aztransfer steering committee meeting december 6, 2013 2013 evaluation of arizona’s transfer...
Post on 16-Jan-2016
215 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
AZTRANSFER STEERING COMMITTEE MEETINGDECEMBER 6, 2013
2013 Evaluation of Arizona’s Transfer System
1
Agenda
• Methods• Analysis• Recommendations & Findings• Questions
2
Hezel Associates
• Custom research since 1987– Research and evaluation capabilities– Evidence based strategic planning– Focus on education
• Unique expertise– Distance & online learning– Transitions in education– Professional development– Educational interventions
3
Introduction
• Reinforcement of the transfer system’s effectiveness– Stakeholders are..
Aware of the system components Positive about their effectiveness and impact
– More students are… Transferring Persisting Graduating
• Data don’t lie, but don’t tell the whole story.
4
Methods
5
• Statewide Data Analysis– Transfer students from Fall 2006 to Spring 2012– Comparisons to 2007 data– Factors impacting educational outcomes
• Employee and Student Surveys– Online surveys of relevant employees, current & former students– Surveys analyzed by group (employee and student) and
compared– Comparisons to 2007 when appropriate
Recommendations & Findings
6
Recommendation 1
7
Maintain the existing transfer system components as they are effective in promoting degree completion among transfer students.
Findings
8
• Over 1,500 more students transferred in 2011-12 than in 2006-07.
• When compared to 2007, transfer students collected about 5 fewer credits over the course of their college career.
• Students who had completed an AGEC had greater odds of completing a bachelor’s degree.
• Almost 80% of students and 70% of employees were satisfied with the transfer system.
Recommendation 2
9
Continue efforts to increase student awareness of the various components of the transfer system to ensure all students have the information necessary for a smooth transfer process.
Findings
10
• About 50% of students were aware of transfer opportunities.
• About 2/3 of students were familiar with AGEC, slightly less with transfer pathways and Common Courses.
• Publicizing and/or informing students of the transfer process was one of the most commonly cited areas for improvement by employees and students.
Recommendation 3
11
Enhance training opportunities for transfer-relevant employees to increase awareness of all components of the transfer system and the requirements of degree paths to ensure all students receive appropriate transfer guidance.
Findings
12
• More than a third of employees with fewer than 5 years in current position.
• Students’ perceived faculty/advisors lacked familiarity with some transfer system components.
• Focus on maintaining high levels of familiarity and communicating relevant information to students.
• Confusion remained over AGEC application processes, coursework requirements for majors, and courses applying to various university programs.
Recommendation 4
13
Expand opportunities for communication between community college and university personnel to increase message consistency across institutions.
Findings
14
• Discrepancies between perceptions of community college and university employees in terms of…– Student readiness– Coursework rigor– Extent of engagement in transfer process
• Perceived inconsistencies and need for increased communication between community colleges and universities.
Recommendation 5
15
Standardize administrative processes to ensure appropriate and consistent identification of student progress and certifications on community college transcripts to ease student transitions to universities.
Findings
16
• Many employees were not aware of how or when students applied for AGEC.
• Variability between colleges on how AGEC completion was reported and communicated potentially producing confusion.
• Unclear how/if AGEC in progress were recorded.
Recommendation 6
17
Expand transfer resources available to students at the universities to enhance the post-transfer experiences for students.
Findings
18
• About half of students transferred with no difficulties.• Advisors perceived that students did not have adequate
time pre-enrollment to discuss transfer issues.• Some barriers to transfer could potentially be alleviated with
additional supports on the university end (e.g., acclimation, major declaration, perceptions of inconsistencies).
Recommendation 7
19
Utilize former transfer students as resources for current and future transfer students.
Findings
20
• Most students met with advisors four times per year or less.• Employees and students agreed that one-on-one advising
was the most effective way to learn about transfer.• Students tended to rely on word-of-mouth for information on
transfer.
Next Steps?
• Capitalize on previous successes using established processes to promote future efforts.
• Expand or revise resources to meet changing needs.
21
Questions?
22
Contact Us
Laurene Johnson, PhD Senior Research AssociateHezel Associates, LLC(315) 422 3512 laurene@hezel.comhttp://www.hezel.com
23
top related