TBers:

The TB group has talked about the "first year experience" at past meetings.
The posting below looks at five criteria for excellence in first year
undergraduate education.  It is from Chapter One: On Being Named an
Institution of Excellence in the First College Year - The Process and the
Places, in Achieving and Sustaining Institutional Excellence for the First
Year of College by Betsy O. Barefoot, John N. Gardner, Marc Cutright, Libby
V. Morris, Charles C. Schroeder, Stephen W. Schwartz, Michael J. Siegel, and
Randy L. Swing. Copyright © 2005 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.  All rights
reserved. Published by Jossey-Bass. A Wiley Imprint 989 Market Street, San
Francisco, CA 94103-1741 [www.josseybass.com] Reprinted with permission.


 INSTITUTIONS WITH FIRST YEAR EXCELLENCE - FIVE CRITERIA

"Why can't we get the faculty more involved in first-year initiatives?"
This common question has many possible answers, but it is clear that
first-year excellence cannot be achieved, much less sustained, without the
involvement of an institution's faculty.  Faculty ownership, however, is not
enough.  Achievement of first-year excellence requires meaningful
partnerships among various campus constituent groups-faculty,
administrators, student affairs professionals, and students.  The first year
is also a focal point around which such partnerships can be created and
sustained.
 
The institutional stories as provided in this book breathe life into these
five criteria and provide multiple examples of the way institutions of
varying sizes, types, and missions have achieved excellence according to
this model.

Selection Criteria

An obvious prerequisite to implementing a recognition process of this type
is the determination of criteria by which an institution's approach to the
first year might be evaluated.  We began this project by drawing on
available scholarly literature, in addition to the collective experiences of
Policy Center staff, to determine a set of common criteria by which diverse
approaches to the first year could be evaluated in a two-year and four-year,
public and private, large and small campuses.  Five criteria resulted from
our lengthy deliberations and provided the yardstick by which an
eighteen-member panel-Policy Center staff and thirteen external
reviewers-measured the efforts of the 130 nominees:

CRITERION 1: Evidence of an international, comprehensive approach to
improving the first year that is appropriate to an institution's type and
mission.  Institutions of Excellence are characterized by an approach to the
first year that spans the curriculum and co-curriculum.  This approach is
central and systemic rather than appended or patched on to the core
institutional mission.
  
"Down with serendipity and up with intentionality!" This statement, often
made in public settings by John Gardner, is at the heart of this first
criterion.  Throughout the history of higher education, Gardner would argue,
we have relied too much on serendipity-those special chance meetings of
students and faculty, or students and other students, that shape the
educational experience.  Through the years, we have found that serendipity
is not sufficient; rather, being intentional about the way we engineer
meaningful student-faculty and student-student interactions is a key to
success.  It is also important that campuses have a clear rationale for the
first year-what the first year is intended to do that goes beyond a
low-level functional purpose (for example, making money for the institution,
weeding out undesirable students) to a first-year philosophy that serves as
a platform for the achievement of institutional mission.

CRITERION 2: Evidence of assessment of the various initiatives that
constitute this approach.  Institutions of Excellence are committed to an
assessment process that results in data-driven continuous improvement in the
first year.  They should be able to report what was studied, how assessment
was conducted, and how results were used.

A bird's-eye view of first-year assessment discovers some disturbing
trends-first, an overwhelmingly focus on measuring retention and the absence
of evaluation of higher-level cognitive and affective outcomes.  Of course,
retention is important; but we believe most educators would agree that the
purpose of the first year is more than simply keeping students at the
institution where they began their undergraduate journey.  A 2002 national
survey of the nation's chief academic officers conducted by the Policy
Center discovered a second troubling trend: 31 percent of two- and four-year
institutions conduct no assessment of the first year using national or
regional comparative data, and another 31 percent collect data but make no
meaningful use of these data (http://www.brevard.edu/
fyc/survey2002/findings.htm).  Such data tend to languish unused-a waste of
institutional energy and resources.  An obvious key to achieving excellence
is not only conducting assessment, but also using assessment findings for
institutional improvement.

CRITERION 3: Broad impact on significant numbers of first-year students,
including, but not limited to, special student subpopulations.  First-year
initiatives are characterized by high expectations and essential support for
all students at all levels of academic ability.
  
What is a reasonable level of student participation in first-year
initiatives?  100 percent?  Less than 100 percent?  This question has no
one-size-fits-all answer.  Rather, we argue that institutions should
determine how they can realize maximum impact through a variety of
first-year efforts whether desired impact can be achieved if all students
are not required to participate.  We also maintain that a college or
university's design of the first year should take into account both the
special needs of students who may be underprepared or at the honors level,
and the needs of students in between-those who on many campuses are
considered just too average to require special attention.  Out collective
experience argues that all students are potentially at risk in one way or
another for failing to realize maximum benefit from the first college year.

CRITERION  4: Strong administrative support for first-year initiatives
evidence of institutionalization, and durability over time.  Institutions of
Excellence have a demonstrable track record of support for first-year
initiatives.  First-year programs and policies enjoy high status and receive
an equitable share of fiscal and personnel resources.
  
Among multiple competing institutional priorities, the achievement of high
status is no small feat.  And for many campuses, where attention to the
first year is a peripheral responsibility managed by entry-level employees,
a high-status first year is only a dream.  But for others, the first year is
supported in high places, has been institutionalized, and has become the
centerpiece of campus marketing-the way the institution proudly presents
itself to its various publics, including, but not limited to, incoming
students.  High status also implies a reasonable and equitable level of
financial support for organizational structures that support the design of
the first year.

CRITERION 5: Involvement of a wide range of faculty, student affairs
professionals, academic administrators, and other constituent groups.
Institutions of Excellence involve all campus constituent groups in the
design, implementation, and maintenance of first-year initiatives.  These
institutions are characterized by partnerships in support of the first year
across divisional lines.