AZTRANSFER STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING DECEMBER 6, 2013 2013 Evaluation of Arizona’s Transfer System 1.

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 [email protected]://www.hezel.com

23