PURPOSE OF THE BOOK

The Documenting Effective Educational Practice (DEEP) project on which this book is based follows in the tradition of previous efforts to document noteworthy performance in postsecondary settings. Two of the better-known volumes that set forth many of the key concepts associated with student success and strong institutional performance are Involvement in Learning (Study Group on the Conditions of Excellence in American Higher Education, 1984) and “The Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education” (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). A handful of other reports expand on these and related factors and conditions in more detail, among them Peter Ewell’s (1997) synthesis produced for the Education Commission of the States’ Making Quality Count. Other major studies of educational effectiveness are mentioned in Chapter One. Taken together, these reports point to the following institutional conditions that are important to student development:

• A clear, focused institutional mission

• High standards for student performance

• Adequate time on task

• Balancing academic challenge with support for students

• Emphasis on early months and first year of study

• Respect for diverse talents and cultural differences

• Integration of prior learning and experience

• Ongoing practice of learned skills

• Active learning

• Assessment and feedback

• Collaboration among students

• Out-of-class contact with faculty

Many of these practices have taken root to varying degrees in colleges and universities across the country. For example, thanks to the pioneering work of John Gardner and his colleagues, first at the University of South Carolina and more recently at the Policy Center on the First Year of College, many institutions have concentrated resources on first-year students. Though they differ in structure, coherence, length, and other design elements, learning communities appear to be a “high-impact activity” (Kuh 2008)—that is, students who participate in them are more engaged in other educationally purposeful activities and report gaining more from college. Other high-impact activities—including study abroad, student-faculty research, and service learning—also seem to benefit students as well as those with whom they interact, including local agencies. The national movement to incorporate more active and collaborative learning activities continues to gain momentum. Indeed, we were surprised after the first round of National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) results in 2000 by the amount of active and collaborative learning students reported.

These effective educational practices have been around long enough that even casual readers of the professional higher education literature are familiar with them. They are working their way into discipline-based journals as disparate as communication studies, economics, and engineering, as well as periodicals that focus broadly on the liberal arts and sciences, such as Liberal Education and Daedulus. Absent from the literature when we undertook Project DEEP were context-specific descriptions of what these practices looked like in different settings and the constellation of factors and conditions that supported them. In other words, how does an educationally effective college or university address and meet the challenges of the 21st century? The 20 institutions featured in this book provide some instructive answers to this question.

HOW TO READ AND USE THIS BOOK

This edition of SSiC differs from the first in two main ways. First, this Preface has been updated. Although it expresses many of the same ideas as in the first edition, some additional information is included about the impact of the Documenting Effective Educational Practice (DEEP) project, both on the participating institutions and their continuing relevance for other colleges and universities. The second major change is the addition of an Epilogue that describes some of what has transpired over the past few years on these campuses as they continue to focus on student success.

The book is divided into four parts. Part One sets the stage, discussing in more detail why we undertook the Documenting Effective Educational Practice (DEEP) project. As we explain in Chapter One, we set out to identify and document what strong-performing colleges and universities do to promote student success, which we defined as higher-than-predicted graduation rates and better-than-predicted student engagement scores on the NSSE. In addition, we summarize how and why we selected this particular set of schools. We also introduce the concept of student engagement and describe its relationship to college student success. Appendix A summarizes the research approach we used to collect information from the participating institutions.

In Part Two (Chapters Two through Seven) we discuss the six overarching features we found to be common to the 20 DEEP colleges and universities. Chapter Two is especially important, as it includes descriptive information about each institution’s mission and context, which is needed to understand and interpret how and why the specific policies and practices illustrated later work so well to promote student success. As we emphasize throughout, the noteworthy level of performance achieved by these colleges and universities is a product not only of the programs and practices they have in place, but of the quality of the initiatives and the numbers of students touched by them in meaningful ways. In addition, the synergy and complementarity of these efforts create a success-oriented campus culture and learning environment. Chapter Six illustrates some of the circumstances and triggering events that put several DEEP schools on a path toward the institutional improvement that created these conditions.

Chapters Eight through Twelve in Part Three present examples of policies, programs, and practices that can be adapted by other institutions to enhance student engagement in each of the five areas of effective educational practice measured by the National Survey of Student Engagement. We present a mix of some of the more common examples along with a sprinkling of novel programs to illustrate that institutions can reach fairly large numbers of students with high-quality initiatives while also tailoring efforts to address the specific needs of groups of students. We’re convinced that many of these practices can be adapted productively by other institutions, whether or not they are similar in mission, size, and so forth.

Even with a book of this length, it’s not possible to describe every noteworthy initiative at these 20 schools. Equally important, some programs and practices have been discontinued since the first edition was published. For example, the University of Michigan no longer has a POSSE program, and Sewanee disbanded its First Year Program. Some schools have expanded or added other effective programs and practices. So many changes or modifications have been made that it is not practical to try to note them all in the text. We do so in a few instances in the Epilogue to illustrate some lessons about sustainability and how some of the schools have broadened and deepened their commitment to fostering student success. Moreover, even though some practices no longer are in use at a DEEP school or have morphed into something different, they might inspire the development of equally productive initiatives elsewhere.

In Part Four, we summarize and interpret the implications of our findings. Chapter Thirteen synthesizes the principles that guide the work of large numbers of faculty and staff members at DEEP colleges. Chapter Fourteen offers recommendations for colleges and universities that are committed to enhancing student success. In addition to these general recommendations, almost every page of Chapters Two through Twelve contains one or more ideas for improving educational practice. Thus, the book’s utility will increase upon subsequent readings, after the reader absorbs the big picture of what makes for effective educational practice. The foundation of strong performance is a multilayered tapestry of enacted mission, coherent operating philosophy, and promising practices woven together and reinforced by key personnel in a consistent, caring way to create a compelling, coherent environment for learning. Finally, the Epilogue revisits what we are convinced are among the most important observations and recommendations from the study, filtered through five years of reflection and additional insights gained from working with these and other colleges and universities on the student success agenda. We also draw on information, gathered via conference calls with key respondents at the institutions, about what has transpired at DEEP schools since the study ended. We describe how these schools have tried to respond to persistent challenges, such as aligning priorities and reward systems with institutional mission and values, balancing faculty and staff workload, and sustaining effective programs and practices. In some cases they have not made a great deal of progress toward resolving these systemic issues.

Research notes and references are used sparingly in the middle sections of the book, as we want to focus on what these institutions do by way of effective educational practices. As we indicated earlier, we have benefited from the groundbreaking work of those who have gone before and cite relevant work, especially early in the book and again when summarizing and synthesizing our findings in Chapters Thirteen and Fourteen.

During our almost two years in the field (2003 and 2004), we talked with more than 2,700 people across the 20 campuses, many of them more than once. Since that time, for various reasons, we’ve revisited more than a dozen of these schools again and have contacted all of them at one point or another at conferences and in other ways. The more time we have spent on these campuses, talking with faculty and staff and learning more about what they do and how they do it, the more impressed we are with the range and quality of their initiatives. This could become mildly problematic, if the high regard we developed for the good work at these colleges and universities creates the appearance that we are proselytizing on their behalf. That’s not our intent, though we admire the convictions that animate these institutions and their willingness—even enthusiasm—for experimenting with promising pedagogical approaches and organizational arrangements. Another reason the text may seem overly generous is that our prose is intentionally descriptive, not evaluative. That is, because we sought to discover and feature what is working well on these campuses, we do not dwell on their shortcomings.

No organization is perfect, including these fine colleges and universities. They grapple every day with many of the same challenges facing most institutions, and we address some of these matters in Chapters Two and Thirteen. For better or worse, we say little about other perennial issues bedeviling these and other colleges today, such as the proper role of athletics, helping students meet the rising cost of college, and dealing with the perennial problem of faculty and staff overload, all of which affect whether some students will benefit to the fullest extent from the college experience. But as we explain later, one of the qualities that make the DEEP schools distinctive is the way they address issues such as these while keeping their eye on the prize of student success.

IMPACT OF THE BOOK

By March 2010, more than 18,000 copies of SSiC were sold. Requests by administrators and faculty members at colleges and universities regarding how to adapt the lessons from SSiC and enhance the conditions for student success on their campuses prompted us to produce a companion volume to SSiC, Assessing Conditions to Enhance Educational Effectiveness: The Inventory for Student Engagement and Success (Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, & Whitt, 2005). That volume details a self-guided framework for conducting a comprehensive, systematic, institution-wide analysis, including sets of diagnostic queries that focus on the six properties and conditions common to high-performing schools, as well as the five clusters of effective educational practices featured on NSSE. About 3,300 copies of the Assessing Conditions workbook have been purchased. More than a few institutions bought copies of both publications for groups such as strategic planning teams members, trustees, and faculty development committees. A couple dozen other publications focused all or in part on DEEP campuses as well as a set of sixteen practice briefs (http://nsse.iub.edu/institute/index.cfm?view=deep/papers). DEEP research team members have been invited to more than 75 campuses to tell the DEEP story. In addition, we’ve reported the findings of the project or otherwise featured its implications in dozens of conference presentations and other venues. In graduate programs in higher education and student affairs, SSiC or selected chapters are required reading. And the volume has some international appeal, having been translated into Arabic! These facts were not lost on the good people at Jossey-Bass, and we gladly accepted their invitation to “freshen up” the volume by updating this Preface and adding an Epilogue about what we’ve learned since and what the DEEP campuses are doing (or not doing) today to promote student success.

While people at DEEP campuses expended significant time and energy talking with and otherwise assisting us during the study and since, the schools also have derived various benefits from the project. For most, it affirmed that they were, in the words of a Winston-Salem State University colleague, “doing something great!” One reason the current president and provost were attracted to California State University Monterey Bay was how the institution was portrayed in the book. Most of the DEEP schools have referred to the book for various reasons and in different venues. University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman regularly refers to the study when she speaks to prospective and admitted students and their families both on and off campus. The University of Texas at El Paso incorporated DEEP findings in its strategic plan, University of Texas System accountability reports, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board reports, and regional and national conference presentations. Alverno College used the conditions for student success to organize their evidence for educational effectiveness reported in their reaccreditation self-study for the Higher Learning Commission. Ursinus College featured passages from SSiC in its Middle States self-study, and the Middle States visitation team also cited the book in its report following the visit!

The descriptions of various educationally purposeful policies and practices inspired faculty and staff members at Wofford College and Fayetteville State University to redouble their commitment to effective educational practice and innovation. Being included in Project DEEP put leaders from the University of Maine at Farmington in touch with counterparts at other DEEP institutions and energized them to advocate for institutional change, including deemphasizing institutional rankings and focusing more on experiences that would enhance student learning. At Macalester College, benefits were both internal and external to the college. Not only did the study stimulate internal discussions and ideas for change, the college drew on descriptions of its practices in the book when providing information to candidates for student affairs positions, helping them understand its student affairs philosophy. Evergreen State College found some practices at other schools worth emulating, such as adopting a common reading—a touchstone text—similar to what Wofford and some other institutions were doing. Participating in the project legitimized in the eyes of Longwood University faculty and staff the institution’s distinctive mission of promoting citizen leadership and helped them understand the impact of curricular and cocurricular programs on students. As a result, Longwood reports increased collaboration between academic and student affairs. Sweet Briar College faculty, staff, students, and alumni returned again and again to its DEEP report during its strategic planning process. According to former Sweet Briar president, Elisabeth Muhlenfeld, this helped the college to be “more focused on meaningful student engagement than before.” At Miami University, the findings were discussed at the president’s executive committee meetings and prompted, among other things, reform of the advising system. The new vice president for student affairs at Wheaton College discussed the book and her campus report with her staff to better understand the campus culture.

We are pleased but not surprised that SSiC encouraged these institutions to deepen their commitment to critical reflection. Such a response is consistent with the ethic of positive restlessness that generally characterizes them. More important is what the findings from the DEEP project prompted other institutions to do. Thanks to the willingness of the 20 DEEP schools to open their campuses to inspection, many more college and university administrators, faculty, scholars, and educational policymakers have instructive images of effective educational practice for the 21st century that provided inspiration and helped them focus on the “right things.” This is what we hoped would happen. The extent to which this book succeeded in that regard and continues to animate discussions about student success and guide campus efforts toward that end benefits both institutions and their students. What could be better?

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A project such as this has many intellectual debts, not the least of which is to the inspirational students, faculty, and staff at the institutions we visited. As will become clear early on, DEEP colleges are special places precisely because of the people who work, live, and study there. Staff at the now-defunct American Association for Higher Education (AAHE) were very helpful, especially Barbara Cambridge, Clara Lovett, and Lacey Leeg-water. We are also indebted to Sam Cargile and Susan Conner at Lumina Foundation for Education for their keen interest and unwavering support for a study of high-performing colleges. Sam is still at Lumina while Susan is pursuing other interests. Another key partner was Wabash College and what was then its new Center of Inquiry in the Liberal Arts (CILA). Offering sage advice behind the scenes from beginning to end were past and present members of the NSSE National Advisory Board (http://www.iub.edu/∼nsse/html/advisory board.htm) and DEEP Advisory Panel (http://education.indiana.edu/∼nsse/nsse institute/deep project /student success/advisory board.htm).

A special word of gratitude is due to several proponents of student engagement who continue to influence our thinking and work. C. Robert Pace, UCLA professor emeritus, introduced the concept of quality of effort in the early 1970s, and with Spencer Foundation support launched the College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ) research program. Many of the questions on the NSSE survey are from the CSEQ. Alexander Astin’s landmark studies across several decades demonstrated the importance of involvement, in effect making it a key construct in research on college students. To us, Peter Ewell is the godfather of NSSE, as he chaired the design team that developed the survey and remains a trusted advisor. Russ Edgerton had the foresight and courage to invest in the premise and promise of student engagement when he directed the education program at the Pew Charitable Trusts. Without Russ’s leadership and Pew’s support, we’d be nowhere near this far along in influencing the nature of the public dialogue about what matters to collegiate quality.

In every possible way, we were buoyed by our colleagues and friends at the Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research. They covered for us during our many trips to DEEP schools, for which we are most grateful. To a person, they are a superbly talented and productive group. Our work and lives are enriched immeasurably by being around them.

Last but certainly not least, the rich and varied expertise of the DEEP research team (Appendix B) made this project a career highlight. Represented as “Associates” in the list of authors, they are co-investigators and key contributors to this volume in every sense of the word. Their insights and excellent field work appear on every page. Equally important, collectively they brought a breadth and depth of perspective and experience that may be heretofore unmatched in studies of colleges and universities. We are deeply appreciative of what they brought and gave to this project and book. Thanks, DEEP team!

January 30, 2010

George D. Kuh
Bloomington, Indiana

Jillian Kinzie
Bloomington, Indiana

John H. Schuh
Ames, Iowa

Elizabeth J. Whitt
Iowa City, Iowa

PART I

Introduction

On other campuses, I hear they just read from the book and discuss the material in the abstract. Here we tell how the reading relates to our life—our history and background. It is much more personal and has feeling. I would not be able to relate otherwise; that is what made the education engaging for me.

—California State University at Monterey Bay first-year student

The one thing that really helped me to get through college was the faculty. They have this philosophy that the first thing that comes to mind is the student. They have an open door and open ears to what students want to do in college and what they want to learn.

—University of Texas at El Paso senior

I never thought I would study abroad because I am such a homebody. . . . I heard about the London Review in a presentation in one of my business classes and I thought I should look into it. I went on the two-week trip and then decided to spend an entire semester abroad.

—University of Kansas senior

Wabash has made me a man. Instantly there’s a lot going on and you’re expected to jump in headfirst. It breeds confidence. You think, “Hey, I can do this, too.” You get the sense that you can achieve anything.

—Wabash College junior

The people here have helped me develop who I am. No one ever encouraged me in science before. Internships and study abroad got me into environmental activism. I’ve learned how the majority of the world lives, and that you don’t need all the stuff you think you need. There are so many opportunities here and once I started, I just never quit!

—Wheaton College senior

The whole education at UMF is about constant reflection. You develop a deliberate, thinking state of mind. Thinking critically becomes second nature. They’re tricky like that!

—University of Maine at Farmington senior

The number one thing I like here is the interaction in the classroom. We have intimacy and respect with the faculty. They don’t baby-sit you, but you get a lot of attention. You’re asked to reflect on yourself and your character, and it broadens your understanding of life. I’m a better leader because of it.

—Longwood University junior

Students are so empowered here to be engaged. We truly have ownership of our lives and so we just assume we’ll be in charge of things. It’s amazing how motivated that makes you to take on responsibility and succeed.

—Miami University sophomore

There are many challenges here. You have to challenge yourself academically, challenge yourself to understand people from diverse backgrounds, and challenge yourself to understand the community and the world.

—Macalester College junior

These students seem to be thriving in college. They describe experiences that challenged them to develop skills, awareness, and confidence. Although the colleges the students attend are very different, the institutions perform well on two important measures. That is, when the institutions’ resources and student characteristics are taken into consideration, all graduate more students than might be predicted, and their students partake more frequently than predicted in activities that encourage learning and development.

What accounts for these achievements? And what can other colleges and universities learn from them to enhance their own effectiveness?

The Educationally Effective Colleges Quiz includes some clues. (Hint: Review the student quotes earlier.) The answers are at the end of Chapter Two. If you read straight through to that point, without skipping the pages in between, you should do well on the quiz. What will become apparent early on is that the colleges and universities represented in the questions are very different in size and educational mission. Some on the list might surprise you. What they all have in common is that they take undergraduate education very seriously and have implemented policies and practices and cultivated campus cultures that encourage their students to take advantage of a variety of educational opportunities.

To find out more about these institutions and what they do to promote student success, read on!

Exhibit 1. Educationally Effective Colleges Quiz.

Student Engagement

A Key to Student Success

FOR DECADES, the college graduation rate has hovered around 50% (Astin, 1975; Braxton, 2000; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Tinto, 1993). Until the 1970s, graduation rates were calculated on a four-year metric. Today the standard denominator is six years, which acknowledges the college-going patterns of contemporary undergraduate students, many of whom attend college part time. Nearly one out of five four-year institutions graduates fewer than one-third of its first-time, full-time, degreeseeking first-year students within six years (Carey, 2004). Even if baccalaureate completion estimates are low, as some claim (Adelman, 2004), everyone agrees that persistence and educational attainment rates, as well as the quality of student learning, must improve if postsecondary education is to meet the needs of our nation and our world. Indeed, as we write, the House subcommittee drafting the reauthorization legislation for the Higher Education Act has included language requiring colleges and universities to report degree completion rates for certificates and degrees for students who start at the institution or who transfer to it. Although not everyone agrees as to the most appropriate way to compute graduation rates, it is clear that increasing persistence and degree completion is a high priority for many institutions. The best predictors of whether a student will graduate or not are academic preparation and motivation (Adelman, 2004; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Thus, the surest way to increase the number of “successful” students—those who persist, benefit in desired ways from their college experiences, are satisfied with college, and graduate—is to admit only well-prepared, academically talented students (Kuh, 2001a).

The problem with this approach is obvious. More people, from a wider, deeper, and more diverse pool of undergraduates, are going to college (Keller, 2001). Moreover, in the coming decade, four-fifths of high school graduates will need some form of postsecondary education to acquire the knowledge, skills, and competencies necessary to address the complex social, economic, and political issues they will face (Kazis, Vargas, & Hoffman, 2004).

Because admitting only the most talented and well-prepared students is neither a solution nor an option, are there other promising approaches to enhancing student success? Decades of research studies on college-impact and persistence suggest a promising area of emphasis: student engagement.

WHY EFFECTIVE EDUCATIONAL PRACTICE MATTERS

What students do during college counts more in terms of what they learn and whether they will persist in college than who they are or even where they go to college. That is, the voluminous research on college student development shows that the time and energy students devote to educationally purposeful activities is the single best predictor of their learning and personal development (Astin, 1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Pace, 1980). Certain institutional practices are known to lead to high levels of student engagement (Astin, 1991; Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Kuh, Schuh, Whitt, & Associates, 1991; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Perhaps the best-known set of engagement indicators is the “Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education” (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). These principles include student-faculty contact, cooperation among students, active learning, prompt feedback, time on task, high expectations, and respect for diverse talents and ways of learning. Also important to student learning are institutional environments that are perceived by students as inclusive and affirming and where expectations for performance are clearly communicated and set at reasonably high levels (Education Commission of the States, 1995; Kuh, 2001b; Kuh et al., 1991; Pascarella, 2001).

All these factors and conditions are positively related to student satisfaction, learning and development on a variety of dimensions, and persistence (Astin, 1984, 1985, 1993; Bruffee, 1993; Goodsell, Maher, & Tinto, 1992; Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1991; McKeachie, Pintrich, Lin, & Smith, 1986; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Pike, 1993; Sorcinelli, 1991). Thus, educationally effective colleges and universities—those that add value—channel students’ energies toward appropriate activities and engage them at a high level in these activities (Education Commission of the States, 1995; Study Group on the Conditions of Excellence in American Higher Education, 1984).

In sum, student engagement has two key components that contribute to student success. The first is the amount of time and effort students put into their studies and other activities that lead to the experiences and outcomes that constitute student success. The second is the ways the institution allocates resources and organizes learning opportunities and services to induce students to participate in and benefit from such activities. What the institution does to foster student success is of particular interest, as those are practices over which a college or university has some direct influence. That is, if faculty and administrators use principles of good practice to arrange the curriculum and other aspects of the college experience, students would ostensibly put forth more effort. Students would write more papers, read more books, meet more frequently with faculty and peers, and use information technology appropriately, all of which would result in greater gains in such areas as critical thinking, problem solving, effective communication, and responsible citizenship.

Many colleges claim to provide high-quality learning environments for their students. As evidence, schools point to educationally enriching opportunities they make available, such as honors programs, cocurricular leadership development programs, and collaboration with faculty members on a research project. Too often, however, such experiences are products of serendipity or efforts on the part of students themselves—the first component of engagement. Moreover, for every student who has such an experience, there are others who do not connect in meaningful ways with their teachers and their peers, or take advantage of learning opportunities. As a result, many students leave school prematurely, or put so little effort into their learning that they fall short of benefiting from college to the extent they should.

Are low levels of engagement by many students inevitable? Or can institutions fashion policies, programs, and practices that encourage students to participate in educationally purposeful activities—so that a greater number of students may achieve their potential?

In the for-profit sector, a time-honored approach to improving effectiveness is identifying and adapting the practices of high-performing organizations. If we can identify colleges and universities that “add value” to their students’ experiences, might we be able to learn from them ways to create powerful learning environments for all students? These questions led us to the study we describe next.

DOCUMENTING EFFECTIVE EDUCATIONAL PRACTICE (DEEP)

The research team set out to identify colleges and universities that perform well in two areas: student engagement and graduation rates. First, we used a regression model to identify baccalaureate-granting institutions that had higher-than-predicted scores on the five clusters of effective educational practice used by the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). The clusters are level of academic challenge, active and collaborative learning, student interaction with faculty members, enriching educational experiences, and supportive campus environment (see Exhibit 1.1). Many research studies show that participating in activities related to these clusters is linked with desired outcomes of college. We used a second regression model to determine the predicted graduation rates of these schools, and compared those rates with their actual six-year graduation rate.

Both regression models took into account student characteristics and institutional features such as size, selectivity, and location. Thus, “higher-than-predicted” means that the institutions generally performed better than they were expected to, given their student and institutional characteristics (Appendix A). More information about the prediction models used to identify the institutions in this study is available at (http://education.indiana.edu/~nsse/nsse_institute/deep_project/student_success/research_methods.htm).

Exhibit 1.1. Summary of the NSSE Clusters of Effective Education Practice.

Higher-than-predicted levels of engagement and graduation represent something meaningful beyond what students bring to college. Arguably, at such colleges and universities students are taking advantage of the opportunities the institutions provide for their learning. In addition, the institutions themselves are presumed to be doing something that encourages students to take part in effective, educationally purposeful activities.

The 20 institutions in this study are among a larger number that met the criteria for higher-than-predicted student engagement and graduation. They are not necessarily the “most engaging” institutions in the country, nor do they necessarily have the “highest” graduation rates. Nevertheless, they are performing at a level that is better than expected, taking into account a variety of factors.

We selected this particular group of colleges and universities in part to represent the diversity of baccalaureate-granting institutions. Nine are private; 11 are public. Some are large research-intensive universities; others focus exclusively on undergraduate education. Some are residential; others enroll substantial numbers of commuting and part-time students. One has fewer than 700 undergraduate students (Sweet Briar College), whereas others enroll more than 20,000 (University of Kansas, University of Michigan). Two are historically black colleges and universities (Fayetteville State University and Winston-Salem State University). Two are Hispanic-serving institutions—California State University at Monterey Bay (CSUMB) and the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP). Two are women’s colleges (Alverno and Sweet Briar). One is a men’s college (Wabash).

At all but a few, the range of student ability and academic preparation is substantial. While standardized test scores place the University of Michigan and Miami University among the most selective public universities in the country, other institutions, such as Fayetteville State University and UTEP, provide educational access to many students marginally prepared for college-level work. The private liberal arts colleges in the study practice selective admissions to varying degrees.

Commuter and part-time students are numerous at some DEEP colleges, such as UTEP, CSUMB, and George Mason. Others, such as Macalester, Sweet Briar, University of Michigan, and Wabash, enroll almost an entirely residential, full-time student body. Miami, Wofford, Gonzaga, and George Mason University are among the top 10 universities in proportion of students who study abroad during college.

The DEEP institutions are diverse in mission, selectivity, size, control, location, and student characteristics (see Table 1.1). Thus, other colleges and universities will be able to identify philosophical underpinnings and educational policies and practices that they can adapt in order to enhance their educational effectiveness.

Table 1.1 DEEP Schools

The primary purpose of this project was to discover what a diverse set of institutions does to promote student success so other colleges and universities that aspire to enhance the quality of the undergraduate experience might learn from their example. As we began the study, however, we did not assume these colleges were aware of the reasons for their effectiveness; indeed, there are disadvantages to being successful without knowing why. In Good to Great, a study of organizations that attained and then sustained a level of superlative performance for at least 15 years, Collins (2001) warned that knowing what good firms have in common with others is not nearly as important as knowing what distinguishes them from others. Not knowing what contributes to exceptional performance makes an institution vulnerable to losing over time what made it successful in the first place. Thus, a secondary purpose of the study was to help strong-performing institutions better understand what they do that has the desired effects.

Toward these ends, the DEEP research team conducted two multiple-day visits to each of the 20 campuses. We reviewed countless documents and Web sites prior to, during, and after the site visits. We visited more than 50 classrooms and laboratories, observed faculty and staff meetings, spent more than 1,000 hours on campus, and talked in all with more than 2,700 people—many of them more than once—to learn what these schools do to promote student success.

Appendix A provides more information about the selection processes for these schools and describes our data collection and analysis procedures. Additional details about the project can be found at ( http://education.indiana.edu/~nsse/nsse_institute/deep_project/student_success/research_methods.htm).

KEEP IN MIND

• We do not claim that these 20 institutions are the “best” or the “most educationally effective” of the more than 700 four-year colleges and universities that had used NSSE by 2003. At the same time, their performance is noteworthy, and they offer many examples of promising practices that could be adapted and used profitably at other institutions.

• Our examination focused exclusively on four-year colleges and universities. This is because NSSE was designed for use by the four-year sector of colleges and universities. A counterpart survey for two-year colleges, the Community College Survey of Student Engagement, was established in 2003. Though by necessity we could include only four-year colleges and universities that administered NSSE between 2000 and 2002, many of these lessons may well apply to most four-year institutions and are worthy of consideration in two-year institutions and to postbaccalaureate programs as well.

• Because we cannot describe every educationally effective policy and practice employed by the 20 DEEP colleges and universities that warrant attention, we have focused on examples that have potential for use at other institutions.

• Whatever the path each of these 20 institutions followed to achieve effectiveness, each stands confidently, rejecting imitation. Each has its own cultural traditions, history, and motivations for improvement that differ somewhat from the others. In addition, each tailors its own educationally purposeful activities to accommodate the students it attracts. Therefore, we hope readers will adapt and apply relevant lessons from these descriptions to their own institutional context.

Although we emphasize characteristics shared by most of the schools (Chapters Two through Seven), we also occasionally refer to aspects that describe only some. For example, what works at Wabash College, a men’s college, might not work for men at coeducational institutions. Also, some institutions enjoy advantages provided by their location and surrounding communities that are not possible to replicate: George Mason University and the greater Washington, D.C. area, the Evergreen State College and the nearby Puget Sound, and the University of Maine at Farmington and the rural, forested landscape.