The creation of the 8 Areas of Study was not seen as a curriculum governance decision, but rather as a convenient way to group similar existing programs in a way that students can access easily online, particularly first-generation and other students new to higher education.  This organization and communication strategy is essential to the new advising model and helps all students to quickly identify programs that align with their interests.  Cabinet and faculty leadership on the College Planning Council participated in the processes resulting in the development of the Areas of Study.

Note that, up to this point, no decisions to develop or modify course or program curriculum have been made about SLCC Pathways, and particularly about Areas of Study or the content of the first 15 courses for students who do not select Programs of Study.  Current discussions regarding evidence-based design principles for student learning and completion have been underway since last summer.  Representative faculty, leaders and academic administrators are wrestling with how to simultaneously address needed reform with fundamental issues of academic integrity and curriculum design.  Given these initiatives and the heartfelt intent conveyed in question 1, this is an opportunity, particularly for faculty curriculum bodies, to articulate what is intended by the phrase ‘meaningful participation of faculty’.  We believe that the following quote and commentary may be helpful:    

From Susan Resnick Pierce, Governance Reconsidered—How Boards, Presidents, Administrators and Faculty Can Help Their Colleges Thrive, p 23  “…the pressures facing colleges and universities today clearly demand that trustees, presidents (and other senior administrators), and faculty members redefine their roles and responsibilities and work collaboratively in new and more effective ways.”  We take as common ground that the entire college, in all our complexity, shares a deep passion for student success, and that is what attracts all employees to SLCC. We also respect and regard as at least aspirational if not normative, that faculty collectively apprehend the impacts of recent changes in our student demographics, our communities and constituencies, socioeconomic impacts (for example, 59% of Utah’s K-12 population is on free and reduced lunch), etc. as a key part of our vision to be “a model for inclusive and transformative education, strengthening the communities we serve through the success of our students.”  

a

Based upon students choosing an Area of Study, students are encouraged to choose a Program of Study leading to a certificate, degree or baccalaureate transfer opportunity. Based upon SLCC and national surveys, it is clear that a small number of students have difficulty making this choice.  These students want to engage college and need guidance so that their early courses not only provide value in subsequent decision making but also are useful academically.  For this cohort, it was determined by Cabinet and the College Planning Council that a 15-credit sequence of courses be developed.  Additionally, Academic Advising and Career Services will provide mentoring and monitoring for students in this category to help them move into a program of study as soon as possible.

b and c

Cabinet and the College Planning Council were involved in developing suggested lists of courses by area of study.  Sample lists were distributed to Deans for further review and recommendation.  While we hoped that this process would lead consistently to Associate Dean and faculty involvement by school (keep in mind that Deans are co-chairs of their school curriculum committees), this understanding was not universal on the outset.  At this time however, Cabinet and Senate have heard from several schools, constituting the majority of faculty, endorsement for the first 15 lists from their areas.

It is clear that the Provost’s Office must do a better job of communicating expectations for these sorts of curriculum processes.  Future work of this nature will not only involve charges to Deans but also to governance bodies (Senate and Curriculum committee) to ensure adequate communication, shared deliberation and documented response.

These questions ask about the balance we are trying to strike in setting up the choice architecture for students in selecting courses for the first time. If concerns are understood correctly, faculty may worry that by providing a default list of suggested courses for undecided new students in their first term, we are at risk of demotivating those students to perform well or to persist in their education. The argument, as it is understood, is that students who select their own courses have exerted autonomy and this has been shown to improve motivation and performance. So, the questions seek to know whether we have struck the right balance in structuring the choice appropriately to improve outcomes without demotivating students.

First, this tradeoff and risk is recognized in the literature. Judith Scott-Clayton, the originator of the self-titled “structure hypothesis” which argues precisely that rigid program maps (essentially default course sequences) will increase retention and completion, acknowledges the potential risk of threatening student autonomy and motivation.[1] Edward Deci has also written at length of the relationship between autonomy and motivation.[2] But we know that this relationship is complicated and that too much choice can also demotivate decision-makers.[3]

We also know that selecting first-term courses can be overwhelming. Both local and national research has validated how frustrating and confusing this process can be for students.[4] Consider a student who does not have a plan or a declared program of study. How is she to determine which courses to take? This hypothetical student enters a multi-layered decision process which requires extensive analytical, evaluative, and decision-making skills. She must consider not only what she is interested in, but what she feels confident in. She will of course, worry about the value of the course in providing skills, or transferable credit. She will have to think about modality (online, traditional, or some hybrid). She will have to think about cost in terms of how many courses and the associated fees and books. Not to mention, she will be fretting about accommodating her work schedule, caring for family, and figuring out transportation. Each decision impacts another. So, we can sympathize with the student who spends hours working out the perfect class schedule only to have a class fill up before she registers and now the whole plan is thrown off. Time to start over. Open the catalog and start looking for another option among the nearly 2,000 offerings. If you are looking for demotivation, that sounds demotivating.

This kind of decision is exactly the kind that Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler say is prime for good choice architecture. They argue that people are generally good at decisions in which they have experience, access to reliable information, and prompt feedback. For example, they say, people are pretty good at selecting among ice cream flavors because they have tasted ice cream before, they know what the flavors generally mean, and after one taste the feedback is instantaneous.[5] Choice architecture, is most helpful in the contrary situations: where people have little experience, information is complex and may require expert assistance, and effects are slow to materialize. We may say a good example here is selecting which classes to take in a student’s first term. Our hypothetical student has no experience building a college schedule, the information is scattered, inconsistent, and difficult to understand, and feedback basically doesn’t happen except in rare circumstances.

So, what is our hypothetical student supposed to do? Well they ask others to make the decision for them. They ask their friends, advisors, family, any trusted source: “What courses should I take?” They end up taking classes because someone else told them to. This can work for some people who have a college-going tradition, but is not the college in the best position to structure this better for the student? Shouldn’t we take the mystery, confusion, and anxiety out of it? Generally speaking, many students were not really “choosing” their courses to begin with. If this is the case, concerns over loss of autonomy should be minimal. They selected courses not because of any internal motivation, but because they simply fit what others told them to do. There was little autonomy for us to remove to begin with.

But that does not really solve the larger point. We need to continue to wrestle the proper balance between autonomy and structure. Perhaps we can find ways to instill a bit more autonomy and motivation in this process? We recognize that the first fifteen as currently constituted is imperfect, needs improvement, and should do more to develop a coherent and engaging experience for our new students.

One solution proposed in Redesigning America’s Community Colleges is a combination of what is called active choice and the strategic use of default courses. Both are viewed by the authors as “nudges” meaning they do not actually restrict choice, the student is free to select any course they want, but they do nudge the student towards certain answers in hoping to support the student towards their desired outcome. Bailey argues that community colleges ought to require an active choice for an area of study and then provide a default course list (or program map) through the program. Some high performing pathway colleges such as San Jacinto have followed this approach exactly.[6]

Recent analyses of early pathway adopters nationally have shown some positive effects of this approach. Lorain County Community College in Ohio has seen an increase in the number of students completing nine credits hours in their first year by over 1/3 (from 19% to 30%). The three-year graduation rate for first-time, full-time students nearly tripled from 8% to 23%. Finally, the number of excess credits decreased by 7%. This result, while not conclusive, is suggestive of the power of finding the right balance of autonomy, guidance, and choice.[7]

We can also draw insights from the work of our own Math department. In reworking the “default” math option from Math 1050 to Math 1030 we have increased the number of students completing their QL requirement by about 25%.[8]  Defaults are power tools that can work to better support students.

We hope to approach the balance between autonomy and structure in a nuanced and careful way. As alluded to in the questions, we are moving towards building a more coherent student experience. The list of the first-fifteen being rolled out for fall 2019 is only a preliminary step towards building an integrated, coherent, structured first-year experience within each area of study. David Dill, among many others, have lamented the failure of American higher education to build a coherent learning experience. Even though improved learning is “significantly associated with the pattern and sequence of courses in which they enroll, within program requirements that integrate learning across courses, and the frequency of communication and interaction among faculty members” in the area of study, colleges and universities have not structured their learning experience in this way.[9] Outside a few highly structured majors, we have left the responsibility to draw connections and integrate the learning up to the student. We can do better.

Our institutional definition for SLCC Pathways is to “provide a guided program of study intentionally designed to enhance learning and clarify a student’s route to program completion, a career, and further education.”[10] This definition intentionally balances the structure with focus on enhancing learning. We believe with Natasha Jankowski that a successful pathways initiative must first focus on learning and integration, not so much as superficial structure with little change in the curriculum or pedagogy. Only then, she says, will we have “the greatest opportunity to . . . reach shared consensus, scaffold learning opportunities, and make connections across systems based on students and their learning.”[11]

Last year we commissioned the development of design principles, by a group of faculty, to guide the creation of our areas of study. While the principles they identified provide a solid foundation, there remained critical administrative questions that needed to be answered. Provost Sanders is leading a group of faculty leaders including the faculty senate president and vice president, as well as the chairs of the faculty curriculum and general education committees, in developing a guide that will be vetted and reviewed by faculty bodies in ways the faculty leadership ask for. We know we can do better than the first fifteen we currently have. We look forward to your continued engagement as we do that work together. 

[1] Scott-Clayton, Judith. "The Shapeless River: Does a Lack of Structure Inhibit Students’ Progress at Community Colleges?" CCRC Working Paper No 25; January 2011. https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/shapeless-river.pdf.

[2] See Deci, Edward. Why We Do What We Do: Understanding Self-Motivation. Penguin Books, 1996.

[3] See S. Iyengar, Sheena & Lepper, Mark. (2001). When Choice is Demotivating: Can One Desire Too Much of a Good Thing? Journal of personality and social psychology. 79. 995-1006.

[4] See Rosenbaum, J.E., Deil-Amen, R. & Person, A.E. After Admission: From College Access to College Success. New York, NT: Russel Sage Foundation.

[5] Thaler, Richard H.; Sunstein, Cass R.. Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness (p. 9). Penguin Group US. Note that too many flavors can still hinder the decision-making process. See S. Iyengar, Sheena & Lepper, Mark. (2001). When Choice is Demotivating: Can One Desire Too Much of a Good Thing?. Journal of personality and social psychology. 79. 995-1006.

[6] San Jacinto is an Aspen prize top 10 finalist.

[7] See Jenkins, D., Lahr, H., Fink, J., & Ganga, E. (2018). What we are learning about guided pathways. Part 1: A reform moves from theory to practice. New York, N Y: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center

[8] See Webb, Jeff. Investigating Changes to the Primary Non-STEM Math Course Sequence at SLCC. SLCC Institutional Research, September 2017. https://i.slcc.edu/research/mathways.aspx .

[9] Dill, David. “Ensuring Academic Standards in U.S. Higher Education.” Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 46(3), 53-59. See also JANKOWSKI, NATASHA. DEGREES THAT MATTER: Moving Higher Education to Learning Systems Paradigm. Place of Publication Not Identified: STYLUS Publishing, 2017. The American Association of Colleges and Universities has also published extensively on this topic see https://www.aacu.org/purposeful-pathways. See also Terry, P. (2015). Assessment: Learning by doing. Assessment Update, 27(4), 1–2, 16.

[10] College Planning Council “SLCC Pathways” Fall 2017.

[11] Jankowski, Natasha A.. Degrees That Matter: Moving Higher Education to a Learning Systems Paradigm. Stylus Publishing.

For clarity, students are not being asked to take any courses in Fall 2019 that we did not require in Fall 2018. As was mentioned in the response to the previous question, we are using nudges. By definition, a nudge does not foreclose any option or choice, it only directs that choice towards pre-selected defaults or options. The students in Fall 2019 will be completely free to select among all choice options for which they have met the prerequisites. They will also receive additional support and guidance in the process as well.

The end goal is to increase the number of students who successfully complete a degree or associate and are able to effectively continue to either earn the bachelor degree or obtain meaningful employment. Yes, we need our students to learn to make decisions deliberately and to develop intentionality. But we recognize that this is a process, and when we help students make complex and difficult decisions, it requires a structure and appropriate supports. We recognize that the initial roll out for Fall 2019 is inadequate and needs improvement. But it begins to move us towards a more perfect model that we will collaboratively build.

How can we better design the student experience to accelerate the development of student intentionality?

Three years ago, we did an in-depth analysis of the reasons why students don’t complete. We looked and considered all the usual suspects: costs, scheduling, conflicting personal and family needs, dissatisfaction, college preparedness. Unsurprisingly, all these came up in our analysis. As we talked with the students they mentioned each of these items. But what was surprising, wasn’t that all these came up, but that the students said none of these weren’t the real reason for not completing. Instead they said that these problems compounded an already difficult time they were having to plan their future. They often used phrases like “I stopped because I had to figure my life out” or “I didn’t know exactly why I was there for what to do next.” They knew they wanted to go to college, but they didn’t know what to major in, what classes to take, or how to build out a plan that they felt confident in. They lacked intentionality. As one student said (paraphrased), “I could figure out my family junk and find the money if I just knew what I needed to do to pick the right major, take the right classes to get me a good job.”

Many of these students talked about visiting with an advisor. Most were disappointed in that experience stating that they were usually told to explore by taking courses. Indeed, most community college students are told to figure out what they want to do by simply taking classes that sound interesting. One study described students as pinballs “bouncing from one thing to another.”[1] Another finds that students “develop information by taking courses almost at random.”[2] The practice of taking courses to explore while perhaps effective is also the most expensive and time consuming option for our students.

When we meet a student we almost instantly ask, “what’s your major?” We ask it as if it’s as simple as selecting among ice cream flavors. But it may be the single greatest decision our students struggle with. It’s a prerequisite for nearly all other decisions while at SLCC (e.g., the general education requirements, the math sequence, and course selections change depending on program of study). It also has long-lasting effects after SLCC (e.g., where to transfer, what kind of career and salary, etc). It is perhaps one of the hardest decisions students must make and is characterized as a very difficult decision-type. There is a reason the majority of our students declare a “general studies” majors. They are lost in a shapeless river. 

Research has shown that humans struggle with decisions which involve multi-dimensional tradeoffs. In such decisions, the decision-maker must consider a matrix of interrelated consequences all cascading from the primary choice. It’s similar to the course-selection process, but amplified significantly. The student is trying to weigh so many options and tradeoffs that it is nearly guaranteed to overwhelm her unless the decision is made through a structured process designed to result in a decision. The student has to wonder if she can do it, how she will pay for it, is it worth it, how long it will take, and if she will be welcome there. These are big difficult questions which all must be answered before a student can confidently have intentionality. Our student experience needs to be better designed to support students in answering these questions.

There are basic decision design principles we can adopt and integrate into the student experience that will enhance the ability to develop intentionality. One of the simplest and best explanations comes from the November 2011 Sheena Iyengar TED talk “How to Make Choosing Easier.” We may not adequately have included these principles into our Fall 2019 work, but it moves us closer to them.

The active choice of an area of study…

The idea that the first course should be directly related to the area of study…

The intrusive advising and requirement that students meet with an advisor to develop an academic plan within the first year…

These a just the beginning of a redesign process that we will develop together.

[1] See Rosenbaum, J.E., Deil-Amen, R. & Person, A.E. After Admission: From College Access to College Success. New York, NT: Russel Sage Foundation p.126. In this study 42% of students indicated they did not have enough information about requirements and prerequisites; 26% were unsure which of their courses counted toward a degree. (As cited in Scott-Clayton, Judith. "The Shapeless River: Does a Lack of Structure Inhibit Students’ Progress at Community Colleges?" CCRC Working Paper No 25; January 2011. https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/shapeless-river.pdf.)

[2] Grubb, W.N. “Like What Do I Do Now?”: The Dilemmas of Guidance Counseling. In T. Bailey and V. Morest (Eds.), Defending The Community College Equity Agenda (pp. 195-222). Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press. (As cited in Scott-Clayton, Judith. "The Shapeless River: Does a Lack of Structure Inhibit Students’ Progress at Community Colleges?" CCRC Working Paper No 25; January 2011. https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/shapeless-river.pdf.)

We appreciate and applaud faculty expertise and passion with regard to current and future integrity of curriculum.  The points of engagement with leadership on these issues focus on impact upon students and effective processes for students to achieve their goals as supported by the SLCC Strategic Plan.  Curriculum integrity touches upon many SLCC strategic aspects such as equity-minded pedagogy and practice, disparities in achievement for certain student populations, etc.  We encourage more robust discussion, scholarship and innovation to support success for more students.

We very much appreciate faculty concern with regard to scheduling.  This will be a work in progress.  We believe that, for the most part, first 15 credit hour scheduling issues will produce more efficient scheduling for students.  We also want to be sensitive to faculty capacity issues, especially with regard to scheduling adjunct faculty for these classes.  However, we want to point out that, to date, most students are choosing programs of study, which significantly minimizes adverse impacts that might be caused by first 15 scheduling.

This will be ongoing.  This first round of courses is intended to launch SLCC Pathways starting Fall Semester 2019.  We anticipate and hope that there will be upgrades, curriculum changes through standard governance processes, etc.  as we learn more based upon information as we implement and improve.

School curriculum committees will be allowed to respond with approval or suggested modification to 1st 15 credit hour lists for related Areas of Study by January 31, 2019. Cabinet will review the school curriculum committee recommendations and finalize by February 15, 2019.