University of South Carolina Beaufort
Act 629 - Summary Reports on Institutional Effectiveness
Fiscal Year 1998-1999

This summary report for the University of South Carolina Beaufort includes: Student Development (1999/2003)

The following remaining components will be submitted to the Commission of Higher Education by the date annotated: Academic Advising (2001/2005); Transfer Student Success (2001/2003); Library Resources and Services (2000, 2004); and General Education (2002/2006).

PROCEDURES FOR STUDENT DEVELOPMENT

Introduction/History/Definition:

USCB previously surveyed students on twenty-nine questions categorized under 7 development vectors:

Vectors	Achieving Competence	Managing Emotions	Becoming Autonomous	Establishing Identity	Interpersonal relationnships	Clarifying Purpose	Developing Integrity
Survey Items	Questions 1 through 8	Questions 9 through11	Questions 12 through 16	Questions 17 through 20	Questions 21 through 23	Questions 24 - 26	Questions 27 through 29

In designing the survey, we considered the non-residential status of USC Beaufort, and sought to corroborate also that student development takes place primarily inside the classroom or through natural maturation. Indeed, the survey of some 70 USCBeaufort students helped confirm this notion (that this is taking place more so through coursework than through extra-curricular activities outside the classroom.) Even in such domains as "managing emotions," and "getting along with others," a high percentage of students attribute change to coursework instead of student (developmental) activity! (see attachment)

In sum, USCB students attributed growth along key student growth factors to USCB. Not surprisingly for a commuter campus, students attributed growth in almost all student development dimensions to classroom experiences.

Currently, a strategic planning endeavor is well underway at USCB and is being used as a prime mover for distilling student development goals for operationalizing later. This strategic planning approach has proven successful elsewhere, but is limited by two important features of higher education: First, many colleges and universities have limited success with defining shared purpose (due to diverse stakeholders, complex organization and multiple purposes.) Second, strategic planning is often a top-down approach, something we are trying to avoid.

In any case, at this reporting stage, we have asked the help of professors in identifying student development factors they feel, as one faculty member puts it, "that USCB can realistically be held accountable for." A list of factors was developed from factors research colleges can honestly claim to impact. In their book How College Affects Students, authors Ernest Pascarella and Patrick Terenzini identify the following developmental factors colleges can influence. ("Those effects which cannot be explained away by maturation or differences between those who attend and those who do not attend college in intelligence, academic ability, or other pre-college characteristics.") The effects fall under Learning and Cognitive Change, Attitudes and Values, and Moral Development.

Thus, at this reporting cycle, we review the results of Spring/Summer 1999 surveys, in which faculty were surveyed on two instruments. The first survey asked faculty which student development factors USCB should be responsible for and, in a follow-up, which student development factors they personally felt responsible for in their own classes. These faculty responses are analyzed in this report.

Indicators

As mentioned, faculty responded to two surveys, both listing all factors which Ernest Pascarella and Patrick Terenzini enumerated as "those effects which cannot be explained away by maturation or differences between those who attend and those who do not attend college in intelligence, academic ability, or other pre-college characteristics." In brief, the authors identify specific factors influenced by college in each of these broad categories…

Learning and Cognitive Change: "College not only appears to enhance general verbal and quantitative skills as well as oral and written communication, but it also has a statistically significant positive net effect on general intellectual and analytical skills, critical thinking, the use of reason and evidence in addressing ill-structured problems, and intellectual flexibility.

Attitudes and Values: "College attendance would appear to influence political, social, and gender role attitudes in consistent ways…"

Moral Development: "College enhances the use of principled moral reasoning, which in turn is positively linked to…resistance to cheating, social activism, keeping contractual promises, and helping behavior."

USCB began its development of goals with lists from this research for several reasons:

This research is extremely well regarded and the use of these factors in faculty surveys would also introduce faculty to this important literature;
The basis for any exercise in identifying such goals should be developmental factors colleges can truly claim to influence. Conversely, it would be futile to generate ideals which a university cannot claim a role in developing;
USCB needs to be reminded of the positive influences colleges can and do have on students' development and the obligation and opportunities that entails-- seeing that we in Academe CAN impact citizens in a way so beneficial to themselves and to society motivates us to ensure we really do make a difference on these areas where we CAN make a difference;
The list was authoritative and scholarly -- essential attributes if faculty are going to embrace these ideals as we move responsibility for these into the curriculum, as the previous surveys show we must.

Assessment Results

As stated earlier, preliminary results from previous assessment activities indicate that USCB students attribute maturation to classroom activities (as opposed to out-of-class endeavors -- such as student clubs and intramurals -- most usually associated with student growth.) As we address these in the curriculum, as the surveys show we must, the role of faculty becomes more important. Thus, we are at a stage of implementing student development and assessment that we have begun involving faculty rigorously.

As might be predicted, some faculty reacted with concerns about their involvement in this area, as might be summarized in these justifiable questions:

Can we precisely attribute student development gains to college? One faculty member stated: "To be held accountable in a fair and valid way, we would have to have a pre-test for all students on these outcome variable or we would have to have comparable students to those attending USCB, within the population of USCB students or who attend elsewhere. It doesn't seem feasible that we could establish this degree of proof." (USCB's Lynn Mulkey)
Can colleges purposefully impact outcomes which are indirect results. "For example, if a student does well on an examination in a particular class, s/he may experience a high level of self-esteem, but the class is not aimed to raising self-esteem as much as it is directly aiming to help a student do well on the exam."
Can you really measure student development? "How would you, in an English, History, or Math class, assess whether a student is more or less ethnocentric …"
Added to these is the reservation of institutional research office - if, indeed, we can measure gains or lack of them - can we identify specific strategies that actually bring about gains in such things as civic mindedness? What good is assessing if we cannot act on assessment results?

These and other points of discussion generated by the exercise were part of the assessments, for the discussion helped pinpoint the strategies. For example, the short answer to the last question is: Research shows that we can, indeed, purposefully make a difference. Increasingly, research shows that general education and developmental growth boils down to the quality and quantity of interaction with faculty and peers. As Virginia Tech concluded in their Self-Study, the institution must strive to provide adequate opportunities for students to interact with each other and with faculty. This may be facilitated through new technologies -- e-mail, or chat-rooms for example.

A sophisticated nationwide study of the college experience has shown that "the student's peer group is the single most potent influence on growth and development during the undergraduate years" (Alexander Astin, 1993.) Second to the peer group, Astin's study identified faculty as the next most significant factor in student development during the undergraduate experience. Specifically, two aspects of student-faculty interaction stood out in explaining the effect of faculty:

The degree to which faculty as a whole are perceived to be interested in students' academic and personal problems and accessible to students outside class.
Actual personal interactions between students and faculty, including hours per week students spend talking with faculty members, being a guest in a professor's home, having a class paper critiqued by an instructor, assisting faculty in teaching a course, and working on a professor's research project

These two key components, Astin found, correlated significantly and positively to outcomes such as completion of the bachelor's degree, graduation with honors, critical thinking ability, analytical and problem-solving skills, public-speaking ability, scholarship, leadership, and overall satisfaction with the college experience.

This research is mentioned here because surveys were developed primarily to begin discussion on student development in the context of classes. In the interviews that followed the surveys, USCB faculty instinctively connected these student development factors with the interpersonal aspects of their teaching ("the students pick these things up from who we are…" "they see these things in us -- that's how we make a difference"…"We are models"...)

The actual survey results -- reported below using a Delphi rank -- result from faculty rating each factor in terms of importance to USCB's purpose and the relative rank (using averages from faculty ratings) of coverage in their own courses:

USCB	Degree to which faculty report covering these in classes	(Student Development Factors Influenced by College)
1	5	Self-Concept: Academic
2	2	Autonomy, Independence and Locus of Control
3	3	Maturity and general personal development
4	4	Use of principled (moral) reasoning
5	6	Self-Concept: Self-esteem
6	11	Self-Concept: Social
7	12	Aesthetic, cultural and intellectual values
8	1	Value placed on liberal education
9	13	Interpersonal relations
10	7	Decline in Authoritarianism and Dogmatism
11	8	Declining ethnocentrism
12	14	Concern for Civil Rights and Liberties
13	15	Identity/ego-development
14	9	Altruism, social/civic conscience, Humanitarianism
15	10	Personal adjustment and psychological well-being
16	16	Assumption of Modern Gender Roles
17	17	Political and social liberalism

From the results seen above, we see that there is some degree of alignment between the faculty ideal for in-course coverage of these factors, on the one hand, and the degree this is already taking place in each class.

Use of Assessment Results

The effect of the assessment results reported here is to further educate faculty on the opportunities for bringing about student development using various strategies. These data will further the discussion on USCB's role in inculcating these traits. Ultimately, when the campus establishes measurable student-development objectives and faculty incorporate objectives into classes, systematic feedback systems will provide results which pin-point areas needing to be strengthened.

As we focus all units on EFFECTIVENESS -- stating learning outcomes clearly and then measuring success -- units will begin to base all budget requests in terms of areas where data show weaknesses -- and thus justify funds in terms of improvement efforts.

Indeed, key to this process is coordination with the budget. Such strengthening of weak area may require faculty development sessions or materials which, in turn, will require significant resources. This illustrates the need to link the budget to assessment of strategic objectives. USCB is currently working to link strategic objectives and all assessment to its budget process. Beaufort is developing a comprehensive institutional improvement process to make all strategic plans measurable and develop improvement teams. Ultimately, all budget requests will be reviewed in terms of institutional objectives and assessment results: Indeed, ultimately all budget requests must be accompanied by assessment data showing weaknesses

While an emphasis on EFFECTIVENESS may seem basic, USCB currently needs this as a focusing slogan or reminder: In the case of academic support, for example, the USCB learning lab (Academic Success Center) may want to begin to focus on systematic collection of subjective -- or anecdotal -- accounts of student improvement -- and depend less on the collection data on headcount use of the lab (or process-oriented approaches) which are necessary but reveal little about ASC services needing improvement. Also, part of our coordinating effort will assess whether the ASC should appropriately include student development factors among its objectives.

In sum, USCB will use these findings here reported to help

Determine student development objectives for which USCB should be accountable;
Coordinate chosen competencies among appropriate core courses and activities;
Determine Indicators to be used to measure attainment of goals;
"Close the Loop" through changes made in our program by policy makers' who review of assessment findings; and
Ensure closed loops with institutionalized linking of assessment with the budget.