wp5 continued criteria 3c,d - kenyon college€¦ · web view2005 2008 kenyon 2.89 3.05...

of 31

Working Paper 5 Continued...

3c: Kenyon creates effective learning environments

The Kenyon College mission statement notes that "To be a residential college means more than that the College provides dormitory and dining space for its students. It argues a relationship between students and professors that goes beyond the classroom. It emphasizes that students learn and develop, intellectually and socially, from their fellows and from their own responses to corporate living." We believe that learning takes place both inside and outside the classroom--in residence halls, dining halls, on athletic fields, in the Knox County community, and anywhere else our students form relationships. We attempt to provide the environment and resources that will support that learning.

The results of the 2008 NSSE survey (322 randomly selected students) suggests student attitudes about some of the components of the learning environment at Kenyon.

94% of respondents felt that the institution places substantial emphasis on academics.66% of FY students said they frequently work harder than they thought they could to meet faculty expectations.66% of FY students spend more than 15 hours a week preparing for class. 1% spend 5 hours or less.

75% of FY students say faculty are available, helpful, and sympathetic.

By Senior year 32% of students have done research with a faculty member, compared with 20% in the comparison group.

90% of seniors at least occasionally discuss career plans with faculty. 10% never talk with faculty members about career plans.

52 % of FY students at least occasionally spend time with faculty members on activities other than coursework. They are more likely to do this than students at other schools in the NSSE comparison group.

By senior year 80% of students have participated in community service or volunteer work, as opposed to 60% in the comparison group.

Our students rate the quality of their relationships with faculty members and other students significantly more highly than do students at other institutions.

However, our students are much less likely to have worked either on or off campus compared to other schools administering NSSE.

Only 18% of our students reported participating in activities that enhance their spirituality.

of 31

While 92% of students felt that the institution has a "substantial commitment to their academic success and 64% felt that the institution supported their social needs, only 32% felt that administrative personnel and offices were helpful, considerate, and flexible.

Assessment results inform improvements in curriculum, pedagogy, instructional resources, and student services?

We continually assess and improve the environment through feedback instruments ranging from classroom and program level assessments (Orientation surveys) to institutional level analyses (like NSSE or reaccreditation self-studies). Previous reaccreditation self-studies, as we tried to show in working paper 1, have guided discussions about curriculum, instructional resources, student services, facilities, and buildings, providing benchmarks against which to measure changes we have made at the institutional level over the last thirty years. As we tried to show above, assessment results in the form of GEARS and DOARS have been used by academic departments, programs, and individual instructors to guide changes in curriculum and pedagogy. At the institutional level, RAAS analysis of GEARS and DOARS informed the decision to conduct the writing assessment and the Research Practices Survey, both of which should enable us more effectively to direct resources toward developing student skills in writing and research.

Within the academic division, we more effectively use assessment data to make curricular changes than we do to think about pedagogy. The section of the HERI faculty survey on teaching techniques reveal that we tend to rely as a faculty more heavily on traditional classroom techniques than our comparison group. The majority of the faculty use the following techniques: Kenyon Comparison Class discussions 89.5% 71.2%Essay exams 57.9% 49.3%Short answer exams 56.1% 48.3%Cooperative learning (small groups) 50.9 63.4%

While we are less likely than the comparison group to rely on extensive lecturing (32.5% compared to 63.4%) or multiple choice exams (4.4% compared to 32.1%), we are also less likely to use any of the following techniques:

Real life problems 31.9 55.1Group Projects 28.1 36.7Experiential Learning/Field studies 23.7 32.0Student developed activities 15.8 25.6Reflective writing/journals 9.6 24.6Student selected topics for course content 9.6 24.6

Kenyon first year students reported in the 2008 NSSE survey substantial emphasis on the following activities in their classes:Memorizing facts, ideas, or methods 49%Analyzing basic elements of an idea or theory 95%

of 31

Synthesizing and organizing ideas 85%Making judgments about value of information 79%Applying theories or concepts 81%

21% of FY students reported writing more than 10 papers between 5 and 19 pages and 13% have written a paper more than 20 pages in length. Senior findings were comparable.

Serious discussions of pedagogy among Kenyon faculty, tend to be sporadic and somewhat ad hoc (see the discussion of the McCoy Chair above). In the HERI survey only 46% of the faculty reported participating in a teaching enhancement workshop, compared to 62.7% in the comparison group. It is unclear whether this is because they have not had opportunities or because they do not desire such opportunities. During the campaign planning process, the top priority of the Curricular and Faculty Development Committee was a Center for Teaching Innovation to enable faculty to develop innovative teaching projects and experiential learning activities for students and to address the career needs of new faculty members, including orientation and mentoring programs that help them develop their skills as teachers and advisers. Unfortunately it proved difficult to identify sources of funding for this initiative and the idea was scaled back to become the Teachers Teaching Teachers grant program, which has so far tended to fund curricular rather than pedagogical projects. The success of McCoy Professor Holdener's May 2009 teaching workshop suggests that the college needs to create more opportunities for faculty to learn about and discuss innovative teaching techniques. Here is area in which assessment might feed into faculty development, fostering lively and productive discussions about effective pedagogical practices.

LBIS MISO study how results are used

Student AffairsOrientation surveyCIRP (Cooperative Institutional Research Program and YCFYCSSCDCCampus Climate Study here

Athletics and Recreation

Kenyon provides an environment that supports all learners and respects the diversity they bring.

Facilities

The physical environment at Kenyon has been radically transformed by a series of building projects over the last two decades that offer students higher quality learning experiences, better access to space and equipment, and generally more comfortable and pleasant surroundings. The first new major facility to come on line in 1999 was Storer Hall, the addition to Rosse Hall that would serve the Music department, providing 2 new recital spaces, faculty offices, a 30 seat digital classroom, a seminar room, more available practice rooms, storage space for instruments,

of 31

and a green room. In 2001 the new science quad opened that included three new buildings, Hayes Hall housing mathematics and physics, Tomsich Hall housing Chemistry, and the Fischman Wing of Higley Hall housing biology. Psychology and Neuroscience moved into the newly renovated Sam Mather Hall on the east side of the quadrangle. In addition to ample, comfortable lecture halls and separate laboratories for teaching and research, the buildings feature libraries, conference rooms, computer labs, and study areas. The building design recognizes the interconnections among the sciences by connecting the buildings through bridges and lounges that encourage students and faculty members from different disciplines to gather informally. The Kenyon Center for Environmental Study opened in October, 1995; its name was changed in 1999 to The Brown Family Environmental Center. Located along the banks of the Kokosing River, on Laymon Road, across Route 229 at the bottom of the College Hill, Kenyon maintains a 400-acre preserve for the study of the organisms and habitats of the Kokosing River Valley. Designed for courses and student research involving ecology, aquatic biology, and animal behavior, the BFEC's laboratory borders Kenyon's wetland and experimental areas. A library provides additional resources for research, and the center sponsors a wide variety of educational and recreational programs for the entire community. A number of smaller building projects enhance academic programs in several ways. They include home-like buildings that are a hallmark of the Kenyon experience, like O'Connor House, which houses several interdisciplinary programs and the new Center for the Study of American Democracy; Finn House (the renovated Neff Cottage), which welcomed the Kenyon Review this fall; and Lentz House, which includes English Department faculty offices, two classroom spaces, and several lounge areas. We have broken ground on a new facility that will include gallery space as well as facilities for the art history program. Currently the most pressing academic facility need is a new studio art building that would enable the studio art program to move into more appropriate space located centrally with other academic buildings on the south end of campus. We are moving forward as fast as we can to raise money for this building, but the current economic crisis has delayed construction. Two major facilities have opened in the last decade that enhance student's experiences on campus. In January of 2006, inadequate recreational facilities, in particular Wertheimer Field house, which the 2000 visit report described as “near medieval,” were replaced by the new Kenyon Athletic Center. The new facility, which replaces both Ernst Center and Wertheimer, is located across the street from the now-demolished Ernst Center and sports the Tomsich Arena for basketball and volleyball, with spectator seating for 1,500; a recreational gymnasium available at all times; a 12,000-square-foot weight and fitness area; a 200-meter indoor track; four indoor tennis courts; a 120-seat theater; two multi-purpose rooms; four racquetball and eight squash courts; and a new swimming pool for recreational and team use. Locker room space has been greatly increased, with separate facilities for faculty and coaches and visiting teams. The new facilities greatly improve access for both athletic and recreational users, although an area of concern remains the college's outdoor fields used by the various field sports teams.

In the Spring 2009 semester, Kenyon dedicated the VandenBerg Tennis Pavilion. Made possible by a gift from the VandenBerg family and various Kenyon tennis alumni, this two-story viewing and event administration facility gives unrestricted views over the 12 NCAA championship caliber courts. It was put to early use when Kenyon hosted the 2009 NCAC and NCAA

of 31

Regional Championships. Our tennis facility (indoor and outdoor) now ranks as one of the top five facilities in NCAA Division III.

There is some indication that the new athletic facilities have improved the quality of student life. One of the questions on the NSSE Student survey asks how often students have "exercised or participated in physical fitness," rated on a scale where 1 = never, 2= sometimes, 3 = often, and 4 = very often. It appears that students have increased their participation from 2005 to 2008 since the KAC opened.

2005 2008 Kenyon 2.89 3.05Comparison Group 2.74 2.68

In addition, the college carried out a two year renovation of Peirce Hall which opened in the fall of 2008. This landmark campus building now contains 3 large dining halls (including the Great Hall), a greatly enlarged Pub, at least 5 private dining rooms, meeting rooms, and offices, as well as spaces for lounging. The renovations were not merely cosmetic. The kitchens, which had not been updated since the 1930s were all modernized and the servery space greatly enlarged. More significantly, the renovations were done to improve operations, especially in the area of sustainability (more in criterion 5). The loading dock area was planned with local foods in mind. Farmers can pull up to the dock, and just inside there are areas for washing the produce, slicing or chopping it if desired, and putting it in cold storage before it is used or frozen. The Peirce and Dempsey complex also supports a composting system in which food waste is run through a garbage disposal, ground up, and flushed. New machinery grinds waste, extracts moisture, and bags the material, which is taken to a composting site on campus.

A new administrative building and the reorganization of administrative offices has created new spaces, allowing those offices to serve students more effectively and rectifying some of the complaints about office space identified in the last reaccreditation self-study. Eaton Center opened in 20XX?, allowing Human Resources and Financial Services to move out of small cramped houses and into more efficiently organized office space located on the north end of campus. The building includes a computer classroom, a conference room, and a lunchroom. In 2008, the President's Office moved out of Ransom Hall to Eaton Center; the vacated space was taken up by Admissions and Financial Aid. In 2008, new office space was created in Gund Commons when that dining hall was closed after the opening of the Peirce Dining Facilities. In 2009, the Dean’s office moved from the Student Affairs Center to Gund Commons, bringing the Dean of Students, Associate Dean, Multicultural Affairs, Judicial Affairs, New Student and Community Programs and the Career Development Center into a single building with Housing and Residential Life, locating all of these student services in one convenient place. The Registrar's Office moved into the space formerly occupied by the Dean of Students, giving them a larger space and creating still more room in Ransom Hall for Admissions and Financial Aid. After the Career Development Center moved to Gund Commons, the Office of International Education was able to move out of Allen House and into the more centrally located building vacated by the CDC. While this labyrinthine game of musical offices may seem difficult to follow, the important point is that these moves should enhance these offices' ability to deliver the services they provide by giving them more space, better accessibility, and more central

of 31

locations.

All of these building and facilities projects have been carried out with an eye toward maintaining Kenyon's historical architecture in keeping with the principles of the Master Plan.

The most pressing current facilities needs involve residential housing. Planning for both the building and renovation of residential space, as we showed in working paper 4, has been a priority for much of the last decade. As with the studio art facility, we are committed to moving forward with several projects as funding permits. During the summer of 2009, ground was broken for townhouses for seniors to be located on the north end of campus.

Accessibility of College Buildings

The College annually assesses the accessibility of all college facilities (academic, administrative, and residential) using the Americans with Disabilities Act requirements (documents on file). Buildings are rated on a four-point scale in which 1 indicates that the building is inaccessible and 5 indicate that the building meets all ADA requirements. A significant number of academic and residential facilities are not wheelchair accessible. As of November 2007, 40% of Kenyon's buildings scored a 1, meaning that they were inaccessible. 18% rated at least a 3, meaning that at least signage, doors, alarms and one restroom meet ADA requirements. However, all new campus buildings rated 5, signifying full compliance with all ADA requirements. Residence halls are among the least accessible buildings on campus, with only one scoring as high as a 3 and 11 scoring only a 1.

To supplement this information, in 2001 Gaede Serne was commissioned by Kenyon to conduct a campus wide ADA Study. This study targeted specific academic, residential, administrative and public use facilities in order to determine a 5 year plan for ADA improvements. The 2008 accessibility survey was developed to determine the next steps towards improving universal accessibility on campus. The Linking Education Advising Resources and Needs Committee (LEARN) conducted this survey in Dec., 2008. There were a total of 314 respondents:

161 students

55 faulty

98 staff

While only 4% of respondents have a physical disability that impacts mobility, over 51% have had an injury or condition that temporarily limited mobility and 24% of respondents have someone in their immediate family with a physical disability, suggesting that the accessibility of campus buildings is an issue that each of us might confront at some point in our lives.

of 31

9% indicated having difficulty accessing facilities at Kenyon. The following facilities were listed:

13% encountered difficulty accessing academic spaces

10% encountered difficulty accessing administrative offices

9% encountered difficulty accessing residence halls

6% encountered difficulty accessing KAC or dining facilities

33% indicated having difficulty getting around campus using pathways or sidewalks.

22% said they have had visitors who have had physical difficulty getting around campus.

The question of paving Middle Path has generated much controversy, even though it was included in the 2000 self study (p. 89). In 2008, when respondents were asked if they would support a plan to resurface Middle Path, 21% responded no, never; 49% responded possibly, and 30% responded yes, definitely. Respondents were passionate in their rationales regarding the question of resurfacing middle path generating over 28 pages of comments. While 30% view Middle Path’s gravel surface as minimally “annoying” or “not very practical” and maximally as a “nightmare” or “law suit waiting to happen,” an almost equal number of voices expressed the sensibility that middle path is the heart and soul of “Kenyon.” Nearly 50%, however, were amenable to looking at the possibility of resurfacing middle path with a careful examination of alternatives, aesthetics, durability, sustainability and cost. The LEARN committees recommendations and priorities, which include improving travel routes and building modifications, reflect the need to prepare immediately for two entering students one confirmed early decision, in the class of 2013 who are wheel chair users (document on file). The report concludes:

The inherent accessibility issues on this beautiful historic campus will present us with challenges that are difficult to predict until students, staff or faculty arrive on campus. At best, each of us is temporarily able bodied and may someday find ourselves looking at the need for more universal access in our homes or work environments. The commitment that Kenyon is making in accepting students who have significant mobility needs will require an ongoing dedication to universal access. Requests for barrier removal projects have been handled on a non-priority basis to date. Specific requests for ADA modifications required by students will need to be shifted to a much higher priority during the next four years in order to address immediate accessibility needs. Ultimately, universal accessibility improvements will create a more diverse and inclusive campus community.

of 31

Curriculum

The faculty's recognition of diversity as a "fundamental value" of a Kenyon education was affirmed philosophically during the last major review of the curriculum in March of 2000 when the Curricular Review Committee included in their final report its "Position Paper on Multicultural Education," which stated that "in order to prepare our students to deal effectively in ever-expanding global and culturally-diverse environments, the College encourages and supports its faculty's efforts to design curricular and co-curricular offerings which enhance the opportunities of students to engage issues of cultural difference." They further exhorted the college to support these endeavors through faculty development opportunities, funding, and staffing. "Multiculturalism, at Kenyon," they noted, "reflects not just an 'openness' to cultural difference but a commitment to serious and respectful academic discourse about cultures" (document on file). While strongly recommending that students "integrate courses into their programs of study which provide them with opportunities to engage in careful examination of a variety of cultures," they stopped short of recommending a diversity requirement as part of students' general education program (p. 10).

In 2006, the Diversity Task force looked systematically at the opportunities for multicultural study at Kenyon by distributing to all departments and programs a survey designed to gather information about offerings that contribute to the diversity of the College. In addition, they looked at courses listed with the Registrar or appearing in the college catalog over the last thirty years to determine how many contributed to the diversity of the curriculum. Historically, prior to 1970, the curriculum focused almost exclusively on western civilization and its intellectual traditions. The arrival of women in 1969 and the effects of the civil rights and women's movements made themselves felt at Kenyon, challenging the college to confront in the curriculum the lives, experiences, and cultures of persons who were neither always male nor a part of the dominant majority culture in the U.S. The curriculum subcommittee of the Task Force collected data on 1) courses that focused upon a region of the world other than the U.S.; courses that focused upon American racial or ethnic minorities; courses that focused on women, sex, or gender; courses that focused on non-Western cultures and traditions, and courses taught in a language other than English. Despite some methodological difficulties in gathering this data from the registrar and course catalogs, the results were illuminating, showing a steady growth in number of courses that meet the articulated criteria on diversity. The chart below (which excludes language courses, which have always been a part of the Kenyon Curriculum) illustrates that growth.

of 31

Figure 14 Diversity Course Offerings

Though the number of courses on women, gender, and sexuality continued to grow after 2000, the chart shows what appears to be an alarming drop off in the numbers of courses that deal with race, ethnicity, or non-Western cultures. We are unsure what this drop off means and recommend further analysis. It might be an artifact of the methodology, since the chart was generated only by searching course titles. A brief survey of course titles for spring semester of 2009 revealed nearly 40 courses that might be included under the rubrics of race, ethnicity, or non-Western cultures.

Figure 13 shows the distribution by departments of courses on race, ethnicity, and non-western culture, as well as courses on women, sex, and gender.

of 31

Figure 15 Diversity Course Offerings by Department

Another measure of diversity in the curriculum that the Task Force measured was growth in study of languages. Obviously, the creation of the language requirement as a result of the CRC report increased the number of students enrolled in introductory language courses (see above) thus enhancing students' cultural awareness. Indeed, that was one of the stated goals of the requirement: "Language and culture are intimately intertwined. It is difficult to understand certain concepts in the culture without understanding the language, and it is difficult to understand aspects of the language in a cultural vacuum" (p. 5). A more significant outcome is the steady increase in the number of students studying non-western languages.

file:///Users/finkel/Desktop/reaccreditation/Faculty%20Research%20Database%20Charts.docx

Figure 16 Student Enrollment in Non Western Introductory Language Courses

But counting the number of courses offered is not the only or perhaps even the best way to measure the diversity of the Kenyon curriculum. Individual courses may inform students about new perspectives and cultures, but they cannot offer a framework within which to understand the significance of cultural diversity. After all a single course on, say, China or India is no more or less limited than a course on the United States. Our pedagogical goal is not simply to document differences in cultures, races, or ethnicities as mere curiosities, but to understand the power dynamics and historical contingencies that underlie, structure, and support those differences. Currently the college offers several interdisciplinary majors and concentrations that both contribute to and organize the study of diversity within the curriculum. These include majors in International Studies and Women's and Gender Studies and concentrations in African Diaspora Studies and Asian Studies. African Diaspora Studies has been especially active in creating outlets both for faculty and students to learn in a truly interdisciplinary environment through its Crossroads program through programming designed to foster program cohesiveness, to create a

of 31

sense of a common intellectual pursuit, and to create the opportunity for faculty and students from several disciplines to learn from one another. Crossroads sponsors an annual interdisciplinary seminar for approximately 20 faculty who participate in ADS. Usually held in May during the week after graduation, over the last seven years the seminar has treated a wide range of topics, including: “African Diaspora Studies at Kenyon College" (2002), “The Idea of Africa in African and African American Studies” (2003), “Gender in African and African American Studies” (2004), “Performance and Identity Politics in African and African American Studies” (2005), “Nationalism, Solidarity, Group Identity” (2006), “The Black Public Sphere” (2007), and “Influential Texts in African Diaspora Studies” (2008). The topic for the 2009 seminar is the “History and Culture of Gullah.” This seminar plans the next year's Crossroads Seminar, a course designed for first-year students in mind, taught by an interdisciplinary group of Kenyon faculty members who have interests in teaching, researching, and engaging with others in the discussion of issues and concerns pertaining to African and African diaspora studies. Finally, the Crossroads program has sponsored two student conferences to showcase student work in the field. During 2009-10, Crossroads faculty hope to expand this conference to invite students from neighboring colleges to participate. Women's and Gender Studies has attempted similar faculty development workshops, most recently sponsoring a TTT seminar on Transnational Feminisms whose most immediate goal was to bring faculty in the program together to develop a new course, Transnational Feminisms, which will be taught for the first time in 2010.

However, student access to these programs may be somewhat limited by their marginal position in the curriculum. Interdisciplinary programs at Kenyon are still mostly treated as a luxury, an add- on or elective, something students can dabble in after they have done the more central disciplinary work. They have not yet become fully integrated into the Kenyon curriculum, despite some evidence from assessment suggesting that interdisciplinary courses contribute in important ways to general education learning outcomes. They especially seem to foster creativity and risk taking in students. Graduation statistics show that in any given year the number of students who take advantage of interdisciplinary programs has hovered at around 20% of the class for the last 20 years with only minor fluctuations; bear in mind that not all interdisciplinary programs deal with diversity issues so the number of students exposed to interdisciplinary programs design to help students develop theoretical frameworks for understanding diversity is even smaller. To be sure, many departments also offer organized (and often quite interdisciplinary) programs within their majors designed to enable students to understand how cultural diversity works within the discipline (some of which substantially overlap or compete with interdisciplinary programs because there is almost no coordination between departmental and interdisciplinary program offerings). Anthropology as a discipline largely concerns itself with the study of cultural diversity; Sociology offers a track in culture and identity; MLL offers an area studies track; and History offers fields of study in Women's and Gender and Colonial/Imperial.

HERI Faculty Data Related to Teaching and Diversity

Survey results confirm that progress made on diversity in the curriculum through the 1990s is eroding. There is some evidence from the 2005 and 2008 Faculty HERI surveys that faculty who were surveyed in 2008 are less dedicated to teaching about issues related to ethnic diversity

of 31

than faculty surveyed in 2005. In 2005 Kenyon faculty reported assigning readings on racial and ethnic issues more frequently than the comparison group. By 2008, that number had dropped considerably and Kenyon lagged behind other participating schools.

Percent who indicated response: Kenyon Comparison 2005 2008 2005 2008

Include readings on racial and ethnic issues in class 32.7 23.0 21.4 25.5Include readings on women and gender issues in class 29.6 26.3 20.1 21.4Taught an ethnic studies course 16.5 10.6 12.2 12.7Taught a women's studies course 18.7 15.9 10.2 9.3Enhance students' knowledge of and appreciation 60.4 77.0 64.0 79.5Personal goal to help promote racial understanding 61.3 53.5 57.9 57.4

______________________________________________________________________________

Interestingly, while the data show the Kenyon faculty strongly endorsing diversity as a learning goal (to enhance students knowledge of and appreciation for other cultures and to promote racial understanding), faculty in 2008 reported they were less like to include those practices that might realize these goals in their classes.

NSSE Student Data Related to Teaching and Diversity

Percent who indicated response: Kenyon Comparison 2005 2008 2005 2008

Include diverse perspectives in class assignment 2.83 3.04 3.18 2.81Had serious conversations students different race/ethnicity 3.02 2.84 2.99 2.67Had serious conversations different religious, political 3.33 3.05 3.10 2.71Experienced growth in understanding other racial/ethnic 2.68 2.57 2.60 2.64

______________________________________________________________________________

Retention, Persistence, and Graduation Rates

To create an environment that supports diversity, the college must closely track the retention and graduation rates of students of color, first-generation, international, and other minority students, but beyond that, we must understand the complex experiences that those statistics encapsulate. It is easy to collect the numbers, harder to understand the reasons students persist or leave, succeed or don't. In 2006, the Diversity Task Force Subcommittee on Students concluded that "Kenyon

of 31

[lags] behind our overlap colleges in retaining students of color," although they also noted that the disparity was not as great as it was for recruiting (see working paper 4). The significant disparity was between minority and majority students at Kenyon. The four year graduation rate for the 1999 cohort of American minority students was 70%, compared with 83% of majority students (DTF report student body subcommittee p. 1). For the 2004 cohort the graduation rate of students of color had improved to 76%, compared to a total graduation rate of 85%. Despite improvement in both groups, the disparity in graduation rates remains and requires attention (Diversity Work Group, "Proposed Course of Action on Student Retention," document on file). The chart below shows the most recent retention and graduation figures in detail.

of 31

Figure 17 Retention Rates (5 year span)

of 31

To understand more about the experiences that might help to explain these discrepancies, the Diversity Task Force examined the academic choices and cumulative GPAs of three cohorts of diversity students (classes of 2003, 2004, and 2005). They found that students of color were not significantly different from other students in that they distributed themselves across most of the majors in the colleges; there was no overwhelmingly popular major choice among students of color. GPAs tended to be lower for this group than those of majority students. Especially concerning was the cumulative six year GPA of Black/Non Hispanic students which was 2.86 compared to an overall GPA of 3.26.

Focus Groups

To try to unpack these numbers and understand more about the experiences of minority students at Kenyon, the Diversity Task Force conducted focus groups with 8 student groups in January of 2005. Those eight groups included:

African American Hispanic Latino Asian American International Sexual Orientation First Generation Disability Random Sample

Students from the sophomore and senior classes were randomly selected and asked to respond to a series of six questions about diversity. Students understood "diversity" to include race, gender, sexual orientation, disabilities, religion, economic status, political beliefs, opinions, values, thoughts, geography, and their own personal experiences and backgrounds. They also discussed self-segregation, tokenism, abuse, quotas, contrived situations, and divisions within groups. With the exception of first generation students, many spoke about how, at Kenyon, individuals bring their own unique selves into the community and that there is much "internal" diversity, but less "external" diversity. First generation students expressed the belief that Kenyon consists mainly of white, upper-middle class, suburban students with similar life experiences. All groups highlighted the absence of socioeconomic and racial diversity. Kenyon students experienced diversity in programming and classes, as well as in interaction, encounters, and conversations. Faculty and administrators play an important role in students' experiences of diversity in classes as well as in informal meetings and gatherings. For the most part, students speak positively about their experiences at Kenyon; however ignorant comments and inappropriate remarks that go unattended by others (especially those in authority, such as professors) create discomfort or "explosive reactions" for those targeted. Both black and white students indicated that race was difficult to talk about outside the classroom. They also expressed concern that students tend to say the "right" thing as opposed to expressing their true feelings. On a scale of 1 to 10 students rate the quality of diversity at Kenyon as just under a 6. Most believe that Kenyon is numerically lacking in diversity, but that it has a high quality of diversity. Most groups felt Kenyon is trying hard to create a diverse environment and that it is

of 31

headed in the right direction.

Diversity Working Group

In 2008-2009 the Diversity Working Group outlined a plan for new research on retention designed to enhance our efforts to make sure our students get the support necessary for them to persist at Kenyon. This plan is comprehensive:

Because efforts to improve retention must necessarily span all aspects of campus life, because they might include just about every possible change or improvement to our campus culture, fully understanding what makes students stay or leave (beyond the percentages alone) will take thorough study of everything we do. Fully preparing to improve retention will take thorough study of best practices at other schools and the wide range of research on this subject. For these reasons, we propose an extensive research plan, to review the literature on retention and to gather information about factors affecting “persistence” at Kenyon (p. 1; document on file).

The research plan calls for a review of the current research on diversity in higher education; an examination of best practices at peer institutions; data collections that look at persistence from several new vantage points including gender; student employment, athletic participation, and financial need; and new focus groups and surveys.

This research should produce significant discoveries by the fall of 2010. However, because this research will take a good deal of time, the committee also proposed ways to begin immediately to make progress on retention right away. The committee's recommendations included appointing a Retention Coordinator and a Retention Subcommittee of the Diversity Work Group; closer monitoring and early intervention, focusing both on individual students' social, financial, and academic well-being, as well as more generally of the campus climate; improvements in academic advising, including a mechanism for assessing the effectiveness of advising; and helping students to take more responsibility for their own sense of belonging and their success at Kenyon.

Campus Culture Focus Groups

Robin has supplied us with the final report

Kenyon supports student learning through its advising system, which including the mastery of skills required for academic success.

Jane Martindell will supplyNSSE data Kenyon seniors (N=146) rate advising more highly than the 2008 NSSE comparison group, rating the quality of advising 3.24 compared with 2.85 comparison.

of 31

Student development programs support learning throughout the students experience regardless of ability or location of student.

Kenyon supports new technologies that enhance effective learning environments for students.

Technology is becoming an increasingly important and complex element in higher education, as new technologies make more information more easily accessible to students. The last decade has brought tremendous change in the ways students use technology on campus

Classroom technologieshttp://lbis.kenyon.edu/classroom

Online resources--data bases and full text articlesCampus network and wireless accessCourse Management SystemsMISO Survey Results

However, the presence of more technology does not necessarily translate into more student learning. The easily availability of information has created a steep learning curve for students in assessing the quality, usefulness, and reliability of the information they have available to them virtually twenty-four hours a day. Technology can easily become a substitute for critical thinking. Increasingly in our assessments of student outcomes, faculty have expressed frustration and concern with students’ approach to finding information and their evaluation of that information. Departments report problems with students’ ability to conduct more than “a few vague searches,” a tendency to “gravitate to the first source rather than exploring several to find the best source," overreliance “on anything they can obtain electronically,” and too much resorting “to Google and web sources, including blogs, as sources for papers." Faculty members also express concern about students’ “trust in non-edited sources of information (e.g. Wikipedia)," trouble in “evaluating the reliability of sources," “need to develop greater sophistication in judging and evaluating sources on the web," and “inability to evaluate the nature of the evidence they encountered, particularly in on-line sources.” Yet technology will continue to define our students’ experience of research

Where do we include regular review of whether our educational strategies, activities, processes, and technologies enhance student learning.

senior staff retreats, annual reports; GEARS and DOARS

3d: Kenyon's learning resources support student learning and effective teaching.

How do we ensure access to the resources (research laboratories, libraries, performance spaces) necessary to support learning and teachingHow do we evaluate the use of our learning resources to enhance student learning and effective

of 31

teaching.How do we assess the effectiveness of our learning resources to support learning and teaching.

LBIS

We probably should devote an entire section here to the LBIS as a learning resource

Office of International Education

Each year about 200 Kenyon students (usually juniors) participate in nearly 150 approved programs in more than 50 countries, including three programs administered by the college. Through a careful application process and extensive advising, the Office of International Education ensures that off-campus study not only serves each student's individual goals but also complements the student's major and other coursework at Kenyon. At the same time the office also serves 50-60 non-immigrant international students on campus and additional dual citizen and permanent resident/transnational students. OIE assists with immigration support, home stays, pre-orientation, employment authorization, and interaction with government offices and provides social events to foster integration and retention.

Using 2003 as a benchmark years because that was the year a second staff position (Assistant Director of International Education) was added as a result of an external evaluation, the 2008 OIE Self-Study shows a 43% increase in the number of international students (see chart 6 below). This increase is explained by Kenyon's financial commitment to students and to active recruiting, especially among the United World Colleges.

of 31

Figure 18 Enrollment of International Students

The self-study notes that while, students come from a wide range of countries, they primarily represent the areas where the college actively recruits. For instance, we recruit few students from Africa and Latin America.

While the OIE self-study sees the increase in numbers of international students on campus as a success, it also notes that this success has created an increase in work load for the Office of International Education, which may be stretched too thin: "most of our time is spent attending to student emergencies, immigration regulations, and OCS applications, and our programming covers just the essentials. We do not have sufficient time to address concerns such as implementing cultural sensitivity training for other offices on campus including Residential Life and Campus Security, creating joint programming with the Office of Multicultural Affairs, and collaborating with the Career Development Center to better assist our international students and our returned Off-Campus Study students in identifying their skills and understanding how immigration restrictions affect their job search" (p. 7).

OIE has seen a similar increase in the numbers of students studying abroad. Approximately half of all Kenyon students participate in overseas studies (OCS) during their junior year. The number has increased 22% over the last 5 years. This increase may reflect the increase in the "cap" or percentage of the junior class allowed to participate in OCS. The cap was increased from 26% to 30% in 2006-07.

of 31

Figure 19 Total OCS Student Participation

OIE attempts to make overseas study as accessible as possible to Kenyon students regardless of their situation. The college endeavors to increase accessibility through generous aid packages that fund a range of expenses including travel, visas, books, and, program expenses. Scholarships are also available to help with financing. Kenyon has been particularly successful with the Gilman Scholarship, which supports Pell Grant recipients; three of four Kenyon students who applied were successful. We have also gotten our first Boren Scholarship. In 2008-09, we accommodated our first student with a physical disability. A student's access to overseas study should only be limited by his or her academic standing.

Assessment of Student Learning in Off-Campus Study OCS: OIE administers to all returning OCS students a survey designed to assess the student's off campus experiences. These surveys are administered online and the results made available to students in the process of planning their off campus study. The office has plans to use site visits more frequently to assess the quality of the programs our students attend. Currently, they are attempting to coordinate this task among the colleges of the Five Colleges of Ohio so that officials from each school would visit a set of programs and share information with the others. In addition to the online survey, the OIE Self-Study offers anecdotal and indirect evidence of student learning in its programs (see p. 12), but also provides some useful benchmarks. For instance, in 2007 45 of 63 (71%) students admitted to Phi Beta Kappa had participated in overseas study; in 2008, 36 of 65 (55%) admitted had been abroad. In 2007, 8 of 8 Fulbrights awarded to Kenyon students were awarded to former OCS participants; in 2008, it was 5 of 7. "The fact that students receive these honors speaks to the fact that at Kenyon we emphasize that OCS is an academic experience, and work closely with students to ensure that program choices match with academic interests, goals, and abilities" (13). The office has plans to begin collecting more systematic evidence of student learning through a joint Teagle grant project that involves the colleges of the Great Lakes Colleges Association, the Associated Colleges of the Midwest, and the Associated Colleges of the South. The goal of the project is to develop a framework for assessing student learning outcomes for study-abroad programs consistent with the goals of liberal education. The project participants will begin by drawing on the collective wisdom of leaders, faculty, and students at member institutions in order to better define the goals of liberal education and the characteristics of an optimal study-abroad experience as it relates to these goals. Once defined, these goals will be used to develop the instruments, protocol, and procedures to be piloted in assessing the student learning outcomes for study-abroad programs.

Besides working with International students and with students going abroad, the Office of International Education administers three Kenyon off-campus study abroad programs: Kenyon/Exeter, a program established in 1973, focused primarily on English literary studies; Kenyon /Honduras, an archeology and cultural anthropology program; and Kenyon/Rome, an art history program. All three of these programs continue to face the same set of planning issues: student recruiting, cost to the college, and budgeting. OIE is

of 31

currently attempting to come up with a procedure we can follow to entertain proposals for new overseas programs. The last new overseas program created was the Kenyon in Rome program, which the art history faculty proposed because they felt that the off campus art history programs their majors were attending did not sufficiently prepare them for their senior exercise when they returned. The Kenyon in Rome program was designed to offer, in the words of one faculty member who has led the program, "“a good Kenyon education overseas,” and in 2009-10 is expanding to include at least one course in studio art, which will open the program up to studio art majors (in the past there have been no overseas studio art programs that the Art department would endorse). However, Art History faculty found the process of creating the new program confusing and difficult. Because new programs are such a rare occurrence at Kenyon, we do not have procedures in place to guide faculty or program administrators in creating proposals for such program; procedures tend to be created on an ad hoc basis. A Kenyon overseas program template and a hand book for faculty or departments desiring to create a new program would enable the college to make decisions about new programs based on the best available information.

Disability services

Kenyon College is committed to providing opportunities for all students to engage in rigorous academic studies, research, creative pursuits and service to the university and the community. The Office of Disability Services (ODS) enhances this mission for students with disabilities. ODS coordinates the provision of reasonable accommodations for students with disabilities. All accommodations are individualized, confidential and based upon both the nature of the disability and the demands of the academic environment. In compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Kenyon College recognizes a student with a disability as anyone who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. Students requesting accommodations must provide current documentation of their disability to the Office of Disability Services (ODS).

The mission of the Office for Disability Services is threefold; it seeks to

Ensure that students with disabilities can freely activate and participate in all aspects of college life;

Provide and coordinate services to maximize students' educational potential while supporting their independence to the fullest extent possible; and

Increase awareness among all members of the college community so that students with disabilities are able to perform at a level limited only by their abilities, not their disabilities.

Below is a chart showing the numbers of first year students disclosing a disability by type. Also included is the number of students who used accommodations during their first year.

of 31

The total numbers do not readily reflect the increased amount of time often required in working with lower incidence medical, psychological and ASD disabilities. In the past three to four years we have seen a greater increase in these areas as seen below.

SWD: ADHD LD MED HOH ASD Psych TOTAL Accessed Accommodations

CLASS 2001 38 20 2002 19 15 2003 26 20 2004 15 18 4 1 0 2 36 24 2005 19 24 5 3 0 2 58 31 2006 23 16 3 0 0 5 46 19 2007 20 15 2 1 1 4 39 16 2008 17 14 3 0 0 1 36 24 2009 16 18 4 0 3 0 43 23 2010 16 19 3 0 0 6 44 27 2011 15 20 7 2 2 7 53 31 2012 12 13 3 3 1 1 33 19

*ADHD: Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

*ASD: Autism Spectrum Disorder

*HOH: Hard of Hearing

Thirty-three students in the class of 2012 disclosed a disability. The most common disability types were LD (13), ADHD (12), medical or health impaired (3), hard of hearing (HOH-3), psychological (1) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD-1). Seventy-five to ninety students use academic accommodations in any given semester. This represents about 7-8% of the student body which is slightly under the national average (between 9-11% of college first year students reporting a disability). A total of 78 students accessed accommodations during the spring semester of 2009 (19 first years, 27 sophomores, 18 juniors and 14 seniors).

Proctoring requests have risen considerably since over the course of the past five semesters. While a one person office has been able to handle most requests to date, any significant increase in these numbers will be difficult to integrate with an already full caseload.

The number of proctoring requests for the previous five semesters were:

of 31

o Spring 2007 – 10 finals

o Fall 2007 – 35 midterms and 19 finals

o Spring 2008 - 27 midterms and 9 finals

o Fall 2008 – 48 midterms and 17 finals

o Spring 2009 - 52 midterms and 21 finals

What are our learning resources? facilities, laboratories, theaters, studios, writing center, math and science skills center, library, classrooms, disability services, OCS, Burton Morgan, advising

Math and Science Skills Center

During Kenyon’s last cycle of accreditation, responses to Alumni surveys yielded two important areas in which Kenyon needed to improve: exposure to other cultures and quantitative reasoning skills for all majors. Kenyon’s response was in the form of new policies and curriculum changes:

1) The introduction of the language requirement for all students and efforts to recruit a broader diversity students and faculty. 2) The requirement that all students take courses that teach and expect proficiency in Quantitative Reasoning.

While for most Kenyon students, the QR requirement did not represent an unusual challenge, some of our students could not thrive in these courses using the background and approach to coursework that made them successful in other courses. Faculty committees assessing the impact of the new QR requirement (see above) determined that a Math Skills Center that supported the needs of our incoming students in QR and introductory science courses could be an important resource to ensure that all students could get the help they need. The HHMI grant funded a pilot Math Skills Center between Fall 2004 and Spring 2008. Over the years of the pilot, it became obvious that students in introductory science courses (not only QR courses) formed a major portion of visitors to the center and it was renamed The Math and Science Skills Center.

The MSSC is an adult-supervised peer-tutoring center for students in quantitative reasoning (QR), introductory science, and introductory math courses.

The center has two key components – 1) walk-in tutoring during center hours and 2) lead tutors for specific courses.

of 31

1) Walk-in tutoring is available 10 hours each week to any Kenyon student. Peer tutors are our strongest math and science students who are nominated by faculty to serve in the center.

2) Lead tutors are requested by the instructor of a course and their role is to be a course specialist. They attend class, complete homework, and are familiar with specific instructor expectations. LT’s hold regular office hours at the MSSC and arrange help or review sessions as directed by the instructor.

The MSSC serves all Kenyon students from the non-science major struggling to stay afloat in a QR course to our most talented science students who are seeking to master that last nuances of material. This diversity is an asset to the center. Stronger students and tutors model successful problem solving strategies and weaker students learn from working with and around them. They help us to ensure that no stigma is associated with visiting the center. Students of all skill levels and backgrounds should be comfortable coming for help.

Use of the MSSC has increased every year since it was opened.

Total Visits/AY

04-05 – 366

05-06 – 399

06-07 – 1063

07-08 – 1471 (F07 – 119 Different Students, S08 – 159 Different Students)

September Visits

07-08 – 186 visits by 86 different students

08-09 – 352 visits by 126 different students

In spring of 2008, based on 918 total visits during the semester, the staff calculated that 21% of the students using the center came from underrepresented groups, 55% were women, and 22% by non-science majors fulfilling the QR requirement.

Majors represented by students visiting the center in the fall of 2008 (152 students by 10/16/08) include:

of 31

Majors Total Number of Individuals Anthropology 4Art History 2Biochemistry 15Biology 40Chemistry 18Classics 1Economics 1English 5International Studies 1Math 6Molecular Biology 13Neuroscience 11Physics 2Psychology 9Political Science 1Religious Studies 2Undecided 18

In 2006, as part of a grant evaluation report to HHMI, Sarah Murnen conducted an assessment of the MSSC using both direct and indirect measures (document on file). Students from four Chemistry courses that visited the Center filled out anonymous questionnaires about (among other things) the usefulness of the Center that asked to what extent the center “helped them learn,” “made the course subject interesting,” “helped improve their grades,” “helped them feel involved in the class,” and “encouraged them to major in science.” Evaluations were made on a scale where 1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = neutral, = disagree, and 5 = strongly disagree. Students could also choose “not applicable.” Student ratings were significantly more positive than neutral ain two of the four courses. In course 2, an introductory chemistry course, students agreed that the Math Skills Center “helped them learn,” and “helped improve their grades.” In class 4, an intermediate-level chemistry course, evaluations were significantly more positive than neutral on four of the five dimensions that were rated. Students in class 4 agreed that the Center “helped them learn,” “made the course subject interesting,” “improved their grades,” and “helped them feel involved in the course" (see graph).

of 31

Figure 20 Evaluation of MSCC

In addition, drawing on data on the number of visits to the MSSC, grade earned in the course, and SAT Math score from the same four courses, Murnen looked at the correlations between Center use and grade earned. If the Center was helping students, there should be a positive correlation between the number of visits to the Center in the semester, and grade achieved in the course. However, it was important to control for pre-existing math ability in that relationship. For this reason, correlations of the relationship between number of visits and course grade were examined; as well as partial correlations examining number of visits and course grade, controlling for SAT Math score. The data for the four courses are displayed in Table x

Correlations between Math Center Visits and Class Grade-Point Averages, Controlling for Math SAT Scores

Correlation values Means and Standard Deviations

___________________________________________________

Class N r Partial r Visits Class GPA

_____________________________________________________________________

1 48 -.17 -.05 .40 (1.13) 3.09 (.92)

of 31

2 52 .15 .03 2.23 (4.39) 2.53 (.98)

3 46 .20 .19 4.02 (5.76) 2.90 (.66)

4 39 .48** .46** 3.49 (2.66) 3.11 (.67)

_______________________________________________________________________

**p<.01

Note: r relates number of visits to Center in the semester to semester course grade;

partial r controls for Math SAT in the relationship between number of visits and course grade

In class four, the correlations were statistically significant indicating that the number of visits to the center was positively correlated with grade in the course.

When SAT Math scores were controlled for in the relationship, the correlation remained strong and statistically significant, indicating that regardless of pre-existing math ability, visits to the Center was positively correlated with grade earned in the course. In both class two and class three the correlations were positive (although not statistically significant), but in course one they were negative (although not statistically significant). It is notable that in class 1 the average number of visits to the center was quite low.

In class 4 the students rated the usefulness of the Center quite high compared to students in either classes 1 or 3 (see data in Table x). It is likely that the instructor of this course ensured effective use of the Center on the part of the students that led their course grade in the course to benefit. In future assessments, it would be interesting to look carefully at how instructors encourage students to make use of the Center.

Writing Center

The Writing Center provides a drop in place for students to get help on writing assignments. Student tutors are available Sundays afternoons and Sunday through Thursday evenings during the semester. Within the resources that it has, the Writing Center tries to make its services as widely available and convenient as possible. While the hours are somewhat limited, writing tutors staff spaces in Olin Library (on south campus) and Gund Commons (on north campus); in addition, students may submit papers online through the Online Writing Lab (OWL). However, access is limited by the budget available to pay tutors. Writing Center tutors can help students

of 31

discover ways to begin an assignment, methods for organizing or developing ideas, or strategies for revision. They can help students break out of old patterns which may not be working. Tutor can offer advice on a wide range of writing assignments, as well as applications for graduate or professional school, or essays for special programs. During 2009-10, the Writing Center logged 552 visits. By far the majority of those visits were in the Olin Library center, with 211 visits in the fall and 222 in the spring. The Gund Branch logged only 41 visits throughout the year. This branch was opened to create an option located more conveniently for students who live on north campus; however, when the Gund dining room closed, students were much less likely to drop by because they were in the vicinity. For this reason, the Writing Center will close down the north campus branch and focus its resources on the library office. The Online Writing Lab similarly received only 60 submissions during the year, perhaps because this method of submission is still too new for students. Only 18 students took advantage of the opportunity to consult a writing tutor one time outside of the Writing Center.

The budget of the Writing Center is insufficient to cover the number of tutors required to accommodate students. There are not sufficient funds to expand the writing center hours. Furthermore, the facility, Olin 307 is a converted seminar room and, while it has been adapted to its use, is truthfully inadequate. It is difficult for students to have privacy while working with a tutor (there are four separate tables, but they are in the same room). Ideally the writing center should have semi-private spaces for students to meet with tutors and a computer for each space.

Kenyon Intensive Language Model (KILM)

Goals and Methodology: Modern language courses numbered 111-112 are year-long courses taught through the Kenyon Intensive Language Model (KILM), a pedagogical approach designed to foster rapid acquisition of language skills, particularly those related to oral expression. The KILM model employs two hours of daily instruction aiming to create conditions that are highly conducive to extensive use of the target language. This is achieved by generating a relaxed atmosphere, encouraging genuine communication, and providing large quantities of practice. The opportunity to use the language intensively is provided by a daily session with Kenyon undergraduate apprentice teachers (ATs). In these classes of approximately seven students, ATs use a quick-paced drill technique to enable students to respond often and learn grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation and fluency through frequent repetition. Role-playing activities, structured conversations, and games are also core strategies of the program primarily used to establish contact with the target culture. We strongly believe that a foreign language is acquired only as a consequence of using the language. KILM methodology is geared towards optimal input for the highest possible use of the language.

Background KILM was adopted by the MLL department in 1980, following a model developed by John Rassias, a professor of French at Dartmouth. The program was originally used at the introductory level only, but in the early 1990’s was adapted for less intensive use at the intermediate level as well. Although the department has modified the model by incorporating new and improved teaching tools such as those offered by CALL (Computer-Assisted Language Learning), given the effectiveness it has demonstrated over the years, it has maintained its emphasis on a dramatic, active, and contextual approach. KILM’s methodology is practiced and

of 31

discussed every semester through two KILM Workshops and a 213-214 Teaching Fellow / Native Assistant Workshop. These workshops, which are supported by all the department faculty members, aim to train upper class students with strong language skills and native speakers, enrolled as undergraduate at Kenyon, in the use of the KILM intensive techniques (dramatization, backward build-up, and simple substitution drill and snap-point-look rhythm).

Assessment of Outcomes: in the year prior to the introduction of KILM, students at the intermediate level in French, German and Spanish were given standardized achievement tests. For the first two years of the intensive program, students in French, German and Spanish 112 were given the identical test. In almost every case, the students in the intensive courses scored at the same level or higher than the students who had had two years of traditional language study at Kenyon; the best students were receiving scores in the 600’s and a few reached the 700 level of an 800 point scale. A similar result was obtained two years ago, when students in some intensive courses scored at the same level or higher than the students at the intermediate level (who had not taken the intensive course) in the electronic CAPE placement exam. That is to say, students who complete the one-year intensive program are expected to reach the end of intermediate level of proficiency and the majority of them do so. Consequently, KILM has maintained its focus and teaching philosophy, while incorporating new and improved methodologies in language teaching and learning (document on file).

CDC

The 2007 external review of the Career Development Center was the result of perceptions on campus that the Career Development Center was reactionary rather than proactive and that students were not making the best use of the services it offered. Survey results bear out this perception. Results from 1999-2004 CSS survey: while 74.10% of respondents expressed satisfaction with career advising, only 40.65% were satisfied with job placement, the largest discrepancy with the comparison group (almost 20 percentage points lower).

Peer Tutoring

Academic Advising maintains a Peer Tutoring Program in which students seeking assistance with a particular subject will be matched with a tutor who has a solid understanding of the subject matter. Tutors must have achieved an "A" in coursework for the material for which they will tutor. Once matched, students and their tutors decide on a low-distraction meeting place, discuss the needs of the student seeking tutoring and the areas on which they will concentrate, and determine a fee (usually $8-10/hr.) paid directly to the tutor.

How do we show we provide effective staffing and support for our learning resources?

All of these programs express frustration with the budget allotted to staff these services (Math and Science Skills Center, Writing Center, KILM,) and staff responsible for them often lack development opportunities.

of 31

Kenyon participates in several partnerships that enhance student learning and strengthen teaching effectiveness.

Ohio 5 Consortium

The Five Colleges of Ohio consortium was incorporated in 1995 by the College of Wooster, Denison University, Kenyon College, Oberlin College, and Ohio Wesleyan University. The “Ohio Five” seeks to promote the broad educational and cultural objectives of the colleges by fostering closer cooperation and understanding, to work as an alliance for the purpose of coordinating operating functions and administrative services, and to develop collaborative programs and resource sharing to enhance quality and reduce individual and collective operating and capital costs. The college presidents, chief academic officers, library directors, chief financial officers, and members of the faculty meet regularly to identify future areas of development and implement current projects.

GLCAThe Great Lakes Colleges Association, Inc., was chartered in the state of Michigan and incorporated as a 501(c)(3) non-profit in 1962. Since its founding, it has been governed by its Board of Directors and charged with working on behalf of its member institutions, a consortium of thirteen, private liberal arts colleges located in Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. The member colleges of the GLCA are Albion College, Allegheny College, Antioch College, Denison University, DePauw University, Earlham College, Hope College, Kalamazoo College, Kenyon College, Oberlin College, Ohio Wesleyan University, Wabash College, and The College of Wooster.

MITC and NITLE

The Midwest Instructional Technology Center (MITC), an initiative of two consortia of small selective residential liberal arts colleges, seeks to foster innovative, effective, sustainable, multi-campus collaborations that improve teaching and learning through the use of instructional technology. Learn how MITC accomplishes this goal by drawing on the ideas, staff, space, and technology of its member institutions.

NITLE is a community-based, non-profit initiative that provides tools and resources for collaboration, professional development programs, and information services to undergraduate-centered colleges, universities, and educational organizations. NITLE (pronounced "nightly") is also known as the National Institute for Technology and Liberal Education. NITLE is an initiative of Southwestern University, a selective, independent, four-year undergraduate national liberal arts college.

KAP

LiaisonsCluster program in advising LBIS integrated system,Science Division, HHMI, Math and Science Skills centerLocal Foods

http://www.nitle.org/www/site/participate

http://www.southwestern.edu/

http://www.nitle.org/www/service_groups

http://www.nitle.org/www/site/professional%20development

of 31

How do we show that budget priorities reflect that improvement in teaching and learning is a core value of the organization.

Financial aid and instructional budgets are the largest budget items, growth in faculty, kept student faculty ratio even when we went to 3-2 and added two new requirements.Campaign goals.

wp5 continued criteria 3c,d - kenyon college€¦ · web view2005 2008 kenyon 2.89 3.05...

Documents