Lisa's+Session-Work+Group+1-Thomas+&+Perna

__Work group #1-Thomas & Perna __: A framework for reducing the student success gap and promoting success for all **IUPUI members: Krista, Stephen ** Each group member will post responses to the following questions on your group's work page. Please respond to the following: · What are the authors proposing? (Krista) Perna and Thomas (2006) are suggesting a new conceptual model, rather than a theory, to understand student success. The authors explored a collection of literature between 1995 and 2005 in top journals in economics, education, psychology, and sociology. Because methods and theoretical approaches vary so widely, it would be difficult to develop one theory to encompass all.

The conceptual model includes six defining characteristics: -Student success is a longitudinal process. -Multiple theoretical approaches inform understanding of student success. -Student success is shaped by multiple levels of context. -The relative contribution of different disciplinary and area perspectives to student success varies. -Multiple methodological approaches contribute to knowledge of student success. -Student success processes vary across groups. (Perna & Thomas, 2006)  (Steve) I agree with Krista's feeling about the conceptual model. The most important element to me was the realization that the integration of policies and activities are unavoidable and necessary for success.

· Tell us why you agree or disagree with their approaches, recommendations, theories, and/or models? (Krista) Considering the broad range and scope of student success literature, it makes sense to me that Perna and Thomas have taken this approach. By drawing conclusions across disciplines, the authors have created new sites for dialogue on what to "do" with all of the research that has been done. I think that the six characteristics could be an excellent guiding framework for further study done within this area.

(Steve) The recommendations are easy to agree with and endorse, yet I feel they are relatively ambiguous and do not offer specifics. This is probably by design (and rightfully so) as each environment would be different.

· Please describe how you would improve or add to the proposed project. (Krista) As future work is done on this project, I would hope that these (or other) researchers will test these characteristics on the other disciplinary perspectives that publish in this area. In addition, I would like to see some examples of programs which were created using this framework as a model.

(Steve) Seeing this is action would be best.

· Post comments/feedback on one of your group members post.

Please post all responses on your work group page //no later// than __12:00 pm on Tuesday, March 24__.