Using a Capability Maturity Model to build on the generational approach to student engagement practices

Abstract

The generational approach to conceptualising first-year student learning behaviour has made a useful contribution to understanding student engagement. It has an explicit focus on student behaviour and we suggest that a Capability Maturity Model interpretation may provide a complementary extension of that understanding as it builds on the generational approach by allowing an assessment of institutional capability to initiate, plan, manage, evaluate and review institutional student engagement practices. The development of a Student Engagement, Success and Retention Maturity Model is discussed along with its application in an Australian higher education institution. In this case study, the model identified first-, secondand third-generation approaches and, in addition, achieved a 'complementary extension' of the generational approach, building on it by identifying additional practices not normally considered within the generational concept and indicating the capability of the institution to provide and implement the practices.

Student engagement in a Human Anatomy and Physiology course: a New Zealand perspective

“…An introductory course in anatomy and physiology may well benefit from multiple and diverse opportunities to engage students in learning experiences, rather than focus on content delivery. To be engaged with a first-year curriculum, students need to acquire the academic skills and literacies needed to be independent in their learning (21), and introductory courses should be designed to support student engagement with learning environments through intentional integration and sequencing of knowledge (20,35). Incumbent on a university in New Zealand is to provide ethnically sensitive emotional engagement of students through contact with other Ma ori and Pasifika students.…”

Understanding EBLIP at an Organizational Level: An Initial Maturity Model

“…Maturity models have emerged in the information science literature and have been used as tools for internal and/or external benchmarking, identifying future improvement and providing guidelines for organizational development and growth (Lasrado, Andersen, & Vatrapu, 2015). Maturity models provide a framework for organization-wide action, implementation, and evaluation (Nelson, Clarke, Stoodley, & Creagh, 2015). Maturity models facilitate the organization's ability to actively and continuously identify its own priorities and quality standards, and to enact systems that support continuous improvement (Marshall, 2010).…”

“…At their simplest, maturity models describe a path from initial state to highest state of maturity in an organization's culture and capabilities, usually focused on a specific set of competencies (Wademan, Spuches, & Doughty, 2007). Capability maturity models commonly have five levels and show a continuum of improvements around a particular competency (Nelson et al, 2015). Two recently published maturity models correlate to EBLIP, specifically the use of evidence and assessment processes.…”

Engaging, supporting and retaining academic at-risk students in a Bachelor of Nursing: Setting risk markers, interventions and outcomes

“…Within this policy, the Australian Government has determined that by 2020, at least 20% of undergraduate students in higher education must come from low socio-economic (LSES) backgrounds (Gale & Parker, 2013). The response by higher education institutions (HEIs) to successfully operationalise these targets has been strengthened by funding incentives that are contingent on equity-based performance indicators, namely: target group access, participation, retention and success (Gale & Tranter, 2011;Nelson, Clarke, Stoodley & Creagh, 2014). Non-traditional students are defined as individuals who come from socially, culturally or educationally disadvantaged backgrounds characterised by their LSES, use of English as a second language, gender (mainly female), age (usually older adults) and/or limited experience in formal educational contexts (Gale, 2012).…”

“…Further, it is acknowledged that students from disadvantaged backgrounds have equal if not better academic outcomes over time when compared with traditional student peers (Whiteford, Shah, & Sid Nair, 2013). Therefore, university-wide approaches that seek to enhance engagement and retention for all students are recommended (Nelson et al, 2014). Transition pedagogy is crucial for an effective first year experience and is defined by Kift (2008) as "a guiding philosophy for intentional first year curriculum design that carefully scaffolds and mediates the first year learning experience for contemporary heterogeneous cohorts" (p. 5).…”