How Non-Academic Supports Work: Four Mechanisms for Improving Student Outcomes. CCRC Brief. Number 54.
How Non-Academic Supports Work: Four Mechanisms for Improving Student Outcomes. CCRC Brief. Number 54.
复制标题
非学术支持如何发挥作用：提高学生成绩的四种机制。
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2011
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Karp
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Karp
大学的成功需要的不仅仅是掌握大学水平的学术技能的能力。学生必须学会在一个陌生的校园里导航，满足官僚要求，满足新的期望（Shields，2002），并参与新型的人际关系（Dickie & Farrell，1991）。学术弱势学生--那些最有可能在理解和实现大学期望方面遇到困难的学生--通常被两年制大学和开放式的四年制通勤大学录取。改善这些机构的非学术支持系统可以改善面临中学后失败风险的学生的结果。非学术支持活动被认为是鼓励学术成功，但不是公开的学术。虽然鼓励非学术支持的结构化课程通常也有学术部分，但学术和非学术支持涉及不同的技能，并通过不同的过程鼓励学生取得成功。这份简报，基于一个较长的文献综述，确定了非学术支持可以帮助学生留在大学就读，获得好成绩，并获得证书的过程。确定这些过程可以更深入地了解干预措施如何帮助创造成功的大学生，以及可能导致学生成为“整合”或“承诺”的条件。通过阐明非学术支持帮助学生成功的过程，本简介还为从业者提供了对成功的非学术支持努力所需要素的更好理解。关于学生持久性的主要理论（Bean & Metzner，1985;布拉克斯顿，Hirschy，& McClendon，2004;布拉克斯顿，Sullivan，&约翰逊，1997; Pascarella & Terenzini，2005; Tinto，1993）认为，中学后教育中的持久性受到先前存在的特征、外部力量和制度因素的综合影响。他们还认为，要想继续上学，学生必须相信高等教育是他们生活的重要组成部分，而这种信念对于非传统学生来说更难培养，包括兼职学生、通勤学生和年龄较大的学生。这些理论，特别是廷托的理论，是研究人员和实践者看待学生成功的主导框架，但它们对社区大学几乎没有指导意义。因为他们是基于学生的经验，对他们来说，四年制的住宿模式充满了融合和联系的机会，这是常态，他们不能准确地代表许多参加两年制机构的学生的经验。此外，许多占主导地位的理论缺乏对学生持久性如何发生的清晰理解。基于Tinto整合框架的理论实证检验表明，整合和承诺与学生的成功有关，但它们并没有解释学生是如何整合的。由于对什么样的背景、结构和经历导致学生的中学后整合的不完全理解，许多将这些理论付诸实践的努力都陷入了困境。本简介旨在通过将注意力转移到学生成功发生的机制来扩展这些理论。
College success requires more than the ability to master college-level academic skills. Students must learn to navigate an unfamiliar campus, satisfy bureaucratic requirements, meet new expectations (Shields, 2002), and engage in new types of interpersonal relationships (Dickie & Farrell, 1991). Academically vulnerable students—those who are most likely to encounter difficulties in understanding and enacting college expectations—are often enrolled at twoyear colleges and open-access, four-year commuter colleges. Improving non-academic support systems at these institutions could improve outcomes for students at risk of postsecondary failure. Non-academic support activities are presumed to encourage academic success but are not overtly academic. While structured programs that encourage non-academic support often also have an academic component, academic and non-academic supports address different skills and encourage student success via different processes. This Brief, based on a longer literature review, identifies the processes by which non-academic supports can help students remain enrolled in college, earn good grades, and earn a credential. Identifying these processes allows a deeper understanding of how interventions may help create successful college students and the conditions that may lead students to become “integrated” or “committed.” By articulating the processes by which non-academic supports help students succeed, this Brief also provides practitioners with a better understanding of the elements necessary for successful non-academic support efforts. The major theories of student persistence (Bean & Metzner, 1985; Braxton, Hirschy, & McClendon, 2004; Braxton, Sullivan, & Johnson, 1997; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Tinto, 1993) argue, in various ways, that persistence in postsecondary education is influenced by a combination of pre-existing characteristics, external forces, and institutional factors. They also argue that to stay enrolled, students must believe that higher education is an important part of their lives, and that this belief is harder to develop for nontraditional students, including part-time, commuter, and older students. These theories—particularly Tinto’s— are the dominant frame through which researchers and practitioners view student success, but they provide little guidance for community colleges. Because they are based on the experiences of students for whom the four-year, residential model—replete with opportunities for integration and connectedness—is the norm, they do not accurately represent the experiences of many students attending twoyear institutions. Further, many of the dominant theories lack a clear understanding of how student persistence occurs. Empirical tests of theories rooted in Tinto’s integration framework demonstrate that integration and commitment are related to student success, but they do not explain how students become integrated. Many efforts to put these theories into practice have floundered due to an incomplete understanding of what contexts, structures, and experiences lead to students’ postsecondary integration. This Brief aims to extend these theories by shifting attention toward the mechanisms by which student success occurs.