Capstone - College Staff Perceptions of Student Success - Lucy Romao Vandepol

Running head: COLLEGE STAFF PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENT SUCCESS

College Staff Perceptions of Student Success

Capstone Project

Submitted for course EDU 776 Seminar: Issues in Education Central Michigan University

Submitted by: Lucy Romao Vandepol

December 13, 2014

Capstone Monitor Dr. David Lloyd

2 COLLEGE STAFF PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENT SUCCESS

Abstract

The purpose of this research study was to investigate how student success is defined by

college staff, to gather their perspectives on their role on student success, to determine what

they think students need to be successful and what barriers college staff perceived to impact

student success. The central phenomenon of this study was student success. The research

methodology used in this study was a cross-sectional survey with both qualitative and

quantitative elements (Creswell, 2012). One hundred and seventy six participants completed

the survey. The data showed that although there were some differences as to how each of the

staff groups personally defined student success, the majority defined it as the achievement of

holistic success. The exception to this came from academic staff; within this staff group, the

majority felt that knowledge application was more of a definition of student success. The data

demonstrated that the majority of participants felt that student success was a process that

consisted of smaller ongoing milestones as opposed to it being an outcome. The data also

showed that for the most part college staff felt that student success should be defined by inner

successes as opposed to outer successes. Data also showed that attainment of credentials and

graduation stands out as to how all groups felt that the college, students, and society define

student success. The majority of participants felt that their role contributes to student success

and that in their day to day work they think about how their role contributes to student success

on a daily basis. Furthermore, the data also showed that student motivation ranked at the top

in level of importance as it pertains to student success, as well as being seen as a barrier that

impacts student success. There are several recommendations for future research and practice

that stemmed from this study.


Acknowledgements

I am fortunate to have an amazing support system that has made the completion of this

capstone possible. First and foremost I would like to acknowledge and thank my partner, Tunny

Vandepol who encouraged me to pursue graduate studies and whose endless support has

made the completion of this capstone possible. Thank you for believing in me and for taking

this on with me. Equally important has been the support that I have received from my

daughter, Mika Romao Vandepol. She has been my biggest cheerleader and the driving force

behind getting this capstone done in a timely manner. Although, this journey has taken me

away from her, she has come up with inventive ways to challenge, assist, and celebrate along

the way. Thank you for your patience and unconditional love. I am also grateful for the support

that I have received from the rest of my family who have each helped out in their own way.

I would like to thank my Central Michigan University colleagues. Anna De Grauwe for

joining me on this journey; listening to my endless capstone ideas, and for providing

encouragement and support along the way. Team awesome for being AWESOME! I would also

like to acknowledge my cohort because they are an amazing group of women who have made

this experience fun. In addition, I would also like to thank the faculty who made this experience

memorable, Dr. Patricia Hedley for setting the foundation, Dr. Mike Stacey for pushing me out

of my comfort zone, Joe Mior for showing empathy and Dr. David Lloyd for his guidance

throughout the capstone process.

I would also like to acknowledge my institution’s support in allowing this study to take

place, the colleagues who allowed me to pick their brains, and the staff who participated in the

study. Lastly, I would like to recognize the first-generation mature students who inspired me to

pursue graduate studies and who have made this a humbling experience.


Table of Contents Abstract .............................................................................................................................................2

Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................3

List of Figures .....................................................................................................................................6

Chapter 1: The Problem Defined ................................................................................................................. 7

Background Statement ............................................................................................................................. 7

Problem Statement ................................................................................................................................... 7

Purpose of Study ....................................................................................................................................... 8

Research Questions .................................................................................................................................. 9

Definition of Terms ................................................................................................................................... 9

Limitations of Study ................................................................................................................................ 10

Chapter 2: The Literature Review .............................................................................................................. 11

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 11

Student Success within a Post-Secondary Environment......................................................................... 11

College Staff Perceptions of Student Success ......................................................................................... 13

College Staff Impact on Student Success ................................................................................................ 14

Role of College Staff on Student Success ................................................................................................ 16

Role of Academic Staff on Student Success ............................................................................................ 17

Role of Administrative Staff on Student Success .................................................................................... 17

Role of Support Staff on Student Success ............................................................................................... 18

Successful Students ................................................................................................................................. 19

Barriers to Student Success .................................................................................................................... 19

Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 20

Chapter 3: Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 21

Research Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 21

Data Collection ........................................................................................................................................ 22

Population and Sample ........................................................................................................................... 23

Instrumentation ...................................................................................................................................... 23

Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 24

Ethical Review ......................................................................................................................................... 25

Chapter 4: Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 26

Results of the Study ................................................................................................................................ 26


Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 45

Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations ..................................................................... 47

Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 47

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................. 49

Recommendations .................................................................................................................................. 56

Summary of Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 57

Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 63

Appendix A: Survey Questions ................................................................................................................ 63


List of Figures

Table 2. Q2: Personal Definitions of Student Success ................................................................................ 28




Table 6. Q3: Change in Definition of Student Success ................................................................................ 32

Table 7. Q5: Staff Opinion on Student Success Outcome v. Process .......................................................... 33

Table 8. Q6: Staff Opinion on Student Success Outer v. Inner Success ...................................................... 34

Table 9. Q7: Staff Opinion on How the College Defines Student Success .................................................. 35

Table 10. Q8: Staff Opinion on How Students Define Student Success ...................................................... 36

Table 11. Q9: Staff Opinion on How Society Define Student Success ........................................................ 37

Table 12. Q12: Staff Perceptions of Contribution to Student Success ....................................................... 39

Table 13. Q18: Staff Perceptions of Students’ Ability to be Successful ...................................................... 42

Table 14. Q19: Staff Ranking of Items Important to Student Success ........................................................ 43

Table 15. Q21: Staff Ranking of Items that Impact Student Success .......................................................... 44


Chapter 1: The Problem Defined

Background Statement

Participation rates at Ontario colleges have been on the increase. According to a report

written by Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO), “Ontario has experienced… a

20% increase in college enrolment (full-time equivalents) between 2002/02 and 2010/11 - not

including international students” (HEQCO, 2013). With an increased rate in post-secondary

school participation, the focus shifted to ensuring student success. Student success is a

buzzword amongst those involved with post-secondary education; it is also a popular topic of

discussion in the media and amongst policymakers (Seifert, Henry, & Peregrina-Kretz, 2014). In

Ontario, one of the key measures that the government uses to measure a college’s

performance is graduation rates and those rates are used to determine performance-based

funding (Ministry of Training Colleges & Universities, 2002). Institutional commitment to

student success requires an understanding of staff perceptions of student success. Beginning

with how staff defines student success. Defining student success is critical to its promotion

(Cuseo, 2008). The definition of student success can be elusive as there can be many different

definitions within post-secondary institutions.

Institutions need to focus on supporting their students and help them succeed (Ishler, &

Upcraft, 2005). Everyone within a post-secondary institution plays a role in student success.

Currently, there appears to be a knowledge gap on staff perceptions of student success. As such

it is important to have a better understanding of how student success is being defined and how

people perceive their impact on and role in achieving student success and to determine future

professional development opportunities.

Problem Statement

Although college staff plays a critical role in all aspects of student success little research

has been published on staff perceptions of student success, and how they perceive their role

impacts student success. This study was based on the premise that staffs play a role in student

success (Upcraft, Gardner, & Barefoot, 2005), and that student success is the centre of post-

secondary education. The core problem being addressed is the need to better understand staff

perceptions of student success at an Ontario college. Currently there are many definitions of


student success; however there is no specific consensus on the definition of student success. As

such the definition is left up to the individual to define; this in itself can be problematic because

it means that everyone is working towards a different goal or it can leads to misunderstandings

(Davenport 2014). The researcher believes that staff perceptions of student success may vary

depending on personal definitions, roles within the college and perceptions of students needs

to be successful. An understanding of student needs provides the foundation for program

development (Lizzio, 2006)

Purpose of Study

The purpose of this qualitative research study was to survey staff at an Ontario college

to investigate how student success is defined by administration, faculty, and support staff, to

gather their perspectives on their role on student success, to determine what they think

students need to be successful and what barriers college staff perceives to impact student

success. The central phenomenon of this study was student success. The researcher explored

this concept by focusing on community college staff perceptions of student success. The goal of

this study was to develop an in-depth understanding of study’s central phenomenon.

This study was focused on all levels of staff and their perceptions of student success.

College staffs are the ambassadors of student success for an institution; as such it is important

to understand how they perceive their roles to contribute to student success. This study took

place at an Ontario community college located in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) and it is

focused on all levels of staff. Currently there are 1,425 staff employed at this institution, 124

administrative, 891 faculty, and 392 support staff.

This study advanced the understanding of how staff at a community college perceives

student success. The institution and staff benefits from the information collected through this

study. The larger college community may gain increased insight into staff perceptions of

student success; including how staff personally defines student success, how they perceive that

they contribute to student success, what staff perceive students need to be successful, and

what barriers they perceive to impact student success. Subjects may also gain a deeper

understanding of their contribution to student success after thoughtful reflection. Knowledge


gained from this project may help the college with future strategic planning initiatives and

determine future professional development opportunities.

This study adds to the knowledge of student success by giving staff at an Ontario college

the opportunity to contribute their voices to the topic of student success within a college

environment. This study expands on current knowledge of student success by expanding and

replicating current research that has occurred at institutions outside of the study site. The

results of this study have the potential impact to contribute to individual staff attitudes, as well

as institutional planning around professional development. There was also a potential for the

information collected through this study to improve current practice by contributing to the

development of a common definition of student success and inform institutional decisions

supporting student success.

Having a better understanding of how staff defines and perceives student success will

help strengthen the institution’s work to enhance and assess student success. It may also lead

to individual staff members realizing how they personally play a role and contribute to student

success.

Research Questions

The following questions were addressed:

1. How do administration, faculty, and support staff personally define student success?

2. How do staff perceives that they contribute to student success?

3. What does college staff perceives students need to be successful?

4. What are the barriers that college staff perceives to impact student success?

Definition of Terms

The following represents a list of definitions for terms used in this study.

Administrative staff – refers to staff in leadership positions (i.e. president, vice-president,

executive directors, directors and managers), executive assistances and all staff within the

human resource management team.

Academic staff – refers to full-time, partial load, sessional and part-time faculty, counsellors,

and librarians.

Barriers – refers to things that prevent or impact student success.


Institution – refers to the study site, which is an Ontario community college located in the

Greater Toronto Area (GTA).

Support staff – refers to staff that do not fall into the academic or administrative staff groups.

Limitations of Study

A limitation of this study was that the data collected were limited to the voluntary

participation of staff members at an Ontario college. As a result there was a potential for either

overall low response rates and/or low response rates from any one of the three staff groups

(administration, faculty, and/or support staff) which affects the size of the sample for the study.

Perhaps some staff may have been reluctant to complete the survey despite it being

anonymous. It is important to note that the researcher is a member of the support staff group

at the Ontario College where the study took place; this fact could also influence participation.

A second limitation of this study was the timeframe that the data was collected in; this

study was conducted over a short period of time during the fall 2014 semester. The timing of

this study coincided with mid-term assessments resulting in lower participation rates by faculty.

Additionally, this study was limited in scope as it only looked at staff perceptions of

student success; institution and student perceptions of student success were not be explored.

As a result the data collected will not be representative of all stakeholders.

The final limitation of this study is that it only explored staff perceptions at a single

college, and it does not compare the data collected against other colleges therefore it cannot

be generalized to other colleges.


Chapter 2: The Literature Review

Introduction

This literature review investigated current knowledge described by various researchers

related to the problem and research questions of this study. The review consisted of an

examination of literature on student success including definitions of student success within a

post-secondary environment, college staff impact on student success, needs of successful

students, and barriers to student success. An examination of the literature indicated that

student success is a broad term often used to describe various elements of the student

experience.

Student Success within a Post-Secondary Environment The term student success is a broad term with multiple definitions that encompasses a

range of factors and does not happen by chance (Kuh, 2011; Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, &

Hayek 2006; Seifert & Peregrina-Kretz, 2013; Tinto, 2012). It has been defined in multiple ways

depending on who the stakeholder is and its meaning is not clear (Seifert, T. A., & Peregrina-

Kretz, D., 2013; Tighe, Barnes, Connor & Steadman, 2013). How it is defined impacts higher

education (Davenport, Martinez-Saenz, & Rhine, 2012). Cuseo (2007) stated that “student

success may be defined as a favourable or desirable student outcome” (p. 2). The outcomes

that student success often refers to include: student retention and persistence (Cuseo, 2007;

Davenport, Martinez-Saenz, & Rhine, 2012; Upcraft, Gardner, & Barefoot, 2005), engagement

(Kuh, 2011; Lizzio, 2006), satisfaction (Kuh, 2011), college completion (Cuseo, 2007; Davenport,

Martinez-Saenz, & Rhine, 2012; Ministry of Training Colleges and Universities, 2002; Seifert,

Henry, & Peregrina-Kretz, 2014; Tinto, 2012), acquisition of skills (Kuh, 2011; Seifert, Henry, &

Peregrina-Kretz, 2014), student goal attainment (Seifert, Henry, & Peregrina-Kretz, 2014; Tinto,

2012), academic achievement (Cuseo, 2007; Kuh, 2011), student advancement (Cuseo, 2007)

and/or holistic development (Cuseo, 2007). According to Davenport, Martinez-Saenz, and Rhine

(2012) “faculty and staff may define success as learning, growth and development,

measureable outcomes of a particular course, degree program or engagement in co-curricular

activities.” (p.36)


Student success can mean different things within the same institution depending on the

stakeholder (Davenport, Martinez-Saenz, & Rhine, 2012). Student success can also be narrowed

down to a particular period of the student experience, for example Upcraft, Gardner, and

Barefoot (2005) look at the first-year experience and referred to student success as the

completion of first year courses and enrollment into second year. Tinto (2012) suggested that

student success may mean something different to underprepared and/or part-time students;

for these students “success in college is measured one course or even on class at a time”

(p.115). Gardner and Barefoot (2005) acknowledged that there is more to student success than

a grade point average (GPA) and persistence to graduation. Kuh (2011) specifically refers to

student success as being “defined broadly, encompassing academic achievement; engagement

in educationally effective activities; satisfaction; acquisition of twenty-first-century knowledge,

skills and competencies” (p. 258). Student success tended to refer to a particular thing, such as

completion, graduation, a GPA and be outcome oriented. In addition to looking at student

success as an outcome, one needs to also consider the processes associated with student

success. Seifert, Henry, and Peregrina-Kretz (2014) bring forward the notion that for those

involved in strategic enrollment management (SEM) student success was about the process not

just completion and that consideration must be given to the students’ intended goals. They also

stated that many students attending college do so with the goal of completion of a credential in

mind and therefore achieving this goal would be seen as success. Although completion was

seen as the ultimate goal for many students employment and income are also goals (Wiggers &

Arnold, 2011).

According to Cuseo (2007) one must first identify the student success outcomes and

then the process that promotes it before being able to define it. He lists “1) personal validation,

2) self-efficacy, 3) sense of purpose, 4) active involvement, 5) reflective thinking, 6) social

integration and 7) self-awareness” (p. 3). When these elements are not present then the

student success outcome is not as likely to occur.

There was also a variance in what determines students’ success; some believe that it is

based on student’s first year experiences (Upcraft, Gardner, & Barefoot, 2005). Variation in

definitions and perspectives can result in a range of concerns such as communication, planning,


programming, staff and student interactions, teaching, and outcomes can all be impacted. It is

important to recognize the differences and establish a mutual understanding (Davenport,

2014).

Student success is dependent on the student and the institution (Kuh, 2005; Lizzio,

2006; Seifert & Peregrina-Kretz, 2013; Tinto, 2012). According to Lizzio’s (2006) five senses of

success, student success is centred on a student having clear values and a sense of the

academic culture. It occurs when students feel connected and identify with their institution,

understand the student experience and believe that they are capable of doing well, have a

sense of direction, and are resourceful in navigating the system (Lizzio, 2006). It is also

dependent on how well an institution provides resources and supports that lead to student

success (Hrabowski, 2005; Kuh, 2005; Tinto, 2012).

Davenport, Martinez-Saenz, and Rhine, (2012) used the term ‘student success

conundrum’ to refer to the fact that various stakeholders hold different perceptions of

students’ success, and these perceptions impact an institutions ability to help students be

successful. Varying definitions impact institutions in a variety of ways. Without a clear common

definition student success as a goal can look very different from one area to the next.

College Staff Perceptions of Student Success Seifert, Henry, and Peregrina-Kretz (2014) shared information on two recent studies

that explored perceptions of student success. Both studies took place in Ontario; one of the

studies took place at a single institution, while the other one was part of a larger study that

involved nine universities and four colleges. The single institution study took place at an Ontario

community college located in the Greater Toronto Area. This study took place over one month,

involved 552 participants that included faculty, staff, and students, and strove to discover a

common understanding of student success. “The final definition identified student success as

indeed multifaceted and complex” (Seifert, Henry, & Peregrina-Kretz, 2014, p.4) and it

remarked that each student’s perceptions of success involved a different perspective. The end

result was a college wide consensus that success was based on the following five student

focused outcomes:

1. Identification or discovery of career and personal goals and direction.


2. Development of the whole person, which includes intellectual, personal, creative, and

social development.

3. Demonstrated and ignited passion for lifelong learning.

4. Mastering of skills and capabilities within the student’s chosen discipline.

5. Experience of a positive journey, filled with incremental milestones and successes.

6. Academic and professional achievement and a sense of personal accomplishment,

and effective preparation for next steps beyond Sheridan. (Seifert, Henry, & Peregrina-

Kretz, 2014, p.4-5)

The multi-institution study was titled Supporting Student Success and it investigated how each

of the different stakeholders defined student success. From the analysis of the data collected

six categories of student success arose “(1) retention and graduation, (2) personal success, (3)

success varies for individual students, (4) success is a holistic process, (5) success is student

engagement, and (6) success is having a sense of belonging at the institution” (Seifert, Henry, &

Peregrina-Kretz, 2014, p.6). The top definitions varied for each of the stakeholder groups and

were a reflection of their roles within the institution. The final result was the notion that

success “varies by student” and is “perceived differently by the various stakeholders at the

institution” (Seifert, Henry, & Peregrina-Kretz, 2014, p.7). The writers argued that focusing on

college completion as a way of defining student success does not do justice to students; they

believed that student success is a process with various individual milestones. It is important to

note that student success is not linear and straightforward (Seifert, Henry, & Peregrina-Kretz,

2014). College staff perceptions of student success can differ between staffing roles across an

institution.

College Staff Impact on Student Success Although “there are many factors that can impact student success” (Davenport,

Martinez-Saenz, & Rhine, 2012, p. 42) it is important to consider the role that college staff plays

on student success. In addition to being stakeholders in student success, college staff has the

potential to impact it. Within an institution how staff interacts with students and amongst

themselves can impact student success. Davenport, Martinez-Saenz, and Rhine (2012) pointed

out that when college staff focus on their own performance in pursuit of evaluation based


rewards and recognition that this behaviour can impact student success in a negative manner.

Instead of focusing on individual outcomes, staff should work collaboratively to do what is best

for students; not doing so can impact student success (Davenport, Martinez-Saenz, & Rhine,

2012). Communication and information sharing between college staff can have a positive

impact on student success. Clear and consistent information insures that students receive

accurate information and contributes positively to student success (Davenport, Martinez-Saenz,

& Rhine, 2012).

Looking at how staff interacts Hrabowski (2005), Kuh (2005) and Schilling and Schilling

(2005) all stated that the staff’s expectations of students, in particular setting high standards for

students’ impacts student success. Faculty are at the centre of the student experience and can

define a student’s experience (Evenbeck & Jackson, 2005). Faculty impacts student success by

providing structure through course outlines, using a variety of instructional techniques,

facilitating discussions, and by relating course content to things that are of interest to students

(Erickson & Strommer, 2005).

Support staff impacts student success through the interactions with students outside of

the classroom. Orientation programming is offered to help students transition to the

institution, provide them with information about the institution and their role as a student, and

prepare them for their new journey. As noted in CAS professional standards for higher

education, orientation’s mission is to contribute to student learning and development (Council

for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education, 2012). Orientation programming is

generally designed by those in student affairs and linked to student retention (Mullendore &

Banahan, 2005) one can say that through the design and delivery of orientation programming

that student affairs staff impacts student success. In addition, orientation provides students

with an opportunity to be introduced to the campus (Mullendore & Banahan, 2005) and the

way in which staffs interact with students during these initial moments’ impact students’

experiences and therefore can impact their success.

Although college staff impacts student success, one must consider, as noted in Wiggers

and Arnold (2011) that it is difficult to assess actual impact that staff may have to student

success given that it is difficult to measure results, and/or that results of impact may be


“marginal or indirect at best” (p.10). Given that it is difficult to measure actual impact, it is also

important to consider the role that college staff plays on student success.

Role of College Staff on Student Success All college staff has a role to play in student success, but it is the collective role that has

potential for the greatest impact (Davenport, Martinez-Saenz, & Rhine, 2012). Blimling, Whitt,

and Associates (1999), Keeling (2004), and Keeling (2006) all called for partnerships between

academics and student affairs, together these two roles can make a difference in student

experiences. Student success takes a collaborative effort throughout the institution. Effective

institutions develop policies that target the success of all students, they are structured and

establish a clear framework so that all parts are coming together to impact student success

(Hrabowski, 2005; Schroeder, 2005; Seifert & Burrow, 2013; Siegel, 2005; Tinto, 2012). They

also “inspire first-year students to dedicate themselves to campus life and follow through on

their educational goals” (Siegel, 2005 p. 176). According to Davenport, Martinez-Saenz, and

Rhine (2012) college staff should focus on bringing together the needs of the students and the

institution’s mission, and administration should work to remove processes that are obstacles to

student success. This level of thinking was also supported by Siegel (2005). Often within an

institution student affairs and academics tend to operate in silos; each tends to work in and

focus on their own area. Those in administrative positions should work towards dismantling

silos, promoting, and modeling collaboration and information sharing. There should also be a

focus on creating challenging and supportive environments (Siegel, 2005; Upcraft, Gardner,

Barefoot, & Associates, 2005). Natalicio and Smith (2005) added that staffs interactions along

with their ability to demonstrate added value to students that facilitate student success.

Lizzio (2006) provided a framework for student success, intended to provide common

language for reflection and discussion, and was reflective of student success needs. The “five

senses” of the framework referred to a sense of connectedness, capability, resourcefulness,

purpose, and culture. Lizzio (2006) encourages staff to apply the five senses framework when

developing, planning, or assessing orientation and transitions programming and strategies. By

doing this staff can work towards creating orientation programming and strategies that will

contribute to student success. The same could be said for all programming and service delivery.


One of the roles of college staff involved in Enrollment Management and Student Affairs is to

develop programming and services that align with learning outcomes that result in student

success and impact retention (Davenport, Martinez-Saenz, & Rhine, 2012). Staff is also tasked

with using retention data and learning outcome assessment to demonstrate student success

(Davenport, Martinez-Saenz, & Rhine, 2012; Hrabowski, 2005; Tinto, 2012).

Regardless of position, all staff can contribute to student success by making students

feel welcome, ensure they receive the supports they need, encourage student engagement

both inside and outside the classroom, and provide them with encouragement (Hrabowski,

2005).

Role of Academic Staff on Student Success According to Evenbeck and Jackson (2005) academic staffs are at the centre of the

student experience. Given the central role that academic staffs play in the student experience,

it is not surprising that they also play a central role in student success. Academic staff through

their interactions with students plays a significant role in student success and can positively

affect persistence (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Faculty have an opportunity to provide

students with the foundation for their success and to “teach them the strategies of active

learning, critical thinking, forming community around academics, integrating knowledge, and

valuing diverse perspectives, along with the skills for managing time, difficult reading, and the

use of new technologies” (Evenbeck & Jackson, 2005, p.261). Academic staffs’ role in student

success is carried out through effective instruction of course materials, engagement of students

in discussions, and an explanation of why (Erickson & Strommer, 2005). Helping students

understand the reasons and making those connections for them help them to see purpose.

Role of Administrative Staff on Student Success Tinto (2012) focused on the institution’s role in student success; one could argue that

given the fact that the governance of an institution falls under the jurisdiction of administrative

staff that the institution’s role could be synonymous with the role of administrative staff in

leadership / decision making roles. If we take this approach, then one of the roles of

administrative staff is to facilitate the assessment of programming that contributes to student

success and to analyze the data to drive action. They should also be driving investment into


faculty development to ensure that faculty are equipped with the skills needed to contribute to

student success and how to help students (Erickson & Strommer, 2005; Evenbeck & Jackson,

2005; Hrabowski, 2005; Tinto, 2012). Natalicio and Smith (2005) added that institutions should

be investing in first-year student success. Siegel (2005) added that campus leaders should focus

on the significance of first-year and include references to it in the institution’s mission.

Administrative staffs play a critical role as they are the ones that set the tone for the campus,

recruit and support staff, and allocate resources (Hrabowski, 2005). Natalicio and Smith (2005)

wrote about the role of the president as an agent in demonstrating that the institution is

committed to student success.

Role of Support Staff on Student Success Support staffs are comprised of non-academic and non-administrative staff. Support

staffs are generally comprised of staff within student affairs, academic advisors, facilities,

recruitment and admissions, and scheduling. Support staff by nature of their job titles

contributes to student success, their roles fall into the outside of the classroom realm of the

student experience; the existence of their roles demonstrates an institutions commitment to

student success. Their role can positively affect student success when they express personal

interest in the students (Hrabowski, 2005). When looking at support staff and student success,

the literature focused on the role of support staff within the student affairs realm. This is not

surprising given the fact that the role of student support staff is to develop programs and

services targeting student success. Within the support staff category, staffs involved in

orientation and transition programming play a role in helping students become connected to

the campus, develop the skills needed to be successful in college and transition to college

(Hrabowski, 2005; Mullendore & Banahan, 2005). Given that student affairs staff is involved in

“providing experiences that enhance student learning and success” (Schuh, 2005, p. 428), their

role is more prominent when one looks at student success from a holistic perspective. The

challenge is getting students to see the potential impact that these roles can have on their

success prior to using them (Schuh, 2005).


Successful Students Lizzio (2006) believes that student success is dependent on the following five senses:

capability, connectedness, purpose, resourcefulness, and academic culture. Successful students

understand the student experience, are connected and identify with their institution, see

purpose in their chosen program, can manage the challenges and navigate the system, and

understand the values of post-secondary education (Lizzio, 2006). Additionally student

engagement was critical to student success (Kuh, 2005). According to Upcraft, Gardner,

Barefoot, & Associates (2005) students who manage their lives outside of school tend to

successful transition to college and achieve their goals.

Barriers to Student Success Wiggers and Arnold (2011) suggested that there are institution and student specific

factors that impact student success. According to Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, and Hayek

(2006) a student’s engagement represents where a student and the institution intersects. In

terms of student specific factors “numerous studies have shown that age, gender, immigrant or

first-generation status and academic preparedness all contribute to the likelihood of student

success once admitted into a PSE program” (Wiggers & Arnold, 2011, p. 3). According to

Upcraft, Gardner, Barefoot, & Associates (2005) a student’s life outside of school can have a

negative effect on a student’s success. The majority of students leave school for reasons other

than poor academic performance (Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, & Hayek 2006). Alcohol,

addiction, harassment, mental health, and family situation can all impact student success. One

must also not disregard the impact that precollege experiences such as “enrollment choices,

academic preparation, aptitude & college readiness, family & peer support, motivation to learn,

and demographics - race, gender” (Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, & Hayek, 2006, p. 17) can have

on student success. In addition, they also outline that parental education, level of academic

rigour in high school, educational goals, socioeconomic status, and financial aid can impact

student success.

A student’s experiences while attending college also impacts student success. According

to Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, and Hayek (2006) once a student is attending college student

engagement is the key factor of student success. Disengaged students tend to not be as


successful as engaged students (Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, & Hayek, 2006). Hrabowski

(2005) added that low expectations from teachers can have a negative effect on student

success. Motte and Schwartz’s (n.d.) study found that more students are working while

attending post-secondary school and that doing so was having a negative effect on some

students’ academic success.

Although there are many programs and services to assist students, ultimately it comes

down to student utilization; lack of awareness along with a student’s choice to not use services

can be a barrier to student success.

Summary

There is extensive literature available on student success within a post-secondary

environment. The literature review identified that student success was not an easily defined

term, and that it is dependent on a range of factors. The key learning’s in the review was that

even though there are different perceptions of the definition of student success, and that the

differing perceptions impact an institution’s ability to contribute to student success. Another

key learning was the fact that collaboration amongst stakeholders is important to student

success. It is also important to note that all stakeholders contribute to student success.

Although the definitions for student success found within the literature generally fall

into a few common categories, there does not appear to be a common all-encompassing

definition. In order for one to fully understand student success it is important to explore how

various stakeholders define student success.


Chapter 3: Methodology

Research Methodology

In order to better understand college staff perceptions of student success, the

researcher investigated how administration, faculty, and support staff define student success,

how they perceive they contribute to student success, what they perceive students need to be

successful, and what barriers they perceive impact student success. The focus of this study was

college staff at an Ontario community college located in the GTA. The research methodology

used in this study was a cross-sectional survey with both qualitative and quantitative elements

(Creswell, 2012). A cross-sectional survey research method was selected to collect a snapshot

of college staff perceptions of student success at one particular point in time. A survey was

used in order to gather data from a larger population of participants. In particular a survey with

both qualitative and quantitative elements was selected to explore and better understand the

views and opinions of college staff based on their staff group and to collect data that can be

analyzed for comparisons (Creswell, 2012). Furthermore, the researcher has elected to use

surveys to generate open-ended responses from participants.

The benefit of using a survey research method was that the researcher was able to

collect data from a larger sampling of the population; the researcher invited the entire college

staff population to participate. Surveys allowed for extensive data collection in a short period of

time (Creswell, 2012). This research method allowed the researcher to learn more about the

college staff population and its current opinions. A survey also allowed participants to remain

anonymous, the researcher hoped that in using a survey method that participants would be

more apt to provide authentic responses. A cross-sectional survey also allowed the researcher

to compare responses between the three staff groups (Creswell, 2012).

The main concerns of a survey research method was the potential for a low response

rate, the fact that the survey might only be completed by users with particular biases, and fact

that it is difficult to ensure random sampling (Creswell, 2012). In addition to a low response

rate, there was also the concern that the opinions of a particular staff group may not be

included if that staff group does not participate in the research. Furthermore, there was also


the concern that there may be technological issues that arise through the use of a web-based

questionnaire. All of these concerns can impact data collection.

Data Collection

The researcher collected data from college staff at an Ontario community college

located in the GTA during the fall of 2014 using a web-based questionnaire. The study focused

on all levels of staff. The researcher requested and received permission from the vice president

of administration to survey all staff. The researcher also applied to both Central Michigan

University’s (CMU) Institutional Research Board (IRB) and research site’s Research Ethics Board

(REB) for research approval; approval from both boards to carry out the research was received.

Survey data were collected electronically and only the researcher has access to the data.

The data will be destroyed after the successful completion of the capstone project. All data

collected were stored in a password protected computer at the researcher's residence. Data

collected cannot be used to identify subjects.

The online survey tool FluidSurvey provided the researcher with a survey link that was

used in the messaging inviting staff to complete the survey. The use of FluidSurvey allowed the

researcher to collect and retrieve anonymous survey responses via their web reports.

Using the college’s staff intranet site the researcher was able to post an announcement

inviting all college staff to complete the web-based questionnaire. All staff has access to the

staff intranet site which can be accessed both on and off-campus. In addition, the college’s

research department also sent out an email to the college’s leadership team inviting them to

complete the survey and support the research by forwarding it to their staff. This allowed the

researcher to be distanced from the survey to avoid coercion and / or undue influence. The

email communication and the posting on the college’s intranet introduced the research study

and provided the link to the web-based questionnaire. The survey was available from

November 5 to 21, 2014. The objective was to obtain a minimum of 72 returns which is

representative of 5% of the total staff population. The researcher anticipated the return rate

objective to be met given that there was no risk to the participants of this study.


Participation in this study was voluntary and information collected will be kept

confidential. An agreement statement was built-in to the web-based questionnaire implying

consent for the use of the data collected with the completion of the survey.

Population and Sample The participants include all staff at one particular Ontario community college located in

the GTA. As of May 2014 there were 1,425 staff employed at this institution, 124

administrative, 891 faculty, and 392 support staff. All staff had an equal opportunity to

participate. All 1,400+ current full and part-time staff members were invited to participate, but

participation was voluntary. The demographic characteristics of the participants varied; this

information was not be collected by the researcher as part of this study and was not made

available to the researcher. The researcher has a collegial relationship with the participants, no

supervisory relationship exists, and there were no concerns about coercion or undue influence.

Having all levels and groups of staff participation added validity to the data collection

and offered a comprehensive understanding of staff perceptions of student success.

Participants in different staffing groups may have different perceptions of student success

based on their experiences with students and / or their roles within the college. The sample

consisted of all staff levels and was broken down to the following three staffing groups:

administration, faculty, and support staff. The target population was appropriate and allowed

for comparison of staff perceptions between different staffing groups. The breakdown of data

into the three staff groups provided a deeper understanding of staff perceptions of student

success.

Instrumentation The researcher developed and used a web-based questionnaire using the online tool

FluidSurvey. The survey was created using an online tool that allowed the researcher to analyze

the data and produce statistics and graphs. A cross-sectional survey was used to collect data

from the staff perspective. See Appendix A for a copy of the web-based questionnaire. It is

important to note that the survey was designed to guarantee confidentiality; the researcher

was not able to trace the completed surveys to the respondents. The survey was designed to


maintain confidentiality, no identifying information was requested from study subjects, and

responses collected remained anonymous.

There were a total of 24 questions which were laid out electronically over 19 pages, the

questions were a mix of multiple choice and open text. The survey can be completed in one

session lasting approximately 10 to 15 minutes. Page one was the cover letter and it explained

the purpose of the research and its benefits, it also explained that the survey is voluntary, that

no compensation will be provided, that responses will be anonymous, that the survey has

received REB approval, the length of time it should take and who to contact for additional

questions, comments or concerns. Page two contained a demographic question. A demographic

question was added asking participants to identify which staff group they were a part of. This

was including in order to explore different perspectives, and to allow for maximal variation

sampling (Creswell, 2012). The researcher was interested in comparing the data collected from

the three groups and hoped to receive enough information to effectively analyze the data. The

questions on pages three to ten explored how college staff define student success and was

aimed at answering “How do administration, faculty, and support staff personally define

student success?.” Pages 11 to 13 were dedicated to how college staff perceived that they

contributed to student success and are aimed at answering “How do staff perceives that they

contribute to student success?.” Pages 14 to 16 looked at college staff perceptions of successful

students, and were aimed at answering “What does college staff perceives students need to be

successful?” Page 17 covered college staff perceptions of barriers to success was aimed at

answering “What are the barriers that college staff perceives to impact student success?” Page

18 provided participants with an opportunity to provide additional experiences and/or thoughts

on student success. The last page thanked participants for their time and provided the

researchers contact information.

Data Analysis

The researcher utilized the reporting tools available through FluidSurvey to analyze the

data collected. Once the survey closes and data has been collected, the researcher organized

the data into themes and designed a protocol to help organize the information collected. The

data collected were organized to answer the research questions and then broken down into


common themes. The data were analyzed to determine if it supports the academic literature.

Data collected were described using statistics, tables, graphs and narrative.

Ethical Review The study was approved by Central Michigan University’s Institutional Research Board

(IRB) and their research ethics process conducted through the website IRBNet. It was also

approved by the research site’s Research Ethics Board.


Chapter 4: Data Analysis

This research study examined college staff perceptions of student success at an Ontario

community college located in the GTA. Within the context of student success, the researcher

investigated how one group of stakeholders, college staff, defined student success, how they

perceived their role as contributing to student success, along with staff perceptions of students’

needs to be successful, and barriers that impacted student success. This study was focused on

all levels of staff and their perceptions of student success.

A cross-sectional survey research method was selected to collect a snapshot of college

staff perceptions of student success at one particular point in time. The research study used a

survey with both qualitative and quantitative elements to explore and better understand the

views and opinions of college staff based on their staff group and to collect data that could be

analyzed for comparisons (Creswell, 2012). In addition to close-ended responses, the survey

also generated open-ended responses from participants.

For the purpose of this study, the researcher collected data between November 5 and

21, 2014. A web-based questionnaire using the online tool FluidSurvey was conducted by the

researcher; see Appendix A for a copy of the web-based questionnaire. One hundred and

seventy six participants completed the survey. The data were analyzed by treating the

participants as one homogenous sample of college staff, and were also analyzed to compare

responses to question two in particular amongst the three staffing groups.

The researcher utilized the reporting tools available through FluidSurvey to analyze the

data collected. The data collected were organized to answer the research questions and then

broken down into common themes. The researcher compared the data collected to determine

if they supported the literature review, and formulated a set of recommendations outlined in

Chapter five.

Results of the Study

There were a total of 24 questions which were laid out electronically over 19 pages.

Page two contained a demographic question, which was included to ask participants to identify

the staffing group to which they belonged. This was included to explore different perspectives,

and to allow for maximal variation sampling (Creswell, 2012). There were approximately 1,425


staff employed at this institution in the fall of 2014: 124 administrative, 891 faculty, and 392

support staff, and all staff had an equal opportunity to participate. All 1,400+ current full and

part-time staff members were invited to participate, but participation was voluntary. In total,

176 staff members (12%) participated in the study. Of the total number of participants 58 were

academic which represented less than 1% of total faculty, 33 were administrative, which

represented 3% of total administrative staff, and 85 were support staff, which represented 22%

of total support staff.

Q1 - I am part of the following staffing group

Response Chart Percentage Count

Academic 33.0% 58

Administrative 18.8% 33

Support Staff 48.3% 85

Total Responses 176

Figure 1. Q1: Staff Breakdown

This figure demonstrates the distribution of staff amongst the three different staffing groups.

Research question one: How do administration, faculty, and support staff personally define

student success?

The questions on pages three to ten explored how college staff defined student success

and were aimed at answering “How do administration, faculty, and support staff personally

define student success?.” Page three asked participants how they personally defined student

success. Participants were able to select all that applied; they were also able to select ‘other’

and provide their own definition. There were a total of 175 responses, with the top five

responses being 1) achievement of holistic success, 2) knowledge application, 3) attainment of

credential and graduation, 4) personal development, and 5) meeting personal goals. Twelve

participants selected ‘other’ and some of their responses would have fit into the options

provided. Of the 12 participants who selected ‘other’, the main theme within the responses

related to personal growth and employment. In addition, participants also identified the

following as definitions of student success: graduation, employment or further education,


acquisition of essential employability skills, engagement with the learning material, and

students reaching their goals.

Q2: How do you personally define student success?

Overall college staff responses


Achievement of holistic success (holistic success refers to both

academic and personal successes)

78.3% 137

Attainment of credential and graduation 65.1% 114

Knowledge application (ability to apply what they have learned) 75.4% 132

Mastering academic content (i.e. strong GPA, meeting/exceeding

program & learning outcomes)

37.1% 65

Measurable metrics (i.e. Key Performance Indicators) 18.9% 33

Meeting personal goals 60.6% 106

Persistence from one semester to the next 41.1% 72

Personal development 63.4% 111

Related employment after graduation 46.9% 82

Engagement with the campus 22.9% 40

Student satisfaction 47.4% 83

Other 6.9% 12

Total Responses 175

Figure 2. Q2: Personal Definitions of Student Success

This figure demonstrates how staff personally defined student success.

Please note that respondents were able to choose more than one response.


How do you personally define student success?

Academic staff response breakdown


Achievement of holistic success (holistic success refers to both

academic and personal successes)

77.6% 45





50.0% 29








Other 12.1% 7

Total Responses 58


This figure demonstrates how academic staff personally defined student success.




Administrative staff response breakdown


Achievement of holistic success (holistic success refers to both academic

and personal successes)

84.8% 28





42.4% 14








Other 3.0% 1

Total Responses 33


This figure demonstrates how administrative staff personally defined student success.




Support staff response breakdown


Achievement of holistic success (holistic success refers to both academic

and personal successes)

76.2% 64





26.2% 22








Other 4.8% 4

Total Responses 84


This figure demonstrates how support staff personally defined student success.


Page four asked participants whether their definition of student success had changed

from when they were a student. There were a total of 174 responses; 93 (53.4%) stated that

their definition had changed from when they were a student, while 81 (46.6%) stated that it

had not changed.


Q3: Has your definition of student success changed from when you were a student


Yes - If yes, please proceed to the next

question

53.4% 93

No - If no, please proceed to the next page 46.6% 81

Total Responses 174

Figure 6. Q3: Change in Definition of Student Success

This figure demonstrates if staff’s definition of student success had changed from when they were a student.

Q4: How has your definition changed from when you were a student?

Participants who had stated that their definition had changed were asked an additional

question - they were asked to explain how their definition had changed since they were a

student. Of the 93 participants that had stated that their definition had changed, 81 provided

responses. The common themes in the responses were that when the participants were

students, success referred to grades, graduation, completion, and employment. Now their

definition of student success is broader, with less emphasis on grades and more on learning

outcomes and application of material. Some participants also identified that when they were

students, they did not consider the whole student experience as a factor of student success.

Participants’ current definitions of student success tended to be more holistic in nature; they

also considered personal development, goals, and satisfaction. As an interesting contrast, one

participant stated that as a student their focus was on their development outside of the

classroom and that now they place a higher value on understanding assignments, grades and

exceeding expectations.

The question on page five asked participants to select if they thought that student

success was an outcome or a process. There were a total of 174 responses, with the majority of

participants, 129 (74.1%), selecting a process consisting of smaller ongoing milestones. The

remaining participants were split between an outcome and ‘other’, with 25 (14.4%) participants

stating that it was an outcome, and 20 (11.5%) selecting ‘other’. The 20 participants that

selected ‘other’ then explained their selection. The common theme amongst participants that

selected ‘other’ was that success was a combination of the two options. Subsequently, one


participant stated that student success was also learning from mistakes, and another added

that it was about learning and integrating knowledge.

Q5: Do you think student success is:


An outcome (i.e. graduation, employment) 14.4% 25

A process consisting of smaller ongoing

milestones

74.1% 129

Other - text box (please explain) 11.5% 20

Total Responses 174

Figure 7. Q5: Staff Opinion on Student Success Outcome v. Process

This figure demonstrates staffs’ opinion of whether student success is an outcome or a process.

Page six asked participants to select whether student success should be defined as outer

or inner success based on Downing’s (2014) definitions for outer and inner success. There were

a total of 160 responses, with the majority of participants, 113 (70.6%), selecting inner success.

The remaining 47 (28.4%) participants selected outer success. Participants were then asked to

explain / expand on their answer and 111 (69.4%) of the 160 participants did so. The common

themes within the responses were that both are important and often interconnected.

Participants also stated that it could vary depending on the student and the student’s own

goals. Participants commented that society tends to be more concerned with outer successes,

but that inner success is more valuable to the individual. Many expressed within their

responses that they felt that student success should be defined by inner successes. Additionally,

some participants commented that outer success was the reason students pursue post-

secondary studies, and that colleges are measured by the outer successes. Some also

commented on the fact that colleges can only measure outer successes because inner

successes are not only difficult to measure and define, but also often unrelated to the college.

One participant commented on how success is complex and that each variable is only one part

of the snapshot. Another commented on the fact that outer success does not guarantee

success and vice versa.


Q6: Downing (2014) referred to outer success as “public, visible achievements that allow the

world to judge one’s abilities and worth” and inner success as “private, invisible victories that

offer a deep sense of personal contentment.” Given these definitions do you feel that student

success should be defined by:


Outer successes (GPA, diploma,

recognition)

29.4% 47

Inner successes (self-development) 70.6% 113

Total Responses 160

Figure 8. Q6: Staff Opinion on Student Success Outer v. Inner Success

This figure demonstrates staffs’ opinion of whether student success should be defined by outer v. inner successes.

Page seven asked participants how they perceive the college defines student success.

Participants were able to select all that applied; they were also able to select ‘other’ and

provide their own definition. There were a total of 164 responses, and the top 5 responses

were 1) attainment of credential and graduation, 2) related employment after graduation, 3)

measureable metrics (i.e. key Performance Indicators), 4) mastering academic content, and 5)

student satisfaction; nine participants selected ‘other’. The common theme amongst the other

responses were that the college is concerned with the monetary aspect of full seating, and

measurement metrics.


Q7: In your opinion, how does the college define student success?


Achievement of holistic success (holistic success refers to

both academic and personal successes)

34.1% 56


Knowledge application (ability to apply what they have

learned)

49.4% 81

Mastering academic content (i.e. strong GPA,

meeting/exceeding program & learning outcomes)

56.7% 93








Other 5.5% 9

Total Responses 164

Figure 9. Q7: Staff Opinion on How the College Defines Student Success

This figure demonstrates staffs’ opinion on how the college defines student success.


Page eight asked participants how they perceive students define student success.

Participants were able to select all that applied, they were also able to select ‘other’ and

provide their own definition. There were a total of 163 responses, and the top 5 responses

were 1) attainment of credential and graduation, 2) related employment after graduation, 3)

mastering academic content, 4) meeting personal goals, and 5) student satisfaction. Ten

participants selected ‘other’. The common themes amongst the other responses were that

students are individuals and that success varies from student to student. Two participants

indicated that students’ definitions of success were dependent on where the student was

“starting from” and that it would change throughout their journey.


Q8: In your opinion, how do students define student success?




25.2% 41



learned)

34.4% 56



52.8% 86








Other 6.1% 10

Total Responses 163

Figure 10. Q8: Staff Opinion on How Students Define Student Success

This figure demonstrates staffs’ opinion on how students define student success.


On page nine, participants were asked to identify how they perceived society defined

student success. Participants were able to select all that applied, they were also able to select

‘other’ and provide their own definition. There were a total of 160 responses, and the top 5

responses were 1) attainment of credential and graduation, 2) related employment after

graduation, 3) mastering academic content, 4) knowledge application, and 5) were a tie

between measurable metrics and persistence from one semester to the next. Six participants

selected ‘other’. The common theme amongst the other responses were that society’s

definition of success were focused on the end result, credentials, and students’ contribution

back to the economy.


Q9: In your opinion, how does society define student success?




17.5% 28



learned)

48.8% 78



57.5% 92








Other 3.8% 6

Total Responses 160

Figure 11. Q9: Staff Opinion on How Society Define Student Success

This figure demonstrates staffs’ opinion on how society defines student success.


Q10: How would you define a successful educational experience?

On page ten, participants were asked how they defined a successful educational

experience. There were a total of 147 responses. The common theme amongst the responses

were that a successful educational experience could be defined through personal growth,

development of self and skills, achievement of goals and credentials, learning and application of

knowledge, feelings of accomplishments and student satisfaction. It should also include

meeting new people and student engagement. Participants also noted that it is different for

different students. Another common theme was an experience that moved students forward in

their career and resulted in employment after graduation.


Research question two: How do staff perceive that they contribute to student success?

Pages 11 to 13 were dedicated to exploring how college staff perceived that they

contributed to student success and were aimed at answering “How do staff perceive that they

contribute to student success?.” One of the questions on page 11 asked participants to rank

how they perceive their role contributed to student success. Ranking was on a one to five point

scale; one indicated not at all and five indicated very much. There were a total of 157

responses. The majority of the participants felt that they contributed to student success; 60

(38.2%) selected four, 51 (32.5%) selected five, 40 (25.5%) selected three, eight (5.1%) selected

two, and two (1.3%) selected one.

Q11: On a scale of 1 to 5, please rank how your role contributes to student success?

1 2 3 4 5 Total

Responses

2 (1.3%) 8 (5.1%) 40 (25.5%) 60 (38.2%) 51 (32.5%) 157

Figure 12. Q11: Staff Perceptions of Contribution to Student Success

This figure demonstrates staffs’ perceptions of how their role contributes to student success.

Participants were also asked to select how often in their day-to-day work they think

about how their role contributes to student success. There were a total of 157 responses; 111

participants (70.7%) stated that they thought about how their role contributed to student

success daily; 30 (19.1%) stated weekly, six (3.8%) stated monthly, six (3.8%) stated that they

don’t think about it, four selected ‘other’ and no one choose yearly. Of the four participants

that selected other, three provided responses. One commented that their position was not

related to students, one commented that it was ingrained in their work and another stated that

they often reflect on this question whenever they are feeling ‘beaten down’.


Q12: In your day-to-day work how often do you think about how your role contributes to

student success?


Daily 70.7% 111

Weekly 19.1% 30

Monthly 3.8% 6

Yearly 0.0% 0

I don't 3.8% 6

Other 2.5% 4

Total Responses 157

Figure 13. Q12: Staff Perceptions of Contribution to Student Success

This figure demonstrates how often participants think about how their role contributes to student success.

Q13: How do you personally contribute to student success?

Participants were also asked to share how they personally contributed to student

success. There were a total of 144 responses. The common themes within the responses were

that participants personally contributed to student success by providing resources, offering

guidance and encouragement, and answering questions. They also contributed by making

connections not only to resources but also within course content, assisting students inside and

outside of the classroom, providing a positive learning environment and being mindful of

learning outcomes. Another common them that arose were that staff felt they contributed to

success through evaluation and feedback, positive interactions with students, being empathic,

accessible, and approachable. Staff also felt that they contributed to success by being prepared

and accommodating different learning styles and by challenging students.

Q14: What role does academic staff play in student success?

On page 12, participants were asked to provide their opinion on the role that academic

staff play in student success. There were a total of 135 responses. The common themes within

the responses were that college staff perceived that academic staff played a key role in student

success as they are facilitators of the curriculum, and the first-contact for students. They

contribute to student success by offering alternative modes of delivery, ensuring that


instruction is accessible, being knowledgeable of not only the content, industry but also

available resources on campus, and making referrals to student supports. Participants also

indicated that academic staff needs to offer clear learning outcomes, provide feedback and

challenge students. In addition, participants noted that academic staff are mentors and role

models for students, and they foster personal development.

Q15: What role does administrative staff play in student success?

On page 12, participants were also asked to provide their opinion on the role that

administrative staff plays in student success. There were a total of 133 responses. The common

themes within the responses were that college staff perceived that administrative staff played a

role in ensuring that policies and procedures are in place and up-to-date, their role is behind

the scenes and they ensure the smooth operation of the campus. Administrative staff provide

leadership, create the culture, have the ability to make changes, and provide resources and

support for both staff and students. They are also responsible for the strategic direction of the

college, program planning, maintaining services, and hiring the right staff. While many of the

respondents felt that they played a key role, five stated that they were not sure what role

administrative staff played. Only one respondent mentioned ensuring that Key Performance

Indicators are high and that funding is achieved.

Q16: What role does support staff play in student success?

On page 12, participants were also asked to provide their opinion on the role that

support staff plays in student success. There were a total of 134 responses. The common

themes within the responses were that college staff perceived that support staff support

students and staff, and that they help students overcome barriers and navigate the student

experience. They also play a role in ensuring that students are aware of the services available

and they assist students in advocating for themselves. Participants also mentioned that their

role varies depending on their role. Participants commented that their role was both behind the

scenes and face-to-face with students. Their role was one outside of the classroom; they


provide opportunities for engagement and learning outside of the classroom and personal

development. They also play a customer service and front-line role.

Q17: What tools and resources do you perceive you need to better support student success?

On page 13, participants were also asked to identify what tools and resources they

perceived they need to better support student success. There were a total of 127 responses.

The common themes within the responses were that college staff would like more professional

development opportunities including more training on mental health and counselling, and

technology. They would also like to be cross-trained and have better knowledge of the services

available and needed by students. Another theme was that they would like better equipment

and facilities, including office space and classrooms. They would also like to have a better

understanding of the overall picture and strategic direction of their areas so they can better

understand their roles. Another key theme was a need for enhanced communication between

areas; staff would like to see one integrated portal and a system for shared student notes / files

that could be accessed by multiple stakeholders. They would also like more time for research

and to spend with students one-on-one. Another theme that arose from participants was the

need for more staff.

Research question three: What does college staff perceive students need to be successful?

Pages 14 to 16 looked at college staff perceptions of successful students, and were

aimed at answering “what does college staff perceive students need to be successful?” On page

14, participants were asked if they thought that all students who enroll have the ability to be

successful. There were a total of 143 responses. Eighty-three (58%) participants stated yes and

60 (42%) stated no.


Q18: In your opinion, do you think that all students who enroll have the ability to be

successful


Yes 58.0% 83

No 42.0% 60

Total Responses 143

Figure 14. Q18: Staff Perceptions of Students’ Ability to be Successful

This figure demonstrates staff perceptions of students’ ability to be successful.

Participants were also asked to elaborate on their responses; a total of 130 participants

chose to explain / expand on their answers. The common themes within the responses were

that it depends on the definition of student success, a student’s readiness, and program choice.

Timing was also noted as an important contributor to student success. Some participants

commented that students may have the ability to be successful but might not have the tools;

they felt that if students used the resources and supports available that they would be

successful. Some participants also noted that not all students have the academic and / or

mental ability to be successful in their program. Some noted that although students might have

the ability to be successful, they might not have the means to be successful.

On page 15, participants were asked to rank from a list in order of importance of items

as they pertain to student success. Not all participants responded to all of the questions,

therefore total response numbers differed. Total responses ranged from 129 to 136. Participant

responses ranked the following five items as having the highest order of importance as they

pertain to student success: self-motivation, self-efficacy, resilience, resourcefulness, and sense

of purpose.


Q19: Please rank the following in order of importance as they pertain to student success?

Figure 15. Q19: Staff Ranking of Items Important to Student Success This figure demonstrates staff ranking in order of importance items that pertain to student success.


Q20: How would you describe successful students?

On page 16, participants were asked to describe successful students based on their

experience working at the college; there were a total of 128 responses. The common themes

within the responses were that successful students are resourceful, self-directed, determined,

motivated, and focused. They are also prepared, they attend class, participate, and work hard,

and are willing to ask for help. They are focused, self-aware and have self-confidence. They also

have goals and a support system.

Research question four: What are the barriers that college staff perceives to impact student

success?

Page 17 covered college staff perceptions of barriers to success and were aimed at

answering “what are the barriers that college staff perceives to impact student success?”

29.5

62.5

64.4

70.4

72.4

73.9

78.9

83.8

87.4

90.4

94.8

0 20 40 60 80 100

Familiarity & knowledge of college…

Grit

Connectedness to the campus

Financial resources

Capability

Student characteristics & strengths

Sense of purpose for going to college

Resourcefulness

Resilience

Self-efficacy

Self-motivation

Percentage


Participants were asked to rank the barriers that impact student success. Not all participants

responded to all of the questions, therefore total response numbers differed; total responses

ranged from 128 to 134. Participant responses ranked the following five items as barriers that

impact student success: self-motivation, poor study habits, time management skills, ability to

manage stress, and self-efficacy.

Q21: Please rank the barriers that impact student success?

Figure 16. Q21: Staff Ranking of Items that Impact Student Success This table demonstrates staff ranking of items that impact student success.


12.5

13

17.5

17.9

24.6

27.7

38.5

40

42.8

48.5

65.7

68

68.4

68.5

68.9

69.2

72.5

73.2

79.7

80.1

80.3

81.5

85.8

90.7

0 20 40 60 80 100

Being an aboriginal student

Commuting to campus

Not attending orientation

Being a first-generation student

Unfamiliarity and knowledge of college…

Being an international student

Low social-economic status

Having an exceptionality

Absence of career clarity

Working

Sense of purpose for going to college

Family responsibilities

Lack of personal support systems

Poor faculty / student interaction

Personal problems

Academic preparedness

Resourcefulness

Financial resources

Self-efficacy

Ability to manage stress

Time management skills

Study habits

Poor study habits

Self-motivation

Percentage


Page 18 provided participants with an opportunity to provide additional experiences

and/or thoughts on student success. There were a total of 61 responses. Participants stated

that there is a need for knowledgeable staff, same services at all campuses, preparatory

programs, more career education in secondary schools, opportunities to celebrate successes

and to ensure that students feel safe asking for assistance. Participants also felt that success is a

shared responsibility between the college and students, and that students need to recognize

that they also play a role. It was also noted that colleges should not build false expectations for

students, that part-time faculty may have a negative impact on student success, and that

students who cannot dedicate time to their studies should be directed to continuing education.

Summary

The participants provided data on their personal definitions of student success, their

perceptions of how staff contribute to student success, what students need to be successful,

and their perceptions of barriers that impact student success. There was a greater number of

support staff that participated in this study than other staffing groups.

The data showed that although there were some differences as to how each of the staff

groups personally defined student success, the majority defined it as the achievement of

holistic success. The exception to this came from academic staff; within this staff group, the

majority felt that knowledge application was more of a definition of student success. Numbers

were fairly split in terms of staff members having experienced a change in their definitions of

student success from when they were students. The data demonstrated that the majority of

participants felt that student success was a process that consisted of smaller ongoing

milestones as opposed to it being an outcome. The data also showed that for the most part

college staff felt that student success should be defined by inner successes as opposed to outer

successes. Data also showed that attainment of credentials and graduation stands out as to

how all groups felt that the college, students, and society define student success.

The majority of participants felt that their role contributes to student success and that in

their day to day work they think about how their role contributes to student success on a daily

basis. Furthermore, the data also showed that student motivation ranked at the top in level of


importance as it pertains to student success, as well as being seen as a barrier that impacts

student success.


Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

Summary

The purpose of this research study was to survey staff at an Ontario community college

located in the GTA to investigate how student success is defined by administration, faculty, and

support staff, to gather their perspectives on their role on student success, to determine what

they think students need to be successful and what barriers college staff perceive to impact

student success. The central phenomenon of this study was student success.

In chapter one the researcher provided the background, problem statement, and

purpose of the study. Chapter one also introduced the four research questions, definition of

terms and described four limitations of the study that the researcher anticipated. The first

limitation listed was the potential for an overall low response rate and/or low response from

any one of the three staff groups. Although overall response rates surpassed the researcher’s

5% survey response rate target, the final limitation proved valid, response rates for academic

and administrative staff were quite low. Less than 1% of all academic staff and 3% of

administrative staff participated in the survey. The second limitation referred to the timeframe

of the data collection. Although the data collection timeframe did not coincide with mid-term

assessments, it did take place during a time when faculty may have been very busy which could

explain the lower participation rates by faculty. The final two limitations identified are ones

which the researcher addressed in recommendations for further research later in chapter five.

Chapter two investigated current knowledge described by various researchers related to

the problem and research questions of this study. The review consisted of an examination of

literature on student success including definitions of student success within a post-secondary

environment, college staff impact on student success, needs of successful students, and

barriers to student success. An examination of the literature indicated that student success is a

broad term often used to describe various elements of the student experience. The literature

review identified that student success was not an easily defined term, and that it is dependent

on a range of factors. The key learning’s in the review was that even though there are different

perceptions of the definition of student success, and that the differing perceptions impact an

institution’s ability to contribute to student success. Another key learning was the fact that


collaboration amongst stakeholders is important to student success. It is also important to note

that all stakeholders contribute to student success. Although the definitions for student success

found within the literature generally fall into a few common categories, there does not appear

to be a common all-encompassing definition.

In order for one to better understand student success, the researcher used a cross-

sectional survey with both qualitative and quantitative elements as the research methodology

in this study was to explore student success at one particular point in time (Creswell, 2012).

Chapter three described the methodology used to conduct the research. The research study

used a survey with both qualitative and quantitative elements to explore and better understand

the views and opinions of college staff based on their staff group and to collect data that could

be analyzed for comparisons (Creswell, 2012). In addition to close-ended responses, the survey

also generated open-ended responses from participants. The goal of this study was to develop

an in-depth understanding of study’s central phenomenon.

Data collection occurred through the use of a web-based questionnaire that took place

during the fall of 2014. Study participants consisted of all levels of staff. The objective was to

obtain a minimum of 72 returns which is representative of 5% of the total staff population. One

hundred and seventy six participants completed the survey which accounted for 12% of the

total staff population. This favourable response rate surpassed the researcher’s goal of 5% and

made for richer data collection; it added validity to the data collection and offered a

comprehensive understanding of staff perceptions of student success.

In chapter four the researcher provided the data collected. The researcher utilized the

reporting tools available through FluidSurvey to analyze the data collected. Participants

provided data on their personal definitions of student success, their perceptions of how staff

contributed to student success, what students need to be successful, and their perceptions of

barriers that impacted student success. The researcher organized the data into themes to help

organize the information collected. The data collected were organized to answer the research

questions and then broken down into common themes. The data were analyzed to determine if

it supported the academic literature.


Conclusions

Four research questions guided the exploration of college staff perceptions of student

success. In this section, findings were related to the research questions and to the literature

review outlined in chapter two.

Research question one: How do administration, faculty, and support staff personally define

student success?

Based on the literature review student success was a broad term with multiple

definitions that encompasses a range of factors and does not happen by chance (Kuh, 2011;

Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, & Hayek 2006; Seifert & Peregrina-Kretz, 2013; Tinto, 2012).

Seifert, Henry, and Peregrina-Kretz (2014) shared information on two recent studies that

explored perceptions of student success. One of the studies was titled Supporting Student

Success and it investigated how each of the different stakeholders defined student success.

From the analysis of the data collected in Supporting Student Success six categories of student

success arose “(1) retention and graduation, (2) personal success, (3) success varies for

individual students, (4) success is a holistic process, (5) success is student engagement, and (6)

success is having a sense of belonging at the institution” (Seifert, Henry, & Peregrina-Kretz,

2014, p.6). The second study described in Seifert, Henry, and Peregrina-Kretz (2014) resulted in

a college wide consensus that success was based on the following five student focused

outcomes:

1. Identification or discovery of career and personal goals and direction.

2. Development of the whole person, which includes intellectual, personal, creative, and

social development.

3. Demonstrated and ignited passion for lifelong learning.

4. Mastering of skills and capabilities within the student’s chosen discipline.

5. Experience of a positive journey, filled with incremental milestones and successes.

6. Academic and professional achievement and a sense of personal accomplishment,

and effective preparation for next steps beyond Sheridan. (Seifert, Henry, & Peregrina-

Kretz, 2014, p.4-5)


Based on participant responses, the findings of this study indicated that college staff defined

student success as 1) achievement of holistic success, 2) knowledge application, 3) attainment

of credential and graduation, 4) personal development, and 5) meeting personal goals.

The top five responses in this research study on how college staff personally defined

student success were 1) achievement of holistic success, 2) knowledge application, 3)

attainment of credential and graduation, 4) personal development, and 5) meeting personal

goals. Of the 12 participants who selected ‘other’, the main theme within the responses related

to personal growth and employment. In addition, participants also identified the following as

definitions of student success: graduation, employment or further education, acquisition of

essential employability skills, engagement with the learning material, and students reaching

their goals.

The findings of this research study were somewhat in line with previous findings;

although actual rankings may shift, the themes were similar. Mastering academic content /

knowledge application ranks higher for academic / faculty when defining student success.

Personal and holistic success tended to rank higher amongst staff. It is important to note that at

the research site knowledge application were part of all three staff groupings top three

definitions of student success. In the Supporting Student Success study references to academic

success and/or content did not rank within the top three. Interestingly, retention and

graduation ranked third in the overall college staff responses but only appeared in the

administrative staff top three breakdown. Whereas in the Supporting Student Success study

retention and graduation appeared in the top three for both faculty and for administrative staff

groups.


Figure 17. Table 1. Top Definitions of Student Success as it appeared in Beyond “Completion”: Student Success is a

Process - Seifert - 2014 - Strategic Enrollment Management Quarterly - Willey Online Library

This figure demonstrates top definitions of student success from the Supporting Student Success research study.

Overall College

Staff

Academic Staff Administrative Staff Support Staff

Achievement of

holistic success

Knowledge application Achievement of holistic

success

Achievement of

holistic success

Knowledge

application

Achievement of

holistic success

Attainment of credential

and graduation

Knowledge

application

Attainment of

credential and

graduation

Personal development Knowledge application Meeting personal

goals

Figure 18. Top Definitions of Student Success

This figure demonstrates top definitions of student success that emerged in the research study.

Based on the research findings it appeared that student success was holistic in nature,

and that it needed to refer to both knowledge application and personal development. One

could argue that if this happened that retention and graduation would follow suit. It was also

important to note that the data demonstrated that staff felt that student success was a process


consisting of smaller ongoing milestones and that inner success played a larger role than outer

successes in defining student success.

It is also important to note that for the most part college staff felt that the college

defined student success as attainment of credential and graduation, related employment after

graduation and through measureable metrics (i.e. Key Performance Indicators). Yet overall

measurable metrics ranked low (overall ranking was 18.9%). Measureable metrics ranked

highest with the academic staff group at 25.9%. It ranked 21.2% with administrative staff and

13.1% with support staff. The top two responses for how college staff perceived that students

and the college defined student success were the same - attainment of credential and

graduation and related employment. Where they differed was that college staff perceived that

for students mastering academic content was third. College staff once again felt that society

also perceived student success as attainment of credential and graduation and related

employment.

Research question two: How do staff perceive that they contribute to student success?

The literature review stated that all college staff has a role to play in student success,

but it is the collective role that has potential for the greatest impact (Davenport, Martinez-

Saenz, & Rhine, 2012; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Literature also stated that staff’s

expectations of students, in particular setting high standards for students’ impacts student

success (Hrabowski, 2005; Kuh, 2005; Schilling & Schilling, 2005. The literature showed that

college staff should focus on bringing together the needs of the students and the institution’s

mission, and administration should work to remove processes that are obstacles to student

success (Davenport, Martinez-Saenz, & Rhine, 2012; Siegel, 2005). Siegel (2005), Upcraft,

Gardner, Barefoot, and Associates (2005) stated that there should be a focus on creating

challenging and supportive environments for students and Davenport, Martinez-Saenz, and

Rhine (2012) felt that one of the roles of college staff was to develop programming and services

that align with learning outcomes that result in student success and impact retention.

According to Hrabowski (2005) all staff, regardless of position contributed to student success by

making students feel welcome, ensured they receive the supports they need, encourage


student engagement both inside and outside the classroom, and provided them with

encouragement.

According to the findings of this research study, college staff for the most part felt that

their roles contributed to student success; less than 7% of the respondents felt that their role

did not contribute much to student success. Given that the survey was anonymous and no data

were collected on actual staff positions, the researcher was not able to make any further

comments regarding whether those roles are non-student facing. It was also important to note

that generally staff do think about how their role contributes to student success on a daily

basis.

The literature also stated that faculty have the potential to really impact student success

because they are at the centre of a student’s experience (Evenbeck & Jackson, 2005). According

to Erickson and Strommer (2005), academic staffs’ role in student success was carried out

through effective instruction of course materials, engagement of students in discussions, and

an explanation of why (Erickson & Strommer, 2005). The literature also noted that faculty

impacts student success by providing structure through course outlines, using a variety of

instructional techniques, facilitating discussions, and by relating course content to things that

are of interest to students (Erickson & Strommer, 2005).

The common themes within this research study were that college staff perceived that

academic staff played a key role in student success as they are facilitators of the curriculum,

and the first-contact for students. This was representative of the Evenbeck and Jackson (2005)

comments that faculty were at the centre of a student’s experience, with this in mind it was no

surprise that college staff perceived that faculty play a key role in student success. College staff

perceived that academic staff contribute to student success by offering alternative modes of

delivery, ensuring that instruction is accessible, being knowledgeable of not only the content,

industry but also available resources on campus, and making referrals to student supports.

Participants also indicated that academic staff needed to offer clear learning outcomes, provide

feedback, and challenge students. In addition, participants noted that academic staff were

mentors and role models for students, and they foster personal development. Again this data


was representative of the literature and pointed to the importance of the use of course

outlines, and the use of different instructional formats (Erickson & Strommer, 2005).

The literature showed that one of the roles of administrative staff was to facilitate the

assessment of programming that contributed to student success, to analyze the data to drive

action and to invest into faculty development to ensure that faculty were equipped with the

skills needed to contribute to student success and how to help students (Erickson & Strommer,

2005; Evenbeck & Jackson, 2005; Hrabowski, 2005; Tinto, 2012). The literature also suggested

that administrative staff set the tone for the campus, recruit and support staff, and allocate

resources (Hrabowski, 2005).

The common themes within the research study were that college staff perceived that

administrative staff played a role in ensuring that policies and procedures were in place and up-

to-date, their role was behind the scenes and that they were responsible for ensuring the

smooth operation of the campus. Administrative staff provide leadership, create the culture,

have the ability to make changes, and provide resources and support for both staff and

students. They are also responsible for the strategic direction of the college, program planning,

maintaining services, and hiring the right staff. While many of the respondents felt that they

played a key role, five stated that they were not sure what role administrative staff played. Only

one respondent mentioned ensuring that Key Performance Indicators are high and that funding

was achieved.

It was interesting to note that the literature suggested that administrative staff’s role

within student success was grounded on assessment and analysis, whereas within the research

study assessment did not come up the survey responses. Within the research study, college

staff responses were focused on making sure that processes, procedures exit, there is no real

mention of how processes for ensuring this (i.e. assessment). It was important to note that the

research study did highlight that administrative staff were responsible for the strategic planning

which should include assessment of current practices.

When looking at support staff and student success, the literature focused on the role of

support staff within the student affairs realm, in particular orientation and transition

programming (Hrabowski, 2005; Mullendore & Banahan, 2005). The literature placed the role


of student affairs staff as one that looks at student success from a holistic perspective. The

research study findings were in line with literature. The role of support staff is that is holistic.

Research question three: What does college staff perceive students need to be successful?

According to the literature student engagement was critical to student success (Kuh,

2005). Lizzio (2006) stated that successful students understand the student experience, were

connected and identify with their institution, see purpose in their chosen program, can manage

the challenges and navigate the system, and understand the values of post-secondary

education. Student success was also dependent on capability, connectedness, purpose,

resourcefulness, and academic culture (Lizzio, 2006).

The research study results showed that staff were split between whether they felt that

all students who enrolled had the ability to be successful. It also showed that college staff

perceived self-motivation, self-efficacy, resilience, resourcefulness, and sense of purpose to be

what students need to be successful. The data collected differed from the literature in that

student engagement was not ranked as critical. It is important to note that there was

agreement within the research study results and the literature in that both felt that

resourcefulness, and a sense of purpose were factors that impacted student success.

Research question four: What are the barriers that college staff perceives to impact student

success?

The literature suggested that there were institution and student specific factors that

impact student success (Wiggers & Arnold, 2011). According to the literature a student’s life

outside of school, their demographics, choices, motivation, readiness, support systems, working

and financial situations can impact their student success (Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, &

Hayek, 2006; Motte and Schwartz’s (n.d.); Upcraft, Gardner, Barefoot, & Associates, 2005;

Wiggers & Arnold, 2011). The literature also touched on the fact that a student’s experiences

during their time at college can also impact their success; this includes disengagement and low

expectations from teachers (Hrabowski, 2005).


According to the research study college staff perceived self-motivation, poor study

habits, time management skills, ability to manage stress, and self-efficacy to be barriers that

impact student success. The results of the research study focused on student specific factors

that impact student success. It is important to note that the items that can lead to student

success are also the ones that can be seen to be barriers to student success.

Recommendations

There are several recommendations for future research and practice that stemmed

from this study. The following recommendations include next steps for better understanding

student success at both institutional and college system levels / provincial level.

The first institutional recommendation is to create a task force to continue the

conversation, further explore the definition of student success, and to guide the next strategic

plan. Have representation from all areas of the campus (academic, administrative, support

staff, students, and community members) on the task force. As part of this process encourage

and challenge all departments and areas to engage in the conversation; has staff on a team

level discussed how they define and contribute to student success. The results of these

conversations would then be taken to the task force and also used in departmental strategic

plans. This recommendation addresses the call for collaboration within an institution discussed

within the literature (Davenport, Martinez-Saenz, & Rhine, 2012; Blimling, Whitt, & Associates,

1999; Keeling, 2004; & Keeling, 2006). The task force would also be working together to bring

the needs of the students in line with the institution’s mission and working towards removing

processes that hinder student success (Davenport, Martinez-Saenz, & Rhine, 2012).

The second recommendation is to create a platform for addressing non-academic

factors that impact student success. Both the literature and the research study show that non-

academic factors are barriers that impact student success. It is important the institution and /

or college systems at the provincial level to look at addressing these concerns. The researcher

feels that there would be value to further exploring the affects that a first-year seminar course

that focuses on increasing student engagement and helping students manage their life outside

of school on student success. Would such a course aid with study habits, time management

skills, ability to manage stress, self-efficacy, resilience, and resourcefulness?


The third institutional recommendation is to apply Lizzio’s (2006) framework for student

success when developing, planning, or student success focused programming. This would

provide a common language for discussion and planning.

The fourth institutional recommendation arises from the call within the literature for

professional development. The literature focuses on professional development for faculty, but

this recommendation is to ensure that all staff is given opportunities to better understand the

student experience. Albeit, given the central role that faculty play which was representative in

both the literature and the research study, it is important to ensure that faculty has the skills

needed to contribute to student success (Erickson & Strommer, 2005; Evenbeck & Jackson,

2005; Hrabowski, 2005; Tinto, 2012). Under the umbrella of professional development would

also be the inclusion of assessment training so that all staff have a better understanding of the

process and purpose.

The fifth recommendation is to establish a campus culture that embraces positive

language and high expectations. Based on Hrabowski (2005) that low expectations from

teachers can have a negative effect on student success, one could hypothesis that perhaps the

opposite could have a positive effect on student success. There would be a benefit to engaging

in further research into this to determine if the use having high expectations would affect

student success.

Furthermore, given that the majority of students leave school for reasons other than

poor academic performance (Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, & Hayek 2006) and that the research

study identified such items as barriers that impact student success it would be worth further

exploring the impact of non-academic related factors impact student success.

Given the study’s limitation of taking place at a single college, and that it did not

compare the data collected against other colleges, the researcher felt that there would be a

benefit to expanding this research study to include other colleges. There would also be a benefit to

expanding this research to include student perceptions of student success.

Summary of Discussion

Despite the limitations of this research study it gathered data on how college staff

defined student success, their perspectives on their role on student success, and what they


perceive impacted student success. This research study expanded the researchers

understanding of student success.


References

Blimling, G. S., Whitt, E. J., & Associates. (1999). Good practice in student affairs. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Canadian Council on Learning (2007). Post-secondary Education in Canada: Strategies for

Success, Report on Learning in Canada 2007, Ottawa, Ontario

Creswell, J.W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative

and qualitative research, fourth edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Cuseo, J., (2007). Defining student success: the critical first step in promoting it. eSource for

College Transitions. 4 (5) - http://tech.sa.sc.edu/fye/esource/files/ES_4-

5_May07.pdf#page=1&zoom=auto,-205,720

Cuseo, J., (2007). Seven central principles of student success: key processes associated with

positive student outcomes. eSource for College Transitions. 4 (6) -

http://tech.sa.sc.edu/fye/esource/files/ES_4-6_Jul07.pdf

Davenport, Z., (2014). Student Success: What does it really mean? The Student Affairs Collective

retrieved October 3, 2014 - http://studentaffairscollective.org/student-success-what-

does-it-really-mean/

Davenport, Z., Martinez-Saenz, M., & Rhine, L., (2012). “The Student Success Conundrum.” In

Strategic Enrollment Management: Transforming Higher Education, edited by Bongrager,

B., Ingersoll, D., & Ingersoll, R., (25-42). Washington, DC: AACRAO.

Erickson, B. L., Strommer, D. W., (2005). Inside the first-year classroom. In Upcraft, M. L.,

Gardner, J. N., Barefoot, B. O., & Associates, (Eds.), Challenging & supporting the first-year

student: A handbook for improving the first year of college. (241-256) San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass

Evenbeck, S. E., Jackson, B., (2005). Faculty development and the first year. In Upcraft, M. L.,



Jossey-Bass

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. (2013). Performance Indicators: A report on where

we are and where we are going. Toronto: Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario.

http://tech.sa.sc.edu/fye/esource/files/ES_4-5_May07.pdf#page=1&zoom=auto,-205,720

http://tech.sa.sc.edu/fye/esource/files/ES_4-5_May07.pdf#page=1&zoom=auto,-205,720

http://tech.sa.sc.edu/fye/esource/files/ES_4-6_Jul07.pdf

http://studentaffairscollective.org/student-success-what-does-it-really-mean/

http://studentaffairscollective.org/student-success-what-does-it-really-mean/


Hrabowski, F. A., (2005). Fostering first-year success of underrepresented minorities. In Upcraft,

M. L., Gardner, J. N., Barefoot, B. O., & Associates, (Eds.), Challenging & supporting the

first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college. (125-140) San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Ishler, J. L. C., Upcraft, M. L., (2005). The keys to first-year student persistence. In Upcraft, M. L.,


student: A handbook for improving the first year of college. (27-46) San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass

Keeling, R. P., & Dungy, G. J. (2004). Learning reconsidered: A campus-wide focus on the student

experience. National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, American College

Personnel Association.

Keeling, R. P. (2006). Learning reconsidered 2: Implementing a campus-wide focus on the

student experience. ACPA.

Kuh, G. D., (2005). Student engagement in the first year of college. In Upcraft, M. L., Gardner, J.

N., Barefoot, B. O., & Associates, (Eds.), Challenging & supporting the first-year student: A

handbook for improving the first year of college. (86-107) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Kuh, G. D. (2011). Student success. In Schuh, J. H., Jones, S. R., Harper, S. R. and Associates,

(Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession, fifth edition. (257-269) San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., Hayek, J. C., (2006). What matters to student

success: A review of the literature. Commissioned Report for the National Symposium on

Postsecondary Student Success: Spearheading a Dialog on Student Success. National

Postsecondary Education Cooperative.

Lizzio, A. (2006). Designing an orientation and transition strategy for commencing students:

applying the five senses model. Queensland: Griffith University.

Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities. (2002). Archieved Release: Colleges Receive

$16.4 Million Funding Based on Performance. retrieved October 13, 2014 -

http://news.ontario.ca/archive/en/2002/03/04/Colleges-receive-164-million-funding-

based-on-performance.html

http://news.ontario.ca/archive/en/2002/03/04/Colleges-receive-164-million-funding-based-on-performance.html

http://news.ontario.ca/archive/en/2002/03/04/Colleges-receive-164-million-funding-based-on-performance.html


Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education. (2012). CAS professional

standards for higher education (8th ed.). Washingston, DC: Mitstifer, D. I.

Motte, A., Schwartz, S., (n.d). Are student employment and academic success linked? Canada

Millennium Scholarship Foundation.

Mullendore, R. H., Banahan, L. A., (2005). Designing orientation programs. In Upcraft, M. L.,



Jossey-Bass

Natalicio, D. S., Smith, M., (2005). Building the foundation for first-year student success in

public, urban universities. In Upcraft, M. L., Gardner, J. N., Barefoot, B. O., & Associates,

(Eds.), Challenging & supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first

year of college. (155-175) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Pacarella, E. T., Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from

twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pollock, K. (2013), Our changing and challenging role on the road to student success. Strategic

Enrollment Management Quarterly, 1: 80-89. Doi: 10.1002/sem3.20010

Tighe. E. L., Barnes, A. E., Connor, C. M., & Steadman, S. C. (2013). Defining success in adult

basic education settings: multiple stakeholders, multiple persepctives. Reading Research

Quarterly, 48(4) pp. 415-435 doi:10.1002/rrq.57

Schilling, K. M., Schilling, K. L., (2005). Expectations and performance. In Upcraft, M. L., Gardner,

J. N., Barefoot, B. O., & Associates, (Eds.), Challenging & supporting the first-year student:

A handbook for improving the first year of college. (108-123) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Seifert, T. A., & Burrow, J. (2013) Perceptions of student affairs and services practitioners in

Ontario’s post-secondary institutions: An examination of colleges and universities.

Canadian Journal of Higher Education. 43 (2), 132-148.

Seifert, T. A., Burrow, J., Brown, A. (2011). Supporting student success: The role of student

services within Ontario’s postsecondary institutions. Toronto: Higher Education Quality

Council of Ontario.


Seifert, T. A., & Peregrina-Kretz, D. (2013). What defines student success: A multiple choice

question [PowerPoint Slides]. Presentation for the annual meeting of the Society for the

Study of Higher Education, Victoria, BC. Retrieved from

http://supportingstudentsuccess.wordpress.com

Seifert, T. A., Henry, J., Peregrina-Kretz, D., (2014). Beyond “completion”: student success is a

process. Strategic Enrollment Management Quarterly, 2(2), 1-12. Doi:

10.1002/sem3.20042

Schroeder, C. C., (2005) Collaborative partnerships between academic and student affairs. In

Upcraft, M. L., Gardner, J. N., Barefoot, B. O., & Associates, (Eds.), Challenging &

supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college. (204-

220) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Siegel, B. L., (2005) Inviting first-year student success, a president’s perspective. In Upcraft, M.

L., Gardner, J. N., Barefoot, B. O., & Associates, (Eds.), Challenging & supporting the first-

year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college. (176-190) San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass

Schuh, J. H., (2005) Student support services. In Upcraft, M. L., Gardner, J. N., Barefoot, B. O., &

Associates, (Eds.), Challenging & supporting the first-year student: A handbook for

improving the first year of college. (428-444) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Tinto, V., (2012). Completing College: Rethinking Institutional Action. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press

Upcraft, M. L., Gardner, J. N., Barefoot, B. O., (2005) The first year of college revisited. In

Upcraft, M. L., Gardner, J. N., Barefoot, B. O., & Associates, (Eds.), Challenging &

supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college. (1-

12) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Upcraft, M. L., Gardner, J. N., Barefoot, B. O., & Associates, (Eds.), Challenging & supporting the

first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass

Wiggers, R. & Arnold, C. (2011). Defining, Measuring and Achieving “Student Success” in Ontario

Colleges and Universities. Toronto: Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario.

http://supportingstudentsuccess.wordpress.com/


Appendix

Appendix A: Survey Questions

College Staff Perceptions of Student Success

I am part of the following staffing group

Academic

Administrative

Support Staff

How do you personally define student success? (Check all that apply)

Achievement of holistic success (holistic success refers to both academic and personal successes)

Attainment of credential and graduation

Knowledge application (ability to apply what they have learned)

Mastering academic content (i.e. strong GPA, meeting/exceeding program & learning outcomes)

Measurable metrics (i.e. Key Performance Indicators)

Meeting personal goals

Persistence from one semester to the next

Personal development

Related employment after graduation

Engagement with the campus

Student satisfaction

Other ______________________

Has your definition of student success changed from when you were a student

Yes - If yes, please proceed to the next question


No - If no, please proceed to the next page

How has your definition changed from when you were a student?

Do you think student success is:

An outcome (i.e. graduation, employment)

A process consisting of smaller ongoing milestones

Other - text box (please explain) ______________________

4. Downing (2014) referred to outer success as “public, visible achievements that allow the world to judge one’s abilities and worth” and inner success as “private, invisible victories that offer a deep sense of personal contentment.” Given these definitions do you feel that student success should be defined by:

Outer successes (GPA, diploma, recognition)

Inner successes (self-development)

Please explain / expand on the above answer

In your opinion, how does the college define student success? (Check all that apply)













Other ______________________

In your opinion, how do students define student success? (Check all that apply)












Other ______________________

In your opinion, how does society define student success? (Check all that apply)













Other ______________________

How would you define a successful educational experience?

On a scale of 1 to 5, please rank how your role contributes to student success? (1 is not at all and 5 is very much)

1 2 3 4 5

In your day to day work how often do you think about how your role contributes to student success?

Daily

Weekly

Monthly

Yearly

I don't

Other ______________________


How do you personally contribute to student success?

In your opinion, what role does academic staff play in student success?

In your opinion, what role does administrative staff play in student success?

In your opinion, what role does support staff play in student success?

What tools and resources do you perceive you need to better support student success?

In your opinion, do you think that all students who enroll have the ability to be successful

Yes

No

Please explain / expand on the above answer

Please rank the following in order of importance as they pertain to student success? (1 is the least and 5 is the most important)

1 2 3 4 5

Capability (i.e. clear understanding of the student role & possession of academic skills)

Connectedness to the campus (i.e. engagement with the college, sense of belonging, relationships with students and/or staff, interaction with faculty)


Familiarity and knowledge of college culture

Financial resources

Grit

Student characteristics & strengths

Resilience (i.e. ability to recover)

Resourcefulness (i.e. ability to navigate the college system, and seek out assistance)

Self-efficacy (i.e. belief is one’s ability)

Self-motivation

Sense of purpose for going to college (i.e. career clarity)


In your experience working at a college, how would you describe successful students?

Please rank the barriers that impact student success? (1 is the least and 5 is the most impact)

1 2 3 4 5

Ability to manage stress

Absence of career clarity

Academic preparedness

Being an aboriginal student

Being a first-generation student

Being an international student

Commuting to campus

Family responsibilities (i.e. being a parent)

Financial resources

Having an exceptionality

Lack of personal support systems


Low social-economic status

Not attending orientation

Personal problems

Poor faculty / student interaction

Poor study habits

Resourcefulness (i.e. ability to navigate the college system, and seek out assistance)

Self-efficacy (i.e. belief is one’s ability)

Self-motivation

Sense of purpose for going to college (i.e. career clarity)

Study habits


Unfamiliarity and knowledge of college culture

Working

Is there anything else that you would like to add about your experiences and/or thoughts on student success?

Documents

Capstone - College Staff Perceptions of Student Success - Lucy Romao Vandepol