When looking for ways to design a better system, one of the best ways is to actively engage and listen to the end-user. This is something I’ve learned across the many initiatives I have led over the last few decades. Turns out, it’s equally true for colleges and universities who are looking to improve their outcomes for students.
One of the best ways to get this input is by utilizing a human-centered design process. Human-centered design process relies on the individuals who are impacted by a system for input and guidance on how to improve a process or product for better outcomes. At its heart it’s meant to be an iterative process with the individuals contributing to help identify barriers and refine solutions.
The Michigan Center for Adult College Success (The Center) partnered with the Diploma Equity Project to conduct a human-centered design (HCD) process at two community colleges and two public universities in Michigan to develop and implement strategies to improve adult learner persistence and completion.
After completing the HCD process, each of the institutions began implementing system changes based on the findings to better support their adult learner populations. Western Michigan University integrated its learnings into a process already on campus, by adding adult-focused support in their existing student success center. Delta and U of M Dearborn received some additional support from The Center to start implementing findings and have been working diligently to enact these changes. Mott Community College was able to leverage the HCD work to land a significant grant to assist with standing up and scaling their Mott Adult Student Success System.
To generate a better understanding of the process and its outcomes, The Center contracted with Basis Policy Research to perform an evaluation of the HCD work.
The common themes that came from this evaluation work include:
- Centering student voice was foundational and widely valued
- Interviews revealed consistent adult learner barriers:
- Work/family constraints
- Lack of relationships
- Limited use of supports
- Structural/institutional barriers
Despite some difference in context, all institutions produced very similar core components:
- Relational support (coaches/advocates)
- Proactive outreach enabled by data/early alert systems
- Flexible structures (scheduling, services)
- Personalized/onboarding processes
All sites emphasized cross-functional teams as critical. However, effectiveness depended on inclusion of the right roles early (e.g., student services, faculty) as well as clear expectations and roles communicated at the outset.
It was noted from the evaluations that some factors determined success more than the method itself:
- Institutional readiness and alignment
- Leadership stability and clarity
- Depth of engagement with student voice
- Quality of collaboration and trust with facilitators
The Center was also able to closely follow and evaluate the Mott Adult Student Success System. Again, tapping Basis Policy Research to conduct an annual review and evaluation of the program and its implementation. The first-year evaluation demonstrated an 11-percentage point increase in persistence rates for comparable adults who are in the MASSS program and a doubling (25-percentatge point increase) of persistence rates amongst adults who failed a course. Mott is currently in the process of scaling this program to all of their adult learners and Basis Policy Research is continuing their evaluation of this work.
It’s clear that utilizing a human-centered design approach can provide actionable insights and help shape system changes in a way that truly benefits the students. For institutions that are interested in exploring this approach The Center has a variety of tools to help get you started, including a readiness assessment for this work.
As always, The Center’s team stands at the ready to assist colleges and universities across Michigan with technical assistance, providing data or just being available to help answer questions. Please reach out to us if we can help support your institution’s change efforts.
