Content uploaded by Joe Cuseo
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Joe Cuseo on Nov 21, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Case for a Holistic Approach to Promoting
Student Success
Joe Cuseo
Promoting student success (e.g., persistence to graduation and academic achievement)
requires a comprehensive approach that goes beyond strictly the academic or intellectual
dimension of student development to address the student in a holistic (whole-person)
fashion. An early clarion call for such a holistic approach to student success appeared in
Upcraft and Gardner’s (1989) seminal text, The Freshman Year Experience, in which
they argue that “freshmen succeed when they make progress toward fulfilling [the
following] educational and personal goals: (1) developing academic and intellectual
competence; (2) establishing and maintaining interpersonal relationships; (3) developing
an identity; (4) deciding on a career and life-style; (5) maintaining personal health and
wellness; and (6) developing an integrated philosophy of life” (p. 2). This holistic
approach to student success is also consistent with the goals of the FYE course offered at
the University of Carolina (University 101), which has served as a national model for
more than a quarter of a century: “University 101 subscribes to the belief that
development is not a one-dimensional affair but must reach far beyond the intellect and
into emotional, spiritual, occupational, physical and social areas” (Jewler, 1989, p. 201).
Indeed, the entire “freshman year experience” movement emerged from the concerns of a
former president of the University of South Carolina, Tom Jones, who thought that the
university needed to offer a course that would address the student as a whole person,
rather than just their intellect (Watts, 1999). The president was strongly influenced by
Nevitt Sanford’s (1967) classic, Where Colleges Fail, in which Sanford argues that
colleges fail whenever they fail to balance academic challenge with personal support,
neglecting to treat students as a total person and ignoring the fact that effective learning
depends on the whole being, not only their “abstracted intelligence.”
The following arguments and research findings support the value of taking a holistic
approach to student success in the first year of college and beyond.
Student retention and persistence to degree completion are strongly influenced by
factors that are not strictly cognitive or academic in nature.
It has been repeatedly reported that the vast majority of students who withdraw from
college are in good academic standing at the time of their withdrawal, and they do not
withdraw from college for reasons that are strictly academic or cognitive (estimates range
between 75-85%) (Carey, 2004; Gardiner, 1994; Levitz, 1994; National Center for
Education Statistics, 1977; Noel, 1985; Tinto, 1988, 1993; Willingham, 1985). This also
holds true at open-access community colleges that serve the least academically prepared
students. In a recent national survey of community college students, only 19% reported
that “being academically unprepared” would cause them to withdraw from college,
ranking behind such factors as “caring for dependents” (29%), “working full-time” (38%)
and “lack of finances” (45%) (Community College Survey of Student Engagement,
2008). It has also been found first-generation college are at greater risk for attrition than
2
other students, regardless of their level of academic preparation for college (e.g., entering
SAT scores and the rigor of course work required by their high school) (Glenn, 2008).
These findings underscore the importance of providing support programs that address
the first-year student as a “whole person.” First-year seminars that focus exclusively on
academic or cognitive skill development will be “missing the boat” with respect to
addressing key issues that underlie the bulk of student attrition. This recommendation is
reinforced by the experience of Indiana University, Bloomington, which launched a
broad range of initiatives to enhance the quality of the first-year experience and improve
student retention. The results of their first-year initiatives pointed to the conclusion that
strict concentration on academic matters is unlikely to increase retention without equal
concentration on non-academic elements of student life (Smith, 2003). These campus-
specific findings are reinforced by the cross-institutional work of Kuh, et al. (2005), who
identified campuses that had substantially higher-than-predicted rates of student
engagement and graduation than would be expected based on their student and
institutional characteristics (e.g., admissions selectivity and percentage of commuting
students). The research team made multiple site visits to the high-performing campuses to
identify what these institutions had in common that may be accounting for their unusually
high rates of student success. The visiting research team noted that one common theme
traversing these campuses was “an emphasis on holistic student learning [that] runs broad
and deep in institutional policies and practices” (p. 65).
Institutional efforts at promoting student retention are more effective when
academic and student affairs professionals collaborate in the delivery of educational
and support programs.
In a study involving a consortium of twelve colleges formed to implement and assess
practices explicitly designed to promote student retention, it was found that strategies
developed collaboratively through the joint efforts of Academic and Student Affairs
proved more effective than programs previously developed independently by these two
administrative units (Stodt & Klepper, 1987). More recently, a research project designed
to document effective educational practices (Project DEEP) revealed that one key
characteristic of institutions with higher-than-predicted graduation rates was a high
degree of respect and collaboration between academic and student affairs (Kuh, et al.,
2005). Similarly, an in-depth study of state universities with higher-than-average
graduation rates (given their institutional characteristics and student population) revealed
that one of the distinctive features of high-performing institutions was campus-wide
coordination of retention efforts that stimulated communication and cooperation between
academic and student affairs (AASC&U, 2005).
Programs with a comprehensive, holistic focus lend themselves to collaboration
between Academic and Student Affairs, giving them the potential to promote cross-
divisional partnerships and create a heightened sense of campus community. The joining
together of faculty and student development professionals in the design and delivery of a
holistic student-support programs may also be an effective vehicle for reducing the
historic “schism” or “persistent gap” between academic and student affairs, which
creates a deleterious “disconnect” between undergraduates’ curricular and co-curricular
learning experiences (Carnegie Foundation, 1990; Miller & Prince, 1976; ACPA, 1994;
ACPA & NASPA, 1997, 2004). The partnership-building potential of the first-year
3
experience course was originally noted in one of John Gardner’s earliest reports on the
University 101 program at South Carolina: “The program integrates faculty and
professional staff at the university in a joint undertaking [which] tends to reduce the
barriers between the faculty and staff camps, reduces stereotyping and has promoted
better relationships between faculty and especially student affairs staff “(1980, pp. 6 &
7).
Collectively, these findings point strongly to the conclusion that it is important for
educational interventions to focus not only on strictly academic-success strategies, but
also on “non-academic” adjustments to college and development of the student as a
“whole person.”
Research suggests that first-year seminars with a holistic focus are the most
effective type of seminar for promoting student learning-and-development
outcomes.
Working under the auspices of the Policy Center for the First Year of College
(Brevard, NC), Swing (2002) conducted a large-scale comparative study of outcomes
associated with different types of first-year seminars. Based on self-reported student
outcomes from over 31,000 students attending 62 institutions, he found that college
transition seminars, which focus on academic and non-academic (holistic) topics,
“performed best overall across the ten learning outcomes investigated” (p. 1). College
transition seminars with a holistic focus were especially more effective than discipline-
based seminars housed in academic departments and focused exclusively on introducing
first-year students to an academic discipline or major field of study. Consistent with these
findings is the conclusion reached by Upcraft, Gardner, & Barefoot (2005) upon their
national experience with first-year experience courses: the most effective first-year
seminars are those that are designed to facilitate first-year student success in both
academic and non-academic facets of college life.
Brain research indicates that the impact of cognitive and emotional experiences
on human learning cannot be separated.
Caine and Caine argue forcefully in their book, Making Connections: Teaching and
the Human Brain, “The brain does not separate emotions from cognition, either
anatomically or perceptually. Such artificial categorization may be helpful in designing
research projects, but it can actually distort our understanding of learning” (1991, p. vii).
Positive emotions, such as those associated with optimism and excitement, have been
found to facilitate learning by enhancing the brain’s ability to process, store, and retrieve
information (Rosenfield, 1988). In contrast, feelings of anxiety and personal threat have
been found to interfere with the brain’s ability to (a) store new information (Jacobs and
Nadel, 1985), (b) retrieve already-stored memories (O’Keefe & Nadel, 1985), and (c)
engage in deep learning (Numella & Rosengren, 1986) and higher-level thinking (Caine
& Caine, 1991). Furthermore, research indicates that information is processed through
emotional centers of the brain before it is passed on to parts of the brain that specialize in
cognition and reasoning (LeDoux, 1998).
Collectively, these brain-based findings lend strong support to an argument made long
ago by a taskforce report that influenced the creation of University 101 at the University
of South Carolina: “Cognitive growth which is separated from the development of other
4
aspects of the human personality is illusory and distorted” (Committee on the Student in
Higher Education, in Barefoot & Fidler, 1992, p. 63).
Students entering college today are reporting record levels of stress (Astin, Parrot,
Korn, & Sax, 1997; Sax et al., 2000) and mental health issues, such as
anxiety, depression, eating disorders, and suicidal ideation (Archer &
Cooper, 1998; Drum, 2008; Kadison & DiGeronimo, 2004).
Students’ self-related level of emotional health at the time of college entry is positively
related to degree completion (Choy, 2002), and there is evidence that students
who experience psychological problems in college, which remain untreated, are
more likely to withdraw from college (Schuh, 2005; Wilson, Mason, & Ewing,
1997).
The first year of college, in particular, can be a very stressful stage of the college
experience because it involves a major life transition, requiring not only academic
adjustments, but also involves significant changes in social relationships,
emotional experiences, and personal identity. Studies reveal that college students
report higher levels of stress and lower levels of emotional health at the end of
their first year of college than they did before beginning college (Bartlett, 2002;
Sax, Bryant, & Gilmartin, 2004). Students who experience higher levels of
academic stress or anxiety are more likely to use ineffective “surface” approaches
to learning that rely merely on memorization (Ramsden & Entwistle, 1981)—as
opposed to using “deep” learning strategies that seek meaning and understanding.
The confluence of these findings strongly suggests that any program that purports to
promote new students’ success must address the affective aspects of the first-year
experience. Failure to do so may allow unresolved emotional issues to foment and
subvert students’ academic performance, as well as undermine their ability to
persist to degree completion.
Viewing this topic from a more positive psychological perspective, students’ level of
students’ optimism or hope for success during their first term on campus is a more
accurate predictor of their college grades than are their SAT scores or high school grade-
point average (Snyder, et al., 1991). The term “emotional intelligence” refers to the
ability to identify and monitor one’s own emotions, and to be aware of how emotions
influence one’s thoughts and actions (Salovey & Mayer, 1989/1990; Goleman, 1995).
Students who score higher on tests of emotional intelligence and emotional management
have been found to achieve higher grade-point averages of the end of their first year of
college (Schutte, et al., 1998). Additional research shows that new college students who
take first-year seminars or college success courses, which include information on
emotional control and emotional-skill development, are more likely to be successful
during their first year of college (Schutte & Malouff, 2002). Further connections between
emotional intelligence and successful performance is demonstrated by research showing
that people who are able to control their emotions and harness or direct them in a positive
way tend to persist longer at challenging tasks (Simunek, et al., 2000) and are more likely
to experience professional success (Goleman, 1995; Saarni, 1999). In fact, studies of
successful people indicate that social and emotional intelligence (“EQ”) are often
predictive of personal and professional success than intellectual ability (IQ) (Goleman,
1995).
5
A holistic approach to promoting student success addresses the full range of
educational goals expressed in college mission statements, the vast majority of which
involve student outcomes that are not strictly academic or cognitive in nature.
A cursory review of college catalogues should reveal that the majority of institutional
mission statements embrace educational goals that are much broader and diverse than
knowledge acquisition and cognition. Formal research on the goals of higher education
institutions indicates that their goals involve intended outcomes that are not strictly
academic or cognitive, but embrace psychosocial, experiential, and personal development
outcomes (Astin, 1991; Kuh, Shedd, & Witt, 1987; Lenning, 1988).
Promoting students’ holistic development is consistent with the goals of liberal
(general) education.
Historically, liberal or general education has been viewed almost exclusively in terms
of the content of courses that comprise the liberal arts curriculum. However, the goals of
liberal education—which traditionally lie in the domain of Academic Affairs, and the
goals of holistic development—which traditionally lie in domain of Student Affairs, are
strikingly similar and mutually reinforcing (Astin, 1991;Grandy, 1988; Kuh, Shedd, &
Whitt, 1987; Meacham & Gaff, 2006). As Berg (1983) notes, “To educate liberally,
learning experiences must be offered which facilitate the maturity of the whole person
and enhance development of intellectual maturity. These are the goals of student
development and clearly they are consistent with the mission and goals of liberal
education” (p. 12). Together, they form the foundation of a college education and what it
means to be fully education person. Based on an exhaustive review of studies on how
college affects, Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) reached the following conclusion: “The
evidence strongly suggests that these [college] outcomes are interdependent, that learning
is holistic rather than segmented, and that multiple forces operate in multiple setting to
shape student learning in ways that cross the ‘cognitive-affective’ divide” (p. 269).
References
American Association of State Colleges & Universities (AASC&U) (2005). Student
success in state colleges and universities. Retrieved January 21, 2008, from
http://www.aascu.org/GRO/docs.htm
American Association of State Colleges & Universities (AASC&U) (2005). Student
success in state colleges and universities. Retrieved January 21, 2008, from
http://www.aascu.org/GRO/docs.htm
American College Personnel Association (1994). The student learning imperative:
Implications for student affairs. Washington, D.C.: Author.
American College Personnel Association (ACPA) & National Association of Student
Personnel Administrators (NASPA) (1997). Principles of good practice for student
affairs. Washington, D.C.: Authors.
6
American College Personnel Association (ACPA) & National Association of Student
Personnel Administrators (NASPA) (2004). Learning reconsidered: A campus-wide
focus on the student experience. Washington, D.C.: Author.
Astin, A. W. (1991). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of
assessment and evaluation in higher education. New York: Macmillan.
Astin, A.W., Parrott, S., Korn, W., & Sax, L. (1997). The American freshman—Thirty
year trends, 1966-1996. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, University
of California, Los Angeles.
Barefoot, B. O., & Fidler, P. P. (1992). Helping students climb the ladder: 1991 national
survey of freshman seminar programs. (Monograph No. 10). Columbia, SC: National
Resource Center for The Freshman Year Experience, University of South Carolina.
Bartlett, T. (2002). Freshmen pay, mentally and physically as they adjust to college life.
The Chronicle of Higher Education, 48, pp. 35-37.
Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1991). Teaching and the human brain. Alexandria, Virginia:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Carey, K. (2004). A matter of degrees: Improving graduation rate in 4-year colleges and
universities. New York: The Education Trust.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (1990). Campus life: In search of
community. Princeton, NJ: Author.
Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE)(2008). High expectations
and high support. Austin, Texas: The University of Texas at Austin, Community
College Leadership Program.
Gardiner, L. F. (1994). Redesigning higher education: Producing dramatic gains in
student learning. Report No. 7. Washington, D.C.: Graduate School of Education and
Human Development. The George Washington University.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York:
Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory to practice. New York: Basic
Books.
Glenn, D. (2008, May 28). Study finds graduation gap for first-generation students,
regardless of preparation. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved January 20,
2009, fromhttp://chronicle.com/daily/2008/05/2999n.htm
7
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Grandy, J. (1988). Assessing changes in student values. In C. Adelman (Ed.),
Performance and judgment: Essays on principles and practice in the assessment of
college student learning (pp. 139-161). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Jacobs, W. J., & Nadel, L. (1985). Stress-induced recovery of fears and phobias.
Psychological Review, 92(4), 512-531.
Jewler, A. J. (1989). Elements of an effective seminar: The University 101 program. In
M. L. Upcraft, J. N. Gardner, & Associates (Eds.), The freshman year experience:
Helping students survive and succeed in college (pp. 198-215). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Kadison, R. D., & DiGeronimo, T. F. (2004). College of the overwhelmed: The campus
mental health crisis and what to do about it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Knapp, J. R., & Karabenick, S. A. (1988). Incidence of formal and informal academic
help-seeking in higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 29(3),
223-227.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., & Associates (2005). Student success in
college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kuh, G., Shedd, J., & Whitt, E. (1987). Student affairs and liberal education:
Unrecognized (and unappreciated) common law partners. Journal of College Student
Personnel, 28(3), 252-260.
LeDoux, J. E. (1998). The emotional brain: The mysterious underpinnings of emotional
life. New York: Touchstone.
Lenning, O. T. (1988). Use of noncognitive measures in assessment. In T. W. Banta
(Ed.), Implementing outcomes assessment: Promise and perils (pp. 41-52). New
Directions for Institutional Research, No. 50. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Levitz, R. (1994). Three levels of student commitment to the institution. Recruitment &
Retention in Higher Education, 8(8), pp. 4-5
Meacham, J., & Gaff, J. G. (2006). Learning goals in mission statements: Implications for
educational leadership, Liberal Education, 92(1), 6-13.
Miller, T. K., & Prince, J. S. (1976). The future of student affairs. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Noel, L. (1985). Increasing student retention: New challenges and potential. In L. Noel &
8
Associates, Increasing student retention (pp. 1-27). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Numella, R. M., & Rosengren, T. M. (1986). What’s happening in students’ brains may
redefine teaching. Educational Leadership (May), 49-53.
O’Keefe, J., & Nadel, L. (1978). The hippocampus as a cognitive map. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students, Volume 2: A
third decade of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ramsden, P., & Entwistle, N. J. (1981). Effects of academic departments on students’
approaches to studying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 368-383.
Rosenfield, I. (1988). The invention of memory. New York: Basic Books.
Salovey, P. & Sluyter, D. (Eds.)(1997). Emotional development and emotional
intelligence: Educational implications. New York: Basic Books.
Sanford, N. (1967). Where colleges fail. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sax, L., Bryant, A. N., & Gilmartin, S. K. (2004). A longitudinal investigation of
emotional health among male and female first-year college students. Journal of The
First-Year Experience, 16(2), 29-65.
Schuh, J. H. (2005). Student support services. In M. L. Upcraft, J. N. Gardner, B. O.
Barefoot, & Associates (2005). Challenging & supporting the first-year student: A
handbook for improving the first year of college (pp. 428-444). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Schutte, N. S., & Malouff, J. M. (2002). Incorporating emotional skills content in a
college transition course enhances student retention. Journal of The First-Year
Experience, 14(1), pp. 7-21.
Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T. Golden, C. J., &
Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional
intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 167-177.
Simunek, M., Schutte, N. S., Hollander, S., & McKenley, J. (2000). The relationship
between ability to understand and regulate emotions, mood, and self-esteem. Paper
presented at the Conference of the American Psychological Society, Miami.
Smith, R. (2003). Changing institutional culture for first-year students and those who tech
them. About Campus, 8 (March-April), pp. 3-8.
Stodt, M. M. & Klepper, W. M. (Eds.)(1987). Increasing retention: Academic and
9
student affairs administrators in partnership. New Directions for Higher Education.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Swing, R. (2002a). What type of seminar is best? Retrieved October 15, 2003 from
www.brevard.edu/fyc/fyi/essays/index.htm
Swing, R. L. (2002b). How many weekly contact hours is enough? Retrieved October 15,
2003 from http://www.brevard.edu/fyc/fyi/essays/hours.pdf
Tinto, V. (1988). The principles of effective retention. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Association of Higher Education, Washington, D.C.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures for student attrition
(2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Upcraft, M. L., Gardner, J. N., & Associates (1989). The freshman year experience. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Upcraft, M. L., Gardner, J. N., Barefoot, B. O., & Associates (2005). Challenging and
supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Watts, E. I. (1999, June). The freshman year experience, 1962-1990: An experiment in
humanistic higher education. Dissertation, Department of History, Queen’s
University, Kingston. Ontario, Canada.
Willingham, W. W. (1985). Success in college: The role of personal qualities and
academic ability. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
Wilson, S. B., Mason, T. W., & Ewing, M. J. M. (1997). Evaluating the impact of
receiving university-based counseling services on student retention. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 44(3), 316-320.