Rebecca Schreiber | M.Ed. Portfolio

The following essay is the last in the series “Gen Z Speaks,” written for HIED 846: College Students and Their Success.

*—-*—-*—-*—-*—-*—-*—-*—-*—-*—-*—-*—-*

In her research on the concept of thriving in college, scholar Laurie Schreiner notes that qualitative measures of success tend to be ignored in favor of a survival dichotomy: those who graduate, and those who do not (2012). She explains that thriving suggests something beyond survival. It “conveys that a student is fully engaged intellectually, socially, and emotionally, and is experiencing a sense of psychological well-being that contributes not only to [their] persistence to graduation, but also to success in life” (Schreiner, 2012, p. 4). Practically speaking, what might we observe when a student is thriving in their college experience?

I connected with Jacob, a Dickinson College senior, for a 45-minute Zoom interview, and was delighted to encounter what I would characterize as thriving based on Schreiner’s (2012) definition. Using Astin’s (1991) Input-Environment-Output (IEO) model as a roadmap for our conversation, we explored his expectations and what he carried with him to college (I), what he has experienced there both inside and outside of the classroom (E), and what he believes he has gained from his efforts (O).

Coming from a small rural town in South Central Pennsylvania, Jacob saw academic intelligence and extracurricular involvement as his “thing,” or a central part of his identity. He was President of his senior class and graduated with a cumulative grade point average that placed him at the top of the cohort. When Jacob began his studies at Dickinson College, he was expecting his experience in higher education to be centered on solely educational development in the classroom, saying, “I thought it was all about getting your degree and being an intelligent person.” He imagined he’d have scarce opportunity to engage with other activities. “I didn’t really think that I’d have a lot of time to do other things outside of [the rigorous curriculum],” he shared, noting his early surprise that he was able to involve himself in a wide variety of co-curricular and extra-curricular experiences. As he described his experiences inside and outside of the classroom, it became clear that Jacob has deeply immersed himself in the thoughtful, intentional environment of his residential private liberal arts college.

As an International Studies and Italian Studies double major, Jacob has experienced a challenging academic program that has developed his critical thinking and analytical writing skills.  When asked what factors helped him grow these education-related outcomes, Jacob commented, “I think the rigor of my international studies courses is one factor because I really had to learn how to do research, […] come up with [my own] research questions and focus my writing beyond describing events, […] and go into analysis.” He notes that the ability to connect with faculty and administrators has been a foundational and favorite part of his growth, and his list of key players illustrates the breadth of intentional programming support woven into the Dickinson College experience. To demonstrate this point, consider that Jacob cites his Faculty Advisor, his Italian 101 Professor, an International Studies Professor, his Presidential Fellows internship supervisor in College Advancement, his Career Center advisor, and the Admissions team member who oversees the Liberty Caps, as six of many individuals who have shaped his undergraduate experience through their ongoing support and encouragement.

For Jacob, part of the value of his private liberal arts education lies in thoughtful, intentional opportunities for student development and connection. Jacob emphasized the ways that his co-curricular and extra-curricular activities enhanced development of a host of skills. Relationship-building, communication, time management, and leadership capabilities were all noted as areas of important personal and pre-professional growth. One defining experience was his Presidential Fellowship, through which he worked as an intern with the President’s Office and engaged with prominent alumni on behalf of the college. A second internship with the nearby U.S. Army War College helped him to deepen his research and organizational development capabilities. Working as a Dickinson College Admissions tour guide and prospective student interviewer through a highly competitive program known as the Liberty Caps helped Jacob to make connections between what he was learning in the classroom and the skills he noted developing outside. He assisted the Office of Residence Life for two years as a Resident Advisor (RA) and is now a Community Advisor overseeing nine other RAs. Jacob has served the community as the managing editor for the student newspaper, The Dickinsonian, works as a library desk supervisor, and—because he has a few free moments—he is the President of the Italian Club.

When we spoke, Jacob was preparing for his first job interview later in the week. His superb articulation of the things he has gained from his undergraduate education bodes well for his performance in the application process. I asked him if there were anything he would change about his college experience, given the opportunity. Jacob reflected, “What’s crazy about my last four years is that it’s been so diverse. […] I really pursued things that have been outside of my interests, that I want to explore, that challenge me. I think one thing I would change would be my mindset, that I don’t have to have everything figured out right away. I found out I’m a pretty adaptable person. […] I would tell myself [in my] senior year of high school, ‘Don’t feel like you have to have everything figured out.’”

Jacob’s extensive list of co-curricular and extra-curricular involvement could not be further from his pre-college expectations, and as a student whose high school identity was “the smart and involved one,” these opportunities to engage in personal development were embraced. Indeed, if his learning had been limited to the scope of classroom-bound intellectual mastery prescribed by Stanley Fish—described by Derek Bok (2006) as “a cramped and excessively faculty-centered point of view,”—Jacob’s undergraduate experience would have been fundamentally altered (p. 59-60). This is not to suggest that he would not have achieved learning outcomes such as facility with critical thinking and analysis, improved writing and presentation capabilities, and the like. Importantly, Jacob was able to identify his own growth outside of classroom settings. Consider the extraordinary enrichment he would have missed had he not been immersed in the student development experience at Dickinson College.

  Continue reading “Gen Z Speaks: Jacob” →

The following essay is the second in the series “Gen Z Speaks,” written for HIED 846: College Students and Their Success.

*—-*—-*—-*—-*—-*—-*—-*—-*—-*—-*—-*—-*

The variables linked to an individual’s learning and personal growth are extensive. Every student comes to postsecondary education with a lifetime of experiences and identities that will inform their interactions and engagement. Ultimately, it is up to institutions to provide the right types of opportunities and campus culture to yield optimal outcomes for all students. Higher education professionals can refer to Astin’s (1991) Input-Environment-Output (IEO) model and Kuh’s (2001) theory of high-impact practices to create optimal conditions for success in college.

To learn more about the way that co-curricular and extracurricular opportunities shape the student experience at Penn State University, I participated in 45-minute Zoom interview with “Violet,” a senior at the University Park campus (pseudonym requested). Violet began her college career at Penn State’s Altoona campus—a Commonwealth Campus located roughly 45 miles from University Park (Penn State, 2021). Penn State Altoona markets itself as having “the appeal of a small, private college, with the name recognition and prestige of a major research university” and the campus serves approximately 3,000 students (Penn State Altoona, 2021b; Penn State Altoona, 2021a). After her sophomore year at Altoona, Violet transferred to University Park, the largest of Penn State’s undergraduate campuses, to finish her educational experience along with over 40,000 other undergraduate students (Penn State Undergraduate Admissions, 2021).

At the start of her college career, Violet was encouraged by campus administrators and her older peers to get involved in activities—one for fun, one for professional development, and one focused on volunteerism or philanthropy. Instead of overextending herself, she joined one group at Altoona that seemed to fulfill all those requirements: the Lion Ambassadors.

Penn State Altoona’s Lion Ambassadors work closely with the Admissions Office to “represent the University as a whole,” to “communicate Penn State Altoona’s history and personality,” and to strengthen the campuses’ [sic] and university’s traditions” (Penn State Altoona Lion Ambassadors, 2016). As a Lion Ambassador, Violet was able to use her outgoing personality to support the school. She noted that a great campus tour can be the deciding factor for a prospective student’s enrollment. She felt motivated and excited to play a part in peers’ decision-making processes. As she progressed in the club, Violet was eventually promoted to the executive board and was entrusted with the Tour Director position. Violet balanced the time-intensive position alongside her full-time course load and part-time employment off-campus.

Violet noted that the Tour Director role gave her excellent preparation for the “real world”—a crucial concern for members of Generation Z (Seemiller & Grace, 2016). She was able to practice training peers, overseeing tour captains, evaluating tour guides, creating the tour schedule, and more. It was a time-intensive experience that incorporated several of Kuh’s (2001) high-impact practices, such as learning with peers and quality campus interactions, and imparted personal and social responsibility and practical application skills. She recalls that experience as the most impactful of her college career—it offered the opportunity to learn professional skills, grow personally, and to make close friends.

When she transferred to the University Park campus at the start of her junior year, Violet immediately sought out a club analogous to the Altoona Lion Ambassadors. At University Park, the group is called the Lion Scouts, and Violet quickly found that her experience there was not at all what she anticipated. “The Lion Scouts are run a lot differently,” Violet noted. “The culture is totally different, […] and at UP there are tight-knit groups, like cliques, whereas at PSU Altoona everyone seems to be friendly.” Violet found that her status as a transfer student immediately changed the dynamic in every conversation with her non-transfer peers at University Park. She noted that communication in the Lion Scouts is lacking, saying, “I swear they don’t talk to each other, and they don’t know what’s going on.” After her deeply engaging experience with the Altoona Lion Ambassadors, Violet found the University Park Lion Scouts to be unfulfilling. She struggled to make connections with peers in the group, had no opportunities to develop her leadership skills further, and felt more isolation as an excluded member of the program.

How can the same type of student engagement program at two separate campuses within one institution provide such vastly differing student experiences? Violet’s story emphasized the importance of ensuring that student engagement activities are providing substance and are being run effectively. Simply having a program available does not guarantee student learning, satisfaction, or success. Penn State Altoona’s Lion Ambassador program intentionally emphasized educationally purposeful components of the program, such as plentiful student leadership opportunities and real-world skill building. Its small size perfectly facilitated student growth. University Park’s Lion Scouts program was much larger, and it lacked the structure, communication, and administrative or faculty guidance that could have mitigated some naturally occurring barriers to providing purposeful student engagement. Ultimately, Violet chose to leave the Lion Scouts program, lamenting, “Why are [they] still doing things if they aren’t working?”

There is a happy continuation to Violet’s story. Leaving the Lion Scouts program allowed her to find new engagement opportunities that aligned with the advice she received early in her college career: join groups for fun, for professional development, and for volunteerism. She is now a satisfied member of the American Sign Language club, of a small team that fundraises for Penn State University’s THON event, of the Planned Parenthood General Action group, and is active with the co-curricular association for her major. These groups provide a wide variety of high-impact activities and opportunities for deep integrative learning (Kuh, 2001). Although she uses different language to talk about Astin’s (1991) IEO model, Violet seems to understand intuitively that her experiences on campus have shaped her outcomes—and that other students can harness experiences to realize ideal outcomes, too. “No matter where you go, get involved! It’s easier to make friends when you have something in common.”

Continue reading “Gen Z Speaks: “Violet”” →

For HIED 846, College Students and Their Success, I am conducting a series of student interviews and writing a series of short essays tying the discussions to learning objectives for the semester. The following essay is the first in this series, which I am calling “Gen Z Speaks.”

*—-*—-*—-*—-*—-*—-*—-*—-*—-*—-*—-*—-*

Seemilller and Grace’s (2016) “Generation Z Goes to College” examines generational trends in identity, relationships, leadership, learning, and concerns for contemporary, traditional-aged college students. To what extent do the experiences of Gen Z students in 2021 mirror the trends identified in Seemiller and Grace’s work (2016)? My conversations with college-attending members of Generation Z gave me a glimpse into their experiences in higher education, their perception of peers, and their connection to the larger world. In two separate 45-minute Zoom interviews, I connected with Nathaniel, a Dickinson College junior, and with Chapin, a Penn State Harrisburg first-year student. Although our discussions highlighted several parallels to the text, they also revealed a key distinction.

The interviews began with a request to describe Generation Z using three words or phrases. To my astonishment, both Nathaniel and Chapin led with the word “casual.” Chapin explained that his peers are trendy and easygoing. Importantly, both expressed that the students of Generation Z are looking for honest connections with others and are open to differences. This identity aligns with the authors’ finding that Gen Z “welcomes difference with an open mind and open arms” (Seemiller & Grace, 2016, p. 10). Additionally, both students showed compassion—another important aspect of Gen Z identity—in their concern about issues like peers’ mental health and police brutality (Seemiller & Grace, 2016, p. 8).

Although neither Chapin nor Nathaniel sees himself as having a dependent relationship with his parents, both described trusting relationships with aspects of continued mentorship in their young adulthood. Moreover, both noted that the type of “extremely close” relationship described by Seemiller and Grace, in which sixty-nine percent of Gen Z students called their parents “their number one role models,” appeared to accurately describe their peers and peers’ parents (2016, p. 157). Both have observed relationships in which parents continue to deal with their student’s financial issues, to weigh in on educational choices, or to desire proxy access to details protected by FERPA.

One question the authors explore is whether Gen Z students have embraced their potential as leaders and change agents. Seemiller and Grace’s research suggests they promote issue awareness on social media, preferring to share their opinions on topics that seem relevant to their lives, but that they are not necessarily active voters, advocates, fundraisers, or protestors (2016, pp. 132-133; pp. 136-139; pp. 142-143). Likewise, Nathaniel noted that peers seem to be socially conscious and pay attention to some important issues, but that he does not see them as politically engaged. He pondered, “Is Instagram a constructive form of protest?”

Nathaniel’s musing hints that social media platforms play an outsized role in Gen Z’s engagement with trending issues. How do Gen Z students approach learning about the topics that matter to them? Chapin shared that he has been intentionally avoiding political news since the 2020 election—which, for him, means that he has avoided sources posted on social media and broadcast news programs. His preferred methods of engagement with news mirror those described by the authors in that they are internet-based and may show a preference for information shared through social media (Seemiller & Grace, 2016, p. 131). Interestingly, Nathaniel’s preferred news sources diverge from those popular with the rest of his generation. He eschews social media platforms, and this choice aligns with his preference to visit national newspapers’ websites, and sometimes, to consume news in print.

Chapin’s and Taylor’s comments on learning in a college setting were also aligned with findings presented in the text. Seemiller and Grace explain that, for Gen Z students, “research has become less about the process of knowledge acquisition and more about quickly finding the answer needed for an assignment” (2016, p. 174). Chapin’s thoughts on cheating reinforced this conclusion, noting that peers set up group chats to discuss homework answers on certain types of assignments, such as fill-in-the-blank worksheets. This reality echoes the text’s suggestions that Gen Z students could be less engaged with the process of learning and more focused on experiential learning than on fact retention (Seemiller & Grace, 2016, pp. 173-175). Nathaniel noted that cheating seemed to be more prevalent in entry-level courses focused on “regurgitation of information,” but was quick to comment that his peers’ cheating did not impact his own learning experiences or devalue the degree he is pursuing.

Future career prospects were a concern discussed in both interviews. Unlike Millennials, who would select a non-preferred major in a field with substantial growth, Gen Z students report a preference for a career about which they are passionate (Seemiller & Grace, 1996, p. 103). Nathaniel is searching for “a career that’s reasonably meaningful”—a goal that parallels the authors’ findings on Gen Z employment concerns (Seemiller & Grace, 1996, p. 103). Both he and Chapin are interested in the financial security that can accompany reliable employment, but neither expressed grave anxiety around finances. Notably, both are pursuing majors that are of genuine interest to them.

In both interviews, the primary divergence from Seemiller and Grace’s work was the interviewee’s serious concern about climate change. Seemiller and Grace suggest that climate change is not consistently a major concern for Gen Z students, with somewhere between one-quarter and one-half of respondents (on multiple surveys) indicating that they are not concerned about climate change (2016, pp. 119-120), However, both Nathaniel and Chapin named climate change as the most pressing world issue and commented that peers seemed to believe the same. Chapin shared, “I’d like to be able to have a family without worrying about fire tornadoes,” and explained that he sought out a class on energy and the environment—which is unrelated to his major—primarily because he sees climate change as the issue that “should be taking precedence above all else.” Perhaps Gen Z’s increasing worry about climate change can be attributed to heightened focus in the news. Recent high-profile stories include fellow Gen Z member Greta Thunberg’s “School Strike for Climate,” initiated in 2018, and President Trump’s controversial decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement in 2020 (Kraemer, 2021; McGrath, 2020).

I was pleasantly surprised by the similarities between Seemiller and Grace’s research and Nathaniel’s and Chapin’s interview responses. Moreover, I am impressed with many of the observed trends in Generation Z students. Although they experience uncertainty about the future—a feeling with which most of us are familiar—they exhibit, in Nathaniel’s words, “a well-developed sense of purpose.” Chapin’s expectations for his generation’s impact seemed to perfectly capture the coexisting hope, anxiety, and humor of Gen Z: “If we don’t get [the world’s problems] sorted out, […] allowing people to still live and thrive, […] it’s just because we’ve all blown ourselves up first, so no need to worry about it anyway.”

Continue reading “Gen Z Speaks: Nathaniel & Chapin” →

This piece was written in partial fulfillment of HIED 846: College Students and Their Success.

 

Low-income, first-generation, and historically marginalized individuals are likely to face barriers to college admission, and if they are admitted, they are statistically unlikely to graduate—this is the message of the 2019 documentary “Unlikely” (Fenderson & Fenderson). In particular, the film explores two core issues in higher education: the outsized influence of national rankings, and poor outcomes for students who do not graduate from their program.

In “Unlikely,” Sara Goldrick-Rab calls the national rankings published by U.S. News & World Report “one of the worst things to ever happen to American higher education, because [the rankings give] people the false impression that the things that [they] measure actually matter” (Fenderson & Fenderson, 2019, 27:02). The documentary emphasizes that U.S.NWR’s Best Colleges rankings perpetuate gatekeeping and unequal access to education because the scoring system primarily consists of proxies for wealth and power (Fenderson & Fenderson, 2019). In my experience working in admissions, I have seen these rankings force institutional focus in the wrong places: on test scores, GPAs, and metrics that give the impression of esteem. They give the uninitiated public a skewed impression that prestige is more important than fit, and sometimes convince students to attend a more expensive school instead of selecting a strong school that is offering significant financial aid.

The consequences of choosing the higher-ranked school with fewer resources for non-legacy students can be serious. “Unlikely” notes that “it’s not just about getting in, it’s about graduating,” and reveals that schools of all types—public and private, 2-year and 4-year, for-profit and non-profit—can be under-resourced for first-generation, low-income, nontraditional, and underrepresented students (Fenderson & Fenderson, 2019, 2:12). When students aren’t empowered to succeed, they do not persist, and they can leave an institution with significant debt (Fenderson & Fenderson, 2019). In both my experience in financial aid and in my personal life, I have seen this struggle play out for students trying to finish degrees. Being saddled with debt, with no credential to access a higher-paying job, and no way to rehabilitate defaulted loans, is a serious barrier to re-entry and degree completion.

If institutions of higher education insist on modeling their policies and supports around an outdated understanding of the college-going population, we will continue to fail the students who need us most. In my career, I have participated in some efforts to counteract the challenges in “Unlikely.” Based on my experiences, I can offer several recommendations.

Crucially, institutions must find ways to protect students from bearing the negative effects of national rankings. Ensuring your institution is prioritizing the non-admissions-related metrics in the ranking formula can alleviate some of the pressure placed on the scores of admitted students. Similarly, admissions teams should review their policies around merit aid to ensure it is awarded based on a truly holistic application review, giving greater access to non-legacy students by asking them to take on less debt burden. Financial aid offices can prioritize use of their need-based grant budget to bridge gaps for students who are most at risk of non-completion. Lastly, institutions should work collaboratively across departments to establish basic needs supports. In my experience, successful supports have included a food pantry, a clothing and textbook lending library, and an emergency grant fund.

“Unlikely” interviewee Kalif said, “You can’t stress about the things you can’t change because you don’t have the power to do anything about it” (Fenderson & Fenderson, 2019, 8:18). But those of us working in higher education do have the power to do something about these problems—and we have a responsibility to divest from gatekeeping and invest in educational equity.

Continue reading ““Unlikely”: A Film Response” →

The following is an excerpt from a piece written in partial fulfillment of the requirements for HIED 801: Foundations in Institutional Research. The report may be viewed in its entirety here. 

 

“There is a line among the fragments of the Greek poet Archilochus which says: ‘The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.’ […] For there exists a great chasm between those, on one side, who relate everything to a single central vision, […] and, on the other side, those who pursue many ends[.] The first kind of intellectual and artistic personality belongs to the hedgehogs, the second to the foxes[.]”

–Isaiah Berlin (1957, pp. 7-8)

Being a fox is humbling work. Although we receive support from our law school colleagues, guidance from our Dean, and occasionally have a consultant review our efforts, the daily work of Juris Doctor enrollment management at Penn State Dickinson Law falls primarily on two individuals. In my role as Director of Admissions & Financial Aid, I am responsible for tracking our progress and predicting outcomes through data analysis. This requires that I be as Tetlock describes Berlin’s fox—cautious and adaptable in my enrollment predictions, aware of multitudinous ways that enrollment behavior could be influenced, remaining skeptical about my own forecasting (Tetlock, 2013; Berlin, 1957).

In my three years at the law school, I have used a very basic predictive model to forecast our fall enrollment in each admissions cycle. The model was based on only the prior year’s enrollment, accounting for enrollment rate by LSAT score for all applications and for admitted students. Although this model has been used with caveats that it is merely a prediction based on limited data, and although it wasn’t a fantastic predictive model, it certainly embraced the “perfect is the enemy of the good” ethos that has been expressed in HIED 801. In other words, even an imperfect predictive model was more useful to my team than no model at all. With the new skills I have learned this semester, I am eager to improve my enrollment modeling for future cycles, and I embrace the opportunity to articulate a plan for future implementation.

Continue reading “Prediction Project” →

This piece was written in partial fulfillment of the requirements for HIED 801: Foundations in Institutional Research.

This proposed research was conceptualized to benefit the Penn State Dickinson Law community, which includes students, faculty, and staff/administration. Community is one of Dickinson Law’s four core values. It has recently been augmented by Dean Danielle Conway’s articulation of a vision priority which values diversity, equity, and inclusion as an essential part of a healthy community. The goal of this research is to regularly take inventory of the student experience, to look for trends in those reports over time, and to allow administrators to react quickly to problems within the community.

• This is a longitudinal trend study of student engagement and experience at Dickinson Law, specifically to look for trends based on race/ethnicity (Krathwohl, 2009, p. 573). Both quantitative and qualitative data are collected. As Krathwohl (2009) notes in his discussion of trend studies, the population sampled will change with each repetition of the survey.
• Results benefit: (1) Institutional Leadership (Deans) – understanding student perspectives on the school’s culture and community; (2) Student Services – greater insight into vital programming and community-building efforts; and (3) Admissions –articulating the experience of community and culture to prospective students, based on current students’ report.

Continue reading “Survey & Interview Planning” →

This piece was written in partial fulfillment of the requirements for HIED 801: Foundations in Institutional Research.

I’ve long been interested in research for its own sake – the prospect of defining a problem, crafting the right questions to collect useful data, and articulating analyses to inform decision-making is enticing. In some ways, Institutional Researchers are scholar-advocates for the field of higher education, helping institutions navigate the myriad challenges of the modern age. I decided to pursue the M.Ed. through World Campus, in part, to advance my research capabilities and provide more robust analysis and modeling for Penn State Dickinson Law. In the future, I may look to transition to a more senior enrollment management position, to Institutional Research, or to a hybrid administrative and non-tenure-track faculty position. My short- and long-term goals all require that I reflect on my related strengths, my areas for growth, and that I outline a plan to achieve my objectives. To structure these inventories, I will refer to interview content with Institutional Research professionals, and to Terenzini’s three organizational intelligences of institutional research: (1) technical and analytical intelligence, (2) issues intelligence, and (3) contextual intelligence (1993).

Continue reading “On Institutional Research” →

I took a long break before pursuing graduate school. For fourteen years, I waited. Roughly eight of those years were spent not really knowing what I wanted to do with my life, bouncing between career paths, gathering experiences – and anyway, I had a million reasons I couldn’t start a program. When I found my passion for higher education six years ago, the reasons keeping me from grad school were more compelling than ever, so I waited. During all this waiting, I started to question myself. Am I really cut out for grad school, anyway? Is a master’s degree even worth it? This year, and particularly this semester, I’ve been reflecting on those insecurities. Tonight, they reminded me of a powerful moment in classic film:

“Oh, will you help me? Can you help me?” Dorothy implores.

“You don’t need to be helped any longer. You’ve always had the power to go back to Kansas,” is Glinda’s gentle reply.

Scarecrow entreats, “Then why didn’t you tell her before?”

“Because she wouldn’t have believed me. She had to learn it for herself” (Fleming, 1939, 1:36:26).

 

While there was great content and structure in this course, and I really enjoyed learning the history of higher education in the United States, my most valuable realization was of this more personal nature. I found myself excited to take a deep dive into every weekly discussion question and every module assignment. Most weeks, I stayed up late at night researching, writing, and crafting presentations after my two children went to bed. I did this not because I felt my work needed to be perfect, and not because of some external pressure, but because I was passionate about the acts of research and information dissemination. I feel intellectually invigorated and empowered by this semester in a way I did not feel in my first semester, when I was operating from fear of “not doing grad school right.” Now I recognize that leaning into one’s own curiosity and passion is perhaps the most important and valuable part of finding success in a master’s program.

 

References 

Fleming, V. (Director). (1939). The wizard of oz [Film]. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.

The Power of Peer Interaction

In this Inside Higher Ed article from November 3, 2020, Flaherty reviews a recent working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research, which is titled “It Is Not Who You Teach, but How You Teach” (Orlov et al., 2020). The research team is comprised of economics professors from four institutions and assesses student learning outcomes in the spring 2019, fall 2019, and spring 2020 semesters. Researchers each completed a survey to outline their pedagogical techniques in the semesters noted. They used a standardized assessment of course comprehension at the end of each semester and found that students performed significantly more poorly in spring 2020 with the advent of distance education. Flaherty notes that despite “widespread fears disadvantaged students might fare more poorly during the COVID-19 spring term than their peers,” academic struggles were not confined to any demographic groups (2020). Current results indicate that two mitigating factors seemed to have a positive effect on student outcomes in the spring 2020 semester: (1) an emphasis on peer interactions in synchronous courses, and (2) the instructor’s prior familiarity with online teaching pedagogical techniques (Orlov et al., 2020). The researchers emphasize that active learning methods such as “think-pair-share” and small group assignments are “significantly associated with improved learning” during online synchronous courses (Flaherty, 2020). These findings support previous research into online learning and suggest that synchronous courses may be preferable to asynchronous courses because they more easily allow faculty to facilitate peer interactions (Flaherty, 2020). As distance learning continues to be the de facto option for many students during the COVID-19 pandemic, learning outcomes should improve with instructor’s increased online teaching experience. The findings suggest that active learning may be best facilitated through a mixture of synchronous and asynchronous teaching, peer engagement, and independent assignments.

Continue reading “Article Review” →

In HIED 545, a multi-week assignment asks students to select an institution of higher education to profile. I had such a great time with the research and analysis for my first week’s report that I decided to share my discussion board post here for posterity.

The College of Wooster

Founded: The College of Wooster, located in scenic small-town Wooster, Ohio, was founded in 1866 by Scottish Presbyterians (Ohio History Central, n.d.).

Mission/Vision: The College of Wooster has long emphasized independence – their mission statement calls the college a “community of independent minds,” and as I’ll discuss later in this post, the Independent Study senior capstone is the hallmark of a Wooster education. But Wooster’s mission does not allow for independence that eschews community. The college’s mission statement holds that “Wooster graduates are creative and independent thinkers with exceptional abilities to ask important questions, research complex issues, solve problems, and communicate new knowledge and insight” in “an interdependent global community” (The College of Wooster, 2020b). Wooster’s vision statement echoes this mission: “We seek to be leaders in liberal learning, […] graduating independent thinkers […] and to make significant contributions to our complex and interdependent world” (The College of Wooster, 2020b).

Defining Moments: Wooster has a long tradition of promoting access and equity in education – when it opened in 1870 as Wooster University, it was one of few schools that “granted women and racial minorities equal access to a college education” (Ohio History Central, n.d.). This tradition has carried through to the modern era, with 53% of students identifying as female, 22% domestic students of color, and 16% international student enrollment as of 2019 (The College of Wooster, 2020a). The College of Wooster’s early growth saw the addition of a medical school, a graduate school, and a music department – of which, only the music department has survived to the present day. In 1901, Wooster’s main structure caught fire, presenting a major challenge for the school. In the end, the College was able to replace the lost building with five new ones within a year’s time (Ohio History Central, n.d.). The modern focus on undergraduate mentored research can be traced to a 1915 faculty decision to “focus on undergraduate teaching, thus forsaking the graduate programs previously developed” (Ohio History Central, n.d.).

U.S.NWR Ranking: Wooster was ranked #66 in 2020 edition of Best Colleges, National Liberal Arts Colleges; #11 in Best Undergraduate Teaching; and #74 in Best Value Schools (U.S. News & World Report, n.d.).

Peer Institutions: Wheaton College (MA), Allegheny College, Beloit College, Centre College, Gettysburg College, Kalamazoo College, Lawrence University, Spelman College, St. John’s College, and Ursinus College. I was unable to locate a list of Wooster’s peer institutions through their Institutional Research office, so to determine peer schools, I ran a pivot table to cross-reference a 37-positions range from U.S.NWR National Liberal Arts College 2020 rankings (ranks #53 through #89) with the 37 institutions that the Carnegie Classifications website identified as significantly similar to Wooster, using basic classification and all subcategories. The institutions listed above appeared on both lists (U.S. News & World Report, n.d.; The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, n.d.) Admittedly, I may have missed schools that administrators at Wooster would identify as their peer institutions; most likely the Five Colleges of Ohio, which I will discuss below.

Collaboration or Competition Strategies: Wooster collaborates with institutions that share a common profile and history by aligning itself with the Five Colleges of Ohio consortium (Five Colleges of Ohio, 2020a). Although U.S. News & World Report rankings change from year to year, Wooster benefits from association with typically higher-ranked Kenyon College (#27), Oberlin College (#33), and Denison College (#43); among the consortium schools, only Ohio Wesleyan University (#92) is significantly lower-ranked (U.S. News & World Report, n.d.). According to the Ohio Five’s mission, current collaborative strategies include (1) cost-saving measures through shared contracts and services, (2) promotion of scholarship and academic innovation between campuses, and (3) establishing the Ohio Five Colleges “as national leaders” in order to improve admissions and faculty recruitment (Five Colleges of Ohio, 2020b).

Perhaps more critically important are the ways in which The College of Wooster attempts to differentiate itself from the crowd. The college places the Independent Study (I.S.) program – a premier mentored undergraduate research experience required of all graduates – as the centerpiece of the Wooster experience. Independent Study involves a one-semester research project in the junior year, and a full-year project in the senior year that is completed alongside a faculty advisor who provides weekly one-on-one mentoring. Although the project involves close, personal oversight from a faculty member, the student is responsible for every step of the research project, which culminates in an oral defense in front of a faculty panel. As evidenced by the college’s webpage, “What Others Say” (The College of Wooster, 2020c), Wooster uses its I.S. recognition to market itself alongside aspirational peers and set itself apart from the crowded “small, private liberal arts” market. For example, this page’s headline reads, “Wooster and Princeton, together again!” The phrase refers to the fact that Wooster’s I.S. program has been named among the top senior capstone experiences consistently since 2002 – a highly specific recognition that is only shared with Princeton.

Additionally, Wooster uses its featured position on lists such as Loren Pope’s “Colleges that Change Lives” to market itself as a school that is financially accessible to lower- and middle-income students, but can deliver on families’ hopes of socioeconomic mobility (Pope, 2020). According to the National Center for Education Statistics’ College Navigator, 20% of Wooster students in 2018-2019 were Pell grant recipients, and thanks to a comparatively generous financial aid program – which provides grant or scholarship aid to 99% of students – students seem to borrow far less than the national average. In fact, in 2018-2019, only 50% of students borrowed federal or private student loans – and Pell recipients graduated at a higher rate than non-Pell recipients, suggesting that the financial support Wooster provides to lower income students can help them to earn a Bachelor’s degree and improve their socioeconomic prospects without falling victim to a mountain of student loan debt (National Center for Education Statistics, 2019).

As a former Pell recipient and Wooster graduate, I strongly believe there is truth in their marketing, and that my experience there changed my life. Digging through the IPEDS data on the National Center for Education Statistics bolstered this opinion and made me feel fantastic about the donations I make to my alma mater. And in case you’re wondering how on earth to pronounce “Wooster,” here’s a helpful video: https://youtu.be/RVs3R77wxAo

Continue reading “Academic Ode to My Alma Mater” →