Capstone - College Staff Perceptions of Student Success - Lucy Romao Vandepol

Running head: COLLEGE STAFF PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENT SUCCESS
College Staff Perceptions of Student Success
Capstone Project
Submitted for course EDU 776
Seminar: Issues in Education
Central Michigan University
Submitted by:
Lucy Romao Vandepol
December 13, 2014
Capstone Monitor
Dr. David Lloyd

2
COLLEGE STAFF PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENT SUCCESS
Abstract
The purpose of this research study was to investigate how student success is defined by
college staff, to gather their perspectives on their role on student success, to determine what
they think students need to be successful and what barriers college staff perceived to impact
student success. The central phenomenon of this study was student success. The research
methodology used in this study was a cross-sectional survey with both qualitative and
quantitative elements (Creswell, 2012). One hundred and seventy six participants completed
the survey. The data showed that although there were some differences as to how each of the
staff groups personally defined student success, the majority defined it as the achievement of
holistic success. The exception to this came from academic staff; within this staff group, the
majority felt that knowledge application was more of a definition of student success. The data
demonstrated that the majority of participants felt that student success was a process that
consisted of smaller ongoing milestones as opposed to it being an outcome. The data also
showed that for the most part college staff felt that student success should be defined by inner
successes as opposed to outer successes. Data also showed that attainment of credentials and
graduation stands out as to how all groups felt that the college, students, and society define
student success. The majority of participants felt that their role contributes to student success
and that in their day to day work they think about how their role contributes to student success
on a daily basis. Furthermore, the data also showed that student motivation ranked at the top
in level of importance as it pertains to student success, as well as being seen as a barrier that
impacts student success. There are several recommendations for future research and practice
that stemmed from this study.

3
Acknowledgements
I am fortunate to have an amazing support system that has made the completion of this
capstone possible. First and foremost I would like to acknowledge and thank my partner, Tunny
Vandepol who encouraged me to pursue graduate studies and whose endless support has
made the completion of this capstone possible. Thank you for believing in me and for taking
this on with me. Equally important has been the support that I have received from my
daughter, Mika Romao Vandepol. She has been my biggest cheerleader and the driving force
behind getting this capstone done in a timely manner. Although, this journey has taken me
away from her, she has come up with inventive ways to challenge, assist, and celebrate along
the way. Thank you for your patience and unconditional love. I am also grateful for the support
that I have received from the rest of my family who have each helped out in their own way.
I would like to thank my Central Michigan University colleagues. Anna De Grauwe for
joining me on this journey; listening to my endless capstone ideas, and for providing
encouragement and support along the way. Team awesome for being AWESOME! I would also
like to acknowledge my cohort because they are an amazing group of women who have made
this experience fun. In addition, I would also like to thank the faculty who made this experience
memorable, Dr. Patricia Hedley for setting the foundation, Dr. Mike Stacey for pushing me out
of my comfort zone, Joe Mior for showing empathy and Dr. David Lloyd for his guidance
throughout the capstone process.
I would also like to acknowledge my institution’s support in allowing this study to take
place, the colleagues who allowed me to pick their brains, and the staff who participated in the
study. Lastly, I would like to recognize the first-generation mature students who inspired me to
pursue graduate studies and who have made this a humbling experience.

4
Table of Contents
Abstract.............................................................................................................................................2
Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................3
List of Figures.....................................................................................................................................6
Chapter 1: The Problem Defined .................................................................................................................7
Background Statement .............................................................................................................................7
Problem Statement...................................................................................................................................7
Purpose of Study.......................................................................................................................................8
Research Questions ..................................................................................................................................9
Definition of Terms ...................................................................................................................................9
Limitations of Study ................................................................................................................................10
Chapter 2: The Literature Review..............................................................................................................11
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................11
Student Success within a Post-Secondary Environment.........................................................................11
College Staff Perceptions of Student Success.........................................................................................13
College Staff Impact on Student Success................................................................................................14
Role of College Staff on Student Success................................................................................................16
Role of Academic Staff on Student Success............................................................................................17
Role of Administrative Staff on Student Success....................................................................................17
Role of Support Staff on Student Success...............................................................................................18
Successful Students.................................................................................................................................19
Barriers to Student Success ....................................................................................................................19
Summary.................................................................................................................................................20
Chapter 3: Methodology............................................................................................................................21
Research Methodology...........................................................................................................................21
Data Collection........................................................................................................................................22
Population and Sample...........................................................................................................................23
Instrumentation......................................................................................................................................23
Data Analysis...........................................................................................................................................24
Ethical Review.........................................................................................................................................25
Chapter 4: Data Analysis............................................................................................................................26
Results of the Study ................................................................................................................................26

5
Summary.................................................................................................................................................45
Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations.....................................................................47
Summary.................................................................................................................................................47
Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................49
Recommendations..................................................................................................................................56
Summary of Discussion...........................................................................................................................57
Appendix.....................................................................................................................................................63
Appendix A: Survey Questions................................................................................................................63

6
List of Figures
Table 2. Q2: Personal Definitions of Student Success ................................................................................28
Table 6. Q3: Change in Definition of Student Success................................................................................32
Table 7. Q5: Staff Opinion on Student Success Outcome v. Process..........................................................33
Table 8. Q6: Staff Opinion on Student Success Outer v. Inner Success......................................................34
Table 9. Q7: Staff Opinion on How the College Defines Student Success ..................................................35
Table 10. Q8: Staff Opinion on How Students Define Student Success......................................................36
Table 11. Q9: Staff Opinion on How Society Define Student Success ........................................................37
Table 12. Q12: Staff Perceptions of Contribution to Student Success .......................................................39
Table 13. Q18: Staff Perceptions of Students’ Ability to be Successful......................................................42
Table 14. Q19: Staff Ranking of Items Important to Student Success........................................................43
Table 15. Q21: Staff Ranking of Items that Impact Student Success..........................................................44

7
Chapter 1: The Problem Defined
Background Statement
Participation rates at Ontario colleges have been on the increase. According to a report
written by Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO), “Ontario has experienced… a
20% increase in college enrolment (full-time equivalents) between 2002/02 and 2010/11 - not
including international students” (HEQCO, 2013). With an increased rate in post-secondary
school participation, the focus shifted to ensuring student success. Student success is a
buzzword amongst those involved with post-secondary education; it is also a popular topic of
discussion in the media and amongst policymakers (Seifert, Henry, & Peregrina-Kretz, 2014). In
Ontario, one of the key measures that the government uses to measure a college’s
performance is graduation rates and those rates are used to determine performance-based
funding (Ministry of Training Colleges & Universities, 2002). Institutional commitment to
student success requires an understanding of staff perceptions of student success. Beginning
with how staff defines student success. Defining student success is critical to its promotion
(Cuseo, 2008). The definition of student success can be elusive as there can be many different
definitions within post-secondary institutions.
Institutions need to focus on supporting their students and help them succeed (Ishler, &
Upcraft, 2005). Everyone within a post-secondary institution plays a role in student success.
Currently, there appears to be a knowledge gap on staff perceptions of student success. As such
it is important to have a better understanding of how student success is being defined and how
people perceive their impact on and role in achieving student success and to determine future
professional development opportunities.
Problem Statement
Although college staff plays a critical role in all aspects of student success little research
has been published on staff perceptions of student success, and how they perceive their role
impacts student success. This study was based on the premise that staffs play a role in student
success (Upcraft, Gardner, & Barefoot, 2005), and that student success is the centre of post-
secondary education. The core problem being addressed is the need to better understand staff
perceptions of student success at an Ontario college. Currently there are many definitions of

8
student success; however there is no specific consensus on the definition of student success. As
such the definition is left up to the individual to define; this in itself can be problematic because
it means that everyone is working towards a different goal or it can leads to misunderstandings
(Davenport 2014). The researcher believes that staff perceptions of student success may vary
depending on personal definitions, roles within the college and perceptions of students needs
to be successful. An understanding of student needs provides the foundation for program
development (Lizzio, 2006)
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this qualitative research study was to survey staff at an Ontario college
to investigate how student success is defined by administration, faculty, and support staff, to
gather their perspectives on their role on student success, to determine what they think
students need to be successful and what barriers college staff perceives to impact student
success. The central phenomenon of this study was student success. The researcher explored
this concept by focusing on community college staff perceptions of student success. The goal of
this study was to develop an in-depth understanding of study’s central phenomenon.
This study was focused on all levels of staff and their perceptions of student success.
College staffs are the ambassadors of student success for an institution; as such it is important
to understand how they perceive their roles to contribute to student success. This study took
place at an Ontario community college located in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) and it is
focused on all levels of staff. Currently there are 1,425 staff employed at this institution, 124
administrative, 891 faculty, and 392 support staff.
This study advanced the understanding of how staff at a community college perceives
student success. The institution and staff benefits from the information collected through this
study. The larger college community may gain increased insight into staff perceptions of
student success; including how staff personally defines student success, how they perceive that
they contribute to student success, what staff perceive students need to be successful, and
what barriers they perceive to impact student success. Subjects may also gain a deeper
understanding of their contribution to student success after thoughtful reflection. Knowledge

9
gained from this project may help the college with future strategic planning initiatives and
determine future professional development opportunities.
This study adds to the knowledge of student success by giving staff at an Ontario college
the opportunity to contribute their voices to the topic of student success within a college
environment. This study expands on current knowledge of student success by expanding and
replicating current research that has occurred at institutions outside of the study site. The
results of this study have the potential impact to contribute to individual staff attitudes, as well
as institutional planning around professional development. There was also a potential for the
information collected through this study to improve current practice by contributing to the
development of a common definition of student success and inform institutional decisions
supporting student success.
Having a better understanding of how staff defines and perceives student success will
help strengthen the institution’s work to enhance and assess student success. It may also lead
to individual staff members realizing how they personally play a role and contribute to student
success.
Research Questions
The following questions were addressed:
1. How do administration, faculty, and support staff personally define student success?
2. How do staff perceives that they contribute to student success?
3. What does college staff perceives students need to be successful?
4. What are the barriers that college staff perceives to impact student success?
Definition of Terms
The following represents a list of definitions for terms used in this study.
Administrative staff – refers to staff in leadership positions (i.e. president, vice-president,
executive directors, directors and managers), executive assistances and all staff within the
human resource management team.
Academic staff – refers to full-time, partial load, sessional and part-time faculty, counsellors,
and librarians.
Barriers – refers to things that prevent or impact student success.

10
Institution – refers to the study site, which is an Ontario community college located in the
Greater Toronto Area (GTA).
Support staff – refers to staff that do not fall into the academic or administrative staff groups.
Limitations of Study
A limitation of this study was that the data collected were limited to the voluntary
participation of staff members at an Ontario college. As a result there was a potential for either
overall low response rates and/or low response rates from any one of the three staff groups
(administration, faculty, and/or support staff) which affects the size of the sample for the study.
Perhaps some staff may have been reluctant to complete the survey despite it being
anonymous. It is important to note that the researcher is a member of the support staff group
at the Ontario College where the study took place; this fact could also influence participation.
A second limitation of this study was the timeframe that the data was collected in; this
study was conducted over a short period of time during the fall 2014 semester. The timing of
this study coincided with mid-term assessments resulting in lower participation rates by faculty.
Additionally, this study was limited in scope as it only looked at staff perceptions of
student success; institution and student perceptions of student success were not be explored.
As a result the data collected will not be representative of all stakeholders.
The final limitation of this study is that it only explored staff perceptions at a single
college, and it does not compare the data collected against other colleges therefore it cannot
be generalized to other colleges.

11
Chapter 2: The Literature Review
Introduction
This literature review investigated current knowledge described by various researchers
related to the problem and research questions of this study. The review consisted of an
examination of literature on student success including definitions of student success within a
post-secondary environment, college staff impact on student success, needs of successful
students, and barriers to student success. An examination of the literature indicated that
student success is a broad term often used to describe various elements of the student
experience.
Student Success within a Post-Secondary Environment
The term student success is a broad term with multiple definitions that encompasses a
range of factors and does not happen by chance (Kuh, 2011; Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, &
Hayek 2006; Seifert & Peregrina-Kretz, 2013; Tinto, 2012). It has been defined in multiple ways
depending on who the stakeholder is and its meaning is not clear (Seifert, T. A., & Peregrina-
Kretz, D., 2013; Tighe, Barnes, Connor & Steadman, 2013). How it is defined impacts higher
education (Davenport, Martinez-Saenz, & Rhine, 2012). Cuseo (2007) stated that “student
success may be defined as a favourable or desirable student outcome” (p. 2). The outcomes
that student success often refers to include: student retention and persistence (Cuseo, 2007;
Davenport, Martinez-Saenz, & Rhine, 2012; Upcraft, Gardner, & Barefoot, 2005), engagement
(Kuh, 2011; Lizzio, 2006), satisfaction (Kuh, 2011), college completion (Cuseo, 2007; Davenport,
Martinez-Saenz, & Rhine, 2012; Ministry of Training Colleges and Universities, 2002; Seifert,
Henry, & Peregrina-Kretz, 2014; Tinto, 2012), acquisition of skills (Kuh, 2011; Seifert, Henry, &
Peregrina-Kretz, 2014), student goal attainment (Seifert, Henry, & Peregrina-Kretz, 2014; Tinto,
2012), academic achievement (Cuseo, 2007; Kuh, 2011), student advancement (Cuseo, 2007)
and/or holistic development (Cuseo, 2007). According to Davenport, Martinez-Saenz, and Rhine
(2012) “faculty and staff may define success as learning, growth and development,
measureable outcomes of a particular course, degree program or engagement in co-curricular
activities.” (p.36)

12
Student success can mean different things within the same institution depending on the
stakeholder (Davenport, Martinez-Saenz, & Rhine, 2012). Student success can also be narrowed
down to a particular period of the student experience, for example Upcraft, Gardner, and
Barefoot (2005) look at the first-year experience and referred to student success as the
completion of first year courses and enrollment into second year. Tinto (2012) suggested that
student success may mean something different to underprepared and/or part-time students;
for these students “success in college is measured one course or even on class at a time”
(p.115). Gardner and Barefoot (2005) acknowledged that there is more to student success than
a grade point average (GPA) and persistence to graduation. Kuh (2011) specifically refers to
student success as being “defined broadly, encompassing academic achievement; engagement
in educationally effective activities; satisfaction; acquisition of twenty-first-century knowledge,
skills and competencies” (p. 258). Student success tended to refer to a particular thing, such as
completion, graduation, a GPA and be outcome oriented. In addition to looking at student
success as an outcome, one needs to also consider the processes associated with student
success. Seifert, Henry, and Peregrina-Kretz (2014) bring forward the notion that for those
involved in strategic enrollment management (SEM) student success was about the process not
just completion and that consideration must be given to the students’ intended goals. They also
stated that many students attending college do so with the goal of completion of a credential in
mind and therefore achieving this goal would be seen as success. Although completion was
seen as the ultimate goal for many students employment and income are also goals (Wiggers &
Arnold, 2011).
According to Cuseo (2007) one must first identify the student success outcomes and
then the process that promotes it before being able to define it. He lists “1) personal validation,
2) self-efficacy, 3) sense of purpose, 4) active involvement, 5) reflective thinking, 6) social
integration and 7) self-awareness” (p. 3). When these elements are not present then the
student success outcome is not as likely to occur.
There was also a variance in what determines students’ success; some believe that it is
based on student’s first year experiences (Upcraft, Gardner, & Barefoot, 2005). Variation in
definitions and perspectives can result in a range of concerns such as communication, planning,

13
programming, staff and student interactions, teaching, and outcomes can all be impacted. It is
important to recognize the differences and establish a mutual understanding (Davenport,
2014).
Student success is dependent on the student and the institution (Kuh, 2005; Lizzio,
2006; Seifert & Peregrina-Kretz, 2013; Tinto, 2012). According to Lizzio’s (2006) five senses of
success, student success is centred on a student having clear values and a sense of the
academic culture. It occurs when students feel connected and identify with their institution,
understand the student experience and believe that they are capable of doing well, have a
sense of direction, and are resourceful in navigating the system (Lizzio, 2006). It is also
dependent on how well an institution provides resources and supports that lead to student
success (Hrabowski, 2005; Kuh, 2005; Tinto, 2012).
Davenport, Martinez-Saenz, and Rhine, (2012) used the term ‘student success
conundrum’ to refer to the fact that various stakeholders hold different perceptions of
students’ success, and these perceptions impact an institutions ability to help students be
successful. Varying definitions impact institutions in a variety of ways. Without a clear common
definition student success as a goal can look very different from one area to the next.
College Staff Perceptions of Student Success
Seifert, Henry, and Peregrina-Kretz (2014) shared information on two recent studies
that explored perceptions of student success. Both studies took place in Ontario; one of the
studies took place at a single institution, while the other one was part of a larger study that
involved nine universities and four colleges. The single institution study took place at an Ontario
community college located in the Greater Toronto Area. This study took place over one month,
involved 552 participants that included faculty, staff, and students, and strove to discover a
common understanding of student success. “The final definition identified student success as
indeed multifaceted and complex” (Seifert, Henry, & Peregrina-Kretz, 2014, p.4) and it
remarked that each student’s perceptions of success involved a different perspective. The end
result was a college wide consensus that success was based on the following five student
focused outcomes:
1. Identification or discovery of career and personal goals and direction.

14
2. Development of the whole person, which includes intellectual, personal, creative, and
social development.
3. Demonstrated and ignited passion for lifelong learning.
4. Mastering of skills and capabilities within the student’s chosen discipline.
5. Experience of a positive journey, filled with incremental milestones and successes.
6. Academic and professional achievement and a sense of personal accomplishment,
and effective preparation for next steps beyond Sheridan. (Seifert, Henry, & Peregrina-
Kretz, 2014, p.4-5)
The multi-institution study was titled Supporting Student Success and it investigated how each
of the different stakeholders defined student success. From the analysis of the data collected
six categories of student success arose “(1) retention and graduation, (2) personal success, (3)
success varies for individual students, (4) success is a holistic process, (5) success is student
engagement, and (6) success is having a sense of belonging at the institution” (Seifert, Henry, &
Peregrina-Kretz, 2014, p.6). The top definitions varied for each of the stakeholder groups and
were a reflection of their roles within the institution. The final result was the notion that
success “varies by student” and is “perceived differently by the various stakeholders at the
institution” (Seifert, Henry, & Peregrina-Kretz, 2014, p.7). The writers argued that focusing on
college completion as a way of defining student success does not do justice to students; they
believed that student success is a process with various individual milestones. It is important to
note that student success is not linear and straightforward (Seifert, Henry, & Peregrina-Kretz,
2014). College staff perceptions of student success can differ between staffing roles across an
institution.
College Staff Impact on Student Success
Although “there are many factors that can impact student success” (Davenport,
Martinez-Saenz, & Rhine, 2012, p. 42) it is important to consider the role that college staff plays
on student success. In addition to being stakeholders in student success, college staff has the
potential to impact it. Within an institution how staff interacts with students and amongst
themselves can impact student success. Davenport, Martinez-Saenz, and Rhine (2012) pointed
out that when college staff focus on their own performance in pursuit of evaluation based

15
rewards and recognition that this behaviour can impact student success in a negative manner.
Instead of focusing on individual outcomes, staff should work collaboratively to do what is best
for students; not doing so can impact student success (Davenport, Martinez-Saenz, & Rhine,
2012). Communication and information sharing between college staff can have a positive
impact on student success. Clear and consistent information insures that students receive
accurate information and contributes positively to student success (Davenport, Martinez-Saenz,
& Rhine, 2012).
Looking at how staff interacts Hrabowski (2005), Kuh (2005) and Schilling and Schilling
(2005) all stated that the staff’s expectations of students, in particular setting high standards for
students’ impacts student success. Faculty are at the centre of the student experience and can
define a student’s experience (Evenbeck & Jackson, 2005). Faculty impacts student success by
providing structure through course outlines, using a variety of instructional techniques,
facilitating discussions, and by relating course content to things that are of interest to students
(Erickson & Strommer, 2005).
Support staff impacts student success through the interactions with students outside of
the classroom. Orientation programming is offered to help students transition to the
institution, provide them with information about the institution and their role as a student, and
prepare them for their new journey. As noted in CAS professional standards for higher
education, orientation’s mission is to contribute to student learning and development (Council
for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education, 2012). Orientation programming is
generally designed by those in student affairs and linked to student retention (Mullendore &
Banahan, 2005) one can say that through the design and delivery of orientation programming
that student affairs staff impacts student success. In addition, orientation provides students
with an opportunity to be introduced to the campus (Mullendore & Banahan, 2005) and the
way in which staffs interact with students during these initial moments’ impact students’
experiences and therefore can impact their success.
Although college staff impacts student success, one must consider, as noted in Wiggers
and Arnold (2011) that it is difficult to assess actual impact that staff may have to student
success given that it is difficult to measure results, and/or that results of impact may be

16
“marginal or indirect at best” (p.10). Given that it is difficult to measure actual impact, it is also
important to consider the role that college staff plays on student success.
Role of College Staff on Student Success
All college staff has a role to play in student success, but it is the collective role that has
potential for the greatest impact (Davenport, Martinez-Saenz, & Rhine, 2012). Blimling, Whitt,
and Associates (1999), Keeling (2004), and Keeling (2006) all called for partnerships between
academics and student affairs, together these two roles can make a difference in student
experiences. Student success takes a collaborative effort throughout the institution. Effective
institutions develop policies that target the success of all students, they are structured and
establish a clear framework so that all parts are coming together to impact student success
(Hrabowski, 2005; Schroeder, 2005; Seifert & Burrow, 2013; Siegel, 2005; Tinto, 2012). They
also “inspire first-year students to dedicate themselves to campus life and follow through on
their educational goals” (Siegel, 2005 p. 176). According to Davenport, Martinez-Saenz, and
Rhine (2012) college staff should focus on bringing together the needs of the students and the
institution’s mission, and administration should work to remove processes that are obstacles to
student success. This level of thinking was also supported by Siegel (2005). Often within an
institution student affairs and academics tend to operate in silos; each tends to work in and
focus on their own area. Those in administrative positions should work towards dismantling
silos, promoting, and modeling collaboration and information sharing. There should also be a
focus on creating challenging and supportive environments (Siegel, 2005; Upcraft, Gardner,
Barefoot, & Associates, 2005). Natalicio and Smith (2005) added that staffs interactions along
with their ability to demonstrate added value to students that facilitate student success.
Lizzio (2006) provided a framework for student success, intended to provide common
language for reflection and discussion, and was reflective of student success needs. The “five
senses” of the framework referred to a sense of connectedness, capability, resourcefulness,
purpose, and culture. Lizzio (2006) encourages staff to apply the five senses framework when
developing, planning, or assessing orientation and transitions programming and strategies. By
doing this staff can work towards creating orientation programming and strategies that will
contribute to student success. The same could be said for all programming and service delivery.

17
One of the roles of college staff involved in Enrollment Management and Student Affairs is to
develop programming and services that align with learning outcomes that result in student
success and impact retention (Davenport, Martinez-Saenz, & Rhine, 2012). Staff is also tasked
with using retention data and learning outcome assessment to demonstrate student success
(Davenport, Martinez-Saenz, & Rhine, 2012; Hrabowski, 2005; Tinto, 2012).
Regardless of position, all staff can contribute to student success by making students
feel welcome, ensure they receive the supports they need, encourage student engagement
both inside and outside the classroom, and provide them with encouragement (Hrabowski,
2005).
Role of Academic Staff on Student Success
According to Evenbeck and Jackson (2005) academic staffs are at the centre of the
student experience. Given the central role that academic staffs play in the student experience,
it is not surprising that they also play a central role in student success. Academic staff through
their interactions with students plays a significant role in student success and can positively
affect persistence (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Faculty have an opportunity to provide
students with the foundation for their success and to “teach them the strategies of active
learning, critical thinking, forming community around academics, integrating knowledge, and
valuing diverse perspectives, along with the skills for managing time, difficult reading, and the
use of new technologies” (Evenbeck & Jackson, 2005, p.261). Academic staffs’ role in student
success is carried out through effective instruction of course materials, engagement of students
in discussions, and an explanation of why (Erickson & Strommer, 2005). Helping students
understand the reasons and making those connections for them help them to see purpose.
Role of Administrative Staff on Student Success
Tinto (2012) focused on the institution’s role in student success; one could argue that
given the fact that the governance of an institution falls under the jurisdiction of administrative
staff that the institution’s role could be synonymous with the role of administrative staff in
leadership / decision making roles. If we take this approach, then one of the roles of
administrative staff is to facilitate the assessment of programming that contributes to student
success and to analyze the data to drive action. They should also be driving investment into

18
faculty development to ensure that faculty are equipped with the skills needed to contribute to
student success and how to help students (Erickson & Strommer, 2005; Evenbeck & Jackson,
2005; Hrabowski, 2005; Tinto, 2012). Natalicio and Smith (2005) added that institutions should
be investing in first-year student success. Siegel (2005) added that campus leaders should focus
on the significance of first-year and include references to it in the institution’s mission.
Administrative staffs play a critical role as they are the ones that set the tone for the campus,
recruit and support staff, and allocate resources (Hrabowski, 2005). Natalicio and Smith (2005)
wrote about the role of the president as an agent in demonstrating that the institution is
committed to student success.
Role of Support Staff on Student Success
Support staffs are comprised of non-academic and non-administrative staff. Support
staffs are generally comprised of staff within student affairs, academic advisors, facilities,
recruitment and admissions, and scheduling. Support staff by nature of their job titles
contributes to student success, their roles fall into the outside of the classroom realm of the
student experience; the existence of their roles demonstrates an institutions commitment to
student success. Their role can positively affect student success when they express personal
interest in the students (Hrabowski, 2005). When looking at support staff and student success,
the literature focused on the role of support staff within the student affairs realm. This is not
surprising given the fact that the role of student support staff is to develop programs and
services targeting student success. Within the support staff category, staffs involved in
orientation and transition programming play a role in helping students become connected to
the campus, develop the skills needed to be successful in college and transition to college
(Hrabowski, 2005; Mullendore & Banahan, 2005). Given that student affairs staff is involved in
“providing experiences that enhance student learning and success” (Schuh, 2005, p. 428), their
role is more prominent when one looks at student success from a holistic perspective. The
challenge is getting students to see the potential impact that these roles can have on their
success prior to using them (Schuh, 2005).

19
Successful Students
Lizzio (2006) believes that student success is dependent on the following five senses:
capability, connectedness, purpose, resourcefulness, and academic culture. Successful students
understand the student experience, are connected and identify with their institution, see
purpose in their chosen program, can manage the challenges and navigate the system, and
understand the values of post-secondary education (Lizzio, 2006). Additionally student
engagement was critical to student success (Kuh, 2005). According to Upcraft, Gardner,
Barefoot, & Associates (2005) students who manage their lives outside of school tend to
successful transition to college and achieve their goals.
Barriers to Student Success
Wiggers and Arnold (2011) suggested that there are institution and student specific
factors that impact student success. According to Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, and Hayek
(2006) a student’s engagement represents where a student and the institution intersects. In
terms of student specific factors “numerous studies have shown that age, gender, immigrant or
first-generation status and academic preparedness all contribute to the likelihood of student
success once admitted into a PSE program” (Wiggers & Arnold, 2011, p. 3). According to
Upcraft, Gardner, Barefoot, & Associates (2005) a student’s life outside of school can have a
negative effect on a student’s success. The majority of students leave school for reasons other
than poor academic performance (Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, & Hayek 2006). Alcohol,
addiction, harassment, mental health, and family situation can all impact student success. One
must also not disregard the impact that precollege experiences such as “enrollment choices,
academic preparation, aptitude & college readiness, family & peer support, motivation to learn,
and demographics - race, gender” (Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, & Hayek, 2006, p. 17) can have
on student success. In addition, they also outline that parental education, level of academic
rigour in high school, educational goals, socioeconomic status, and financial aid can impact
student success.
A student’s experiences while attending college also impacts student success. According
to Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, and Hayek (2006) once a student is attending college student
engagement is the key factor of student success. Disengaged students tend to not be as

20
successful as engaged students (Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, & Hayek, 2006). Hrabowski
(2005) added that low expectations from teachers can have a negative effect on student
success. Motte and Schwartz’s (n.d.) study found that more students are working while
attending post-secondary school and that doing so was having a negative effect on some
students’ academic success.
Although there are many programs and services to assist students, ultimately it comes
down to student utilization; lack of awareness along with a student’s choice to not use services
can be a barrier to student success.
Summary
There is extensive literature available on student success within a post-secondary
environment. The literature review identified that student success was not an easily defined
term, and that it is dependent on a range of factors. The key learning’s in the review was that
even though there are different perceptions of the definition of student success, and that the
differing perceptions impact an institution’s ability to contribute to student success. Another
key learning was the fact that collaboration amongst stakeholders is important to student
success. It is also important to note that all stakeholders contribute to student success.
Although the definitions for student success found within the literature generally fall
into a few common categories, there does not appear to be a common all-encompassing
definition. In order for one to fully understand student success it is important to explore how
various stakeholders define student success.

21
Chapter 3: Methodology
Research Methodology
In order to better understand college staff perceptions of student success, the
researcher investigated how administration, faculty, and support staff define student success,
how they perceive they contribute to student success, what they perceive students need to be
successful, and what barriers they perceive impact student success. The focus of this study was
college staff at an Ontario community college located in the GTA. The research methodology
used in this study was a cross-sectional survey with both qualitative and quantitative elements
(Creswell, 2012). A cross-sectional survey research method was selected to collect a snapshot
of college staff perceptions of student success at one particular point in time. A survey was
used in order to gather data from a larger population of participants. In particular a survey with
both qualitative and quantitative elements was selected to explore and better understand the
views and opinions of college staff based on their staff group and to collect data that can be
analyzed for comparisons (Creswell, 2012). Furthermore, the researcher has elected to use
surveys to generate open-ended responses from participants.
The benefit of using a survey research method was that the researcher was able to
collect data from a larger sampling of the population; the researcher invited the entire college
staff population to participate. Surveys allowed for extensive data collection in a short period of
time (Creswell, 2012). This research method allowed the researcher to learn more about the
college staff population and its current opinions. A survey also allowed participants to remain
anonymous, the researcher hoped that in using a survey method that participants would be
more apt to provide authentic responses. A cross-sectional survey also allowed the researcher
to compare responses between the three staff groups (Creswell, 2012).
The main concerns of a survey research method was the potential for a low response
rate, the fact that the survey might only be completed by users with particular biases, and fact
that it is difficult to ensure random sampling (Creswell, 2012). In addition to a low response
rate, there was also the concern that the opinions of a particular staff group may not be
included if that staff group does not participate in the research. Furthermore, there was also

22
the concern that there may be technological issues that arise through the use of a web-based
questionnaire. All of these concerns can impact data collection.
Data Collection
The researcher collected data from college staff at an Ontario community college
located in the GTA during the fall of 2014 using a web-based questionnaire. The study focused
on all levels of staff. The researcher requested and received permission from the vice president
of administration to survey all staff. The researcher also applied to both Central Michigan
University’s (CMU) Institutional Research Board (IRB) and research site’s Research Ethics Board
(REB) for research approval; approval from both boards to carry out the research was received.
Survey data were collected electronically and only the researcher has access to the data.
The data will be destroyed after the successful completion of the capstone project. All data
collected were stored in a password protected computer at the researcher's residence. Data
collected cannot be used to identify subjects.
The online survey tool FluidSurvey provided the researcher with a survey link that was
used in the messaging inviting staff to complete the survey. The use of FluidSurvey allowed the
researcher to collect and retrieve anonymous survey responses via their web reports.
Using the college’s staff intranet site the researcher was able to post an announcement
inviting all college staff to complete the web-based questionnaire. All staff has access to the
staff intranet site which can be accessed both on and off-campus. In addition, the college’s
research department also sent out an email to the college’s leadership team inviting them to
complete the survey and support the research by forwarding it to their staff. This allowed the
researcher to be distanced from the survey to avoid coercion and / or undue influence. The
email communication and the posting on the college’s intranet introduced the research study
and provided the link to the web-based questionnaire. The survey was available from
November 5 to 21, 2014. The objective was to obtain a minimum of 72 returns which is
representative of 5% of the total staff population. The researcher anticipated the return rate
objective to be met given that there was no risk to the participants of this study.

23
Participation in this study was voluntary and information collected will be kept
confidential. An agreement statement was built-in to the web-based questionnaire implying
consent for the use of the data collected with the completion of the survey.
Population and Sample
The participants include all staff at one particular Ontario community college located in
the GTA. As of May 2014 there were 1,425 staff employed at this institution, 124
administrative, 891 faculty, and 392 support staff. All staff had an equal opportunity to
participate. All 1,400+ current full and part-time staff members were invited to participate, but
participation was voluntary. The demographic characteristics of the participants varied; this
information was not be collected by the researcher as part of this study and was not made
available to the researcher. The researcher has a collegial relationship with the participants, no
supervisory relationship exists, and there were no concerns about coercion or undue influence.
Having all levels and groups of staff participation added validity to the data collection
and offered a comprehensive understanding of staff perceptions of student success.
Participants in different staffing groups may have different perceptions of student success
based on their experiences with students and / or their roles within the college. The sample
consisted of all staff levels and was broken down to the following three staffing groups:
administration, faculty, and support staff. The target population was appropriate and allowed
for comparison of staff perceptions between different staffing groups. The breakdown of data
into the three staff groups provided a deeper understanding of staff perceptions of student
success.
Instrumentation
The researcher developed and used a web-based questionnaire using the online tool
FluidSurvey. The survey was created using an online tool that allowed the researcher to analyze
the data and produce statistics and graphs. A cross-sectional survey was used to collect data
from the staff perspective. See Appendix A for a copy of the web-based questionnaire. It is
important to note that the survey was designed to guarantee confidentiality; the researcher
was not able to trace the completed surveys to the respondents. The survey was designed to

24
maintain confidentiality, no identifying information was requested from study subjects, and
responses collected remained anonymous.
There were a total of 24 questions which were laid out electronically over 19 pages, the
questions were a mix of multiple choice and open text. The survey can be completed in one
session lasting approximately 10 to 15 minutes. Page one was the cover letter and it explained
the purpose of the research and its benefits, it also explained that the survey is voluntary, that
no compensation will be provided, that responses will be anonymous, that the survey has
received REB approval, the length of time it should take and who to contact for additional
questions, comments or concerns. Page two contained a demographic question. A demographic
question was added asking participants to identify which staff group they were a part of. This
was including in order to explore different perspectives, and to allow for maximal variation
sampling (Creswell, 2012). The researcher was interested in comparing the data collected from
the three groups and hoped to receive enough information to effectively analyze the data. The
questions on pages three to ten explored how college staff define student success and was
aimed at answering “How do administration, faculty, and support staff personally define
student success?.” Pages 11 to 13 were dedicated to how college staff perceived that they
contributed to student success and are aimed at answering “How do staff perceives that they
contribute to student success?.” Pages 14 to 16 looked at college staff perceptions of successful
students, and were aimed at answering “What does college staff perceives students need to be
successful?” Page 17 covered college staff perceptions of barriers to success was aimed at
answering “What are the barriers that college staff perceives to impact student success?” Page
18 provided participants with an opportunity to provide additional experiences and/or thoughts
on student success. The last page thanked participants for their time and provided the
researchers contact information.
Data Analysis
The researcher utilized the reporting tools available through FluidSurvey to analyze the
data collected. Once the survey closes and data has been collected, the researcher organized
the data into themes and designed a protocol to help organize the information collected. The
data collected were organized to answer the research questions and then broken down into

25
common themes. The data were analyzed to determine if it supports the academic literature.
Data collected were described using statistics, tables, graphs and narrative.
Ethical Review
The study was approved by Central Michigan University’s Institutional Research Board
(IRB) and their research ethics process conducted through the website IRBNet. It was also
approved by the research site’s Research Ethics Board.

26
Chapter 4: Data Analysis
This research study examined college staff perceptions of student success at an Ontario
community college located in the GTA. Within the context of student success, the researcher
investigated how one group of stakeholders, college staff, defined student success, how they
perceived their role as contributing to student success, along with staff perceptions of students’
needs to be successful, and barriers that impacted student success. This study was focused on
all levels of staff and their perceptions of student success.
A cross-sectional survey research method was selected to collect a snapshot of college
staff perceptions of student success at one particular point in time. The research study used a
survey with both qualitative and quantitative elements to explore and better understand the
views and opinions of college staff based on their staff group and to collect data that could be
analyzed for comparisons (Creswell, 2012). In addition to close-ended responses, the survey
also generated open-ended responses from participants.
For the purpose of this study, the researcher collected data between November 5 and
21, 2014. A web-based questionnaire using the online tool FluidSurvey was conducted by the
researcher; see Appendix A for a copy of the web-based questionnaire. One hundred and
seventy six participants completed the survey. The data were analyzed by treating the
participants as one homogenous sample of college staff, and were also analyzed to compare
responses to question two in particular amongst the three staffing groups.
The researcher utilized the reporting tools available through FluidSurvey to analyze the
data collected. The data collected were organized to answer the research questions and then
broken down into common themes. The researcher compared the data collected to determine
if they supported the literature review, and formulated a set of recommendations outlined in
Chapter five.
Results of the Study
There were a total of 24 questions which were laid out electronically over 19 pages.
Page two contained a demographic question, which was included to ask participants to identify
the staffing group to which they belonged. This was included to explore different perspectives,
and to allow for maximal variation sampling (Creswell, 2012). There were approximately 1,425

27
staff employed at this institution in the fall of 2014: 124 administrative, 891 faculty, and 392
support staff, and all staff had an equal opportunity to participate. All 1,400+ current full and
part-time staff members were invited to participate, but participation was voluntary. In total,
176 staff members (12%) participated in the study. Of the total number of participants 58 were
academic which represented less than 1% of total faculty, 33 were administrative, which
represented 3% of total administrative staff, and 85 were support staff, which represented 22%
of total support staff.
Q1 - I am part of the following staffing group
Response Chart Percentage Count
Academic 33.0% 58
Administrative 18.8% 33
Support Staff 48.3% 85
Total Responses 176
Figure 1. Q1: Staff Breakdown
This figure demonstrates the distribution of staff amongst the three different staffing groups.
Research question one: How do administration, faculty, and support staff personally define
student success?
The questions on pages three to ten explored how college staff defined student success
and were aimed at answering “How do administration, faculty, and support staff personally
define student success?.” Page three asked participants how they personally defined student
success. Participants were able to select all that applied; they were also able to select ‘other’
and provide their own definition. There were a total of 175 responses, with the top five
responses being 1) achievement of holistic success, 2) knowledge application, 3) attainment of
credential and graduation, 4) personal development, and 5) meeting personal goals. Twelve
participants selected ‘other’ and some of their responses would have fit into the options
provided. Of the 12 participants who selected ‘other’, the main theme within the responses
related to personal growth and employment. In addition, participants also identified the
following as definitions of student success: graduation, employment or further education,

28
acquisition of essential employability skills, engagement with the learning material, and
students reaching their goals.
Q2: How do you personally define student success?
Overall college staff responses
Achievement of holistic success (holistic success refers to both
academic and personal successes)
78.3% 137
Attainment of credential and graduation 65.1% 114
Knowledge application (ability to apply what they have learned) 75.4% 132
Mastering academic content (i.e. strong GPA, meeting/exceeding
program & learning outcomes)
37.1% 65
Measurable metrics (i.e. Key Performance Indicators) 18.9% 33
Meeting personal goals 60.6% 106
Persistence from one semester to the next 41.1% 72
Personal development 63.4% 111
Related employment after graduation 46.9% 82
Engagement with the campus 22.9% 40
Student satisfaction 47.4% 83
Other 6.9% 12
Total Responses 175
Figure 2. Q2: Personal Definitions of Student Success
This figure demonstrates how staff personally defined student success.
Please note that respondents were able to choose more than one response.

29
How do you personally define student success?
Academic staff response breakdown
Achievement of holistic success (holistic success refers to both
academic and personal successes)
77.6% 45
50.0% 29
Other 12.1% 7
Total Responses 58
This figure demonstrates how academic staff personally defined student success.

30
Administrative staff response breakdown
Achievement of holistic success (holistic success refers to both academic
and personal successes)
84.8% 28
42.4% 14
Other 3.0% 1
Total Responses 33
This figure demonstrates how administrative staff personally defined student success.

31
Support staff response breakdown
Achievement of holistic success (holistic success refers to both academic
and personal successes)
76.2% 64
26.2% 22
Other 4.8% 4
Total Responses 84
This figure demonstrates how support staff personally defined student success.
Page four asked participants whether their definition of student success had changed
from when they were a student. There were a total of 174 responses; 93 (53.4%) stated that
their definition had changed from when they were a student, while 81 (46.6%) stated that it
had not changed.

32
Q3: Has your definition of student success changed from when you were a student
Yes - If yes, please proceed to the next
question
53.4% 93
No - If no, please proceed to the next page 46.6% 81
Total Responses 174
Figure 6. Q3: Change in Definition of Student Success
This figure demonstrates if staff’s definition of student success had changed from when they were a student.
Q4: How has your definition changed from when you were a student?
Participants who had stated that their definition had changed were asked an additional
question - they were asked to explain how their definition had changed since they were a
student. Of the 93 participants that had stated that their definition had changed, 81 provided
responses. The common themes in the responses were that when the participants were
students, success referred to grades, graduation, completion, and employment. Now their
definition of student success is broader, with less emphasis on grades and more on learning
outcomes and application of material. Some participants also identified that when they were
students, they did not consider the whole student experience as a factor of student success.
Participants’ current definitions of student success tended to be more holistic in nature; they
also considered personal development, goals, and satisfaction. As an interesting contrast, one
participant stated that as a student their focus was on their development outside of the
classroom and that now they place a higher value on understanding assignments, grades and
exceeding expectations.
The question on page five asked participants to select if they thought that student
success was an outcome or a process. There were a total of 174 responses, with the majority of
participants, 129 (74.1%), selecting a process consisting of smaller ongoing milestones. The
remaining participants were split between an outcome and ‘other’, with 25 (14.4%) participants
stating that it was an outcome, and 20 (11.5%) selecting ‘other’. The 20 participants that
selected ‘other’ then explained their selection. The common theme amongst participants that
selected ‘other’ was that success was a combination of the two options. Subsequently, one

33
participant stated that student success was also learning from mistakes, and another added
that it was about learning and integrating knowledge.
Q5: Do you think student success is:
An outcome (i.e. graduation, employment) 14.4% 25
A process consisting of smaller ongoing
milestones
74.1% 129
Other - text box (please explain) 11.5% 20
Total Responses 174
Figure 7. Q5: Staff Opinion on Student Success Outcome v. Process
This figure demonstrates staffs’ opinion of whether student success is an outcome or a process.
Page six asked participants to select whether student success should be defined as outer
or inner success based on Downing’s (2014) definitions for outer and inner success. There were
a total of 160 responses, with the majority of participants, 113 (70.6%), selecting inner success.
The remaining 47 (28.4%) participants selected outer success. Participants were then asked to
explain / expand on their answer and 111 (69.4%) of the 160 participants did so. The common
themes within the responses were that both are important and often interconnected.
Participants also stated that it could vary depending on the student and the student’s own
goals. Participants commented that society tends to be more concerned with outer successes,
but that inner success is more valuable to the individual. Many expressed within their
responses that they felt that student success should be defined by inner successes. Additionally,
some participants commented that outer success was the reason students pursue post-
secondary studies, and that colleges are measured by the outer successes. Some also
commented on the fact that colleges can only measure outer successes because inner
successes are not only difficult to measure and define, but also often unrelated to the college.
One participant commented on how success is complex and that each variable is only one part
of the snapshot. Another commented on the fact that outer success does not guarantee
success and vice versa.

34
Q6: Downing (2014) referred to outer success as “public, visible achievements that allow the
world to judge one’s abilities and worth” and inner success as “private, invisible victories that
offer a deep sense of personal contentment.” Given these definitions do you feel that student
success should be defined by:
Outer successes (GPA, diploma,
recognition)
29.4% 47
Inner successes (self-development) 70.6% 113
Total Responses 160
Figure 8. Q6: Staff Opinion on Student Success Outer v. Inner Success
This figure demonstrates staffs’ opinion of whether student success should be defined by outer v. inner successes.
Page seven asked participants how they perceive the college defines student success.
Participants were able to select all that applied; they were also able to select ‘other’ and
provide their own definition. There were a total of 164 responses, and the top 5 responses
were 1) attainment of credential and graduation, 2) related employment after graduation, 3)
measureable metrics (i.e. key Performance Indicators), 4) mastering academic content, and 5)
student satisfaction; nine participants selected ‘other’. The common theme amongst the other
responses were that the college is concerned with the monetary aspect of full seating, and
measurement metrics.

35
Q7: In your opinion, how does the college define student success?
Achievement of holistic success (holistic success refers to
both academic and personal successes)
34.1% 56
Knowledge application (ability to apply what they have
learned)
49.4% 81
Mastering academic content (i.e. strong GPA,
meeting/exceeding program & learning outcomes)
56.7% 93
Other 5.5% 9
Total Responses 164
Figure 9. Q7: Staff Opinion on How the College Defines Student Success
This figure demonstrates staffs’ opinion on how the college defines student success.
Page eight asked participants how they perceive students define student success.
Participants were able to select all that applied, they were also able to select ‘other’ and
provide their own definition. There were a total of 163 responses, and the top 5 responses
were 1) attainment of credential and graduation, 2) related employment after graduation, 3)
mastering academic content, 4) meeting personal goals, and 5) student satisfaction. Ten
participants selected ‘other’. The common themes amongst the other responses were that
students are individuals and that success varies from student to student. Two participants
indicated that students’ definitions of success were dependent on where the student was
“starting from” and that it would change throughout their journey.

36
Q8: In your opinion, how do students define student success?
25.2% 41
learned)
34.4% 56
52.8% 86
Other 6.1% 10
Total Responses 163
Figure 10. Q8: Staff Opinion on How Students Define Student Success
This figure demonstrates staffs’ opinion on how students define student success.
On page nine, participants were asked to identify how they perceived society defined
student success. Participants were able to select all that applied, they were also able to select
‘other’ and provide their own definition. There were a total of 160 responses, and the top 5
responses were 1) attainment of credential and graduation, 2) related employment after
graduation, 3) mastering academic content, 4) knowledge application, and 5) were a tie
between measurable metrics and persistence from one semester to the next. Six participants
selected ‘other’. The common theme amongst the other responses were that society’s
definition of success were focused on the end result, credentials, and students’ contribution
back to the economy.

37
Q9: In your opinion, how does society define student success?
17.5% 28
learned)
48.8% 78
57.5% 92
Other 3.8% 6
Total Responses 160
Figure 11. Q9: Staff Opinion on How Society Define Student Success
This figure demonstrates staffs’ opinion on how society defines student success.
Q10: How would you define a successful educational experience?
On page ten, participants were asked how they defined a successful educational
experience. There were a total of 147 responses. The common theme amongst the responses
were that a successful educational experience could be defined through personal growth,
development of self and skills, achievement of goals and credentials, learning and application of
knowledge, feelings of accomplishments and student satisfaction. It should also include
meeting new people and student engagement. Participants also noted that it is different for
different students. Another common theme was an experience that moved students forward in
their career and resulted in employment after graduation.

38
Research question two: How do staff perceive that they contribute to student success?
Pages 11 to 13 were dedicated to exploring how college staff perceived that they
contributed to student success and were aimed at answering “How do staff perceive that they
contribute to student success?.” One of the questions on page 11 asked participants to rank
how they perceive their role contributed to student success. Ranking was on a one to five point
scale; one indicated not at all and five indicated very much. There were a total of 157
responses. The majority of the participants felt that they contributed to student success; 60
(38.2%) selected four, 51 (32.5%) selected five, 40 (25.5%) selected three, eight (5.1%) selected
two, and two (1.3%) selected one.
Q11: On a scale of 1 to 5, please rank how your role contributes to student success?
1 2 3 4 5 Total
Responses
2 (1.3%) 8 (5.1%) 40 (25.5%) 60 (38.2%) 51 (32.5%) 157
Figure 12. Q11: Staff Perceptions of Contribution to Student Success
This figure demonstrates staffs’ perceptions of how their role contributes to student success.
Participants were also asked to select how often in their day-to-day work they think
about how their role contributes to student success. There were a total of 157 responses; 111
participants (70.7%) stated that they thought about how their role contributed to student
success daily; 30 (19.1%) stated weekly, six (3.8%) stated monthly, six (3.8%) stated that they
don’t think about it, four selected ‘other’ and no one choose yearly. Of the four participants
that selected other, three provided responses. One commented that their position was not
related to students, one commented that it was ingrained in their work and another stated that
they often reflect on this question whenever they are feeling ‘beaten down’.

39
Q12: In your day-to-day work how often do you think about how your role contributes to
student success?
Daily 70.7% 111
Weekly 19.1% 30
Monthly 3.8% 6
Yearly 0.0% 0
I don't 3.8% 6
Other 2.5% 4
Total Responses 157
Figure 13. Q12: Staff Perceptions of Contribution to Student Success
This figure demonstrates how often participants think about how their role contributes to student success.
Q13: How do you personally contribute to student success?
Participants were also asked to share how they personally contributed to student
success. There were a total of 144 responses. The common themes within the responses were
that participants personally contributed to student success by providing resources, offering
guidance and encouragement, and answering questions. They also contributed by making
connections not only to resources but also within course content, assisting students inside and
outside of the classroom, providing a positive learning environment and being mindful of
learning outcomes. Another common them that arose were that staff felt they contributed to
success through evaluation and feedback, positive interactions with students, being empathic,
accessible, and approachable. Staff also felt that they contributed to success by being prepared
and accommodating different learning styles and by challenging students.
Q14: What role does academic staff play in student success?
On page 12, participants were asked to provide their opinion on the role that academic
staff play in student success. There were a total of 135 responses. The common themes within
the responses were that college staff perceived that academic staff played a key role in student
success as they are facilitators of the curriculum, and the first-contact for students. They
contribute to student success by offering alternative modes of delivery, ensuring that

40
instruction is accessible, being knowledgeable of not only the content, industry but also
available resources on campus, and making referrals to student supports. Participants also
indicated that academic staff needs to offer clear learning outcomes, provide feedback and
challenge students. In addition, participants noted that academic staff are mentors and role
models for students, and they foster personal development.
Q15: What role does administrative staff play in student success?
On page 12, participants were also asked to provide their opinion on the role that
administrative staff plays in student success. There were a total of 133 responses. The common
themes within the responses were that college staff perceived that administrative staff played a
role in ensuring that policies and procedures are in place and up-to-date, their role is behind
the scenes and they ensure the smooth operation of the campus. Administrative staff provide
leadership, create the culture, have the ability to make changes, and provide resources and
support for both staff and students. They are also responsible for the strategic direction of the
college, program planning, maintaining services, and hiring the right staff. While many of the
respondents felt that they played a key role, five stated that they were not sure what role
administrative staff played. Only one respondent mentioned ensuring that Key Performance
Indicators are high and that funding is achieved.
Q16: What role does support staff play in student success?
On page 12, participants were also asked to provide their opinion on the role that
support staff plays in student success. There were a total of 134 responses. The common
themes within the responses were that college staff perceived that support staff support
students and staff, and that they help students overcome barriers and navigate the student
experience. They also play a role in ensuring that students are aware of the services available
and they assist students in advocating for themselves. Participants also mentioned that their
role varies depending on their role. Participants commented that their role was both behind the
scenes and face-to-face with students. Their role was one outside of the classroom; they

41
provide opportunities for engagement and learning outside of the classroom and personal
development. They also play a customer service and front-line role.
Q17: What tools and resources do you perceive you need to better support student success?
On page 13, participants were also asked to identify what tools and resources they
perceived they need to better support student success. There were a total of 127 responses.
The common themes within the responses were that college staff would like more professional
development opportunities including more training on mental health and counselling, and
technology. They would also like to be cross-trained and have better knowledge of the services
available and needed by students. Another theme was that they would like better equipment
and facilities, including office space and classrooms. They would also like to have a better
understanding of the overall picture and strategic direction of their areas so they can better
understand their roles. Another key theme was a need for enhanced communication between
areas; staff would like to see one integrated portal and a system for shared student notes / files
that could be accessed by multiple stakeholders. They would also like more time for research
and to spend with students one-on-one. Another theme that arose from participants was the
need for more staff.
Research question three: What does college staff perceive students need to be successful?
Pages 14 to 16 looked at college staff perceptions of successful students, and were
aimed at answering “what does college staff perceive students need to be successful?” On page
14, participants were asked if they thought that all students who enroll have the ability to be
successful. There were a total of 143 responses. Eighty-three (58%) participants stated yes and
60 (42%) stated no.

42
Q18: In your opinion, do you think that all students who enroll have the ability to be
successful
Yes 58.0% 83
No 42.0% 60
Total Responses 143
Figure 14. Q18: Staff Perceptions of Students’ Ability to be Successful
This figure demonstrates staff perceptions of students’ ability to be successful.
Participants were also asked to elaborate on their responses; a total of 130 participants
chose to explain / expand on their answers. The common themes within the responses were
that it depends on the definition of student success, a student’s readiness, and program choice.
Timing was also noted as an important contributor to student success. Some participants
commented that students may have the ability to be successful but might not have the tools;
they felt that if students used the resources and supports available that they would be
successful. Some participants also noted that not all students have the academic and / or
mental ability to be successful in their program. Some noted that although students might have
the ability to be successful, they might not have the means to be successful.
On page 15, participants were asked to rank from a list in order of importance of items
as they pertain to student success. Not all participants responded to all of the questions,
therefore total response numbers differed. Total responses ranged from 129 to 136. Participant
responses ranked the following five items as having the highest order of importance as they
pertain to student success: self-motivation, self-efficacy, resilience, resourcefulness, and sense
of purpose.

43
Q19: Please rank the following in order of importance as they pertain to student success?
Figure 15. Q19: Staff Ranking of Items Important to Student Success
This figure demonstrates staff ranking in order of importance items that pertain to student success.
Q20: How would you describe successful students?
On page 16, participants were asked to describe successful students based on their
experience working at the college; there were a total of 128 responses. The common themes
within the responses were that successful students are resourceful, self-directed, determined,
motivated, and focused. They are also prepared, they attend class, participate, and work hard,
and are willing to ask for help. They are focused, self-aware and have self-confidence. They also
have goals and a support system.
Research question four: What are the barriers that college staff perceives to impact student
success?
Page 17 covered college staff perceptions of barriers to success and were aimed at
answering “what are the barriers that college staff perceives to impact student success?”
29.5
62.5
64.4
70.4
72.4
73.9
78.9
83.8
87.4
90.4
94.8
0 20 40 60 80 100
Familiarity & knowledge of college…
Grit
Connectedness to the campus
Financial resources
Capability
Student characteristics & strengths
Sense of purpose for going to college
Resourcefulness
Resilience
Self-efficacy
Self-motivation
Percentage

44
Participants were asked to rank the barriers that impact student success. Not all participants
responded to all of the questions, therefore total response numbers differed; total responses
ranged from 128 to 134. Participant responses ranked the following five items as barriers that
impact student success: self-motivation, poor study habits, time management skills, ability to
manage stress, and self-efficacy.
Q21: Please rank the barriers that impact student success?
Figure 16. Q21: Staff Ranking of Items that Impact Student Success
This table demonstrates staff ranking of items that impact student success.
12.5
13
17.5
17.9
24.6
27.7
38.5
40
42.8
48.5
65.7
68
68.4
68.5
68.9
69.2
72.5
73.2
79.7
80.1
80.3
81.5
85.8
90.7
0 20 40 60 80 100
Being an aboriginal student
Commuting to campus
Not attending orientation
Being a first-generation student
Unfamiliarity and knowledge of college…
Being an international student
Low social-economic status
Having an exceptionality
Absence of career clarity
Working
Sense of purpose for going to college
Family responsibilities
Lack of personal support systems
Poor faculty / student interaction
Personal problems
Academic preparedness
Resourcefulness
Financial resources
Self-efficacy
Ability to manage stress
Time management skills
Study habits
Poor study habits
Self-motivation
Percentage

45
Page 18 provided participants with an opportunity to provide additional experiences
and/or thoughts on student success. There were a total of 61 responses. Participants stated
that there is a need for knowledgeable staff, same services at all campuses, preparatory
programs, more career education in secondary schools, opportunities to celebrate successes
and to ensure that students feel safe asking for assistance. Participants also felt that success is a
shared responsibility between the college and students, and that students need to recognize
that they also play a role. It was also noted that colleges should not build false expectations for
students, that part-time faculty may have a negative impact on student success, and that
students who cannot dedicate time to their studies should be directed to continuing education.
Summary
The participants provided data on their personal definitions of student success, their
perceptions of how staff contribute to student success, what students need to be successful,
and their perceptions of barriers that impact student success. There was a greater number of
support staff that participated in this study than other staffing groups.
The data showed that although there were some differences as to how each of the staff
groups personally defined student success, the majority defined it as the achievement of
holistic success. The exception to this came from academic staff; within this staff group, the
majority felt that knowledge application was more of a definition of student success. Numbers
were fairly split in terms of staff members having experienced a change in their definitions of
student success from when they were students. The data demonstrated that the majority of
participants felt that student success was a process that consisted of smaller ongoing
milestones as opposed to it being an outcome. The data also showed that for the most part
college staff felt that student success should be defined by inner successes as opposed to outer
successes. Data also showed that attainment of credentials and graduation stands out as to
how all groups felt that the college, students, and society define student success.
The majority of participants felt that their role contributes to student success and that in
their day to day work they think about how their role contributes to student success on a daily
basis. Furthermore, the data also showed that student motivation ranked at the top in level of

46
importance as it pertains to student success, as well as being seen as a barrier that impacts
student success.

47
Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations
Summary
The purpose of this research study was to survey staff at an Ontario community college
located in the GTA to investigate how student success is defined by administration, faculty, and
support staff, to gather their perspectives on their role on student success, to determine what
they think students need to be successful and what barriers college staff perceive to impact
student success. The central phenomenon of this study was student success.
In chapter one the researcher provided the background, problem statement, and
purpose of the study. Chapter one also introduced the four research questions, definition of
terms and described four limitations of the study that the researcher anticipated. The first
limitation listed was the potential for an overall low response rate and/or low response from
any one of the three staff groups. Although overall response rates surpassed the researcher’s
5% survey response rate target, the final limitation proved valid, response rates for academic
and administrative staff were quite low. Less than 1% of all academic staff and 3% of
administrative staff participated in the survey. The second limitation referred to the timeframe
of the data collection. Although the data collection timeframe did not coincide with mid-term
assessments, it did take place during a time when faculty may have been very busy which could
explain the lower participation rates by faculty. The final two limitations identified are ones
which the researcher addressed in recommendations for further research later in chapter five.
Chapter two investigated current knowledge described by various researchers related to
the problem and research questions of this study. The review consisted of an examination of
literature on student success including definitions of student success within a post-secondary
environment, college staff impact on student success, needs of successful students, and
barriers to student success. An examination of the literature indicated that student success is a
broad term often used to describe various elements of the student experience. The literature
review identified that student success was not an easily defined term, and that it is dependent
on a range of factors. The key learning’s in the review was that even though there are different
perceptions of the definition of student success, and that the differing perceptions impact an
institution’s ability to contribute to student success. Another key learning was the fact that

48
collaboration amongst stakeholders is important to student success. It is also important to note
that all stakeholders contribute to student success. Although the definitions for student success
found within the literature generally fall into a few common categories, there does not appear
to be a common all-encompassing definition.
In order for one to better understand student success, the researcher used a cross-
sectional survey with both qualitative and quantitative elements as the research methodology
in this study was to explore student success at one particular point in time (Creswell, 2012).
Chapter three described the methodology used to conduct the research. The research study
used a survey with both qualitative and quantitative elements to explore and better understand
the views and opinions of college staff based on their staff group and to collect data that could
be analyzed for comparisons (Creswell, 2012). In addition to close-ended responses, the survey
also generated open-ended responses from participants. The goal of this study was to develop
an in-depth understanding of study’s central phenomenon.
Data collection occurred through the use of a web-based questionnaire that took place
during the fall of 2014. Study participants consisted of all levels of staff. The objective was to
obtain a minimum of 72 returns which is representative of 5% of the total staff population. One
hundred and seventy six participants completed the survey which accounted for 12% of the
total staff population. This favourable response rate surpassed the researcher’s goal of 5% and
made for richer data collection; it added validity to the data collection and offered a
comprehensive understanding of staff perceptions of student success.
In chapter four the researcher provided the data collected. The researcher utilized the
reporting tools available through FluidSurvey to analyze the data collected. Participants
provided data on their personal definitions of student success, their perceptions of how staff
contributed to student success, what students need to be successful, and their perceptions of
barriers that impacted student success. The researcher organized the data into themes to help
organize the information collected. The data collected were organized to answer the research
questions and then broken down into common themes. The data were analyzed to determine if
it supported the academic literature.

49
Conclusions
Four research questions guided the exploration of college staff perceptions of student
success. In this section, findings were related to the research questions and to the literature
review outlined in chapter two.
Research question one: How do administration, faculty, and support staff personally define
student success?
Based on the literature review student success was a broad term with multiple
definitions that encompasses a range of factors and does not happen by chance (Kuh, 2011;
Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, & Hayek 2006; Seifert & Peregrina-Kretz, 2013; Tinto, 2012).
Seifert, Henry, and Peregrina-Kretz (2014) shared information on two recent studies that
explored perceptions of student success. One of the studies was titled Supporting Student
Success and it investigated how each of the different stakeholders defined student success.
From the analysis of the data collected in Supporting Student Success six categories of student
success arose “(1) retention and graduation, (2) personal success, (3) success varies for
individual students, (4) success is a holistic process, (5) success is student engagement, and (6)
success is having a sense of belonging at the institution” (Seifert, Henry, & Peregrina-Kretz,
2014, p.6). The second study described in Seifert, Henry, and Peregrina-Kretz (2014) resulted in
a college wide consensus that success was based on the following five student focused
outcomes:
1. Identification or discovery of career and personal goals and direction.
2. Development of the whole person, which includes intellectual, personal, creative, and
social development.
3. Demonstrated and ignited passion for lifelong learning.
4. Mastering of skills and capabilities within the student’s chosen discipline.
5. Experience of a positive journey, filled with incremental milestones and successes.
6. Academic and professional achievement and a sense of personal accomplishment,
and effective preparation for next steps beyond Sheridan. (Seifert, Henry, & Peregrina-
Kretz, 2014, p.4-5)

50
Based on participant responses, the findings of this study indicated that college staff defined
student success as 1) achievement of holistic success, 2) knowledge application, 3) attainment
of credential and graduation, 4) personal development, and 5) meeting personal goals.
The top five responses in this research study on how college staff personally defined
student success were 1) achievement of holistic success, 2) knowledge application, 3)
attainment of credential and graduation, 4) personal development, and 5) meeting personal
goals. Of the 12 participants who selected ‘other’, the main theme within the responses related
to personal growth and employment. In addition, participants also identified the following as
definitions of student success: graduation, employment or further education, acquisition of
essential employability skills, engagement with the learning material, and students reaching
their goals.
The findings of this research study were somewhat in line with previous findings;
although actual rankings may shift, the themes were similar. Mastering academic content /
knowledge application ranks higher for academic / faculty when defining student success.
Personal and holistic success tended to rank higher amongst staff. It is important to note that at
the research site knowledge application were part of all three staff groupings top three
definitions of student success. In the Supporting Student Success study references to academic
success and/or content did not rank within the top three. Interestingly, retention and
graduation ranked third in the overall college staff responses but only appeared in the
administrative staff top three breakdown. Whereas in the Supporting Student Success study
retention and graduation appeared in the top three for both faculty and for administrative staff
groups.

Capstone - College Staff Perceptions of Student Success - Lucy Romao Vandepol

Capstone - College Staff Perceptions of Student Success - Lucy Romao Vandepol

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (9)

Similar to Capstone - College Staff Perceptions of Student Success - Lucy Romao Vandepol

Similar to Capstone - College Staff Perceptions of Student Success - Lucy Romao Vandepol (20)

Capstone - College Staff Perceptions of Student Success - Lucy Romao Vandepol