Session 2 – Roundtable Discussions

Posted in 2022 Roundtables

Following the opening provocation, three panels explored three challenges (2.1) High-Impact Practices and Equity: A Site for Institutional Integration (2.2) Integrating Inclusive Pedagogy into University Systems: 3 Models and (2.3)  Using Data to Identify Interventions and Increase Retention

2.1 High-Impact Practices as Equity Drivers

The main takeaway from this session: HIPs only have real impact on equity if they
are “done well.” With HIPs, academic equity sits at the intersection of: scale, fidelity
(quality) and assessing outcomes.

  • We know that High-impact Practices can make the difference for all students, as well as for equity overall. Yet, their implementation and scaling is not easy. The industrial “assembly line” legacy of US higher education is at odds with growing HIPs as an integral part of our college and university curricula.
  • Our goal should be that every student has at least two HIP experiences: first year and senior year.
  • Four case studies were described pulling from the forthcoming book, Delivering on the Promise of High-Impact Practices (new window), edited by John Zilvinskis, Jillian Kinzie, Jerry Daday, Ken O’Donnell, and Carleen Vande Zande.


2.2 Integrating Inclusive Pedagogy into University Systems: 3 Models

The main takeaway from this session: For massive change, you need to create buy-in
where everyone feels their role is as important. This can’t be top-down but with a shared
sense of problem and solution. Need to include every stakeholder and ensure they feel

  • Data collection is critical, whether surveys, focus groups, etc. Always helpful to support an actionable deadline.
  • Keep the conversations going to see what concerns are. Always bring it back to values.
  • Tangible models need to be flexible in order to facilitate growth and spread.
  • In order to implement massive anti-racist change, uncomfortable conversations are unavoidable.


2.3 Using Data to Identify Interventions and Increase Retention

The main takeaway from this session: Penn State shared a model of broad buy-in to
the value of data in real-time tracking of students to improve outcomes – especially
valuable for non-traditional students.

  • They showcased ways in which they track student engagement and create structures to support student success in response to both real-time and long-term data trends.
  • They shared two systems that pulled student engagement data from Canvas to share with advisors and faculty – and allowed for visualization of each student relative to the general patterns of engagement in that course.
  • They shared two case studies at the World Campus designed to support adult online learner students through proactive advising. They noted the particular challenge of not having the same pre-enrollment data as we do for more traditional student populations.
  • They introduced a framework (Lewin’s 3-Stage Model of Change) to help participants think about “How to institutionalize change and incorporate accountability measures?”
  • Participants worked in breakout rooms to investigate the balance between “restraining” and “driving” forces that affect change


Slides and Resources

Equity Centered Force Field Analysis Template (new window) (Kaminski, J. (Winter, 2011). Theory applied to informatics – Lewin’s Change Theory. CJNI: Canadian Journal of Nursing Informatics, 6 (1), Editorial. (new window)))