December 2009 Perspectives

Call for Proposals for the RP Conference

The RP Group is currently accepting proposals for our conference “From the Ground Up: Practical Tools and Strategies for Research and Planning,” taking place April 22-23, 2010 at the Kellogg West Center in Pomona.

We are seeking presentations and posters featuring tools, processes, or approaches that address topics relevant to institutional research and planning including (but not limited to):

• Basic Skills Research and Intervention

• Integrated Planning

• Student Learning Outcomes Assessment

• Institutional Improvement and Effectiveness

• Accreditation

• Statewide Trends

Proposals are due by Friday, January 15, 2010 using our online Call For Proposals form.  Register and find out more at http://www.rpgroup.org/events/2010RPConference.html

Submit a Nomination for the RP Group Awards

Each year, the RP Group issues awards that recognize excellence in research and planning.  This year, we are accepting nominations in the following areas: 

• Excellence in Research – Regional/Statewide Project

• Excellence in Research – College/District Project

• Excellence in Planning

• Excellence in Assessment

• Dissertation/Thesis Excellence

Each of these awards is intended both to recognize worthy individuals and to set the bar for excellence in community college research, planning, and assessment.

The deadline is Friday, January 15, 2010.  The nomination form – along with award rubrics and examples of projects – can be downloaded at: http://www.rpgroup.org/projects/awards.html

IRP Census Survey

The IRP Census Survey aims to develop a snapshot of the capacity, responsibilities, and priorities of IRP offices across the state as well as to identify tools, resources, and services to further assist their efforts. Thank you to all the colleges and districts that have completed the survey, it is greatly appreciated! If your college or district has not completed the survey and would like to do so, it is not too late! Please visit http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=qe2LPvFbkNm5IcziICd5XQ_3d_3d. We are aiming for a 100% response rate in order to produce the clearest snapshot. If you have any questions or would like to participate in a focus group related to research capacity and the role of IRP offices, please contact Priya Chaplot, BRIC Project Coordinator, at pchaplot@rpgroup.org.

As part of a study done for the Chancellor’s Office during 2007-2009 known as the Transfer Leadership Center, the RP Group documented successful transfer practices. This research began with a qualitative study and a literature review on effective transfer strategies.

Colleges with consistently higher-than-expected transfer rates were identified based on a cohort study conducted by the State Chancellor’s Office of the California Community Colleges. The study followed three cohorts, the last of which began their community college enrollment in 2000-01, and all were followed through 2005-06. Next, teams comprised of two experienced researchers planned and implemented two-day site visits to seven top-ranking colleges. Each site visit included an average of 15-16 interviews and four focus groups, with a combined average participation of 46 individuals who were selected to provide a range of different perspectives on the full spectrum of factors, interventions, strategies and practices that affect transfer at each college.

In comparing the findings from the seven case studies, the researchers identified six transfer promoting factors that were present at all seven colleges:

• Transfer Culture

• Student-Focused Environment

• Commitment to the Institution

• Strong, Strategic High School Relationships

• Strong Four-Year College Relationships

• Effective Support Services

In addition, the cross-analysis of these colleges revealed that high transfer rates are not achieved through a singular solution. It requires multiple activities that combine to provide different student populations with the services and support they need to establish and achieve their transfer goals.

A second aspect of the study - the Transfer Velocity Study - undertook quantitative research on transfer volume and rates including assessing the impact of student services, course-taking patterns, transfer readiness and preparedness, and demographics. Some key findings include:

Nine-year transfer rates for the Transfer Cohorts are 51% or higher.

• Transfer rates are currently underreported by at least 5% due to technical limitations, including data matching issues, mortality, and intrusion of non-transfer seeking students into the Transfer Cohort.

• Course withdrawals or “W” grades are negatively associated with transfer; every 10% increase in the ratio of withdrawals to enrollments results in a 16% decrease in the odds of transfer.

• Receiving an Associate’s degree within three years of initial enrollment is a transfer-facilitating milestone. Students with early Associate’s degrees are 111% more likely to transfer than those who do not receive an Associate’s degree.

• Determining which students are truly transfer-seeking is an ongoing challenge. Approximately 15% of the Transfer Cohort group received Associate’s degrees or certificates but did not transfer indicating that their designation as transfer-oriented was likely a false positive.

The complete Transfer Velocity Study report will be on the web in January. Currently, a Power Point presentation and a summary of key findings is available at website link above.

In addition, the Transfer Velocity Study created a publicly accessible online tool for calculating transfer rates. Due to be made available as part of the Chancellor’s Office Data Mart in early 2010, the Transfer Cohort Report enables college staff to access data about their individual transfer cohorts. Users will be able to see statewide and local transfer rates for a range of different time windows and sub-populations. Demographic break-outs are available by ethnicity, age group, and gender. Transfer rates for those transfer cohort students who participated in the following special programs and services are also available: Extended Opportunity Programs & Services (EOPS); Disabled Student Programs & Services (DSPS); California Work Opportunity & Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKS); and financial aid.

This study aims to assess the state of transfer between community colleges and four-year institutions for CTE students, document factors that inhibit and support such transfer, and identify strategies that can help increase transfer in high-demand occupational areas such as Health, Education, Engineering, Logistics, Energy and other technology-related disciplines. Funding from the California Community College’s Chancellor’s Office launched Phase I of this investigation, conducted between Fall 2007 and Summer 2009. With additional support from the James Irvine Foundation, the research will continue into a second stage which will conclude in Fall 2010.

Phase I findings regarding CTE infrastructure, enrollments, and transfer included:

• Projected Demand for CTE/Occupational Baccalaureate Holders: there is a need and the opportunity to increase CTE transfer leading to baccalaureate attainment in several key disciplines related to high-growth, high-demand occupations.

• Under-Utilization of CTE Course Infrastructure: The community college system maintains a large and under-utilized infrastructure of transferable courses that could provide significant numbers of students with lower-division major preparation in disciplines related to high-growth, high-demand occupations requiring a bachelor’s degree.

• Supply of CTE Students Who Transfer after Completing Lower-Division Courses in Community College System: Compared to the projected need for baccalaureate-trained workers in Computer and Information Technology, Health and Engineering occupations, relatively few students complete lower-division major requirements in these disciplines at community colleges.  Also, for a large number of CTE programs—including many projecting a high demand for baccalaureate-trained workers—the number and percentage of students who transfer with 12 or more transferable units in that particular program is low.

• Factors that Support and Compromise CTE Transfer: The study uncovered several strategies and approaches that support transfer for CTE students. Some of these are statewide; others are regional in nature; yet others are specific to a particular institution or discipline.   The qualitative component of the study also uncovered a wide range of factors that make transfer challenging for CTE students including inadequate or inaccurate guidance on course-taking requirements; issues of alignment between community college and four-year programs; and incompatibility between course requirements for AA/AS degree completion and those for transfer.

• Question Raised by Phase I Research: The study’s preliminary findings raise a compelling question: How many transfer students use the community college CTE infrastructure and how many bypass these courses to complete lower-division major requirements after transfer? Put differently, is the problem one of students’ under-utilization of the CTE infrastructure to prepare for transfer, and/or is it that few students transfer into CTE baccalaureate programs? The next phase of the project will begin to investigate this question by backward mapping the courses that students took prior to transfer in targeted high-demand disciplines.

In 2008 and 2009, the RP Group worked closely with the Hewlett Foundation to focus attention on outstanding work in basic skills education at California’s community colleges. Hewlett Leaders in Student Success highlighted innovations by front-runners in California in order to help accelerate the efforts of all community colleges. Over the two years, the program named seven “Hewlett Leaders,” exemplary colleges that demonstrated measurable improvements in moving under-prepared students through the sequence.

In assessing what had enabled the Hewlett Leaders to create pervasive campus-wide support systems, rather than a series of stand-alone interventions, several common themes emerged:

• Leadership was distributed among faculty, staff, and administration.  In each case, a motivated group was empowered to exercise leadership at multiple levels and was supported administratively. Furthermore, changes were driven by examples that were tested out on campus.  The enthusiasm of individuals within the college was leveraged to attract support from more people on campus.

• Rather than looking narrowly at the problem, faculty, administrators, and staff worked together to identify what is meant by basic skills students and to dismantle barriers to student achievement.  Multiple elements throughout the college were changed so that the issue was addressed systemically and not by individual programs.  This frequently entailed integrating student services and instruction.

• These colleges gathered information about promising practices in other colleges and set aside time and resources for reflective discussions and planning.  In addition, Hewlett Leaders valued the availability and use of disaggregated data to understand outcomes and the relative success of different populations. Finally, they were committed to tracking what happened as a result of new practices, not just making one-time comparisons of one small group to the larger student body.

Implicit in these examples is a persuasive case for a student-centered approach to reform in community colleges. Hewlett Leaders did not simply demonstrate improvement for students in basic skills. By addressing basic skills issues as central to student success, these colleges were able to increase success for all as a matter of equity.

The colleges that were selected as Hewlett Leaders are now offering presentations, workshops, publications, webinars, and hosting visitors as a way to share what they have learned about improving success rates for basic skills students.  Please visit the Hewlett Leaders website to access specific information about the colleges and other resources. In addition, the RP Group can provide data to individual colleges on their basic skills progress. Please contact Linda Umbdenstock for more information.

As noted in the last issue of Perspectives, this two-part study yielded recommendations on consistent basic skills measures and documented the state of evidence-based decision making in California community colleges.  The key recommended measure, progress rate through basic skills courses to transfer level course by discipline, was incorporated into ARCC.  Information on the other recommended measures is available on the project website.

The second portion of the study uncovered a disconnect between how administrators and practitioners perceive data and highlighted that the data being collected are less useful for those who interact directly with students.  Over the last decade, colleges have been improving steadily in their ability to gather institution-wide measures, which can help to clarify fundamentals such as retention and graduation rates.  However, these data do not yield information that help faculty and student services staff to assess the impact of specific interventions or to fully understand the many factors that contribute to students successfully meeting their goals. 

Furthermore, the study led RP to further unpack the definition of research and to propose a more expansive concept that encompasses helping others to understand and act on information.  This definition posits research as an interventionalist discipline – where data are gathered in order to direct action within an institution.  Therefore, this study recommended building the skills of both researchers and non-researchers to promote an active dialog on how to collect, analyze, and act on information.