ERIC ED569339: Action Steps for Advancing Transfer Student Success: Lessons Learned from Cross-Institutional Collaborations

2016·0.45 MB·English

by  ERIC

Action Steps for Advancing
Transfer Student Success:
Lessons Learned from Cross-Institutional
Collaborations
REBECCA DOLINSKY, TERREL L. RHODES,
and HEATHER McCAMBLY

CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION. Initiating Institutional Change in the Transfer Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
CASE STUDIES
1. I nviting a Broad Range of Faculty Participants in Campus Change Efforts
Pierce College and California State University–Northridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2. C reating a Culture of Trust through Ongoing Conversations
Salt Lake Community College and University of Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. A ligning Valued Campus Work with Project Priorities
Ivy Tech Community College–Central Indiana and Indiana University-Purdue
University Indianapolis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. C larifying Shared Learning Expectations across Transfer
University of Wisconsin–Fox Valley and University of Wisconsin–Oshkosh . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. L everaging Campus Efforts That Are Already Underway
Mount Wachusett Community College and Fitchburg State University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. E stablishing Data Sharing Agreements
Blue Ridge Community College and James Madison University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. C onnecting Project Efforts to Statewide Workshops
Elizabethtown Community and Technical College and University of Louisville . . . . . . . . 18
8. I ntroducing Deliberate Campus Change Efforts
University of Wisconsin–Waukesha and University of Wisconsin–Parkside . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9. B uilding Faculty Capacity through Collaborative Work
Middlesex Community College and University of Massachusetts Lowell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
10. S caffolding Professional Development Activities over Time
J . Sargeant Reynolds Community College and Virginia Commonwealth University . . . . . 24
CONCLUSION. Lessons Learned for Sustainable Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Degree Qualifications Profile Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
About the Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
About the Quality Collaboratives Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
1818 R Street, NW, Washington, DC 20009
©2016 by the Association of American Colleges and Universities
All rights reserved .
The Association of American Colleges and Universities gratefully acknowledges the generous
support of Lumina Foundation and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation .
To order additional copies of this publication or to learn about other AAC&U publications,
visit www .aacu .org, e-mail pub_desk@aacu .org, or call 202 .387 .3760 .
INTRODUCTION
Initiating Institutional Change in the Transfer Context
AAC&U launched Quality Collaboratives (QC): Assessing and Reporting Degree Qualifications Profile
Competencies in the Context of Transfer in 2011 as a three-year project that engaged educational,
assessment, and policy leaders in student learning outcomes assessment and transfer pathways . With
funding from Lumina Foundation and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the QC project was
organized through AAC&U’s current signature initiative, Liberal Education and America’s Promise
(LEAP), which champions a twenty-first-century liberal education for all college students . During the
project, two- and four-year transfer partner institutions within nine states—each already engaged, prior
to the start of the project, in learning outcomes assessment work—beta tested different ways to assess
proficiencies articulated in Lumina Foundation’s Degree Qualifications Profile (DQP) . The DQP, now in
its second version, benchmarks “what degree recipients should know and be able to do”1 at the associate’s,
bachelor’s, and master’s degree levels, and offers scaffolded learning expectations to guide paths between
and among transfer partners (see page 30, below) .
This publication features campus work from twenty institutions involved in QC—campuses with
collaborative relationships that worked together as two- and four-year “QC dyads .” The ten participating
campus dyads hailed from California, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Utah, Wisconsin, and Virginia
(two other states—North Dakota and Oregon—participated in the project at the state system level) . Project
participants in these dyads saw already-established working relationships between their institutions gain
strength as they connected faculty teaching and learning practices with assessment of authentic student
work, interacted with senior academic leaders supporting the work, and engaged with policies related
to student learning and success in the context of transfer . Campuses entered the QC project in various
ways, including through state- or system-wide initiatives, in response to institutional strategic plans, in
support of general education reform projects, and with the goal of refining transfer processes . Each dyad
1 Cliff Adelman, Peter Ewell, Paul Gaston, and Carol Geary Schneider, The Degree Qualifications Profile (Indianapolis, IN: Lumina
Foundation, 2014), 3 .
ACTION STEPS FOR ADVANCING TRANSFER STUDENT SUCCESS | 1
approached transfer student success through various means and with a different campus and state culture
serving as a backdrop .
This publication is anchored by a flowchart, laid out on pages 4 and 5, that reflects lessons learned from
the campus-based work in which the QC dyads engaged . The flowchart is meant to serve as a guide for
campus practitioners seeking to initiate transfer-based change efforts on their campuses . The reader can
follow the columns in the flowchart from left to right, starting with three major points of consideration
when initiating a new project on campus, as gleaned from QC: (1) set a collaborative tone early in the
process, (2) proactively coordinate and connect multiple initiatives, and (3) maximize engagement based
on assessment and collaborative capacity . These consideration points are augmented by a set of suggestions
for conducting an environmental scan, prior to the project, to strengthen the work on campus . The reader
can follow each of the three points down their respective columns to three outcomes from the QC project:
(1) increased levels of respect and trust among colleagues; (2) sustainable, scalable projects embedded in
and connected to institutional goals and other related initiatives; and (3) increased understanding and new
avenues to extend project work more broadly, engaging larger groups of stakeholders.
In between these points of consideration and project outcomes are key action steps taken by the various
QC campus partners to implement assessment in the transfer context . These action steps reflect a
culminating list of collective lessons learned throughout the QC project . For instance, QC campus team
leaders learned that assignment design, assessment, and student learning were some of the best entry
points for faculty engaged in the professional development workshops embedded in the project . Rather
than introducing the DQP right away, dyad leaders learned that it was best to start with what matters most
to faculty—student success—and integrate the DQP at a later stage of the project .
Each action step (eleven in total) correlates with a case study in the following pages . (In one instance, a
dyad’s case study addresses two action steps, and readers will find that the case studies generally speak
to more than one action step .) Written by QC dyad leaders, who are listed as contacts in this publication,
these case studies represent campus change efforts that unfolded over the course of the three-year project .
Longer versions of these case studies reside on AAC&U’s website at www.aacu.org/qc/casestudies .
AAC&U is currently compiling and uploading resources from different multicampus projects . These
resources are available by theme under the “Browse Resources” section on our homepage . Curated
2 | ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
resources from the QC project and its Faculty Collaboratives project demonstrate lessons learned and
offer tools in support of campus change efforts nationwide . The Faculty Collaboratives project supports a
national network of faculty and administrative leaders engaged in progressive efforts for student learning,
retention, and success . We hope this publication, along with a companion publication that is intended for
campus practitioners working on assessment issues,2 is a useful addition to these resources as well as a
helpful tool for practitioners seeking to initiate institutional change within the transfer context .
2 Gary R . Brown and Terrel L . Rhodes, Assessment Practices for Advancing Transfer Student Success: Collaborating for Educational Change
(Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2015) .
ACTION STEPS FOR ADVANCING TRANSFER STUDENT SUCCESS | 3
Campus Change Processes and Action Steps
INITIATING A Proactively coordinate and connect Maximize engagement based on assessment
Set a collaborative tone early in the process
multiple initiatives and collaborative capacity
PROJECT
L
A
T • Include project faculty and staff in the grant application • Conduct an institutional inventory of similar • Inventory faculty and staff who are familiar
N
MEN process initiatives and relevant campus structures with campus change mechanisms
A
NC and goals
OS • Schedule early conversations with multiple project • Begin with a small team of enthusiastic leaders
R
I stakeholders • Clarify for faculty, staff, and policy makers who can lay groundwork for expansion
V
ACTION STEPS N how project work fits with existing work
E • Define expected project outcomes as a team
AND
PROCESSES
Build a team that… Intentionally calibrate the work of Design a project, with end goals
TO EFFECT
multiple initiatives by organizing in mind, that…
• seeks balance with different types of participating faculty
CHANGE E a project that…
G and includes senior academic leaders who can help build • repeatedly emphasizes and clarifies the overall
A
WITHIN AND T intracampus and intercampus support • aligns with disciplines already engaged in project goals, and that introduces change
S
ACROSS LTIGN • schedules formal and informal convenings to strengthen similar work slowly and deliberately
INSTITUTIONS MUESI existing relationships across departments, campuses, etc. • is anchored in data-sharing agreements and • intentionally structures relevant activities
D D learning management systems to propel the (e.g., curriculum mapping work) to build
NT • connects its work to other top strategic priorities and
AC work forward faculty capacity
D JE plans and starts with work already valuable and familiar
TERO to faculty and staff • repeatedly uses statewide convenings to • scaffolds faculty/staff workshops and other
RAP • helps faculty move from “my students” to “our students” connect initiatives project activities over time (i.e., assignments
EG ➔ assessments ➔ student pathways and
T • leverages funds from other projects
N program design)
I
Sustainable, scalable projects embedded in Increased understanding and new avenues
Increased levels of respect
OUTCOMES and connected to institutional goals and to extend project work more broadly,
and trust among colleagues
other related initiatives engaging larger groups of stakeholders
4 | ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
for Advancing Transfer Student Success
INITIATING A INITIATING A Proactively coordinate and cPornonacetcitv ely coordinaMtea axnimd iczoen ennegcat gement baseMd aoxni masizsees esnmgeangte ment based on assessment
Set a collaborative tone earlSye itn a t hcoe lplarboocerasstive tone early in the process
multiple initiatives multiple initiatives and collaborative capacity and collaborative capacity
PROJECT PROJECT
L L
A A
T • Include project faTculty and s•t aInffc ilnu dthee p grorajenct ta fpapculicltayt iaonnd staff in the grant application • Conduct an institutional inve• n Ctoonryd oufc ts iamni lianrs titutional •in Ivnevnetnotroyr oy ff asicmulitlayr a nd staff w•h Ion vaeren tfoamryi lfiaacru lty and staff who are familiar
N N
MEN process MEN process initiatives and relevant campuins isttirauticvteusr easn d relevant camwpituhs csatrmucptuusr ecsh ange mechaniwsmiths campus change mechanisms
A A
NC NC and goals and goals
OS • Schedule early coOnveSrsation•s Swcihthe dmuulelt iepalrel yp croojnevcet rsations with multiple project • Begin with a small team of e•n tBheugsiina swtiicth le aa dsmerasl l team of enthusiastic leaders
R R
I stakeholders I stakeholders • Clarify for faculty, staff, and p• o Clilcayri mfy afoker rfsa culty, staff, andw phooli ccya nm laayk egrrso undwork for ewxphaon csaionn lay groundwork for expansion
V V
ACTION STEPS N ACTION STEPS N how project work fits with exishtoinwg pwroojrekct work fits with existing work
E E • Define expected project out•c oDmefiens ea se ax pteeacmted project outcomes as a team
AND AND
PROCESSES PROCESSES
Build a team that… Build a team that… Intentionally calibrate thIen wteonrtkio onfa lly calibrate thDee wsiogrnk a o pf roject, with end Dgoeasilgs n a project, with end goals
TO EFFECT TO EFFECT
multiple initiatives by orgmaunlitziipnlge initiatives by organizingin mind, that… in mind, that…
• seeks balance with different• t yspeeeks so bf aplaarntciceip waittihn gd ifffaecureltnyt types of participating faculty
CHANGE E CHANGE E a project that… a project that…
G and includes senGior academica lenadd ienrcsl uwdheos cseanni hoer lapc abdueilmd ic leaders who can help build • repeatedly emphasizes and •c l raeripfieeast tehdely o evmerpahll asizes and clarifies the overall
A A
WITHIN AND T WITHIiNnt AraNcDa mpus andT intercampusi nsutrpapcaomrtpus and intercampus support • aligns with disciplines alread• y a elinggnasg weidth in d isciplines alreapdroyj eecntg gaogaelds, iann d that introdupcreosje cchta gnogael s, and that introduces change
S S
ACROSS LTIGN AC• R sOchSSe dules formalLTI andGN inform• a sl cchoendvuelneisn fgosr mtoa slt arenndg itnhfoenrm al convenings to strengthen similar work similar work slowly and deliberately slowly and deliberately
INSTITUTIONS MUESIINSTITeUxTiIsOtiNnSg relationsMUhipESIs across deexpisatritnmge rnetlas,t icoanmshpiupsse asc, reotcss. departments, campuses, etc. • is anchored in data-sharing a• g isre aenmcheonrtes da nind data-shari•n gin ategnretieomnaelnlyts s atrnudc tures relev• a inntt eancttiivointiaelsly structures relevant activities
D D D D learning management systemlse atorn pinrogp mela tnhaeg ement syst(eem.g.s, ctou rprircoupleulm th me apping wor(ke). gto., cbuurirlidc ulum mapping work) to build
NT • connects its workN to T other to• p c sotnranteecgtisc iptsr iworoirtkie tso a ontdh er top strategic priorities and
AC AC work forward work forward faculty capacity faculty capacity
D JE plans and starts wD ithJE work alrepaladnys v aanluda sbtlaer tasn wd iftahm wiloiarkr already valuable and familiar
TERO to faculty and staTEff RO to faculty and staff • repeatedly uses statewide co• n rveepneiantgesd tlyo uses statewid•e sccoanffvoelndisn fgasc utolt y/staff worksh• o spcas ffaonldd so ftahceur lty/staff workshops and other
RAP • helps faculty movRAe frPom “my• s htuedlpesn ftasc” utolt y“o muro svteu dfreonmts “”my students” to “our students” connect initiatives connect initiatives project activities over time (i.ep.,r aosjesicgtn amcteivnittsie s over time (i.e., assignments
EG EG ➔ assessments ➔ student pat➔hw aasysse sasnmde nts ➔ student pathways and
T T • leverages funds from other p• r loejveecrtasges funds from other projects
N N program design) program design)
I I
Sustainable, scalable projecStsu estmaibneadbdlee,d s icna lable projIencctrse aesmebde udnddeedr sinta nding anIdn cnreewas aevde unnudees rstanding and new avenues
Increased levels of respect Increased levels of respect
OUTCOMES OUTCOMES and connected to institutionaanld g cooanlsn aencdte d to institutioton aelx gtoenalds parnodj ect work moreto b eroxatednlyd, project work more broadly,
and trust among colleaguesand trust among colleagues
other related initiatives other related init eiantgivaegsing larger groups of s teankgeahgoilndge lrasrger groups of stakeholders
ACTION STEPS FOR ADVANCING TRANSFER STUDENT SUCCESS | 5
CASE STUDY 1
Build a team that … seeks
Inviting a Broad Range of Faculty
balance with different
types of participating
Participants in Campus Change Efforts
faculty and includes senior
academic leaders who can
INSTITUTIONS: Pierce College and California State
help build intracampus and
University–Northridge
intercampus support
CONTACT: Elizabeth Adams, associate vice president of
undergraduate studies (California State University–Northridge)
The California State University–Northridge (CSUN) and Pierce College QC dyad created themes within
general education (GE), inviting a broad range of faculty across contract and tenure lines to connect across
subject areas and GE sections to highlight interdisciplinary thinking . The team recruited faculty leaders
committed to heading up the QC project and initiated three thematic GE “Paths”3: Global Studies, Social
Justice, and Sustainability . Faculty and campus team leaders selected these three themes to represent broad
interdisciplinary topics found across GE courses .
Campus team leaders asked faculty to submit courses for inclusion in the Paths . To be included, courses
needed to demonstrate alignment with three or more of the team-identified student learning outcomes
(SLOs) for a particular Path (with most Paths having six SLOs) . As incentive, dyad leaders offered faculty
small stipends to adapt their courses to the Paths of their choice (provided each course still fit the original
course outline in the catalog) . Within each path, dyad leaders also arranged faculty development working
groups for faculty to provide input on the Paths and SLOs and to connect within and across departments .
The CSUN and Pierce teams met often while building the Paths on their home campuses . In order for the
project to succeed, the campus teams needed to acknowledge where their work intersected (e .g ., shared
students, the GE structure, and the desire to increase student success) and where it diverged (e .g ., larger
numbers of full-time faculty at CSUN and less money initially available at Pierce) .
3 The dyad opted to use the term “Paths” because CSUN’s career center already had a product called “Pathways .”
6 | ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES