Running head: SCHOLARLY REFLECTION

Scholarly Reflection
Daniel Espinoza-Gonzalez
Seattle University
SDAD 575: Best Practice in Student Services
Dr. Thai-Huy Nguyen
July 1, 2015

SCHOLARLY REFLECTION

Over the past few weeks, we have had the privilege to tour and learn from various
department and student service representatives on college campuses around the region. We began
our exploration with Highline College in south Seattle, journeyed close by to the University of
Washington (twice), and then worked our way to North Seattle College. Our visits were highly
informative as we learned how each institution structured itself around their student populations,
mission/values, institution type, resources, and surrounding community. For me personally, I
benefited from physically visiting the variety of institution types and gained more clarity around
which style and community I would ideally like to work in.
The purpose of our campus visits was to gain insight as to best practices, or effective
practices, each institution uses to improve upon student retention and success. Retention for this
course was initially defined by Dr. Krawczyk as the result of how many students remained
enrolled at the university from year to year. Dr. Krawczyk also listed universal retention
factors, those being academic preparation/remediation, social/academic capital, student/family
finances, and institutional fit. In his presentation specifically catered to retention data at Seattle
University (SU), Dr. Krawczyk attributed retention factors at SU to Finances: Inability to afford
costs of attendance and Value proposition, and Fit: Climate/diversity and Engagement.
Dr. Krawczyks presentation on retention at Seattle University was helpful towards
understanding how educational institutions are defining retention, and coincidentally, how they
are defining student success. According to the Noel-Levitz Retention Codifications, the
notion of retention is grounded in student success (2008). Noel and Levitz combine
persistence, progression, retention, completion/graduation to describe student success. There
are a variety of scholarly definitions for persistence in higher education, some contradictory to
one another, but what I would like to highlight is the inclusion of retention and

SCHOLARLY REFLECTION

completion/graduation in Noel-Levitz definition of student success. Simply put, student

success was defined as the successful completion of students academic goals of degree
attainment (Levitz, 2001).
At the University of Washington (UW), we were able to hear from Jason Johnson,
Associate Dean of Undergraduate Academic Affairs, who spoke about retention and graduation
rates at the UW. At one point in his presentation, Jason stated, our 6-year graduation rate, not
4-years because we dont like to talk about that, but our 6-year graduation rate is about 80%
(June 22, 2015). According to the State of Diversity document at the University of Washington,
graduation rates based on entering freshman class of 2007 were 58% - 4 years, 78% - 5 years,
and 82% - 6 years. Keep in mind the cost of tuition and fees alone for Washington state residents
at UW for the 2014-15 academic year was $12, 394, and was $33, 513 for nonresidents. While
graduation rates arent something to be proud of for the university, Jason still believes this
university works really well for a lot of students (June 22, 2015).
As we visited college campuses in the region, graduation rates and retention seemed to
define student success for each institution, especially since the once community colleges
Highline and North Seattle began offering Bachelor degrees. Although degree attainment was the
focus for all institutions, for some departments, centers, and offices, the focus was more on the
journey, or even post-college life, rather than the institutional end-goal. While some institutional
representatives drew more attention on graduation rates, others, like Highline Colleges staff and
several of the University of Washingtons departments , embodied Alexander Astins 1984
definition of student success, which focused on the degree of direct involvement of students in
the academic and social life of their institutions (Noel & Levitz, 2008). Astin concluded
involvement and connection would lead to graduation and success (Noel & Levitz, 2008).

SCHOLARLY REFLECTION

Whereas Astins conclusion seems straightforward, one thing we learned in our campus
visits is that students are complex and come with various priorities besides their education. This
was evident in our North Seattle College visit after hearing experiences from several
representatives who list the priorities and obstacles in their students lives, such as family,
children, work, commute, age, veteran status, and even undocumented citizenship. Jennie Dulas,
an advisor at North Seattle College, states, Our students need help with everything, and usually
its the everything that is impacting their learning so we got to help with everything going on
in their lives in order to help them academically (June 17, 2015). To be clear, everything was
defined as student priorities outside of academia.
In Vincent Tintos theory of student departure, he argued students may decide to leave
due to the quality of their relations with the institution (Krawcyzk, 2015). In his presentation, Dr.
Krawcyzk further explained Tintos model by listing Fixed/unchanging elements of the model
(2015). Students enter higher education with various attributes, abilities, attitudes, and external
commitments, all while trying to fit into the institutions attributes, like size, location, and
resources (Krawcyzk, 2015). Although some of their students come with difficult circumstances,
representatives such as Belinda Tillman at North Seattle speaks towards these student attributes,
abilities, attitudes, and external commitments while describing the work that must be done as
student affairs professionals, If you start stripping away the layers that keep students from being
successful, then you really start to get to know that student (June 17, 2015).
Our Highline College campus visit set a high standard for those that followed, and their
collaborative effort across offices could explain why. Since the beginning of our visit, we were
warmly welcomed by several representatives working in various offices on campus. In his article
on Forging Educational Partnerships That Advance Student Learning, Charles Schroeder

SCHOLARLY REFLECTION

writes, On some campuses, particularly smaller ones, collaborative interventions could be

focused at the macrolevel (institutional level) (1999, p. 142). Evident in all our sessions at
Highline was not only the collaborative effort, but also the strong relationships between all of the
staff. And since Highline is a much smaller campus in comparison to that of the University of
Washington, the collaborative efforts at Highline are much more visible on campus. Vice
President of Student Services Toni Castro states when speaking about the work, effort, and
dedication of Highlines staff, All of us have been in the trenches. Toni goes on to share, It
may go against theories, but I will openly say I love our team, I love our division (June 17,
2015).
As a whole, each institutional visit was highly informative and none were the same.
While one institution may have focused mostly on numbers and statistics, another would focus
on student services or collaborative efforts across campus. Luckily, each institution showed us at
least a glimpse into their student development departments and the manner in which they serve
their students. The visits stretched our thinking in terms of how student development
professionals need to be flexible and creative in order to effectively support their students.
However, as Gabriel Gallardo, Associate Vice President of Student Services and Academic
Support Programs puts it, There is still plenty for us to do to improve upon student success
(June 22, 2015).
Even though students may enter higher education underprepared, academically and
financially, I believe it is the role of each institution to make up for whatever the student may
lack through student services. However, without a supportive community and effective student
outreach effort, the services are useless. Dr. Krawcyzk states institutional fit as one of the
universal retention factors on any college campus (2015). When working with students, its

SCHOLARLY REFLECTION

essential for student development practitioners to realize one of our essential goals is to prepare
students for their next step, even if that step leads them to another institution. In order to help
students as best we can we must be willing to meet them where they are at and work on
establishing a meaningful relationship.
According to the Elements of community that campuses should foster, per Carnegie
Foundation (1990), in Dr. Krawcyzks presentation, college campuses should be purposeful,
open, just, disciplined, caring, and celebrative (2015). Though this is the standard of our
institutions, same should be the standard of our student development professionals. This was
exemplary in all of our campus visits, though some more than others. When working with
students, our focus should be on the journey while keeping our eyes towards the end goal.
Institutions have used retention and graduation rates to define student success, however,
student affairs professionals must be willing to look at student success through a different lens.
Providing students the resilience and skills needed to be successful in life are what seem to be
necessary in todays time. It is essential that we help students accomplish their goal of degree
attainment, but programs like UWs DAWG Life Skills Program coordinated by Edward Jones
do much more; helping student-athletes with career discernment, professional skills, character
development, and life after college/athletics. These objectives can easily be applied to many
offices on college campuses, and crafted to effectively serve a variety of student populations.
Dr. Jonathan Brown, Associate Dean at Highline College, notes on innovation, The
university model doesnt work for community colleges (2015). Taking his remarks into
consideration, institutional staff must also understand what works on some colleges may not
work for others. That being said, there may be universal strategies that can prove to be beneficial
in any college. Incorporating Highlines heart and culture, University of Washingtons (I wish to

SCHOLARLY REFLECTION

say resources, but that is unrealistic for many campuses) effective programming and planning,
and North Seattles strategic thinking could be applied to many institutions.
Highline College has created a culture where staff and faculty are committed to getting
students the help they need, while also establishing close ties to the community across the
campus. UW has established programs like the DAWG Life Skills Program, First Year Programs,
and the College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP) to provide students with whatever they
need to be successful, along with careful campus and space planning to foster a healthy
community as evident in their dining halls, residence halls, and The HUB. Meanwhile, North
Seattle College uses strategic thinking to enhance their institution through grant-funded
programs, Workforce Education programs, as well as undocumented student initiatives.
Realistically, it is difficult to mimic effective practices from other institutions, not even
taking into consideration how much time it takes to establish them on a campus, but at least these
are standards to strive for. Unfortunately, I have not mentioned how some of these strategies may
work for some students, yet not so much for others. For example, how do we effectively serve
commuter students who dont spend much time on campus, international students who constantly
work to navigate through American culture, or first-generation students who may need careful
assistance in order to be successful in the college environment?
Tinto (2004) implies in order to improve retention on college campuses, each institution
must have accessible academic, personal, and social support services. That is why purposeful
outreach strategies, meaningful relationships/interactions, and investment from the campus
community are needed to serve students as best we can. Our scope of influence must expand
from beyond our offices and into the community, the classroom, and even online to provide
students the appropriate services they need. Each interaction with a student is crucial for their

SCHOLARLY REFLECTION

success, whether in person or online any relationship with the institution should not be taken
for granted. That is why students in programs such as the CAMP program are so successful,
because they are required to have a great amount of interaction with campus staff and other
students in the program. On the flipside, the CAMP program also provides their students with
financial resources.
At the end of the day, each program, strategy, and practice comes with its set of flaws,
and may not work in all institutions for various reasons. Successful retention programs,
according to Noel and Levitz, have elements of assessment, intervention strategies, value
progressive responsibility philosophies, understand the importance of teaching and learning
processes, use student engagement strategies, create programs and services based on meeting
students individual needs, have high levels of student expectations, monitor levels of
satisfaction, are willing to make institutional changes, and foster a student-centered institution
(2008). These are general elements that can be applied to any institution. What we may pull from
each institution are strategies that can be crafted for others. We must be willing to set the
standards we would like to see reflected in our institutions and work to get there. The effort to do
so must come first.

SCHOLARLY REFLECTION

8
References

Blimling, G. S. and Whitt, E. J. (Eds.). (1999). Good practice in student affairs: Principles to
foster student learning. San Francisco, GA: Jossey-Bass.
CAMP student handbook. (2015). Retrieved from http://depts.washington.edu/omadcs/currentcamp-students
Demetriou, C., & Schmitz-Sciborski, A. (2011). Integration, Motivation, Strengths and
Optimism: Retention theories past, present and future. General format. Retrieved from
https://studentsuccess.unc.edu/files/2012/11/Demetriou-and-Schmitz-Sciborski.pdf
Krawczyk, J. (2015). Title of presentation [PowerPoint slides].
Long, D. (2012). Theories and models of student development. In L. J. Hinchliffe & M. A. Wong
(Eds.), Environments for student growth and development: Librarians and student affairs
in collaboration (pp. 41-55). Chicago: Association of College & Research Libraries.
Noel, L., & Levitz, R. (2008). Student success, retention, and graduation: Definitions, theories,
practices, patterns, and trends. Retrieved from http://www.stetson.edu/law/conferences/
highered/archive/media/Student%20Success,%20Retention,%20and%20Graduation%20Definitions,%20Theories,%20Practices,%20Patterns,%20and%20Trends.pdf
Schroeder, C. (1999). Forging educational partnerships that advance student learning. In G. S.
Blimling & E. J. Whitt (Eds.), Good practice in student affairs: Principles to foster
student learning (pp. 133-156). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. (2nd ed.).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1999). Taking retention seriously: Rethinking the first year of college. NACADA
Journal, 19(2), 5-9.
Tinto, V. (2000). Linking learning and leaving: Exploring the role of the college classroom in
student departure. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp.
81-94). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Tinto, V. (2004). Student retention and graduation: Facing the truth, living with the
consequences. Washington, D.C.: The Pell Institute.
Tinto, V. (2007). Research and practice of student retention: What next? Journal of College
Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 8(1), 1-19.

SCHOLARLY REFLECTION
Tinto, V. (2012). Moving from theory to action: A model of institutional action for student
success. In A. Seidman (Eds.), College student retention: Formula for student success
(pp. 251-266). Latham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.