Center for Higher Education

The Center for Higher Education is a research and policy analysis center focused on higher education issues in Ohio, the Appalachian region, and the nation at large. The Center is located within The Gladys W. and David H. Patton College of Education at Ohio University. Viewing the challenges facing higher education today through a multidisciplinary lens, the Center engages faculty, students, and practitioners in examining campus, state, regional, national, and international concerns. The Center is involved in a myriad of activities which include contracted or externally funded research projects, independent research projects, consultation, technical assistance, and other service activities.

Publications
Working Paper Series

The Center for Higher Education publishes research papers and essays that reflect multidisciplinary fields, contribute to research on higher education, and enhance dialogue among educators, policy makers, practitioners, and the public.

The Center's Working Paper Series includes papers, original research studies, reflective essays, and major reports generated by Center-related research projects. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in these works are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for Higher Education, its research staff, or other affiliated researchers. Questions regarding the content of individual contributions and Center research reports should be directed to the authors. For details about each paper, please click on its title below.

If you would like to receive announcements of new Center for Higher Education papers when they are posted, please contact us at c4he@ohio.edu.

2011

Ohio Early-College Strategies and Their Potential Relevance to Families and Students from Rural Appalachian Ohio by Tom Duncan, Craig Howley and Aimee Howley. CHEWP.2.2011 (February 2011)

Abstract: This working paper examines various provisions that have enabled Ohio high school students to participate in college before they would otherwise be scheduled to graduate from high school. The examination focuses, unusually, on the relevance of such arrangements to families in rural Appalachian Ohio.

Faculty Senate Leader Survey: Preliminary Results of Master's Institutions by James Archibald. CHEWP.1.2011 (January 2011)

Abstract: The National Study of Faculty Leadership is conducted by the Center for Higher Education at Ohio University. The purpose of the study is to investigate faculty’s role in shared governance and to collect information about faculty leaders generally. The inaugural survey of the study, the Faculty Senate Leader Survey (FSLS:09), targeted faculty senate chairs with endorsement from the American Association of University Professors in 2009. The FSLS:09 collected information from senate leaders regarding the characteristics of the faculty senate and critical issues in higher education from the perspective of the faculty senate leader. The FSLS:09 was sent to faculty senate leaders at doctoral and master institutions across the nation. Faculty senate leaders reported allocation of funds, fiscal constraints, erosion of public trust, enrollment, and retention to be the top critical issues in higher education. This report focuses on the responses from senate leaders at master's institutions.

2010

Pathways of Promise: A Review and Exploration of P-16 Initiatives and Governance by Zach Brown, Julie Cohara, Christopher Quolke, and Brent Patterson. CHEWP.4.2010 (September 2010)

Abstract: This paper examines the rationale behind P-16 educational initiatives and challenges to their successful implementation. Through two short case studies, it also demonstrates the effectiveness that P-16 alignment brings to bear on student success and regional economic development. Using Walsh’s (2009) framework of six thematic areas for improvement in P-16 Education, the authors specifically identify P-16 governance as a primary area of interest. Examining the need for Innovator/Bellwether Awards that go beyond Instructional Programs and Services, the two community college P-16 programs identified reflect P-16 education progressive success in Planning, Governance, and Finance (PGF) and also the category of Workforce Development (WD). We examine issues such as the lack of alignment between P-12 and higher education, the need for including a variety of stakeholders in the process, and, of course, the gains that can be made through successful initiatives. Our basic methodology involved examining outcomes of students in the featured programs in relation to national outcomes information for student populations in general. The literature describes several approaches being used to meet the challenges of college readiness and preconceptions about technical education programs. Our research revealed that data collection on P-16 initiatives varies widely in terms of types of information collected and its ultimate use in program accountability and deployment. Finally, we note that students, regional stakeholders, and states have much to gain from intensifying their focus on alignment efforts such as P-16 education as early outcome data have shown positive potential.

Community College Athletes: Tracking Progress to Gauge Success by David Horton. CHEWP.3.2010 (August 2010)

Abstract: This working paper provides an argument and case for a deeper focus and discussion
on community college student athletes. It also offer recommendations to institutions for the types of data that should be collected to gauge student success. A primary aim of these recommendations is to supply a framework for institutions to develop scholar athletes through intentional efforts to ensure that students are on an appropriate path to accomplishing their academic goals. The framework also presents a method for critical evaluation of the effectiveness of an athletic program’s contribution to its institution’s mission and goals.

Faculty Senate Leader Survey: Preliminary Results of Doctoral Institutions by James Archibald. CHEWP.2.2010 (August 2010)

Abstract: The National Study of Faculty Leadership is conducted by the Center for Higher Education at Ohio University. The purpose of the study is to investigate faculty’s role in shared governance and to collect information about faculty leaders generally. The inaugural survey of the study, the Faculty Senate Leader Survey (FSLS:09), targeted faculty senate chairs with endorsement from the American Association of University Professors in 2009. The FSLS:09 collected information from senate leaders regarding the characteristics of the faculty senate and critical issues in higher education from the perspective of the faculty senate leader. The FSLS:09 was sent to faculty senate leaders at doctoral and master institutions across the nation. Faculty senate leaders reported allocation of funds, fiscal constraints, erosion of public trust, enrollment, and retention to be the top critical issues in higher education. This report focuses on the responses from senate leaders at doctoral institutions.

Exploring the Cultural Identity of Community Colleges in Appalachia by Robert Young. CHEWP.1.2010 (August 2010).

Abstract: This is an examination of the cultural identity issues that affect community colleges in rural Appalachia. Appalachia has a distinctive cultural identity that is comprised of ideas and attitudes that isolate the people in the region from the rest of America. This identity must be understood, so that community colleges can be effective agents of educational and economic change in the region. Community colleges must know how Appalachians think about themselves, how those ideas relate to their own identity in the region, and how to shape their identity to be effective agents of change for their constituents. By adopting a “town-based” identity, community colleges can support and challenge the beliefs of their constituents, and help them improve their condition.

2009
Institutional Research in Support of Student and Institutional Success by A. Michael Williford. CHEWP.1.2009 (August 2009).

Abstract: This paper explores the role of institutional researchers in support of student and institutional success. Specifically, Williford addresses the question of whether institutional researchers should advocate for student success. Prior literature in the field of institutional research is largely silent on the subject of advocacy. With the help of several case studies undertaken by the Office of Institutional Research at Ohio University, Williford argues that institutional researchers should be practically-oriented action researchers, active participants in helping their colleges and universities achieve their goals and objectives. Furthermore, as educators, institutional researchers need to be advocates for institutional and student success. They often participate in student assessment, in which the overall goal is improving teaching, learning, and student services.

For more information, please contact:
Center for Higher Education
The Gladys W. and David H. Patton College of Education
Ohio University
McCracken Hall 138
Athens, OH 45701
Telephone: 740.597.1862
c4he@ohio.edu