a methodology for determining the transferability rate of courses kelly perez-vergara, mike kramer,...
TRANSCRIPT
A Methodology for Determining the Transferability Rate of Courses
Kelly Perez-Vergara, Mike Kramer, Kelly Patel and Martin Orlowski
2
Three main points
We talk a lot about transfer equivalencies and the need to increase transferability of courses, but we don’t know the extent of the problem.
The data is available, but the analysis is missing.
Without analysis, our interventions are based on intuition rather than evidence.
3
Background
Oakland Community College– Five campuses (Oakland County)– Headcount 2011-12 = 57,924
4
Introduction
• Community college priority: transfer & completion• Standard measures: transfer rates, subsequent
completion rates
5
Introduction
• Community college priority: transfer & completion• Standard measures: transfer rates, subsequent
completion rates• Doyle (2006) on subsequent completion rates– All credits = 82% – Some credits = 42%
• New measure: extent to which courses transfer
6
Purpose
To determine the extent to which courses transfer to four-year institutions in which a large number of our students transfer.
7
Methods: Receiving Institutions of Interest
• National Student Clearinghouse: subsequent enrollment
• StudentsSubmitted = 142,034Returned = 133,057 Hit rate = 93.68%
8
Methods: Receiving Institutions of Interest
• National Student Clearinghouse: subsequent enrollment
• StudentsSubmitted = 142,034Returned = 133,057 Hit rate = 93.68%
• Number of subsequent enrollments @ 4-year 2012 = 7,755
• Number of subsequent enrollment anywhere 2012 = 13,332
9
Results: Receiving Institutions of Interest
‘Tier 1’ InstitutionBaker CollegeCentral Michigan UniversityDavenport UniversityEastern Michigan UniversityMadonna UniversityMichigan State UniversityOakland UniversityUniversity of Detroit MercyUniversity of Michigan- Central CampusUniversity of Michigan- DearbornUniversity of Michigan- FlintUniversity of PhoenixWalsh CollegeWayne State UniversityWestern Michigan University
10
Methods: Determining the Transferability Rate of Courses
• Courses: all, excluding courses related to occupational program & special topics/internship courses
• Michigan Transfer Network & institutional websites
11
Methods: Determining the Transferability Rate of Courses
• Courses: all, excluding courses related to occupational program & special topics/internship courses
• Michigan Transfer Network & institutional websites
• Coding scheme– Equivalent course– General credit– No credit
12
Equivalent Course ExamplesTransferring From: Transferring To:
Subject Course Credits Subject Course Course Title CreditsGeneral Credit
Waived Credits
MAT 1100 4 MATH 100 Basic Algebra 4 0 0MAT 1580 MATH 143 Intro to Probability & Stats MAT 1150 3 MAT 140 Intermediate Algebra 3 1SLS 1100 2 ASL 113 ASL Fingerspelling 1 MAT 1540 4 MAT 111 College Algebra 3 1
Methods: Determining the Transferability Rate of Courses
13
Methods: Determining the Transferability Rate of Courses
General Credit ExamplesTransferring From: Transferring To:
Subject Course Credits Subject Course Course Title CreditsGeneral Credit
Waived Credits
MAT 1070 BUSG Business General Credit 3 N/AMAT 1540 4 MTH EL.NS MTH EL-NAT SCI 4 MAT 1210 MTH 100.0 General Credit MAT 2710 4 MAA 8888 MA Approved Elective 4 SLS 1001 2 AACR GEN General Credit 2 SLS 2150 4 ASL CRED ASL Credit 3 ANT 2750 3 HCT GE* Historical/Cultural Trads. 3
14
Methods: Determining the Transferability Rate of Courses
No Credit ExamplesTransferring From: Transferring To:
Subject Course Credits Subject Course Course Title CreditsGeneral Credit
Waived Credits
MAT 1045 4 NO CRED No Credit 0 ARB 1530 ARB 1XX Validation by Proficiency Exam
15
Results: Transferability Rate of Courses
• Overall averages• Compare course rates– Within a discipline– Between disciplines– Based on course characteristics
16
Results: Overall averages
Average number of institutions that accept courses for credit
Number of Courses
Average # (%) of Institutions that Accept Courses for Any Credit
Average # (%) of Institutions that Accept Courses as Equivalent
CoursesAll courses 306 10 (69) 5 (36)
17
Results: Compare
course rates within a
discipline
18
Results: Compare course rates within a discipline
19
Results: Compare course rates between disciplines
Subset of disciplines
Discipline
Average % institutions
accepting for equivalent credit
# courses
German 77% 2Chemistry 68% 4Political Science 65% 4Philosophy 61% 5Music 25% 29Art 24% 38Journalism 20% 5Woodworking 13% 2Gerontology 10% 4Early Childhood Development 2% 6Mental Health/Social Work 2% 7
20
Results: Compare course rates by course characteristics
Average number of institutions that accept courses for credit
Number of Courses
Average # (%) of Institutions that Accept Courses for Any Credit
Average # (%) of Institutions that Accept Courses as Equivalent
CourseAll courses 306 10 (69) 5 (36)
GE courses 173 11 (73) 7 (47)
All other courses 133 10 (64) 3 (23)
21
Results: Compare course rates by course characteristics
• General education courses versus all others• Benchmark = 47% (equivalent credit)– Below = 199 courses– At or above = 107 courses
22
Results: Compare course rates by characteristics
Average number of institutions that accept courses for credit
Number of Courses
Average # (%) of Institutions that Accept Courses for Any Credit
Average # (%) of Institutions that Accept Courses as Equivalent
CoursesAll courses 306 10 (69) 5 (36)
GE courses 173 11 (73) 7 (47)
All other courses 133 10 (64) 3 (23)
MACRAO courses 113 12 (81) 8 (53)
All other GE courses 60 9 (59) 5 (35)
23
Results: Compare course rates by characteristics
Comparison of general education requirements at our institution and MACRAO requirements
Institutional General Education MACRAO
RequirementsMinimum #
credits RequirementsMinimum #
creditsCommunication/English 6 English 6Fine Arts/Humanities 3 Fine Arts/Humanities 8Mathematics/Science 3 Mathematics/Science 8Social Science 6 Social Science 8Physical Education 3
Total 21 Total 30
24
Conclusions
• Course transfer rates– Previously non-standard or anecdotal– New method adds reliability & validity• Focused interventions, change is measurable
25
Limitations
• NSC data limitations• Manual coding of transferability• Courses coded as no credit due to lack of
information • Credit applicable to degree requirements• Transferability changes more frequently than
we can update it
26
Future Directions
• Near future– Track progress for efforts to increase
transferability– Update information annually and compare– Utilize similar process for evaluating newly
proposed courses– Align our courses with what is offered at the 4
year colleges, in terms of 100 & 200 level courses
27
Future Directions
• Ultimately– Make this methodology obsolete by exchanging
standardized datasets with 4-year schools
28
Three main points
We talk a lot about transfer equivalencies and the need to increase transferability of courses, but we don’t know the extent of the problem.
The data is available, but the analysis is missing.
Without analysis, our interventions are based on intuition rather than evidence.