Transcript Document

Minnesota Community and
Technical Colleges
Statewide Workshop
February 18, 2014
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Introductions
Courtney Adkins
Assistant Director
Center for Community College Student Engagement
Jeff Crumpley
Associate Director
Center for Community College Student Engagement
Karla Fisher
Vice President of Academics
Butler Community College
Center for Community College Student Engagement
Program in Higher Education Leadership
The University of Texas at Austin
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Who is in the room today?
Have you ever seen CCSSE results?
Have you ever logged into the online reporting
system?
Have you formed a workgroup, discussed CCSSE and
other data, and used that data to inform decisions to
change something at your college or on your campus?
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Agenda
 Student Voices
 Student Engagement and Success: What We
Know Matters
 Looking at Your Center Data
 Continue the Conversation Over Lunch
 Butler Community College Uses Center Data
 Promising Practices to Strengthen Student
Success
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Student Voices Video
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
What did you hear?
 About “front door” experiences?
 About teaching and learning?
 About support for students?
 About what makes a difference for students?
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Defining Student Engagement
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
What is Student Engagement?
…the amount of time and energy students
invest in meaningful educational practices
…the institutional practices and student
behaviors that are highly correlated with
student learning and retention
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Center for Community College
Student Engagement
Established surveys:
CCSSE (& CCFSSE)
SENSE
Other projects:
High-Impact Practices
Initiative on Men of Color
A Focus on Part-Time Faculty
Engaging Latino Students
Initiative on Student Success
CCSSE and SENSE
are tools designed to
help colleges:
 Assess the quality of their work
 Identify and grow successful
educational practices
 Identify areas in which to
improve
 Provide context: a data-derived
picture of institution
 Shift the focus to institutional
locus of control
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
What is the relationship between student
engagement and student success?
How do we know this?
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Students’ Goals for Attending College
Minnesota Students
Certificate:
Associate Degree:
Transfer to 4-year:
Sources: CCSSE 2013.
38%
63%
41%
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Reality Check
• Forty-six percent of students who enter community colleges with
the goal of earning a degree or certificate have attained that goal, transferred
to a baccalaureate institution, or are still enrolled 6 years later.
• Nearly half of all community college students entering in the fall term drop
out before the second fall term begins.
Radford, A. W., Berkner, L., Wheeless, S. C., & Shepherd, B. (2010). Persistence and attainment of 2003–04 beginning
postsecondary students: After 6 years (NCES 2011-151). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011151.pdf
ACT, Inc. (2010). What works in student retention? 4th national survey: Community colleges report. Retrieved from
http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/droptables/CommunityColleges.pdf
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
15%
but….
74%
ATD Data Notes (2008)
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
One thing we KNOW about community
college student engagement…
It’s unlikely to happen by accident.
It has to happen
by design.
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Student Success:
What We Know Matters
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
What We Know Matters
In focus groups with students, what do
they typically report as the most
important factor in keeping them in
school and persisting toward their
goals?
Relationships
#1 Connections matter
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
What We Know Matters
#2 High expectations matter
…clearly communicated
…regularly assessed
…frequently discussed
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
High Expectations Matter
How often have you worked harder than
you thought you could to meet an
instructor’s standards or expectations?
Item #4p
8.5%
Never
40.6%
Sometimes
50.9%
Often/Very Often
Source: 2013 CCSSE data
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
High Expectations Matter
Expectations may not be as high as they need to be…
How often have you come to class without
completing readings or assignments? Item #4e
33.9%
53.2%
Never
Sometimes
12.9%
Often/Very Often
Source: 2013 CCSSE data
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
What We Know Matters
#3 High support matters
…easily accessed
…relevant to students
…brought to scale
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
High Support Matters
Academic Advising and Planning
Rarely/Never Used
32%
Very/Somewhat Important
91%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Source: 2013 CCSSE data
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
High Support Matters
MN students who…
Plan to take classes at this college again
(CCSSE Item 20)
15%
17%
7%
I will accomplish
my goal(s) this
term
I have no current
plans to return
Within the next
12 months
Uncertain
61%
Source: 2013 CCSSE data
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
What We Know Matters
#4 Inescapable engagement
…inside the classroom
…outside the classroom
…when and where students are
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Inescapable Engagement Matters
MN students who…
Never worked with other students on projects
during class (CCSSE Item 4f): 7.8%
Never worked with classmates outside of class to
prepare a class assignments (CCSSE Item 4g):
31.1%
Part-time: 37.3%
Source: 2013 CCSSE data
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Inescapable Engagement Matters
MN students who…
Discussed grades or assignments with
instructors (CCSSE item 4l):
48% often or very often
8% never
Source: 2013 CCSSE data
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Inescapable Engagement Matters
How important are the
following services?
How often do you use the
following services?
Rarely/
Never
Very/
Somewhat
Peer or other tutoring
72.6%
Peer or other tutoring
47.2%
Skill labs (writing, math, etc.)
75.2%
Skill labs (writing, math, etc.)
37.4%
Source: 2013 CCSSE data
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
How can we make
engagement
inescapable?
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Make it Mandatory
How do students feel about “MANDATORY” ?
Students want our
a. Frightened
b. Appreciative
c. Disgruntled
d. Rebellious
e. Depressed
guidance…
Even though they
complain
about it.
Key Question: Does “mandatory”
really mean mandatory?
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Benchmarks and Benchmarking
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Benchmarking for Excellence
The most important comparison: where
you are now, compared with where you
want to be.
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Center Benchmarks of Effective Educational
Practice
 Groups of conceptually-related items
 Standardized to a national mean of 50
 Address key areas of student engagement
 Provide a way for colleges to compare their own
performance with other groups of colleges (across
your consortium and other colleges like you) and
across student groups
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
CCSSE Benchmarks
 Active and Collaborative Learning
 Student Effort
 Academic Challenge
 Student Faculty Interaction
 Support for Learners
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
2013 CCSSE Benchmark Scores for Minnesota
Community and Technical Colleges
52.6
50
Active and
Collaborative
Learning
Source: 2013 CCSSE data
50.4
50.8
Student Effort
Academic
Challenge
51.2
51.0
Student-Faculty
Interaction
Support for
Learners
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Disaggregating Benchmark Data
Minnesota:
Enrollment Status (P/T vs. F/T)
56% of
Minnesota
community and
technical
college students
are enrolled
part time
P/T
F/T
Active and Collaborative Learning
48.7
57.4
Student Effort
49.1
52.5
Academic Challenge
48.2
54.5
Student-Faculty Interaction
48.0
55.0
Support for Learners
50.0
52.5
Source: 2013 CCSSE data, 2012 IPEDS data
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
What about never?
Full-time students might have more opportunity to
engage with other students and their instructors,
but…how do we explain never?
 Less-than-full-time Minnesota students who report “never”
making a class presentation: 31.2%
 (F/T -19.1%)
 Less-than-full-time students who report “never” working with
other students outside of class to prepare class assignments:
37.3%
 (F/T -23.7%)
Source: 2013 CCSSE data
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Disaggregating Benchmark Data
Minnesota:
Developmental Status
Dev
Non-Dev
Active and Collaborative Learning
54.3
50.4
Student Effort
54.1
45.4
Academic Challenge
53.0
48.1
Student-Faculty Interaction
53.8
47.9
Support for Learners
54.5
46.8
Source: 2013 CCSSE data
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Disaggregating Benchmark Data
Minnesota:
Credit Hours Earned
0-29
30+
Active and Collaborative Learning
49.9
57.9
Student Effort
49.4
52.0
Academic Challenge
48.9
54.6
Student-Faculty Interaction
49.2
55.1
Support for Learners
51.0
50.9
Source: 2013 CCSSE data
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
CCSSE Benchmarks: Minnesota Community and
Technical Colleges
The Range
43.5
Active & Collaborative Learning
85.5
37
Student Effort
81.7
42.3
Academic Challenge
67.5
Student Faculty Interaction
45.3
Support for Learners
44.5
75
72.4
0
Lowest score across colleges
Source: 2012 & 2013 CCSSE data
20
40
60
80
100
Highest score across colleges
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Looking at Your CCSSE Data
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
What sort of data are we talking
about?
Benchmarks – standardized scores on high level
concepts to get you into the results
Means – place responses on a scale to allow
comparison
Frequencies – give you details about the actual
responses/behaviors
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
CCSSE data over time
• Standard Benchmarks not designed to do this. See link.
• Raw Benchmark Score can, but often hide things that are
important. Only available from last few years of CCSSE data.
• Item level analysis the best solution.
• Even item level can mask difference based on student
characteristics.
2013 TAIR Conference (Galveston,TX)
Analysis of CCSSE Data Over Time on this page:
http://www.ccsse.org/center/resources/presentations.cfm#conference
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Support for Learners
Students perform better and are more satisfied at colleges that are committed to their
success and cultivate positive working and social relationships among different groups on
campus. Community college students also benefit from services targeted to assist them
with academic and career planning, academic skill development, and other areas that
may affect learning and retention.
The following seven survey items contribute to this benchmark:
How much does this college emphasize:
Providing the support you need to help you succeed at this college (9b)
Encouraging contact among students from different economic, social, and racial or ethnic
backgrounds (9c)
Helping you cope with your nonacademic responsibilities (work, family, etc.) (9d)
Providing the support you need to thrive socially (9e)
Providing the financial support you need to afford your education (9f)
During the current school year, how often have you:
Used academic advising/planning services (13a1)
Used career counseling services (13b1)
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Support for Learners 2005-2013 (example data)
3.5
3
9b
9c
9d
9e
9f
13a1
13b1
2.5
2
1.5
1
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Providing the support you need to
succeed at this college
Students who responded “very much”
2005 - 22.8%
2007 - 24.7%
2009 - 25.4%
2011 - 30.6%
2013 - 27.4%
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Providing the support you need to
succeed at this college
Students who responded “very little”
2005 – 5.2%
2007 – 3.3%
2009 – 3.6%
2011 – 1.9%
2013 – 2.2%
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Made a class presentation
Students who responded “never”
2005 – 31.9%
2007 – 28.4%
2009 – 28.9%
2011 – 22.3%
2013 – 23.9%
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Made a class presentation
Students who responded “never” by enrollment status
PT
2005 – 49.7%
FT
24.7%
2013 – 38.6%
14.7%
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
A quick look at the CCSSE online
reporting system.
Standard Reports
Custom Reports
Online tutorials for Online Reporting System:
http://www.ccsse.org/tools/tutorials.cfm
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Digging In
 Look at your All Students Benchmarks report on the Standard
Reports page. Which benchmark score is good news?
 Which benchmark score presents a challenge?
 For each, which scores in the frequency table(s) tell you more?
What is driving the benchmark score higher/lower?
 Based on what you saw earlier in the presentation, what do you
think you would see if you disaggregated these data?
 If you triangulate these data with the institutional data the system
office provided, what might your first next step be?
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
LUNCH
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Butler Community College Uses Center Data




Residential campus – El Dorado (2,500)
Commuter campus – Andover (4,774)
Virtual campus – online (3,724)
Six additional teaching sites in five county service area




45% full-time
58% female
32% minority
62% traditional age (18 to 22)
 Headcount: 9,235
 Total credit hours: 85,392
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Average Class Size: 17
Remediation
 60% require developmental math
 29% require developmental English
Retention
 60% fall-to-fall retention rate (first-time, full-time)
 36% fall-to-fall retention rate (first-time, part-time)
Completion
Graduation rate: 24%
Transfer rate: 27%
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Butler’s Retention Journey
 Early Alert Referral System (EARS)
 Strategic Planning
 Faculty Involvement through UPM
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
What is early alert?
Timely intervention for students experiencing academic
difficulty.
Timely intervention for students experiencing academic
difficulty or exhibiting behaviors counter-productive to
student success.
…plus a predictive modeling system that allows
preemptive intervention for likely students in need.
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Birth of EARS
• Outreach to students in need existed prior to 2008 but without
college-wide coordination or promotion
• Discussions started in the spring of 2008 on implementing a
more coordinated approach to identifying and reaching out to
students in need based on best practices
• ESSI Institute, March 2008
Early Alert Program identified as way to address needs
identified in SENSE data, specifically targeting students
missing classes early on
• Explored Early Alert programs at other colleges
• Piloted Early Alert and Referral System (EARS) with Lead
Faculty in fall 2008
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Early Results
0.08
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
EARS Challenges




Large adjunct faculty and part-time student populations
Multi-site college with commuter students
Time-consuming manual process for faculty and staff
Typically, only worst-case students referred
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
EARS Evolution
 Hired Retention Specialist (Title III grant)
 Refined referral process:

Behavioral issues – Dean of Students

Disability issues – Disability Services Director
 Academic/Attendance – Retention Specialist
 Committed to intrusive intervention
 Established CARE Team
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
CARE Team
 Vice President of Student
•
Services
 Dean for Enrollment Management •
(or Director of Advising)
 Dean of Students
•
 Retention Specialist
 Student Involvement Coordinator
 Advising Office Representative
 Counseling Office Representative
 Disability Services Director
 Security Office Representative
 Academic Dean
 Faculty Member
Meets weekly on two major
campuses
Anyone may bring names
forward
Discusses both people and
processes
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
EARS Today
• Campus-wide announcements promoting EARS and
CARE Team
• Incorporated into Faculty Handbook
• Presentations at faculty in-services
• Retention Specialist in frequent contact with faculty
• Accidental Alert email to students resulted in selfreports
• Considering replacing our student relationship
management software package
(Hobsons' Retain™ CRM)
• Transitioning to CANVAS with hopes of universal grade
book and daily attendance functionality
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Lessons Learned
 Communication is key
 Dedicated staff person is imperative
 Spread the load (Specialists, CARE Team)
 Build stable, scalable processes
 Measure and continuously improve
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
2014-2016 Strategic Plan
Butler Strategic Plan
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Strategic Plan Development
Starting with a strong foundation…
 Four Strategic Priorities
 Vision for each priority set by Board of Trustees
 Commitment to the IPRA planning process
Getting really focused!
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
IPRA Decision and Planning Levels
Institutional Level
(Board)
Executive Level
(President, VPs, CIO)
Division Level
(Deans, Selected Directors)
Unit Level
(Leads, Directors, Managers
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Basis for Strategic Analysis
 CCSSE & SENSE
 Butler PACT assessment data
 Economic data (EMSI)
 College-wide SWOT
 AACC 21st Century Report
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Plan Development Process
 Spring 2012 IDD visioning session
 Series of six day-long retreats:
 Broad-based Strategic Planning Launch
 Four Exec Council retreats with faculty/staff consultants
 Strategic Plan packaging retreat
 December 2012 retreat – “Pivot Points”
 Plan validation – Board, Deans, Faculty, Admin Council, Ops Staff
 June 2012 retreat – Tactics
 Board approval July 2013
 Launch August 2013
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Ensure Student Success
Focus on Student Completion: “Students Finish What They Start”
 Each student has a personalized pathway to goal attainment.
 We thoroughly understand our students and their goals and motivations
for community college.
 We have clear curricular pathways.
 We have a high expectation for student learning and provide a high level
of support.
 We nurture student, faculty and staff relationships in support of student
achievement.
 We provide a variety of services tailored to meet student needs.
 Our organization structures, staffing, policies and procedures intentionally
support student success and access.
 We are committed to evaluating ourselves.
 We remove and eliminate barriers.
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Academics Division
Unit Performance Management
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
UPM Cycle within the Academic Year
SPRING
Research
FALL
Implement
funded
improvements
SPRING
Request
resources
FALL
Plan
Implement
low-cost/
no-cost
FALL
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
2012
Spring PDD:
Spring Semester:
Fall PDD:
Fall Semester :
2013
Spring PDD:
Spring Semester:
Fall PDD:
Fall Semester :
Kick-off 1ST process review
Collect data on 1st process
Complete IPRA budget requests for FY13
Review data and plan for improvements
Implement low-cost/no-cost improvements
Review 1ST process improvement
Kick-off 2ND process review
Collect data on 2ND process
Complete IPRA budget requests for FY14
Review data and plan for improvements
Implement low-cost/no-cost improvements
2014, 2015, 2016…the cycle continues…
73
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Faculty UPM Discussion
January 2012
 Introduced Unit Performance Management
 Each unit (program) to focus on curriculum scope and
sequence
 Initial planning of intended actions for improvement
 Mixed results
 Turned process management over to Dr. Phil Speary
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Faculty CCSSE Discussion
January 2013
 Faculty led
 90 minute discussions in dept. groupings
 Guided discussion by CCSSE items within context of
other data (Faces of Future)
 Gave responses to specific CCSSE items
 Initial planning of intended actions for improvement
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Targeting Areas for IMPROVEMENT
 Student Success Data Team analyzed trends from three
sets of CCSSE data
 Focused on two areas needing improvement:
Student Effort & Academic Challenge
 Selected specific items which faculty could address
 Planned faculty presentation at in-service
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
HOW CAN WE AS FACULTY INFLUENCE STUDENT
LEARNING BEHAVIORS?
 (15 min.) Butler student response to: About how many
hours do you spend in a typical 7-day week preparing for
class (studying, reading, writing, rehearsing, doing
homework, or other activities related to your
coursework)?
 Butler Mean = 1.84 which on the 5 pt. scale translates to
approx. 9 hours a week
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Putting in context…
We should consider that:
 on average our students responding to the
CCSSE survey were enrolled in 12 credit hours
 according to the most recent Faces of the Future
demographic survey, 47.5% of our students are
employed part-time and 23.6% are employed
full-time
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER
 Does an average of 9 hours a week of preparation for
class seem adequate for our students?
 What life factors other than hours of employment may be
shaping how many hours our students spend in class
preparation?
 What can we as an institution of higher learning do to
address this situation?
 What can I do as a teacher to help influence this student
behavior among the students I teach?
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
OTHER STUDENT EFFORT ITEMS
 In the current school year, about how often have you
done each of the following?
 Prepared two or more drafts of a paper or assignment
before turning it in. Butler Mean 2.5
 Worked on a paper or project that required integrating
ideas or information from various sources.
Butler Mean 2.78
 Came to class without completing readings or
assignments. Butler Mean 1.91
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
OTHER ACADEMIC CHALLENGE ITEMS
 During the current school year, how much has your
coursework at this college emphasized the following
mental activities?
 Analyzing the basic elements of an idea, experience or theory
(Butler Mean 2.8)
 Synthesizing and organizing ideas, information, or experiences
in new ways (Butler Mean 2.69)
 Making judgments about the value or soundness of information,
arguments, or methods (Butler Mean 2.54)
 Applying theories or concepts to practical problems or in new
situations (Butler Mean 2.61)
 Using information you have read or heard to perform a new skill
(Butler Mean 2.64)
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
TWO ACTION QUESTIONS
 In the coming semester
what will you do to:
Encourage students to
spend more time in
preparing for class?
 In the coming semester
what will you do to:
Encourage students to
engage more often in
mental activities that
promote higher learning?
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Examples of
ACTIONS IMPLEMENTED
 Accounting: Increase faculty emphasis on time management in
supervision of students’ major project
 Marketing: Make the group marketing projects into service learning
projects benefiting local organizations
 Animal Science: Implement more proactive faculty intervention
with at-risk online students
 Digital Illustration: Implement more detailed formative
assessment of student work during creation of projects
 Art Appreciation: Implement common essential reading
assignments attached to formative assessments
 Biology: Require student to meet with instructor during office hours
at least once during first six weeks of class
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
NEXT STEPS in Fall 2014
 Analyzing data from Spring 2014 implementations
 Continuing, modifying or expanding implementations
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Promising Practices for Student Success
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
CCCSE Special Study on Promising
Practices
What is it?
 Online Institutional Survey (Free)
 Special-focus items on CCSSE
 New items on CCFSSE
 Special-focus module on SENSE
 Lots of data
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Late Registration
During the current term at this college, I completed
registration before the first class session(s). (CCSSE
Promising Practices, Item #1)
91% 90%
6% 6%
Yes, all
courses
Mostly
Minnesota
Source: 2013 CCSSE data
2% 2%
1% 2%
Partly
No, not any
2013 CCSSE respondents
Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Late Registration
 During the current term at this college, about what
percentage of the students in your selected course
section registered after the first class session?
(CCFSSE)
62%
34%
None
1-10%
2%
0%
2%
11-25%
26-50%
More than 50%
Minnesota
Source: 2013 CCSSE data
© 2011 Center
for Community
College
Engagement
Percentages
may not
totalStudent
100% due
to rounding
Late Registration
9% of students registering late affect 66%
of faculty. Concerns??
Source: 2013 CCSSE data
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Orientation
…leads to higher student satisfaction, greater use of
support services and improved retention of at-risk
students.
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Orientation
The ONE response that best describes my experience
with orientation when I first came to this college is...
(CCSSE Promising Practices, Item #2)
60%
42%
20%
14% 12%
7% 8%
8%
19%
11%
Online, prior
to beginning
of classes
On-campus, Course during Not aware of Unable to
prior to
first term
orientation
attend
beginning of
classes
Minnesota
2013 CCSSE respondents
Source: 2013 CCSSE data
© 2011 Center for
Community
Engagement
Percentages
may
not totalCollege
100% Student
due to rounding
First-Year Experience
During my first term at this college, I participated in a
structured experience for new students... (CCSSE
Promising Practices, Item #3)
67% 70%
26%
22%
3%
Yes, first term
4%
4%
Yes, first term AND Yes, but NOT
at least one other during first term
term
Minnesota
Source: 2013 CCSSE data
3%
No
2013 CCSSE respondents
© 2011 Center for
Community
Engagement
Percentages
may
not totalCollege
100% Student
due to rounding
Learning Community
During my first semester at this college, I enrolled in an organized learning
community... (CCSSE Promising Practices, Item #4)
83%85%
9% 8%
Yes, first term
4% 4%
Yes, first term AND Yes, but not first
at least one other
term
term
Minnesota
Source: 2013 CCSSE data
3% 3%
No
CCSSE 2013 respondents
not total
100%Student
due toEngagement
rounding
©Percentages
2011 Center formay
Community
College
Student Success Course
During my first semester/quarter at this college, I enrolled in a
student success course (such as a student development,
extended orientation, study skills, student life skills, or college
success course). (CCSSE Promising Practices, Item #5)
78% 75%
13%
17%
4% 3%
Yes, first term
Yes, first term AND Yes, but not first
at least one other
term
term
Minnesota
Source: 2013 CCSSE data
4% 5%
No
CCSSE 2013 respondents
not total
100%Student
due toEngagement
rounding
©Percentages
2011 Center formay
Community
College
Do these practices make
a difference?
Series of Center
Reports on HighImpact Practices
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
2013 Minnesota CCSSE Benchmark Scores
by timely registration
52.8
51.4
50.1 49.7
51.1 50.8
51.1
51.0
49.9
47.4
Active and
Collaborative
Learning
Student Effort
Registered for all classes on time
Source: 2013 CCSSE data
Academic
Challenge
Student-Faculty
Interaction
Support for
Learners
Did not register for all classes on time
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
2013 Minnesota CCSSE Benchmark Scores
by Orientation
53.2
50.6
50.8
46.6
Active and
Collaborative
Learning
Student Effort
Participated in orientation
Source: 2013 CCSSE data
52.3
51.9
51.6
47.4
47.9
45.4
Academic
Challenge
Student-Faculty
Interaction
Support for
Learners
Did not participate in orientation
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
2013 Minnesota CCSSE Benchmark Scores
by First-Year Experience
56.0
56.3
55.5
53.6
52.9
51.0
49.8
48.1
Active and
Collaborative
Learning
Student Effort
Participated in FYE
Source: 2013 CCSSE data
Academic
Challenge
48.8
Student-Faculty
Interaction
48.2
Support for
Learners
Did not participate in FYE
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
2013 Minnesota CCSSE Benchmark Scores
by Learning Community
60.0
58.2
58.0
56.0
54.4
51.2
48.8
Active and
Collaborative
Learning
Student Effort
Participated in LC
Source: 2013 CCSSE data
50.0
Academic
Challenge
49.6
Student-Faculty
Interaction
49.5
Support for
Learners
Did not participate in LC
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
2013 Minnesota CCSSE Benchmark Scores
by Student Success Course
57.1
58.3
57.4
56.3
53.6
51.4
50.0
48.2
Active and
Collaborative
Learning
Student Effort
Academic
Challenge
Student Success Course
Source: 2013 CCSSE data
49.3
Student-Faculty
Interaction
48.9
Support for
Learners
No Student Success Course
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Relatively small numbers of
students are experiencing high
impact practices, but for those who
do, we consistently see higher
levels of engagement.
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
So now what?
Let’s look a bit deeper. Are we
implementing high-impact practices
to students who need it the most?
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Subgroup Analysis
23% of MN first generation students
reported experiencing a student
success course.
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
2013 Minnesota CCSSE Benchmark Scores
by Student Success Course – First Gen
59.4
59.2
58.4
57.6
55.4
51.4
50.9
51.0
50.0
49.0
Active and
Collaborative
Learning
Student Effort
Academic Challenge
Student Success Course
Source: 2013 CCSSE data
Student-Faculty
Interaction
Support for Learners
No Student Success Course
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Subgroup Analysis
21% of MN not first generation
students reported experiencing a
student success course.
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
2013 Minnesota CCSSE Benchmark Scores
by Student Success Course – Not First Gen
56.6
56.5
53.9
56.6
53.4
51.7
50.0
49.3
46.6
Active and
Collaborative
Learning
Student Effort
Student Success Course
Source: 2013 CCSSE data
Academic
Challenge
Student-Faculty
Interaction
47.9
Support for
Learners
No Student Success Course
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Does a student success course differentially affect
first gen vs not first gen students?
 First Generation students who reported taking a student
success course show a 37.6 point increase when looking
at the combined benchmark scores over First Generation
students who did not take a student success course.
 Not First Generation students who reported taking a
student success course show a 31.5 point increase when
looking at the combined benchmark scores over Not First
Generation students who did not take a student success
course.
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
What other points of data do you need to explore
to make this more informative?
• Success rates between the student types
• Success rates between the student types based on
having the course or not
• Other demographic information for the student
groups
• Whether student in the student success course
groups were receiving other services
• Etc…..
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
One more example
Developmental Students vs. NonDevelopmental Students and
Learning Communities
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Subgroup Analysis
21% of MN developmental students
reported experiencing a learning
community.
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
2013 Minnesota CCSSE Benchmark Scores
by Learning Community – Dev Students
61.2
61.0
60.1
58.8
55.2
52.4
Active and
Collaborative
Learning
52.3
52.2
Student Effort
Academic
Challenge
Student Success Course
Source: 2013 CCSSE data
52.7
51.9
Student-Faculty
Interaction
Support for
Learners
No Student Success Course
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Subgroup Analysis
11% of MN non-developmental
students reported experiencing a
learning community.
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
2013 Minnesota CCSSE Benchmark Scores
by Learning Community – Not Dev
Students
56.9
52.6
52.0
49.7
48.6
47.6
51.8
47.1
46.2
44.8
Active and
Collaborative
Learning
Student Effort
Academic
Challenge
Student Success Course
Source: 2013 CCSSE data
Student-Faculty
Interaction
Support for
Learners
No Student Success Course
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Does a learning community differentially effect
developmental vs not developmental students?
 Developmental students who reported experiencing a
learning community show a 34.8 point increase when
looking at the combined benchmark scores over
Developmental students who did not experience a
learning community.
 Non-Developmental students who reported experiencing a
learning community show a 26.4 point increase when
looking at the combined benchmark scores over Not
Developmental students who did not experience a
learning community.
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Effective educational practice…
 Quality of design matters.
 Quality of implementation matters.
 Scale matters.
 Intensity matters.
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Promising Practices Discussion
Questions-Part One
 Which of these practices are mandatory at your college? For whom?
 What practices started small and have been brought to scale?
 What are the challenges that get in the way of implementing promising
practices? Bringing them to scale?
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
What Do You Find When You Look at
Your Promising Practices Data?
 On the Standard Reports page:
http://www.ccsse.org/members/reports/2013/reports.
cfm
 CCSSE Special-Focus Items - Promising
Practices
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
What Else You Might Do With These Data
Step One:
 On the Custom Report Requests page, choose CCSSE SpecialFocus Items as your instrument
 For Option One, choose to make comparisons within your college
 For Option Two, choose a breakout group
 Repeat with a different breakout group of interest
 Find your reports on the Completed Report Requests page
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Promising Practices Discussion
Questions-Part Two
 What do your data tell you about the practices? Who is
participating in them? By developmental status, enrollment status,
other targeted group?
 Based on your review of the promising practices data and your
institutional data on number of students earning no credits in the
first year and developmental course success rates, what might
your first steps around promising practices be?
 What could you implement soon (a new practice or a change to an
existing practice)? What are the low hanging fruit?
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement
Q and A
Thanks for joining us!
© 2011 Center for Community College Student Engagement