Institutional use of frameworks is key in enhancing both institution and student outcomes; however, many institutions struggle with implementation of frameworks. In December 2022, NU embraced the Loss & Momentum Framework (LMF) to foster a data-driven approach for enhancing student success. This framework offers a structured analysis of the student journey, spanning from initial interest to earning a valuable credential. LMF pinpoints key factors influencing student persistence, retention, and completion. Recognizing the common challenges faced by institutions in implementing such frameworks organization-wide, this presentation outlines ten essential steps for successful implementation of similar student success frameworks.

Angela Baldasare, Deputy Chief of Staff and VP for Strategic Institutional Research and Planning, National University
Heather Hussey, Associate Vice President of Assessment and Planning, National University

Everyone agrees that service-learning exposes students to “real world” challenges and opportunities that can be far more beneficial than what can be undertaken in a classroom. But questions remain about the extent to which post-COVID students are prepared for service-learning, and the extent to which service-learning experiences are assessed to determine ‘success.’ Articles on the subject rarely discuss how student preparation for service-learning is identified. Articles almost never indicate that the service-learning client (the recipient of student service) has any role whatsoever in communicating whether the project met the intended outcomes. How can faculty send students into service-learning experiences if faculty are unaware of students’ conceptual understandings to successfully complete the project? How can faculty declare service-learning a “success” without a rigorous assessment that includes input from the recipient(s) of the service? In this session, faculty supervisors of service-learning experiences will engage in a discussion of what we’re seeing on ‘the front end’ (student preparation) and ‘the back end’ (assessment of student work to determine whether learning outcomes were met). A review of recent literature suggests there needs to be much more inquiry on both of these fronts. Involved faculty need to develop better strategies to help students prepare for, and succeed in, service-learning experiences. There also needs to be much more engagement in the process by community members (clients) who benefit from students’ “real world” service-learning work. This conversation will help guide participants in these areas. Related questions to discuss:
·       Ideally, instructors of service-learning courses and programs want to step back from the process to allow student autonomy. But how does an instructor step back and still retain the ability to evaluate?
·       What about the opportunity for errors? Errors are stepping stones to learning. But can errors be allowed in real-world service learning projects? How do instructors know when to let the errors resolve themselves and when to intervene?
·       How do instructors draw the line between errors that are learning experiences and errors that threaten the client(s) well-being or the integrity of the project?
·       How do instructors develop the knowledge that allows them to manage this kind of learning situation?
·       When client(s) are allowed opportunities to evaluate their success, what are some examples of appropriate structure for those evaluations?
·       How does an instructor address a client that gave a high evaluation to a service-learning project that did not meet established learning outcomes (e.g., the project was a flop, but the client loved it)?

Doug Swanson, Professor of Communications, Cal State Fullerton