FinRpt Fyatf Executive

FINAL REPORT OF THE FIRST-YEAR ACADEMIC EXPERIENCE TASK FORCE
20 June, 2012 College of the Atlantic Page 1 of 15

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Academic Dean convened and charged the First-Year Academic Experience (FYAE) task forcewhich has
consisted of five students, two staff, three faculty, and one trusteewith reviewing the foundational curriculum
and assessing the role of the core course in the curriculum. The 2011-2012 strategic design objectives relevant to
the task force are the following:
1. Review the foundational courses and communicate with new students the recommended foundational
courses in each resource area.
2. Assess the role of the core course in the curriculum, including main goals, objectives, content, and teaching
methods.

The task force process demonstrates COAs shared governance model, which incorporates student, staff, faculty,
and trustee input in all phases and provides on-going opportunities for community-wide dialogue. Beginning in the
fall of 2011, the task force reviewed relevant literature and composed and administered a survey for students, staff,
and faculty. In addition to these sources, we reviewed relevant internal documents, such as the NEASC self study
and visiting team report, Academic Program Renewal (APR) documents, and National Survey of Student
Engagement (NSSE) 2011 results. This task force worked in parallel with two other groups: the Human Ecology
Core Course (HECC) planning group and the introductory biology faculty working on redesigning the introductory
life science curriculum. The former group planned and carried out a retreat for faculty slated to teach the HECC
over the next three years to identify and agree on shared objectives, core readings, and common assignments across
years as well as sections. The latter group has used a grant-writing process to discuss, consider, and propose a series
of changes to the introductory biology and chemistry sequence to include more field-based learning and research
projects. The task force also presented ongoing status reports at least once a term during academic year 2011-2012
to solicit input on process as well as on preliminary findings and recommendations.

This review of the first-year academic experience uncovered many strengths. The majority of first-year students
report that they communicate well with faculty, staff, and advisors. A broad range of courses meet students self-
identified first-year goals as well as shared institutional goals such as research skills and introduction to
interdisciplinary education. More than three-fourths of survey respondents reported overall satisfaction with their
FY experience. Academic advisors rely on a broad repertoire of approaches to meet advisees diverse needs.

The task force also identified several areas for improvement. A fourth of survey respondents reported being
somewhat to very dissatisfied with Core Course. Some students expressed dissatisfaction with the advising
structure in terms of its transparency and communication of advisor-advisee pairing, changes, and troubleshooting.
Advisors report lacking some capacity, knowledge, or experience in adequately meeting special needs (e.g.,
disability, language) of some advisees.

The task force recommends that between 2012-2016, the college invest resources to ensure the following:
1. First-year students have the opportunity to meet their own as well as institutional goals, such as learning to
self-direct their learning, understand human ecology, gain familiarity with local geography and resources,
synthesize knowledge from different disciplines, develop relationships with people on- and off-campus, and
hone both receptive and expressive communication skills.
2. Faculty distinguish between introductory courses and those targeting first-year students, determine how all
first-year students have the opportunity to meet all first-year goals, and make time to discuss how they
teach essential first-year goals like self-directed learning and effective discussion participation.
3. Academic Support and Student Life staff implement FYAE task force recommendations to strengthen
advising as part of the strategic designs action plan projected for FY 2016.


I. INTRODUCTION
Several years of 1) conversations in Faculty Meeting, Academic Affairs Committee, and All College Meeting, 2)
reviews of course enrollments, 3) an academic program renewal, and 4) a new strategic design raised several
questions about the quality of the introductory curriculum. As a result, the Academic Dean convened and charged
the First-Year Academic Experience (FYAE) task forcewhich has consisted of five students, two staff, three
faculty, and one trusteewith reviewing the foundational curriculum and assessing the role of the core course in
the curriculum. The 2011-2012 strategic design objectives relevant to the task force are the following:
Review the foundational courses and communicate with new students the recommended foundational
courses in each resource area.
Assess the role of the core course in the curriculum, including main goals, objectives, content, and teaching
methods.

II. CONTEXT
The higher education literature we reviewed on evaluations of general education or the first-year experience falls
into three categories: 1) how-to manuals describing purposes, processes, examples, and tools; 2) research reports of
institutional evaluations; and 3) opinions about particular curriculum reviews or recommendations about improving
the first-year experience.

Literature on higher education curriculum and assessment includes some valuable context for COAs review of our
foundational curriculum. Peter Ewells 2004 AACU monograph on general education assessment reform lists the
following objectives for general education, which also reflect objectives that have been discussed by COA faculty
concerning the Human Ecology core course (HECC), fundamental skills, and an orientation to various resources:
Developing 1) prerequisite skills for more advanced work, 2) cross-discipline skills like critical thinking; 3) general
knowledge about specific disciplines and methods of inquiry; 4) collegiate socialization or how to do college (cited
in Allen, 2006, p. 30). Mary Allen (2006) outlines the following six steps for assessing academic programs:
1. Develop learning outcomes.
2. Check for alignment between the curriculum and the outcomes.
3. Develop an assessment plan.
4. Collect assessment data.
5. Use results to improve the program.
6. Routinely examine the assessment process. (p. 16).
Our findings are organized according to the first three of these steps.

Reports of institutional evaluations, useful findings from a literature review, as well as methods that other
institutions used to review their general education programs or first-year experience informed our efforts and
recommendations. While a review of literature includes U.K. as well as U.S. institutions, their findings included
these helpful insights:
The key factors in ensuring progression [from first to second year] appear to be: personal goal setting
and motivation; family and friends; paid work and financial situation; peer support; institutional habitus;
cultural capital; prior information and choices; expectations; satisfaction; teaching and learning process and
engagement with teachers; assessment and discussion of progress.
It is not easy to identify determining factors for the first-year experience because of the idiosyncratic
way students engage with it. The search for determining factors has, though, suggested good practice. The
focus tends to be on first-year students deficiencies and how to provide for them rather than on exploring their individual
learning needs and building on their strengths. Perhaps the key to improving success and persistence is not to focus just on
the first-year experience but to improve the student experience generally. (from the conclusion to the Executive

Summary, our emphasis)
1

A restructuring of a general education program at a public urban university included a review of graduates
transcripts to analyze the sequence in which students enrolled in courses as well as compliance with core course
requirements. This evaluation also included an analysis of syllabi to assess which courses taught critical thinking,
reading, writing, oral presentation, computer, and mathematical skills. Students, staff, and faculty completed a
survey; the result was a new program with fewer requirements (from 66 to 18 credits) focusing on writing, math,
and history, and a distribution requirement of 48 credits in 6 areas (natural and social sciences, arts, humanities,
multicultural/language studies, and quantitative/computer literacy)
2

The Higher Education Academys Key Research Reports provide some additional findings relevant to our
task, some more obvious than others:
Results of previous assessments at all stages are the best predictor of subsequent results.
First-year students tend to overrate their knowledge and abilities.(ellipses denote omitted text)
Learning skills development is best contextualised and embedded in the curriculum rather than being
supported by stand-alone courses or workshops.
Students find conceptual development difficult
Staff need to assess whether their teaching styles enable students conceptual development.
Students accept the principle of autonomous learning but need help in becoming autonomous learners.
Students prefer student-centred, active learning rather than lectures. Problem-based learning, practical
projects and team working seem to be effective provided the student is well prepared.
Peer assessment appears to be beneficial and, if carefully planned, on-line assessment can be a useful
learning aid.
It is important that students and staff have a shared understanding of the language of assessment.
3

Worth noting is that COAs first-year retention rate over the past five years (81-90%) has been comparable to or
exceeded the national average (83%) for private doctoral-granting colleges (Allen, 2006, p. 12).

Literature expressing opinions about particular institutional program reviews or providing strategies for
improvement offer a comparative perspective. In a response to Harvards Crimson plan for education, Tom
Ehrlich advocates for general education programs that provide common academic experiences for undergraduates,
so that classroom learning can have maximum impact across the student body as a whole and expose students to
different pedagogies beyond lectures; he bemoans dropping the moral reasoning requirement.
4
Jeffrey Kelley urges
institutions to designate an individual supported by a standing committee to ensure that the first-year experience
remains an institutional priority.
5

Perhaps most useful in our review of literature are the various surveys that have been used at other
institutions. In the development of the FYAE surveys, we consulted several (see those listed in the Appendix:
Sources).

1
Harvey, Lee & Drew, Sue (October, 2006). The first-year experience: a review of literature for the Higher Education Academy. Accessed
11/30/11: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/research/literature_reviews/first_year_experience_full_report.pdf
2
Kramer, Arthur, & LaMar, Ansley (2000). Restructuring the General Education Program at a Public urban university: Assessment,
evaluation, and implementation. Paper presented at the Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research (40
th
, Cincinnati, OH,
May 21-23).
3
The Higher Education Academy (2008). Key Research Reports. First Year Experience wiki. Accessed 11/30/11:
http://elearning.heacademy.ac.uk/wiki/index.php/First_year_experience#Key_Research_Reports
4
Ehrlich, Tom (n.d.). Blue about the Crimson plan for education. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Accessed
11/30/11: http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/perspectives/blue-about-crimson-plan-general-education
5
Kelley, Jeffrey M. (2006). The first-year experience: Strategies for improvement. Accessed 11/30/11:
http://www.newfoundations.com/OrgTheory/Kelly721Sp06.html

III. METHODS
The work of the task force commenced in the fall of 2011 when we reviewed relevant literature and
composed and administered a survey for students, staff, and faculty. In addition to these sources, we reviewed
relevant internal documents, such as the NEASC self study and visiting team report, Academic Program Renewal
(APR) documents, and National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) results. This task force worked in parallel
with two other groups: the Human Ecology Core Course (HECC) planning group and the introductory biology
faculty working on redesigning the introductory life science curriculum. The former group planned and carried out
a retreat for faculty slated to teach the HECC over the next three years to identify and agree on shared objectives,
core readings, and common assignments across years as well as sections. The latter group has used a grant-writing
process to discuss, consider, and propose a series of changes to the introductory biology and chemistry sequence to
include more field-based learning and research projects. The task force also presented ongoing status reports once a
term to solicit input on process as well as preliminary findings and recommendations.
In composing the survey, we solicited and received feedback from students, staff, and faculty about
questions to include as well as phrasing and format. We used several strategies to increase the response rate to our
surveys, such as offering a drawing for a gift certificate for students who completed the survey, comparable to that
which they receive for participating in the NSSE, and offering individuals to complete the survey on-line, on paper,
or in person. The response rates were as follows: 24 (about one-fourth) first-year students, 56 (approximately a
fifth) continuing students, and 29 faculty, 19 staff, and 3 part-time staff/faculty (51 employees and nearly all staff
and faculty advisors).
While we recognize that findings from our survey are limited by selection bias and disproportionately
reflect those students who are likely to be very happy or very unhappy about their experience, we believe that they
provide an additional source of information that can nevertheless be useful for curricular and co-curricular planning.
To see the surveys we administered, please go to the Appendix: Links to COA FYAE Surveys.
After drafting recommendations, we shared and received feedback about those recommendations that were
within the purview of the following groups: Academic Affairs, Faculty Meeting, and All-College Meeting (see AAC
and Faculty Meeting Minutes, May 2, 2012). The final recommendations included in this report reflect these
discussions about desirability, feasibility, and priority.

IV. FINDINGS
A. Learning Outcomes for the First-Year
The 2011 NSSE results confirm our own survey results and include a group of respondents fairly representative of
our first-year class (67% response rate: 69% Female; 68% White, 7% multiracial; 5% Asian or Other; 25%
International; 5% Transfer; 93% Traditional-aged; 90% on-campus resident). The majority reported that they
communicate well with faculty, staff, and advisors, and are overall satisfied with COA and would do it again.

From the FYAE survey, respondents (new first-year and transfer as well as continuing students, staff and faculty)
identified the following goals as important to meet by the end of their first year at COA by:
A basic interest in and understanding of human ecology (what it is, its history, overview, definition,
possibilities, practices, such as interdisciplinary education, and applications; beginning to develop their own
synthesis and understanding);
Communication skills (especially writing and public speaking, but also ability to participate in discussions,
listening, reading, and artistic communication);
Creativity, flexibility, intellectual risk-taking, and an openness to new ideas, experiences, and ideas about
what education should be;
Familiarity with and ability to navigate and utilize on-campus and off-campus local geography and resources
(facilities such as the library, people, places such as the Acadia National Park);
Ability to connect with, develop relationships, and collaborate with people with different values and
outlooks on- and off-campus; and

Self-knowledge of values, awareness of privilege, confidence, discipline, and self-reliance.

Other goals identified include the following:
An introduction to local history and geography;
Working knowledge of world history and geography applicable to areas of interest and current
affairs/events;
Some knowledge of the diversity of our environments (physical, chemical, biological, human);
Research skills;
Creativity and creative expression;
Critical thinking skills;
Learning, study, and time management skills; and
Personal responsibility and a commitment to the environment and sustainability.
(For more details about the responses to this question, see Survey Summary of First-Year Goals).

B. Alignment between existing curriculum and learning objectives.
1. Foundational curriculum.
Continuing student responses identified the following courses in addition to the HECCas meeting the first-year
learning objectives they identified. Please keep in mind that this is not a comprehensive list; it reflects respondents
academic interests as well as those classes that serve larger numbers of new students; included are those courses
identified by three or more continuing student respondents.
6

Environmental Sciences (ES) Courses: Biology I/II, Calculus, Chemistry I/II, Ecology Natural History, Marine Biology.

Human Studies (HS) courses: Advanced Composition; Changing Schools, Changing Society; Economic Development;
Introduction to the Legal Process; Literature, Science, and Spirituality; and Personality and Social Development.

Some students wrote that none of their first-year courses met their stated objectives, primarily because their
objectives transcended course objectives (e.g., forming relationships with faculty and becoming an active participant
in college governance).

New and continuing student survey respondents cited a wide range of courses aside from the HECC that satisfied
their first-year learning objectives including Advanced Composition and other writing courses, Bio II, Changing
Schools, Curiosity and Wonder, Ecology Natural History, Introduction to Arts and Design, Marine Biology,
Personality and Social Development, and System Dynamics. The table below shows the proportion of continuing
student respondents who reported that they somewhat to strongly agreed that their first-year courses helped them
meet the following first-year goals, in order of declining proportion:

First-year goals surveyed by the task force %
Gain ability to find, organize, and evaluate information 86
Provide an introduction to interdisciplinary education 84
Improve ability to identify and use resources
7
81
Develop personal advocacy skills
8
78
Improve active listening skills 77

6
While some respondents identified Arts and Design (AD) classes as meeting their first-year learning objectives, no single AD course was
mentioned by three or more respondents.
7
A library survey found that students tended to overestimate their research skills.
8
elaborated as ability to speak for myself, ask for help, etc.

Improve critical reading skills 70
Improve public speaking 68
Improve civic engagement skills
9
63
Improve writing skills 61
Improve collaboration skills 59
Improve computer proficiency 39

A systematic review of syllabi of courses with high enrollment by new students or designed for new students would
build on this information to identify how well our course offerings are meeting the goals we identify as necessary for
students subsequent development of their potential at COA. We also recommend providing greater opportunity
for faculty who teach classes with a majority first-year student enrollment to discuss how they teach essential first-
year learning objectives like research with primary sources and effective communication skills.

Two of the survey questions asked about students perceptions and preferences for class composition (e.g.,
exclusively new students or a mix represented). The general consensus was that while the HECC and introductory
courses like Ecology Natural history offer the opportunity for new students to be in a class with other new students,
there are benefits students attach to taking classes with upper-class students as well as disadvantages associated with
classes in which students do not have prerequisite knowledge or skills (whether first-year or continuing student).

2. Human ecology core course. (The following section includes excerpts from a memo that was sent to all faculty planning to teach
the HECC in the upcoming three years.)
Questions about or pertaining to the core course included the following: Please comment on your experience with
the core course so far. Has it helped you reach any of your goals or COA academic goals for the first year? asked of
new students; What courses did you take your first year that most helped you to gain the above concepts and
skills? asked of continuing students. Staff and faculty experiences and perceptions of the core course were gleaned
from several different questions about courses exclusively for first-year students and those inviting additional
comments.
a. New students have extremely divergent experiences of the core course, such as those represented here from
different students:
The Human Ecology Core Course has been one of my favorite classes. It has really expanded my range of
thought and ideas, and has helped me look at the world, at humans, and at myself in many different ways.
I have started the process of what Human Ecology means to me.
Core course is helpful, but I think it could use some re-formatting. There are too many different approaches
and demands from the various professors. Some have clear guidelines and expectations while some let the
assignments be more up for interpretaiton (sic).
It was horrible and not a comfortable classroom setting for a first term class.
While nearly half of the student respondents reported being somewhat or very satisfied with the core course, about
one out of four respondents were somewhat or very dissatisfied. In contrast, the vast majority of respondents
(more than three-fourths) report overall satisfaction with their first-year academic experience.

b. Student respondents reported learning very different things from the core course. Almost all of the first-year
respondents reported that the HECC helped them gain awareness of faculty and facilities as well as skills in
analytical writing, listening, collaboration, and self-advocacy. Nearly half of the continuing student respondents
(20) identified the core course as meeting their first-year goals, with all but two identifying specific learning
from the core. For example, some cited the importance of understanding and being able to articulate what
human ecology is. Some reported learning writing skills, others listening and discussion skills, and about faculty

9
elaborated as ability to investigate, weigh perspectives, act effectively in the community at COA and beyond.

expertise and community resources. Two respondents felt that the core course was not helpful in meeting any
of their identified goals for the first year. Some examples of these responses follow (those not in quotation
marks are paraphrases):
I made my first powerpoint during my human ecology core course, and learned to think critically, challenge
my classmates in a respectful manner, and write effectively.
The human ecology core course was an okay way for me to get to know my community. I do not think that I
learned about the institution's history or future at all, however, in my first yearand have since only done so
in an informal manner.
Human Ecology core course gave me an idea of some other resources within the community for
learning/contributing such as the schools and the park.

c. Students value having explicit and shared goals in the core course. Some respondents suggestions follow:
I would suggest having general assignments that all first years have to complete in the core course, and having
classes rotate to different professors so they get a broader sense of the different faculty approaches to
education.
I think as part of human ecology core course it might be good to have people involved in school as well as the
community and have to attend some ACM's or committee meetings just so they know what it is like and tied
into a class assignment of course.
Hold higher expectations for new students; they will rise to the challenge.
Reserve Monday or Tuesday for trips on the island. Keep Wednesday lectures with assigned reading and a
fourth-year student leading a discussion on Thursday or Friday.

The faculty retreat planning the HECC for the next three years (April 11, 2012 minutes) came to agreement on the
following objectives, requirements, and teaching approaches to further define the HECCs role in the first-year
curriculum.
10

1. Students will understand values, concepts, knowledge, and vocabulary common to the intellectual history
of Human Ecology.
a. Able to define human ecology in response to other articulations and definitions.
b. Use shared vocabulary and apply concepts in appropriate contexts.
2. Students will gain communication skills in writing, speaking, and use of visual media.
a. Able to present information/position effectively in five minutes.
b. Show awareness and respond to rich diversity in audience.
c. Initiate a dialogue with someone/people whose views differ from yours on the topic.
d. Use credible evidence to illustrate and support your perspective, experience, and argument
e. Communicate with/via art
3. Effectively take in ideas by reading (text, landscape), listening, and looking.
a. Identify own gaps in knowledge.
b. Reflect deeper understanding through repeated readings, viewings, listenings.
4. Learn how to learn.
a. From different sources
b. Research skills
c. Methodology of HE
d. Collaboratively
5. Learn how to deal with intellectual and physical discomfort. Remain an open and curious member of the
community.
a. Initiate discussion in and out of class.

10
This list reflects a transcription of chart paper notes from the retreat.

b. Remain open and curious.
c. Willing to take risks and return when wrong the first time.
d. Demonstrate creative flexibility.
6. Connect different bodies of knowledge/synthesize.
a. Perspectives
b. Methodology
c. Bodies of knowledge
d. Aesthetics
7. Find individual voice and place.
a. Introspection
b. Self Knowledge
c. Balance: individuals-in-community
d. Able to express in first-person voice, take intellectual + creative risks and reflect on learning

Some common assignments faculty agreed on include a human ecology essay, a group project (e.g., service-
learning), an individual research project or portfolio of research skills, opportunity to read and write fiction and
make art, and peer feedback/review. Each year would begin with common readings providing an intellectual
history of human ecology; faculty suggested several authors and titles as potential core readings. Included among
these would be a selection of human ecology essays by faculty and by non-COA-affiliated authors. Some reading
would be assigned for the summer prior to matriculation.

Each year, the faculty teaching would decide on what fieldtrips and local problem or issue should be the focus for
group projects, service-learning, or individual research. Each years teaching team would decide on weekly
lecturers. There was enthusiasm for including a panel as well as alumni lecturers into this series. There was
agreement that weekly planning meetings should begin in March for those faculty teaching the following fall with
invitations to other faculty as needed to share teaching strategies. Finally, faculty acknowledged that the HECC
should not try to meet all first-year academic goals.

3. Advising.
Given the self-directed nature of our curriculum, advising extends a necessary bridge to guide students from their
particular interests, strengths, and needs to their intended personal, academic, and career goals. (Although this
section of the survey exceeds the charge of the task force, we report it here to provide guidance as we move
forward with the advising goals in our strategic design projected for FY 2016.) Survey results revealed a
considerable diversity of student perspectives, further confirmed in a March, 2012 ACM discussion on advising, that
ranged from students who wanted hands-on or hands-off advisors and those who were very satisfied to those with
more ambivalent feelings about their advising experiences. Similarly, due to the individualized nature of advising,
many staff and faculty seek to adapt their advising style to the particular preferences and needs of individual
students. Staff and faculty respondents self-report a range of approaches to accommodating student needs,
including speaking to students in their native language; many also report not having enough knowledge about certain
kinds of disabilities or students to be able to serve them adequately.

According to NSSE results, 83% of first-year respondents evaluated the quality of their academic advising as good or
excellent. Twenty-four first-year students responded to our survey questions focusing specifically on advising
(#13-21), with more diverse assessments. These respondents experiences with advising prior to matriculation
ranged from probably wouldnt have used it to I had questions and all of them were accurately responded to one
case where the advising led to negative results. Students entering in January or who miss orientation are in
particular need of advising before they start. All first-year respondents met with their advisor at least once in a year,
with most meeting once or several times per term. Most students understand their advisors role to be helping

them to understand academic requirements, select courses, and feel comfortable asking for help. Nearly half of
them reported that their advisor refers them to others for help when appropriate. A few advisors help students
resolve conflicts, meet other students with similar interests, and connect them with the community outside COA.

Fifty-one continuing students responded to questions 27-36 about advising on the FYAE survey. In general, those
who received advising prior to matriculation (from admissions or student life staff or other students) found it really
helpful to feel comfortable and decide on classes. Those who did not expressed sentiments ranging from not
wanting it to feeling like it would have been helpful, particularly for transfer students, and to discuss whether to
take grades or P/F. Most respondents reported meeting with their advisors at least once a term (with a few
meeting weekly), with a few never meeting or only meeting once a year. As with new students, the majority of
continuing students meet with their advisors to select courses, understand academic requirements, and to feel
comfortable asking for help. A quarter to a third are referred to others, get recommendations written, and/or are
helped to meet students with similar interests. A tenth to a fifth get help connecting to the community outside
COA or resolving an interpersonal conflict. More than two-thirds of respondents felt that advisors should share
current information about course projections, descriptions, and schedules and be better able to interact and
communicate with students. Slightly more than a half of continuing student respondents felt that advisors should
help foster a greater sense of community by participating in college-wide social events and be better informed about
academic and study skills support available to students. Respondents with documented disabilities, or whose first
language was not English, felt that their advisors provided support. First-generation college students also felt that
their advisor provided support and also referred them to an off-campus individual or organization.

Staff and faculty respondents shared their perspectives on advising in survey questions 13-30. A majority of advisors
responding to the survey were equivocal about having adequate knowledge and resources to support disabled, first-
generation college students and those whose first language is not English. Just a fifth or fewer strongly agreed that
they felt they had adequate knowledge and resources to support these students. From the comments people shared,
it appears that this ambivalence had to do with feeling successful or resourceful in some but not all cases (e.g., with
some kinds of disabilities or with some language speakers). Those who didnt feel they could adequately meet these
students needs cited lack of capacity, knowledge, or experience as reasons.
Some ways that advisors feel they support students with these special needs are:
Dispositional and affective interventions: Patience, compassionate listening (from the heart), additional
encouragement, and meeting needs on an individual basis, helping them feel safe in a challenging environment,
commitment to provide respectful and empowering support, and drawing on personal knowledge and
experience with these challenges.
Extra time and/or more frequent meetings to foster mutual acquaintance: Try to get to know them and to let
them get to know me; share my own story as a first-generation college student; explicit articulation of
academic culture, expectations, and environment at COA and in the U.S. (e.g., informal/formal greetings,
body language, voicing an opinion, disagreeing with a professor, power-distance/hierarchy, stereotypes and
generalizations about their own cultures and Americans).
Speaking to them in their native language when that was possible.
Reasonable accommodations for class work (e.g., extra time, tutoring, note-taking, writing assistance, variety
of class presentation styles).
Referrals to other support (e.g., student life staff, writing center support, counselors).
Advisors who responded generally felt that COA does a great job of providing nonjudgmental, compassionate, and
individualized support for students, especially those with disabilities or language minorities. Student Life, the
Writing Center, and the Library are all mentioned as places that offer support for students with particular needs.
There seems to be less awareness about what kind of support, if any, we provide first-generation college students
and some concern that not all advisors are encouraging students to get the support that they may need. Only one
respondent did not feel we were adequately supporting students with particular needs.


C. Assessment plan.
To ensure that we are doing what we think and say we are doing for first-year students, we need to identify clear
learning objectives for all new students, discuss how we will ensure that all new students gain these objectives, and
determine how we will assess students (on, for example, their understanding of the diversity of living things, ability
to participate productively in seminar discussion, or openness to new areas of inquiry). Given the Higher Education
Academys finding that first-year students tend to overestimate their abilities, it is important that faculty assess
students new knowledge and skills directly, either through existing courses targeting first-year students (such as the
HECC, Ecology Natural History, and writing courses) or through other assessment means yet to be developed,
avoiding over-reliance on self-reports.

V. RECOMMENDATIONS
In gathering this information to offer some recommendations to students, staff, faculty, and board of trustees, we
identified the following values. First, we respect that each of us has a particular purview at the college, and our
recommendations should respect these purviews. Second, our recommendations should come from multiple
sources, and we should clearly communicate these sources. Third, our recommendations should be feasible and
advantageous, building on our existing strengths. We hope that we have been successful in meeting these three
criteria in the recommendations that follow. Implementation notes are in square brackets [ ].

A. Curriculum Planning
1. First-year academic goals. From a synthesis of the goals identified from the Human Ecology Core Course
Faculty Retreat (April, 2012), FYAE survey, and subsequent discussions during this academic year, we
propose the following first-year objectives from which to build future first-year curriculum planning and
evaluation efforts. First-year students (including new transfer students) will have the opportunity to:
a. Learn how to self-direct their learning (i.e., identify gaps in their knowledge; independently find,
organize, and evaluate information from different sources, through conventional library research skills
as well as collaboratively, through active listening and methods of inquiry learned in HECC; reflect on
learning).
b. Understand values, concepts, knowledge, and vocabulary common to the intellectual history of Human
Ecology (i.e., be able to define human ecology in response to other definitions; use shared vocabulary
and apply concepts in appropriate contexts).
c. Become and/or remain an open and curious member of the COA community (i.e., initiate discussion in
and out of class; be willing to take risks; demonstrate creative flexibility; learn how to engage
constructively with intellectual discomfort).
d. Gain familiarity with and ability to identify, navigate, and utilize on- and off-campus local geography
and resources (e.g., the library, people, places).
e. Compare, combine, and synthesize different disciplines (i.e., perspectives, methodologies, bodies of
knowledge, aesthetics).
f. Connect, develop relationships, and collaborate with people with different values and outlooks on- and
off-campus.
g. Find their individual voice and place (i.e., introspect, gain self-knowledge about ones own values,
privileges, confidence, discipline, self-reliance; be able to express oneself in the first-person voice and
advocate for oneself).
h. Effectively take in ideas by reading, listening, and looking (e.g., at text, landscape, art).
i. Effectively communicate through writing, speaking, and use of visual media (i.e., show awareness of
and respond to diverse audiences; initiate a dialogue with someone whose views differ from their own;
use credible evidence to illustrate and support their perspective, experience, and argument;
communicate with/through art; present information/position in five minutes).

2. Summer/Fall 2012 and each pre-registration cycle thereafter, the registrar should inform students about
which courses are recommended for and have places reserved specifically for first-year students and meet a
variety of first-year learning objectives. [Implemented]
3. Winter/Spring 2013: Given the individualized and autonomous nature of our facultys contributions to the
curriculum, faculty assess and redesign the syllabi of those courses they teach that target new students to
ensure opportunities for students to meet first-year learning objectives.
Faculty distinguish between introductory courses and those that meet the range of first-year goals.
Faculty determine how to ensure that all first-year students have the opportunity to meet all first-
year learning objectives in a self-directed course of study.
[Academic Affairs Committee designate a liaison to Faculty Meeting to facilitate implementation during
2012-2013.]

B. Teaching.
4. Faculty schedule time (e.g., a one-day, August retreat or during March planning meetings) when they can
share how they teach essential first-year concepts and skills (such as how to foster self-directed learning,
effective discussion participation skills, self-advocacy, field-based learning, just-in-time learning,
reading/writing/research skills), tapping other institutional resources (such as library expertise) when
appropriate. [Faculty Meeting Moderator]

C. Advising. [While there is general satisfaction among new students about advising, the following
recommendations we hope will guide future planning, implementation, and evaluation of advising, slated for 2015-
2016 in our strategic design unless otherwise noted.]
5. Given the self-directed nature of the curriculum, faculty and staff advisors discuss how they help advisees
foster motivation and capacity for self-direction and self-advocacy skills in a meeting once every mid-term.
[Academic Services team convenes an advisor meeting in 2012-2013.]
6. Based on substantial support from survey responses and community-wide discussions, train outdoor leaders,
Resident Advisors, and other eligible students to serve as peer advisors for every new student.
7. Update information for advisors that include triggers for referrals, what questions are allowable and
appropriate to ask advisees, and checklist for advisee meetings in a beginning of the year meeting for all
advisors (staff and faculty) that includes specific information about that entering class. Provide information
to advisors about learning needs from admission folders.
8. Academic Dean provides structured opportunities on an annual basis (e.g., during Faculty Meeting) for
Faculty to respond effectively to special needs, such as learning disabilities, emotional disorders, physical
disabilities, and language or cultural differences that impact learning. [Academic and Student Life Deans]
9. Given that a fifth of our new students transfer from other colleges and sometimes mid-year, faculty and
advisors participate in a Winter orientation targeting new students that conveys information about
transferring AP, IB, and course credits and how to take advantage of limited time, as well as encourages
new students to get involved in community life.

Conclusion
The FYAE task force was charged with the following tasks:
1. Review the foundational courses and communicate with new students the recommended foundational courses
in each resource area.
2. Assess the role of the core course in the curriculum, including main goals, objectives, content, and teaching
methods.
Through a review of relevant literature and institutional documents, a survey, and several community-wide
discussions, we have found that our foundational courses succeed for most students in improving several important
first-year goals, such as an understanding of interdisciplinary education and resources as well as research and

personal advocacy skills. The core course plays an important role in providing a shared experience for all new
students in which they gain a greater awareness of the resources available to them as well as an introduction to
human ecology as an area of study and methodology. The task forces recommendations build on our existing
strengths, acknowledge purviews, and are based on multiple sources (student, staff, faculty, and external sources)
to identify and respond to curricular or advising gaps and build a more comprehensive and systemic curriculum
planning and evaluation process.

SOURCES
Articles
Ehrlich, Tom (n.d.). Blue about the Crimson plan for education. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching. Accessed 11/30/11: http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/perspectives/blue-about-crimson-plan-
general-education
A critique of Harvards committee recommendation for a minimum distribution requirement of three
courses in each of three fields.

Kelley, Jeffrey M. (2006). The first-year experience: Strategies for improvement. Accessed 11/30/11:
http://www.newfoundations.com/OrgTheory/Kelly721Sp06.html
Cites ACT reports on national retention and graduate rates (68.3% first- to second-year retention in 2005
and 50.9-54.6% graduate rates from 1983-2003) to argue that institutions need to improve the first-year experience
by ensuring that an individual is in charge of the first-year experience supported by a standing committee of
faculty, staff, and administrators to ensure that the first year remains an institutional priority. Reports that prior
efforts include orientation, first-year seminars, advising, supplemental instruction, learning communities, student
activities, and residential life.

Kramer, Arthur, & LaMar, Ansley (2000). Restructuring the general education program at a public urban
university: Assessment, evaluation, and implementation. Paper presented at the Annual Forum of the Association
for Institutional Research (40
th
, Cincinnati, OH, May 21-23).
Describes the method and results of an evaluation of a general studies program. They analyzed graduates
transcripts to look at the sequence in which students enrolled in courses as well as compliance with requirement to
take core courses and requirements prior to completing 64 credits. They analyzed syllabi to assess which courses
taught critical thinking, reading, writing, oral presentation, computer, and mathematical skills (using three faculty
reviewing each syllabus for frequency of references to these skills). Faculty completed a questionnaire to determine
the agreement between general studies courses with goals of the curriculum and perception of these goals as
appropriate and achievable. They also assessed students using an ETS test (Academic Profile). Staff and faculty
completed questionnaires (39% response rate) and found general faculty agreement that remedial courses should be
completed before core courses, but little agreement about completing core courses before declaring a major.
Students completed a survey about satisfaction with the program, teaching methods, and suggested changes.

Perez-Pena, R. (2012). Trying to find a measure for how well colleges do. New York Times, April 7. Available at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/education/trying-to-find-a-measure-for-how-well-colleges-
do.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=education
Describes recent initiatives calling for public accountability of the value colleges add after four years. Includes links
to the New Leadership Alliances guidelines for Assessment and Accountability in Higher Education and a 2008
manifesto from the Consortium on Financing Higher Education. As with NCLB, this accountability movement
draws critics of standardized tests as inadequate measures of things students learn that matter (like collaboration
skills) and that they may only be realized decades later.


Redford, Kyle (2012). Grading oral expression: A blind spot for teachers. Education Week Teacher (online source
available at:
http://www.edweek.org/tm/articles/2012/04/02/fp_redford.html?tkn=QPMFkAr7OyGnbS4AmZOYHw%2F
LfNCBCXusnZkJ&cmp=ENL-TU-NEWS1
A K-8 teachers reflection on the importance of including students oral as well as written expression in grades. A
good discussion-starter for faculty in terms of how participation in class discussions is taught and evaluated in first-
year courses.

Scutter, S. & Wood, D. (2009). Scholarly peer review aimed at enhancing the first-year student learning
experience. E-journal of Business Education and Scholarship of Teaching, 3, 2: 1-9. Available at
http://www.ejbest.org/upload/eJBEST_ScutterWood_2009.pdf
Describes a peer-review instrument to review first-year curriculum according to certain criteria to allow
comparability between different courses (p. 4). Although the focus is on online teaching and learning, the example
items in Table 1 are useful course and curriculum evaluation items, such as Are the objectives clearly expressed in
terms relevant to the first-year student? (p. 6).

Vascellaro, Jessica E. (2002). Reinventing Harvards core curriculum: Giving new life to the old debate. The
Harvard Crimson. Accessed 4/8/12 at
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2002/11/6/reinventing-harvards-core-curriculum-today-the/
Strikingly similar debates at Harvard ten years ago to debates on COA faculty about how useful these reviews are.
This article reports a few recent changes resulting from these five-year reviews, such as requiring a QR requirement
in 1997 and disallowing double-dipping history and foreign culture requirements.

Books, Monographs, Institutional Reports
Allen, Mary J. (2006). Assessing General Education Programs. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc.
An excellent and comprehensive text with a historical context for general education programs in higher education as
well as examples of different institutional approaches to curriculum and assessment of the FYE. NOTE: Citing Gaff
(2004), Allen suggests facilitating a faculty discussion around the the fives: ideas and skills, people students should
know, places to visit, artistic performances should see, books should read (p. 33). In Ch. 3, she suggests a matrix to
analyze the general ed program, to map out where students achieve identified learning outcomes.

Dewar, D. & Locust, W. (2009). Report of the Task Force on the First-Year Experience. University of Albany.
Available at: www.albany.edu/ir/FYE_TF_Final_Report.pdf
Includes an external review of dozens of peer institutions and their first-year seminars or other first-year course
options and their evaluation and implementation plans, and recommendations for a sample course outline for a
proposed FYE course.

Harvey, Lee & Drew, Sue (October, 2006). The first-year experience: a review of literature for the Higher Education
Academy. Accessed 11/30/11:
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/research/literature_reviews/first_year_experience_full_report
.pdf
This literature reviewed included 750 publications from the U.S. and U.K. and 200 institutional
grey items from four U.K. institutions, covering four topics: performance/retention; factors impacting
retention; support; learning/teaching. They found no simple relationship between integration and
retention. There is some evidence that working-class students do better living in dorms the first year, that
first-generation students often dont get the support they expect; moderate work positively affects
performance; students benefit not just from living but also studying together. Something they found

effective resonates with feedback our students have given us about the orientation process: that induction
should avoid overload and bureaucratic procedures.

Krause, Kerri Lee, Hartley, Robin, James, Richard, & McInnis, Craig (January 2005). The first-year
experience in Australian universities: Findings from a decade of national studies. Center for the Study of Higher
Education, University of Melbourne.
Report on a survey of 2,344 Australian first-year students at nine universities between 1994-2004 at five-
year intervals. International students were less satisfied that their expectations had been met. More mature
students were slightly more satisfied than their younger counterparts, with greater clarity and ability to seek
help. Over this period, students spent less time on campus and in classes (17.6 hours per week v. 15.9
hours per week) and more time in paid work (47% compared with 55%). First-year students were more
satisfied in their program of study and quality of teaching, though fewer than one-third of students feel that
teaching staff take an interest in their students progress and give helpful feedback (p. 5).

Yorke, Mantz & Longden, Bernard (2008). The first-year experience of higher education in the UK. Higher Education
Academy. Accessed 11/30/11:
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/resources/publications/FYEFinalReport.pdf
Reports findings from the second phase of a study of students who did not return for a second year in 2006-07. 462
students at 25 institutions responded to 44 closed items. Major reasons for stopping out were typically a
combination of personal (choice of program, lack of commitment, inadequate progress) and institutional (teaching
quality, accessibility of faculty, financial support, location) factors.

Surveys
Cooperative Institutional Research Program (2012). Your First College Year Survey. Higher Education Research
Institute. Available at http://www.heri.ucla.edu/cirpoverview.php

Pace, C. R. & Kuh, G.D. (1998). College Student Experiences Questionnaire 4/e. Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University. Available at: http://cseq.iub.edu/cseq_generalinfo.cfm

University of Saskatchewan (2010). First-year Curriculum Review Wiki. Available at
https://wiki.usask.ca/display/FYCR/Home;jsessionid=45C1D58A239A273F343A701473AD120C
Includes a videotaped presentation by Charles White titled So you want to reform the curriculum: Lessons from
Portland State University.

Websites
Palomar College (1998). Benchmarks for Core Skills. Assessment of Learning Project.
http://www.palomar.edu/alp/benchmarks_for_core_skills.htm

National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition. University of South Carolina.
Available at http://www.sc.edu/fye/
An information exchange to improve student learning and transitions into higher education.

The Higher Education Academy (2008). Key Research Reports. First Year Experience wiki. Accessed 11/30/11:
http://elearning.heacademy.ac.uk/wiki/index.php/First_year_experience#Key_Research_Reports
Lots of useful information for orientation planning as well as general factors leading to persistence.


Other Sources Consulted
October 7, 2011 Academic Policy Committee Meeting Minutes
October 26, 2011 All-College Meeting Notes
January 16, 2012 Spectrum meeting discussion of first-year goals (per Julia DeSantis)
January 20, 2012 Academic Policy Committee Meeting Minutes
March 26, 2012 All-College Meeting Notes
April 11, 2012 HECC Faculty Retreat Planning Notes
April 13, 2012 Academic Policy Committee Minutes
May 2, 2012 Academic Affairs Committee Minutes
May 2, 2012 Faculty Meeting Minutes
May 2, 2012 Human Studies Retreat Notes

APPENDIX
Links to COA FYAE Surveys
Continuing students
https://docs.google.com/a/coa.edu/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dEkwb0tiMllFY3UzRDdkeG0xcVJORFE6
MQ#gid=0
New Students
https://docs.google.com/a/coa.edu/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dFJjMDRvcTE1cE1RMHRzdGR4QmpKMUE6MQ#gid=0
Staff and Faculty
https://docs.google.com/a/coa.edu/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dGRpWEFjRlBZYnB6VVR1NWQ4VlR5b
EE6MQ#gid=0

Survey Summary of First-Year Goals
Distributed at Academic Policy Committee (20 January, 2012)

Task Force Members
Bonnie Tai, Chair
Trisha Cantwell-Keene, staff (Library)
Andrew Moulton, staff (Admissions)
Lisa Bjerke, student
Kate Shlepr, student
Don Cass, faculty and liaison to Steering Committee
Ron Beard, trustee liaison to the Academic Policy Committee
Molly Anderson, faculty (fall and winter terms)
Julia DeSantis, student (fall and winter terms)
Cayla Moore, student (fall term)
Jabu Mickle-Molefe, student (fall term)

FinRpt Fyatf Executive

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FinRpt Fyatf Executive

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FINAL REPORT OF THE FIRST-YEAR ACADEMIC EXPERIENCE TASK FORCE

20 June, 2012 College of the Atlantic Page 1 of 15

You might also like