Focusing on the Future: Making the Reinstatement Process More Effective for Vulnerable Students Free

All institutions face the challenge of reinstating students returning from suspension. Yet, no perfect mechanism exists to identify students who will be successful or to know what kinds of support those students will need to be successful. Decades of research (Berkovitz, & O’Quin, 2006; Cogan, 2011; Dill et al., 2010; Hall & Gahn, 1994; Kinloch et al., 1993; Santa Rita, 1998; Wang & Pilarzyk, 2009; Wishart, 1990) have identified no dependable objective criteria for making reinstatement decisions; therefore, further research is necessary to review subjective criteria in this process. Narrative theory provides a foundation for such practice. A growing arm of research (Champlin-Scharff, 2010; Champlin-Scharff & Hagen, 2013; Hagen 2008; Himes, 2014; Jordan, 2000; Pizzolato, 2006) connects the importance of narrative theory to academic advising practice. With narrative theory as a foundation, its impact on an important process, such as reinstatement from suspension, can be better understood and applied.

Returning from academic suspension is a challenging process for students eager to complete their undergraduate degree programs. Academic suspension often requires students to take time away from their academic pursuits to reflect upon and make changes to their academic behaviors to help them return and be successful. For many students, returning from suspension is not a guarantee. These students must demonstrate, usually through a written appeal, what happened in the past, how circumstances have changed, whether they have taken responsibility for their actions and made changes, and that they have a solid, realistic plan to return. Trust that what is written in an appeal is true and congruent with the student’s academic record impacts decisions for reinstatement. Writing a reinstatement appeal requires students to be vulnerable. They must share intimate details of their lives with complete strangers to persuade them that they are ready and capable of returning. Coupled with the fact that the reinstatement process is often complex and complicated to navigate, students could be discouraged from returning to complete their degrees.

The search for objective, pre-suspension data that can predict a student’s academic success is elusive. Perhaps understanding the characteristics of students who are successful upon return can guide reinstatement decisions. Tinto (2012) pointed out, “the process of persistence is not the mirror image of the process of leaving” (p. 5). Understanding why students leave is only one part of the retention picture. Current research is attempting to understand how students succeed once they return. Padilla (1999) stated:

Thus, how can the reinstatement process, and processes like this, focus more on characteristics of success and less on invoking past trauma which places students in vulnerable positions? Does student vulnerability impede the process?

Narrative theory offers a unique perspective on understanding the whole student, including their background, their view on education, and how they define success. Narrative, through storytelling, is one of the most important methods humans use to make sense of the world and their experiences, to construct meaning and identity (Fisher, 1989; Hagen, 2018). Narrative also provides an opportunity for analysis. In academic advising, it provides a method to engage students in storytelling to better understand student perspectives on what is happening in their lives and how they make meaning of their experiences. At the same time, advisors analyze student narrative to determine how it fits within the overall narrative of the institution, curriculum, and ideals of student success. Student narrative is a central aspect of most guiding theories utilized by academic advisors. Through student narrative, advisors better understand who the student is beyond their student profile. Advisors also play a co-narrator role in this dialogue, helping students relate their experiences, knowledge base, attitudes, and beliefs to their academic programs. The advising process engages student narrative through oral and written discourse. That discourse is integral to all advising functions.

Each student's situation is unique. When appealing reinstatement, students must demonstrate, often through written narrative, an understanding of what happened, what changed, and how they plan to move forward. Interpretive review of student narrative is not formally recognized in any methodology for determining reinstatement decisions. Hagen (2018) identified this dichotomy as seeking truth and meaning in data through scientific approaches as opposed to the interpretation, meaning, and understanding gained through narrative. He argued, “engaging in narratives may well be the most thorough and most efficient way that advisors have to come to understand the student before them and to be understood by the student” (Hagen, 2018, p. xvi).

The reinstatement process is inherently a narrative process. Events occurred leading to a student’s suspension. To return from suspension, the student must tell the story of those events, make meaning of what led to their suspension, and reflect on how they will be successful if allowed to return. Academic advisors or other facilitators of the reinstatement process learn a lot about a student through their narrative, often collected through written appeals and interviews with the student (Bowlus & DelMar, 2021). Reviewed through the lens of narrative theory, the student’s whole story can illustrate the student’s understanding of their skills, needs, and motivations, and what their educational experience means to them. From this narrative, we can learn what drives the student to determine whether the student’s goals match with the institution’s goals for defining success.

The reinstatement process is closely related to the Hero’s Journey, a common story arc that recounts a character’s adventure as they experience challenges, trials, and tribulations, leading to revelations, transformation, and success (Verity, 2021). Recast here as the Student’s Journey (see Figure 1), students embark on their educational journey, encountering mystical beings and spiritual guides (academic advisors) along the way. The student enters courses, interacts with instructors and classmates, and experiences challenges that may put them at academic risk or result in academic suspension. To continue along their educational journey, the student must tell the story of their challenges, reframing that narrative to demonstrate understanding, learning, and personal development. Permitted to continue along their journey, students experience transformation, developing skills, confidence, and a sense of belonging to achieve their ultimate goal of degree attainment.

Narrative theory provides a framework for reviewing student narrative. When students are asked to write a reinstatement appeal, the intent is for students to relate their own Student’s Journey so that reviewers can better understand the student and how they define success. Student narratives attempt to “give order, unity, and purpose to what may otherwise seem like an incoherent onrush of unrelated experiences” (Hagen, 2018, p. 7). Further, their stories “provide structure and coherence of events, processes, and motivations that may lack for viable interpretations unless we impose narrative structure on them” (Hagen, 2018, p. 7).

Fisher (1989) explained that “persons may even choose not to participate in the making of public narratives (vote) if they feel that they are meaningless spectators rather than co-authors” (p. 68). Fisher attested to the storyteller’s need to feel that their story is compelling, influential, and worthy of consideration. Vulnerable students may choose not to tell their story if they construe that the readers will not relate to or adequately understand it. If students feel too vulnerable to participate in the reinstatement process, they may choose not to return to finish their degree program.

This research sought to understand the importance of student narrative and how it is interpreted in the reinstatement process. In the reinstatement from suspension process, it is important to consider both the experiences of the student and reinstatement facilitators, as their experiences may also impact how they interpret a student’s narrative. Reinstatement facilitators may include academic advisors, faculty, or academic leadership. Each facilitator brings to the process their understanding of student success, experience working with students who have and have not been successful, and an understanding of key student success attributes.

When analyzed through the Student’s Journey, the reinstatement narrative transforms from a simple apology into a story of learning and redemption. The student wishing to return tells the story of their educational journey, what education means to them, how they overcame obstacles along the way, and why they must continue. The student is the only one who can truly define what success means to them, and that success will be contextualized based on their life experiences leading up to the moment of appeal (Higher Learning Commission, 2018). Facilitators may be familiar with similar experiences from other students, but how each student engaged with and made meaning of their experiences will be dependent on their own understanding of the situation. Whether students with comparable experiences were able to be successful after being suspended may impact how facilitators perceive a future student’s ability to be successful. Thus, how students make meaning of their experiences, and whether they can be successful upon return from suspension, creates a relationship structure that may impact a reinstatement facilitator’s view of how to interpret future narratives, or otherwise stated, “there can never be a presuppositionless stance in any act of interpretation” (McManus Holroyd, 2007, p. 3).

The sample included two groups of participants: students who had recently participated in the reinstatement process and reinstatement process facilitators. Both groups came from the same mid-sized, public, four-year, Midwestern institution. At this institution, academically suspended students may appeal for reinstatement after being out of school for one calendar year. In an appeal letter, students are asked to address all factors that led to their suspension and the changes they made to be academically successful if allowed to return. Students are not required to meet with an advisor when preparing their reinstatement appeal. Facilitators at this institution include academic advisors and academic deans. No training is provided to facilitators and each college administers the reinstatement process differently. No centralized data is collected or analyzed to understand more about the population of students being suspended or whether they are successful upon return.

Participants were recruited through purposive sampling and sent a recruitment survey online via Qualtrics, which included demographic questions and requested they provide contact information from participants willing to be interviewed. Ten students (Table 1) and eight facilitators (Table 2) were interviewed. Though this sample is small and limited to experiences at one institution, this study provides insights into the complexity of the reinstatement appeal, the confusion and anxiety surrounding what to include, and why narrative is important to the reinstatement process.

This research posed the following questions:

• Does future student success necessitate the rehashing of past failures or traumas?

• Is sharing the details of a student’s lived experiences justified in determining whether they can be successful?

• Stripped of past experiences, is the story of how a student plans to be successful and engage post-suspension less important?

Analysis of data collected from personal interviews sought to understand whether reviewing student narrative, written and oral, through a narrative theory lens, provided insight into future student success.

A key finding from nine of the students interviewed was that reinstatement is a vulnerable process. When asked if it was difficult to discuss what happened in their letters of appeal, students used words including vulnerable, painful, challenging, shameful, stressful, and disappointment to describe how the process made them feel. Several students were initially hesitant to provide so much detail about their lives but did so anyway to provide a compelling story for reinstatement.

Some of the vulnerability students felt stemmed from not knowing what the reinstatement facilitators were looking for in the appeals, making them uncertain about how much detail to provide or whether the facilitator(s) reading their appeals would find their stories relatable. Student J expressed:

Student B specifically stated that they felt some students may be deterred from appealing for reinstatement if they need to provide such personal information:

Student H confirmed Student B’s assumption as they refused to discuss their personal life with strangers. Student H stated, “I don't like telling people my private life … I don't like writing my own thoughts on my life, is because of this, because of that, … I feel like it is a waste of time.”

Two students recognized how challenging the process can be and recommended easy access to advisors or counselors. Student B thought more explanation in the reinstatement process could help “recognize that this might be a very challenging time in your life to revisit painful experiences and … here's the number to reach out to for your advisor to help you with this process.” Student G also felt that counselors could help:

Facilitators agreed that the student’s story was important in the reinstatement process. Facilitators asked what they looked for in a student’s reinstatement appeal, confirming that the appeal was the vehicle for students to tell their stories. Facilitator answers varied slightly but generally agreed that appeals allowed students to explain what was going on in their lives at the time of suspension, what had changed since their suspension, and how they planned to return and be successful. As facilitator A expressed:

Facilitators also wanted students to make meaning of their experiences. They described looking for explanations as to why they were not previously successful and the steps they had taken to change. They recognized that change could only take place if the student understood what led to their suspension in the first place. That perceived understanding from the students encouraged positive decisions from the facilitators. Facilitator C explained:

Facilitator G also described their interpretation of a students’ narrative by asking, “is the student able to provide the account of what was going on at that time that caused the nonsuccess? We're looking for kind of patterns about why wasn't the student succeeding before.” Facilitator D similarly expressed that the appeal is an opportunity for students to show they understand how and why they became suspended:

Not all students were convinced that facilitators read their appeals with empathy or considered what was happening in their lives at the time of suspension. Student G expressed frustration that the facilitators did not acknowledge that the situation was not in the student’s control. The student reflected, “the situation that brought me to this last suspension was so out of my control and it didn't feel like there was much sympathy for that.” Student D felt they were reinstated because of proximity to graduation and therefore could have left out many personal details:

Despite the challenge of sharing personal details several students engaged in self-reflection and contemplated what was important to them. Student F related the process to a therapy session. Student J discussed how the reinstatement process helped them realize that they really wanted to return to school and be more dedicated to being successful. The student stated, “I'm also grateful it happened because it taught me … a lesson, how did I let myself get to this point?” Student C found:

Most of the students interviewed did not feel they received support to return and be successful. Five students stated that they did not or were unsure whether they received any additional advising or support due to the reinstatement process or the narratives they provided. One student reflected that once the process was completed, they were simply a student again. Student D, who was reinstated close to graduation, expressed appreciation for the support instructors provided in their last semester but did not think that support was related to what the student had written in their reinstatement appeal. Students G and J agreed that they felt supported by their advisors but that they would need to reach out for additional support when necessary.

Only three students felt they received additional support after going through the reinstatement process. Student A explained, “I do … I needed to make sure that I was checking with her on what classes I should be taking next so that I could increase my GPA quicker.” Student E gained greater confidence in reaching out for support, “I knew that I could reach out to my teachers and tell them like hey, I struggled the last time I was in college, can you please help me get ahead on this.” Student J noted, “definitely, yes. It showed me more that she cared; that I can reach out to her for anything that I needed.” Although these students felt supported, they indicated that they needed to take the initiative to receive that support.

When asked if there was anything they would change about the reinstatement process, the students overwhelmingly responded that they wished for more support. Student D wished there was a workshop offered during suspension to help students through the reinstatement process and connect them to support resources for when they return from suspension. Others felt that the process could have been made more explicit, perhaps with counselors reaching out to students rather than the students researching the process on their own. Student B expressed, “[I] feel like there could be a more supportive way to say here are some resources that we offer.”

Though the written appeal is not the only document used in reinstatement, the facilitators stressed that the appeal provides an important context upon which reinstatement decisions are based. Other documents could include transcripts, degree audits, and other supplemental information provided by the student. Facilitator F stated, “That written statement is really [the student’s] chance to talk about and introduce what it was that led them to their current circumstances.” Facilitator B agreed, “If they can demonstrate through their words that this is a thoughtful process and they're now ready, that again increases my confidence with the approval.” Facilitator G explained, “we scrutinize the letter, or the account that the student provides the narrative that explains … what happened, why they went away, but more often, what they’ve been doing since, and why they’re ready to come back.”

Facilitators described what they hoped to hear from students in the appeal process including valuing education, self-reflection, clear goals and plans, and taking initiative. All are aspects of locus of control for which the students needed to take primary responsibility. When a student’s story included these aspects, facilitators believed students were engaged and intrinsically motivated to return and were thus more likely to approve reinstatement. Not all aspects needed to be present, but the absence of any aspect of locus of control was a detriment. When all locus of control aspects were present, the facilitators had more confidence in their reinstatement decisions.

Four facilitators wanted to hear from students that they valued their education enough to return and be successful. Facilitator E expressed, “Prioritizing school is key.” Facilitator B considered whether students were thinking about future outcomes, “I like to hear that they value their education and they're able to make the connection [that] education is going to equal an improved quality of life.” Facilitators A and D looked for how students value their education as it connected to plans, self-reflection, and initiative. Facilitator A provided an example of how valuing education comes through in student responses:

Six facilitators wanted some aspect of self-reflection in what the students wrote. Self-reflection suggests that the student understood their situation, took the initiative to change, and thought about how to succeed in the future. Facilitator A described self-reflection as most important because it “leads students to take initiative for their education.” Facilitator D explained self-reflection as students being in control of their situation, “you need to have control of the situation; you need to think about your situation and analyze.” Facilitator F mentioned that student initiative to complete the reinstatement process signaled self-reflection because it “means that they're taking their reinstatement request seriously and that they've actually thought about how they want to come back and finish out versus just coming back.”

Facilitator E mentioned how the absence of self-reflection could indicate that a student is not ready to return, asking, “does their story make sense or are they just telling us something because they want to come back? But maybe they're not ready, and they haven't done a lot of reflection.” Facilitator G described how self-reflection and plans to return needed to be aligned, “we're just trying to figure out if the plan matches the student’s self-assessed causes, and not even try to say if they're right or wrong, it may be that the student hasn't figured it all out yet.”

Assessing if the situation that led to a student’s suspension had changed or was no longer a concern was important, but knowing the student’s goals and plans for moving forward was critical. Facilitators made clear that it was especially important to know that the student would avoid habits or behaviors present at the time of suspension.

Facilitator A explained how a “good, solid plan” indicated self-reflection and understanding of how a student can be successful. Facilitator F compared what students wrote in their appeal to what the facilitator knew worked well for students in the past:

Plans could reveal that students had not figured out what caused them to struggle in the past, leaving concern for their future success. Facilitator E explained:

The reinstatement process requires students to take initiative. Students must initiate the reinstatement process, because according to Facilitator G, “We are largely dependent upon that student's motivation to come back and reapply.” Facilitator A agreed that the process “has to be student initiated, we do not reach out to students … unless they email us or contact us.” Taking initiative was also tied to intrinsic motivation. Facilitator D explained that when reading appeal letters, “the question I put in my head is, is a student aware of [their] situation, what factor[s] do they acknowledge that are in [their] control?” When students described in the appeal how they took the initiative to change their situation, facilitators felt that students were assessing their situation and being accountable for their actions. Facilitator C stated that they “felt the student is taking primary responsibility for his or her education. It's not my job to substitute my judgment for theirs.”

While the appeal was central to a facilitator’s reinstatement decision, the student’s ability to tell their story impacts how decisions are made. Lack of detail or evidence that students truly understood their situation, or a lack of clear changes being made, could lead to denied appeals. Decisions could be delayed if facilitators felt they needed more information. Some facilitators chose to interview students when the written appeal was insufficient. However, findings suggest that knowing the details of a student’s experience is not nearly as important as understanding how students moved on from those experiences. Students who tell their full story may evoke empathy, but the absence of details about that story did not impact facilitator decisions where a clear plan for success was provided.

Ultimately, facilitators were ascertaining what students believed was in their locus of control. Did students value their education? Did they engage in self-reflection? Did they make changes for moving forward? Did they have clear, reasonable goals and plans that considered past mistakes? Did they take the initiative to pursue reinstatement? Facilitators appreciated knowing the students’ stories, but more importantly, wanted to know that they took responsibility for what led to their suspension and were intrinsically motivated to move forward and succeed.

Students needed to understand what happened that led to their suspension. Telling that story created a connection between the student and the facilitator. However, the facilitators were clear that not all students were able to tell their stories. Not all students have the same storytelling capabilities or understand the storytelling process. Writing a detailed personal story is a vulnerable process and may lead some students to not initiate the reinstatement process. Hall and Gahn (1994) specifically recommended requiring a personal interview and follow-up advising as part of the reinstatement process. An interview, while still narrative, may seem less vulnerable when the conversation is only between two people versus an unknown number of readers. A conversation may be more comfortable, allowing the facilitator to ask additional questions and seek additional information, while also placing the student at ease.

Narrative theory provides a lens through which students and facilitators work together to create the student’s own hero story, starting with the student emerging from the abyss, reborn with new revelations, being transformed through self-reflection, and returning with clear plans and goals for atonement (Verity, 2021). In the case of reinstatement, it is less necessary to know the details of the abyss as it is critical to understand the revelations with which the student emerged. These revelations are the impetus for transformation and motivation to succeed. Facilitators take part in this later portion of the student’s journey by working with the student to co-construct plans for a successful return, thereby ensuring that the student is aware of the support resources available.

Connecting students with an advisor early helps remove some of the vulnerabilities from the process. When students know who to contact and can work with that person to navigate reinstatement, students will be more confident and take charge of their story. Advisors can also help students understand what to include in a reinstatement appeal, taking the guesswork out of what and how much detail to include. Knowing exactly what reinstatement facilitators are looking for and knowing how to address aspects of locus of control rather than rehashing past experiences can make the appeal process feel less vulnerable. Advisors can also help students develop a success plan, identify available resources, ensure students understand their degree requirements, and realize the consequences they face if they cannot be successful upon their return.

Reinstatement appeal instructions should make clear what information is most important to include in their appeal, how the appeal will be reviewed, and what facilitators will be looking for. Students should feel comfortable explaining how they have reflected upon and taken responsibility for what led to their suspension; however, students should not be required to relive past traumatic experiences, especially if they do not know who will be reviewing their appeal.

The scope of this research was limited to one institution’s reinstatement process. Expanding the research to other institutions could help to generalize the findings and catalog reinstatement approaches and methods of support. Not every student will be prepared to return from suspension upon appeal. The onus is then placed on the facilitator to use their best judgment to make a decision that is in both the student’s and the institution’s best interests. Therefore, the reinstatement process is not, and cannot be, judgment-free. However, by utilizing narrative theory, it is possible to approach reinstatement decisions with a clearer understanding of what is being judged. Because current research does not address how to effectively review and include subjective criteria, further research on the training facilitators should receive and whether a rubric or defined measures by which a reinstatement appeal is evaluated could help both facilitators and students understand how decisions are made.

Not addressed in this research but of note is the disparity between the racial and gender identities of the students and facilitators. Certainly, students may feel more vulnerable in a process that is less representative of how they identify. Power structures and systemic barriers are at play in the reinstatement process, especially when students are appealing to unknown figures to decide the fate of their return and redemption. Where students felt that their stories were not heard or relatable to facilitators, race, gender, and/or cultural backgrounds were likely part of those reasons. Additional research could help identify how systemic barriers impact student participation in and the success of the reinstatement process.

Being academically suspended is a major event in a student’s academic journey. Appealing for reinstatement is an act of redemption that places students in vulnerable positions. While reinstatement is a reflective and intentional process, it does not need to be such a vulnerable one. By connecting students with academic advisors early to serve as guides through the process, and by integrating a personal interview for students who struggle with writing their stories, students will be more informed and confident in knowing what to expect and how to present their stories effectively. Supporting students through the reinstatement process helps them develop skills for managing future life events and benefits the institution when students successfully complete their degree programs.