December 2007 EPC Division 1 Report

EPC Division I Report 

Presented to the Faculty November 29, 2007  Our current Division I plan was created in response to concern about lack of student progress in their first year, our low retention rates, and high faculty workload. Under the old plan, Div I exam completion was low. In 2000 and 2001 between 15 and 20% of our students completed Div I in 3 semesters and a total of 55-66% completed in 4 semesters. Since the change to the new system, more students are completing Div I more quickly. In 2002, 44% of our students completed Div I in 3 semesters and a total of 80% of our students completed it by their 4th semester (a statistic highly correlated with graduating). Our retention rate, however, remains virtually the same, at about 80% after the first year. We have shifted the faculty burden from supervising independent projects to teaching more 100 level courses at the expense of the upper division courses. We are also hiring more adjuncts to help staff these courses. There is general discontent with the first year program from students and faculty. Some problems could likely be solved through structural solutions; others require attention to the nature of our courses, our teaching, and our evaluation of students; and still others suggest clarification of the aims of Div I. Before turning to specific issues, it is important to make sense of the story that has emerged from a great deal of the research, including our first year assessment (both qualitative and quantitative), our retention reports, our own institutional research, and most recently, the Wabash Study. EPC has studied these reports and selected the findings that give us some purchase on issues relating to academic challenge and retention, student characteristics and interactions with others, teaching and advising, and the structure of our academic program. This analysis should lead us to proposed revisions in the Div I program.


 * A PDF version of this document is also available.

Academic Challenge and Retention
1) Generally, students who work hard and connect with faculty have a good experience at Hampshire. Students who do not work hard have a bad experience. There are students who prosper at Hampshire, yet institutional research data consistently suggest that many students do not have good experiences in many of our 100 level courses. The Wabash study is particularly disturbing, because it shows that student experience at comparable colleges is generally better than that at Hampshire. There are many open questions about this, as our students are similar to those at other schools in some respects, but different in some others. Similarly, our courses are similar in some regards, but differ along other dimensions.

2) A major theme in the Wabash data and our retention study is students' perception of a lack of challenge in Hampshire courses. Paradoxically, according to the Wabash data, first year students do report that the readings and assignments are challenging. The resolution to this paradox appears to be that many students don't feel obligated to respond to the challenge. They are able to get through Hampshire courses without doing much of the reading, handing in poorly done assignments late, skipping class frequently, etc. 3) Hampshire's attrition rate after one year is about 20% and has remained stable regardless of changes in the structure of the educational program comprising the Div I. Students leaving have given the same reasons for leaving over a long period of time. They are generally either not challenged enough, not finding what they were looking for, or are feeling that the educational experience and facilities are not worth the cost.

Student Characteristics and Interactions with Others
4) Our students who report SAT scores come in with scores as high as those attending many other liberal art colleges (e.g. Smith), but our students have not succeeded at as high a rate in high school (61 % of Smith’s entering class were in the top 10% of their graduating class; 25% of Hampshire’s were in the top 10%). Looking at another piece of data, the main difference between the students who select Bard (one of our closest competitors for students) over Hampshire is that students who select Bard hold academic standards at a much higher premium. 5) In examining first-year student qualities in the Wabash report, we see that we have a higher percent of first year students who have a greater sense of autonomy, but lower self- acceptance, lower acceptance of peers/others, and lower sense of mastery over their environment than do the other liberal arts college to which we were compared. Offering a college experience for students who were disaffected by the traditional high school experience and who crave autonomy but have a lower sense of mastery over their environment has specific challenges. We must present a challenging program that also includes supports and incentives to become engaged in a way that many of our first year students have not in the past. Some Hampshire faculty suggest that we must admit a different population of students. Presumably, it takes time to change a college’s reputation and attract a different set of students. As a faculty, we must do everything we can to improve the experiences of the students we currently have. 6) Of our comparison institutions in the Wabash study, our students report the least positive experiences with other students, not having developed close personal relationships with other students or having developed satisfying friendships. Perhaps more pertinent to the look at our courses, our students report very low positive influences of experiences with other students on their intellectual growth and interest in ideas. Hampshire students have long stated a desire for a greater sense of community. Our courses should include opportunities for positive interactions that extend beyond the classroom. 7) A very common complaint in exit interviews and surveys for students leaving after their first year is the lack of campus community, the prevalence of drug and alcohol abuse, an intolerant political climate, and the fact that many of their peers are not particularly serious about academics. 8) From the Wabash study, many first year students end up feeling that our 100- level courses are poorly taught. They feel that courses are poorly organized and professors poorly prepared. They have had to sit through too many discussions dominated by students who haven't done the reading. They find that courses move too slowly. They often find the feedback on their assignments to be late and unhelpful.

9) The perceived lack of challenge and resulting lack of student engagement is not due to general lack of faculty competence. Factoring out the degree to which the problem is attributable to the characteristics of incoming students, it is likely the result of teaching in the environment created by Hampshire's educational system, which creates unique challenges to faculty authority and to the value placed on intellectual work and to attending to external demands (such as deadlines). We must further our discussions about expectations and changing the culture of engagement in courses. 10) In exit interviews and surveys, students who leave the college after one year say that they need better advising than they are receiving in order to navigate Hampshire’s system. Not only do they cite advising as problematic, but they mention what some of them call “the Hamptrix,” referring to the difficulties they experience with poor institutional organization, how hard it is to get accurate information about policies or figure out appropriate ways to get things done or to get various kinds of help.

Structure of Our Academic Program
11) The challenge/engagement problem is non-overlapping with the degree of independence in a course. A course that emphasizes independent projects can be taught in a way that is unchallenging and unengaging, as can a course that has no project component; a course that has no projects can be as engaging as a project-based course. Studies, done in- house and by external consultants, going back 25 years, spanning a number of changes in the first and second year programs, have found the same pattern. 12) Many students come to Hampshire because they can study what they love. They feel constrained by the distribution requirement that right now usually entails 5 courses. There is no evidence from the retention studies, however, that student s leave Hampshire because of the distribution. They do, however find the divisional system challenging; a common complaint upon leaving was a dislike of the divisional system (a few wanted more structure, but most had less specific concerns). 13) Anecdotally, there is frustration on the part of faculty and students concerning difficulties completing project work within the scope of a one-semester course. There has been some talk of decreasing the number of evaluated experiences in the first year, though from the challenge side of things we would not want to decrease expectations. Any reduction in number of evaluated experiences must be met with increased contact time and higher expectations for each course. Additionally, most colleges have a standard of 8 courses in the first year. If we were to move to a different number of evaluated experiences, it must be clear that students completing one year at Hampshire have done an equivalent amount of work (both for the sake of our reputation and to ease transfer for those students who do so). 14) Our experiences with lack of completion of Div I projects under the old system and our current workload would caution us against implementing a wholesale independent project requirement, but they should not deter us from building in independence and ownership. Given our desire to prepare students for the demands of Div II and III, we must build in guided inquiry projects in some percentage of our Div I courses and give careful consideration of other means for building in independent work. 15) Our own institutional research shows that electives in Div I are not distributed evenly across the 5 schools. Last year, about 34% were taken in HACU, another 26% were in IA, 19% were in SS, 11% in NS, and 10% in CS. Decreasing the distribution and increasing the number of electives would likely result in uneven course enrollments across the schools in terms of electives, and hence, unequal teaching loads in the schools given the current population of incoming students. Since electives need not be 100 level courses, the result would not be a heavier load of 100 level courses for HACU and IA faculty. In addition, 44% of students entering Fall 2006 took at least 1 language course in 2006-7. If languages did not serve as an IA distribution, language courses would fill an elective slot (assuming students would still opt for them). 16) Disregarding school boundaries and including 5 College courses, it appears that of course enrollments in 2006-07 by the Fall 2006 entrants, about 25% were in the arts, about 25% were in the humanities, about 25% were in the sciences, and about 25% were in the social sciences. Of course, this pattern would change if students were free to choose all their own courses - arts and humanities enrollments would increase and science enrollments would decrease given our current population of students

17) The purposes of our first year program, or Div I, are described in different terms (complete a distribution, do basic studies, improve in academic skills, and engage in inquiry following different modes of inquiry) in different places (web site academics pages, non satis non scire’s academic policies and programs sections). To the degree that having clear, intellectually sound, shared objectives affects student motivation, our lack of a clear curricular aim could be a contributing problem to the discontent with the divisional system. Regardless of any changes in our program, we must clarify our aims and approaches and work with the admissions and communications offices to ensure an accurate portrayal of our program. ===Overall – There is reason for optimism=== 18) From the Wabash Study regardless of institution, students who reported positive experiences with regards to diversity, in-class experiences and academic challenges, effective teaching practices, interactions with faculty and staff, and interactions with peers also showed gains in important outcomes (including critical thinking skills, academic motivation, psychological well-being, moral reasoning, and socially responsible leadership). Those who did not have these positive experiences did not show positive outcomes. Hampshire is no different in this regard and we certainly have students who fit the profile of having positive experiences and positive gains. Hampshire has strengths to build on and the resources to improve.

Part II: EPC Discussion
In EPC we have been discussing the Division I in light of the findings outlined above. The issues seem to fall into 4 general categories: 1. The aims of Division I 2. The structure of Div I 3. The nature of our courses 4. Role of the advisor Here we discuss our general consensus and on each of these. We also articulate our questions. We hope to get feedback from faculty in school meetings, smaller cross-school discussions, and in the faculty meeting at large. Our presentation of our ideas at this time is in the interest of promoting good communication between EPC and the rest of the faculty, as well as in fostering fruitful discussions that will move us forward.

1) The Aims of Division I – What is the purpose of Div I? What should students learn and understand?
a) We have general consensus that there should be a distribution requirement during Div I. The suggestions about what should be distributed include: i) Exposure to different academic disciplines – distribution across the disciplines ii) Consideration of the types of questions asked, inquiry skills, methodologies, and/or epistemologies in the academic disciplines iii) Academic skills – critical reading, analytical writing, and quantitative skills have topped the list in our discussions. b) The Div I should prepare students for Div II and Div III. Preparation entails some or all: i) Students meet faculty across the college and become acquainted with their work ii) Students gain experience and skill in working collaboratively with peers iii) Students gain experience in self-directed learning and independent projects in order to develop ownership of their work. iv) Students understand different methodologies and are able to select and pursue appropriate methods courses.

2) The Structure of Division I – What structure would be transparent, and easy to negotiate, and able to be staffed while meeting our aims?
a) The Distribution. In light of student and faculty perceptions of lack of choice in the Div I, there has been discussion of decreasing the number of distributions and disconnecting them from our current school structure. It has been argued that, although school based distributions fulfill the purpose of having students meet faculty across the college, they don’t make sense intellectually, since schools are interdisciplinary clusters that don’t line up with disciplinary “modes of inquiry.” We must articulate what a meaningful and workable distribution should include and carefully consider the effects of moving to one configuration over another, accounting for the current makeup of our faculty. i) One suggestion is to move to 3 distribution requirements: HACU/IA, CS/NS, and SS. Foreign language would not count as the HACU/IA distribution, but students could be encouraged to take a language as an elective ii) Another configuration discussed is 4 requirements distributed as: science, social science, humanities, and arts. Courses would be designated by instructors as fitting into one or more categories. Courses taken by first year students are currently evenly distributed among these 4 areas b) Other Concerns. i) There is tenuous consensus that Div I be completed in the first year ii) We do not have consensus on number of evaluated experiences in Div I. (1) Data from general studies of college student engagement (like NSSE) show that students who do too little academic work have lower college success rates, so there is danger in decreasing expectations. (2) There is, however, a desire to widen the breadth of types of experiences and to decrease the rigidity currently experienced in the first year program. Some have proposed moving to fewer evaluated experiences. At 6 evaluated experiences, the idea would be to increase the contact time and amount of work expected of students for each experience. There has been discussion about increasing the support for doing a community engaged learning internship in the Div I, at least for some students, as one of their evaluated experiences (3) We need discussions about the nature of other evaluated experiences in Div I (beyond coursework). What would be left up to students to negotiate and what would be called for in the requirements or expectations of Div I? (4) What is a Div I course? What portion of a students’ Div I is to be taken at the 100-level? If it is only the distribution and there are fewer of these, does this prepare a student in the ways we hope? iii) We have discussed the relationship between the learning goals and Div I. We agree that the goals should guide our teaching. Although students should be helped to understand what we mean by critical reading, analytical writing, and quantitative skills (and/or others), completion of the Div I program should yield work that addresses the goals without students’ needing to keep track of which goals were met in which courses. One idea is to keep the full complement of learning goals as what we do throughout Div I and II (again to guide our teaching), but to concentrate on a subset in Div I. iv) There is concern that the current transition from Div I to Div II occurs too late, sometimes with 2 Div II semesters taken without a committee guiding student course selection. Div I should include discussions about Div II, the completion of a contract, and initial phases of committee selection.

3) Division I Courses – What should be true of our courses in order to meet the aims of Div I, as well as balance challenge and support?
a) The first year plan under which we are operating called for our courses to be re-worked to be project-based, and for us to experiment with different types of courses, course sequences, and full year courses. By and large this has not been implemented, and we must revitalize this effort. b) The courses need to be challenging and interesting with appropriate supports to guide students towards greater independence. We need to make the re-design of Div I courses a primary focus of our Center for Teaching. Again, we need extensive conversations about our expectations of students and the ways we organize our assignments and student evaluations in order to get better engagement from more students. c) We must also align our Div I courses with the aims of Div I. If we decide on a distribution that does something more than giving students exposure to the disciplines (broadly construed) then our courses must attend to this. d) Given the desire for community, but the tendency of many Hampshire students to eschew collaborative work, we should incorporate collaborative projects into some Div I courses. We should have discussions and professional development for thinking about how to do this in an effective way. e) There is consensus that the Div I courses should teach academic skills (the most discussed goals are critical reading, analytic writing and quantitative skills). We support increasing support services for students in writing and quantitative skills, and where appropriate, in working to overcome learning disabilities.

Div I?
a) Overall, first-year students have different ideas about what makes for a good advisor than faculty have. Students are looking for a faculty member to get to know them academically and personally, and to help them negotiate the system; faculty enjoy intellectual discussions about shared work. b) There is general consensus that the tutorial system is beneficial with advising done by a faculty member who knows the student academically. c) There are ideas about strengthening the role of the advisor in helping students shape their Div I and in evaluating whether students are meeting expectations. i) The role would be strengthened if an advisor had the power to waive certain requirements, for example, a requirement that the distribution be taken at the 100 level and/or if the advisor were involved in the decision about whether, when, and why a student were ready to move to Div II. ii) Another idea floated was to have tutorials start earlier with a Div I contract developed and courses selected in the tutorial before registration were re-opened for returning students. Note that this suggestion also increases the role of the student in shaping his/her own program of study. d) We need more discussion about the kinds of conversations advisors should have with students. We should implement more professional development aimed at improving advising and we should discuss how we are to evaluate advising.

Part III: Summary
Here we attempt to summarize our agreements as well as our questions. Our hope is to check whether you also agree with suggestions made and to obtain your guidance where it is needed.

Distribution and its Structure:

 * We agree there should be a clearly articulated aim of the distribution. What do you think

this aim ought to be? That is, is it breadth alone, or is there something more that would be true of our Div I courses?


 * We should disconnect distribution from the schools and decrease the number of

distribution requirements. We are still working at looking at the implications of any one system on workload and need for adjunct hires. All other things being equal, what configuration would you support for the number and type of distribution?

Other Division I Aims:

 * Div I should be completed in the first year; students should come back to the college in

their second year with at least a draft contract and having been advised about courses for their Div II by faculty with whom they might work


 * There is consensus that the Div I should encourage independence and ownership. How

should this be accomplished?


 * How many evaluated experiences should there be in Div I?

Division I courses:

 * Our courses should be challenging and interesting. Some courses should support

independent project work, others collaborative project work; all should support the development of academic skills. What do you think of a focus in Div I on the academic skills of critical reading, analytic writing, and quantitative skills?


 * What is a Div I course? This must be related to the aims of Div I, which will help

determine whether there is a difference between a 100-level and 200- level course. What do you think? Role of the advisor:


 * We agree that the advisor should do more than tell students to take courses across the

schools and that hit the learning goals. Which of the ideas for strengthening the role of the advisor would you endorse?


 * What is the nature of evaluation of the Div I? What is the role of the advisor in

evaluation, and when does this occur? Evaluation of teaching and advising:


 * Given current findings about students’ uneven experiences with our courses and with

advising, we advocate a discussion of evaluation of faculty practice. This should include a look at ways to evaluate practice as well as the role of such evaluations in the reappointment and promotions procedure.


 * We also advocate our first steps in this process as being provision of professional

development opportunities for improvement of teaching and advising. We call on the Center for Teaching at Hampshire to support faculty in articulating goals for their own practice and to offer appropriate professional development.