If Intentionality is a Goal, Then...

1. Identifying Dimensions of Student IntentionalityChristine Brooks Cote and Elizabeth ReillyBowdoin CollegeRobert FrohNew England Association of Schools and Colleges

2. If Intentionality is a Goal, Then... • We need to understand intentionality. • We need to assess intentionality as a learning outcome. • We need to evaluate our efforts as educators to foster intentionality within our students.

3. The “Take Aways” • Process – listen to students to learn about their intentionality • Process – collaborative nature of project brought useful synergy • Process – able to involve faculty in meaningful ways • Product – sharpened definition of intentionality • Product – dimensions might be useful in assessment of intentionality

4. The Intentional Learner ...is purposeful and self-directed. Purpose implies clear goals, an understanding of process, and appropriate action. Further, purpose implies intention in one’s actions. ...possesses a self-awareness about the reason for study, the learning process itself, and how education is used. ...makes connections among seemingly disparate information and draws on a wide range of knowledge to make decisions or solve problems. ...connects study to personal life, formal educational to work, and knowledge to social responsibility. -- Greater Expectations

5. The Intentional Learner - Operationalized How do intentional (purposeful, self-directed) students behave? What does an intentional learner do in the classroom? How does an intentional learner make choices about courses or other academic options? How do intentional students make the best use of advising? How does an intentional student approach new subjects and different areas of the curriculum? How do intentional students make sense of liberal learning as they think about their life and careers after college?

6. Four Parts of Today’s Session • Description of Pilot Project Funded by Mellon Foundation Involving Several New England Liberal Arts Colleges • Dimensions of Intentionality That Came Out of the Project • Your Feedback • Fourth Part (only if time remains): • Description of Other Components of the Pilot Project • Next Proposal

7. Mellon Pilot Project NEASC/CIHE Accreditation Context • Articulate expectations and support for Assessment and IE (throughout the accreditation cycle) • CIHE Policy on Institutional Effectiveness (IE) provides a framework • Successive approximation (“The Science of Muddling Through” – Lindblom* • Variation by type of institution • Standards (2006) provide more clarity and specificity * Public Admin. Rev. 19:79-88, 1959; also Public Policy: The Essential Readings, Stella Theodoulou and Matthew Can, editors. Prentice Hall. 1995. p. 113-127

8. Mellon Pilot Project • A collaboration of selective liberal arts colleges conducting inquiry regarding: • ‘what and how students learn’ • addressing ‘The Academic Program’ (2006 Standards)

9. Assessment“A Conflict in Models”* • Skinner – Behaviorist Model • teaching and learning results from defining terminal behaviors and reinforcement strategies • Bruner – Scholarly Discipline Model • “a teacher is a model, someone who understands and communicates a sense of intrinsic excitement about the discipline” • “[a teacher] encourages intuitive leaps and leads students to the thrill of discovery” * Paper by Bob Newton – Boston College (on the NEASC Assessment Web Site

10. Learning Understood Through‘Critical Transition Points’ • First Year Experience • Selecting a Major • Study Abroad • Senior Thesis or Capstone Project

11. Research Questions • Round One: After arriving on campus… • What are your goals for your education? How did you decide upon these goals? What courses are you taking? How do you think these courses will help you achieve your educational goals? What knowledge and competencies or skills do you hope to acquire or develop during your first year in college? • Round Two: At the end of the first semester… • What have you learned about yourself and your academic interests during the first semester? Have your educational goals changed in any way? How? Why? What courses do you plan to take in the spring semester? How do these match with the courses you earlier planned on taking in the spring? Have you done any thinking about a possible major? What are your thoughts?

12. Data • Student responses differed – some were more sophisticated, more connected, more thoughtful, more eloquent than others • It appeared that some were more intentional and others were less intentional in their approach to college • Might some kind of developmental model help us in understanding the data? • Might we come up with some kind of “intentionality scale?”

13. Data Analysis • Read through students’ responses and recognized nine dimensions of student intentionality • Students were rated on each of the dimensions • Limitations and inter-rater reliability

14. Dimension One: Developing Skills • Low Response • Students who were rated low spoke about gaining proficiency in a “laundry list” of skills. • High Response • Students who were rated high in this dimension spoke about their interest and purpose in developing proficiency in a skill(s). They spoke of the long-term or personal benefits of acquiring proficiency in skills.

15. Dimension Two: Exploring the Curriculum • Low Response • Students who were rated low spoke generally about getting a “liberal arts education” or becoming “well-rounded”. • High Response • Students who were rated high wanted to explore the curriculum and explained why. For instance, some students talked about finding a major, pursuing personal interests or gaining knowledge in unfamiliar academic fields.

16. Dimension Three: Pursuing Knowledge • Low Response • Students who received a low rating spoke about the importance of grades or fulfilling course requirements. • High Response • Students who received high ratings expressed a personal interest or purpose in learning that went beyond external factors.

17. Dimension Four: Declaring a Major • Low Response • Students were noncommittal and spoke only about one or two possible majors. • High Response • Students spoke about narrowing their choice of majors and why they wanted to pursue a particular academic field.

18. Dimension Five: Declaring a Career • Low Response • Students were ambiguous about future career plans. • High Response • Students spoke of narrowing their choice of professions based on personal interest and pursuing experience and knowledge that would prepare them for their chosen profession.

19. Dimension Six: Making Connections • Low Response • Students did not see a connection between their learning inside and outside of the classroom. • High Response • Students were able to integrate their experiences outside the classroom with the knowledge they have gained in the classroom. The students who were rated highest were able to demonstrate a greater appreciation for learning or self-understanding.

20. Dimension Seven: Planning and Mapping the Future • Low Response • Students who received a low rating responded by only talking in the short-term about educational plans. • High Response • Students who had a long-term plan, such as taking courses to fulfill a major that would point them towards a desired profession(s). Students that consciously reflected on plans for attaining their goals were also rated highly. • Note • Only a small number of students addressed thisdimension and a majority did not rate as high as we would like to see.

21. Dimension Eight: Reflecting on Own Ideas and Actions • Low Response • Students spoke of only one or two things that they had learned about themselves, usually pertaining to their interests or aptitude. • High Response • Students spoke about one or more things they had learned about themselves that changed how they were thinking about their educational plans.

22. Dimension Nine: Owning the Self • Low Response • Students spoke about external factors that had shaped their goals. • High Response • Students spoke about demonstrating a greater commitment and interest in pursuing their goals by realizing that they were responsible for their education and for making decisions about how to live their lives.

23. Important Points • Dimensions were derived from the data. • Low and high ratings were more an attempt to understand intentionality than an attempt to judge or evaluate students.

24. Conclusions • A comparison of low rated responses to high rated responses shows the variability in student intentionality in each of the nine dimensions. Intentionality can be measured.

25. Conclusions • The range of responses suggests that there are ways in which to develop or foster intentionality throughout a student’s education.

26. The “Take Aways” • Process – listen to students to learn about their intentionality • Process – collaborative nature of project brought useful synergy • Process – able to involve faculty in meaningful ways • Product – sharpened definition of intentionality • Product – dimensions might be useful in assessment of intentionality

27. Senior data that we later collected contained similar variation.

28. Links to Presentation • If you would like additional handouts, including quotes from students on each of the dimensions, or a copy of the PowerPoint presentation, please go to the following link: http://academic.bowdoin.edu/ir/conferences/aacu2004.shtml

29. Your Feedback and Participation • What methods have you used to research intentionality? • What might you contribute to an operational definition of an intentional learner? • What are you doing on your campus to assess intentionality as a learning outcome? • What are you doing on your campus to evaluate the effectiveness of programs designed to foster intentional learners?

30. Next Proposal “Inquiry-Based Collaborative Assessment of Student Learning in Liberal Arts College”