View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

How Institutional Leaders Can Support Educators in Making Practices High Impact

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: How Institutional Leaders Can Support Educators in Making Practices High Impact
Language: English
Authors: LePeau, Lucy A., Museus, Samuel D.
Source: New Directions for Student Services. Spr 2023 (181):67-75.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 9
Publication Date: 2023
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Descriptive
Descriptors: Educational Practices, Equal Education, Academic Achievement, Culturally Relevant Education, Student Diversity
DOI: 10.1002/ss.20456
ISSN: 0164-7970
1536-0695
Abstract: Authors discuss traps institutional leaders may fall into when supporting or leveraging high-impact practices to promote equitable student success and then provide recommendations for leaders to support educators in cultivating culturally relevant and responsive practices for diverse student populations that can become high impact.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1381735
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEFto9oUFRdWcg1owRLfTyzAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDOD3yRdZBROHeAZj6wIBEICBmgIl-nyftgvpR08GrEbN9lN_WWBL5oGuBuEml0QulTAiI9qTwNIzGwCWTtEH0kwv4n_90Z2_vbChGdOv4eW9Ak8HrtQyrEVPzZaOXXwbr2XdeEO_iKyTp09JDvK3DJ6VZM7DDN_X8qFUNYUUv4JZSZTkplrNAop7q7GJQdBCLB1y10t4k3iOYs5qPVGYgYFjQ3K7qE6k3MuY2s4=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0164437912;nds01mar.23;2023Jun23.05:45;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0164437912-1">How institutional leaders can support educators in making practices high impact </title> <sbt id="AN0164437912-2">INTRODUCTION</sbt> <p>Authors discuss traps institutional leaders may fall into when supporting or leveraging high‐impact practices to promote equitable student success and then provide recommendations for leaders to support educators in cultivating culturally relevant and responsive practices for diverse student populations that can become high impact.</p> <p>In 2017 as part of the National Institute for Transformation and Equity (NITE), we conducted an external review of an institution's diversity, equity, and inclusion approach, structure, practices, and communication to analyze the strengths of their work and recommendations for the future. During the site visit, institutional leaders touted their focus on diversity and global engagement and how study abroad experiences were embedded as requirements for all learners at the institution. Institutional leaders appeared to see the global engagement requirement as one reason they received recognition from <emph>U.S. News and World Report</emph> for their innovative and high‐impact programs. However, although campus leaders appeared to center the global engagement agenda in conversations about equity, they had difficulty expressing how their shared values about global engagement were defined or advanced equity. When we asked them pointed questions about how the global engagement efforts relate to their equity agenda, many of them struggled to respond.</p> <p>Students also encountered difficulty addressing such questions. At focus group discussions over lunch, students vociferously shared their stories about their experience. For example, an East Indian woman expressed her interest studying sociology and immigration issues with the possibility of going to law school. She mentioned her role in an ethnic dance organization on campus that served as a safe haven within the whiteness culture of the institution, as it provided her with a space to interact with students who share her identities and culture. Similarly, a Black woman talked about her desire to teach and her involvement in a student government committee organizing a campus‐wide lecture series that highlighted Black voices and her desire to make a difference in the campus community. Yet, when we asked the students to describe how their global engagement requirement connected with the stories they told, the robust conversation devolved into awkward silences. Students discussed how decision‐making associated with the global engagement requirement was focused on what students could afford, the class to which it was attached, and the country where they wanted to study.</p> <p>High‐impact practices include first‐year seminars, learning communities, service‐learning opportunities, global engagement experiences, undergraduate research opportunities, writing‐intensive courses, internships, and capstones courses and projects that are designed to increase learning and success among college students (American Association of Colleges and Universities, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>]). This opening vignette illustrates how institutional leaders can fall victim to traps when adopting policies in the name of equity. They created a one‐size‐fits‐all curricular policy to ensure every student participated in the high‐impact practice of global learning and used positive recognition from national ranking systems as the measure of success. Meanwhile, students shared that the experiences they gained because of the policy were irrelevant to much of their communities, passions, and priorities. Both the global engagement experience and the <emph>U.S. News</emph> assessment of it were seemingly completely disconnected from the things that mattered most to students, so we must ask the question, are they really high impact at all?</p> <p>Although scholars such as Kuh and Kinzie ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref2">13</reflink>]) have called on institutional leaders and educators to focus on creating quality engagement experiences for students, the notion of quality can be defined in many ways. Unfortunately, accountability structures, ranking systems, pressure and desire for greater prestige, revenue generation goals, and a host of other factors that have little to do with equity or ensuring that students thrive often shape how leaders and educators think about quality. It is often (problematically) assumed that ensuring that students invest more energy, spend more time, and interact with people more will increase their capacity in the marketplace and enhance the nation's competitiveness in a global economy—and will, therefore, maximize quality. In contrast, quality is rarely defined in ways consistent with what matters to students' cultures and communities.</p> <p>In the current article, we discuss traps that institutional leaders may fall into when supporting or leveraging high‐impact practices (HIPs) to promote equitable student success. We underscore how these traps can lead to investing energy in HIP approaches that maintain dominant norms and do little to advance equity. We then provide recommendations regarding how institutional leaders can reframe these traps into opportunities to support educators in cultivating culturally relevant and responsive practices for diverse student populations that can <emph>become</emph> high impact.</p> <hd id="AN0164437912-3">TRAP #1: ALLOWING STRIVING AND PRESTIGE‐SEEKING TO SHAPE NOTIONS OF QUALITY</hd> <p>Institutional leaders face pressures to perform, compete, and help guide their institution to the top national rankings, which ultimately confers a sense of prestige (Borden et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref3">2</reflink>]; Museus & LePeau, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref4">20</reflink>]; Zerquera, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref5">34</reflink>]). One of the most prominent rankings is <emph>U.S. News and World Report</emph> (USNWR) (Borden et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref6">2</reflink>]; Eckel, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref7">4</reflink>]; O'Meara, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref8">19</reflink>]). This ranking system focuses on seven measures related to academic reputation, student selectivity, faculty resources, graduation and retention rates, financial resources, alumni giving, and graduation rate performance (Borden et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref9">2</reflink>]; O'Meara, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref10">19</reflink>]; Zerquera, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref11">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>Even though rankings from <emph>U.S. News</emph> have been routinely critiqued as a flawed system, the public looks at the rankings to determine "best" colleges. Higher institutional rankings confer prestige, which can attract more competitive students and faculty and attract grants and donations (Borden et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref12">2</reflink>]; Eckel, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref13">4</reflink>]). Because of this consumer‐driven marketplace, institutional leaders recognize the need to differentiate themselves from their peer institutions and convey to prospective students and their families why their institution is "the best" (Eckel, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref14">4</reflink>]; Museus & LePeau, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref15">20</reflink>]). Furthermore, scholars have argued that rankings often measure inputs of students enrolled (e.g., GPA, parents' socioeconomic status) and outcomes rather than quality of the experience that students receive (Kuh & Pascarella, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref16">15</reflink>]). Ultimately, the rankings are driven by and reflect the selectivity and financial solvency of the institution (Kuh & Pascarella, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref17">15</reflink>]; Zilvinskis & Rocconni, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref18">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>As a result, institutional leaders often prioritize prestige‐seeking efforts, such as athletics, maximizing the competitiveness of the admissions pool, and revenue‐generating research endeavors (Eckel, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref19">4</reflink>]; O'Meara, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref20">19</reflink>]; Zerquera, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref21">34</reflink>]). This reward process reinforces a campus culture focused on striving and competition (Museus & LePeau, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref22">20</reflink>]; O'Meara, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref23">19</reflink>]). Scholars have noted that this focus on prestige‐seeking and less on quality experiences is problematic (e.g., Hossler, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref24">9</reflink>]; Kuh & Pascarella, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref25">15</reflink>]). Perhaps more importantly in the context of the current discussion, such prestige‐seeking can run counter to goals and responsibilities to serve the public good, expand access, and advance equity (Eckel, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref26">4</reflink>]; Museus & LePeau, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref27">20</reflink>]; Zerquera, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref28">34</reflink>]). The ways that prestige‐seeking contradicts (potential) commitments to ensuring access to higher education and creating equitable opportunities for minoritized student populations needs more attention (Borden et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref29">2</reflink>]; Zerquera, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref30">35</reflink>]).</p> <p>Even when quality is centered, the measures and data used are often culturally neutral or colorblind, completely ignoring what diverse students often say matters most to them (see Museus and LePeau earlier in this volume. Take, for example, how the <emph>Princeton Review</emph> generates an annual list of institutions "Making an Impact." Institutional leaders seek to have a reputation or appearance of doing high‐impact work (Eckel, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref31">4</reflink>]). The <emph>Princeton Review</emph> measures institutions based on metrics associated with community service opportunities, sustainability efforts, and on‐campus student engagement. They pay little or no attention to the cultural relevance and responsiveness of those activities, which students of color underscore as critical in their ability to thrive in college (Museuse, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref32">24</reflink>]). As a result, institutions that offer <emph>more</emph> community service opportunities might fare better in the rankings, even if those opportunities approach their work with working class and minoritized communities in harmful ways and do more damage than good.</p> <hd id="AN0164437912-4">TRAP #2: PRIORITIZING THE NUMBER OF HIPS AS THE GOAL</hd> <p>Kuh ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref33">14</reflink>]) encouraged institutional leaders and educators to create conditions for students to participate in at least two HIPs throughout their collegiate experience. He promoted first‐year seminar, learning communities, or service‐learning early in one's career and another experience such as a capstone learning opportunity once a student is in their major field. Given the proliferation of positive outcomes associated with student participation in HIPs reported in the literature, numerous institutional leaders and educators moved to making HIP participation a requirement in the curriculum and co‐curriculum. We see this practice proliferate when policies are created for all students to get involved with HIPs, such as first‐year seminars or service‐learning.</p> <p>When institutional leaders focus on frequency of participation in an activity, students may assume a tactic of additive approaches to learning as opposed to transformative approaches to learning. Scholars have questioned whether HIPs are designed with a one‐size‐fits‐all approach that is assumed to be equally beneficial to everyone (Schneider & Albertine, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref34">27</reflink>]). Thus, institutional leaders fall into the trap of spending all their intellectual and physical energy getting students involved in more HIPs, rather than designing HIPs that students will see as relevant to their lives, want to engage in, and experience in empowering and transformative ways (Kilgoet al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref35">10</reflink>]; Torres & LePeau, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref36">32</reflink>]). Thus, when campuses focus on requiring students to have access to at least one HIP, they can encourage students to choose a HIP for the sake of checking a box rather than finding one that might be relevant and responsive to their communities and their lives.</p> <hd id="AN0164437912-5">TRAP #3: OVER RELIANCE ON BIASED AND SIMPLISTIC LARGE‐SCALE DATA</hd> <p>Leaders use overly simplistic and colorblind metrics to understand student success, such as educational academic achievement, persistence, and graduation (Malachowski et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref37">18</reflink>]; Torres & LePeau, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref38">32</reflink>]; Torres & Renn, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref39">33</reflink>]). Many institutional leaders rely on large‐scale datasets to determine the impact of college on student success. When it comes to HIPs, institutions utilize large‐scale datasets to validate how, in the aggregate, students make positive gains on outcomes such as critical thinking, retention, and student learning (e.g., Finley & McNair, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref40">5</reflink>]; Kuh, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref41">14</reflink>]).</p> <p>Yet, research also indicates that racially minoritized students are less likely to participate in HIPs than their White counterparts (e.g., Brownell & Swaner, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref42">29</reflink>]; Kuh, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref43">14</reflink>]; Sweeney, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref44">30</reflink>]). To address this research, scholars and practitioners have emphasized that, when racially minoritized populations participate in HIPs, they do make compensatory gains based on these opportunities (Finley & McNair, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref45">5</reflink>]; Kuh, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref46">14</reflink>]). Therefore, some institutional leaders adopt the position that the way to close graduation and attainment gaps is to involve more racially minoritized students in HIPs. Many institutional leaders fall victim to this trap.</p> <p>Several scholars have identified that large‐scale datasets typically fail to represent and can be harmful to minoritized student populations, such as LGBTA+ students (e.g., BrckaLorenz et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref47">3</reflink>]; Kilgo et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref48">10</reflink>]; Rankin & Garvey, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref49">25</reflink>]; Stewart & Nicolazzo, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref50">28</reflink>]). Campus leaders are often caught by relying too heavily on large institutional datasets that do not tell the whole picture about how different populations experience HIPs and how educators design these practices. As Kilgo et al. ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref51">10</reflink>]) noted, "higher education research still lacks the data to explore whether the high‐impact practices...are in fact even high‐impact for this subpopulation of students" (p. 433). Kilgo et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref52">11</reflink>]) and Garvey et al. ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref53">8</reflink>]) have demonstrated that HIPs' relationship to LGBTQ+ students' gains are dependent on their level of comfort in the campus environment, and educators, therefore, need to make sure students see themselves meaningfully reflected in the culture first. We echo these authors' arguments and add that educators should ensure that students see their communities and identities reflected throughout their experience, including throughout their time participating in HIPs.</p> <hd id="AN0164437912-6">REFRAMING POTENTIAL TRAPS THAT INSTITUTIONAL LEADERS FACE</hd> <p>Museus ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref54">24</reflink>]) developed the culturally engaging campus environments (CECE, <emph>pronounced see‐see</emph>) model of college success for diverse student populations. This model advances knowledge about college student success in multiple ways. First, the model is grounded in decades of empirical research that incorporates the critiques of earlier student success theories and empirical knowledge from marginalized communities. Second, whereas diversity frameworks are often viewed as disconnected from student learning and success, the CECE model integrates research on diversity with scholarship on student persistence to generate a culturally conscious framework of student success among diverse populations. Research shows that these types of environments are correlated with the motivation, self‐efficacy, sense of belonging, and success among racially, ethnically, and socioeconomically diverse college students (e.g., Museus et al., [[<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref55">22</reflink>]]). Finally, elements of the model can inform institutional transformation efforts to maximize success among all students, but it can also be applied to redesigning HIPs in culturally relevant and responsive ways.</p> <p>The CECE Model delineates nine indicators of culturally relevant and responsive campus environments. These indicators can be applied specifically to practices to make them <emph>high impact</emph>. The five cultural relevance indicators include:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <bold> Cultural familiarity </bold> —Campus space where students can connect with institutional agents and peers who understand their cultural background, identities, and experiences</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> Culturally relevant knowledge </bold> —Students learning about their own cultural communities in curricular/co‐curricular activities</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> Cultural community service </bold> —Opportunities for students to positively give back to their home communities</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> Meaningful cross‐cultural engagement— </bold> Institutional agents facilitate meaningful cross‐culturally engagement between students to work collaboratively to solve complex real‐world issues</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> Cultural Validation </bold> —Campus cultures that validate the cultural backgrounds, knowledge, and identities of diverse students.</item> </ulist> <p>The four cultural responsiveness indicators focus on the ways higher education institutions can provide support systems and respond to the needs of diverse student populations:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <bold> Collectivist cultural orientation </bold> –Institutional agents that create a cultural orientation that emphasizes teamwork and mutual success.</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> Humanized educational environments </bold> –Students are able to create meaningful relationships with institutional agents who they know care about them and their success.</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> Proactive philosophies </bold> —Philosophies that lead institutional agents to provide important information, opportunities, and support services to students.</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> Holistic support </bold> —Students' access to at least one institutional agent that they trust will provide support and resources regardless of the situation or refer them to someone they know will.</item> </ulist> <p>Although we apply CECE to generate some of these recommendations, it is important to note that there are several other complementary frameworks that can and should be leveraged to inform this work (e.g., Garcia et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref56">7</reflink>]; Garcia, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref57">6</reflink>]; Ladson‐Billings, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref58">16</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref59">17</reflink>]; Rendón, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref60">26</reflink>]; Tachine, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref61">31</reflink>]). Institutional leaders need to consider their institutional type and context in understanding what is relevant for the students who inhabit the campus environment. To move beyond presenting historical culture and climate as merely context, we weave this framing throughout the recommendations.</p> <p>We urge institutional leaders and educators to consider the impact of centering cultural relevance and responsiveness in a HIPs framework on students' critical thinking, learning across differences, scientific reasoning, and other outcomes in higher education. Institutional leaders and educators can facilitate efforts to cultivate more equitable experiences where students can deepen their understanding of themselves and how they hope to contribute to society and communities that matter to them to address real‐world problems. We presented three traps institutional leaders can and often do fall into and that impede their ability to support educators in efforts to create culturally responsive and relevant HIPs. Now, we offer the following reframes of those traps into strategies that leaders can implement to support educators in making practices high impact to promote student success.</p> <hd id="AN0164437912-7">Reframe #1: Reward culturally relevant and responsive teaching and practices</hd> <p>Rather than focusing on institutional prestige and benchmarking, institutional leaders can take a different approach to reward structures. Institutional leaders may choose to reward faculty and staff with course releases or stipends to develop new curricula or teach institutional agents how to adopt culturally relevant and responsive practices into their programs and practices.</p> <p>Relatedly, educators often build partnerships with nonprofit and community organizations to make their own research and practice culturally relevant. Faculty and educators may be conducting research that aligns with giving back to communities that matter to them. Institutional agents can reward educators for these practices that contribute to the democratic ideals often espoused in institutional mission statements (Museus & LePeau, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref62">20</reflink>]). Campus leaders should reward faculty and educators for connecting with students who share their identities and interests in their initiatives designed to address real‐world problems and serve the needs of communities that matter to them. Leaders can meaningfully reward these practices through the tenure and promotion process, annual merit reviews, and teaching awards that center culturally relevant and responsive practices. Campuses need to reconstitute what they compete for and not allow their gaze to remain on prestige (Eckel, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref63">4</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0164437912-8">Reframe #2: Ensure educators get to know students' communities and backgrounds prior to engag...</hd> <p>To ensure students engage in practices that can become high impact, institutional agents need to proactively understand the cultural backgrounds and communities that matter to students. When they develop such knowledge, they can be better equipped to provide learning opportunities that allow students to learn more about themselves and how to give back to their communities. This practice challenges the notion that campuses should prioritize providing students with access to a certain number of HIPs.</p> <p>We suggest educators adopt the practice of centering the student and their needs first rather than the mechanics or behaviors of participation. We see practices where students self‐select thematic learning communities or writing intensive courses based on their affinity groups and cultures (e.g., race, ethnicity, sexual orientation). This practice is a start to centering culture and identity in a practice that can potentially become high impact.</p> <hd id="AN0164437912-9">Reframe #3: Evaluate and assess the quality of programs by examining the degree to which they...</hd> <p>Reconceptualizing practices that can become high impact means altering the metrics used in assessment. We recognize the importance of data‐informed practice. Although institutional leaders will continue to need large‐scale datasets, we encourage educators to use more than one data source to assess educational practices at their respective institutions. More importantly, we invite educators to learn from the students who participated in their programs about how the experience validated their ways of knowing, how they learned more about their own backgrounds and identities, how they worked collaboratively with peers and community members to address problems in society, and where there were pitfalls. This process focuses on institutional‐level assessment rather than benchmarking with other institutions.</p> <p>Many educators create opportunities for students to exchange ideas about what they learned through HIPs. These activities can be seen in the form of the following: research symposia where students share about their capstone or undergraduate research projects, culminating papers or projects for service‐learning opportunities, pre‐trip explorations for students in study abroad, and writing assignments for writing intensive courses. Educators can design assignments that center culture and identity in the experience. Students can learn from each other how their identities influence their decision‐making process to study in a particular international context or work with community members to address a problem facing a local community. Invite community members who share students' identities to reflect on what they hear from students as they share their stories. Create conditions for students to center <emph>why</emph> they engaged learning opportunities and how those opportunities connect with their future career goals. Institutional leaders can then invite educators to present them with reports that center the experiences of diverse student populations in particular programs coupled with large‐scale institutional data about retention and completion to gain a deeper picture of the undergraduate educational experience. These efforts can ultimately support student success from individual (e.g., career, critical thinking) and institutional goals (e.g., completion, retention).</p> <hd id="AN0164437912-10">CONCLUSION</hd> <p>We recognize that institutional leaders are often stuck in between seemingly congruent but often counterproductive goals related to implementing HIPs as a mechanism to close achievement gaps. Institutional leaders are pressured to move the institution toward national recognition and prestige, increase enrollments, and create innovative opportunities for student engagement. However, students do not choose learning experiences with the same goals in mind and may not be encouraged to draw connections between how their cultures relate to their experiences in a HIP. They may not have access to the same resources, even if all students are given access to a HIP. We presented three interconnected traps institutional leaders fall into under the guise of closing achievement gaps through implementing HIPs. Institutional leaders may respond to these suggestions by offering a compromise. Their compromise might be to suggest a both/and approach. This approach may include continuing prestige‐seeking while simultaneously encouraging educators on their campuses to create culturally relevant and responsive HIPs. In order to truly transform an institutional environment for equity and create conditions for diverse student populations to see themselves intentionally reflected in educational practices to promote their success; new strategies need to be employed.</p> <ref id="AN0164437912-11"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> American Association of Colleges and Universities [AAC&U] (2022). High‐impact practices. https://<ulink href="http://www.aacu.org/trending‐topics/high‐impact">www.aacu.org/trending‐topics/high‐impact</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref3" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Borden, V. M., Cogswell, C., & Troilo, F. (2019). Do classifications and rankings improve or damage institutions? In The three Cs of higher education: Competition, collaboration and complementarity (pp. 89). Central European University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref47" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> BrckaLorenz, A., Garvey, J. C., Hurtado, S. S., & Latopolski, K. (2017). High‐impact practices and student‐faculty interactions for gender‐variant students. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 10 (4), 350 – 365.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref7" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Eckel, P. D. (2008). Mission diversity and the tension between prestige and effectiveness: An overview of US higher education. Higher Education Policy, 21 (2), 175 – 192. https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2008.2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref40" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Finley, A. P., & McNair, T. (2013). Assessing underserved students' engagement in high‐impact practices. Association of American Colleges and Universities.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref57" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Garcia, G. A. (2019). Becoming Hispanic‐serving institutions: Opportunities for colleges and universities. Johns Hopkins University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref56" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Garcia, G. A., Núñez, A. M., & Sansone, V. A. (2019). Toward a multidimensional conceptual framework for understanding "servingness" in Hispanic‐Serving institutions: A synthesis of the research. Review of Educational Research, 89 (5), 745 – 784. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319864591</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref53" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Garvey, J. C., BrckaLorenz, A., Latopolski, K., & Hurtado, S. S. (2018). High‐impact practices and student‐faculty interactions for students across sexual orientations. Journal of College Student Development, 59 (2), 210 – 226.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref24" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Hossler, D. (2000). The problem with college rankings. About Campus, 5 (1), 20 – 24.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kilgo, C. A., Linley, J. L., Renn, K. A., & Woodford, M. R. (2019). High‐impact for whom? The influence of environment and identity on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer college students' participation in high‐impact practices. Journal of College Student Development, 60 (4), 421 – 436. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2019.0038</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kilgo, C. A., Sheets, J. K. E., & Pascarella, E. T. (2015). The link between high‐impact practices and student learning: Some longitudinal evidence. Higher Education, 69 (4), 509 – 525.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kinzie, J., McCormick, A. C., Gonyea, R., Dugan, B., & Silberstein, S. (2020). Assessing quality and equity in high‐impact practices: Comprehensive report. Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuh, G., & Kinzie, J. (2018, May 1). What really makes a 'high impact' practice high impact? Inside Higher Ed. https://<ulink href="http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2018/05/01/">www.insidehighered.com/views/2018/05/01/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuh, G. D. (2008). High‐impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Association of American Colleges and Universities.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuh, G. D., & Pascarella, E. T. (2004). What does institutional selectivity tell us about educational quality? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 36 (5), 52 – 58.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ladson‐Billings, G. (1995a). But that's just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34 (3), 159 – 165. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ladson‐Billings, G. (1995b). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32 (3), 465 – 491. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Malachowski, M., Osborn, J. M., Karukstis, K. K., Kinzie, J., & Ambos, E. L. (2018). Institutionalizing undergraduate research and scaffolding undergraduate research experiences in the STEM curriculum. In Best practices for supporting and expanding undergraduate research in chemistry (pp. 259 – 269). American Chemical Society.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Meara, K. (2007). Striving for what? Exploring the pursuit of prestige. In Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 121 – 179). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Museus, S. D., & LePeau, L. (2019). Navigating neoliberal organizational cultures: Implications for higher education leaders advancing social justice agendas. In A. Kezar & J. Posselt (Eds.), Administration for social justice and equity in higher education: Critical perspectives for leadership and decision making (pp. 209 – 224). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Museus, S. D., & Quaye, S. J. (2009). Toward an intercultural perspective of racial and ethnic minority college student persistence. The Review of Higher Education, 33 (1), 67 – 94. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.0.0107</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Museus, S. D., Yi, V., & Saelua, N. (2017). The impact of culturally engaging campus environments on sense of belonging. The Review of Higher Education, 40 (2), 187 – 215. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2017.0001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Museus, S. D., Yi, V., & Saelua, N. (2018). How culturally engaging campus environments influence sense of belonging in college: An examination of differences between White students and students of color. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 11 (4), 467. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000069</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Museus, S. D. (2014). The culturally engaging campus environments (CECE) model: A new theory of success among racially diverse college student populations. In Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 189 – 227). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rankin, S., & Garvey, J. C. (2015). Identifying, quantifying, and operationalizing queer spectrum and trans‐spectrum students: Assessment and research in student affairs. In D. Stewart, K. A. Renn, & G. B. Brazelton (Eds.), New directions for student services: No.152. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans*, and queer students in higher education: An appreciative inquiry (pp. 73‑84). Jossey‐Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rendón, L. I. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a new model of learning and student development. Innovative Higher Education, 19 (1), 33 – 51.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schneider, C. G., & Albertine, S. (2013). A new inquiry approach to high‐impact practices. In A. P., Finley & T. McNair (Eds.), Assessing underserved students' engagement in high impact practices (pp. v – vii). Association of American Colleges and Universities.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stewart, D., & Nicolazzo, Z. (2018). High impact of [Whiteness] on trans* students in postsecondary education. Equity & Excellence in Education, 51 (2), 132 – 145. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2018.1496046</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swaner, L. E., & Brownell, J. E. (2009). Outcomes of high impact practices for underserved students: A review of the literature. Association of American Colleges and Universities.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sweeney, K. (2013). Inclusive excellence and underrepresentation of students of color in study abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 23, 1 – 21.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tachine, A. R. (2022). Native presence and sovereignty in college: Sustaining indigenous weapons to defeat systemic monsters. Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Torres, V., & LePeau, L. (2022). Understanding the synergistic relationship between student retention and student development theories. Journal of Postsecondary Student Success, 1 (3). 10.33009/fsop_jpss130760</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Torres, V., & Renn, K. A. (2021). Is metric‐centered leadership generating new silos? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 53 (2), 49 – 56. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2021.1883982</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zerquera, D. D. (2019). The problem with the prestige pursuit: The effects of striving on access for Black and Latino students at urban‐serving research universities. The Review of Higher Education, 42 (5), 393 – 424. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2019.0057</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zerquera, D. (2018). Prestige‐seeking across urban‐serving research universities. International Journal of Leadership and Change, 6 (1), 5. https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/ijlc/vol6/iss1/5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zilvinskis, J., & Rocconi, L. (2018). Revisiting the relationship between institutional rank and student engagement. The Review of Higher Education, 41 (2), 253 – 280. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2018.0003</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Lucy A. LePeau and Samuel D. Museus</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Lucy A. LePeau is an Associate Professor of Higher Education and Student Affairs at Indiana University, Bloomington.</p> <p>Samuel D. Museus is a Professor of Education Studies at the University of California, San Diego.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref61"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1381735
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: How Institutional Leaders Can Support Educators in Making Practices High Impact
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22LePeau%2C+Lucy+A%2E%22">LePeau, Lucy A.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Museus%2C+Samuel+D%2E%22">Museus, Samuel D.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22New+Directions+for+Student+Services%22"><i>New Directions for Student Services</i></searchLink>. Spr 2023 (181):67-75.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 9
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Descriptive
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Practices%22">Educational Practices</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Equal+Education%22">Equal Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Achievement%22">Academic Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Culturally+Relevant+Education%22">Culturally Relevant Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Diversity%22">Student Diversity</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/ss.20456
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0164-7970<br />1536-0695
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Authors discuss traps institutional leaders may fall into when supporting or leveraging high-impact practices to promote equitable student success and then provide recommendations for leaders to support educators in cultivating culturally relevant and responsive practices for diverse student populations that can become high impact.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1381735
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1381735
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/ss.20456
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 9
        StartPage: 67
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Educational Practices
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Equal Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Academic Achievement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Culturally Relevant Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Diversity
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: How Institutional Leaders Can Support Educators in Making Practices High Impact
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: LePeau, Lucy A.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Museus, Samuel D.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0164-7970
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1536-0695
          Numbering:
            – Type: issue
              Value: 181
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: New Directions for Student Services
              Type: main
ResultId 1