engagement, relevance, and knowledge of Smart Planner and how to use it. The blended
evaluation given the semester after students engage in a planning lab will provide more in-depth
findings that cover all four Levels of evaluation. A connection between graduation rates and
Smart Planner knowledge and implementation should begin to emerge as the data is collected
from the blended evaluation. The delayed analysis will allow enough time to pass so that
students can begin to utilize Smart Planner and the skills they acquired through the labs.
The stakeholders that would be interested in these results are campus administrators and
leaders. Therefore, the presentation of the data would be best suited in an executive summary
with student participant video testimonials to bring the student success stories to life. The data
from the blended evaluation will be compared against the current graduation rates to assess a
correlation between the outcomes of Smart Planner lab trainings and timely degree completion.
Table 15 connects the stakeholder goals presented at the beginning of this study and a
comparison of the planning lab outcomes and graduation rate changes.

GRADUATION RATE 109
Table 15
Stakeholder Goals, Smart Planner Lab Outcomes, and Graduation Rate Increase
Stakeholder Outcome
Position Goals Knowledge Motivational

Organizational 4-Yr Grad
Rate
Administration Course
availability will
reflect student
needs indicated
in Smart
Planner.
XX XX XX XX
Faculty Utilize Smart
Planner in their
major advising
with students.
XX XX XX XX
Staff Aware of and
appropriately
utilize Smart
Planner to
guide students’
degree
planning.
XX XX XX XX
Students Use Smart
Planner to
engage in
degree
planning,
completing
course
selection in
advance of
future
semesters.
XX XX XX XX

Summary
Creating new programs and plans for improvement is the easy part, but actually assessing
impact, outcomes, and success is the challenge. The New World Kirkpatrick Model (2016)
GRADUATION RATE 110
integrated into the evaluation component of this study, serves as an effective, yet simple model
to follow that can be embedded into program assessment. Workshops and trainings take place at
Redwood many times throughout the year with the aim of reaching students and teaching them
about student success and services on campus. The Kirkpatrick Four Level (2016) model is
introduced within this study to attempt to mindfully measure the outcomes of the recommended
planning labs. Using this model will allow the evaluation to be broken down by levels, making it
easier to target specific outcomes for each level. The Kirkpatrick model ensures that all
components of training are being assessed in order to achieve the greatest return on investment
for the university. It is the goal of the planning labs and this study that students will increase
understanding of their degree requirements via Smart Planner, practice the new skills, implement
new behaviors, increase their confidence in navigating college, experience greater access to
courses they need, and ultimately graduate in four years.
Limitations
To understand the full scope of this research study, it is important to address the
limitations that the researcher faced with data collection and analysis. The most impactful
limitation was the lack of participants the researcher was able to interview. The initial goal of the
study was to conduct five focus groups of approximately five student participants. However,
despite an invitation to thousands of students meeting the stakeholder group criterion, only two
students responded. The researcher then reached out to campus partners to get their assistance in
sharing the invitation with students they work with directly. The ultimate result was five
individual student interviews. The lack of participants forced the researcher to expand the
stakeholder criterion to include transfer students, which was initially not part of the target
criterion. Fortunately, the research had arranged for additional interviews with staff and faculty
GRADUATION RATE 111
that allowed for enough data to be collected to answer the research questions. Additional
methods to recruit participants may have been used had the researcher not been limited in time
due the timeline required to complete this study.
Another significant limitation was the large stakeholder group the research was targeting.
The researcher chose to limit the study to FGCS; however, this still resulted in thousands of
students. Qualitative methods were selected because the university has conducted many
quantitative studies utilizing survey methods. The gap in previous research had been qualitative
inquiry, so the researcher chose this method despite the fact that the results could not be
generalized to the entire population of FGCS Redwood students.
The final limitation that this study faced was the student participants happened to all be
successful students both academically and measured by time to degree. The researcher identified
a relationship between the students that agreed to participate and qualities and strengths that help
students succeed. Based on the responses of the participant group, it was evident that they are
very self-motivated and driven students. It would have been informative to have interviewed
students that were not as motivated and perhaps a little lost in their direction. The results may or
may not have varied, but the perspective would have been different.
Recommendations for Future Research
It is recommended that future research include a longitudinal study of students. Students
go through a variety of developmental stages as they progress toward graduation, it would be
beneficial to future research to follow students and their experiences from the beginning to the
end. It certainly would take a lot of time; however, the results would be revealing and invaluable.
Additionally, it would be helpful to conduct further research guided by the problem of
practice, graduation rates. Large public universities, like Redwood, have such a vast and diverse
GRADUATION RATE 112
population of students pursuing their education that it is difficult to limit the research to just one
area of the problem. Further research that explores other influences that can lead to decreased or
increased graduation rates is essential to address this problem. Within this study, the problem of
graduation rates was addressed by focusing on student, staff, and faculty use of Smart Planner, a
degree planning tool. However, further qualitative research addressing topics like social
connectedness, familial challenges, working students, lack of involvement, are just some
potential areas to investigate.
Finally, it is recommended that further research be conducted to investigate the
connection between career motivation and increased graduation rates. The results of this study
disclosed that there is a significant connection; however, this finding was not the focus of the
research questions. It would be beneficial to conduct research that focuses on graduation rate and
career motivation. A suggestion would be to conduct an intervention with students that do not
have a career goal and are underperforming due to lack of motivation. After the intervention, the
goal would be that students would have a specific career goal. The study would then track their
academic achievement and degree progress to discover if there is a connection between career
motivation and increased graduation rates.
Conclusion
Of all the influences that can lead to prolonged graduation for Redwood FGCS students,
this study highlighted several themes that emerged as significant. Understanding degree
requirements at a conceptual level lead to the evaluation of Smart Planner and the effects it has
had on graduation rates. Overall, Smart Planner is not yet functioning or being utilized in a way
that results in an increase in graduation rates. The findings of this study identified many
organizational influences that are prohibiting Smart Planner from serving as a catalyst to boost
GRADUATION RATE 113
graduation rates. It is important to review, that aside from Smart Planner and degree planning,
advising and student support services, career goals, awareness of value, course availability, and
faculty buy-in are all influential to the problem of practice. The recommendations and system for
evaluation are a solution that could potentially increase the utilization of Smart Planner and
graduation rates if implemented. The problem of low college graduation rates is a complicated
and dynamic issue. However, staff, faculty, and administrators play a vital role in removing
barriers for students. Initiating change that will create an educational environment that will
support timely degree completion. If college students desire to finish their degree in four years or
less, then universities should remove obstacles and barriers, clearing the path toward success.

GRADUATION RATE 114
References
Adams, D., Meyers, S., & Beidas, R. (2016). The relationship between financial strain, perceived
stress, psychological symptoms, and academic and social integration in undergraduate
students. Journal of American College Health, 64(5), 362-370.
doi:10.1080/07448481.2016.1154559
Akbarov, A., & Hadzimehmedagic, M. (2015). The influence of personal factors on students’
college success. The Journal of Linguistic and Intercultural Education, 8, 7-20, 245, 248-
249. Retrieved from https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P3-4061994891/the-
influence-of-personal-factors-on-students-college
Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: a developmental theory for higher education. Journal
of College Student Personnel. 25, pp. 297-308.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review, 84(2), 191-215. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Beck J.E., Gong Y. (2013). Wheel-spinning: Students who fail to master a skill. Artificial
Intelligence in Education. AIED 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 7926.
doi:10.1007/978-3-642-39112-5_44
Bohn, S. (2014). California’s need for skilled workers. Public Policy Institute of California.
http://www.ppic.org/publication/californias-need-for-skilled-workers/#fn-1
Bozic, R. (2007). Making it through the first year of college: the role of students’ economic
resources, employment, and living arrangements. Sociology of Education, 80(3), 261-
285. doi:10.1177/003804070708000304

GRADUATION RATE 115
Brock, T. (2010). Young adults and higher education: barriers and breakthroughs to
success. Future of Children, 20(1), 109-132. Retrieved from
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27795062
Bureau of Labor and Statistics (2017). https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.nr0.htm
Burkholder, G. J., Lenio, J., Holland, N., Seidman, A., Neal, D., Middlebrook, J., & Jobe, R.
(2013). An institutional approach to developing a culture of student persistence. Higher
Learning Research Communications, 3(3), 16-39. Retrieved from
https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=oira_pubs
Cambridge-Williams, T., Winsler, A. Kitsantas, A., & Bernard, E. (2013). University 100
orientation courses and living-learning communities boost academic retention and
graduation via enhanced self-efficacy and self-regulated learning. Journal of College
Student Retention. 15(2), pp. 243-268. doi:10.2190/CS.15.2.f
Clark, R., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: a guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, N.C.: Information Age Pub.
College Board (2017). https://www.collegeboard.org/
Creswell, J. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Dansby, J. O., & Dansby-Giles, G. (2011). High school graduation rates of potential first
generation college students: A qualitative case study. Fourum on Public Policy Online,
2011(3). Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ969855.pdf
Dantic, D. E. (2014). A critical review of the effectiveness of ‘teach-back’ technique in teaching
COPD patients self-management using respiratory inhalers. Health Education Journal,
73(1), 41–50. doi:10.1177/0017896912469575
GRADUATION RATE 116
DeAngelo, L., Franke, R., Hurtado, S., Pryor, J. H., & Tran, S. (2011). Completing college:
Assessing graduation rates at four-year institutions. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education
Research Institute, UCLA. Retrieved from
https://heri.ucla.edu/DARCU/CompletingColleg e2011.pdf
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2009). Social Cognitive Theory. Retrieved from
https://project542.weebly.com/uploads/1/7/1/0/17108470/social_cognitive_theory__educ
ation.com.pdf.
Dietz, J. (2010). The myth that college and major choice decides Johnny's future.
(Report). College Student Journal, 44(2), 234. doi:10.1007/s10755-012-9234-z
Donhardt, G. L. (2013). The fourth-year experience: Impediments to degree
completion. Innovative Higher Education, 38(3), 207-221. 21
doi:10.1007/s10755-012-9234-z
Durik, A. M., Vida, M., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Task values and ability beliefs as predictors of
high school literacy choices: A developmental analysis. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 98(2), 382. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.382
Fidishun, D. (2000). Andragogy and technology: Integrating adult learning theory as we
teach with technology. Proceedings of Extending the Frontiers of Teaching and Learning.
Retrieved from http://www.mtsu.edu/~itconf/proceed00/fidishun.htm
Fosnacht, K., McCormick, A. C., Nailos, J. N., & Ribera, A. K. (2017). Frequency of first-year
student interactions with advisors. NACADA Journal, 37(1), 74-86.
doi:10.12930/NACADA-15-048

GRADUATION RATE 117
Goldenberg, C., Gallimore, R., Reese, L., & Garnier, H. (2001). Cause or effect? A longitudinal
study of immigrant Latino parents' aspirations and expectations, and their children's
school performance. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 547-582.
doi:10.3102/00028312038003547
Griffin, A. M., & Romm, J. (Eds.). (2008). Exploring the evidence: Reporting research on first-
year seminars (Vol. IV). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource
Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition. Retrieved from
http://www.sc.edu/fye/resources/fyr/index.html
Gurantz, O. (2015). Who loses out? Registration order, course availability, and student behaviors
in community college. The Journal of Higher Education, 86(4).
doi:10.1353/jhe.2015.0021
Haywood, J.L., Jr, & Sewell, S. (2016). Against all odds: Implications for low income African
American male students seeking a college degree at a predominately white college. Race,
Gender & Class, 23(3), 109-128. doi:10.1177/0021934710376171.
Karp, M. J. M., & Fletcher, J. (2014). Adopting new technologies for student success: A
readiness framework. Community College Research Center
https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/adopting-new-technologies-for-
student-success.pdf
Karr-Lilienthal, L., Lazarowicz, T., McGill, C. M., & Menke, D. (2013). Faculty advisors'
attitudes towards undergraduate advising in a college of agriculture and natural sciences: A
non-experimental Study. NACTA Journal, 57(2), 35-44. Retrieved from
https://www.jstor.org/stable/nactajournal.57.2.35 Akbarov & Hadzimehmedagic, (2015).

GRADUATION RATE 118
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
Kolenovic, Z., Linderman, D., & Karp, M. M. (2013). Improving student outcomes via
comprehensive supports: Three-year outcomes from CUNY's accelerated study in associate
programs (ASAP). Community College Review, 41(4), 271-291.
doi:10.1177/0091552113503709
Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them,
and why they matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and
Universities.
Kuz’mina, I. (2014). The direct and indirect effect of family factors on the choice of a college
major. Russian Education & Society, 56(12), 53-68.
doi:10.2753/RES1060-9393561205.2014.11083031
Lee, H., & Schneider, T. (2018). Does Posttransfer Involvement Matter for Persistence of
Community College Transfer Students? Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 42(2), 77–94. doi:10.1080/10668926.2016.1251351
Letkiewicz, J., Lim, H., Heckman, S., Bartholomae, S., Fox, J.J., & Montalto, C. (2014-2015).
The path to graduation: factors predicting on-time graduation rates. Journal of College
Student Retention. 16(3), pp. 351-371. doi: 10.2190/CS.16.3.c
Luoch, T. O. (2017). Readiness: The key factor in remedial teaching and learning.The European
Journal of Social & Behavioural Sciences, 18(1), 2281-2297. doi:10.15405/ejsbs.203
Malloy, C. (2011). Moving beyond data: Practitioner-led inquiry fosters change. Phi Delta
Kappa International, 6(4), 1–20.

GRADUATION RATE 119
Martinez, J. A., Sher, K. J., Krull, J. L., & Wood, P. K. (2009). Blue-collar scholars?: Mediators
and moderators of university attrition in first-generation college students. Journal of
College Student Development, 50(1), 87-103. doi:10.1353/csd.0.0053
Maslow, A. H. (1965). Self-actualization and beyond. Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED012056.pdf
McClelland, D. C. (2001). Achievement motivation.
McCrudden, M. T., Schraw, G., & Hartley, K. (2006). The effect of general relevance
instructions on shallow and deeper learning and reading time. The Journal of
Experimental Education, 74(4), 291-310.
McGee, J. (2015). Breakpoint: The changing marketplace for higher education. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
McGrath, S.M. & Burd, G.D. (2012). A success course for freshmen on academic probation:
persistence and graduation outcomes. NACADA journal. 32:1, pp. 43-52.
Mehta, S. S., Newbold, J. J., & O'Rourke, M. A. (2011). Why do first-generation students fail?
College Student Journal, 45(1), 20.
Miller, J. W., & Lesik, S. S. (2014). College persistence over time and participation in a first
year seminar. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 16(3),
373-390. doi.org/10.2190/CS.16.3.d
Milsom, A., & Coughlin, J. (2015). Satisfaction with college major: a grounded theory
study. NACADA Journal, 35(2), 5-14. doi.org/10.12930/NACADA-14-026
Morrison, M. (2012-2013). Graduation odds and probabilities among baccalaureate colleges and
universities. J. College Student Retention. 14(2), pp. 157-179. doi:10.2190/CS.14.2.a

GRADUATION RATE 120
Most, R., & Wellmon, C. (2015). Engaging Students in Advising and General Education
Requirements. The Journal of General Education, 64(2), 106-116.
doi:10.5325/jgeneeduc.64.2.0106
Musu-Gillette, L., Wigfield, A., Harring, J. R., & Eccles, J. S. (2015). Trajectories of change in
students’ self-concepts of ability and values in math and college major
choice. Educational Research and Evaluation, 21(4), 343-370.
doi:10.1080/13803611.2015.1057161
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2016).
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_326.10.asp?current=yes
Nelson, D., Misra, K., Sype, G. E., & Mackie, W. (2016). An analysis of the relationship
between distance from campus and GPA of commuter students. Journal of International
Education Research, 12(1), 37-46. Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1088600.pdf
Newbold, J.J., Mehta, S.S., & Forbus, P. (2011). Commuter students: involvement and
identification with an institution of higher education. Educational Leadership Journal,
15(2), 141-153.
Oliff, P., Palacios, V., Johnson, I., & Leachman, M. (2013). Recent deep state higher education
cuts may harm students and the economy for years to come. Washington, DC: Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities.
Parkman, A. (2016). The imposter phenomenon in higher education: Incidence and
impact. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 16(1), 51.

GRADUATION RATE 121
Pearson Foundation. (2011). Pearson foundation community college student survey: summary
of california results. Retrieved from http://pearsonfoundation.org/downloads/
CC_Student_Survey_California.pdf
Petty, T. (2014). Motivating first-generation students to academic success and college
completion. College Student Journal, 48(1), 133-140.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667.
Pinxten, M., De Fraine, B., Van Den Noortgate, W., Van Damme, J., Boonen, T., & Vanlaar, G.
(2014). ‘I choose so I am’: a logistic analysis of major selection in university and
successful completion of the first year. Studies in Higher Education, 1-28.
doi:10.1080/03075079.2014.914904
Plante, I., O'keefe, P.A., & Théorêt, M. (2013). The relation between achievement goal and
expectancy-value theories in predicting achievement-related outcomes: A test of four
theoretical conceptions. Motivation and Emotion, 37(1), 65-78.
doi:10.1007/s11031-012-9282-9
Porter, Stephen R., & Umbach, Paul D. (2006). College major choice: an analysis of person
environment fit. Research in Higher Education, 47(4), 429-449.
doi:10.1007/s11162-005-9002-3
Raikes, M.H., Berling, V.L., & Davis, J.M. (2012). To dream the impossible dream: college
graduation in four years. Christian Higher Education. 11(5), pp. 310-319.
doi:10.1080/15363759.2011.577719

GRADUATION RATE 122
Rawson, K. A., Thomas, R. C., & Jacoby, L. L. (2015). The power of examples: illustrative
examples enhance conceptual learning of declarative concepts. Educational Psychology
Review, 27(3), 483-504. doi:10.1007/s10648-014-9273-3
Reardon, R., Melvin, B., McClain, M., Peterson, G.W., & Bowman, W.J. (2015). The career
course as a factor in college graduation. Journal of College Student Retention: Research,
Theory & Practice. 17(3), pp. 336-350. doi:10.1177/1521025115575913
Redwood University website. (2017, 2018, & 2019).
Roberts, D. (2012). The Student Personnel Point of View as a catalyst for dialogue: 75 years and
beyond. Journal of College Student Development, 53, 2-18. doi:10.1353/csd.2012.0006
Sanacore, J., & Palumbo, A. (2016). Graduating from college: The impossible dream for most
first-generation students. International Journal of Progressive Education, 12(2), 23-33.
Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1826536039?accountid=14749
Schein, E. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. 3rd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Scott, M., Bailey, T., & Kienzl, G. (2006). Relative success? Determinants of college graduation
rates in public and private colleges in the U.S. Research in Higher Education, 47, 3, 249-
277. doi: 10.1007/s11162-005-9388-y
Shechter, O. G., Durik, A. M., Miyamoto, Y., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2011). The role of utility
value in achievement behavior: The importance of culture. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 37, 303–317. doi:10.1177/0146167210396380
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on Formative Feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1),
153–189. doi:10.3102/0034654307313795

GRADUATION RATE 123
Snowden, M., & Halsall, J. P. (2016). Self-determined approach to learning: A social science
perspective. Cogent Education, 3(1), 10.1080/2331186X.2016.1247608
doi:10.1080/2331186X.2016.1247608
Soria, K. M., & Stubblefield, R. (2015). Knowing me, knowing you: Building strengths
awareness, belonging, and persistence in higher education. Journal of College Student
Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 17(3), 351-372.
doi:10.1177/1521025115575914
Stephens, N. M., Townsend, S. S. M., Hamedani, M. G., Destin, M., & Manzo, V. (2015). A
difference-education intervention equips first-generation college students to thrive in the
face of Stressful College Situations. Psychological Science, 26(10), 1556–1566.
doi:10.1177/0956797615593501
Tuckman, B.W. & Kennedy, G.J. (2011). Teaching learning strategies to increase success of
first-term college students. The Journal of Experimental Education, 79(4), pp. 478-504.
doi:10.1080/00220973.2010.512318
Urdan, T., & Pajares, F. (Eds.). (2006). Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents. Greenwich,
Conn.:IAP - Information Age Pub.
Vuong, M., Brown-Welty, S., & Tracz, S. (2010). The effects of self-efficacy on academic
success of first-generation college students.John Hopkins University Press.
doi:10.1353/csd.0.0109

GRADUATION RATE 124
Appendices
Appendix A: Student Interview Questions
1. Tell me about your experience freshmen year when you first became aware of your
degree requirements. (K)
2. What tools did you utilize to guide your understanding? (O)
3. What support services (advisors, peer mentors, etc.) did you engage with to better
understand your requirements? (K)
4. Tell me about your experience with Smart Planner. (KM)
5. What do you know about it? (K)
6. How do you use it? (K)
7. How has it helped you plan out your courses? (K)
8. What semester do you plan on graduating? (M)
9. What role has Smart Planner played in helping you graduating? (M)
10. How motivated were you to use Smart Planner and plan out your classes? (M)
11. Tell me about the process you have taken to select a major. (M)
12. What role did Smart Planner play in helping you pick a major?
13. Tell me about your experience with course registration. (O)
14. If you were the President, what would you do differently to ease course registration and
availability for students? (O)
15. What did the university do to educate you about Smart Planner and how to use it? (K)
16. What do you think the university could do to support and encourage the use of Smart
Planner? (M)

GRADUATION RATE 125
Appendix B: Faculty/Staff Interview Questions
1. What does the tool Smart Planner mean to you? (K)
2. What role have you played in the implementation of Smart Planner? (O)
3. What benefits has it provided the university? (O)
4. What challenges has it created? (O)
5. How do you feel Smart Planner impacts time to degree? (O)
6. Have you advised or counseled a student on the use of Smart Planner? (O)
a. Describe your interaction.
7. How do you feel Smart Planner will impact course availability? (O)
8. What could the university do to increase student engagement in the academic/degree
planning process? (M)
a. In particular, Smart Planner use.
9. What level of impact has the implementation of Smart Planner had on students? (M)

GRADUATION RATE 126
Appendix C: Observation Rubric
Asking
Questions
Not Listening
or Engaged
Listening and
Engaged
Actively
Participatin
g
Non-Verbal
Communication
(Name of
Student)
(Name of
Student)
(Name of
Student)
(Name of
Student)
(List specific
non-verbal
observed)

GRADUATION RATE 127
Appendix D: Post-Lab Survey
On a scale of 1-5, 1 being Strongly Disagree and 5 being Strongly Agree, please note a response
that most closely describes your opinion, thoughts, and/or feelings about this training:
1. The content of the planning lab was relevant to me as a Redwood student. (L1)
1 2 3 4 5
2. Degree planning via Smart Planner is valuable to me and worth my time. (L1)
1 2 3 4 5
3. The delivery of the content kept me engaged during this lab. (L1)
1 2 3 4 5
4. The breakout groups, teach backs, and guidance from a peer mentor helped me understand
how to use Smart Planner. (L2)
1 2 3 4 5
5. I will leave here today and use my Smart Planner to help guide my course selection and
registration. (L2)
1 2 3 4 5

GRADUATION RATE 128
Appendix E: Blended Evaluation
On a scale of 1-5, 1 being Strongly Disagree and 5 being Strongly Agree, please note a response
that most closely describes your opinion, thoughts, and/or feelings about the planning lab you
attend last semester:
1. I felt that the lab was a productive use of my time. (L1)
1 2 3 4 5
2. The lab provided information that was relevant to my needs as a student. (L1)
1 2 3 4 5
3. The format of the lab kept me engaged and helped me learn. (L1)
1 2 3 4 5
4. I left the lab feeling knowledgeable about my Smart Planner and degree requirements.
(L2)
1 2 3 4 5
5. I completed my Smart Planner course selections after the lab. (L3)
1 2 3 4 5
6. The knowledge gained from this lab has positively impacted my ability to progress
toward graduation. (L4)
1 2 3 4 5
7. What advising or student support services and/or advising do you utilize (list all that
apply)? (L4)
_______________________________________________________________________
8. How often do you seek out advising (in-person, email, phone, etc.)? ________________
(L3)
GRADUATION RATE 129
8. I have used my Smart Planner (Select one option that most closely fits your Smart
Planner usage): (L3)
Daily Weekly Monthly Before Registration Annually Not at all
9. I plan on graduating in (Semester/Year): ________ /________ (L4, L2)

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The low, four-year graduation rate at Redwood University is cause for concern. In 2018, it was only 14% and that is an improvement from 9% in 2016 (Redwood University website, 2019). Initiatives executed by the university have slightly increased the number of students graduating

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Sustained mentoring of early childhood education teachers: an innovation study

PDF

Analyzing the implementation of a learning management system into a post-merger & acquisition organization and its effects on sales performance (improvement model)

PDF

The principal, the achievement gap and Children's Literacy Initiative: a promising practice

PDF

Beyond persistence and graduation rates: examining the career exploration processes of first-generation college students

PDF

Retention rate of online students in the associate's degree program in addiction education counseling: a gap analysis

PDF

Physician burnout during a global pandemic: an evaluation study

PDF

Using mastery learning to address gender inequities in the self-efficacy of high school students in math-intensive STEM subjects: an evaluation study

PDF

Welcoming and retaining expatriate teachers in an international school

PDF

Implementing comprehensive succession planning: an improvement study

PDF

Coaching to increase retention in online degree completion programs

PDF

Factors influencing technology at a secondary school

PDF

Federal grant approval at a state education agency: an evaluation study

PDF

First-generation college students and persistence to a degree: an evaluation study

PDF

Examining the pandemic’s impact on remote worker wellness in community colleges: organizational lessons and strategies

PDF

Dual-enrollment program implementation to address the problem of college affordability as a barrier to student access and a contributing factor toward student debt

PDF

Satisfactory academic progress for doctoral students: an improvement study

PDF

Closing the “college aspirations - enrollment gap” in America’s urban public high schools: an innovation study

PDF

Transfer first-generation college students: the role of academic advisors in degree completion

PDF

Improving pilot training by learning about learning: an innovation study

PDF

Effective services provided to community college student-athletes: a gap analysis

Asset Metadata

Creator Rattray, Denise Grace (author)

Core Title Improving college graduation rates: a smarter plan

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 04/30/2019

Defense Date 02/13/2019

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag academic advising,college graduation rates,course availability,degree planning,first generation college students,OAI-PMH Harvest,peer mentorship,self-efficacy

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Datta, Monique (committee chair), Krop, Cathy (committee member), Pearson, Mark (committee member)

Creator Email denisegh@usc.edu,denisegracehamilton@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-161422

Unique identifier UC11660614

Identifier etd-RattrayDen-7367.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-161422 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-RattrayDen-7367.pdf

Dmrecord 161422

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Rattray, Denise Grace

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