Asset-based Approaches to Student Success

In past newsletters and workshops, I’ve shared evidence-based teaching strategies that have been shown to improve student learning, success, engagement, and career readiness:

• Teaching Tips for the First Week and First Major Exam or Assignment
• Evidence-based Teaching Strategies in Canvas
• Authentic Assessment (and AI)

But none of those are effective if we or our students have a fixed mindset (belief that intelligence is fixed) or deficit thinking (focusing on what students lack instead of what they bring to the table). The alternatives are growth mindset (intelligence can grow with effort) and asset-based approaches (aka strengths-based approaches). 

Below are examples of asset-based approaches to improving student success at the college and the course levels.

Asset-based Approaches at the College Level

A cautionary tale is Guttman Community College, as described in the book Establishing an Experimental Community College in the United States: Challenges, Successes, and Implications for Higher Education. It was formed in 2012 with the best of intentions for improving student success, but they unintentionally worsened student success instead because they focused on what students lacked (deficit thinking), and they failed to account for the local context and student needs. Policies unintentionally excluded or penalized the very student populations the college aimed to serve. They eventually started turning things around, however. See similar lessons Valencia College learned twenty years ago in the video Anyone Can Learn Anything Under the Right Conditions.

To illustrate asset or strengths-based approaches at the college level, see the book Becoming a Student-Ready College: A New Culture of Leadership for Student Success. Here is an interview with the lead author and discussion questions based on an older edition of the book. 

To learn more about the different types of students we serve today, see the Student Populations section of this draft teaching guide, including Gen Z & Alpha students, nontraditional students, first-generation students, low-income students, student parents, student veterans, students with disabilities, etc.

Lastly, here is a table comparing and contrasting deficit vs. asset-based approaches at the college level:

Deficit Thinking vs. Asset-Based Approaches in College Reform 

Dimension	Deficit Thinking (what happened)	Asset-Based Approach (what could/should happen)
Framing of Students	Students seen as underprepared, lacking skills, discipline, or “college knowledge”; the institution’s role was to correct these deficiencies.	Students seen as resourceful, resilient, and bringing cultural wealth; the institution’s role is to leverage strengths while addressing systemic barriers.
Curricular Design	Heavy emphasis on remediation and prescriptive pathways, assuming students need strict structure to succeed.	Flexible pathways and co-requisite models that build on students’ existing knowledge while accelerating progress toward degrees.
Advising & Support	Intrusive advising positioned as “managing” or “fixing” students’ behavior (attendance, scheduling, persistence).	Advising as partnership and empowerment — co-creating goals, recognizing external responsibilities (work, family), and integrating support holistically.
Work & Life Realities	Policies discouraged or penalized outside work, assuming students must prioritize school full-time to succeed.	Policies acknowledge that many students are workers and caregivers; design supports that accommodate working learners (e.g., flexible scheduling, paid internships).
Outcomes Orientation	Success judged by whether students conformed to the model; those who did not were seen as failing.	Success judged by whether the institution adapts to student needs; models continuously revised based on diverse student realities.

Asset-based Approaches at the Course Level

Similarly, here is a table comparing deficit vs. asset-based approaches at the individual course/teaching level:

Deficit Thinking vs. Asset-Based Approaches in College Teaching & Course Design

Dimension	Deficit Thinking	Asset-Based Approach
Teaching Philosophy	Sees students as empty vessels lacking preparation or discipline; teaching is about transmitting content and correcting weaknesses.	Sees students as active contributors with prior knowledge and diverse perspectives; teaching is about co-creating knowledge and valuing lived experiences.
Course Design (Face-to-Face & Online)	Rigid, one-size-fits-all structure; assumes students must adapt to instructor’s design regardless of circumstances.	Flexible, inclusive design (Universal Design for Learning, culturally responsive pedagogy); multiple entry points for engagement and demonstration of learning.
Online Teaching Strategies	Focus on surveillance (e.g., proctoring, attendance policing, punitive discussion requirements).	Focus on accessibility, community, and trust (e.g., flexible deadlines, asynchronous options, choice in discussion formats like video/audio/text).
Assessment Practices	High-stakes, summative exams that penalize error; assumes failure indicates lack of effort or ability.	Multiple, low-stakes assessments; formative approaches that emphasize growth and feedback; failure seen as part of learning process.
Feedback	Deficit-focused, pointing out what’s “wrong” or “missing.”	Strengths-based, highlighting what students do well and how to build on it; personalized and dialogic. See wise feedback and growth mindset feedback.
Grading	Curve-based, comparative, punitive (late penalties, rigid grade distributions).	Mastery-based or contract grading; transparent rubrics; opportunities for revision and reflection; grades used to motivate learning rather than punish.
Use of Technology	Technology as a surveillance tool (lockdown browsers, monitoring student activity, attendance trackers).	Technology as an empowerment tool (collaboration platforms, open educational resources, accessibility tools, ePortfolios).

Further Reading and Resources

• From Deficit to Growth: A Guide to Asset-Based Feedback and Rubric Design
• Towards Anti-Deficit Education in Undergraduate Mathematics Education
• Community Cultural Wealth: An Assets-Based Approach to Persistence of Engineering Students of Color – more on Community Cultural Wealth
• An Asset-Based Approach to Understanding College Students as Sources of Support
• Are assessment accommodations cheating? A critical policy analysis
• Successful university students from low socio-economic backgrounds’ perspectives on their academic success: a capital-based approach
• Academic underachievement and its motivational and self-regulated learning correlates: A meta-analytic review of 80 years of research
• Grade Gaps Reflect Course Problems, Not Students’ Shortcomings