University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An evaluation of general education faculty practices to support student decision-making at one community college

(USC Thesis Other)

An evaluation of general education faculty practices to support student decision-making at one community college

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: G.E. FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 1

An Evaluation of General Education Faculty Practices to
Support Student Decision-Making at One Community College
by
Theresa Fleischer Rowland

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

August 2018

Copyright 2018 Theresa Fleischer Rowland
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 2

Dedication
For the students who doubt they have what it takes…
Inspiration is all around, tap into it, grab a hand, and move forward!

It was 1974, and I am eight years old in the backseat of an American-made, four-door
sedan made of steel. My dad is driving, and he calls laughingly to me, “Hey Toots, you can
become a doctor and take care of me in my old age.” Somehow, I have never forgotten that
moment, or maybe I have not forgotten because my dad would tend to repeat a version of that for
the next 23 years of his life.
My parents saw me become a first-generation college graduate in 1986 with a B.S. from
the University of Southern California. I returned to USC as an Ed.D. student at the age of 50, the
same semester my oldest child started college and my youngest child was a high school junior. I
put off the dream for many years based on financial circumstances, career demands, and multiple
cancer battles. In my 2017 birthday card, my son Scott wrote: “You may be a few years older
than Ben and me, but we’re all college students, living with roommates, and we’re holding on
until Christmas break!” I just love the joy in that sentiment. Yes, it was a mammoth effort. Yes,
I had 7 a.m. class for three years of Saturdays. Yes, I worried about being selfish with added
demand on our family’s college funds. Nevertheless, I moved forward with the calling to
become a “doctor,” taking in every moment of the program and focusing on the educational
topics that are my professional passion.
I hold this dissertation study along with my academic Ed.D. “doctor” designation high for
my mom, who is my biggest fan, and my dad, who passed in 1999. I am blessed, surrounded by
family and friends who embrace me with loving support to reach for my goals. It has been a
godsend to lean into them throughout my life journey.
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 3

Acknowledgments
It is true. Without the surrounding support of a mighty group of talented and efficacious
advisors, colleagues, family, friends, and fellow students, I would have flopped.
Thank you to Dr. Kimberly Hirabayashi, my Dissertation Chairperson who contributed
numerous hours for my benefit through clarifying feedback, critical review, and knowing
nudges. I hold gratitude for Dr. Bob Gabriner, who continuously advised and encouraged my
forward progress and desire to connect this research in a practical way to community college
students. My greatest academic accomplishment was supported by three outstanding educators:
Dr. Hirabayashi, Dr. Gabriner, and Dr. Kristan Venegas, without whose guidance and advice I
would not have reached this amazing milestone in my life.
I am so fortunate my professional path in education was full of the best teachers. Thank
you to those who took an interest and believed in me. I would like to express deep gratitude to
my true and first community college mentors: Dr. Martha Kanter and Ms. Ricki Block.
Watching and working with the following educational professionals built my motivation
to dedicate a career to the adults in our communities and build the best California Community
Colleges possible. Thank you to the following for your inspiring leadership: Dr. Mick Sullivan,
Dr. Tom Martois, Dr. Judy Miner, Dr. Robert Griffin, Mr. Mike Brandy, Ms. Isabel Hildebrandt,
Dr. Susan Carreon, Ms. Linda Collins, Dr. Regina Stanback-Stroud, Dr. Gary Yee, Mr. Roy
Robles, Dr. Laurie Scolari, Mr. Luis Chavez, Ms. Kris Palmer, Dr. Rachel Antrobus, Dr. Rick
Ramos, Dr. Olivia Herriford, Ms. Suzanne Jobling, Dr. Cheryl deMatteis, OCL “Cohort 3” and
“Cohort 4” classmates, Ms. Tram Vo-Kumamoto, Ms. Anna Davies, Dr. Kristina Whalen, Dr.
Geisce Ly, Dr. Robert Frost, Dr. Lillian Marrujo-Duck, Ms. Roanna Benne, Ms. Susan Lamb,
and countless others… Thank you!
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 4

Table of Contents
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... 2
Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................... 3
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ 4
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 6
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. 7
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 8
Introduction to Problem of Practice ................................................................................................ 9
Organizational Context and Mission .............................................................................................. 9
Importance of the Evaluation ........................................................................................................ 11
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions ............................................................................ 11
Organizational Performance Goal ................................................................................................. 12
Stakeholder Group of Focus and Stakeholder Goal ...................................................................... 13
Review of the Literature ............................................................................................................... 14
Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences ............................................................... 20
Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................................. 28
Data Collection ............................................................................................................................. 31
Credibility and Trustworthiness .................................................................................................... 35
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 35
Findings......................................................................................................................................... 36
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 5

Solutions and Recommendations .................................................................................................. 62
Study Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 70
Recommendations for Future Research ........................................................................................ 71
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 72
References ..................................................................................................................................... 74
Appendix A: Participating Stakeholders with Sampling Criteria for Interview and Observation 84
Appendix B: Research Participant Descriptions .......................................................................... 86
Appendix C: Protocols .................................................................................................................. 96
Appendix D: Reviewed Artifacts ............................................................................................... 103
Appendix E: Ethics .................................................................................................................... 104
Appendix F: A Selection of Ideas and Quotes from the Interviews with Eight GE faculty ...... 105
Appendix G: Implementation and Evaluation Plan .................................................................... 110
Appendix H: Level 1 and Level 2 Evaluation Survey for Each Session ................................... 123
Appendix I: Level 1 and 2 Evaluation Instrument After Three Weeks ..................................... 124
Appendix J: Coaching Feedback Comment Sheet ..................................................................... 125

GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 6

List of Tables
Table 1. Stakeholder Goal and Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Influence
and Assessment for Knowledge Gap Analysis 27

Table 2. Summary of Findings 36
Table B1 Stakeholder Sample Demographics compared to All GCC Faculty as of Fall 2016 86
Table G1 Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 111

Table G2 Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 113
Table G3 Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors 114
Table G4 Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program 117
Table G5 Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 118

GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 7

List of Figures
Figure 1 Conceptual Framework 30
Figure G1 Representative Graphic for Monitoring Results Against the Goal 120
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 8

Abstract
Student decision-making on major and career is one critical step to reach college
completion. Traditionally thought of as a student services role, this study evaluated the issue of
student goal declaration from an instructional faculty lens as it relates to college completion at
one public California community college. This study was intended to inform organizational
learning on how faculty were pro-actively engaging student decision-making in General
Education (GE) courses, the place where a concentrated number of undecided students gather.
The methodology included qualitative interviews with eight GE faculty, two faculty
observations, and artifact analysis to increase learning on faculty practices not widely discussed
or known. The research documented the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
on GE faculty practices. Findings revealed that although supporting students to reach long-term
goals was an integral part of what the GE faculty believed was their job, the role was not
specified in college policy, there was a lack of system support for their efforts, and faculty spent
little time reflecting on their effectiveness. The eight GE faculty had limited time to facilitate
discussions with students which were delivered primarily out-of-class and through verbal one-
on-one interaction. The type of support faculty delivered was varied and not consistent, mostly
informed by their own experience. Recommendations include the college declaring the
importance of the GE faculty role in student goal orientation and the alignment of systemic
supports and policies. The findings maintained it would be prudent for college leadership to
investigate this undeveloped strategy to integrate GE faculty into the network for students to find
guidance and support in order to increase student completion rates. Furthermore, an
implementation and evaluation plan articulates next steps for a faculty development program to
assist GE faculty to increase effective practice with students in their decision-making.
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 9

Introduction to Problem of Practice
Community colleges throughout the United States are striving to meet the 2020 national
college completion goal by increasing degree and certificate attainment by 50%, or five million
additional students (de Nies, 2010). Articulated by President Obama (2009), the United States set
a goal to graduate the highest proportion of college completers in the world by 2020, and Obama
named community colleges as key to this effort. With two years to go, the nation’s incremental
metrics indicate the 2020 goal is not on track (Fry, 2017).
Community colleges are increasingly accountable to ensure students not only enroll but
to also facilitate students’ timely completion (de Nies, 2010; Obama, 2009). Challenges such as
too many academic choices and insufficient guidance impact students on the decision-making
that drives their educational goal: what to study and what career they desire (Bailey, Jaggars, &
Jenkins, 2015b). Students without declared goals attend college longer and with less efficiency,
increasing their risk of non-completion (Fry, 2017; Jenkins, 2011c; Moore & Shulock, 2011).
When colleges provide entering students effective guidance to discover and declare a program of
interest; a structured schedule of courses to complete; and, connect students to ongoing
advisement in a pro-active manner, students increase their chances to reach their educational goal
(Bailey, Jaggars, & Jenkins, 2015a; Moore & Shulock, 2011; Shugart, 2013). This study focuses
on pro-active community college faculty practices in GE courses that facilitate students’
decision-making as related to college completion at one public California community college.
Organizational Context and Mission
Gateway Community College ([GCC], a pseudonym) is an accredited public two-year
community college in the western United States in a major urban area focused on associate
degrees and transfer; adult education basic skills including English for speakers of other
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 10

languages; and workforce education. As of last census, GCC’s service area was 2.2% of the
state population and growing at a faster rate than the state average (U.S. Bureau of the Census,
2010).
The mission of GCC is to provide educational programs and services promoting student
achievement and lifelong learning to meet the needs of a diverse community. GCC is a large
two-year community college by national standards, offering over 350 certificates and degrees.
Nearly 14% of GCC students are younger than 20 years old, 66.4% of students are 20-39 years
old, and 19.7% are 40 or older. Ethnic and racial demographics of the student body in 2014
included 30% Asian, 25.3% white, 22.4% Hispanic, 8.4% African American, and 5.6% Filipino.
Four and one-half percent of students identify as two or more races.
According to state system data (2017), GCC has a 52.7% (n=2,511) completion rate for
degree, certificate and/or transfer-seeking students starting for the first time in 2010-11 and
tracked for six years through 2015-16. This is compared to the statewide completion rate of 48%
(n=197,720). It is important to note not all students are certificate/degree/transfer goal-seeking,
as many students enroll in community college as skills builders or lifelong learners, and they are
not interested in degree, certificates, or transfer.
As a public community college, GCC is held accountable to equitable outcomes across
demographic groups (Conner & Rabovsky, 2011). To enhance student success and close equity
achievement gaps, the college identifies and regularly assesses student learning outcomes and
institutional goals to improve institutional effectiveness. Beyond system accountabilities, GCC
is held to additional external and internal accountabilities for the social good (Burke, 2004).
College completion is a recognized strategy to effectively prepare adults for entry into the
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 11

workforce, meeting both social and economic needs to drive a healthy economy (Johnson &
Sengupta, 2009).
Importance of the Evaluation
Increasing college completion rates at community colleges educating nearly 50% of the
U.S. post-secondary population is a crucial social and economic strategy which provides a more
educated community, increases family self-sufficiency, and addresses the need for a skilled
workforce (Johnson & Sengupta, 2009). Moreover, community college students are more likely
low-income, historically underrepresented students of color and first-generation (National Center
for Educational Statistics, 2013). According to the National Center for Education Statistics
(2013), only 19.8% of all first-time, full-time degree/certificate-seeking students who started at
two-year public community colleges in 2009 completed within 150% of expected time to degree.
Low college completion rates exacerbated by extended time-to-degree outcomes and accrual of
excess credits are important to address as community colleges are the key post-secondary
institution to provide an onramp to skills and degrees, paving the way to higher wages and career
advancement for many U.S. adults.
In a typical community college structure, counseling faculty hold the designated role to
support students with major and career decision-making. While GCC is committed to effective
deployment of counseling services to support student decision-making, access to counselors
remains a challenge even with one of the best counselor-to-student ratios in the state (California
Community Colleges Student Success Scorecard, 2017).
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
College students who declare a goal and enter a program of study in their first year of
college are twice as likely to complete college (Moore & Shulock, 2011). This study evaluates
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 12

the pro-active advising practices of GE faculty as an effective point of reaching students to
influence critical decision-making (Tinto, 1997; Tinto, Russo, & Kadel, 1994). While a
complete performance evaluation would focus on all GCC stakeholders, for practical purposes,
this analysis focuses on GE faculty as the sole stakeholder group.
The following research questions were posed to contribute to organizational learning
about the kind of changes necessary to realize 100% of GE faculty support student decision-
making.
1. What knowledge and motivation factors need to be present so that 100% of GE faculty
support student decision-making on major and career?
2. What is the relationship between organizational culture and context, and stakeholder
knowledge and motivation?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
Organizational Performance Goal
Internal and external accountability, published completion rates, and performance
measured against institution-set standards are measures of effectiveness for post-secondary
education organizations. GCC is focused on educational goal completion for all students,
tracking and reporting student enrollment and achievement outcomes to the state community
college system each semester.
Completion data at the course, program, and certificate/degree/transfer level are
disaggregated to address disparate outcomes for historically underserved students. Institution-set
standards are determined through a participatory governance structure involving administrator,
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 13

faculty, staff, and student representation emphasizing continuous incremental progress in
equitable college completion for all demographic student groups.
The following GCC institution-set standards are annual goals to which completion is
measured each academic year: credit course completion (69.5%); degree completion (1,218
students); certificate of achievement completion (737); and transfer to a university (2,750
students). The following are reported outcomes for 2015-16: credit course completion (72.3%);
degree completion (1,185 students); certificate of achievement completion (770); and transfer to
a university (2,750 students). College completion is highly correlated with success measured by
further college and university study and entry into high-wage careers. Without first-year
students setting and pursuing informed educational goals, GCC risks students taking excess
credits, getting discouraged and dropping out, and not persisting, which can impact completion
rates, college reputation, and the financial health of the organization.
Stakeholder Group of Focus and Stakeholder Goal
This study examined GE instructional faculty who provided pro-active guidance to
students at GCC. Given a goal for all first-year students to declare an informed educational goal
in their first year, GE faculty serve a key role with regular student contact during that year to
help support student decision-making with more certainty. The study set out to investigate the
necessary factors for 100% of GE faculty to support students in their decision-making during
their first year of college.
Neither guidance nor advisement are defined roles for instructional faculty, therefore, the
stakeholder group studied could be considered positive deviants. Positive deviation theory
emphasizes those practitioners within complex social organizations who apply purposeful
behaviors, which differentiate their behavior in unique and successful ways (Mertens, Recker,
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 14

Kohlborn, & Kummer, 2016). A deviant is defined as someone who departs from the norm; the
term “positive deviant” was applied by Pascale and Sternin (2005) in an organizational social
framework to describe people who perform above average, at the opposite end of the deviation
spectrum from those whose behavior is considering destructive. In the organizational structure at
GCC, counseling faculty are recognized as the primary contact for advisement, therefore, this
study examines the role pro-active, non-counseling faculty—the positive deviants—serve in their
regular contact with students (Allen & Smith, 2008).
While GCC counselors are also faculty, this study focuses on non-counseling GE
discipline faculty, referred to as “faculty” or “GE faculty” for the remainder of this document.
The study will examine GE faculty as the stakeholder and the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences which support providing pro-active assistance to their students in major
and/or career decision-making through formal and informal approaches. Understanding the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences can provide important information for
organizational learning to increase student completion rates (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Review of the Literature
Community college completion has not kept pace with enrollments. Thus, a focus on
student completion outcomes is now a contemporary measure of accountability for community
colleges (Beach, 2012). University enrollment has doubled since the 1960s, and, in the same
period, community college enrollment has increased fivefold, yet the percentage of the U.S.
population with college degrees has stayed the same (Cox, 2009; Rosenbaum, Stephan, &
Rosenbaum, 2010). More than half of all United States college students begin their postsecondary
education at a community college, and considering a higher number of historically
underrepresented, low-income, and first-generation students are served by community colleges,
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 15

closing the gap on community college completion outcomes is a critical accountability issue
(Shugart, 2013).
College completion is equally as important as enrollment rates, especially for students who
have the most to gain in economic benefit from completing a college credential. Students pursue
college for a variety of reasons, but research shows the top reason students enroll is to benefit their
earning potential (Cox, 2009; Eagan et al., 2014). Beyond open access, community colleges are
accountable to ensure students complete their educational goals. Colleges have the responsibility
to ensure students not only enroll but that the college facilitates students’ timely completion
(Ishitani, 2006).
One significant evidence-based strategy is to support first-year college students to
determine their major and/or career goal with more certainty. Early declaration of an educational
goal is a strong indicator that students will reach their college completion goal.
Early Declaration of Educational Goal
Declaring and entering a program of study is an important milestone on the path to
college completion. Students are more likely to persist in college if they establish a major and
pursue a program of study to meet their goal, and the earlier a student declares and enters, the
more likely they are to complete (Graunke & Woosley, 2005; Jenkins, 2011b; Jenkins & Cho,
2012; Moore & Shulock, 2011).
According to Jenkins and Cho’s 2012 community college study comparing 20,200
community college students, there was a strong correlation between early program entry and
degree/transfer completion rates. The study showed more than 50% of students who entered a
program in their first year earned a credential or transferred within five years; whereas, only 20%
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 16

of students who did not enter a program until year three completed their degree/transfer goal
within the same time period (Jenkins & Cho, 2012).
In Moore and Shulock’s 2011 California state study looking at 434,158 first-time
community college students enrolled in credit courses in the 2004-05 academic year, researchers
tracked students over six years. Forty-nine percent of the students who entered a program of
study in their first year completed their educational goal of certificate, degree, or transfer.
Completion rates fell to 26% when students entered a program in their second year or later.
According to Moore and Shulock (2011), completion rates for students who enter a program in
their first year are nearly double than for students entering at any later point.
Furthermore, Jenkins, Zeidenberg, & Kienzl’s 2009 research found participation in a
program leading to a defined goal increases the chances of reaching that goal. According to this
2009 study using multivariate analysis to compare students’ educational outcomes over a two-
year period, students participating in the Washington state Integrated Basic Education and Skills
Training (I-BEST) program achieved college credits and persisted at greater rates. Jenkins,
Zeidenberg, and Kienzel conducted a comparison of 896 I-BEST students and 1,356 basic-skills
students across twenty-four Washington community colleges. The analysis concluded I-BEST
students achieved 52 quarter-term college credits compared to the control-group students’
completion of 34 quarter-term credits in the same time period. Additionally, the I-BEST
students persisted into the second year at 78%, compared with 61% for the control group.
Declaration of an educational goal within the first year of college is a success indicator that
increases students’ ability to complete a program of study. Community college students who lack
educational goal clarity experience ineffective course taking, incur more financial aid debt, and
face greater risk for attrition. As many as 20-60% of incoming college freshman are undecided
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 17

about a program of study or career (Gordon & Steele, 2015; Titley & Titley, 1980). Of all higher
education students, community college students with significant barriers are more vulnerable to the
increased costs of delays and face a narrow margin for error in course completion and program
advancement (Bertrand, Mullainathan, & Shafir, 2006).
Undecided students are not the only group experiencing uncertainty; even students with
declared goals state they experience a range of uncertainty or indecisiveness (Gaffner & Hazler,
2002). Moreover, effective educational and career goal advisement benefits the range of students
from undecided to decided (Ogletree, 1999; Orndorff & Herr, 1996; Stipanovic & Stringfield,
2013). Community colleges have the opportunity to establish practices and policies for a majority
of first year students who can benefit from major and career guidance early on (Lewallen, 1992).
Effective interventions impact early declaration of educational goal. When colleges
provide effective, pro-active advisement to guide students in educational goal decision-making,
students experience more certainty with their declared major and improve their retention and time-
to-degree and transfer rates. Effective practice by colleges to support their students includes the
following: structured major and career exploration upon college entry, curriculum on decision-
making processes, and pro-active advisement (Deil-Amen & Rosenbaum, 2003; Gordon & Steele,
2015; Graunke & Woosley, 2005; Park, Cerven, Nations, & Nielsen, 2013; Scrivener et al., 2015;
Titley & Titley, 1980).
In an analysis of 434,158 student records conducted by Moore & Shulock (2011) over six
years, researchers analyzed courses taken to identify students and patterns in attempting,
entering, and completing programs leading to certificate, degree, or transfer. From the findings,
interventions such as first-semester career guidance courses; well-structured course sequence
maps with developed schedules to ensure course availability; and assigned faculty advisors in
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 18

declared major programs were significant to assist students in choosing, entering, and completing
programs. The study recommendations highlight incorporating structure into academic
programs, increasing deeper connections to faculty advisors throughout the college experience,
and integrating student supports as factors to significantly reduce excess credit accrual and
barriers to degree completion.
For many years, student retention was the sole responsibility of student development
professionals through provision of services. In this traditional thinking approach, discipline
faculty were uninvolved. Student services focused on retention were appended to academic
courses and programs rather than integrated (Kelley, 2008; Tinto, 2006). Non-residential college
research, applicable to the community college student, demonstrates the impact of external
events on student lives and the importance of the classroom to student persistence and retention
(Tinto, 1997; Tinto, Russo, & Kadel, 1994).
Tinto (2006) further discusses discipline faculty with their regular student contact are key
to helping the college increase student retention. Yet, there is insufficient research about how
professional development programs for discipline faculty might impact student persistence rates.
Andragogical practices could be important and linked to student persistence and retention, but
the research needs to more fully explore this hypothesis.
What Students Say They Need to Succeed
It is prudent for colleges to include student perspective on effective practice when
focused on increasing early goal declaration. In Nodine, Jaeger, Venezia, and Bracco’s four-
state qualitative study (2012), 161 students informed researchers on what works. Students
reported preferences that the college initiate intentional services both face-to-face and online;
send pro-active email and texts; and issue invitations to non-completers to return. Students
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 19

considered the college the expert on what would best support their success and stated preferences
for intrusive advisement.
Providing general information and making it widely available is not effective according
to one study led by Park, et al. (2013). In a mixed-method study at a large urban California
community college, researchers investigated decision-making processes of students and the
supports and barriers they faced along their college continuum. Over two years, the study
collected data from 72 low-income female students through two waves of semi-structured
interviews, demographic, and educational background surveys on personal and academic
histories, post-secondary educational experiences, and interactions with college staff and faculty.
Findings included students admitting reluctance to ask for help and stating the need for
personalized guidance and coaching on decision-making delivered pro-actively.
Student engagement and pro-active personalized information are key elements for student
persistence and retention, providing a path centering students on the pursuit of goals and reduces
attrition and excess credit accrual. Considering community colleges serve first-generation and
historically underrepresented populations, the lack of college structure to support students with
decision-making on major and career is a problem (Jenkins, 2011a). Students who experience
connection to faculty, advisors and staff, comprehensive non-academic supports, and intrusive
advisement are more likely to engage, and therefore, persist toward their goal (Deil-Amen, 2011;
Graunke & Woosley, 2005; Park, Cerven, Nations, & Nielsen, 2013; Scrivener et al., 2015).
A range of factors influence community college completion rates, and the research cited
focuses on goal declaration as one critical attribute for students who complete (Bailey, Jaggars,
& Jenkins, 2015b; Jenkins 2011c; Moore & Shulock, 2011). Faculty advising effectively
impacts students’ early declaration of goal thus leading to more timely college completion
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 20

(Tinto, 2006). One such strategy includes structured pro-active advisement to ensure entering
students acquire essential knowledge needed to decide on a major, and even a career goal, with
more certainty (Gordon & Steele, 2015; Moore & Shulock, 2011). Examining existing avenues
like GE courses where undecided students cluster in early course-taking may be a faculty
advising opportunity, but there is a lack of literature to address the success of this specific
approach.
This study attempts to understand how GE faculty at one public community college
provide support to students deciding on a major or career goal. The research attempts to
document the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences of GE faculty advisement
practices to inform organizational learning on one approach to increase student completion rates.
Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
The conceptual framework for this research was based on Clark & Estes’ (2008) gap
analysis model with knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) influences as factors in
achieving a performance goal. This study applied the KMO framework to an evaluation study of
how GE faculty at one community college contributed to student completion, an organizational
performance goal.
Knowledge, as the first analytical element applied in this conceptual framework,
identifies whether the stakeholders know how, what, and when to apply skills and, if they take
the opportunity to self-assess (Clark & Estes, 2008; Mayer, 2011). The knowledge analysis was
based on Krathwohl’s (2002) work and includes procedural, conceptual, and metacognitive
knowledge types. Motivation was the second element in this conceptual framework, used to
analyze underlying motivational influences that impact stakeholders’ performance linked to
achieving the organizational goal. According to Rueda (2016), motivation usually accounts for
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 21

50% or more of performance issues; thus, it was an essential component to examining factors in
performance. An analysis of organizational cultural models and settings was the third element
studied in this conceptual framework. The analysis examined ways the college as an
organization supported and inhibited stakeholder performance to help achieve the stated
performance goal (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Supported by the conceptual framework, the summative evaluation focused on how
faculty pro-actively support students, why faculty were motivated to help, and how the college
supported faculty practices. The analysis focused on knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences with eight GE faculty at one community college.
Knowledge Influences
According to Rueda (2011), if an organizational goal is dependent upon faculty, then
examining what teachers need to know in order to achieve that goal is critical. In a thorough
analysis of how GE faculty contributed to increasing the number of students declaring a major
with increased certainty, it was important to analyze essential faculty knowledge needed to
support student decision-making. This study is unique in that it examines a traditional student
services role from the lens of instructional faculty. In an analysis of the literature regardless of
the source of student supports, students need structured exploration to build career self-efficacy
to decidedness toward college majors, and both undeclared and declared students benefit from
such services (Ogletree, 1999; Orndorff & Herr, 1996; Stipanovic & Stringfield, 2013).
This section focuses on the knowledge, skills, and metacognitive practices that influence
the GE faculty effectiveness to assist students. The following subtopics emphasize needed
knowledge for instructional faculty to assist students.
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 22

Demonstrate proficiency with facilitating decision-making discussions. Essential
procedural knowledge for GE faculty includes knowing how to engage students in the context of
their instructional role (Krathwohl, 2002). Faculty are more able to assist students with career
and major exploration when they can facilitate a discussion on options and demonstrate
facilitation skills that engage students with either major exploration leading to a career or from a
career backing into a major (Carnevale & Desrochers, 2003; Pajares, 2006). Faculty must
acquire pro-active facilitation skills, practice those skills, and know how to apply what they have
learned to engage with students (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006).
Demonstrate proficiency with connecting students to resources. In order to
effectively assist students with decision-making, GE faculty need to connect students to useful
resources. Faculty need to know key resources to assist students with major and career
exploration, and connect students to assets such as navigational tools, experts, and/or research.
For example, faculty can refer students to take full advantage of career services or suggest
sources for research and analysis in a particular field to support deeper learning about career and
educational opportunities. Through increased conceptual knowledge, faculty build knowledge
competency to connect and engage with students on the topic of major and career options.
Furthermore, Gaffner and Hazler (2002) point out whether a student is expressing indecision or
decisiveness, connection to resources teaches a useful life skill.
Reflect on advising effectiveness. Faculty need to self-reflect on their role and ways
their advisement aligns with the organizational goal. Educators engaged in self-assessment
opportunities promote metacognition leading to increased awareness (Baker, 2006). To support
student decision-making, faculty must reflect on their own effectiveness to engage students.
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 23

Since career and major advisement is typically outside the instructional faculty’s area of
expertise, developing metacognitive practice allows time for reflection on skill mastery.
Motivation Influences
Motivation is the underlying influence driving an individual’s effort and attention to
achievement (Clark & Estes, 2008). In order to effectively assist students with decision-making,
GE faculty need to believe it is their role to assist students and their effort is valuable to student
success. Furthermore, faculty need to feel confident their efforts will be positive. The research
addresses three primary motivation indicators: active choice, persistence, and effort (Clark &
Estes, 2008). In the context of this study, each of the indicators is described as follows. First,
faculty demonstrate active choice through their practices. Second, persistence is indicated by
faculty behavior that continues in the face of obstacles. Third, faculty display effort when they
dedicate time toward supporting students with decision-making.
Recognize the importance and value. Expectancy value theory links the importance of
a task to what the individual holds or defines as valuable (Eccles, 2006; Pintrich, 2003).
Expectancy value theory suggests once an individual establishes they can do a task, the essential
motivational question becomes, “Do I want to do the task?” This driving question is based on
the idea of active choice and control which are intrinsic to the individual, and not driven by
groups (Eccles, 2006).
Faculty need to see the value and importance of providing support to students making
decisions on a major and believe their active choice efforts will result in a valued outcome
(Eccles, 2006). Additionally, if the faculty recognize supporting student decision-making is
useful and results in student success, learning and motivation are enhanced (Eccles, 2006;
Hancock, 1996). To support motivation, faculty need opportunities to practice skills to see their
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 24

efforts are useful and make a difference for students (Eccles, 2006; Osborn & Baggerly, 2004).
When faculty see the utility of advising an undecided student, the experience is enhanced
through intrinsic reward (Hancock, 1996; Osborn & Baggerly, 2004).
Experience confidence and enthusiasm through small successes. Self-efficacy theory
is a focus on positive belief in skills and an expectancy for success (Bandura, 2005; Pajares,
2006). Indicators of self-efficacy include confidence in the ability to complete a task and
enthusiasm for learning with the expectation that results will be positive. A strong sense of self-
efficacy is a major influence in how an individual approaches goals, tasks, and challenges.
If GE faculty are to be confident in their ability to advise students, they need to
understand they can experience progress in incremental small successes (Bandura, 2000).
Furthermore, Hancock (1996) suggests limiting the scope of advisement to exploration within
the faculty’s discipline may make professional practice more achievable. Although the
instructional faculty work environment will never afford enough time to deeply support all
students, Hancock suggests most student questions are simple and repetitive to encourage belief
in efficacy.
Organizational Influences
Organizational influences are about culture, engagement, and barriers to performance that
can impede reaching performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). In examining the gap between
performance and the organizational goal that all GCC students would declare an informed
educational goal in their first year, two primary modalities are helpful to analyze: cultural models
and cultural settings (Kezar, 2001; Schein, 2010). Cultural models are defined as a shared
experience leading to basic assumptions held by organizational members, including traditions,
ideas, and practices that exist across and within an organization (Kezar, 2001; Schein, 2010).
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 25

Cultural settings involve factors consistent across all organizations, including policies,
procedures, and rewards—plus the social constructs in which those tasks are accomplished
(Schneider, Brief, & Guzzo, 1996). How GCC faculty view their role and responsibility to
support student decision-making is influenced by the cultural model and setting.
Roles and responsibilities clarify connection of GE faculty to student support.
GCC’s cultural model is derived by a shared experience leading to basic assumptions about what
faculty do and do not do. In an examination of traditions surrounding typical instructional
faculty practice, most faculty do not actively advise students on selection of major and career.
That role is typically seen as a counseling faculty responsibility. For an organizational change to
occur, an aligned cultural model is needed to include assumptions that both instructional and
counseling faculty deliver portions of what a student needs to learn to increase their decision-
making with more certainty. The GCC cultural model needs to include shared experiences and
basic assumptions on who and how advising is delivered to students with clearly stated roles and
responsibilities across faculty. The model would demonstrate an assumption that advising
students is an extension of student learning and appropriate to the discipline instruction of
teaching and learning (Kelley, 2008). The effectiveness of faculty support practices needs to be
measured through incremental student completion at the course, program, and award levels.
Additionally, faculty need to see other department faculty modeling the behavior. New
faculty orientation should include clear role descriptions for delivering decision-making support
as part of GE delivery. Faculty need recognition that their regular classroom contact is a key part
of assisting students to connect course selection, academic, and career goals (Allen & Smith,
2008).
Aligned policies, procedures, and incentives. For organizational change to occur, the
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 26

policies, procedures, and rewards of the college’s cultural setting need to align with a faculty role
that includes assisting students with their major selection. A first step involves defining the
types of student support GE faculty fulfill in the labor contract. GCC documents need to specify
clear expectations for faculty and differentiate counseling faculty expertise from a more specified
scope of advisement fulfilled by GE faculty. Clearly articulated college documents are important
so individual faculty understand the expectations as well as deliver the expertise related to the
performance goal and student need.
College guidance policies need to specify an advisement model that includes GE faculty,
and align the role of both counseling and GE faculty to the mission of student success.
Additionally, GCC needs to identify resources and tools to support GE faculty in a defined set of
advisement tasks. GCC needs to incentivize faculty with rewards such as adjusted teaching
loads, recognition, leadership opportunities, additional pay, or increased ability to earn tenure.
Furthermore, GCC needs to identify and provide resources and tools to support faculty’s
effectiveness to support student decision-making (Jenkins, 2011b; Badway & Grubb, 1997).
Integrated professional development and models of collaboration with faculty across instruction
and student development will ensure faculty increase knowledge and skills they need to
effectively support students (Allen & Smith, 2008).
It is important to consider the way the organization contributes to or inhibits the initiative
of GE faculty to pro-actively assist students. An alignment of organizational culture with
planning strategies will influence not only effective practice, espoused beliefs and values, and
underlying assumptions, but also the ability to take these practices across the institution to
achieve organizational change (Schein, 2010).
Table 1 depicts the stakeholder goal and organizational influences described.
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 27

Table 1
Stakeholder Goal and Organizational Influence and Assessment for Knowledge, Motivation, and
Organization Gap Analysis

Organizational Mission
GCC’s primary mission is to provide programs and services leading to transfer to baccalaureate
institutions; Associate Degrees in Arts and Sciences; Certificates and career skills needed for
success in the workplace; Basic Skills, including learning English as a Second Language and
Transitional Studies.
Organizational Global Goal
100% of first year GCC students will declare an informed educational goal by the end of year
one.
Stakeholder Goal
100% of general education faculty will support GCC student decision-making to select a major
with increased certainty in their first year of college.
Assumed Knowledge Influence Knowledge
Type
Knowledge Influence Assessment

Faculty need to know how to
facilitate decision-making
discussions with students on their
options for a major and/or career.
Procedural Interview question to document how
faculty facilitate career discussions and/or
major exploration with students;
observation session.
Faculty need to know different
resources for career and major
exploration.

Conceptual Interview question to document what
referrals and/or assignments guide
students to learn about career and
educational opportunities available to
them; observation session.
Faculty need to self-reflect on their
role and ways to support students.
Metacognitive Interview question to document self-
reflection practices on advising
effectiveness; post-observation interviews.

Assumed Motivation Influences Motivational Influence Assessment
Expectancy Value: Community college faculty
need to see the importance of students declaring a
major with certainty and believe their efforts will
result in a valued outcome.
Interview question with a focus on their
belief on the importance and value of the
task.
Self-Efficacy: Faculty are confident in ability to
advise students.
Interview question to ask faculty how
confident they are in ability to assist
students.

Assumed Organizational Influences Organizational Influence Assessment
Cultural Model Influence: GCC needs to clearly
state roles and responsibilities for faculty
advising.
Artifact search for GCC documents that state
faculty role and responsibilities tied to
organizational goals in college documents.
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 28

Cultural Setting Influence: GCC needs to identify
policies, procedures, and incentives to provide
faculty tools to assist undecided students.
Interview question focused on professional
development opportunities for faculty to
learn career and major decision-making tools
to apply with students.

Conceptual Framework
A constructed conceptual framework creates distinctions and organizes ideas to support a
research study focused on an identified stakeholder. Strong conceptual frameworks illustrate the
linkages between existing theory and research, articulate new research questions, and describe
the research design with the stakeholder at the center (Maxwell, 2013). In this study, a gap
analysis examined instructional practices as well as needed knowledge and motivation factors for
GE faculty to support GCC student decision-making with increased certainty (Clark & Estes,
2008). Furthermore, the conceptual framework addressed organizational influences which
impacted the GE faculty sample’s ability to contribute to the performance goal. Although the
study examined knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences in the context of eight GE
faculty and their practices, these influences were not isolated from each other.
This study described and interpreted through positive deviation theory how the influences
interacted with each other (Leavy, 2011; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Mertens, Recker, Kohlborn,
& Kummer, 2016; Pascale & Sternin, 2005; Pascale, Sternin, & Sternin, 2010). Positive
deviation theory emphasizes those practitioners within complex social organizations who apply
purposeful behaviors, which differentiate their behavior in unique and successful ways (Mertens,
Recker, Kohlborn, & Kummer, 2016). A deviant is defined as someone who departs from the
norm; the term “positive deviant” was applied by Pascale and Sternin (2005) in an organizational
social framework to describe people who perform above average, at the opposite end of the
deviation spectrum from those whose behavior is considered destructive. Embedded in the
theory of positive deviation is the idea that complex social problems can be solved through
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 29

cultural insiders utilizing existing resources. At GCC, counseling faculty are recognized as the
primary contact for advising students on goal orientation. However, this study examines the role
pro-active, non-counseling GE faculty—the positive deviants—serve in their regular contact
with students (Allen & Smith, 2008). While the evidence pointed to early declaration of goal
and pro-active faculty connections as strong predictors of college completion, (non-counseling)
faculty at GCC were not tasked with assisting students in deciding their major or occupational
goals (Badway & Grubb, 1997; Moore & Shulock, 2011).
To achieve the organizational goal, a number of influences need to come together in
order for faculty performance to achieve the stakeholder goal. Faculty need to know a number of
things: how to facilitate dialogue with students on decision-making; resources to refer students to
research and expert guidance; and an ability to reflect on their role with students and
effectiveness in assisting students to make decisions about what to pursue as a major.
As mentioned earlier, the GE faculty stakeholder examined does not include counseling
faculty, and so motivation contributes to the importance of why faculty would pro-actively
advise students. Faculty need to express expectancy value, i.e. interest and enjoyment in the
advising role, feel fulfilled in the role, believe the advising is useful, and realize belief alignment
(Eccles, 2006). Furthermore, faculty need to demonstrate self-efficacy in skills and an
expectation the task holds value and importance (Pajares, 2006).
As shown in Figure 1, the conditions that need to be present in order to achieve the
stakeholder goal include knowledge and motivation influences within the organizational
constructs of GCC. The cultural model and cultural setting conditions influence and support the
ability of faculty to achieve the stakeholder goal. Two key organizational influences are
identified. First, GCC needs to recognize faculty as a consistent and regular point of contact
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 30

with first-year students and the potential for supporting student decision-making. Second, GCC
needs to provide resources, tools, and incentives to encourage GE faculty to efficaciously
provide a limited scope of advisement for students’ most common and recurring questions
(Hancock, 1996). In order for change to occur, it is incumbent on the organizational culture and
setting to adapt in order to support expected new performance. The declaration of a new
practice, such as GE faculty supporting students with decision-making, insists all influences are
inter-related, while new knowledge and motivation of faculty is dependent upon a supportive
cultural stability of the organization (Schein, 2010).

Figure 1 Conceptual Framework

Figure X. The conditions that need to be present in order to achieve the stakeholder goal
include knowledge (K) and motivation (M) influences within the organizational (O)
constructs of the college. Figure 1 represents knowledge and motivation influences nested
within organizational influences to either support or repress GE faculty practices during a
performance change to accomplish a new goal.
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 31

By studying behavior of positive deviants, solutions often can be found that already exist
(Leavy, 2011). Importantly, positive deviants take action within an organization with the same
constraints using ingenuity and tapping into motivations. By studying positive GE faculty
deviant practices at one community college, the research identified knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences on individual behavior and how eight self-identified GE faculty
supported student decision-making.
Data Collection
The intent of the qualitative research methodology in this study was a thorough data
gathering of GE faculty practices not directly observable. Eight GE faculty participants were
selected through a snowball sampling method. Students and faculty suggested GE faculty who
met the criteria; in addition, GE department chairs were asked to distribute a questionnaire to
faculty in their department to self-report whether they supported students in major and career
decision-making. Forty-three GE faculty responded to the survey: 28 full-time and 15 part-time
faculty.
At the time of the study in Spring 2018, the eight GE faculty purposely selected ranged in
teaching experience from 11 to 24 years; seven were full-time faculty, and one was part-time
faculty. Although the researcher intended to include representative proportions of gender, part-
time and full-time employment status, as well as race/ethnicity proportion to the overall college
demographics, the responses were a limitation. The seven full-timers were part-time community
college faculty prior to joining GCC. Four faculty taught in the Math and Sciences, and four
faculty taught in the Humanities, English, and Social Sciences. Five participants are women, and
three are men. Five of the faculty were white, and three were faculty of color. Four of the eight
faculty were first-generation college students who attended community college as an
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 32

undergraduate student and then transferred to university. For a complete description of
Stakeholder Recruitment Strategy and Rationale, refer to Appendix A.
The methodology included, in order, qualitative interviews with eight GE faculty, two
faculty observations, and artifact analysis. The qualitative interview method increased
organizational learning of GE faculty practices not widely discussed or known. A description of
each of the faculty participants is included in Appendix B.
The researcher took every precaution to maintain the confidentiality and protection of
gathered data. The researcher was diligent throughout the study to respect participants,
demonstrate beneficence, and behave in a judicial manner. The researcher provided verbal and
written explanation to fully disclose the purpose of the study, confidentiality, and the
participant’s voluntary participation with the right to withdraw without penalty (Glesne, 2011).
Informed consent was gathered from participants prior to data collection to have their interviews
recorded. Collected data was stored and secured in a locked office with explicit attention to
confidential practices. Throughout the research, the researcher ensured the data was protected in
accordance with the Institutional Review Board protocols.
Interviews
Eight qualitative individual interviews took place in the Spring 2018 semester.
Interviews were formative to understand the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences of GE faculty practices to support student decision-making on major and career.
Semi-structured interviews with standardized open-ended questions were conducted over
the phone to reduce distractions and increase quality of recording. Appointments were set with
each of the faculty participants, and most interviews lasted approximately 75 minutes. The
researcher followed an interview protocol to facilitate organization and analysis of the data
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 33

(Patton, 2002). The interview protocol used to collect data on the motivation, knowledge, and
organizational influences of the conceptual framework can be found in Appendix C. Questions
in the protocol were cross-referenced to the research questions.
Each interview was captured in a standardized note-taking template using pen and paper
and allowing for distinction between the objective notes and quotes and the subjective notations
which were noted as “Observer Comments”. The researcher summarized handwritten notes the
same day as the interview took place, attending to ideas, awareness of bias, and areas for further
investigation (Bogdam & Biklen, 2007). Additionally, interviews were recorded with MP3
technology, and then transcribed through rev.com.
Following the interviews, the researcher reviewed the transcripts against the audio to
ensure accuracy. Furthermore, the researcher analyzed the data to determine which faculty
practice would be most conducive to observation and provide additional value in data gathering.
Criteria included faculty advising processes that were predictable to schedule, willingness of
faculty, and more than one opportunity to observe.
Observation
Following the completion of all eight faculty interviews, the researcher requested
observations from two willing faculty participants who indicated they were addressing student
decision-making in class with an upcoming opportunity to observe. The researcher scheduled
two classroom observations, one in Science and one in Humanities for February 2018. The
purpose was to observe GE faculty on campus in an advising situation and the alignment
between knowledge and behaviors to help triangulate the data process. Observations were
planned to minimize the behavior affect and researcher bias. To prepare for the observations, the
researcher determined logistics with the faculty to optimize sound and line of sight, and strove to
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 34

minimize distraction. The researcher prepared an observation notation form, while using pen
and paper to capture notes.
Observation was focused on the faculty advisement practice, materials used, student
engagement strategies, articulated future action steps, indication of a follow-up or accountability
piece, referral to other resources, formal versus informal structure, and indications the
advisement was a singular event or an ongoing practice. The observation notes taken in real time
described people, interaction, objects, place, activities, and conversations.
Documents and Artifacts
During and after the interviews and to prepare for the observations, the researcher asked
the participants for relevant handouts, assignments, and web-based materials. Although the
study examined knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences in the context of faculty
practices, these influences are not isolated from each other, and a review of documents and
artifacts used by faculty in their advisement was informative. Four faculty—two faculty from
Humanities, English, and Social Sciences, and two faculty from the Math and Science group—
provided documents which supported students in their decision-making on major and career.
Documents reviewed included syllabi, required first-week informational surveys, department
webpages on the college website, course packets, faculty contracts, Institutional Learning
Outcomes, and the organizational website. Appendix D includes a full list of artifacts reviewed.
It is important to note 50% of the participants explicitly remarked they utilized no documentation
relevant to the topic of this study. Materials were collected from the faculty who did use
materials. This collection of documents and artifacts informed the KMO gap analysis (Clark &
Estes, 2008).

GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 35

Credibility and Trustworthiness

This study was established to discover existing GE faculty practice through sound
research designed to address credibility and trustworthiness. The research triangulated data
collection and analysis, ensured participant anonymity, and utilized critical reflection strategies
by the researcher to strengthen findings. In all cases, the researcher gathered evidence to rule out
any plausible threats to interpretation and explanation. Triangulation was used as a method of
substantiating data through analysis of multiple sources: faculty interviews, field observations,
and key documents (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Interviews were confidential and conducted by
phone; no personal information was collected to assure participants could speak freely without
the potential threat of consequences. Furthermore, the interview protocol was designed in a
manner to minimize leading questions and ensure original thought by the participants (Maxwell,
2013). At every step during the research process, the researcher checked biases and any
influences that might threaten validity and affect the research outcome. Overall, the researcher
employed strategies mentioned by Maxwell (2013) to engage with the faculty participants in an
involved, multiple episode manner that provided rich data, continuous searches for plausible
threats to interpretation, and triangulated evidence gathering. Appendix E includes further
information about credibility and trustworthiness of the research.
Data Analysis
The purpose of the qualitative data analysis was to make meaning of the data to answer
the research questions. Using an inductive process, findings were derived from researcher-
written memos and notes, interview transcripts, key documents as artifacts, and classroom
observations. The researcher interacted with the data moving between interview transcripts to
written notes and memos and cross-referencing with key documents, creating a codebook which
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 36

served to organize single data points to categories and sub-categories, and finally, to themes and
assertions grounded in theory. The researcher referred to Corbin and Strauss (2008) and use of
open and a priori coding tools to assist with methodological coding and sub-coding in alignment
with the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences of the conceptual framework.
The process during the data analysis was to move back and forth between concrete
description to integrate meaning and refine assertions through repeat examination of all sources
to tell a story of substance and contribute to the body of research knowledge. Throughout the
analysis, the researcher used the research questions and conceptual framework as a guide to
identify common concepts, recognize new possibilities, and clarify assumptions.
On average, interviews lasted 75 minutes, in which faculty provided candid responses
with robust descriptions of how they supported student decision-making and what knowledge
they transferred. Most of the faculty-student interaction took place outside of the classroom;
therefore, it was not surprising the classroom observations were not as useful as hoped.
Findings

The following table summarizes the research findings as an advanced organizer.
Table 2
Summary of Findings
Theory Assumption Assertions
Knowledge Influences
Procedural Faculty demonstrate proficiency with
facilitating decision-making
discussions.
 Semester timing drives topics.
 Varied in-class approaches.
 Sporadic out-of-class approaches.
 Behaviors modeled for students.
Conceptual Faculty demonstrate proficiency with
connecting students to resources.
 Support informed by experience.
 Commonly used resources.
 Faculty-developed resources.
Metacognitive Faculty self-reflect on their role and
ways to support students.
 No assurances.
 More intrusive over time.
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 37

 Small and random number of
students impacted.
Motivational Influences
Expectancy
Value
Faculty need to recognize the
importance of students declaring a
major with certainty and believe their
efforts will result in a valued outcome.
 Focused commitment to support
students’ goals.
Self-Efficacy Faculty are confident in their ability to
advise students.
 Experienced confidence through
small successes.
Organizational Influences
Cultural Model GCC needs to clearly state roles and
responsibilities for faculty advising.
 Time is a challenge.
 Difficult to know everything and
stay current.
 Individual self-developed style.
Cultural Setting GCC needs to identify policies,
procedures, and incentives to provide
faculty tools to assist undecided
students.
 Lack of explicit expectations to
link GE faculty to student
completion outcomes.
 Absent systems to monitor goals
and inform efforts.
 Few extrinsic incentives for faculty
to engage students in decision-
making discussions.

Knowledge Influences
Table 2 lists the assertions made for each of the Knowledge Influences. The assertions
are described in detail below describing the research discoveries regarding what faculty knew,
how they demonstrated proficiency, and ways they reflected on their role.
Faculty demonstrate proficiency with facilitating decision-making discussions.
Overall, the faculty participants demonstrated a range of pro-active approaches to facilitate
decision-making discussions with students. Faculty gathered information on students’ goals and
assessed what they could offer to help students further their plans.
The interviewed faculty sought to reach and connect with students on decision-making
through a variety of methods. A first step for most faculty was gathering information from all
students, yet follow-up steps with students tended to be more sporadic.
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 38

Semester timing drives topics. Timing during the semester was key to faculty’s
discussions with students. Many faculty used the beginning of the semester to gather
information such as what students were studying, their goals, and their outside commitments. As
the semester progressed, they followed up on those items with students. In the interviews,
faculty addressed the importance of timing when facilitating discussions with students.
Both Jane and Colette structured two meetings with all students in their class during the
term. Most of Colette’s supportive role with students on decision-making happened in office
hours during two conferences structured at midterm and right at the point of developing the
research paper topic. When she met with students, she utilized the first, beginning-of-term
assigned paper to tailor individual conversations:
So when [students] come and see me, even if it's just to go over a paper or to ask
questions about the reading assignments, I tend to always sort of default back into
learning more about who they are as students and what they're looking for. I tend
to do that pretty much every time I meet with a student: I ask them what other
classes they're taking and what their hopes are, how it's going, and try to identify
any holes that I can help with or I can fill. Yeah, mostly in my office hours.
To increase attendance, Colette began to utilize lab time to hold the one-on-one conferences.
Early-in-the-semester faculty approaches were centered on learning more about student
goals, including requiring survey responses during the first two weeks of class, learning and
calling students by name, assigning essays with a writing prompt to elicit information, and
offering extra credit to meet and review coursework during office hours. For the most part these
strategies aimed to impact all students in the class, through follow-through was limited in
reaching all students in the class.
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 39

Roberta sent a first-week questionnaire as a voluntary extra credit assignment, with an
85% response rate after three reminders. On the questionnaire, students shared their reason for
taking the class, their good and bad experiences in the sciences, and information about their
goals. Roberta stated,
Once I have a sense of who all is in the room and what they’re doing, I’ll
concentrate a little bit more, give perhaps a little bit more information during a
lecture, and then either speak to the student individually before or after class,
sometimes email.
Later in the interview she added, “If they don’t talk to me, I start asking questions. I talk to
them…I tell them sometimes I’m like the aunt that won’t go away.” At midterm, Roberta
reviewed the questionnaire data provided by each student and made sure in the second part of the
semester content, she incorporated educational and career topics according to interest.
Michelle learned students’ names in the first week, and called them by name by the
second week:
I didn't realize how important it was to [recognize students by name] until they told
me that many years in; I think that makes a big difference. I'm a very open person:
Once I get to know someone, I ask them, talk to them, I'll comment, I'll look at their
materials.
Later in the interview, Michelle added,
Then the kinds of advice I'm giving is… let's talk about what you can do to make
sure as many doors are open as possible…Swing those doors open, take that math,
make yourself marketable in all areas. Start discovering what it is that you like.
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 40

Furthermore, Michelle stated how her support with students tended to shift toward the end of
semester:
Towards the end of the semester, sometimes there's group conversations. At the
beginning of the semester, it tends to be one-on-one. Not a lot of people come to
office hours at the beginning of the semester...Frankly, it's impossible to create an
office hour that every student can come to, or even a majority of students, so I end
up mostly having one-on-one appointments with students. Especially in classes
like lab classes, which tend to be a little more informal, we might start very
formally, but then students start working on the lab in groups, and they kind of
come in and out of the room as needed…There might be a time towards the end of
class when they finish the lab, and there's a few of them, where they will jointly ask
me a question about their educational paths. That's actually really, really common
that lab students will ask about it towards the end of lab, because they tend to be in
a more comfortable space with everybody, and I do think they enjoy hearing the
answers I give to one student, and then that will cause another one to come up with
a new idea.
Both Colette and Frank, at the point in the semester when registration for the next term occurred,
facilitated approximately 15-minute discussions with their class on course selection and
sequences to clarify choice and reduce any confusion. Frank stated, “When enrollment opens for
the next semester, I go over what is the major, what are the requirements, what we are
offering…I'll recommend things.”
Varied in-class approaches. As faculty with no standard method to supporting students
in decision-making, in-class approaches varied. A few faculty incorporated strategies in the
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 41

classroom to increase time and opportunity to talk with students. Michelle utilized a flipped
classroom approach, placing lecture content online and assigning the lecture before attending
class. Roberta intentionally showed up to her classroom twenty minutes early and stayed after,
which she announced to the class and stayed true to this plan every instructional day. Dave
formally structured his class to complete five minutes early, and then he dedicated those five
minutes to address students’ questions about course planning, career choices, and university
transfer. Dave reflected on his own experience as a community college student which influenced
his deliberate use of the classroom technique of staying before and after class to share
information in a place where any student could benefit:
[As a student] I would listen mostly to my professors. I didn't seek [advice] out so
much as I sort of gleaned it. And a lot of times I was too shy, and I would just hear
it. Other people would be talking, and I would just overhear, and things like that.
And I sort of made a conscious decision [once I became a faculty member] to be a
little more pro-active, so that students don't just to have to piecemeal it together.
Michelle mentored a few students who served as teacher assistants in the lab classes she taught.
Roberta taught a one-unit Speaker Series class focused on career lectures and discussion, which
students could either enroll in or attend a select section to earn extra credit in her lecture course.
Clara offered three-percent extra credit to incentivize students to meet with her. Of Clara’s
students, 40% of students participated, and she repeated the offer for every test:
I give them a three percent extra credit, which is not a lot, but I think it makes a
huge impact on their grade because they're like, well, here's this extra credit and I
want to get it…[They have] to come to a study session with me and then when they
do come…that's where I do the talking with them.
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 42

Every semester, Colette assigned a first- or second-class writing assignment with a broad topic
such as, “Why are you here?” She did this intentionally to get to know the students and to tailor
her teaching and follow-on assignments to student interests.
Uniquely, but perhaps not surprising, the English faculty in this study used writing to
address students’ decision-making. Jane stated,
I go through a series of questions with them, but because I've been teaching this
class, it has a more direct focus…I support them insomuch as I'm trying to get them
to focus on their papers. That's the extent. I don't try to infiltrate and change their
minds [about a certain major or career]. It's just sort of in the writing process; very
often, we'll write their way to a more solid major or career plan.
It is important to note the thematic English course taught by Jane directly related to this study’s
research questions. It was unclear if there was deliberate outreach to recruit first-time GCC
students into the class. Two sections of this course, one taught by Jane and one by another un-
interviewed faculty member, supported 48 students, less than one-tenth of a percent of the entire
student body.
Sporadic out-of-class approaches. Faculty pro-actively interacted with students
spontaneously and unsolicited. For example, faculty recognized students in the hallway or other
places on campus and asked the student how they were faring. Most often, faculty optimized an
informal encounter as a beginning point, although faculty often used an academic conversation
about the course and a student’s work as a bridge to a facilitated conversation about the student’s
goals. Faculty stated informal conversations sometimes led to more formal sessions in office
hours and always helped further the rapport and opportunity to further facilitate goal-oriented
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 43

discussions. A list of facilitative prompts used by the faculty participants is documented in
Appendix F.
Sal gathered information informally, not through course content or assignments, but
mostly through hallway interactions where he initiated conversations with the intent to boost
student efficacy.
It's in the hallway...I don't necessarily ask what's going on; I ask how they're
doing…I am alluding to things that happened in lecture or lab, but really what I'm
trying to get from the student is how they're feeling honestly...I like doing that; that
feels good, you know? Because I can check in on them a few days later and say,
‘Hey, we talked in the hallway; did you get to that?’
Dave compared effective support opportunities to mushrooms, “They just pop up. You have to
be there when [students] need you. And you have to have the energy and the time to just be
available to talk to them when it is they want to talk.”
Half of the faculty sample advised student clubs in various ways. Two of the faculty
worked directly with a discipline-oriented club and used informal exchange to share information
about the field, while identifying and supporting attended activities and professional conferences.
Two others were more infrequently involved: they offered advice and web-based information
about upcoming events and activities with which to get involved.
Behaviors modeled for students. Faculty often modeled or described behaviors for
students to independently explore, conduct further research, and connect to a network of others
who could support their decision-making. One of the strongest examples of this was Sal, who
had modified his office space to work with students on internet searches to answer their
questions about major and career. Sal worked side-by-side with students at a computer in his
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 44

office conducting research in real-time. He demonstrated how to research using web browsers,
stating simply, “If I was going to search for it, this is what I would do.” Another example
included Roberta, who modeled for students how to use web links and professionals as resources
to explore. Roberta created a course with guest lecturers on different career fields related to her
discipline and a Google site with extensive links, committing to keeping it accessible based on
feedback from students that they were sharing the information with their network. “I purposely
built this resource because I wanted people to have a place to go to and continue to go to, to learn
from.”
Sal noted in his interview students were not well prepared for meeting with professionals
in the field. When offering to set up an informational interview, he also coached students on
what to ask and provided some examples of the kinds of information students might glean from
talking with others, including other faculty at the college.
Faculty demonstrate proficiency with connecting students to resources. Faculty
connected students to resources through in-class and out-of-class approaches in ways discussed
in the earlier section. The interview data demonstrated faculty facilitated discussion on a range
of topics including major selection, career goal choices, interest clarification, exploration and
discovery, alumni success, university selection, university programs and admission requirements,
post-baccalaureate options, career choices in the discipline, course sequences in the discipline,
and registration options for the following semester.
Support informed by experience. Among the faculty interviewed, none had any systemic
training, they utilized resources and information to which they had been exposed. Moreover,
faculty tapped their own experience as undergraduate students to help them determine
information to share.
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 45

Six of the interviewed faculty were involved with college-wide responsibilities such as
committee work and/or a coordinator role. In addition to college-wide responsibilities, six of the
faculty participants also cited a network of faculty at other community college and universities,
as well as professionals working in the field. In all cases, faculty leveraged their particular
experience to advise students. For example, Frank worked on statewide transfer agreements
between the community colleges and California State University system, and he was particularly
intense on advising students on transfer and post-baccalaureate planning. Colette, after years of
coordination roles, built expertise to share with students about mentoring and tutoring services.
Sal and Roberta shared their extensive professional connections, an area of strength for them in
supporting student decision-making.
Besides sharing particular discipline expertise, faculty also shared information based on
their work experience outside of academia. Roberta shared,
I worked for almost 20 years before I became an instructor. I feel that that
background has helped me a lot to talk about what it’s like to actually use what you
learn in a job…I try to do that as much as possible and when it’s relevant, relate it
to my own experience.
Meanwhile, Dave stated,
I worked in restaurants for a long time…I think that experience, actually, has been
very helpful for me. The fact that I did not go straight from undergraduate to
graduate to job. I took many years off to work in restaurants and do other weird
things. That actually has been very helpful in guiding people, because I had
experience doing some things that they're doing right now.
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 46

Clara spent six years in a business profession before becoming a community college teacher.
She shared “I share my experience in the industry and how math and statistics were helpful for
me and what I did in my career. I guess that's [one way] I help the students.”
Commonly used resources. Faculty referred most often to campus-based resources and
their network of working professionals. All faculty referred students to college Student Services
for support of both academic and non-academic needs, most often mentioning Counseling for
education plans, Disabled Student Program and Services (DSPS) for assessment, and the Book
Loan program and Financial Aid for financial support. Several faculty interviewed remarked the
Student Services Map developed for the main college campus was a helpful tool which they
would keep on hand to show students where offices and services were located. One faculty
posted the Student Services Map on the bulletin board in her classroom for reference.
Colette adopted a model syllabus shared through the college’s Student Equity department
and included pages of resources as a result of work completed by the department. She reported
she referenced the list of resources with her students, and she realized over time it needed
continuous effort to stay up to date and include all the college offered.
Michelle and Dave used the college catalog regularly with students. Six of the eight
faculty participants (all but the two English faculty), shared professional case studies and
discussed aspects about their career field with students. For example, Frank and Roberta
encouraged students to read trade journals, newsletters, and subscribe to webcasts. Many of the
interviewed faculty referred students to other faculty to answer questions about another
discipline. The following quote from Roberta was representative of what the six conveyed: “I
have been teaching the course a long time, have met a lot of people…through my experiences
also…I try to address and describe various related careers.”
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 47

Most of the faculty had little knowledge about the college’s Career Center. Responses
ranged from not referring students at all to casually mentioning the Career Center as an option
with little understanding of how the center and its counseling services might help students. One
major exception was Jane’s English class which incorporated a Career Counselor to lead class
discussions. One faculty stated she shared the college’s occupational resource materials with her
students to further understand fields of work, labor market information, and options they might
want to think about.
Faculty-developed resources. Two examples of faculty-developed, yet discipline-
specific, resources stood out in the research, and both came from faculty in the Sciences. First, a
department website which Michelle evolved over 10 years addressed student inquiry into the
field, including responses to frequently asked questions. The site additionally supported a
[discipline] club, essentially an email list, for which students and others registered to receive
information on internships, jobs, and events. Although led by Michelle initially, the faculty in
this department shared responsibility for maintaining and contributing material to the website
and email announcements. Second, Roberta developed two other course concepts to guide
students with more discipline information, including a one-unit Speaker Series course she
teaches and a soon-to-be developed work experience course. It is important to note these
faculty-developed resources were specific in their nature to address discovery and decision-
making in the discipline and were not resources to broadly reach an undecided student.
Reflect on role and ways to support students. It was clear from the interviews the
faculty had limited engagement in reflective practice. Two of the faculty (Sal and Clara) told the
researcher this study’s interview protocol moved them to reflect in a way they normally did not,
and they stated appreciation for the opportunity. When asked to talk about their reflective
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 48

practices, the interviewees’ responses mostly centered on external feedback; in other words, what
the faculty heard from past students when, on occasion, they did hear. All the faculty in the
sample consistently stated they had no assurances their advising was helpful for students.
Furthermore, all the faculty cited the biggest change they made over time as teachers was to
reach out to students. Yet, while the faculty reflected on becoming more pro-active in engaging
students in discussions about their goal orientation, the number of students with whom they
engaged was a fairly small sample.
No assurances. The interviewed faculty all had experiences with past students
contacting them and drew conclusions from those communications. It was most common for
faculty to act passively when it came to prior students, they waited to be contacted. Faculty
acknowledged these contacts were a small sample and not representative, although they
appreciated the students connecting with them and used those stories as data in working with
current students. Frank remarked, “…it’s anecdotal, it’s qualitative, it’s voluntary…we don’t
have that kind of follow up data…” Michelle captured what most faculty expressed:
Well, I know when [students] come back and tell me, and they do, and that's
really the only way. They come back, or they email me, and they tell me that this
worked, and this didn't work. I don't email them actually; I don't follow up with
them, but they do follow up with me.
Dave was the most pro-active faculty when it came to gathering feedback, as he reached out to
prior students:
If we're talking about advising, I guess, sometimes you have to wait a few years
until I hear from students again, if I'm lucky enough to do that. And you don't get
a good sample. But I try to keep in touch with as many students as I can. I get their
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 49

email addresses, Facebook, and places like that. And I ask them, ‘How are you
doing? How are things going?’ And I've had some good feedback. ‘This was good
advice. I'm glad you told me that.’ Or, ‘That didn't really help at all.’
More intrusive over time. The purposeful sample was an experienced group of eight
faculty, and when asked how they had altered their approach with students over time, they
declared they became more intrusive and skilled at reaching students, taking into consideration
the diversity of students, the varying challenges students face, and student preference for
differing support styles. Almost all the faculty stated at this point in their career, they were more
intrusive with students, asking more directly about students’ plans and goals and offering support
more so than they had earlier in their teaching career. Jane stated,
I also really push the [student] ed plans, because I think that’s important for them
as they plan their future, even if they don’t know the career. I've gotten a lot more...I
don't want to say personal, but I will push a little bit more now when I'm trying to
get [students] to feel motivated, to get to their motivations first, their reasons for
being [in college].
Michelle shared,
I think I've always been pretty good at reaching [students]. I have a better tool set
and skillset for how to communicate with them once I've reached them, once I've
gotten them. Yeah, I think I've gotten better at my communication skills, but also
maybe just my understanding of the way the system works...Frankly the first 10
years, I had all the same desires to support my students and an interest in their
education regardless of whether they were going to be [discipline majors] or not. I
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 50

didn't always have successful interactions because I didn't have...I had to learn
through trial and error.
Colette stated as she gained faculty experience, she also took on additional roles: “I think that my
coordination roles offered me more information about the district on the college level rather than
just on the department level. I think that's offered me a bag of tools that I didn't have before.”
Roberta developed more knowledge to share over time: “I have been able to move further and
further out of my comfort zone in the fields of specialization. I feel like I’ve been able to reach
more students.”
Small and random number of students impacted. When the interviewed faculty
reflected on how and who they supported, it became clear the number of students who benefitted
from facilitated discussions was rather small and random. All the faculty in the sample spoke of
optimizing individual opportunities to provide student support, but few used time in-class to
reach all students. Of course, the topically-relevant English course with the guiding question,
“What is your Life’s Work?” taught by Jane, was an exception. For the most part, because the
supportive interventions shared by faculty were less in-class activities with all students and more
out-of-class, one-on-one occurrences, students were randomly supported. For example, Sal
articulated he was pro-active when he felt a connection with a student:
It's probably pretty selfish with what I'm about to describe, but it tends to be people
that I just become curious about. That when we talk about solving problems or
interact in the lab class environment, I just like their demeanor, and that's very
selfish on my part, because there are really great students who don't really reach out
to me. They don't ask me questions; they're sort of very passive in the lab group,
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 51

and they're really easy for me to...Not ignoring them, I just don't really have a hook.
I don't have a hook to ask them what's going on.
When Sal was asked which students he works with and his approach, he replied, “None of this is
formal to me, it's really...There's certain students that I sort of easily want to champion I guess or
something like that. That's really selfish and slightly embarrassing to admit.”
Faculty also let their beliefs about their ability to help students guide their choices. Dave
and Clara shared they were most comfortable helping students who had a goal in mind. Clara
simply stated, “…the ones that I helped the most are the ones who already have an idea of what
they want to do.” Dave shared, “By the time I usually have a conversation with students, they
seem fairly well along, actually, with what they want to do.”
Furthermore, Dave and Frank—from the interviewed Humanities, English, and Social
Sciences group—discussed they were most responsive to students who initiated with them. For
example, both Frank and Dave remarked when students needed letters of recommendation, that
was often the time they got the opportunity to know and support students in their decision-
making. Another way Dave and Frank cited working more deliberately with students was after
their second or third enrolled class in the discipline. Dave stated,
Usually, if this is the first class they've ever had with me, those conversations will
be started by them, invariably. I typically won't ask a student that I don't know,
‘What are you doing in life and where are you going?’ But for those students
who've had me two, three classes, at that point, I am curious what your major is.
And ‘Are you planning on transferring, et cetera?’ So especially by the second
semester, if I've seen someone, I know their names, and I know them.
Frank shared,
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 52

If you're taking your first class with someone, you're having a nice conversation
maybe. Once you've spent a year, or a year and half with somebody, you know,
there's a greater level of comfort, and in both directions. I'll be maybe a little
more blunt with the student, like, ‘Is that really what you want?’…I do feel that
my job is to help [students] do their exploring more than anything else, to really
just help them find where they want to go.
Motivational Influences
Table 2 lists the assertions made for each of the Motivation Influences. The assertions
described in detail below explain the research discoveries regarding faculty’s belief of the
importance to support student decision-making and their degree of confidence.
Recognize the importance and value. Most of the faculty in the study referred to the
“bigger picture” outside of the classroom and intrinsically were motivated by supporting students
to reach their future. They were driven by their belief systems that their role was to help students
connect with the bigger picture beyond success in one course. In fact, many of the faculty were
not tied to the students’ success in their course. They deeply wanted the student to find their
niche and access services and support to achieve their goal, whether near- or long-term.
Phrasing such as “helping students find their larger purpose” was commonly stated in the
interviews. The two English faculty both remarked on utility value, in that it was valuable to
them to connect with students on goals, because the students became more engaged, and it made
teaching easier.
Focused commitment to support students’ goals. Supporting student decision-making
fulfilled the interviewed faculty’s picture of what teaching was and fit into how the faculty
defined their teaching responsibilities for themselves. The faculty interviewed were, by nature,
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 53

driven to help students to find their purpose although not all students were served with the same
level of support. Michelle shared,
I like to help people; it makes me feel good. At the end of the day I've done
something that's helped somebody achieve the goals they want…I don't know that
I can describe it any other way; it's very satisfying to me.
Dave remarked,
At the end of the day, that's going to be our legacy, I suppose, as teachers. That's
it. To think that there's someone out there whose life I may have helped. If I said
something that got them to do something that they later were happy they did, that's
about it…[My teachers] made a big enough, made a huge impact on me. And I
wanted to do the same.
Three of the eight faculty interviewed identified as first-generation community college students.
Specifically, they came from backgrounds where family had not attended college, so they had to
find their own way through community college as an undergraduate. Nearly all the faculty cited
a strong role model or a very damaging situation while they were in college which continues to
be a driver for their commitment to helping students.
Two faculty discussed succession planning. Clara was motivated by interesting and
recruiting good math teachers. Michelle had experienced hiring former students as faculty in her
department. Colette shared, “I tell my students that I consider myself their teacher even beyond
the semester, so once I'm your teacher, I'm always your teacher, and so please reach out if you
have questions.”
Experienced confidence through small successes. Half of the faculty interviewed cited
previous experience as a source of confidence in helping students and deepening their
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 54

understanding of what students need. The most common examples of experience included being
a first-generation community college student, work experience outside of academia, and working
as a community college student. Additionally, one faculty member, Michelle, spoke of creating
class structure to empower her students to succeed even while dealing with complicated lives.
As mentioned in the previous Knowledge section, many faculty spoke of involvement
with the wider campus network through committees, coordinating a special initiative, learning
from Student Development professionals, and/or professional affiliation as an asset in their
confidence to support students.
Every faculty interviewed had a story of a past student to share. A small portion of past
students contacted faculty to share updates about attending university, moving onto graduate
school, or progressing in a career. Faculty appreciated this self-selected group of students who
initiated contact and integrated those remarks into feedback that their efforts were making an
impact.
Five faculty in the sample stated their expectation was students would rely on many
people for guidance and not consider their advisement as a sole source. The faculty also acted on
that belief by referring students to additional sources, both on- and off-campus. They expected
and encouraged students to continue to ask their questions to a broad array of trusted advisors.
The interviewed faculty were very clear they were not comfortable serving as the student’s sole
source of advisement.
Organizational Influences
Table 2 lists the assertions made for each of the Organizational Influences. The
assertions are described in detail below and explain the research discoveries regarding the
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 55

organization’s clarity on roles and responsibilities, and aligned policies, procedures, and
incentives.
Roles and responsibilities clarify connection of GE faculty to student advisement.
Many of the interviewed faculty pointed out the instructional faculty role to support student
decision-making, leading to higher completion and more effective time-to-degree rates, was not
defined or spelled out. Even for the pro-active faculty already engaged in these activities, it was
clear a few cultural assumptions existed as barriers. First, faculty did not have enough time to do
everything asked of them. Second, at such a large college, it was difficult to know everything
and stay current. Third, faculty performed the role of advisor mostly on their own.
Time is a challenge. As mentioned in the Knowledge Influences section, time
constraints were a challenge for the GE faculty who are primarily recognized for instructing
students and focusing on course objectives and student learning outcomes. Clara commented on
timing in the semester, sharing her career background with students, and when students approach
her, talking with them individually because class time is already a challenge to fit in all the
required content:
As the semester progress, I share with them and say, well, you know, this is what I
used to do [in my career before teaching] if you're interested. To be honest, it's just
more one-on-one and if the students are willing to share with me. I definitely don't
have the time to spend class time to talk about their career.
Colette remarked about time restraints and the role of faculty:
I think that while it's probably unrealistic to have a 30-minute conversation about
career planning or academic planning with every single student we have, especially
if you're teaching four classes or five classes, I think we can do little things that
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 56

help reveal where the gaps are for students and where we can further support
them…I don't think that all faculty consider this a part of their job. But I think it's
really important.
Frank addressed one limiting factor to supporting students:
Pretty much, all the full-time faculty I know spend extra time in office hours
talking with students, but, in the end, that's the window of time we have. We're
instructional, first and foremost. I enjoy talking with students; I enjoy talking
with them about tons of issues and forward planning that we've been talking about
here, but, in the end, I know that that's second to my primary function of
instruction, instead of my primary purpose.
After this comment, Frank continued to underscore the importance of recognizing the faculty-
student engagement that happened during office hours.
Difficult to know everything and stay current. Not only was there not enough time, the
faculty also expressed it was a large college, and keeping up with new initiatives, software
applications, and deadlines was demanding and unrealistic. Colette remarked,
My job as the faculty is to not necessarily to memorize every… program lead, but
to know that when a student needs help, or is struggling, or when a student is
great, is fine, there are programs that could continue that success for them, that we
look it up or we learn about it, or we find a way to maneuver through what, for us,
is an enormous institution.
Jane commented,
I didn't even know about the career center until I had that presentation. I had no
idea that there was so much information out there for students, so just having that
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 57

knowledge and the resource itself, and that came pretty late into the time that I've
been here. I was kind of surprised.
A few faculty expressed the college should be more pro-active in communicating deadlines and
sending out more announcements to faculty and students. Some examples were given such as
library activities, career center events, and financial aid deadlines. The faculty were unaware
which announcements reached students.
Individual self-developed style. All eight interviewed faculty indicated they had received
no formal training or systemic learning. They depended on and used resources and information
to which they had been exposed. Only a few faculty discussed their approaches with peers or in
department meetings. The researcher observed these faculty primarily worked on their own
initiative, developing methods for information gathering and then composing a style to tie the
information into reaching out and supporting students. If faculty did consult with peers, it was
small scale with one other faculty member in the office next door. Examples of small-scale peer
support included Clara accessing a senior faculty member in the neighboring office to help her
learn to navigate resources. Additionally, Sal’s faculty office mate occasionally joined a student
advising session. Roberta shared, “I have a few individual faculty that I'll talk with and share
with, but I don't feel like anybody in my department really has that objective in mind.”
One exception was Michelle’s department, which over time cultivated a delivery system
of student support strategies and conveyed a set of expectations when hiring and orienting new
faculty.
No faculty member discussed working with peer faculty in another discipline unless it
was Student Development. Three of the eight faculty worked directly with academic and career
counselors. Frank noted an assigned academic counselor liaison to the department was an asset
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 58

to how the faculty supported students, increasing ability to use a name and specific office
location when making referrals. Jane accessed a career counselor as a guest speaker who led
class discussions. Roberta got to know an academic counselor who was taking courses in the
discipline, and the two of them worked out a working relationship independent of department
practice.
The eight faculty were mostly solo practitioners trying and refining strategies on their
own, despite a lack of systems and connection to the resources they saw students most needing.
The sample of faculty saw themselves in a role of supporting student success beyond the current
course—and even beyond attending GCC.
Aligned policies, procedures, and incentives. Faculty stated the need for the college to
address explicit expectations to link instructional faculty to supporting students’ educational goal
determination, more organizational systems in place to know if what they are doing makes a
difference, and more reinforcement that this type of work is what the college values.
Lack of explicit expectations to link GE faculty to student completion outcomes. While
all the interviewed faculty acknowledged supporting students’ decisions on major and career
goal was important and they were pro-active individually, they also recognized they didn’t know
where the college expressly documented that faculty had a role in supporting students’ future
success. Sal remarked, “I believe that teachers expect it of each other. I know administration
expects it of us, but I just can't point to a formal place where it's written down.” Furthermore,
faculty responded they felt all the emphasis on faculty-student engagement was focused on the
immediate learning goals and retaining the student for the near term, without expressly linking
the students’ declaration of goal to that objective.
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 59

The interview comments suggested room for improvement in organized and more-
effective professional development to address the role of faculty in students’ longer term
completion outcomes and resources to support student decision-making in their first year. Dave
and Colette mentioned the benefit of having time to exchange and transfer ideas across
departments. Dave suggested, “One thing would be to have faculty visit other faculty, and
present other faculty to other classes and sort of mingle.” Colette emphasized how she would
value more professional development on a regular basis, especially for college-wide instructional
discussions:
I think flex dates are really valuable for faculty and staff to learn about other
departments…facilitated professional development by inviting representatives
from all the support programs, or many of them, to come and speak. I would love
more of that. Again, this is all predicated on having more time...if everyone on
campus had the time to meet with each other and share what they're doing.
Colette’s thinking expanded into relationships with counseling faculty, “I think having a better
connection with counseling, having designated counselors…somebody that we can contact, and
conversely, who contacts us and shares information.”
Absent systems to monitor goals and inform efforts. As discussed in the Knowledge
Findings section, faculty had no access to students’ longitudinal data to know if what they were
doing made a difference. Additionally, there was no feedback system for faculty to know if
students gained more certainty about their major or career goal even into the next semester
unless the student was enrolled in another class with the faculty member. Faculty stated they
would like to hear when their colleagues saw the students the referred, but there was no feedback
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 60

loop for that kind of information to work its way back. The current environment lacks full-circle
communication and tracing of support provided to students.
There was very little mention of technology as a tool for connecting communications
about student progress, or even meeting the need expressed by several faculty that they would
like to know if and when a student is referred to a service like Counseling or DSPS, or after a
student leaves the college to know how the student is faring. Faculty expressed the desire to
know if the referrals they made happened and if the students were actually helped. The
researcher was told occasionally faculty get some sort of confirmation their referral worked but
not very often.
Few extrinsic incentives for faculty to engage students in decision-making discussions.
The data gathered from the study was clear; faculty felt rewarded supporting students’ goal
setting and planning. It was clear the sample faculty kept supporting student decision-making on
major and career, because they were intrinsically motivated and felt a calling as a teacher to
assist students with this bigger picture. Other than a policy for faculty to hold office hours, there
are very few other college policies or procedures that support faculty in a role outside of
classroom instruction. Not surprisingly, in a review of the faculty contract, the faculty
evaluation form that students fill out does not address how helpful or supportive a faculty was
toward the student reaching their educational or career goal.
In several interviews, the idea of implementing a faculty advising model was mentioned.
Frank offered the idea to make faculty advising a role for some faculty across all departments
and to differentiate from the counseling faculty role. He suggested making it “a formal part of
the job, by recognizing through load [assignments]. The department would need to tailor to the
needs; it does not need to be everyone, maybe .1 FTE which would equate to three and one-half
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 61

hours per week.” Dave suggested, “If we're going to make them declare majors, we might as
well give them the benefit of what comes with that. I mean, you do that when you transfer. Why
don't we have it at our level, too?”
Furthermore, faculty suggested incentives such as the college stating and actively
supporting the goal as important and as valued as discipline instruction, additional paid office
hours with defined expectations linked to helping students clarify their major and career, and
freeing up faculty time spent on non-instructional organizational tasks which are time consuming
and not a regular function for teachers.
Summary of Findings
The robust data gathered from the eight GE faculty touched on the integrative nature
between knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. The findings showed that the
sample of GE faculty are motivated to support student decision-making, they shared the
knowledge particular to their experience, and they persisted even without recognition for the role
or aligned college policies and support. The interviewed faculty articulated ideas for how, with
some organizational modifications, their efforts could be scaled to reach more students with
increased effectiveness. Time was most often stated as the primary barrier to providing more
support to students. In addition, the research revealed that the GE faculty sample did not
regularly facilitate decision-making during class time or with resource materials. The college
could do more to recognize the importance of GE faculty to student decision-making and align
systemic support to scale the efforts of GE faculty. Yet, without addressing GE faculty’s
availability of time, no proposed solution will be adequate.

GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 62

Solutions and Recommendations
Declaring and entering a major is an important milestone on the path to college
completion, although there are no systemic efforts at GCC to explicitly achieve this milestone. It
follows if the goal of declaring is important to a student’s ability to complete, and no
comprehensive strategy exists to help students make this decision, the college has a gap in
helping students reach completion.
It was clear from the findings GE faculty were interested and motivated to support
student’s bigger picture in their instructional roles. The college may have overlooked this
opportunity and, going forward, it can build and expand on the good work of GE faculty,
integrating them more systemically into the network of student support to help get students on a
clear path to their academic pursuits.
The following recommendations for college leadership may serve as solutions depending
on organizational leadership commitment, available resources, and ability to prioritize this work.
Three primary recommendations emerged from the study findings and are supported by the
literature review. Each recommendation contains subsections as a way to more specifically
attend to key approaches and to address the complexity of effort and resources required across
academic affairs, student services, information technology, and human resources.
First Recommendation: Systemic Alignment of Resources
The first recommendation calls for the college to develop a systemic approach that
includes instructional faculty in addition to counseling faculty to help students reach completion.
The college has an opportunity to integrate GE faculty into a comprehensive strategy to help
students decide their educational goal with more certainty, especially first-year students. The
findings showed GE faculty already are supporting students, but in a sporadic manner and
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 63

without aligned resources behind their effort. These efforts could be leveraged, and with some
organizational changes and support, the GE faculty could expand existing practice to support
more students and in an improved manner. Eliminating sporadic methods and aligning human
and capital resources could impact a greater number of students and address equitable delivery of
information. This emphasis on systemic alignment of resources is similar to Hasty’s 2012 study
recommending the college establish specific standards and procedures, provide instructional load
to allow time to advise students, and offer training and opportunity to refine skills on a regular
basis.
Top-level college leadership needs to (1) amplify the important role of GE faculty to
equitably support first-year students’ goal declaration; and (2) align human and capital resources,
ensuring policies and incentives are in place. Through an organizational alignment of human
and capital resources, the college can communicate the value of this strategy on college
completion rates to influence the organizational culture, emphasize the shared responsibility of
all faculty to support student completion, and document accountability, organizational support,
measurable progress toward the goal, as well provide aligned incentives and periodic celebration.
The interviewed faculty were engaged in supporting students in decision-making, but it
happened on a small scale. In order to achieve a greater impact, the whole organization as a
whole needs to align instructional faculty roles and expectations with the college’s high-level
goal of completion. The college could align existing faculty development opportunities for GE
faculty and counseling faculty to discuss student goal orientation. Even more specifically, the
college needs to provide foundational information along with resource tools to equip GE faculty
with time-efficient approaches to support students.
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 64

As discussed in the literature review, declaring a major and entering a program in the first
year sets students up for successful persistence and completion of their goal. Although GCC
does not collect data on the undecidedness of students, it is nationally estimated as many as 20-
60% of incoming college freshman are undecided (Gordon & Steele, 2015). For the college,
implementing a systemic strategy addressing this currently uncultivated approach could
positively impact college persistence and completion rates.
Leadership needs to address college-wide conversations about the importance of this
work from the Board of Trustees and Chancellor on down, and include student voice. The
interviewed faculty expressed the GE faculty instructional role would need to be differently
defined so GE faculty would understand expectations and responsibilities related to the
organizational goal. For example, the Trustees and Chancellor could state the following, both
verbally and in writing: “Supporting students in their goal setting is an important part of the GE
faculty role and as valued as discipline instruction. We will be moving forward to align support
for GE faculty to fulfill this responsibility. We look forward to working with the constituency
groups to discuss this current underdeveloped area and outline a plan of action.”
In order to successfully implement such a direction, the college will need to commit to a
different way of looking at faculty load and office hours, ensure these changes are valued and
supported by the department chairs, and define expectations to help students clarify their major
and career. Furthermore, the college should emphasize accountability of GE faculty to facilitate
decision-making discussions in the classroom to ensure all students have access to resources and
opportunity to talk through their goals.
Leverage Existing Efforts. While decision-making support is available to students, it is
not systemically built into the GCC student experience. The college currently has services and
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 65

connection points with students in place which could serve as opportunities to more effectively
impact undecided students. One such opportunity is the required College Orientation, which all
first-time students take part in either online or in person. The college could modify this
experience to give undecided students a chance to identify themselves. Once students identify as
uncertain in their major, the college could enroll them in a first-semester schedule to provide
structured major and career exploration. For example, the college could package a combination
of the Career Exploration course linked with at least one GE course, to enhance counseling and
instructional faculty support for students. Furthermore, the college could build in pro-active
advisement across all students’ first semester, while ensuring GE faculty are versed on how to
facilitate decision-making discussions and refer students to appropriate resources. Multiple peer-
reviewed studies cited in this study showed effective college practice includes the following:
structured major and career exploration upon college entry, curriculum on decision-making
processes, and pro-active advisement. Moreover, the literature discussed students’ desire for
more intrusive methods to succeed. Intrusive is used in this context as a pro-active intentional
outreach effort to support students in their endeavors. Incorporating structured advisement into
GE courses, increasing capacity for faculty to connect in more ways to students, and integrating
more multi-disciplinary student support is already a successful practice in many proven cohort
programs. Connecting all students to a network of advisors would impact more students through
a systemic approach.
Counseling faculty, by nature of their role, support student decision-making and are an
existing asset. The college should ensure both academic and career counselors are supported in
designated liaison work with instructional faculty through a school, department, or program
model to increase connections across the college. Furthermore, the findings in this study
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 66

demonstrate a deep desire by the GE faculty for student support to be communicated full circle.
The college should set the expectation that when GE and counseling faculty hear needs from
students and make suggestions to promote student success and persistence, this information is
shared in collaborative ways across instruction and student services in order to best serve the
student.
Align Technology to Systemic Efforts. To ensure communication about students’ needs
and progress are full circle, the college should employ technology to enable progressive reports
on referrals and follow-through to resources/offices/services. Furthermore, technology would
serve as a time-saving element if the college built the students’ declared majors into the data
system and linked to educational planning software, enabling the students’ most recent updates
to be reflected in the system. Ideally, this system would link to class rosters, so that GE faculty
could reference their students’ declared majors. Even if the declared major on the roster is
outdated information, it would provide an opportunity for GE faculty to comment and encourage
students to update their educational plans. Increasing the organization’s capacity to identify
groups of students by educational goal would increase the quality of persistence and completion
data and benefit college research.
In the interviews conducted, some of the GE faculty insisted students were not getting
enough information. It is important to note the literature stated general broadcasted messages are
not as effective with students as customized information at the specific time the student can
benefit. Therefore, this study recommends technology-enhanced systems which anticipate
students’ needs to see an academic or career counselor and trigger tailored messaging about
upcoming workshops, open office hours, or scheduling a counseling appointment.
Second Recommendation: GE Faculty Development and Applied Learning Support
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 67

This recommendation is primarily focused on faculty development to engage and equip
GE faculty in a more systemic way. A systemic approach to standardize knowledge and provide
faculty with resources to support all the students in their classes is a promising approach to reach
the desired outcome. The college’s commitment to scaffold training and support tailored to GE
faculty to learn and practice facilitation skills is key to the implementation of integrating GE
faculty into the network of support for students.
Tinto (2006) discussed how discipline faculty with their regular student contact are key to
helping the college increase student retention. The college needs to provide GE faculty
conceptual and procedural knowledge to provide decision-making support to students in and out
of the classroom. The interviewed GE faculty consistently stated they did what they could, and it
was clear they did not feel equipped to do more, neither in availability of time nor with their
current knowledge.
Develop and commit to professional development. The findings showed in-class
facilitation of discussions and resource referral was an underdeveloped area and critical to
supporting all students. Without embedding decision-making support in the classroom, some
students were overlooked.
The college should formalize training with lead facilitators through faculty development
sessions, incentivizing 100% attendance and ensuring the instruction is useful and relevant to the
new GE faculty role as defined by the college. Several workshops would be necessary to
provide foundational knowledge and practice on what and how to support students in their
decision-making. With an emphasis on increased faculty confidence and commitment, the
faculty development program could provide strategies to GE faculty on how to serve as a
resource to students without having to know everything. It would not be realistic to expect
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 68

faculty to be the primary support for students; rather the program should teach GE faculty how to
facilitate in-class discussions, use developed resource sheets to save time, and make referrals.
Support Peer Coaching and Skills Development. Adding coaching to a professional
development strategy will strengthen the desired GE faculty behaviors. Coaching can serve as a
supplemental instructional component to augment the workshops while monitoring, reinforcing,
and rewarding new skills in the classroom. Additionally, peer coaching and skills practice will
provide the opportunity for GE faculty to reflect on their practices. A more detailed
implementation and evaluation plan can be found in Appendix G.
Third Recommendation: Shared Network Connections
The study findings revealed the interviewed GE faculty were fairly isolated in their
approach with students, and there was no organized network they tapped into to serve undecided
students. This recommendation emphasizes shared network connections to focus the college on
formalizing systems and approaches so students’ support systems are expanded and GE faculty
increase their resource knowledge. The college needs to support the formal and informal
exchange environment more intentionally and enhance opportunities to adopt transferable ideas
between departments. The college should be cautious to avoid creating a siloed approach. An
intentionally created network is preferred for GE faculty to work across departments and with
student development professionals to exchange information on supporting student decision-
making. The added value of a shared network includes each GE faculty becoming a contact in a
support network the college builds for the student.
Support the Formal and Informal Exchange Environment. The gathered data
provided robust information about how GE faculty felt the need for more exchange
opportunities. Many faculty interviewed expressed a desire for more opportunity to build
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 69

community with each other, especially across departments and a way to facilitate inter-
department exchange and office visits. Student service visits to classrooms and ways to increase
relationships and knowledge of various services and referrals were often mentioned by the
interviewed faculty. This expressed desire included formal and informal peer exchange, student
interaction, and a college-level interchange of ideas to increase their effectiveness with students.
By structuring occasional informal interaction to get to know each other, the college could
overcome the cultural mindset that it only values busy-ness.
Additionally, the interviewed English faculty expressed benefit and increased knowledge
from a previous initiative which resourced someone in their department to coordinate student
services classroom visits. Implementing this effort and placing the responsibility in Student
Development could increase learning for both GE faculty and students about resources in
addition to fostering the relationships between discipline faculty, counseling faculty, and other
student service professionals.
The college should consider establishing a Center for Teaching and Learning to
encourage more exchange, foster innovation, and disseminate evidence-based andragogical
methods. Across the GE faculty interviews completed for this study, the following ideas were
expressed: increase time and opportunity to provide exchange opportunities for faculty because
what works for one group might work for others, and create bigger conversations about
supporting students.
Focus on Shared Tools. The Center for Teaching and Learning could also serve as a
centralized location for development of useful resource tools and dissemination. Shared tools
and resources for GE faculty could emerge over time as college learning takes place and a
repository of helpful materials is created. One idea to come out of the findings was a shared
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 70

resource list which could be added to each faculty’s syllabus. The informal and formal networks
as well as professional development discussed could inform this effort.
The college should create and distribute a Career Services Infographic similar in idea to
the Student Services Map to orient students and faculty to existing services and how to connect
with each. Additionally, college leadership should use technology to enhance navigating
referrals, in a way that supports student advising in real time. For example, the GE faculty
member could enter key words “resume preparation” or “careers for Liberal Studies majors” or
“program exploration“ into a search window to locate details on a particular event or service.
In the study, the two English faculty had a more unique approach to helping students,
stemming from their department and concerted efforts over the years. Their approaches were
less discipline-focused and more facilitative of broad discovery. Other departments could learn
and adopt methods of using writing in the curriculum similar to the English faculty approach,
adding contextualized writing to their teaching techniques.
Deans and Department Chairs could deepen emphasis on the Personal and Career
Development Institutional Learning Outcome (ILO) at the GE course level. General education
faculty could emphasize more instruction that increases students’ ability to cultivate resources
for educational and career growth while applying technology to further develop students’
intellectual and career growth.
Study Limitations
Several limitations existed with this study. First, the number of faculty participants (n=8)
allowed for in-depth qualitative interviews, but as such the sample was small which limited
generalizability. Second, the sample selection emphasized years of experience over
representative demographics, which produced a sample that was more white and female than the
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 71

college faculty demographics as a whole which could have influenced the data. Third, this study
was conducted at one California community college, and if conducted at another college or
university, it would likely yield different results; therefore, this study is not generalizable to other
organizations. Fourth, the timeline of data collection spanned only a portion of the college term,
and had data collection continued, more opportunity to observe interactions at different points in
the faculty-student relationship might have yielded further insight. Fifth, the qualitative
interview protocol did not address the role of library services, which, in retrospect, could have
helped document the degree to which GE faculty were interacting with this essential campus
service, library faculty, and research tools.
Recommendations for Future Research
Future topics for research include identifying undecided California community college
students and their needs. Undecided students are a hidden population at the point of California
Community College application because of the enforcement of the California Student Success
and Support Program (SSSP, formerly Matriculation), which disincentivizes the college from
offering an undecided or undeclared major option. A study to explore how students decide on
their goals, the most frequent methods used, and sources that students cite as most useful would
be interesting to conduct. As this study did not evaluate the role of library services in major or
career decision-making, a future study could include the impact and effectiveness of library
services. Additionally, the in-class observations conducted as part of this study did not reveal
much information, yet it revealed new questions that were not part of the scope of this study. For
example, how do faculty structure their office hours and with what outcomes? What is the
students’ point of view on office hours? What responsibilities are best served through office
hours? Is the productivity and outcomes of office hours consistent through the college term?
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 72

Are there ways faculty modify their office hours to benefit students? What are the innovations?
Furthermore, implementing the plan laid out in Appendix G is an opportunity for future research
to measure effectiveness and if outcomes occur as a result of implementing the plan.
Conclusion
Increasing strategic support for undecided students is directly related to increasing
college completion in a timely manner. Moreover, students who are first-generation and from
historically underserved communities may disproportionately experience uncertainty in their
major and career. GE faculty in their instructional role with regular student contact are an
avenue to pro-actively support students in declaring a major with more decisiveness.
This study set out to answer to what degree GE faculty at one community college
provided support to students in their decision-making on major and career. Evaluating GE
faculty practices at one public California community college was selected because of the
likelihood undecided students are concentrated in GE courses during their first year of college.
The qualitative study provided robust data on how eight GE faculty supported student
decision-making, what they knew, and why they were motivated to do so. The GE faculty
sample was an experienced and involved group with significant caring for their students’ futures.
Through active choice, these eight positive deviant faculty engaged a small number of students,
even without the college explicitly naming support for student decision-making as a goal for
instructional faculty.
Utilizing GE courses is a promising strategy for GCC to focus students on goal
orientation in their first year. With organizational changes, the college could build a network for
each student to include GE faculty as part of the guidance and support model. The approaches
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 73

outlined are complex and require high level leadership focus on aligned policies, resources, and
incentives to ensure that GE faculty can deliver on a significantly promising strategy.
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 74

References

Allen, J. M., & Smith, C. L. (2008). Importance of, responsibility for, and satisfaction with
academic advising: A faculty perspective. Journal of College Student Development,
49(5), 397-411. Doi:10:1353/csd.0.0033
Badway, N., & Grubb, W. N. (1997). A sourcebook for reshaping the community college:
Curriculum integration and the multiple domains of career preparation (Vols. 1–
2). Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research in Vocational Education. Retrieved from:
http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/publications/sourcebook-community-college-curriculum.html
Bailey, T. R., Jaggars, S., & Jenkins, P. D. (2015a). Implementing guided pathways at Miami
Dade College: A case study.
Bailey, T. R., Jaggars, S., & Jenkins, P. D. (2015b). What we know about guided pathways.
Baker, L., (2006). Metacognition. Retrieved from:
http://www.education.com/reference/article/metacogniton/.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78.
Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt
(Eds.), Great minds in management (pp. 9–35). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Beach, J. M. (2012). Gateway to opportunity?: A history of the community college in the United
States. Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Bertrand, M., Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2006). Behavioral economics and marketing in aid
of decision making among the poor. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 25(1), 8-23.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Chapter 3: Fieldwork. In Qualitative research for
education: An introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 75

Bacon.
Buckingham M. & Coffman, C. (1999). First break all the rules. New York: Simon and
Schuster.
Burke, J. C. (2004). Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic,
and market demands. In J. C. Burke (Ed.), The many faces of accountability (pp. 1–24).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
California Community Colleges Student Success Scorecard, 2017. Retrieved from
http://scorecard.cccco.edu/scorecard.aspx.
Carnevale, A. P., & Desrochers, D. M. (2003). Preparing student for the knowledge economy:
What school counselors need to know. Professional School Counseling, 6(4), 228-236.
Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy2.
usc.edu/docview/213442313?accountid=14749
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Conner, T. W., & Rabovsky, T. M. (2011). Accountability, affordability, access: A review of the
recent trends in higher education policy research. Policy Studies Journal, 39(s1), 93–112.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Chapter 4: Strategies for qualitative data analysis. Techniques
and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.
Cox, R. (2009). The college fear factor: How students and professors misunderstand one
another. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 76

de Nies, Y. (2010, August 9). President Obama outlines goal to improve college graduation rate
in U.S. ABC News. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/WN/president-barack-obama-
outlines-college-education-goal-university/story?id=11359759
Deil-Amen, R. (2011). Socio-academic integrative moments: Rethinking academic and social
integration among two-year college students in career-related programs. The Journal of
Higher Education, 82(1), 54-91.
Deil-Amen, R., & Rosenbaum, J. E. (2003). The social prerequisites of success: Can college
structure reduce the need for social know-how? Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, 586(1), 120-143.
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2006). Social cognitive theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/.
Eagan, K., Stolzenberg, E. B., Ramirez, J. J., Aragon, M. C., Suchard, M. R., & Hurtado, S.
(2014). The American freshman: National norms fall 2014. Los Angeles: Higher Education
Research Institute, UCLA
Eccles, J., (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from:
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/.
Fry, R. (2017). U.S. still has a ways to go in meeting Obama’s goal of producing more college
grads. Fact Tank. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2017/01/18/u-s-still-has-a-ways-to-go-in-meeting-obamas-goal-of-producing-more-
college-grads/
Gaffner, D. C., & Hazler, R. J. (2002). Factors related to indecisiveness and career indecision in
undecided college students. Journal of College Student Development, 43(3), 317.
Retrieved from
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 77

http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/19
5174185?accountid=14749
Glesne, C. (2011). Chapter 6: But is it ethical? Considering what is “right.” In Becoming
qualitative researchers: An introduction (4
th
ed.) (pp.162-183). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Gordon, V. N., & Steele, G. E. (2015). The undecided college student: An academic and career
advising challenge. Charles C Thomas Publisher.
Graunke, S. S., & Woosley, S. A. (2005). An exploration of the factors that affect the academic
success of college sophomores. College Student Journal, 39(2), 367-376.
Hamel, G. (2008). The future of management. Human Resource Management International
Digest, 16(6) doi:10.1108/hrmid.2008.04416fae.001
Hancock, D. R. (1996). Enhancing faculty motivation to advise students: An application of
expectancy theory. Retrieved from:
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/6
2588885?accountid=14749
Hasty, B. (2012). Faculty Experiences with Academic Advising at 15 Community Colleges in
Eastern North Carolina. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
Ishitani, T. T. (2006). Studying attrition and degree completion behavior among first-generation
college students in the United States. Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 861-885.
Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/62008881?accountid=14749
Jenkins, D. (2007). Institutional Effectiveness and Student Success: A Study of High- and Low-
Impact Community Colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice,
31(12), 945-962. doi: 10.1080/03601270701632057.
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 78

Jenkins, D. (2011a). Redesigning Community Colleges for Completion: Lessons from Research
on High-Performance Organizations. CCRC Working Paper No. 24. Assessment of
Evidence Series. Community College Research Center, Columbia University.
Jenkins, D. (2011b). Get with the program: Accelerating community college students’ entry into
and completion of programs of study. (CCRC Working Paper No. 32). New York, NY:
CCRC.
Jenkins, P. D. (2011c). Redesigning community colleges for completion: Lessons from research
on high-performance organizations.
Jenkins, D., & Cho, S. (2013). Get with the program… and finish it: Building guided pathways
to accelerate student completion. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2013(164),
27-35.
Jenkins, D., & Cho, S. W. (2012). Get with the program: Accelerating community college
students’ entry into and completion of programs of study. (CCRC Working Paper No.
32). New York, NY: CCRC.
Jenkins, D., Zeidenberg, M., & Kienzl, G. (2009). Educational Outcomes of I-BEST,
Washington State Community and Technical College System's Integrated Basic
Education and Skills Training Program: Findings from a Multivariate Analysis. CCRC
Working Paper No. 16. Community College Research Center, Columbia University.
Johnson, H., & Sengupta, R. (2009). Closing the gap: Meeting California's need for college
graduates. Public Policy Institute of California.
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Kelley, B. (2008). Significant learning, significant advising. NACADA Journal, 28(1), 19-28.
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 79

Kezar, A. (2001). Theories and models of organizational change. Understanding and facilitating
organizational change in the 21st century: Recent research and
conceptualizations. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 28(4), 25–58.
Kirkpatrick, J., & Kirkpatrick W., K. (2016). Four levels of training evaluation. Alexandria, VA:
ATD Press.
Kirschner, P., Kirschner, F., & Paas, F. (2006). Cognitive load theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/cognitive-load-theory/.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41(4), 212–218.
Ladner, O. (2008). What is the Relationship Between Self-efficacy of Community College
Mathematics Faculty and Effective Instructional Practice?. ProQuest.
Leavy, B. (2011). Leading adaptive change by harnessing the power of positive deviance.
Strategy & Leadership, 39(2), 18-27. doi:10.1108/10878571111114437
Lester, J. (2014). The completion agenda: The unintended consequences for equity in community
colleges. Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 423-466) Springer.
Lewallen, W. C. (1992). Persistence of the “undecided”: The characteristics and college
persistence of students undecided about academic major or career choice. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 53, 12A, 4226. (University Microfilms No. 93-10950)
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). How learning works. In Applying the science of learning (pp. 13–37, 44–
49). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 80

McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mertens, W., Recker, J., Kohlborn, T., & Kummer, T. (2016). A framework for the study of
positive deviance in organizations. Deviant Behavior, 37(11), 1288-1307.
Doi:10.1080/01639625.2016.1174519
Moore, C., & Shulock, N. (2011). Sense of Direction: The Importance of Helping Community
College Students Select and Enter a Program of Study. Institute for Higher Education
Leadership & Policy.
Nodine, T., Jaeger, L., Venezia, A., & Bracco, K. R. (2012). Connection by Design: Students'
Perceptions of Their Community College Experiences. WestEd (NJ3).
Obama, B. (2009). Address to joint session of Congress, February 24, 2009. Washington, DC:
Author.
Ogletree, S. M. (1999). Improving career advising: Responding to alumni surveys. Journal of
Instructional Psychology, 26(1), 42. Retrieved from:
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1
416362100?accountid=14749
Orndorff, R. M., & Herr, E. L. (1996). A comparative study of declared and undeclared college
students on career uncertainty and involvement in career development activities. Journal
of Counseling & Development, 74(6), 632-639. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.1996.tb02303.x
Osborn, D. S., & Baggerly, J. N. (2004). School counselors' perceptions of career counseling and
career testing: Preferences, priorities, and predictors. Journal of Career
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 81

Development, 31(1), 45-59. Retrieved from:
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/2
20430122?accountid=14749
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from:
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/
Park, V., Cerven, C., Nations, J., & Nielsen, K. (2013). What matters for community college
success? Assumptions and Realities Concerning Student Supports for Low-Income
Women.
Pascale, R. T. & Sternin, J. (2005). “Your Company’s Secret Change Agents.” Harvard Business
Review 85(3):72–81.
Pascale, R. T., Sternin, J. & Sternin, M. (2010). The Power of Positive Deviance: How Unlikely
Innovators Solve the World’s Toughest Problems. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Interviewing. Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3
rd

ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
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), 667–686.
Rosenbaum, J. E., Stephan, J. L., & Rosenbaum, J. E. (2010). Beyond one-size-fits-all college
dreams: Alternative pathways to desirable careers. American Educator, 34(3), 2.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Chapter 6: Conversational partnerships. In Qualitative
interviewing: The art of hearing data (3
rd
ed.) (pp. 85-92). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 82

Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 Dimensions of Improving Student Performance: Finding the Right
Solutions to the Right Problems. Teachers College Press. 1234 Amsterdam Avenue, New
York, NY 10027.
Rueda, R. (2016). How Do Attributions Influence Motivation? How Can We Influence and
Assess Attributions? Retrieved from: https://2sc.rossieronline.usc.edu/mod/page/
view.php?id= 101625
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (Vol. 2). John Wiley & Sons.
Schneider, B., Brief, A., & Guzzo, R. (1996). Creating a climate and culture for sustainable
organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, Spring, 7–19.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved from:
http://www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/.
Schuetz, P., Rosenbaum, J., Foran, A., & Cepa, K. (2016). Degree ladder maps: Helping students
make earlier, more informed decisions about educational goals. Community College
Journal of Research and Practice, 40(3), 228. doi:10.1080/10668926.2015.1112323
Scott-Clayton, J. E. (2011). The shapeless river: Does a lack of structure inhibit students'
progress at community colleges?
Scrivener, S., Weiss, M. J., Ratledge, A., Rudd, T., Sommo, C., & Fresques, H. (2015). Doubling
graduation rates: Three-year effects of CUNY's accelerated study in associate programs
(ASAP) for developmental education students.
Scrivener, S., Weiss, M. J., Sommo, C., & Fresques, H. (2012). What Can a Multifaceted
Program Do for Community College Students: Early Results from an Evaluation of
Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP) for Developmental Education
Students. Available at SSRN 2089460.
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 83

Senge, P. (1990a). The leader’s new work: Building learning organizations. Sloan Management
Review, 32(1), 7–23.
Senge, P. M. (1990b). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization (1
st

ed.). New York: Doubleday.
Shugart, S. C. (2013). Rethinking the completion agenda. Inside Higher Ed, 7.
Smith, B. (2004). Leave no college student behind. Multicultural Education, 11(3), 48-49.
Stephan, J. L., Rosenbaum, J. E., & Person, A. E. (2009). Stratification in college entry and
completion. Social Science Research, 38(3), 572-593.
Stipanovic, N., & Stringfield, S. (2013). A qualitative inquiry of career exploration in highly
implemented career and technical education programs of study. International Journal of
Educational Reform, 22(4), 334-354.
Tinto, V. (1997). Colleges as communities: Exploring the educational character of student
persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 68, 599-623.
Tinto, V. (2006). Research and practice of student retention: What next? Journal of College
Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 8(1), 1-19.
Tinto, V., Russo, P., & Kadel, S. (1994). Constructing educational communities: Increasing
retention in challenging circumstances. Community College Journal, 64, 26-30.
Titley, R. & Titley, B. (1980). Initial choice of college major: Are only the “undecided”
undecided? Journal of College Student Personnel, 21, 293-298.
U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2010. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/data.html.
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced Leadership: What 30 Years of
Research Tells Us about the Effect of Leadership on Student Achievement. A Working
Paper.

GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 84

Appendix A: Participating Stakeholders with Sampling Criteria for Interview and Observation
Stakeholder Recruitment Strategy and Rationale
The initial recruitment phase for this study occurred at the beginning of the data
collection process during the Fall 2017 semester. Two recruitment strategies were implemented
to find faculty who meet the criteria through (1) a disseminated quantitative survey described
below; and (2) a snowball sampling strategy (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
During the first months of the fall semester, the researcher reached out to department
chairs, counselors, and students to ask directly for recommendations of faculty they knew who
used formal or informal methods to advise students. In this snowball sampling approach, the
researcher used a conversational approach to derive a list of faculty known to pro-actively
support students (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Toward the end of the fall semester, an email communication was sent to 100% of the
Department Chairs overseeing general education disciplines asking them to disseminate the
survey to their faculty in the department. Additionally, the researcher sent the faculty who
emerged through the snowball sampling a survey directly asking them to respond. A designed
survey instrument with 21 questions assessed behavior, motivation, demographics, teaching
discipline, and willingness to participate in a subsequent interview and observation. A sample
emerged for those faculty who respond positively to the following two questions: 1) In the
course of a semester, do you assist students with decisions on choosing a major? (Assisting may
include any of the following: responding to student requests, announcing availability, providing
referrals, or pro-actively supporting student discovery and exploration); 2) In the course of a
semester, do you assist students on matters of career decision-making? (Assisting may include
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 85

any of the following: responding to student requests, announcing availability, providing referrals,
or pro-actively supporting student discovery and exploration).
The researcher conducted an analysis to assess faculty who met the criteria from the
survey responders. From all faculty who meet the criteria, a purposeful sample of eight faculty
was selected for qualitative interviews (Johnson & Christensen, 2015).
The following criteria were essential to identify participants, because assisting students
with major and/or career decision-making is not a defined role for GCC academic faculty.
Sampling criteria.
Criterion 1. Academic, non-counseling, faculty;
Criterion 2. General Education (GE) faculty who teach credit courses;
Criterion 3. Faculty who provided pro-active assistance to their students in major and/or
career decision-making through formal and/or informal approaches, i.e. formally
addressed in a curricular way during the teaching of a course, or informally approached
through out-of-class discussions.
Criterion 4. GE faculty willing to participate in the study.
Eight faculty from two academic discipline groups were selected: four faculty from the
discipline of Humanities, English, and Social Sciences, and four faculty from the disciplines of
Science and Mathematics. Humanities, English, social sciences, science, and mathematics are
discipline areas where the most undecided first-year GCC students are likely to concentrate their
course taking.
Furthermore, the researcher ensured the purposeful sample emphasized experienced part-
and full-time teachers with more than 10 years of experience. Interviews occurred in the Spring
2018 term following the selection process to allow time for scheduling.
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 86

Appendix B: Research Participant Descriptions
Below is the stakeholder faculty sample as compared to the college’s Fall 2016 reported
faculty demographics. A snowball sample strategy followed by a distributed survey through
department chairs yielded 43 responses, yet once years of experience at the college and an array
of disciplines were factored, the faculty tended to be full-time and white more than faculty of
color, which could be an indicator of past hiring trends. Notably, four of the eight GE faculty
were first-generation college students, data which the college does not collect. Table B1
compares stakeholder sample demographics to all GCC faculty as of Fall 2016.
Table B1
Stakeholder Sample Demographics compared to All GCC Faculty as of Fall 2016

GE Faculty Sample All GCC Faculty
Total Part-Time 12.5% 57.5%
Total Full-Time 87.5% 42.4%
Total Part- and Full-Time Faculty 100% 100%
Women 62.5% 56.5%
Men 37.5% 43.5%
White 62.5% 55.7%
Non-White 37.5% 41.7%
Unknown Race/Ethnicity 0% 2.6%
First-Generation College Students 50% unknown

Following is a description of the eight faculty participants listed by their pseudonyms.
Each of these faculty actively taught GE courses in Spring 2018.
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 87

Humanities, English, and Social Sciences
Colette. Colette was an involved faculty member with college-wide responsibilities at
the time of the interview. She was a full-time female faculty member with just under 15 years of
teaching experience, most of those years at GCC and other years as adjunct faculty at community
college and university. Colette had a very strong orientation to helping keep students successful
in academics and persistence in college. She expressed a deep desire to help students navigate
and learn skills for college success. In the interview, she rarely touched on career advisement.
Colette’s responses in the interview were very informed at the organizational level, and it was
clear that her thinking and the information she shared was not only from the lens of a classroom
teacher, as her college-wide responsibilities had provided a background for her that helped her
see more clearly strengths and barriers that were impacting faculty.
Colette shared that her father was one of her key role models, he was a career teacher
who would go great lengths to support his students. Colette stated several times that her
commitment to her students was long term: “Once their teacher, always their teacher” was an
expression she used several times during the interview. In Spring 2018, Colette was teaching
one GE section with approximately 31 students enrolled.
Dave. Dave was a full-time male faculty with over 20 years of teaching experience,
three-fourths of that time he taught full-time at GCC, and other years he taught part-time at other
community colleges. Of the faculty interviewed, Dave was the most intent on the use of
informal opportunities to talk with students, as well as the benefit and value of what can transpire
for students outside of the classroom. He was a strong advocate for ways the college could
support informal yet productive interactions between faculty and students, and between faculty,
to discuss and get to know each other. It was important to Dave that he hold students
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 88

accountable to their goals. If he got to know students over several semesters, he would be sure to
remind them to get on with their goals and “get out” of GCC.
Dave was a first-generation community college student who stumbled into academics as a
profession. His community college instructors were formative in getting him onto a transfer path
and pursuing teaching as a profession. Dave worked a variety of jobs over his lifetime and
attributed his experience holding “weird” jobs as a key to his relatability with students. He was
an active [discipline] club advisor and met with the student club weekly, but Dave insisted that
his presence was very informal and intentionally not the same as he presented in the classroom.
In Spring 2018, Dave taught three sections of different GE courses, with approximately
90 total students. Additionally, he taught two more advanced sections which were not GE
courses. Dave provided one of the observations of this study. On the day of the observation,
true to his description of how he structured his classes, he dismissed five minutes early, and a
few students stayed in class to talk to him about their university transfer plans. Dave’s demeanor
with students was quiet and attentive to what the student wanted to share. In one observed
interaction, he verbally encouraged the student to keep on with her goal despite some setbacks
she had experienced since she last spoke with him.
Frank. Frank was a full-time male faculty, with over 20 years of teaching experience,
mostly at GCC, and four years as an adjunct faculty at other community colleges. Frank shared
strong opinions about how things were and were not working at the college. He was the sole
faculty to refer to a supply-and-demand model when it came to students who were really in need
(demand) for faculty guidance. Equally so, he commented on the limited time (supply) faculty
had to offer students for individual advisement in their schedule. He was the strongest proponent
for the college to study what occurs during faculty office hours in order to deepen organizational
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 89

understanding of office hours and the way those hours enabled faculty to connect with students
and support their goals. He also raised pay issues and how the constant requests for faculty to
learn software and other non-instructional systems were taking instructional faculty away from
what they do best, stating that if the college handled these issues differently, faculty would have
more time to support students.
Frank shared a lot of information about helping students into university and planning for
graduate school. He cited his own evolution of supporting students with their goals in becoming
a more effective listener so he could respond to their true needs. Frank was one of the more
independent faculty members, hardly touching on ways he made referrals to other faculty,
student services, or other connections on- or off-campus. He had no resources or tools to share
as artifacts with the study. He was deeply influenced by teaching his discipline as a
contextualized course for another department, and Frank expressed learning from that experience
which influenced how he advised students on career options. Frank suggested that faculty need
more time to learn from each other across departments.
In Spring 2018, Frank taught four separate GE courses with approximately 120 students
enrolled. In addition, Frank taught two other courses which were highly enrolled by students in
declared majors other than his discipline.
Jane. Jane was a full-time female faculty member with nearly 20 years of teaching
experience, approximately half of those years at GCC and seven years as adjunct faculty at other
community colleges and GCC. She was not confident she would have as much to share as other
faculty in her department but was willing to be interviewed. Jane taught a driving-question
course which she found engaged some students but not all. Since the students typically took this
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 90

course in their first semester at GCC, some students resisted exploring “What is your Life’s
Work?” saying they felt it was too soon to answer the question.
Jane was a first-generation community college student and did not set out to teach, but
once she had her graduate degree, she accepted an adjunct teaching position for economic
reasons. Jane spoke a lot about how through the semester she would help students connect her
English class, a course they did not want to take, to the bigger picture and their long-term goals.
She benefitted from multiple student services personnel speaking to her classes over time and
had acquired a lot of information which she shared with students. Jane was very articulate that
more GE faculty needed to know the resources for students, how to access them, and where to
find them.
Jane taught two courses in Spring 2018 which were preparatory for transfer-level English
and assessed that her students in these courses were in their first semester in the [discipline]. She
taught one of the thematic, driving-questions courses in her department and had approximately
48 students in her courses.
Math & Science
Clara. Clara was a full-time female faculty member with 18 years of total teaching
experience. She had been full-time at GCC for all 18 years and taught one semester as adjunct
faculty. In the interview, Clara was modest about her supportive work with students and
expressed a desire to make more of a difference. Clara used the word “mindful” when
discussing how she worked with students in order to pick up clues that they may benefit from
some extra guidance. She was particularly driven to find and mentor students to become future
teachers in her discipline, feeling too many students had not received good instruction and thus
turned away from the Science and Math field.
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 91

Clara was a first-generation college student who attended community college before
transferring to university. Clara cited her role model was an instructor she had in community
college. She had a strong identity as a [discipline not named specifically to protect anonymity]
teacher and her role to teach a challenging subject at the same time as increasing student success
for historically underserved students. She shared that she particularly sought to channel helpful
guidance to first-generation and English language learner students in ways she would have
benefitted herself. Most of her confidence stemmed from helping students who were thinking
about careers in business, as she drew from years of professional business experience to guide
and encourage students. When Clara talked with students considering fields other than business,
she felt limited in what she could provide. In Spring 2018, Clara taught three sections in her
discipline and approximately sixty students.
Michelle. Michelle was a full-time female faculty member with the most teaching
experience in the sample, close to 25 years of teaching experience at GCC, university, and high
school. Michelle was a self-starter who contributed in the past to large scale initiatives at the
college and was cautious about where she would spend her time, preferring to keep it focused on
helping students succeed in the sciences and in her classes. She expressed frustration at the lack
of time faculty have to support students and some hopelessness the college could function at a
level to support deeper work in the area of this study. She was a strong conveyer of ways to
support students in the sciences and had influenced the development of several innovations like
student support labs and the creation of a culture that informed hiring choices as well. She was
the only faculty member who talked about time-saving instructional techniques like putting
lectures online and assigning students to watch those videos prior to class; this flipped-classroom
approach increased her time to work with students on their questions and learning.
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 92

Artifacts provided from Michelle’s department were plentiful and included a
comprehensive website, email distribution of information related to opportunities with discipline
activities, and paid work experience. She was highly involved with a national association which
continuously inspired her with new approaches to expand what she could offer as a teacher and
what learning could be for her students. She referenced supporting student decision-making and
the goal of a major and degree attainment as “short-term” and the goal of career as “long-term.”
Michelle was a strong advocate for the college to organize an infrastructure for faculty to engage
in teaching and learning discussions, not only for exchange within a discipline but also to create
a place where ideas could be exchanged across disciplines.
In Spring 2018, Michelle was teaching lecture and lab courses in the sciences with
approximately 60 students enrolled. She had a sophisticated method of outreach to her students
through surveys, a comprehensive website, newsletters, and guidance. Michelle shared a unique
practice that she included with every quiz, a “description of a scientist working somewhere in the
world…a whole gamut of diversity. Male and female and different ethnicities and everything.
They read about a different scientist, and then they have to answer some questions. In that
process, they're learning a little bit about the careers of [discipline] as well.”
Roberta. Roberta was a part-time female faculty member with more than 10 years of
teaching experience, all at GCC. She called herself a unique part timer with no desire to teach
full time, yet putting in full-time hours and effort in program design and innovations. Roberta’s
enthusiasm to engage with students and connect [discipline] alumni to her current students
differentiated her from the other faculty in the sample. She used extra credit as an incentive to
get her students to attend career speaker talks, and she was significantly enthusiastic about her
discipline and applicability to every other major at the college. With her concentrated effort to
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 93

bring in alumni and other career speakers, she continuously increased her up-to-date knowledge
about career opportunities which she infused into her teaching.
Roberta drew from 20 years professional experience before she joined GCC as a faculty
member. She shared she is selective about who she spends time with at the college, stating the
college as a whole has not functioned on a level that supports her efforts as a faculty member.
Roberta was a first-generation college student who had a strong faculty mentor during her
undergraduate years at a university. Roberta emphasized the important role of a supportive
department chair and how a good chair was key to a group of faculty sharing values and building
collaborative efforts to support student success. She also has experienced success in diversifying
the demographics in her GE courses, from a primarily white-male enrollment when she first
started teaching to more diverse students, partly as a result of her outreach efforts. Roberta
dedicated before- and after-class time for discussion, questions, and addressing exploration with
her students. Roberta provided one of the observation sessions for this study and integrated into
her lecture delivery details about career paths, educational preparation for further college and
career, and highlighted an upcoming talk for which students could earn extra credit.
In Spring 2018, Roberta taught two sections of one GE course, with approximately 80
students enrolled. Roberta also was heavily involved in curriculum and course development, her
focus on other courses related to careers in the Sciences and improving the lab experience for
students. Unique to Roberta’s discipline was the applicability to several specific majors at GCC,
so, for example, the GE course she taught was required for students in specific majors. Roberta’s
committed orientation to students came across strong in her interview. She shared the following,
which underscored her commitment as a part-time faculty member: “I don’t want [students] who
failed my class to think that that means they can’t achieve the goals that they want. So even
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 94

though I wasn’t able to reach them, to get them to want to work harder in the course itself… they
are still not off my radar.”
Sal. Sal was a full-time male faculty with 15 years teaching experience, about half of
those years full-time at GCC after a few semesters as GCC adjunct faculty and seven years as a
university graduate teaching assistant. Sal was a reluctant participant and finally agreed to an
interview. His main hesitation was that he did not feel he was doing much with students and
what he did do would not be informative to the study. Sal was articulate about his role and the
readiness of students to engage in decision-making, providing many unique insights. Through
the interview, it was clear that he was thinking through and analyzing his own interactions with
students in real time. At the close of the interview, Sal remarked how much he enjoyed the
questions and thinking about the topic was inspiring him to continue on with more intention.
Sal was focused on motivating students to learn something hard and stick with it through
challenges. He expressed that as a teacher, he wanted to share and show students that sticking
with hard material was a worthwhile endeavor that would build their confidence. Sal’s
educational background, while impressive, had not been easy. He experienced setbacks, and this
seemed to intensify his caring for students he saw struggling. One of Sal’s formative
experiences was a faculty advisor who watched him struggle but offered no prompts to help him
get on course. He was pro-active with students, because he realized that his advisor didn’t offer
him what he needed. One of Sal’s ideas was that the college should coach students on how to
optimize interactions with their faculty. He underscored how much students would benefit from
learning informational interview skills and thinking of their faculty as resources and experts.
In Spring 2018, Sal taught three GE lecture courses and a lab course, with approximately
60 students in his courses. He drew from his own non-linear educational path to empathize with
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 95

students experiencing challenges. He also was strongly connected to a professional network,
which he was happy to share with students seriously interested in the major.

GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 96

Appendix C: Protocols
Survey Protocol
Thank you for your time to complete this General Education Faculty Survey on supporting
students. This survey will contribute to identifying (non-counseling) faculty who actively
support student decision-making on major and career. Your responses will remain
confidential. The results will be aggregated in Theresa Fleischer Rowland’s dissertation
(University of Southern California, estimated completion 2018). The survey takes
approximately 5-10 minutes to complete.
1. What is your name? ___________________
2. What department are you part of? ___________________
3. Are you employed as GCC Academic (non-counseling) Faculty?
a. Yes
b. No
4. If yes, are you:
a. Part-time
b. Full-time
5. Please indicate if you teach in any of the following content areas (you may choose
more than one).
a. Science, credit instruction
b. Mathematics, credit instruction
c. Humanities, credit instruction
d. Social Sciences, credit instruction
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 97

e. Other, please indicate content area and credit or non credit
___________________
f. Other (please indicate content area and credit or noncredit) ____________
6. How long have you been teaching at the community college level?
a. Fill in the blank (total number of years, whether part- or full-time) ________
7. Please share your race/ethnicity
a. American Indian or Alaska Native
b. Asian
c. Black or African American
d. Hispanic or Latino
e. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
f. White
g. Mixed race/ethnicity
8. Please share your gender identity
a. Female
b. Male
c. Other: ___________________
d. Prefer not to say
9. In the course of a semester, do you assist students with decisions on choosing a
major? (Assisting may include any of the following: responding to student
requests, announcing availability, providing referrals, or pro-actively supporting
student discovery and exploration)
a. Yes
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 98

b. No
10. In the course of a semester, do you assist students on matters of career decision-
making? (Assisting may include any of the following: responding to student
requests, announcing availability, providing referrals, or pro-actively supporting
student discovery and exploration)
a. Yes
b. No
11. How often do you discuss with students: Student’s educational goal?
[ ] Never [ ] Occasionally [ ] Often
12. How often do you discuss with students: Meeting requirements for graduation,
certificates, degrees, transfer, etc ?
[ ] Never [ ] Occasionally [ ] Often
13. How often do you discuss with students: Clarifying career goals?
[ ] Never [ ] Occasionally [ ] Often
14. How often do you discuss with students: Identifying career areas which fit student
skills, abilities, and interests?
[ ] Never [ ] Occasionally [ ] Often
15. How often do you discuss with students: Obtaining internship or employment while
attending college?
[ ] Never [ ] Occasionally [ ] Often
16. How often do you discuss with students: Finding a job after college?
[ ] Never [ ] Occasionally [ ] Often
17. How often do you discuss with students: Continuing education after GCC graduation?
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 99

[ ] Never [ ] Occasionally [ ] Often
18. How do you assist students with deciding on a major? (select all that apply)
a. Formal approaches, i.e. curriculum/assignments during the teaching of a
course;
b. Informal approaches, i.e. out-of-class discussion;
c. I do not assist students with selection of major.
d. Other ____________________
19. How do you assist students with career decision-making? (select all that apply)
a. Formal approaches, i.e. curriculum/assignments during the teaching of a
course;
b. Informal approaches, i.e. out-of-class discussion;
c. I do not assist students with career decision-making.
d. Other ____________________
20. Would you be willing to provide an interview to share more about your practice in
assisting students with major and/or career decision-making?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Other _______________________
21. What is the best email to reach you? ___________________________
Interview Protocol
1. What do you currently teach at GCC?
2. How long have you been teaching in your discipline? How long have you been
teaching at GCC?
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 100

3. Did you start as a part-time faculty member? How many years as part-time?
4. Think about a recent time that represents the way you support students who are
deciding on a major and/or career. Please describe. Is this example representative?
5. Where does most of your supportive interaction with students happen?
6. Would you say you support students in both major and career decision-making? Or is
it more of one or the other?
7. Where did you learn to do that?
8. About how many students would you say you interact with on decision-making per
semester? Is it all students in your classes? Please quantify.
9. Would you say you pro-actively support students? What about other kinds of
interactions (e.g. a students’ initiation)?
10. Do you adjust the information you share by individual student need?
11. What resources/tools/referrals do you use? Do you assign work (i.e. give an
assignment, are there copies I could see)?
12. How do you facilitate conversations on student decision-making?
13. Do you refer students to the college career center or another referral type?
14. Where does the support you provide to students fit into your responsibility as a
faculty member? (follow-up) Do you see the faculty role as inclusive of supporting
student decision-making of college and career goals?
15. Let me ask you to think about changes you’ve made over time with students. How, if
at all, have you altered your approach with students?
16. How do you know what you are doing works?

GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 101

17. Have you made any changes based on changing student demographics to address
diversity of student backgrounds?
18. Other people sometimes influence us in our formative years. What people, if any,
played a role in your own determination of college and career? How does that
experience influence you now?
19. What is it about the importance of supporting decision-making that motivates you to
help students? What is in it for you?
20. How confident are you in your ability to assist students? Tell me more about factors
that influence your efficacy.
21. Tell me how GCC supports or does not support your efforts to support student
decision-making.
22. How could GCC create conditions to encourage more GE faculty to support student
decision-making? What could the college do more of –or less of—to get faculty to
support student decision-making?
23. Is there anything else you would like to add?
Observation Protocol
Date:
Faculty name, discipline:
Observer name:
Observation location:
Observation start time:
Observation end time:
Description of Setting:
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 102

Description of Faculty Advising, including verbatim dialogue:
Observer’s Comments

GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 103

Appendix D: Reviewed Artifacts
Course syllabi
Course material packets
First week informational surveys
Department webpages on the college website
Institutional Learning Outcomes on the college website
College website
Faculty Handbook
Faculty contract

GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 104

Appendix E: Ethics
This study design adhered to guiding ethical principles of research. The researcher was
diligent throughout to respect participants, demonstrate beneficence, and behave in a judicial
manner (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). The researcher provided verbal and written explanation to fully
disclose the purpose of the study, confidentiality, and the participant’s voluntary participation
with the right to withdraw without penalty (Glesne, 2011). Written, informed consent was
gathered from participants prior to data collection, including an agreement from participants to
have their interviews recorded. Collected data was stored and secured in a locked office with
explicit attention to confidential practices.
The researcher is employed as a senior administrator in the GCC Office of Academic
Affairs. The researcher does not supervise the faculty participants, instead serving in a decision-
making role and distributing resources to support faculty hiring, enrollment, and program
development. Participants were selected through voluntary, uncompensated response, thus
minimizing feelings of pressure to participate. The researcher ensured subjects were fully aware
of the topic of interest and did not come to harm (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). The interest of the
researcher was to discover and document effective practice for organizational learning.
Potential confusion of dual role as senior administrator and researcher was alleviated through
verbal and written communications that information shared would only be permitted by
participant consent.
In accordance with Merriam & Tisdell (2016), the researcher incorporated all ethical and
legal obligations to ensure validity and reliability of the study. The researcher challenged her
own assumptions and biases by incorporating peer and dissertation advisor feedback through the
data collection, analysis, and reporting phases of the process (Patton, 2002).
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 105

Appendix F: A Selection of Ideas and Quotes from the Interviews with Eight GE Faculty
Assignment Ideas
 Introduce a first-week introductory survey asking students to self-assess on college
preparedness, long term goals, English and math levels, and why they are taking that
particular class.
 Require a first-week quiz/questionnaire to ask students: how many units they are taking,
if they work, commute, obstacles that could prevent them from dedicating time to college
goals, and blank lines to fill in details and add information that would be helpful for the
instructor to know.
 On every quiz, provide a brief biography of diverse working professionals and ask
students to answer one or two quick comprehension questions.
Facilitative Opening Questions to Ask Students
 Ask:
o What their life requirements are.
o How quickly they want to get on with life.
o Where they want to go.
o What their goals are.
 Pose questions directly to students such as:
o How is it going?
o What are you up to?
o What are you doing in life and where are you going?
o What is your major?/What are you majoring in?
o Are you planning on transferring?
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 106

o What other classes are you taking?
o What are your hopes?
o So, what are your goals?
o What is your educational goal?
o Have you met with a counselor?
o Do you have an educational plan?
o What interests do you have?/ What are you interested in?
o Where do you want to go from here?
o Why are you here (in college at GCC)?
o Is there anything I can help with?
o What information do you need?
o What are you studying?
o How was your weekend?
o What do you do [in your spare time]?
o How are you doing? (Intentional wording in contrast to “What’s going on?”)
o What is it about college that gets you excited?
Facilitative Prompts and Follow-Up Questions with Students Individually or Whole Class
 Hey, when we talked in the hallway, you mentioned [topic]. How did that go?
 What do you like about what you are studying?
 Here are some resources to help you explore that [major/career] a bit more. Even a few
years from now, you can use these techniques and strategies.
 Did you get a chance to meet with the academic/career counselor?
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 107

 You really want to find somebody in that field who can help mentor you through these
things.
 If you are interested in [subject], talk to people who are doing it.
 Are you looking to make professional connections?
 Did you know the college provides Career Services that can help you discover a good
match for your interests and skills?
 You might want to look at this [specific] class for your next semester.
 Have you thought about teaching?
 Hey, I saw on your questionnaire that you are interested in [subject matter], and when we
get to the particular topic, if you’d like, I’d like to introduce you to some people who are
working in that field and doing some really exciting work.”
 Is it okay if we discuss [topic]?
 Hey, I heard you were interested in such-and-such. If you’d like to learn more…
 I noticed there’s quite a few people that are interested or are here because they are
interested in [topic] or [career field]. Have you heard of [connected subject matter]?
 For those of you who are working, how is that job helping you reach your goals?
 This week, if you want to hear about [subject], there is a [TV show, Youtube video,
speaker on campus, community event, etc…].
 For those of you that are interested in [topic], this is the type of work you would do, and
these are some of the tools that you actually might use to do so.
 The more I know about you, the more I can make sure that I’m hitting on things that
interest you as we move through the course, both through lecture, but also personally.
Please let me know!
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 108

 I thought I’d share this with you. If you’d like to look at any of these for extra credit
opportunities…
 You mentioned there’s a few [universities/careers] that you were interested in. Here’s a
couple ideas that I think also should be on your radar.
 Hey, I get wind of certain internships. What do you think of this one?
Faculty Tips and Quotes on Facilitative Techniques
 Draw out the student by listening and letting them speak about what they are really
looking for.
 Listen a lot to see where they want to be, where they want to go.
 After covering a certain topic, say, “If you found this interesting, there is more that can
be done in this area (e.g. career options, further education).”
 Advise students, “Gather possibilities, gather opportunities and build from that, see what
is out there.”.
 Direct questions in class to engage student sharing about goal setting.
 Pull together student questions, understand what they want/are asking, pull this into a
single space which is something the student can pursue. If that turns out not to be it, at
least the student gets the idea of taking something broad about what one wants to do, and
sees how to work with it.
 Conduct a brainstorming session to dialogue about students’ interests.
 Learn about students through required introductory survey.
 “I found that when students have a barrier or a wall, when we start talking about what
their larger goals are, they soften a little bit, and maybe feel appreciative of the fact that I
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 109

seem to care about what they're going to do after my class. Not in every case, but for
some people.”
 Ask students to read and comment on the course syllabus, “Which of these [student
learning outcomes] interest you?”
 At 5 minutes before end of class: “I will let you go if you want to go. For anybody who
wants to discuss your major, careers, your futures, I’ll be here.”

GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 110

Appendix G: Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The outlined implementation and evaluation framework was informed by the New World
Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), based on Kirkpatrick’s earlier work which
focuses on the effectiveness of training evaluation. The study addressed knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influences impeding the college’s performance of the stated goal. This
section includes an outlined action plan, with detailed resources needed to implement the action
plan, plus a plan to monitor and evaluate results. The Kirkpatrick 2016 work influences the
design of this program which is mapped with the end in mind, a training and evaluation
framework with implementable steps to be measured and monitored for the continuous benefit of
the learner. Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training and evaluation are planned in reverse, albeit
implemented and measured in order. The levels address both formal and informal training:
Level 1 addresses trainee reaction, Level 2 measures learning, Level 3 evaluates post-training
behaviors, and Level 4 measures desired results.
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
The college mission is to help students complete their educational goal, commonly
referred to as student success. The problem is many students are underprepared to declare either
a major or career goal, tend to enroll in excessive credits, and risk delayed completion. By
integrating structured support for student decision-making into general education (GE) courses,
which are highly subscribed by undecided students in their first year of college, more students
will be assisted and supported with resources to increase their ability to declare an educational
and/or career goal. If GE faculty effectively support decision-making, students will benefit from
a structural enhancement built into their curriculum, increasing a network of support for students,
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 111

and increasing the likelihood that students will declare a goal with more certainty in their first
year of college. The proposed program addresses recommendation three and suggests faculty
development workshops, coaching and reflective support, and job aids which easily integrate into
GE curriculum.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
The leading indicators showing progress toward the organization’s goal of 100% of GE
faculty assisting students to select a major with increased certainty are denoted in Table G1.
Table G1

Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes

Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
College student success
data shows improved
completion rates.
Increased completion as
indicated by reduced time-to-
completion rates; more students
will complete within the six-year
metric used by the state.
State system student success
scorecard.
College reports to ACCJC
that student completion
rates are increased, and
time-to-completion is
decreased.
Data reports show that GCC
students are completing in less
time, an improvement in time-
to-completion rates.
College research office reports
data on cohort-based completion
rates, in comparison to past
years.
Student success rates are
disaggregated, and
completion outcomes are
equitable across all
student demographic
groups, with no disparate
outcomes.
Data reports show that GCC
students, disaggregated by
equity groups, are completing at
the same rate as the top
performing group, an
improvement in time-to-
completion rates.
College research office reports
disaggregated data on cohort-
based completion rates, in
comparison to past years and
peak performing demographic
group.
Internal Outcomes
Increased GE faculty
knowledge of effective
facilitation techniques to
support student decision-
making in terms of major
and career goal.
Faculty self-assess their efficacy
to facilitate and initiate a request
for more training and/or
coaching.
A faculty development
workshop series is provided
once each semester to increase
knowledge, skill practice, and
motivation. In addition, one-
time workshops are provided at
mid-semester Flex Days (once
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 112

each semester) to give an
overview on effective
techniques and build enthusiasm
and enrollment in the next
workshop series.
Increased student
awareness of resources to
assist with decision-
making.
Seventy-five percent of students
surveyed will state they learned
about new resources to help with
decision-making and/or they
initiated with those resources.
At semester end, students are
surveyed on number of new
resources they learned about;
how they initiated with those
resources, if at all; and the
students’ increased degree of
certainty in declaring a major as
compared to the beginning of
the semester.
Student Development
human resources actively
engage at least once per
semester with GE faculty
at the department and
classroom level.
Regular connection points are
established for Student
Development personnel to
provide ongoing information
and exchange with GE faculty.
Semester reports will quantify
and document the connections
across departments and as a
percent of classes affected.
Once a semester, updates are
provided in Department
meetings, and Student
Development liaisons
proactively reach out to GE
faculty to answer questions.
GE faculty receive
effective coaching and
report an increase in
efficacy.
Experienced GE faculty
(“Faculty Coach”) and/or
Student Development personnel
check in with GE faculty to
provide advisement and
clarification on integrating new
habits into student interaction.
Clear, streamlined job aids are
created to support coaching and
independent faculty practice of
effective techniques.
Job aids are created and
posted in every classroom.
Engaging graphic with decision-
making resources and referrals is
designed, and affordably
replicated, and posted in every
classroom across all 10
campuses.
The office of Student
Development is responsible for
creating content for the job aid,
listing student-friendly decision-
making resources. The
Marketing office is responsible
for producing a collaborative,
stakeholder-vetted design that
appeals to students and is
adopted by faculty. Job aids are
posted by Career Services staff.

GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 113

Level 3: Critical Behaviors
The stakeholders for this study were GE faculty at one community college. In order to
accomplish the goal of students deciding on a major, critical behaviors for GE faculty include
facilitating decision-making discussions with students in class and one-on-one; sharing resources
to help students with decision-making; and reflecting on their role and ways to support students.
Table G2 lists the specific metrics to measure the critical behaviors.
Table G2

Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
1. Facilitate
decision-making
discussions in
class with all
students, and one-
on-one.
Faculty review
syllabus, noting they
are resource to
students in decision-
making. Faculty
utilize and refer via
resources.
Faculty enter brief
individualized notes into
the Starfish student
tracking module.

After each
engagement with
students.

2. Share resources
with each student
to help students
with decision-
making at least two
times per semester.
Faculty build into
lesson plans, key
resources and referrals
to share at regular
points in the semester.
Faculty add brief
perspective notes in the
Starfish software to
reflect any intention or
follow-through students
make via referrals.
Every semester.
3. Participate in
department
meetings and use
opportunities to
self-reflect on
effective ways to
support student
decision-making.
Document meetings
faculty attend with
Faculty Coach to
reflect, discuss their
approaches, and
observe effectiveness
with students.

Faculty Coach
documents attendance at
faculty meetings.

At least two times
per semester.

Required drivers. In order to successfully achieve the stakeholder goal, the organization
must support critical faculty behaviors listed in Table G3. As a key part of implementation, GE
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 114

faculty will be asked to adopt job aids and resource lists to their instructional setting and to meet
with peers to develop skills and reflect on effectiveness. Experienced GE faculty or Student
Development personnel will be named as Faculty Coaches to support the uptake of new
processes and practices. Through a system of accountability and specific action to monitor,
reinforce, encourage, and reward desired behaviors, faculty will learn and enter student meeting
notes in the secure Starfish software’s student tracking module. Table G3 states the required
drivers to support critical faculty behaviors as they increase their capacity to support student
decision-making.
Table G3
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Office of Academic Affairs
provides a job aid of key
facilitative questions.
Ongoing. 1
Career Center posts an
updated Resource List for
faculty to use.
Every semester. 2
Experienced faculty are
selected as leads, called
“Faculty Coaches” with one
Coach per GE department.
Spring 2019. 3
Faculty Coaches share case
studies and exemplar
approaches via information
and training workshops.
All College Flex Day
presentations, 2 times per
semester.
1, 2, 3
Faculty learn and utilize
Starfish software.

Spring and Fall 2019. 3
Encouraging
Department Chairs add
approaches to the agenda in
their meetings with faculty.
2 times per semester. 1, 2, 3
Faculty Coaches host
Community of Practice(s) for
1 time per semester. 3
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 115

peers to meet and discuss
success and approaches.
Rewarding
Guided Pathways Committee
and Vice Chancellors
recognize GE faculty as
innovators and their work as a
leading effort of the college.
Fall 2019 and Spring 2020 All
College Flex Day.
1, 2, 3
Monitoring
Faculty Coaches observe GE
faculty and capture
improvement notes.
1 time per semester. 1, 2
Post-observation, Faculty
Coaches will meet with
observed faculty to discuss
effectiveness of approaches
used.
1 time per semester. 1, 2
Faculty self-monitor and
utilize performance checklists
which they reference when
meeting with Coaches and in
Department meetings.
Two times a month for the
duration of the semester.
1, 2

Organizational support. The identified problem and outlined solution need support
from the highest level of the college. Connecting this important intervention for GE-enrolled
students to the college’s goal of completion is an evidence-based strategy to support student
goal-setting. Table G3 outlines the required drivers which are the responsibility of the
organization. Senior leadership from Academic Affairs and Student Development are involved
in supporting the goal and evaluating the measurable outcomes, signaling the importance of the
work (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Materials to support faculty work will be generated in
the form of job aids and resource lists. Experienced faculty will be recruited to serve as Faculty
Coaches and lead practitioners by department. Faculty Coaches will facilitate twice per semester
workshops, observations, and discussions amongst peers to increase the adoption of materials
and encourage peer exchange leading to continuous improvement. Department Chairpersons
will play a role by incorporating the topic of assisting student decision-making to departmental
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 116

meeting agendas twice per semester. Organizationally, the faculty and the emerging work will
be publicly recognized by the Chancellor in an All College Flex Day during Fall 2019 and
Spring 2020.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Upon completion of the proposed solutions, faculty will be able to
1. Facilitate decision-making discussions with students on their options for a major
and/or career (Procedural);
2. Know different resources for career and major exploration to share with students
(Conceptual);
3. Self-reflect on their role and ways to support students in their decision-making (Meta-
cognition);
4. Declare the importance of students declaring a major with certainty and believe their
efforts will result in a valued outcome (Expectancy);
5. Declare confidence in their ability to serve students (Self-Efficacy).
Program. The learning goals stated in the previous section will be achieved through a
design of participatory workshops and coaching opportunities to increase knowledge and
motivation of the GE faculty to deepen decision-making support to students. To develop GE
faculty’s knowledge and skill, a cohort of GE faculty will complete professional-skills training
on Starfish early-warning and student-tracking software, inform the development of job aids,
practice skills with coaching and peer support, and present to faculty in their department on
acquired learning.
The program will take place during the spring semester with a cohort of volunteer GE
faculty and Faculty Coaches. Four faculty-development sessions will take place during the
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 117

semester, with three and one-half hours per week (.1FTE) assigned to the task. Between
meetings, faculty will meet with their coaches, practice skills in the classroom, self-study
Starfish software, keep a journal, bring journal notes to coaching sessions, and lead a discussion
at least once during the semester with peers at a department meeting.
Evaluation of the Components of Learning. At this stage, it is critical for the GE
faculty to acquire the knowledge, skills, and attitude to apply learning with confidence and
commitment to achieve the performance goal. To evaluate the components of learning taking
place, conceptual and procedural knowledge will be assessed. Additionally, attitude, confidence,
and commitment will be assessed to ensure the learning activities are robust and engaging with
maximum potential to transfer to useful skills with students. Table G4 lists the evaluation
methods and timing for each of the learning components.
Table G4
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity Timing
Conceptual Knowledge: “I know it.”
Knowledge checks during group discussions. Once per month at the learning sessions.
Complete Starfish software proficiency survey. Once per month.
Procedural Skills: “I can do it right now.”
Feedback from peers during practice sessions
with job aids.
During the monthly learning sessions.
Feedback from coaches during observed
sessions.
Once per month.
Attitude: “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Discussions of the value of what they are being
asked to do on the job.
During first and fourth learning session.
Brainstorm the positive and negative outcomes
of increasing effectiveness of supporting
student decision-making.
During first and fourth learning session.
Confidence: “I think I can do it on the job.”
Discussions following practice and feedback. During each learning session.
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment
item.
At the end of the fourth learning session.
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 118

Commitment: “I will do it on the job.”
Create an individual action plan. Start to create at second learning session,
further develop with coach. Share at fourth
session.

Level 1: Reaction
It is important to evaluate whether participants find the training favorable, engaging, and
relevant to their jobs. This is essentially the participant satisfaction measure of training.
Although it is not prudent to over emphasize nor measure only trainee satisfaction, it does
correlate to learning and application on the job (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Table G5 lists
the method and timing to measure participant engagement, relevance and satisfaction.
Table G5
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Attendance records Documented at each session.
Workshop evaluation One week after each session.
Asking meaningful questions During the session.
Participation in practice scenarios During the session.
Journaling kept up to date Between sessions.
Observation by facilitator During sessions.
Relevance
Pulse checks via discussion or survey Frequently during session and during training
breaks.
Workshop evaluation At end of each session.
Customer Satisfaction
Dedicated observer who documents student
comments and body language
During the workshop sessions.
Workshop evaluation At end of each session.

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. An evaluation will be
administered at the end of each session to incorporate feedback into the design and delivery of
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 119

subsequent sessions. Since the training is a succession of sessions, it is expected that feedback
will be utilized while participant satisfaction will increase along the way. Appendix H includes
the survey instrument which is intentionally brief and asks useful Level 1 and 2 questions to
inform participant engagement, relevance, perceived value, knowledge, skills, attitude, and
confidence.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. After the professional
development series, an evaluation will be administered three weeks following to survey training
participants on their learning and find out if participants are still engaged and expressing
confidence and sufficient knowledge to apply the skills, as well as experiencing success in the
application of those skills. Appendix I is the blended instrument that intends to measure all four
of Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick (2016) levels, including reaction, learning, behavior, and results of
the skills taught in the professional development sessions.
Coaching Feedback Tool. Coaching is an integral part of the evaluation plan. Coaches
will utilize a standard feedback sheet to share with faculty to reflect and deepen their skills. A
suggested form for coaches to use and is included in Appendix J.
Data Analysis and Reporting
The results of the program, a series of four faculty development sessions with coaching
and reflective practice, will be measured by how faculty have begun to integrate skills into their
classroom teaching. The Level 4 goal for faculty will be measured by the students’ actions to
declare a major and/or career goal with increased certainty. The GE faculty must have the
knowledge and skills as well as motivation to embed support and make referrals during class
time in order to reach all students.
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 120

Each semester, the group of coaches will compile data gathered from the Starfish system
to note active updates from students. Longitudinal data will be conducted by the college’s
Research Office to follow student’s subsequent semesters, persistence, and a pattern of course-
taking to indicate students are on track and reach their educational goal.
Annually, the Research Office will track the completion rates of certificate and degree
awards to see if there has been an increase in completion and reduced time-to-degree rates for
students enrolled in GE classes with the participating faculty. Results can be compared to
students that do not receive the intervention. To monitor progress, the program coaches will
report to the lead administrator measurable progress toward the goal and use the evidence to
further program adjustments and improvements. Monthly data will be reported via spreadsheet
that reports progress on the number of students in GE courses with training participants; number
of faculty meeting with coaches; and number of students completing the GE courses. This data
will also be reported as cumulative numbers to show the impact. Excel tools will be exported to
create graphics which support quick visual reference toward progress goals. Figure G1 shows a
representative graphic that will track progress toward the evaluation goal.
Figure G1 Representative Graphic for Monitoring Results Against the Goal

GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 121

Summary
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s New World Model (2016) is the framework for this
implementation and evaluation plan to address the research conducted with eight GE faculty at
one community college. The study evaluated stakeholder knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences according to Clark & Estes (2008) gap analysis framework. Gaps were
documented and based on the research findings and literature review, and recommendations were
formed to increase the ability of GE faculty to contribute to student decision-making of major
and career.
This particular plan outlines a systemic professional development approach for the GE
faculty as one approach to increase support for student decision-making. The implementation
and evaluation plan integrates the most effective elements called out by Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick (2016), most importantly starting with the end in mind. The proposed professional
development program focuses on the desired outcome that GE faculty gain procedural and
conceptual knowledge, practice learned skills, and reflect on behaviors that enhance in-class
practices.
Following Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s model, the design includes four levels of
evaluation and measurement to ensure a relevant and engaging professional development series
with coaching and reflective time over several months to support increased faculty knowledge
and motivation.
To assess effectiveness of this designed program, it is important to evaluate and analyze
participant feedback and engagement during the program implementation. Throughout this plan,
incremental evaluation takes place to measure, analyze, and adjust according to feedback in
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 122

order to enhance the learner’s experience and transferability of learning to effective in-class
practice.
The tools and design of implementing the professional development program are
provided with the intention that a coalition of college support has been garnered. The success of
any professional development, especially an effort of this magnitude, to create organizational
change and address college completion in a new way is dependent upon the buy-in of the faculty
and administrators. By studying eight positive deviant faculty members, this body of research
has documented GE faculty are already engaged with student decision-making. Additionally, the
interviewed faculty expressed an openness to increasing organizational capacity to support
students in a more intentional way with a network of counseling and instructional faculty
support. A faculty professional development program, as outlined here, is a promising approach
to building such capacity.
Finally, it is important to measure program progress along the way and transparently
share milestone and outcome data with participants and the larger group of stakeholders. As
addressed in the study recommendations, further organizational support and attention to reducing
barriers and increasing policy alignment will be key components to determining the success of
any effort.

GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 123

Appendix H: Level 1 and Level 2 Evaluation Survey for Each Session
Level 1 and Level 2 Evaluation Survey administered at end of each training session.
For each of the statements below, please indicate your response.
Disagree Agree
This session held my interest. [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
My participation was encouraged by the
facilitator.
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
What I learned in today’s session will help
me support students.
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
During this session, we discussed how to
apply what we learned.
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
I feel confident about applying what I
learned today.
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
I benefited from exchange with my peers. [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
I agree that journaling between training
sessions will be useful.
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
I feel ready to work with a coach to practice
what I have learned.
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
I am committed to applying what I learned. [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

1. Please name at least two things about the learning environment that helped you learn.
2. What materials did you find to be the most relevant to your job?
3. How could this session be improved?

GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 124

Appendix I: Level 1 and 2 Evaluation Instrument After Three Weeks
Level 1 and 2 Evaluation Instrument administered three weeks following conclusion of semester-
long training and practice.
For each of the statements below, please indicate your response.
Disagree Agree
I have used what I learned through this
professional development in my effort to
support students.
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Looking back, taking this course was a
good use of my time.
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
I have recommended this course to a co-
worker.
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
What I learned in this series has increased
my ability to support students with their
decision-making of major and career.
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
I have received support from a peer in the
program or a coach to apply what I learned
successfully.
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
I am actively embedding content that
supports student decision-making during
my GE courses.
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
I believe I will see a positive impact if I
consistently apply what I learned.
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

1. What else do you need to successfully perform the skills you learned in this series?
2. What additional support do you need to implement what you learned?
3. Please give an example of a positive outcome you have experienced since attending this
training.
4. What impact is this program having in your department?

GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 125

Appendix J: Coaching Feedback Comment Sheet
Coaches will provide a rating as well as comments to help the faculty strengthen their
approaches with students. Feedback comments will include specific observations to support the
rating, as well as guidance to increase faculty effectiveness when supporting student decision-
making in the classroom.
Rating Scale:
1 = Effective use of targeted behavior;
2 = Moderately effective use of targeted behavior;
3 = Ineffective use of targeted behavior.
Targeted Skills
1. Faculty gathered data about students’ goal orientation.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2. Faculty uses students’ goal orientation information and provides useful referrals and
suggestions for further decision-making.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3. Faculty clarified the students’ certainty level and needs with follow-up questions.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
GE FACULTY PRACTICES AND STUDENT DECISION-MAKING 126

4. Faculty shares appropriate materials, resources, and recommendations based on the
students’ responses.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5. Faculty displayed collaborative and accepting communication exchange with the student.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
6. Advisor was able to resolve the students’ questions.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
7. Other comments:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

Experiential learning curriculum supporting guided pathways in California community colleges

PDF

Leadership in an age of technology disruption: an evaluation study

PDF

An analysis of influences to faculty retention at a Philippine college

PDF

Strategic support for philanthropic fundraising: a needs analysis of development officers in higher education

PDF

In pursuit of higher education: external and internal factors influencing the decision to attend college among Cambodian-American students

PDF

Improving student-athlete mental health services: addressing the mental health needs of college student-athletes

PDF

Graduation rates in college of students with disabilities: an innovation study

PDF

The role of student affairs professionals: serving the needs of undocumented college students

PDF

African American college completion at Hillside College: an evaluation study

PDF

Academic advisement practices and policies in support of Black community college students with the goal of transfer

PDF

Practices supporting newcomer students

PDF

Perspectives of Native American community college students

PDF

The issue of remediation as it relates to high attrition rates among Latino students in higher education: an evaluation study

PDF

The role of historically underserved students’ perceptions of their high school counselor in overcoming the equity gap in college admissions: an evaluative study

PDF

Job placement outcomes for graduates of a southwestern university school of business: an evaluation study

PDF

Student support professionals: drivers of community cultural wealth aligned practices through support programs for first-generation college students of color amidst institutional shortcomings

PDF

(Re)Imagining STEM instruction: an examination of culturally relevant andragogical practices to eradicate STEM inequities among racially minoritized students in community colleges

PDF

Support service representatives impact on first-generation low-income community college students

PDF

Minding the gap: an evaluation of faculty, staff and administrator readiness to close equity gaps at the California State University

Asset Metadata

Creator Rowland, Theresa Fleischer (author)

Core Title An evaluation of general education faculty practices to support student decision-making at one community college

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 07/29/2018

Defense Date 05/30/2018

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

Tag college completion,community college,faculty practices,first year student,general education,goal declaration,guided pathways,instructional student support,knowledge, motivation, organizational influences,major and career exploration,OAI-PMH Harvest,strategic student support,student decision making,undecided students

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hirabayashi, Kimberly (committee chair), Gabriner, Robert (committee member), Venegas, Kristan (committee member)

Creator Email tcrowland@hotmail.com,trowland@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-40556

Unique identifier UC11671724

Identifier etd-RowlandThe-6558.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-40556 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-RowlandThe-6558.pdf

Dmrecord 40556

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Rowland, Theresa Fleischer

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