Artifact c1

Running Head: COURSE FINAL MASTER PRODUCT: SEATTLE CENTRAL COLLEGE 1
Course Final Master Product: Seattle Central College

Rachel Fielding, Brittany Goff, Zack Kramer, & Cristina Simental
Seattle University
*Contributions to overall assignment:

Rachel Fielding Observation of BE Learning Center, Compiled Observational
Synthesis for group, Site Review Product (Academic Probation Policy and
Considerations for Improvement), Recommendations Synthesis, Conclusion,
Presentation, and Compiled Final Master Product for group
Brittany Goff Observation of Information Session, Executive Summary, Site Review
Product (Demographics and Governance, and Student Support Services), Literature
Review Product, Presentation
Zack Kramer Observation of ASC, Interview Product (Lori Miller in SCC Counseling
center), Considerations for Improvement, Recommendations Synthesis, Presentation
Cristina Simental Observation of Student Support Services, Interview Product (Kelly
Johnson in SCC Womens Center), *some* Literature Review Product
MASTER PRODCUT SEATTLE CENTRAL COLLEGE 2
Executive Summary
Within the higher education community, the topic of student academic success is a
common and necessary one. In order to better understand what makes students successful and the
barriers to their success, higher education practitioners must research and learn best practices in
an on-going manner. In this project, we focused specifically on the community college setting
and the uniqueness of the student population. In particular, we drew experience and information
from Seattle Central College.
Using a combination of site visits, interviews, and research of current literature, we were
able to get a more holistic understanding of community college students and assess academic
success factors. Visits consisted of interactions with the BE Learning Center, Associate Student
Council, a new student information session, and the Womens Center. Two Seattle Central
Community College professionals were interviewed; Lori Miller, a long-time tenured faculty
member and counselor in the Counseling Center and Kelly Johnson, Program Coordinator for the
Womens Program.
The culmination of objective experiences and research lead to greater depth of
understanding of the needs of community college students, how Seattle Central serves these
students, and recommendations for best practices moving forward. In general, community
college students appear more diverse in their needs and their requirements of the institution they
are attending. This aligns with the idea of the two-way stretch discussed by Cohen, Brawer, and
Kisker (2013). However, Seattle Central already has programs in place with these needs in mind.
Recommendations for Seattle Central include actions related to adjustments to the current
student progress policy, creating a more accessible campus, positive reinforcement programs,
and more robust staff training programs.

Interview Product
Counseling Center
Located in the Broadway Edison building in the center of the Seattle Central campus, the
Counseling Center provides students with personal, career, and academic support and guidance
and shares office space with TRiO. Our interviewee was counselor and faculty Lori Miller who
was gracious enough to allow us to speak with her without notice when our scheduled interview
cancelled. Lori is a 94 Seattle University alumni from the Counseling Masters program and has
worked at Seattle Central for the past 22 years as a tenured faculty member and counselor. Prior
to Seattle Central, Lori worked with clients in group private practice and within her own private
practice. These positions failed to offer the collaborative environment she desired which led her
to teach at Citi University for five years and later work as a counseling case manager at Seattle
Vocational Institute. Lori was drawn to community colleges because she wanted to leverage the
informal MOUs she had created with community partners to aid the diverse, non-traditional
student body the two-year system attracts.
Academic support. Rather than referring students to their academic advisors when they
are struggling to meet degree requirements, Seattle Central takes a non-traditional path having
students meet instead with counselors. Lori identified the most common contributing factors to
students failure to meet academic standards that Seattle Central students encounter. These
include the negative memories of high school or prior college experiences that eliminate
motivation, illness (self and family), bad study habits or overconfidence formed in high school,
and familial definitions of success that are misaligned with students academic goals. For adult
students, competing responsibilities and financial hardship are almost always correlated to
students failure to meet academic standards. Low-socioeconomic families cannot afford to live

near the Seattle campus and therefore must commute several hours to class, while also making
time to travel to their child care facility. Lori works with students to identify which of these
barriers to their academic success is most prevalent and refers students to services on campus
and her partners in the community to help students grapple with their responsibilities while
thriving academically.
Academic Probation Pipeline. Seattle Centrals academic probation process closely
resembles Highline Colleges previous policy. Students are afforded three quarters to raise their
cumulative GPA above 2.0 being put on academic alert (first quarter), probation (second
quarter), and finally suspension (third quarter) for one year. Students on academic alert are
encouraged to seek out campus resources to address sources of stress and distraction but are not
required to meet in person with a counselor. Once students are on probation, students are
required to meet with a counselor to discern what is preventing them from meeting SCCs
academic standards, as mentioned above. Lori uses these meetings as an opportunity to speak
casually with students and demonstrate that she is an ally in their path to graduation and sets
milestones for progress that will be discussed at proceeding meetings throughout the quarter. It
was interesting to find out that Loris recurring meetings with each student throughout the
quarter is her own professional best practice and is not a school policy. Often, students meet once
with a counselor to register and are not contacted again until suspension occurs.
Assessment and student motivation. Based on information provided by Lori, Seattle
Central does not have any formal assessment, college success program, or tracking system to
gauge the effectiveness of counselors on students academic achievement. We felt that without
assessment, Seattle Central would not have a complete understanding of the impact of counselor
interventions.

Issues and Recommendations. After leaving our interview, we kept forming questions
that practitioners at Seattle Central should be asking about the probation process. What
percentage of students who start the academic probation process exit before suspension and how
quickly? Is requiring students to meet with a counselor once during the second and third
consecutive quarters enough to address why students are not meeting standards and correct their
course? How much more likely are students who meet with a counselor that requires regular
check ins, like Lori does, to exit academic probation than those who only meet the required once
per quarter? Does the length of suspension decrease students likelihood of returning to Seattle
Central and are they leaving with the skills to prevent themselves from falling onto probation if
they transfer? What populations of students are more likely to struggle academically than others
and why are there not programs to work with their unique needs? A deeper examination of
theories of student departure could provide answers to many of these questions. Tintos (1975)
Model of Student Departure suggests that academic and social integration are critical in a
students decision to persist.
Despite the purpose of the academic probation process for student affairs practitioners to
become partners in students success, Seattle Centrals lack of policy for guiding the frequency
and context of these interactions seems to do little to motivate professionals in providing
individualized and thorough treatment.
Professional staff have only limited incentives to improve what they do. Their welfare
does not depend on their institutions performance as measured by student outcomes.
They do not get paid more when the students learn more, and no one is dismissed if they
learn less. (Cohen, Brawer, & Kisker, 2013, p. 422)

Stephenss et al., (2012) Cultural Mismatch Theory may explain how identity affects a
counselors investment in a students success may vary depending on the mutual (mis)alignment
of identities, with more effort being expended when working with students from a similar
background. Additionally, Lori recommended that all staff be involved in getting students out of
the probation pipeline instead of staff waiting to be asked for help by their colleagues. Proactive
efforts should be in place to create partnerships between more student services and would extend
the network of support students can access. Celebratory events could also be used as incentives
for students to raise their GPAs, instead of relying on punishment.
Women's Center
Located in the South Annex building a block away from the main part of campus, the
Womens Center shares a location with Student Support Programs, Disability Support Services
and the Emergency Fund Program. The Womens program provides a weekly lecture series,
campus fairs, and other events, in order to build community awareness around gender concerns.
Our second interviewee was Kelly Johnson, the Program Coordinator for the Womens Program.
Kelly has been a part of Seattle Central for over 9 years; she has extensive connections within
the college, as well as within the community that guide her as she helps students make the
connections they need.
Academic support. In addition to Kellys program coordinator role she is also part of the
Women in Society course. This course has four objectives:
Raise students awareness of womens activities, achievements, expertise and
experience in the contemporary world.
Increase students ability to identify the impact of historical and contemporary
discrimination against women on their own lives and aspirations.

Encourage and assist students to develop a multicultural perspective that respects
the experiences and perspectives of others as they explore differences and
interconnections among women.
Provide students with role models and strategies for challenging and changing the
social institutions and practices which may create barriers for themselves and/or
other students
Although Kelly does participate in student lives academically, she is more of an asset
when it comes to helping students who are struggling with personal problems that are affecting
their academics. During our interview with Kelly she stated that she has had students in tears in
her office due to various extenuating circumstances prohibiting them from successfully
participating in, or even attending, their courses. Kelly listens to each student individually and
assesses how she can best help them. For example, she has reached out to her connections within
various departments in order to help students get the help they need to be successful
academically. These departments include: Basic Food Employment & Training Program,
Domestic Abuse Womens Network, New Beginnings (Ending Domestic Violence), Outreach
Programs for various types of violence, Energy Assistance, Jubilee Womens Center (Women in
poverty), Orca Lift, and Workforce Education.
Academic Probation Pipeline. During our interview with Kelly she stated she receives
calls from faculty, academic advisors, and academic counselors with regards to students who
could use her assistance. At this point, she stated that typically the student has already been put
on academic probation and now seeks help in order to get out of the probationary status. Kelly
stated she works with students who have outside circumstances that prohibit them from
succeeding. In some cases, students are struggling academically because they are strained

financially. In these cases, students are also referred to Kelly because she is the primary contact
for all inquiries regarding emergency funds for students. Kelly stated,
The Emergency Fund Program provides a funding avenue for students requiring
emergency assistance in special circumstances. Eligible students may receive funds once
per academic year for the following items related to past due expenses: housing,
food/meals, medical/dental costs, personal automobile expenses, childcare, and personal
transportation/gas (K. Johnson, personal communication, April, 26, 2017).
Kelly guides students through the application process, then she submits the student's
application to a committee who will review the hardship/circumstance and decide if the funds are
granted or not. If the funds are granted, students may be required to work closely with their
faculty and advisor in order to get out of academic probation.
Issues and Recommendations. After completion of our interview with Kelly, we
continued to ask questions with regards to accessibility. First, we noticed that the location of the
services were offered away from the main campus, the building had various doors but most were
locked. The building was difficult to find, as was the entrance. Before finding the main entrance,
we encountered four doors that all were locked. A recommendation for the various important
services offered in this building is to move the location to a more friendly and accessible
location. Many students in the community college setting require their various services, yet they
are not located in an area that is populated. Relocating these services to a more user-friendly
space might allow students to locate the services offered by not only the Womens program but
also Student Support Programs, Disability Support Services and the Emergency Fund Program.
Finding help within these programs early might help students from entering probationary status.

Site Review Product
Demographic and Governance Overview
Seattle Central College is a public, not for profit, community college in Seattle,
Washington that is a part of the larger Seattle Colleges system. The mission of Seattle Central
College is to promote educational excellence in a multicultural urban environment and provide
opportunities for academic achievement, workplace preparation, and service to the community.
Approximately 16,000 students attend SCC annually and their median age is 27.2 years old
(Seattle, n.d.). SCC is committed to creating a learning environment that is accessible, diverse,
responsive, and innovative (Seattle, n.d.). SCC offers 26 different programs of study including
two Bachelor of Applied Science degrees. Approximately 43% of SCC students indicate that
they intend to transfer to another educational institution in the future, while 31% are attending
SCC to complete workforce education or training.
Seattle Central Colleges current president is Dr. Sheila Lange. SCC has a Presidents
Cabinet of administrators on campus that are the primary governing body and they meet twice a
month to address campus issues. The cabinet members hold the following roles on campus:
President, Executive Director of the Foundation, Vice President of Student Services, Associate
Vice President of International Education, Vice President of Instruction, Executive Director of
Institutional Effectiveness, Vice President of Administrative Services, Director of
Communications and Marketing, Interim Executive Dean of Seattle Vocational Institute,
Director of Human Resources, and Chief Diversity Officer. This cabinet represents a variety of
perspectives throughout campus to ensure a holistic understanding of campus needs, concerns,
and impact of decisions.

Systems of Support Service
Seattle Central College offers a multitude of support services to aid in students academic
success, and several programs serve specific populations like veteran students, undocumented
students, and those with disabilities. For purposes of this paper, we have chosen to discuss two
support services in particular; TRiO and disability services. SCCs TRiO Student Support
Services, formerly Student Academic Assistance (SAA), assists with the personal, academic and
professional growth of firstgeneration college students, lowincome college students and
college students with disabilities (Seattle, n.d.). The TRiO program is a federally funded
program that has evolved to encompass eight other programs; Upward Bound, Upward Bound
Math-Science, Veterans Upward Bound, Educational Opportunity Centers, Ronald E. McNair
Post-Baccalaureate Achievement, Student Support Services, Talent Search, and Training
Program for Federal TRiO Programs Staff (Seattle, n.d.). In order for students to be eligible to
apply to the TRiO program, students must meet at least one criteria pertaining to low income
status, first-generation college student, or have a documented disability. Students enrolled in
TRiO Student Support Services have access to academic advising, personal
counseling/mentoring, transfer planning, financial aid guidance, one-on-one tutoring, library
resources, textbook rentals, and 4-year College visits (Seattle, n.d.).
The office of Disability Support Services (DSS) at Seattle Central College provides
services and accommodations that ensure equal access to all aspects of campus
life. Accommodations such as interpreters, shared class notes, additional time for testing, and
alternative material formatting is available. Definitions of disability are determined using the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 (Seattle, n.d.). The DSS office has three specific staff/faculty dedicated to working with

students. Per the DSS handbook, it is policy that students requesting accommodations meet with
the DSS Counselor at the start of each quarter to arrange accommodations specific to the needs
of the quarter. Documentation is required in order for the DSS Counselor to authorize academic
adjustments and this documentation can vary depending upon the specific disability.
Academic Standards and Probation Policy
It took some digging to locate Seattle Central Colleges Academic standards and
probation procedure, despite our groups interview in the counseling center. The policy is titled
Student Progress Procedures and is housed within the counseling department, rather than
academic services. With the information provided in our interview, we were able to locate the
policy document on the SCC website, though it is not very easily accessible. The first takeaway
from this discovery is that the title of the document is unclear in that it does not explicitly state
its relationship to academic standards. Additionally, with the policy being located in counseling
services, students, faculty, staff, and academic advisors are likely unaware of the policy, how it
works, and how to best support students. Cowen, Brawer, and Kisker (2013) stress the
importance of providing access and opportunity in the community college setting, however if
students, faculty, and staff have difficulty locating policy information, it is hard to expect them to
understand and adhere to expectations. It is also important to note the current student progress
policy at SCC was adopted by the president in 2004, almost thirteen years ago. The student
progress procedure is portrayed as a PDF document encompassing four sections including:
introduction, minimum grade point average (GPA), credits attempted/credits earned, and
degree/certificate completion.
Introduction. The introduction to the policy states that it applies to all students enrolled
in certificate or degree programs, and whom are taking courses at the 100 level or above.

Additionally, this portion of the policy notes that certain populations of students (Running Start,
high school completion, international, veterans, financial aid recipients, etc.) may be subject to
different or additional academic standards policies and appeal processes.
Minimum grade point average. The portion of the policy dedicated to minimum grade
point average identifies the various levels students can go through if their GPA drops below a
2.0. The first time a students cumulative GPA drops below 2.0, they are placed on Academic
Alert First Warning. Students whose cumulative GPA remains below a 2.0 for two
consecutive quarters are placed on Academic Probation Second Warning. When a students
cumulative GPA drops below 2.0 for a third consecutive quarter, they are suspended for one
academic year, Suspension Third Warning.
Credits attempted/credits earned. The credits attempted/credits earned section of the
policy states that once a student has completed thirty college level credits, they must complete at
least 75% of the credits attempted each quarter. Students will be placed on First Warning after
the second quarter in which they fail to complete at least seventy-five percent of their registered
credits. Students are placed on Second Warning if they fail to complete seventy-five percent of
their attempted credits for an additional quarter. Finally, students are placed in third solution
and are suspended for one quarter if they fail to complete at least seventy-five percent of their
attempted credits for a third occurrence.
Degree/Certificate Completion. Finally, the degree/certificate completion portion of the
student progress policy states that initial notification is sent to students when they complete
fifty percent of the credits required for their degree or certificate, but do not have an academic
plan in place. Students are presented with a contract for completion notification when they
have completed 125 percent of the credits required for their degree without receiving it.

Developmental Interventions
Each stage of the student progress procedure implements similar developmental
interventions when academic standards are not met that are supposed to aid students in achieving
academic success.
Minimum grade point average. In academic alert, academic probation, and academic
suspension related to cumulative grade point average, a hold is placed on the students ability to
register or receive transcripts. Additionally, in each of these stages, students are required to meet
with a counselor to have the hold released. When a student has reached academic probation, they
are required to develop a student success plan when meeting with a counselor to have the hold
released. If a student reaches academic suspension for failure to increase their GPA after three
quarters, they are notified of their suspension via a written letter. The student may appeal the
suspension or apply for readmission after a one year break. In order to be readmitted to the
college, they must attend a meeting with the vice president for student development.
Credits attempted/credits earned. Additional interventions are employed for first and
second warning, and third solution, regarding credits attempted/credits earned. When a student is
placed on first warning, they are encouraged to schedule an appointment with a counselor and
are provided information for various campus support services to help them meet academic
standards (though the policy does not state what these services are). When a student reaches
second warning, a hold is placed on their account and they are required to meet with a counselor
to create a success plan documenting how the student will meet this credit requirement. If a
student reaches third solution, they are notified of their one quarter academic suspension. The
student can either appeal the suspension or apply for readmission after one quarter. Readmission
requires a face to face meeting with the vice president for student development.

Degree/certificate completion. Separate interventions are employed when it comes to
degree and certificate completion. In both initial notification and contract for completion, a hold
is placed on students registration and transcripts if they have not committed to a long range
academic plan. Students must meet with an advisor to develop an education plan for completion
of their degree or certificate program to remove the hold. If a student has completed 125 percent
of the credits required for their program the student is required to register in-person and only for
courses required by their educational plan.
CTC Support Services
In an exploration of the Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges
(SBCTC) website, we discovered broad support services in place to support student success and
achievement. According to the website, the board consists of nine governor appointed members
that advocate for, coordinate, and direct Washingtons thirty-four public community and
technical colleges. The SBCTC focuses on providing services in their three mission areas
including: basic education for adults, workforce education, and academic transfer. To support
students in these areas, the SBCTC website seems to provide information targeted toward
various student populations including those who want a four-year degree, students who are
seeking job training, students seeking basic education or their GED, high school students,
parents, counselors, veterans, and international students. The downside of the SBCTC website is
that it seems to support students indirectly, by providing broad information and directing
students to follow the policies and procedures outline by their institution of choice.
Considerations for Improvement
The following considerations are important for improvement of Seattle Central Colleges
academic standards, procedures, and support. First and foremost, the academic standards and

probation policy should be named as such. The title of the existing document as student
progress procedure is misleading and confusing. Additionally, the policy should be revisited as
it was implemented nearly thirteen years ago. The current student progress policy should be
assessed in purpose and the results it has on students who go through the cycle. Cohen, Brawer,
and Kisker (2013) discuss the importance of the assessment of institutional policies and
outcomes on the basis of promoting individual mobility for students in the community college
setting, and SCC may find its current student progress policy to further hinder its students from
achieving academic success, especially if they are forced out of the institution for long periods of
time. It is important to consider the message that is sent by requiring students to take a one year
break if they are placed on academic suspension, and to assess how this policy affects the
institution regarding student retention. Additionally, the institution should consider separating
academic warning and probation procedures from the student progress procedure. It could prove
beneficial to implement one clear document for academic probation procedures regarding
minimum cumulative GPA and credits attempted versus credits earned. Separately, the current
policy for student progress would encompass the degree and certificate notification process.
Finally, the student academic probation policy should be an encompassing document for all
students within the SCC population, rather than noting that certain groups of students could be
held to additional standards.
Literature Review Product
In this literature review, we look to assess the array of research done on the topic of
academic success of community college students. The first barrier found was that there is a
limited amount of literature specific to the community college population and more substantial
resources for 4-year universities and colleges. Although we can argue that 4-year institutional

research can be useful when talking about community college students, the focus is to hone in on
our 2-year students. We have reviewed 15 sources of literature in an attempt to address a variety
of special student populations and areas of concern for community college students. Three
specific themes evolved through the research: student characteristics, student needs, and
considerations for improvement.
Student Characteristics
The success and retention of certain race populations is a commonly researched area.
Male students make up a smaller overall population of college students than their female
counterparts and the retention rate of African-American men in community college are among
the lowest of all ethnic groups nationally (Perrakis, 2008; Hagedorn, Maxwell, & Hampton,
2008; Chenoweth, 1998). Perrakis (2008) notes, Research shows that community colleges
remain the predominant entry point for postsecondary instruction among students of color, in
particular, among African American students.
Some of the research indicated that there are specific subgroups that are more likely to be
on probation after their first quarter at the community college. For example, Tovar and Simons
(2006) write, The number of minority, particularly Latino, students attending community
colleges is on the rise in the United States. Such students frequently lack academic preparation
and financial resources. These difficulties, when added to family obligations, often require that
minority students attend institutions that offer the most flexible arrangements typically,
community colleges. Due to these issues, however, their successful transition to community
college may be difficult. Up to 35% of first-time freshmen with a disproportionate number of
Latinos are on probation after their first semester at a large, urban, public community college
(Tovar & Simon, 2006).

A less common, but highly informative, research approach is to compare the
characteristic differences of specific students on academic probation versus those in good
standing. Trombley (2000) performed said research and found apparent differences in work
status, high school GPA, and whether children were present in the household. Not surprisingly, a
greater number of students on academic probation reported being employed than those in good
standing, which may have been because they had less time for homework and class attendance.
Probationary students reported lower high school GPAs, which aligns with the notion that high
school GPA is a predictor of college success; and a greater number of probation students
indicated children within their household than those in good standing (Trombley, 2000). These
characteristics are not only important on their own but also guide us on our understanding of the
unique needs of our community college students.
Student Needs
There is vast research available about the needs of community college students, and most
indicate that first generation college students need the most resources. There is a great likelihood
that students enrolling in community college have insufficient preparation and needs for
academic assistance (Hagedorn, Maxwell, & Hampton, 2001), therefore, having resources and
services from the beginning of their academic journey is imperative. Students at the community
college typically enroll less than full time or require a flexible schedule that may meet in the
afternoon or evenings. In addition, Grimes (1997) indicated that students who attend community
college work at higher rates and also work more hours which requires multiple class and
modality offerings. Gonzalez (2000) adds that students in a community college setting are
commuters and are often using public transportation. Cohen and Brawer (2013) emphasize that

community college students generally have greater family responsibilities. Sandler (2000) adds
to that statement by identifying personal issues such as childcare needs and financial limitations.
Other findings about first generation college students note that their academic
preparedness and their belief about their self-efficacy play a vital role in their academic success
and likelihood for suspension. Majers (2009) longitudinal study of first generation college
students found that self-efficacy for education had a positive correlation to cumulative GPA at
the end of the academic year which suggests that self-efficacy could be a cognitive resource for
all students, not only first-generation. One of the primary difficulties first-generation students
face is making the connection between high school grades and curriculum in relation to college
and vocational options (Atherton, 2014). The frustration in the inability to make this connection
in addition to lack of preparedness from the social capital transferred from family and friends
can lead to retention issues and problems with degree attainment (Atherton, 2014). Hawley and
Harris (2005) confirm that students must know and understand the need for early preparation and
be ready to make a commitment to go further in their educational pursuits; they suggest the need
for academic rigor as early as 8th grade.
Considerations for Improvement
The various articles combined for this literature review have indicated the diversity of
needs of community college students but also possible solutions and ways to improve. The
solutions rest with finding answers to the various responsibilities of students. Wurtz (2015) leads
us to believe that the best solution to prevent students from falling into probation status is to
create learning assistance centers, his research indicated that, ...students who utilized the
learning assistance center were three times more likely to be successful in their coursework and
persist to another term than students who did not use it. Although a learning assistance center

might be of good use to students who are attending a community college during traditional work
hours, there are many students that this service would exclude. For example, students who attend
evening courses or students who work during regular business hours and students who have
families and need to get home to take care of them. The work of Penny Turrintine and Lucy
MacDonald provide an alternative solution for more accessible services.
Turrintine and MacDonald (2006) emphasize the use of an online tutoring environment
where students can request help all hours of the day. They state, Online tutoring is a needed
service in the area of student affairs due to the population of students who do not have the time
or capacity to access on campus only tutoring services. Online services that are asynchronous
allow students to connect for help at all hours of the day. Therefore, they do not need to
commute to school or use public transportation to get tutoring services. Instead they can log in at
a time that best fits their schedule to get the help they need. In terms of campus-based tutoring,
McClure (2009) emphasized that community colleges can make things easier for students by co-
locating tutoring services along with services on campus. In other words, centers that combine all
forms of tutoring into one space see more use and success by students than individualized
tutoring centers housed separately on campus.
In relation to our previous findings about first-generation students and lack of academic
preparedness, there are significant recommendations pertaining to services specializing in the
needs of first-generation students both service-wise and academically. Atherton (2014) explicitly
notes programs such as TRiO Support Services as an area that community colleges can best
serve this student population whereas Nitecki (2011) highlights career-focused academic
programs that emphasize smaller classes with hands-on instructors providing advising. Nitecki
(2011) also spoke to the idea of building a program culture and how students who felt like they

were a part of their program community, were more academically successful. Program culture
could be a key area to promote success for those students failing to meet satisfactory academic
progress.
Recommendations Synthesis
Based on our extensive research including on-site observations, interviews, and an in-
depth site-review, we make the following recommendations to Seattle Central College for the
improvement of their student academic support services and developmental interventions:
Adjustments to the current student progress policy
Conduct assessment regarding re-entry of students after academic suspension
Create a more accessible campus environment with thoughtful spatial considerations
Create positive reinforcement programs and partner with TRiO
Implement employee morale/ customer service training programs
Adjustments to Current Student Progress Policy
As discussed in our site review section, the current student progress policy at Seattle
Central College is nearly thirteen years old. There are many sections to the student progress
policy, and the title of the overall document is misleading to students. Currently, the document
combines the academic probation policy with the student progress policy in this document, and it
feels choppy and overwhelming. Being that this policy is so dated, and we were unable to find
any documentation of potential assessment of the policy, our first recommendation to SCC is that
they take the time to consider the effectiveness of this policy on student academic success, as
well as institutional retention, in the current time.
As we can see from the literature, the needs of our students and the climate of higher
education are constantly changing and evolving, which means that we need to be cognizant of

assessment and evaluation of services to ensure that our policies and programs help our students
rather than hinder them. With that being said, we recommend that SCC implements a reoccurring
assessment and evaluation process to the student progress and academic probation policy. The
policy should be looked at every two to three years to ensure it is reflective of the climate of
higher education and the needs of the students over time. Additionally, we recommend
streamlining the overall policy, condensing it, and making it more accessible to students, faculty,
and staff. The policy should be easily visible to students both on-campus and online. We
recommend renaming the policy to Student Academic Probation and Progress Procedure to
clearly demonstrate the information a student can expect to find within the document. Finally, we
recommend a committee be enacted to partner with the offices of various SCC student academic
populations to create an academic probation and progress procedure that encompasses the
requirements and expectations representative of all students including running start, international
students, financial aid recipients, and more.
Re-Entry Assessment
When asked how successful the academic probation system functioned in motivating,
diagnosing, and treating students barriers to academic success, the Seattle Central College staff
we interviewed were unable to provide any assessment data to provide measurable evidence that
the system was beneficial. A major concern the counseling staff identified was that the year
suspension term was too long and that evidence from similar community colleges showed
students are likely to transition back to work instead of return, transfer to another community
college without addressing their barriers to success, or return to Seattle Central without any
improvement in the students ability to meet academic standards. Trombley (2000) identifies
additional barriers that compete with students academic responsibilities and posits that any of

these competing efforts have the capacity to steer a student away from returning at the end of
their suspension period. Implementation of an assessment system for students who both exit the
academic probation system by raising their cumulative GPA above the minimum requirement as
well as a system to measure the rate of return and proceeding academic success of students who
are put on suspension is needed in order to gauge the effectiveness of current interventions. To
fully understand the effectiveness of the academic probation and suspension process,
assessments must address student precollege characteristics and experiences, the organizational
context in which the student is most affected, and individual student experiences including
classroom, out-of-class, and curricular (Terenzini and Reason, 2005).
Additionally, staff should be encouraged to meet more routinely with students who are at
risk of entering the probationary system in order to address sources of academic decline before
students are unable to improve their grades. As it currently stands, counselors meet with students
based only on their professional judgement which varies dramatically from zero to four times per
quarter. Exposing students to a greater amount of resource (i.e. well-trained faculty members,
counselors, and support personnel) is more likely to improve student learning and development
(Astin, 1999). Assessment of staff by the students that meet with them could provide incentive
for counselors to meet more regularly with struggling students and provide additional insight as
to how staff can better advance student success through information gleaned in a written
evaluation. These evaluations could prove to be especially useful for students who are not
comfortable revealing this detail through in-person conversations with counselors.
Spatial Considerations for an Accessible Campus Environment
Our third recommendation to Seattle Central College to improve the academic support
offered to students is to evaluate their on-campus spaces and co-locate services to create a more

accessible campus environment. During our observation and interview experiences, our group
encountered struggles finding our site locations, entering buildings, and determining where we
needed to go. When we asked students and staff if they could help, often they did not know how
to direct us. This not only shows that the campus was hard for us to navigate, but that it is likely
difficult for students to navigate as well, which can deter them from seeking the support that they
made need. Additionally, we saw that some services are located off the main campus, which has
caused significant safety concerns for various student populations.
As we have seen in the literature, research shows that institutions can prevent students
from falling into academic probation by creating learning assistance centers, and co-locating
services can make them more accessible to on the go students (McClure, 2009; Wurtz, 2015).
Seattle Central College should look at how their services are located (so spread out), and
consider combining them. The SCC campus houses four separate tutoring centers at minimum,
and if they were all combined into one cohesive location, this academic support service would be
far more accessible and encouraging to seek out. We recognize that space is at a premium on this
urban campus, and that it may be unrealistic to re-locate student support services, so we also
recommend that SCC invest in new, predominant signage to direct students as they move
throughout campus. With better signage, directories, maps, and documentation, student support
services will feel more accessible even if they remain spread out. Additionally, we recommend
that SCC implement more accessible online services to accommodate those students that are
forced to go from the parking lot, to class, to the parking lot due to outside responsibilities.
Positive Reinforcement Programs
As it currently exists, Seattle Central Colleges academic success services facilitate
limited positive affirmation programs to recognize student success in meeting academic

standards. When asked, the SCC staff noted that TRiO is the only service on campus that is
actively celebrating student academic progress throughout the year and that their programs are
not intentionally coordinated with steps in the probationary process. Our literature review has
found that when students attribute poor test scores to an uncontrollable, internal characteristic
such as perceived ability, they are less likely to be motivated to study for subsequent assignments
due to their belief that performance is limited by innate capabilities (Abramson, Garber, &
Seligman, 1980; Haynes et al., 2008). This research suggests that academic success services
must work to modify students attributional schemas and encourage adaptive attributions for
failure that are unstable and controllable (Heynes et al., 2008, p. 199). As students transition
from high school to college, the changing environment typically decreases interactions with
faculty and staff who try to understand each of their students on a personal level and students
who could pass high school classes with minimal effort may come to realize that college-level
courses require a higher amount of dedication that they are not accustomed to. By introducing
interventions that celebrate students successes, even small ones, their perception of the
contributing factors of their success change from uncontrollable to controllable and are highly
likely to persist even in the face of poor academic achievement (Heynes et al., 2008, p. 205).
Positive reinforcement programs may therefore assist in both increasing the number of
students who exit the academic probation system prior to suspension and provide motivation for
students to return from suspension to improve academic achievement. Although these programs
have the potential to alter a students perception of their internal capabilities, the programs may
do little to address performance associated with natural ability and external variables (i.e. family
commitments, working full-time, medical conditions). However, positive reinforcement
programs may help to identify these factors as external forces that are controllable, limiting

feelings of shame, hopelessness, and reduced expectations for future success (Haynes et al.,
2008)
Reshaping the Role of Student Affairs Personnel
In our observations of Seattle Central College student affairs staff, we found that their
conversations with students tended to be short and transactional, quickly addressing the concerns
of one student to move on to the next. The impersonal interactions that take place reinforce
students feelings of once being known by name in high school to now being a number in
college, reducing feelings of motivation and desire to master curriculum (Haynes et. al., 2008).
The role of the student affairs professional however, is shifting from a purely administrative role
to one of an educator, working with students to reach formal and informal learning outcomes
(Blake, 2007). This requires personnel to become confident and comfortable with their own
ability to grow and promote the learning process in their interactions with students. It is
acknowledged that the proliferation of understaffed and underfunded resources at community
colleges exist, making the responsibility for student services professionals to stretch themselves
even further and spend additional time with students unreasonable. By thinking creatively and
cooperating with faculty, college staff can distribute learning activities beyond single meetings
and into all aspects of campus life including the classroom and residence halls, reducing
increased load on any one department or person. Capitalizing on students exposure to college
staff and online course material by continually integrating learning opportunities and reflective
prompts emphasizes guidance, counseling, and implicitly incorporates the individualized or
eclectic theory of student development (Astin, 1990).

Conclusion
In conducting extensive research regarding academic support and success on the Seattle
Central College campus, various themes and areas for improvement emerged. To recap, we
witnessed many factors and discovered many interventions that can both support and hinder
students in their academic success on the SCC campus.
Seattle Central College has many student support services in place, which is significant to
the academic success of their students. Though the institution offers support services for students
of varying populations, the campus faces issues surrounding accessibility of these services and
institutional policy, as well as outdated policies and procedures that are not necessarily reflective
of the current higher education climate. If SCC works to assess the effectiveness of their current
student progress procedure and re-entry rates post academic suspension, evaluates the way they
locate and use their institutional space, implements more positive reinforcement programming to
encourage students in their academic journey, and creates more robust employee training
programs, they will be able to serve their student population better than ever before. We believe
in implementing these recommendations, even slowly, will greatly increase the academic success
or students at Seattle Central College and increase institutional retention, graduation, and transfer
rates over time.

References
Abramson, L. Y., Garber, J., & Seligman, M. (1980). Learned helplessness in humans: An
attributional analysis. In J. Garber & M. Seligman (Eds.), Human helplessness: Theory
and applications (pp. 334). New York: Academic.
Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal
of College Student Development, 40(5), 518-529.
Atherton, M. (2014) Academic preparedness of first-generation college students: Different
perspectives. Journal of College Student Development, 55(8), 824-829.
Blake, J. H. (2007). The crucial role of student affairs professionals in the learning process. New
Directions for Student Services, 2007(117), 65-72.
Chenoweth, K. (1998). The road not taken. Black Issues in Higher Education 14 (26), 2427.
Cohen, A. M., Brawer, F. B., & Kisker, C. (2013). The American community college (6th ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gabbard, A., & Mupinga, D. M. (2013). Balancing Open Access with Academic Standards:
Implications for Community College Faculty. Community College Journal of Research
and Practice, 37(5), 374-381. doi:10.1080/10668921003609160
Gonzalez, J. M. (2000). Community colleges: Open or revolving door?
Intervention strategies to reduce the number of probationary students and to increase
persistence (Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 2000).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 61- 65.
Grimes, S. K. (1997). Underprepared community college students: Characteristics, persistence,
and academic success. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 21, 4756.

Hagedorn, L.S., Maxwell, W., & Hampton, P. (2001). Correlates of retention for
African American males in community college. J. College Student Retention, 3(3),
243-263.
Hawley, T., H., & Harris, T. A. (2005). Student characteristics related to persistence for first-
year community college students. J. College Student Retention, 7(1-2), 117-142.
Haynes, T. L., Daniels, L. M., Stupnisky, R. H., Perry, R. P., & Hladkyj, S. (2008). The Effect of
Attributional Retraining on Mastery and Performance Motivation Among First-Year
College Students. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 30(3), 198-207.
doi:10.1080/01973530802374972
Majer, J. M. (2009). Self-efficacy and academic success among ethnically diverse
first-generation community college students. Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education, 2(4), 243-250. DOI: 10.1037/a0017852
McClure, A. (2009). One-stop tutoring shop. University Business, 12(5), 52-53.
Nitecki, E. (2011). The power of the program: How the academic program can improve
community college student success. Community College Review, 39(2), 98-120.
Perrakis, A. I. (2008). Factors promoting academic success among African American and white
male community college students. New Directions for Community Colleges, 142, 15-23.
Sandler, M. E. (2000). Career decision-making self-efficacy, perceived stress, and an integrated
model of student persistence: A structural model of finances, attitudes, behavior, and
career development. Research in Higher Education, 41, 537 580.
Santa Rita, E. (1998) Characteristics of successful students readmitted following academic
suspension. Community College Journal of Research and Practice. 22(5), p.519-529.
Seattle Central College. (n.d.). Retrieved May 15, 2017, from http://www.seattlecentral.edu/

Stephens, N. M., Fryberg, S. A., Markus, H. R., Johnson, C. S., & Covarrubias, R. (2012).
Unseen disadvantage: How American universities focus on independence undermines
the academic performance of first-generation college students. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 102(6), 1178-1197.
Terenzini, P. T., & Reason, R. D. (2005, November). Parsing the first year of college:
Rethinking the effects of college on students. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of
the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Philadelphia, PA.
Tinto, V. (1973). College proximity and rates of college attendance. American Educational
Research Journal, 10(4), 277-293.
Tovar, E., & Simon, M. A. (2006). Academic Probation as a Dangerous Opportunity: Factors
Influencing Diverse College Students' Success. Community College Journal of Research
& Practice, 30(7), 547-564. doi:10.1080/10668920500208237
Trombley, C., M. (2000). Evaluating students on probation and determining intervention
strategies: A comparison of probation and good standing students. J. College Student
Retention, 2(3), 239-251.
Turrentine, P., & MacDonald, L. (2006). Tutoring online: Increasing effectiveness with best
practices. NADE Digest, 2(2), 9-18. Retrieved from
https://eric.ed.gov/?q=Tutoring+online%3a+Increasing+effectiveness+with+best+practic
es&id=EJ1097755
Wurtz, K. A. (2015). Impact of learning assistance center utilization on success. Journal of
Developmental Education, 38(3), 2-10. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/
contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ1092656

Artifact c1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Artifact c1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running Head: COURSE FINAL MASTER PRODUCT: SEATTLE CENTRAL COLLEGE 1

Course Final Master Product: Seattle Central College

*Contributions to overall assignment:

from Seattle Central College.

The culmination of objective experiences and research lead to greater depth of

and more robust staff training programs.

student body the two-year system attracts.

Academic Probation Pipeline. Seattle Centrals academic probation process closely

Assessment and student motivation. Based on information provided by Lori, Seattle

students decision to persist.

and context of these interactions seems to do little to motivate professionals in providing

individualized and thorough treatment.

does not depend on their institutions performance as measured by student outcomes.

learn less. (Cohen, Brawer, & Kisker, 2013, p. 422)

for students to raise their GPAs, instead of relying on punishment.

connections they need.

Women in Society course. This course has four objectives:

Raise students awareness of womens activities, achievements, expertise and

experience in the contemporary world.

Increase students ability to identify the impact of historical and contemporary

discrimination against women on their own lives and aspirations.

Encourage and assist students to develop a multicultural perspective that respects

the experiences and perspectives of others as they explore differences and

interconnections among women.

poverty), Orca Lift, and Workforce Education.

food/meals, medical/dental costs, personal automobile expenses, childcare, and personal

transportation/gas (K. Johnson, personal communication, April, 26, 2017).

faculty and advisor in order to get out of academic probation.

Issues and Recommendations. After completion of our interview with Kelly, we

Site Review Product

Demographic and Governance Overview

College is to promote educational excellence in a multicultural urban environment and provide

SCC to complete workforce education or training.

Vice President of International Education, Vice President of Instruction, Executive Director of

Institutional Effectiveness, Vice President of Administrative Services, Director of

Communications and Marketing, Interim Executive Dean of Seattle Vocational Institute,

perspectives throughout campus to ensure a holistic understanding of campus needs, concerns,

and impact of decisions.

Systems of Support Service

professional growth of firstgeneration college students, lowincome college students and

Math-Science, Veterans Upward Bound, Educational Opportunity Centers, Ronald E. McNair

Post-Baccalaureate Achievement, Student Support Services, Talent Search, and Training

status, first-generation college student, or have a documented disability. Students enrolled in

TRiO Student Support Services have access to academic advising, personal

counseling/mentoring, transfer planning, financial aid guidance, one-on-one tutoring, library

resources, textbook rentals, and 4-year College visits (Seattle, n.d.).

Academic Standards and Probation Policy

progress procedure is portrayed as a PDF document encompassing four sections including:

different or additional academic standards policies and appeal processes.

academic year, Suspension Third Warning.

Credits attempted/credits earned. The credits attempted/credits earned section of the

attempted credits for a third occurrence.

Degree/Certificate Completion. Finally, the degree/certificate completion portion of the

Each stage of the student progress procedure implements similar developmental

Degree/certificate completion. Separate interventions are employed when it comes to

courses required by their educational plan.

CTC Support Services

Considerations for Improvement

held to additional standards.

Literature Review Product

considerations for improvement.

particular, among African American students.

college may be difficult. Up to 35% of first-time freshmen with a disproportionate number of