A tracking analysis of compact students within level 1 of their higher education programmes

PurposeThis study explores how career training with mentoring (CTM) programs work in Nigerian higher education (HE) institutions to foster students' career development and employability of graduates. It also explores how Nigerian HE curriculum can be adequately used to facilitate CTM as well as possible constraints to effective implementation of CTM programs in Nigerian HE institutions.Design/methodology/approachThe study draws on interviews with well-qualified and experienced experts from six Nigerian public universities (each from the 6 geo-political zones of Nigeria), and 20 industries also within the same 6 geo-political zones of Nigeria that were selected for this study using a purposeful sampling technique. The study interviewed 33 experts comprising 21 senior academics at Nigerian universities and 12 industry executives to reveal substantial information about CTM programs in Nigerian HE institutions.FindingsDrawing on the three key themes that emerged during the thematic analysis and linked to social cognitive career theory, it is clear that participants are convinced that CTM can enhance clarity about students' career ambitions, career interests, personal development plans and employability. Findings show that there are some career-related programs or activities that Nigerian HE students are presented with, but the programs have not been effective as to offer graduates quality career guidance and employability skills that employers demand. Acknowledging these, participants recommend establishing CTM centres in all Nigerian HE institutions to provide students with the opportunity to receive quality career advice, coaching and mentoring services while schooling.Practical implicationsThe findings of this study shed light on varying resources required to cope with the demands of labour market in terms of supply of competent workforce that can contribute to Nigeria's economic growth and development. The findings are highly relevant for Nigeria and other developing countries' policy and research initiatives that aim to promote social inclusion and equity and improve better working conditions for all. The findings also have implications for career development and employability of HE graduates in developing world context.Originality/valueUnderstanding the role that CTM programs can play in facilitating career development and graduate employability can arguably be of importance within the developing world context. This study, therefore, provides significant suggestions on how to build sustained HEIs and labour market partnership to foster career development and employability of HE graduates through establishing CTM centres in every Nigerian HE institutions.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to present design principles for holistic design of online degree programmes (ODPs) in higher education (HE). The study adds to previous research on online programme design by examining how the digital competence and pedagogical strategy of a HE organisation can inform holistic ODP design.Design/methodology/approachThis paper presents a case study placed in the context of a Finnish applied HE organisation. Design-based research (DBR) process is used to create holistic design principles for new ODPs. Theoretical framework for the study is digitally competent organisation (Kampylis et al., 2015) and pedagogical strategy is innovation pedagogy (Kettunen et al., 2013).FindingsDesign principles for pedagogically informed holistic design of ODPs are presented as a three-tiered model comprising organisational, pedagogical and ODP layers. Each layer includes various principles for holistic design to integrate an organisation's pedagogical strategy in a digitally competent context to create quality ODPs.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper presents a case study from a HE organisation in Finland, but results are applicable to a wider global audience.Practical implicationsAs a contribution to practitioners, this paper presents a three-tiered holistic design of ODP in HE organisation, where the design principles are categorised in organisational, pedagogical and ODP design layers. In addition, suggestions to managers, instructional designers and educators are made for the holistic design of ODPs.Social implicationsBuilding the sense of community in ODPs and offering continuous support in pedagogy and technology are valuable for the well-being of the staff, students and the wider society.Originality/valueThe paper draws relationships between holistic design of ODPs, digital competence and pedagogical strategy. The paper provides managerial and operational viewpoints to managers, administrators and educators of HE organisations that plan to create new ODPs with a holistic focus on the educational organisation, its pedagogical strategy and digital competence. Recommendations for further development, possible applications and research of ODP education are made.

ПРОФЕСІОНАЛІЗМ ВИКЛАДАЧІВ ВВНЗ ЯК СКЛАДОВА ВНУТРІШНЬОЇ СИСТЕМИ ГАРАНТУВАННЯ ЯКОСТІ ВИЩОЇ ВІЙСЬКОВІЙ ОСВІТИ

From the Editor Debora L. Liddell This issue of The Journal of College Student Development represents the inaugural issue of a new leadership team, following the exceptional direction of John Braxton and his Associate Editors Susan Jones, Kristen Renn, and Vasti Torres. The higher education profession is grateful for their careful stewardship of our profession’s scholarship and of JCSD over the past 7 years. For the next several issues, we will continue to benefit from their editorial decisions as we process the queue of manuscripts accepted under their direction. I am deeply humbled and privileged to accept the invitation to edit this journal. With this transition I am pleased to introduce readers to our new leadership team. As Editor, I come with a background in the scholarship of student development—more specifically, moral development of young adults. My teaching and research have been informed by both qualitative and quantitative inquiry. A secondary line of research for me has been the development of student affairs professionals—how they are trained, socialized, and cultivated professionally throughout their careers. The connections between research, teaching and practice run deep for me. I have spent my entire postdoctoral career at the University of Iowa, teaching in and leading the Higher Education and Student Affairs graduate program. It is here I have had the deep privilege of working with committed colleagues, inquisitive students, and supportive elders. My first decision as Editor was to expand the leadership team and to add a new position, Senior Associate Editor, to assist with the management of the Journal and facilitate the time to publication. Following a national search for Associate Editors, I am pleased to introduce readers to our leadership team. They represent exceptional scholarship, an unwavering commitment to social justice in the academy, and a deep connection to the work of ACPA—College Student Educators International. The entire team has served as JCSD reviewers. As Senior Associate Editor, Dafina-Lazarus Stewart (uses ze, zim, zir/hir pronouns) also serves as Associate Professor of Higher Education and Student Affairs at Bowling Green State University. Hir research agenda focuses on issues of diversity, inclusion, equity, and justice in US higher education, particularly around race, ethnicity, sexuality, and gender, as well as religion, faith, and spirituality. Dr. Stewart engages the issues of individual experiences, identity, and outcomes as well as community and institutional structures and systems presented by these social constructions and constrictions predominantly through critical and deconstructivist paradigms and attendant qualitative methodologies. Two colleagues will share the work of Associate Editor for Research-in-Brief and On Campus. Jan L. Arminio is Professor and Director of the Higher Education Program at George Mason University. Her scholarship focuses on multicultural issues, qualitative research, assessment, and campus programs. From 2004–2008, Dr. Arminio served as President of CAS, Council for the Advancement of Standards. She also was appointed to and later chaired the NASPA Faculty Fellows and the ACPA Senior Scholars. Her recent scholarly books included contributions on student veterans in higher education, inclusivity on campus, and qualitative research. Robert Reason, Professor of Student Affairs and Higher Education at Iowa State University, studies how college affects students. His recent work focuses on assessing and improving civic learning for personal and social responsibility in college. He has completed several studies of [End Page 533] first-year student outcomes and is a noted expert on issues of student persistence in college. Before returning to his doctoral alma mater, Dr. Reason was at Penn State University’s Center for the Study of Higher Education. As Associate Editor for International Research and Scholarship, Tricia Seifert is a faculty member in the Adult and Higher Education program at Montana State University and maintains an appointment in the Leadership, Higher and Adult Education Department at the University of Toronto. Using a mixed methodological approach, her scholarship examines organizational cultures and conditions as well as student experiences associated with postsecondary learning and success. She has served as Faculty in Residence for ACPA’s Commission for Global Dimensions on Student Development. Leading the Journal’s commitment to introducing readers to new literature in the field, Maureen E. Wilson will serve as Associate Editor of Book Reviews. She is Associate Professor...

Improving the Vietnamese Accreditation in Light of the SACSCOC’s Institutional Effectiveness Standards

Although access to higher education is virtually universally available, many students who start in a higher education program drop out prior to completing a degree or achieving their individual academic and/or social goals. In response to student attrition, colleges have developed intervention programs and services to try to retain students. In spite of all of the programs and services, according to the U.S. Department of Education, Center for Educational Statistics, only 50% of those who enter higher education actually earn a bachelor's degree. Enrollment management and the retention of students remain a top priority of federal and state government, of colleges and universities, college students and their parents. This book offers a formula for student success intended to assist colleges and universities in retaining and graduating students. Although access to higher education is virtually universally available, many students who start in a higher education program drop out prior to completing a degree or achieving their individual academic and/or social goals. In response to student attrition, colleges have developed intervention programs and services to try to retain students. In spite of all of the programs and services to help retain students, according to the U.S. Department of Education, Center for Educational Statistics, only 50% of those who enter higher education actually earn a bachelor's degree. Enrollment management and the retention of students remain a top priority of federal and state government, colleges, universities, and parents of students who are attending college and of students themselves. This book offers a formula for student success intended to assist colleges and universities in retaining and graduating students. Contributors: Some of the leading educators who study college student retention contributed to this book. All are truly dedicated to helping students achieve their individual academic and personal goals. A list of each and their affiliation follows: Alexander W. Astin: Allan M. Cartter Professor of Higher Education at the University of California, Los Angeles, and Director of the Higher Education Research Institute. Elizabeth Barlow: Executive Director of Institutional Research at the University of Houston, Houston, Texas. John Bean: Associate Professor of Higher Education at Indiana University, Bloomington. Joseph B. Berger: Associate Professor of Education and Chair of the Department of Educational Policy, Research, and Administration in the School of Education at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. John Braxton: Professor of Education in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy Program in the Department of Leadership, Policy and Organizations at Peabody College, Vanderbilt University. Kurt Burkum: Doctoral student and Ostar Fellow in the Center for the Study of Higher Education at Penn State University. Alberto F. Cabrera: Specializes in research methodologies, college choice, college students, classroom experiences, minorities in higher education, and economics of education. Gloria Crisp: Doctoral student in educational leadership with a focus on higher education in the department of Educational Leadership and Cultural Studies, College of Education at the University of Houston. Linda Hagedorn: Associate professor and the associate director of the Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis (CHEPA), as well as the program chair for the Community College Leadership program in the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California. Steve LaNasa: Assistant Vice Provost for Academic Planning at the University of Missouri, Kansas City, where he is responsible for outcomes assessment, planning, and program evaluation. Amy S. HirschyAssistant professor in the Department of Educational and Counseling Psychology and the Department of Leadership, Foundations, and Human Resource Education at the University of Louisville. Stephanie D. Lee Doctoral student in the Department of Leadership, Policy, and Organizations at Peabody College of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. Susan C. Lyon: Works in the Office of Student Affairs in the School of Engineering at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Thomas G. Mortensen: Senior Scholar at the Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education in Washington, D.C., and an independent higher education policy analyst living in Oskaloosa, Iowa. Amaury Nora: Professor of Higher Education and Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Development in the College of Education at the University of Houston. Leticia Oseguera: Doctoral candidate in the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Education's Higher Education and Organizational Change program. Alan Seidman: The creator and editor of the Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice. John H. Schuh: Distinguished professor of educational leadership at Iowa State University, Ames, where he is also department chair. Vincent Tinto: Distinguished University Professor at Syracuse University and chair of the higher education program.

An entrepreneurship program in higher education aims to equip students with the knowledge, skills, and mindset needed to start and manage successful ventures. By integrating these aspects into an entrepreneurship program, higher education institutions can empower students to become successful entrepreneurs who drive innovation, create value, and make a positive impact on the world. This study aims to organize and evaluate entrepreneurship programs in higher education to provide future implications for university graduates. This study involved a bibliometric analysis in identifying, organizing, synthesizing, and analyzing the topic of entrepreneurship programs for higher education. The result is there has been a steady increase in scholarly publications related to entrepreneurship programs in higher education over the past few decades. The analysis in this study show that the papers are strongly connected through meaningful cocitations, highlighting the importance of publications published on different issues of entrepreneurship programs classified through clusters. The overall finding of the papers is that entrepreneurship programs in higher education can significantly influence students' propensity and confidence to start their own companies. Companies, universities, and governments highly value the integration of industry and education as a development strategy for schools, companies, and countries.

Over a period of around fifteen years English higher education has become characterised by an increasingly marketise and differentiated system, most recently with the encouragement of new “challenger” providers potentially creating price competition for undergraduate degrees. This paper explores shifting patterns of enrolments between different institution types (those requiring high entry grades and those requiring lower entry grades) for evidence of how these types may be responding to the new market conditions. We introduce the concept of a “dual-pricing” mechanism to model how different institution types may be reacting. Dual pricing would be exemplified as a situation where entry requirements (a “price” based on qualification tariff points required for entry) and tuition-fee are matched in a linear hierarchy of institutions: Only the most prestigious institutions offering the courses demanding the highest entry qualifications (tariff) would command the highest fee (in this case a maxima of £9250 per annum), with fees demanded by institutions requiring lower entry requirements tapering off towards £6000 per year. This dual-pricing mechanism is discussed here as a policy aim, and the intention of this paper is to locate it in relation to market failure (defined as the failing of a market intervention to meet that policy aim). This paper’s critique of the marketised direction of travel in English higher education (HE) policymaking is that a dual-price mechanism would seriously undermine efforts to widen access for underrepresented social groups, particularly those from low income households who may be more likely to access low-cost provision rather than more transformative HE opportunities (supposedly those deriving from having a degree from a more prestigious institution), even if they met the entry requirements for higher-cost provision.

This article argues that the theory of cognitive apprenticeship could inform those who teach and work with doctoral students in ways that enable them to provide students with more systematic preparation, more focused guidance and scaffolding, more explicit feedback, and enhanced preparation for participating in a collaborative way in communities of scholars. Using the author’s teaching experience with a first‐year doctoral seminar in a program in higher education, the article suggests five specific strategies for utilizing the theory of cognitive apprenticeship in practical and effective ways to strengthen the socialization of future scholars. Cet article défend la thèse selon laquelle la théorie du compagnonnage cognitif (cognitive apprenticeship) peut aider ceux qui enseignent et qui œuvrent auprès des doctorants de façon à fournir à ces derniers une préparation davantage systématique, un accompagnement davantage focalisé, une feed‐back plus explicite, ainsi qu’une meilleure préparation à la participation collaborative à une communauté d’universitaires. Se basant sur l’expérience d’enseignement de l’auteur dans le contexte d’un séminaire doctoral de première année, dans le cadre d’un programme portant sur l’enseignement supérieur, l’article présente cinq stratégies spécifiques à l’utilisation de la théorie du compagnonnage cognitif visant à renforcer la socialisation des universitaires de demain.

Purpose: This article provides an overview of the composition and evolution of China’s high-level talent programs in higher education. Design/Approach/Methods: This article reviews key talent policies adopted by the Chinese government since the 1990s, using content analysis methods to identify policy characteristics and reform trends. Findings: Talent programs in China operate at four levels: the national level, provincial level, city level, and institutional level. The main objectives of China’s high-level talent programs are to support and promote the development of young talent and to encourage overseas scholars to return to China. China’s high-level talent programs have undergone various changes since 1993. The evolution is characterized by the following five major aspects: individual program optimization; replacement, integration, and separation; preventing overlapping funding; mitigating the unbalanced impact the programs have on higher education institutions across regions; and strengthening risk assessment for programs focused on attracting overseas talent. Originality/Value: This article offers a comprehensive assessment of the talent programs implemented by Chinese universities and explores the key trends and content of recent policy changes.

This study aims to address the issue of low completion and high dropout rates in online and distance learning through play and gamification. The general aim of this study is to provide a set of gamification design principles for researchers and practitioners on how gamification can be used in online and distance learning programs in higher education. More specifically, the study intended to seek the answers whether student participation in the online and distance learning programs can be increased by the use of gamification, how the gamification influences the students’ academic performances in the online and distance learning programs and what learners think about integrating gamification into the open and distance learning programs in higher education. The study was designed as a sequential exploratory research, which is one of the mixed research methods. Findings indicate that integrating gamification into the online and distance learning programs has a significant impact on increasing students' visits to the learning environment. In addition, when the pre-gamification and post-gamification scenarios were compared in terms of students accessing to the content in the online and distance learning environment, it was discovered that there was a statistically significant increase. It can be also said that there is significant difference regarding to academic performances for gamified situations. Lastly, gamification is said to be fun by students and to contribute positively to their motivation. According to this, gamification has a positive effect on learners' e-learning behaviors and should be used more in online and distance learning programs.

From the Editor60 Years of Scholarship Debora Liddell, Editor With this issue (November–December 2019), I am pleased to commemorate the 60th Anniversary of The Journal of College Student Development. Since its inception in 1959 as The Journal of College Student Personnel with Charles Lewis as its first Editor, the Journal has reflected the increasingly deep, broad, and complex scholarly work of researchers and practitioners who study and work with college students. The change to its current name in 1988 reflected a professional ethos of honoring the development of the whole person over personnel functions (American College Personnel Association [ACPA], 2019); likewise, the practice of student affairs work has enveloped a commitment to assisting students in reaching their full capacity and all of their complexity. THE EVOLUTION OF JCSD WITH THE FIELD Like many graduate programs, the one in which I have spent my own career (University of Iowa) has undergone shifts reflecting changes in the field. It was founded in 1960 as a counselingoriented program, led by counseling psychologist Albert Hood, JCSD's third Editor, and situated in the Department of Counselor Education. The Student Development in Postsecondary Education (SDP) distinguished itself from the Higher Education program, located in a different department, by its focus on theoretical advances and measurement concerning individual development. It flourished in this configuration until the SDP program eventually merged with the Higher Education program in 2010 to reflect a commitment to understanding students, their environments, and the institutions in which they study—thus, the Higher Education and Student Affairs program emerged. Again, as a profession, we have seen these kinds of shifts in foci reflected in the scholarship that is produced, the innovative work that is done, and the graduate curricula that are delivered. The Journal, once in a paper-only format, increasingly used available technologies both to manage manuscripts and their reviews, and to make available issues (past and current) to subscribers. Where we once allowed subscriber/members to opt out of paper subscriptions, now members opt in and pay an additional fee for paper subscriptions. Using available technologies allows for democratization of knowledge, but may conflict with more traditional metrics of a journal's value—the journal impact factor. The impact factor is a traditional proxy of a journal's reputation, as measured by the number of citations it has by other scholarly works. While measured in a variety of ways, impact factors "have become self-reinforcing measures of journal quality, the papers therein, and their authors. Researchers now consider IFs when choosing their publication outlets; journal editors formulate policies explicitly designed to improve their IFs; and publishers advertise their IFs on their websites" (Lozano, Larivière, & Gingras, 2012, p. 2140–2141). Given the time to publication and other limits to the publication process, are there alternative measures of impact that help us assess the influence of a journal or an individual career? Perhaps download frequency data from the publisher could tell tenure and [End Page 641] promotion committees something about how an article is used in teaching or practice. Surely viable alternatives to the impact factor exist and offer a more accurate picture about influence. In my past four years as Editor, I have had many opportunities to consider what the role of an association journal should be and what it should stand for. I have concluded, at least for the work we've advanced with The Journal of College Student Development, the following practices and commitments. First, our journal is a powerful venue where new knowledge is scrutinized and disseminated to improve practice and future scholarship. This is evident by the inclusion of JCSD in several national and international studies of higher education literature (Bray & Major, 2011; Harper, 2012; Harris & Patton, 2019). This is also evident by the way that we work with reviewers. Each article that passes an initial evaluation by an action editor is sent for review by at least two members of the Editorial Board, who are matched to the manuscript based on their content and methodological expertise. When necessary, we tap external reviewers to secure the expertise needed for a thorough review. Second, the Journal is a space where diversity in persons, perspectives, and epistemological...

The article deals with the concept of quality and compliance in the context of the short-cycle professional higher education (SCHE) program in the field of real estate management. The article highlights the role of graduates and employers in assessing the quality and compliance and surveys of students as well. The surveys of students, graduates and employers and the analysis of legislation allow assessing the quality and compliance of SCHE study program in real estate management. Currently, in Latvia, the qualification of a house manager can be obtained at three accredited higher education institutions, studying in a short-cycle professional higher education program, which, in accordance with European Qualifications Framework (EQF), is the first-level professional higher education program. The article will mainly focus on the quality and compliance of the house managers’ professional qualification acquisition in short-cycle higher education programs in Latvia. Data analysis, synthesis and logical construction methods have been used in this article.

Teaching the Library to Students of Higher Education

This article describes six major challenges facing faculty members and teams as they engage in the design of degree programs in higher education and how technology tools for program design can be employed to address those challenges. They include tools for collaboration, leveraging best practice, designing for quality and distinctiveness, addressing standards overload, focusing on assessment, and making feedback a meaningful part of the design process. The article makes the case for each of the challenges and shows examples of how the tools help teams engage in collaborative program development in higher education.