the acquisition and use of appropriate tools (such as note-taking skills)

3. the acceptance of accountability for one’s knowledge and the use of that knowledge 4. the use of self-assessment and rational decision making within a particular context to

produce a desired outcome

5. the development of self-efficacy, which Bandura (1986) defines as ―self referent thought, . . . a generative capability in which cognitive, social, and behavioral sub-skills must be organized into integrated courses of action to serve innumerable purposes. . . . It is people’s judgment of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action‖ (p.

391).

The QEP’s definition of learning is based on the SACS Handbook for Reaffirmation of

Accreditation (2010) which defines student learning as ―changes in (1) knowledge, (2) skills, (3) behaviors, or (4) values‖ (p. 39). The College continuously works to enhance its commitment to provide appropriate academic support while equipping students to accept responsibility for and be committed to their own successes. The QEP demonstrates LSCC’s commitment to meet the challenge reflected in its vision and mission statement to ―provide students with an accessible, supportive, learning-centered environment while challenging them to think critically, increase their information fluency, communicate effectively, become independent, build leadership skills, improve their ability to work as part of a team, develop social responsibility, and enhance their creativity.‖ In this way, LSCC will foster ―excellence and the values of scholarship, respect, honesty and integrity, teamwork, high performance, and service, in order to better serve the needs of our diverse community and prepare students to be successful and productive citizens‖.

(Excerpt, Lake-Sumter Community College College Mission and Vision–Revised 2009).

A review of the literature reveals that LSCC is not unique; many ―open door‖ community

colleges and four-year institutions face a ―retention dilemma‖ that must be overcome if students are to fulfill their potential. (Achieving the Dream, 1999; Barefoot, Gardner, et. al., 2005; Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, Whitt, et. al. 2005; Upcraft, Gardner, Barefoot, et. al., 2005).

In Rethinking the First Year of College Tinto (1996) identified what he terms the ―causes of student leaving.‖ Among them are academic difficulty, adjustment difficulties, vague goals, commitments, finances, poor fit, lack of involvement, and lack of learning (pp. 1-3). Tinto also

36

found that nearly half the students at two-year colleges leave before returning for their second year and that almost three-fourths of all attrition occurs during the first year alone.

Based on current research, the QEP Development Team decided that the College should target specific high-risk courses. A U.S. Department of Education archived report Supplemental Instruction: Improving Student Performance and Reducing Attrition makes three claims about the effectiveness of Supplemental Instruction:

1. participants earn higher mean final course grades than non-participating students 2. despite ethnicity and prior academic achievement, students participating in SI succeed

at a higher rate

3. participants persist (re-enroll and graduate) at higher rates than non-participants (pp.1-2).

SI, based on the University of Missouri-Kansas City model, provides a peer-assisted academic support program offered in traditionally high-risk academic courses, those that consistently have the highest rate of Ds, Fs, and Ws for final course grades. SI is designed ―to reduce high rates of attrition, increase the level of student performance in difficult courses, and increase

graduation rates‖ (Crissman & Upcraft, 2005, p. 44). SI began in 1973 at the University of Missouri-Kansas City to help medical students who lacked some prerequisite skills. SI proved to be so successful that it is now being implemented in 39% of four-year schools and 30% of two-year schools (Crissman & Upcraft, 2005). Its design is based on proven learning theories, behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism. SI also responds to four of Tinto’s factors that lead to attrition: adjustment, isolation, difficulty, and incongruence (Martin, Blanc, &

Arendale,1996; McGuire, 2006). LSCC created its HELP program based on the SI model.

Student motivation and approaches to learning such as goal setting and study skills have an impact not only on student academic performance but also on attitudes toward studying (Ramsden & Entwistle, 1981; Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983). Student motivation is typically described as intrinsic (i.e., being motivated by internally generated rewards such as self-enhancement or satisfying one’s curiosity) or extrinsic (i.e., being motivated by externally derived rewards such as praise from a teacher or achieving the highest grade in the course).

Although student motivation is consistently mentioned within the literature (e.g., Marton & Säljö, 1984; Ramsden, 1984), there are different ways of describing various approaches to learning.

The main difference is related to whether the approach is derived from the student (i.e., stable traits or tendencies) or derived from the learning environment (i.e., different situations eliciting different approaches). There has been growing agreement that the major differences involve either deep or surface approaches to learning. The deep approach refers to tendencies to look

37

for or construct the meaningfulness of information, and the purposeful intention of wanting to understand the information (Marton & Säljö, 1984). The surface approach typically steers away from understanding and instead focuses on the ability to memorize the pieces that make up the information (Marton & Säljö, 1984).

As a result of the literature review and the broad-based input of all college constituencies, the QEP Design Committee has designed a realistic and sustainable project that will impact a significant portion of the student population. Responsibility for the implementation and sustainability of this project is also broad-based. Throughout the creation process, the

President’s Cabinet has been kept abreast of the progress of the QEP. The Cabinet will oversee the allocation of funds and resources to drive sustainability. All decisions related to funding will also require the approval of the District Board of Trustees. As outlined in section III, day-to-day leadership over the project will be the responsibility of the Program Manager of Developmental Studies under the supervision of the Dean of General Education and Transfer Programs.

38

39