Explore the vast range of titles available.

Researchers have revealed a strong association between sense of belonging and students' social class and economic background. Notably, students from less advantaged economic and class backgrounds typically report a lower sense of belonging in college compared with their middle and upper-class peers. To address gaps in college completion, educators (i.e., faculty, staff) bear responsibility for increasing low-income students' sense of belonging and identifying asset- and strengths-based practices that effectively promote low-income students' belonging. Validation is one such promising practice that focuses on how student support is delivered by staff and faculty rather than on what specific support offices and services are offered. This study answers two research questions: (1) What is the relationship between validation and low-income college students' sense of belonging in their first year? and (2) Does that link vary by low-income students' other characteristics (e.g., race, sex, GPA)?

Persistently low graduation rates continue to leave educators in search of ways to promote the success of college students. One understudied factor that scholarship has linked to student persistence and success is students' confidence in their major and career paths--their major and career self-efficacy (MCSE). Ways to increase students' MCSE in higher education are understudied, and what researchers typically focus on is the effectiveness of specific college interventions like career courses or workshops. In this study, I centered how college educators adopting a strengths-oriented, affirming, and validating approach to supporting students affects students' MCSE. Drawing on a longitudinal data set of 760 students, I found that a strengths-oriented, affirming, validating approach to support significantly increases students' MCSE. Moreover, this positive relationship held true across a range of student characteristics including sex, race/ethnicity, first-generation status, ACT scores, college GPA, academic self-efficacy, and earlier reported levels of MCSE. Findings indicate that a validating approach to supporting students' development is a promising direction for college educators to increase students' MCSE and by extension their college success.

This 5-year, longitudinal, multimethod qualitative case study draws on data from the Promoting At-Promise Student Success (PASS) project examining a comprehensive college transition and success program called Thompson Scholars Learning Community (TSLC) that serves low-income college students, many of whom are first-generation and racially minoritized. The study presents a new, empirically grounded model for promoting college student success among these student populations called the ecological validation model of student success, where educators validate students' multiple assets, strengths, and innate capabilities for college success across multiple aligned and coordinated support contexts over time. The study extends prior quasi-experimental work demonstrating the effectiveness of TSLC by exploring how educators in the program supported student success and providing a model for other educators, student support programs, colleges, and universities seeking new approaches to better serve an increasingly diverse postsecondary student body.

The impact of college STEM [science, technology, engineering, and mathematics] summer bridge programs is not well understood. This nationwide study pooled data from 27 colleges and universities involved in the NSF's [National Science Foundation's] STEM Talent Expansion Program to model changes in college career aspirations for 2 groups: 383 STEM summer bridge program participants and 15,464 controls. Propensity weighted modeling revealed that college STEM summer bridge programs double the odds that students plan to pursue a STEM career, compared with students without program exposure. We found this to be true across a range of demographics and student background characteristics. Implications for college educators, practitioners, and policymakers are discussed.

There are few accounts in the higher education literature of mixing methods at the survey design stage and very little guidance targeting higher education researchers and practitioners who want to implement a mixed methods approach to design survey tools. This article explores an eight-step, iterative, mixed methods approach for creating a longitudinal, multi-institutional survey to assess how participation in a comprehensive college transition program is related to students' psychosocial and academic outcomes. In the context of a college transition program study, our mixed methods strategy to develop a survey instrument included initial qualitative data collection and review of psychosocial constructs, psychometric pilot, baseline survey, focus groups, case study research, cognitive interviews, follow-up pilot, and follow-up survey. This article makes a unique contribution to higher education research, providing a potential model for others seeking guidance in mixing methods at the study design and instrument development stage. Major lessons learned from the mixed methods survey design process are discussed.

This book proposes a new paradigm of public scholarship for our time, one that shifts from the notion of the public intellectual to the model of the engaged scholar. The editors' premise is that the work of public scholarship should be driven by a commitment to supporting a diverse democracy and promoting equity and social justice. The contributors to this volume present models that eschew the top-down framing of policy to advocate for practice that drives bottom-up change by arming the widest range of stakeholders -- especially members of marginalized communities -- with relevant research. They demonstrate how public scholarship in higher education can increase its impact on practice and policy and compellingly argue that public scholarship should be recognized as normative practice for all scholars and indeed integrated into the curriculum of graduate courses. The chapters describe multiple types of public scholarship and different strategies that move beyond informing policymakers, faculty, and administrators to engage publics such as students and parents, media, the general public, and particularly groups that may have had little or no access to research. Examples include partnering with a community agency to design a research project and disseminate results; writing for practitioner or policy venues and magazines outside the traditional academic journals; serving on boards for national groups that impact decisions related to your area of research; and the use of social media.Whether scholar, director of graduate education, or graduate student of higher education, this book opens up a new vision of how research can inform practice that promotes the public good.

Recent reports show that low-income students make up a significant share of those participating in higher education, and their well-being constitutes a key factor that influences their college success. This mixed-methods study examined first-year, low-income students’ time use and its relationship to well-being framed by an equity-oriented lens that recognizes the time constraints low-income students navigate. Our mixed methods findings identified the link between time use and well-being and—critically—empirical explanations for these links. First, leveraging a unique experience sampling survey design and multilevel analyses, we found that attending class, studying or doing homework, and working for pay were consistently and adversely related to low-income students’ well-being. Low-income students who were also first-generation in college fared worse than continuing-generation students when engaging in these experiences. On the other hand, socializing was positively related to low-income students’ well-being. Second, an exploration of longitudinal data from hundreds of student interviews illuminated two primary factors that shaped the relationship between low-income students’ time use and well-being: (a) structuring time and developing a routine, and (b) the power of reflection and meaning-making. These findings provide important novel insights about low-income students’ college experiences and the relationship between their time use and well-being, and offer crucial guidance for educators on how to support low-income students’ well-being as they navigate college.

The purpose of this study was to determine if significant clinical differences exist in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between PS and CR TKAs implanted using robotic-assisted technology. This was an IRB-approved retrospective study from an institutional database evaluating 214 knees in 190 patients. Inclusion criteria included: primary RA-TKA, age 22–89 at the time of surgery, preoperative coronal limb deformity within 15º of neutral alignment, and minimum 1-year follow-up. The PS cohort consisted of 103 patients with 107 RA-TKAs, whereas the CR cohort consisted of 87 patients with 107 RA-TKAs. Cohorts were compared on the basis of demographics and PROMs (KSS knee, KSS function, FJS-12, KOOS-JR, WOMAC, and 5-point satisfaction Likert scale) collected preoperatively and at 1-year follow-up. Statistical analyses comparing measures were conducted via Student’s t tests for continuous data and Chi-squared analyses for categorical data. There were no significant differences identified in short-term PROMs at 1-year follow-up between cohorts (all p values > 0.05). 93.1% of patients with CR knees and 94.7% of patients with PS knees reported a satisfaction level of “very satisfied” or “satisfied”. Revision arthroplasty occurred in six knees (2.8%, 3 knees in CR cohort, 3 knees in PS cohort) with no differences in overall complications between groups. The use of RA-TKA technology promoted high patient satisfaction scores within this study, independent of CR or PS implant type with no significant differences in PROMs, satisfaction, revisions, or complications between the two groups.

Understanding students' relationships with their multiple home, community, and educational environments provides a more holistic understanding of students and recognizes that many spheres of influence shape their college experiences, development, and outcomes. Ecological Systems Theory (EST) directs higher education researchers and practitioners to examine students in their educational ecosystems. Many in higher education appreciate the comprehensive and integrated approach of EST as a way to more fully understand students' college experiences (Renn, 2003; Renn & Arnold, 2003). However, the complexity of implementing EST has limited its use, and there are few effective tools for gathering this kind of information. In this research brief, the authors share a qualitative interview protocol they designed to facilitate application of EST to understand students' ecological systems and their interactions with those systems.