Project RISE: Re-Invigorating Second-year Education at ......Project RISE, LaGuardia Community College, p. 3 2. LaGuardia is an institution with a highly successful first-year program.

BE 2/27/2008

Project RISE: Re-Invigorating Second-year Education at LaGuardia Community College

To serve a student body that is significantly Hispanic and overwhelmingly low-income, minority,

and first-generation college-attenders, LaGuardia has created first-year programs that have

earned national recognition. Building on this successful work, LaGuardia is now ready to

revitalize the second year of community college education, improving retention and graduation

and ensuring that students are prepared for transfer and career success. Project RISE has three

components that will combine to improve student learning and achievement beyond the first

college year:

o Rethinking Curriculum and Pedagogy. Upper-level courses at LaGuardia have drawn

less attention than entry-level courses. Faculty development will focus on required urban

studies and capstone courses, helping faculty transform curricula and classroom practice.

o Improving Advisement in the 2nd Year. LaGuardia will enhance advisement through

faculty development; online Virtual Interest Groups (VIGs) where faculty provide career

and educational guidance to advanced students; and a Student Peer Advisement Network

(SPAN) to train successful students as peer advisors.

o Strengthening Assessment in the 2nd Year. LaGuardia has designed a sophisticated

Outcomes Assessment Plan, using student work collected in ePortfolios to evaluate

programs. Project RISE will support full implementation of this Plan, training faculty to

use rubrics, ePortfolios, and outcomes data to plan instructional improvements.

Improving instruction, advisement and assessment will help LaGuardia achieve its goals for

retention, graduation and transfer. Building upon LaGuardia’s innovative programs, Project

RISE will help the College complete a thoroughgoing transformation that will benefit students

and faculty and establish a model for community colleges and higher education nationwide.

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Comprehensive Development Plan…………………....pp. 1-19 2. Activity Objectives…………………………………….pp.19-31 3. Implementation Strategy……………………………….pp.32-37 4. Key Personnel………………………………………….pp.38-39 5. Project Management Plan……………………………...pp.39-43 6. Evaluation Plan………………………………………...pp.43-46 7. Budget………………………………………………….pp.46-50

Project RISE, LaGuardia Community College, p. 1

1. COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Introduction. Located in western Queens, the most diverse county in the nation, Fiorello H.

LaGuardia Community College is the gateway to college for thousands of students – low-

income, immigrant, Hispanic and other minorities – who might not otherwise gain access to

higher education. One of 17 colleges of the City University of New York (CUNY), LaGuardia

serves over 13,500 degree students and 40,000 students in non-credit and outreach programs.

Among degree students, most are first-generation college-goers and need developmental skills

courses. More than 60% are foreign born, representing 160 different countries and speaking over

100 primary languages. Seventy-nine percent of degree students are minorities. Hispanics are the

largest single ethnic group, constituting 34% of the student body.

To translate access into success for this diverse student population, LaGuardia has

developed an award-winning first-year experience program, high quality instruction enhanced by

electronic portfolios (ePortfolios), and an array of academic support services. Instructional

improvement is fueled by outcomes assessment and extensive faculty development. As a result,

LaGuardia has achieved higher first-year retention rates than the national community college

average, as well as high rankings in the number of Hispanics graduated.1 Building on these

achievements, Project RISE will focus on a new and often-overlooked challenge: strengthening

the second-year experience with a comprehensive program that improves curriculum, assessment

and advisement. Advancing the success of LaGuardia’s Hispanic and low-income students,

Project RISE will develop an innovative model for addressing a nationwide educational need.

1 LaGuardia’s five-year graduation rate of 26% exceeds the national community college norm of 17.3% (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics). LaGuardia’s average one-year retention rate is 63.8%, exceeding the national average of 58% (NCES). In 2005-6, LaGuardia was in the top 20 of all community colleges nationally (2nd in the Northeast) for degrees granted to Hispanics (Community College Week, 7/8/07).


Process for Creating the Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP). Every five years, the

President of LaGuardia launches a broad visioning process to guide campus planning, involving

community representatives as well as participants from all parts of campus. The themes

generated in this process shape the College’s Annual Strategic Plans and the CDP. Each year

every department articulates its objectives and links them to the Strategic Plan, which is finalized

by the President’s Executive Council (the Vice Presidents of each division), the President’s

Cabinet (50 individuals representing all major college constituencies), and the College Senate.

Strengths: Academic Programs

1. LaGuardia is an institution with a sustained history of groundbreaking innovations. Since its

founding in 1971, LaGuardia Community College has built a reputation for innovative academic

programs. From its start, LaGuardia played a national leadership role in both the cooperative

education and learning community movements. The first Middle College High School—a

campus-based early college high school for high risk students—was created at LaGuardia in

1974; today the Middle College National Consortium is headquartered here. LaGuardia was the

first community college to require students to take an urban studies course. In 1985, LaGuardia

established an award-winning “Exploring Transfer” program with Vassar College. More

recently, LaGuardia developed a nationally recognized first-year experience program and

initiated student electronic portfolios to build student engagement in learning and support

outcomes assessment. LaGuardia’s innovations are chronicled in the literature on community

colleges2 and have garnered many accolades.3

2 Vincent Tinto and Anne Goodsell Love, A Longitudinal Study of Learning Communities at LaGuardia Community College (University Park, PA: National Center for Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment, 1995); W. Norton Grubb and Norena Badway, Linking School-Based and Work-Based Learning: The Implications of LaGuardia’s Co-op Seminars for School-to-Work Programs (Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research in Vocational


2. LaGuardia is an institution with a highly successful first-year program. LaGuardia’s

comprehensive first-year program was designed to achieve two major goals: (a) foster academic

success among ESL and developmental students through seamless transitions into discipline-

based work and (b) nurture heightened engagement with the College community to achieve

greater persistence and success. As research shows that the first college year has the highest

attrition rate, LaGuardia’s approach has placed a strong focus on the first-year student through

learning communities, a common reading for all incoming students, an “opening sessions”

orientation event, and first-year mentoring. Learning communities have proven particularly

successful for our Hispanic and other non-native speakers of English. The College’s ESL

program has taken the lead in offering learning communities that pair ESL courses with credit-

bearing courses such as Introduction to Business, Introduction to Computer Science, and

Biochemistry. Ten years of data have demonstrated that ESL students in learning communities

fare better academically (higher GPAs and pass rates) than students outside learning

communities. Learning communities have become the centerpiece for restructuring the entire

first-year experience into a “First-Year Academy” model. Each Academy (Allied Health,

Business/Technology, and Liberal Arts) functions as a “school-within-a-school” to contextualize

Education, 1995); Janet Lieberman and Julie Yearsley Hungar, Transforming Student Lives: How “Exploring Transfer” Works, and Why (Washington, D.C.: AAHE, 1998); Gail O. Mellow, Phyllis van Slyck, and Bret Eynon, “The Face of the Future: Engaging in Diversity at LaGuardia Community College,” Change, Vol. 35, No. 2 (March/April 2003), pp. 10-17; Gail O. Mellow and Rosemary A. Talmadge, “Creating the Resilient Community College,” Change, Vol. 37, No. 3 (May/June 2005), pp. 58-66. 3 Many honors attest to the quality of the LaGuardia educational experience: (a) LaGuardia was one of two colleges nationally to be named a MetLife Institution of Excellence in 2006; (b)The Policy Center on the First Year of College named LaGuardia in 2003 an “Institution of Excellence,” one of only 13 colleges–including just two community colleges–selected nationally from 130 nominees; (c) In 2004, LaGuardia received the prestigious Theodore Hesburgh Certificate of Excellence for the quality of its faculty development program; (d) In 2004, LaGuardia was named one of the top three large community colleges in the United States by the Community College Survey of Student Engagement.


basic skills instruction, provide better advisement, and link students with discipline faculty.4

3. LaGuardia is an institution with a successful track record of using Title V funds to improve

student outcomes. Using the College’s first Title V grant, LaGuardia founded a Center for

Teaching and Learning (CTL) in 2000, initiating professional development for faculty seeking to

incorporate technology into their teaching. Participating faculty joined year-long seminars,

rethinking curriculum and pedagogy to test and integrate innovative student learning strategies.

Faculty were paired with specially-trained students-“Student Technology Mentors” (STMs)-who

assisted them in testing the pedagogical possibilities of Blackboard and digital tools. Results

have shown that, in targeted courses, student attrition was cut by 20%. Moreover, data from the

Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) shows that targeted classes are far

more likely than other LaGuardia courses to generate high scores for key indicators of student

engagement, such as synthesizing information, thinking analytically, building writing skills, and

learning to work effectively with others. This model for faculty development proved so

successful that CTL seminars have multiplied dramatically; in 2006-7 more than 160 faculty (out

of a total of 300 fulltime faculty) took part in one of the Center’s thirteen sustained faculty

development seminars, addressing topics ranging from understanding diversity to building

critical literacy and strengthening basic skills education in mathematics.

LaGuardia’s second Title V collaborative grant enabled the College to develop its

electronic portfolio (ePortfolio) program, linked to its first-year innovations. Students building

an ePortfolio at LaGuardia collect their coursework, reflect on their growth, and assemble web-

based presentations for faculty, employers, families, and transfer institutions. Available to the

4 In 2007, LaGuardia’s First Year Academies received the Bellwether Award for Instructional Innovation. The Conference on Basic Writing presented its 2005 Award for Innovation to LaGuardia’s First-Year Academies.


College in an organized database, this student work becomes an integral element of

comprehensive program assessment. Extensive data collected with the Community College

Survey of Student Engagement reveals that students in ePortfolio classes show higher levels of

engagement in critical thinking, writing, collaboration and other key behaviors that correlate with

academic success. Even more importantly, these ePortfolio courses also demonstrate a 5

percentage point higher pass rate and a 5 percentage point higher retention rate than comparable

non-ePortfolio classes. LaGuardia’s progress with ePortfolio in its first-year programs has

shown it to be an effective tool for advancing the success of its high risk students.5

4. LaGuardia is an institution that has provided strong academic support services. Recognizing

its responsibility to an immigrant student body that must navigate a multitude of cultures and

languages, LaGuardia provides a full spectrum of support services, including: personal

counseling, basic skills tutoring, peer tutoring (with ten years of data demonstrating that its

students earn grades an average of one letter-grade higher than non-participating students); a

Writing Center, a Science Study Hall, and a Minority Male Retention Program. A Student

Information Center has established “student cultural liaisons” in Spanish, Chinese, Russian,

Romanian, Korean, and Bengali.

5. LaGuardia is an institution that has strengthened advisement. Guided by a Task Force on

Advising for Academic Success (2002), the College put resources into academic advisement and

devised a three-part Developmental Advisement Plan: Phase I (Pre-Enrollment), Phase II (First-

Year Academies), and Phase III (Second-Year Advising in the Major). While implementation is

still in progress, significant improvements have resulted: students now use DegreeWorks, an

5 Data gathered by LaGuardia Office of Institutional Research. See Bret Eynon, “Making Connections: The LaGuardia ePortfolio” in Electronic Portfolios: Emergent Findings about Learning and Engagement (Stylus: Fall 2007), Kathleen Yancey, Barbara Cambridge, and Darren Cambridge, eds.


essential tool for tracking student progress toward degrees; a new Call Center reminds students

when they are due to see an advisor; there are advisement benchmarks and a newly-established

Early Warning System to identify students in academic difficulty. Additionally, the First-Year

Academies play a key role in first-year advisement. “New Student Seminar,” part of the

Academies, requires students to incorporate educational and career plans into their ePortfolios.

6. LaGuardia is an institution that pays sustained attention to addressing the needs of Hispanic

and other low-income and minority students. Studies by Excelencia in Education have identified

the characteristics of Hispanic students that shape their educational needs and trajectories.

Hispanic students tend to be low-income, first-generation college goers, part-time students, and

disproportionately female. A large proportion are immigrants. Many need developmental skills

instruction, including English as a Second Language classes, to prepare them for success in

college-level work.6

At LaGuardia, these characteristics hold true not only for the 34% of our students who

are Hispanic, but also for the vast majority of our extraordinarily diverse student body. Over

60% of our students were born outside the U.S., with half of the foreign-born students having

lived in the U.S. for fewer than 5 years. Sixty percent of our students are first-generation college

students; two-thirds report a family income of $25,000 or less. Most work and attend college

part-time. Eighty-five percent of our students (and 87 % of our Hispanic students) need

developmental skills courses. Across ethnicity and nationality, the vast majority of LaGuardia

students share the characteristics and educational needs identified by Excelencia.7

Hispanic and other low-income students benefit from the effective programs discussed

6 Santiago, Deborah A. and S. Brown (Feb. 2004) “What Works for Latino Students.” Excelencia in Education, Inc., Washington, DC 7 “Starting Point: Latino Student Success, Phase 2, LaGuardia Community College,” Prepared by Excelencia in Education for the Lumina Foundation, Fall 2004.


above (ESL learning communities, improved academic support services, and the incorporation of

new educational technologies). LaGuardia’s First-Year Institute (FYI)–a pre-freshman summer

program—provides courses and targeted support services for first-year students, helping our high

risk students quickly pass out of basic skills remediation. These programs are effective:

according to a study conducted with Excelencia, 61% of the students who enrolled in FYI

completed it successfully and moved on to credit courses. And these programs reach our

Hispanic students: 38% of FYI students are Hispanic (with the largest subgroups from Colombia,

Ecuador, Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic). Similarly, the use of ePortfolios results in

increased engagement and improved course pass-rates and retention. A study of ePortfolios

examined by Excelencia revealed that 42% were created by Hispanic students.8

While these foundational programs address the academic needs of Hispanic and other

low-income students, LaGuardia also supports many co-curricular activities that help students

and other members of the campus community build upon their cultural identity in achieving

success. These activities include an annual Student Leadership and Diversity program; student

clubs for Dominican, Ecuadorian, and other Hispanic students; faculty development focusing on

issues of diversity and language acquisition; an annual Latino Student Recognition Day; and the

integration of Latino themes into campus cultural offerings.

This strategy–focusing priority attention on the academic needs shared by Hispanic and

other immigrant and low-income students, while helping such students feel pride in both their

cultural heritages and emerging identities as citizens and professionals–has been effective for

LaGuardia and its students. When the President of the Borough of Queens initiated “Bravo!

Latino Student Recognition Day,” she recognized LaGuardia for having the largest Hispanic

8 Ibid


community college graduating class in New York City. “LaGuardia,” she proclaimed, “has

encouraged thousands of Hispanics to expand their horizons and utilize the college as a stepping

stone to higher education.” The proven success of these strategies will guide and help ensure

the success of Project RISE.

Strengths: Institutional Management

7. LaGuardia is an institution with a sophisticated, well-articulated outcomes assessment plan.

Approved in 2002, the College’s Outcomes Assessment Plan employs ePortfolios as a

mechanism for collecting student work, making it accessible to faculty for program assessment,

and involving students in the process of assessing their own learning. Students are assessed for

two types of competencies – programmatic and core competencies. The plan mandates that each

academic program identify a minimum of three portfolio courses: an introductory course, a

required urban studies course, and a capstone course – the last two usually taken in the second

year. To assess programmatic competencies, comparisons will be made between introductory

and capstone assignments included in the student’s ePortfolio. The College has also agreed upon

seven core competencies and developed scoring rubrics to assess each competency. The seven

core competencies are written communication, critical thinking, critical reading, quantitative

reasoning, oral communication, research and information literacy, and technological literacy.

8. LaGuardia is an institution that has a strong and multi-layered planning process. As noted

above, the College’s Annual Strategic Plan is created through a broad-based process involving

faculty, staff, students, and external stakeholders. When the planning process identifies issues

that need in-depth study, task forces are established. In recent years, College planning has been

energized by the recommendations of these task forces: Internationalization Task Force (2004),

The Minority Male Retention Core Group (2004), President’s Committee on Strategic


Enrollment Management (2003), Basic Skills Task Force (2003), Task Force on Advising for

Student Success (2002), Task Force on Redesigning Cooperative Education (2002).

9. LaGuardia is an institution that has successfully rolled-out its campus technology plan. Five

years ago most CUNY campuses suffered from antiquated computer infrastructure. But in 2002,

CUNY authorized a technology fee of $75 per semester for fulltime students. At LaGuardia, a

Committee for Academic Technology Services (CATS) formulated a judicious three-year plan

for spending the $1.4 million in annual revenue. Although not a cornucopia, this resource has

supported student e-mail, network upgrades, instructional software, adaptive technology, support

staff, faculty development, and a long-overdue modernization for student computer labs.

Strengths: Fiscal Stability

10. LaGuardia is an institution now creating the infrastructure for institutional advancement.

For most of its history, LaGuardia operated without fundraising efforts targeted to alumni and

private donors. In March 2003, President Gail O. Mellow started the LaGuardia Foundation. The

Foundation analyzed the needs of the College and committed itself to investing in students,

teaching, and equipment. To date, the Foundation has raised $1,000,000 for scholarships and

endowment. Given the inherent difficulties faced by community colleges when they embark

upon fundraising, the LaGuardia Foundation has made a promising debut with an active Board, a

shared sense of College needs, and strong professional support by College staff.

11. LaGuardia is an institution with above average earnings on grants and contracts.

LaGuardia has an excellent record in securing grants and contracts. Over the last five years, the

annual value of grants and contracts has totaled between $11 million and $14 million. The

College has assembled an experienced team in the Grants Development Office (six full-time and

three part-time staff). In the most recent report of the CUNY Research Foundation (2004-05),


LaGuardia ranked 6th among all 18 CUNY campuses and 1st among the six community colleges.

Weaknesses: Academic Programs

1. LaGuardia must address unacceptably low retention, graduation, and transfer rates.

Community colleges are now the primary gateway to higher education for minority and low-

income students. Unfortunately, only about half of community college students continue after

their freshman year. Five-year graduation rates hover beneath 20%. While LaGuardia’s

outcomes are consistently higher than the national averages, the College’s retention and

completion rates nevertheless remain unacceptably low: only about a quarter of our students

graduate in five years. Nor are students attaining their transfer goals; according to the College’s

annual New Student Survey, over 80% of freshmen entering LaGuardia indicate that they intend

to pursue a bachelor’s degree or higher. Yet, the transfer rate of our graduates is only about 40%.

Clearly, access does not always translate into success. LaGuardia must find more effective ways

to help students achieve their long-range goals of graduation, transfer, and careers.

2. LaGuardia needs to concentrate on second-year academic programs. LaGuardia, following

national educational trends, has placed a strong emphasis on the critical first year of college, but

much less attention has been paid to the particular academic and support needs of second-year

students.9 Nationally, colleges such as Beloit College, Colgate University, and Stony Brook

University have established strong sophomore initiatives that build on the successes of their first-

year programs. John Gardner’s National Resource Center for the First Year Experience has

9 It is important to acknowledge that there is complexity in the way that LaGuardia and other community colleges use the terms "first year" and "second year." A degree at LaGuardia normally consists of 60 credits. But students rarely take four consecutive 15-credit semesters. Instead, most students begin with developmental studies courses that do not carry credit, attend part-time, drop out and drop in, or take 12-credit semesters. Thus, at LaGuardia, first and second year do not reflect calendar years. Instead, "first year" reflects the period of time in which students accumulate their first 30 credits. "Second year" reflects the period of time in which students accumulate the additional 30 or more credits required for graduation.


begun to establish resources and conferences that are second-year specific, though there is no

focus as yet on community colleges. While the ingredients are present for a coherent second-year

experience program at LaGuardia (a required cooperative education internship, a required urban

studies course, a required capstone course in the major), the College has not developed the

integrative mechanisms–such as reflective ePortfolio assignments, common capstone

experiences, and stronger advisement—that would provide linkages and purpose. Advancing an

emerging national agenda, LaGuardia recognizes the need to create synergy and connection

between the 1st and 2nd years of education at the College.

3. LaGuardia needs to provide faculty development for faculty teaching key second-year

courses, such as urban studies and capstone courses. The Center for Teaching and Learning has

been the catalyst for transforming the curriculum at LaGuardia. Its intellectual leadership and

support has engaged faculty in the difficult tasks of incorporating new pedagogies and

technologies into their courses, and creating learning communities and First-Year Academies.

But LaGuardia’s most effective resource for innovation and integrative learning has yet to focus

on second-year programming. No systematic faculty development has occurred around key

second-year offerings. Many difficult courses in the major remain as roadblocks for students.

The College has not thoroughly revised its urban studies courses since their inception. Presently,

courses identified by departments as “capstone” are often just standard upper-level courses. With

no curricular restructuring to reinforce the significance of a cumulative educational experience,

these courses function as “capstone” in name only. If LaGuardia is to create an energized

second-year program, the College must remedy its current lack of a faculty development process

that targets the critical components of the second-year experience.

4. LaGuardia needs to provide enhanced advisement for second-year students. As noted under


Strengths, the College has made significant headway implementing Phase I (Pre-Enrollment) and

Phase II (First Year) of the Developmental Advisement Plan. However, the advisement needs of

second-year students receive much less attention. Given that the College’s limited number of

advisors are now focused on the first year and that many faculty feel ill-equipped to do

advisement, the seamless “hand-off” of students from the first-year advisors to faculty in each

student’s chosen curriculum has not occurred. Successfully implementing Phase III (Advising in

the Major) will therefore depend on training faculty (so that they can assume a greater role) and

on creating a cadre of student peer advisors to supplement the faculty’s efforts.

Weaknesses: Institutional Management

5. LaGuardia must implement its assessment plans for significant second-year offerings.

Since LaGuardia adopted its assessment plan in 2002, faculty development and technical support

has bolstered the launch of ePortfolios during the students’ first year on campus. Faculty in First-

Year Academies have concentrated on collecting materials that provide baseline measures on

core and programmatic competencies. However, second-year courses that are critical to the

assessment plan have not been restructured to ensure the collection of ePortfolio materials

required for assessment purposes. While some faculty have experimented in this area, intensive

support has focused on first-year programs. Until the College engages faculty in transforming

critical second-year courses into ePortfolio courses, the benefits that accrue from comprehensive

assessment will not be realized. Additionally, most faculty still lack training in assessment

principles and protocols; those who have served on the Assessment Committee are well versed in

assessment procedures, but the faculty at large are not prepared to engage in meaningful

outcomes assessment. While the outcomes assessment plan is strong conceptually, and has been

endorsed by faculty governance, faculty do not yet have the skills to implement the plan.


6. LaGuardia needs to keep pace with demands for technology. While LaGuardia successfully

rolled out a 2002 technology plan, the College is struggling to keep up with the burgeoning

demand caused by the faculty’s increased use of technology-infused pedagogies and the

expanding ePortfolio project. Currently almost 100% of the College’s available computer lab

space is reserved each semester. To accommodate growing demand, additional “smart

classrooms” need to be built and additional Student Technology Mentors must be hired. And,

while the ePortfolio-based outcomes assessment initiative has two dedicated labs, they are

already at capacity and an additional lab is needed. Also, updates to the ePortfolio content

management system are required in order to make it more efficient and user-friendly.

Weaknesses: Fiscal Stability

7. LaGuardia needs to institute cost-saving procedures and processes. While LaGuardia has an

impressive record in securing institutional and individual grants, the future looks less promising.

Key federal programs important to LaGuardia have sustained cuts, and the competition for funds

has intensified. While state funding has recently been stable, escalating expenses for health

benefits and fuel costs translate into fewer dollars for student services. To counter these trends,

the College needs to expend greater effort in developing cost-saving processes and procedures.

8. LaGuardia needs to improve its fundraising. On many campuses, when budgets constrict,

annual fundraising and the endowment fill the gap. LaGuardia does not yet have that kind of

fiscal safety net. The Foundation fundraising effort is still in its early phases. Moreover, the most

attractive fundraising appeal so far targets student scholarships. Given the financial pressure on

LaGuardia students, raising scholarship money is a substantial achievement. Yet scholarship

money does not strengthen LaGuardia’s academic structures and pedagogical functions. While

the College’s needs are substantial, the LaGuardia fundraising infrastructure is small.


The Central Problem to Be Addressed by Title V Funding

LaGuardia has engaged in an ambitious effort to support Hispanic and other low-income students

in their first year of college. Because the first college year has the highest attrition rate (at

LaGuardia and nationwide), it made sense to focus initially on these students. In order to

improve the first college year, the College has emphasized faculty development to enhance

pedagogy, the broad uses of technology (including creation of an ePortfolio system), the creation

of learning communities, and early attention to advisement. These efforts have paid off with

improved student learning outcomes.

The impact of these efforts has been limited, however, by the lack of comparable

attention to the second college year. LaGuardia has not yet systematically applied its insights

and approaches to the challenges of the second year. Consequently, after receiving a carefully-

coordinated package of classroom and co-curricular support in their first year, LaGuardia’s

second-year students are set adrift, a dynamic that contributes to problems in retention,

graduation, and transfer. LaGuardia’s central problem is the need to build upon its successful

first-year student programs and develop a similarly effective infrastructure of instructional

transformation, programmatic assessment, and academic support for second-year students.

This problem is not unique to LaGuardia. The 2004 national ACT Retention Study, What

Works in Retention, revealed that many two-year campuses have deployed a “front loading” first-

year retention strategy. The ACT study also showed that, in most cases, a failure to sustain

attention beyond the first year significantly undercut any positive impact on degree completion.

As a result, only 14.2% of the two-year campuses studied were identified as high performing in

both first-year retention and degree completion. Since Hispanic and low-income students are

concentrated in two-year colleges, this problem contributes to lagging graduation rates for these


groups. To reverse this trend, there is a critical need for strong and visible community college

models that support the academic goals and needs of second-year students.10 Project RISE will

enable LaGuardia to help address this national need.

The challenge of strengthening the 2nd college year is multi-faceted. Intensive faculty

engagement is needed to create the vibrant academic programs and the innovative pedagogy that

can sustain students as they progress toward their degrees. Effective advisement is required to

support students through this major transition. A totally-functioning outcomes assessment

process—only possible with the inclusion of second-year courses—must guide the improvement

of the curriculum. Fortunately, in each of these areas, LaGuardia possesses a strong foundation

of experience and expertise. Project RISE will draw upon LaGuardia’s strengths to address vital

student needs, complete the cycle of institutional revitalization. and demonstrate an effective

model for meeting a nationwide community college challenge.

Institutional Goals: Five-Year Plan. The objectives for LaGuardia’s five-year plan are to

increase the retention, graduation, and post-graduation transfer rates of our students–especially

Hispanic students–by improving academic programs (curriculum, pedagogy, assessment,

advisement), institutional management, and fiscal stability. The chart below outlines goals,

measurable objectives, and timeframes of our five-year plan to improve services to Hispanic and

other low-income students. Title V funding will address items marked with an asterisk.

Chart: Institutional Goals (Five-Year Plan) Overall Key Measurable Objectives

• Increase semester-to-semester retention by 5% (baseline of 69.2%)* • Increase the six-year graduation rate by 5% (baseline of 27.4%)* • Increase the post-graduation transfer rate by 5% (baseline of 40.2%)* Note: Objectives listed below include “intermediate” outcomes (e.g., improved pass-rates, higher scores on student engagement) indicating progress toward these three overall objectives. 10 Habley, Wesley R. and R. McClanahan. (2004). What Works in Student Retention? Two-Year Public Colleges. ACT Report.


ACADEMIC PROGRAMS

Goal Measurable Objectives Timeframe Revise 2nd year curriculum & pedagogy to improve student outcomes. *

Process Objectives: • Provide faculty development for at least 101 LaGuardia

faculty teaching capstone and key 2nd year courses.* • Revise curricula and pedagogy for 81 capstone course

sections and 220 key 2nd year course sections, serving at least 6,200 students.*

Outcomes: • Revised capstone courses will show a 15% lower attrition

and failure rate than comparison classes.* • Revised capstone courses will show a .25 higher score (on

5-point scale) in student engagement as measured by the Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE), compared to the college means.*

• Improved retention, graduation, and transfer (as listed in overall objectives above).*

2007-2012 2008-2012 2008-2012 2008-2012 2012

Enhance student success through improved academic advisement. *

Process Objectives: • Train 70 faculty on advisement, serving 2,600 students.* • Establish 45 Virtual Interest Groups (VIGs) for online

advisement, serving 1,125 students.* • Train 75 peer advisors, serving 13,500 students. * Outcomes: • Improved advisement will result in a: -50% increase in student knowledge of college services, policies, requirements, and career information measured by a pre- and post-survey in the VIGs;* -.25 higher score on the ACT Opinion survey question measuring satisfaction with advisement (compared to college mean of 3.62 on 5-point scale);* -.25 higher score on the CCSSE questions measuring 1) the quality of faculty-student interaction (compared to college mean of 5.19 on 7-point scale) and 2) satisfaction with advising (compared to college mean of 1.99 on 3 point scale).* • Improved retention, graduation, and transfer (as listed in

overall objectives above).*

2007-2012 2008-2012 2007-2012 2008-2012 2012


INSTITUTIONAL MANAGEMENT Goal Measurable Objectives Timeframe

Improve academic programs by implementing the College’s outcomes assessment plan. *

Process Objectives: • Offer faculty development for core competencies. • Train 95 faculty to utilize rubrics to assess student work,

analyze outcomes data, and generate recommendations for programmatic improvement based on data. *

• Programmatic reviews (conducted for 12 majors over the grant period) strengthened through improved faculty knowledge of assessment process, resulting in at least 3 significant program revisions for each major. *

Outcomes: • Improved retention, graduation, and transfer (as listed in


2007-2012 2007-2012 2007-2012 2012

Provide adequate technology systems and infrastructure.*

• Equip new ePortfolio lab to support assessment process. * • Upgrade ePortfolio systems. * • Build 10 “smart classrooms.” • Purchase 20 additional laptops per year for student use. • Program reviews (conducted for 12 majors) strengthened

by assessment of student work on ePortfolios, resulting in at least 3 significant program revisions for each major. *

Outcomes: • Improved retention, graduation, and transfer (as listed in


2007-2008 2008 2008-2009 2007-2012 2008-2012 2012

FISCAL STABILITY

Goal Measurable Objectives Timeframe Develop cost-saving procedures and processes.

Process Objectives: • Institute at least two energy-conserving building practices

in the development and renovation of campus buildings. • Improve fiscal and fee collections procedures. • Implement “Financial Edge” for all business processes. Outcomes: • Fee collections increased by 5%. • Percentage of tax levy budget spent on administrative

services decreased by 1% annually. • Improved retention, graduation, and transfer (as listed in

overall objectives above).

2007-2012 2007-2008 2007-2008 2012 2007-2012 2012

Improve fundraising.

Process Objectives: • Organize at least 2 alumni events to attract new donors. • Launch web-based donations program. • Provide 5 workshops on grant writing for faculty and staff. Outcomes:

2007-2012 2007-2008 2007-2008


• Foundation Board member contributions increase by 25%. • Grant revenues increased by 5%. • Improved retention, graduation, and transfer (as listed in

overall objectives above).

2007-2012 2007-2012 2012

Institutionalizing Practices and Improvements: The Title V budget for Project RISE includes

many items that are one-time costs, supporting self-sustaining processes that can be completed

over the life of the grant and need no support after the grant is ended. The equipping of an

ePortfolio lab, the improvement of the ePortfolio software, and the design and construction of

online advisement resources are all one-time costs, creating resources whose utility will extend

beyond the life of the grant.

Similarly, the faculty professional development that stands at the heart of Project RISE

will create an enduring pedagogical and educational resource for the College. Faculty who take

part in the sustained, classroom-focused professional development processes will revise courses

and embed them in restructured courses of study. At the same time, faculty who take part in

professional development around advisement and assessment will develop new pedagogical

knowledge and skills that they will use again and again, semester after semester. The processes

supported by Project RISE will reach more than 200 LaGuardia faculty, and these faculty will

play key roles in sustaining successful innovations beyond the grant period.

Finally, LaGuardia has compiled an excellent track record of institutionalizing successful

Title V innovations and practices, identifying and allocating funds from a range of sources.

Though the initial Title V grant that created the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) ended

two years ago, the CTL is stronger and more vibrant than ever. Three tax-levy and two grant-

funded lines have enabled the CTL to retain full-time positions originally funded by the Title V

grant and to expand the Center’s staffing. Similarly, the College has expanded its Title V

ePortfolio project by attracting additional grant funding and allocating tax-levy lines, creating


two additional full-time and four part-time ePortfolio staff positions, along with new computer

labs, “smart classrooms,” and servers. These resources - specifically, reallocations from both the

College’s regular tax-levy budget and special university appropriations (e.g., the CUNY

Coordinated Undergraduate Education Initiative) and allocations from other grant revenues

(reliable longer-term funding such as VTEA and shorter-term funding such as FIPSE) - will also

play important roles in supporting the success of Project RISE. Identifying and attracting funds

to extend successful innovations is a proven strategy at LaGuardia, a strategy that will be applied

to extend the impact of Project RISE.

2. ACTIVITY OBJECTIVES

Project RISE will help LaGuardia strengthen the education it provides to Hispanic students and

other low-income students. As detailed in the CDP, LaGuardia’s first-year innovations have

been targeted to Hispanic students and all other students who face a similar set of critical

challenges: acquiring literacy and language skills, building engagement and connection, and

making a successful transition to college culture and academic expectations. In the LaGuardia

context, addressing the needs of Hispanic students serves to address the needs of the vast

majority of LaGuardia’s student body. Project RISE will extend this proven model to the 2nd

college year, ultimately increasing retention, graduation, and transfer for large numbers of

Hispanic and other low-income students.

In quantitative terms, the project’s key measurable objectives are identified in the chart

below. Note that the objectives are categorized as “process objectives” (which will ensure that

project implementation is proceeding according to schedule) and “outcome objectives” (which

will measure the student outcomes for the project).


Chart: Measurable Activity Objectives Process Objectives:

1. Provide intensive faculty development for at least 101 LaGuardia faculty teaching capstone and key 2nd year courses.

2. Revise curricula and pedagogy for 81 capstone sections and 220 key 2nd year course sections, serving at least 6,200 students.

3. Provide intensive faculty development for 70 faculty on advisement (policies, requirements, services, transfer), serving 2,600 students.

4. Establish 45 Virtual Interest Groups, providing online advisement for 1,125 students. 5. Train 75 peer advisors, serving 13,500 students.

Outcome Objectives: * 1. The six-year graduation rate will increase by 5% (baseline of 27.4%). 2. The transfer rate within one year after graduation will increase by 5% (baseline of

40.2%). 3. The semester-to-semester retention rate will increase by 5% (baseline of 69.2%). 4. Revised capstone sections will show a 15% lower attrition and failure rate than

comparison sections. 5. Revised capstone courses will show a .25 higher score (on 5-point scale) in student

engagement as measured by the Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE), compared to the college means.

6. Advisement - improved through faculty development, VIGs, student peer advising, and web-based resources - will result in a :

a. 50% increase in student knowledge of college services, policies, requirements, and career information measured by a pre- and post-survey in the VIGs;

b. .25 higher score on the ACT Opinion survey question measuring satisfaction with advisement (compared to college mean of 3.62 on 5-point scale);

c. .25 higher score on the CCSSE questions measuring 1) the quality of faculty-student interaction (compared to college mean of 5.19 on 7-point scale) and 2) satisfaction with advising (compared to college mean of 1.99 on 3-point scale).

* Note: Data for the 6 outcome objectives will be collected and analyzed for all students, as well as disaggregated to determine outcomes for Hispanic students specifically. Also note that outcomes 1-2 are summative and will be measured in the last year of the grant, allowing time for the increasing number of participating students over the five years to eventually have an impact on overall institutional outcomes. Outcomes 3-6, representing progress toward achieving the overall institutional outcomes, will be measured each year.

In order to achieve these objectives, Project RISE will complete activities that address

critical college-wide issues and significantly impact the learning experiences and academic

success of Hispanic students and other low-income students. The proposed activities are

grouped around two interlocking components: (1) Rethinking Curriculum, Pedagogy and

Assessment in the 2nd Year and (2) Strengthening 2nd-Year Academic Advisement. These two

components are designed to reinforce each other, leading to significant changes in faculty


practice and student learning. By improving second-year instruction, assessment, and

advisement, Project RISE will impact the College’s retention, graduation, and transfer rates, as

well as measures of student satisfaction with support services and engagement. Building upon

LaGuardia’s innovative first-year programs, Project RISE will help the College complete a

thoroughgoing transformation of the second-year experience that will benefit Hispanic and other

low-income students and serve as a model for community colleges nationwide.

Activity Component #1: Rethinking Curriculum, Pedagogy and Assessment:

Project RISE will launch faculty development seminars that focus on key 2nd year courses and

capstone courses. This component will help faculty strengthen course content and pedagogy, link

disciplinary ways of thinking to general education goals, and bolster assessment and advisement.

A National Focus on Capstone Experiences. Colleges nationwide have begun to focus

increased attention on capstone courses and experiences. A survey of 700 colleges revealed that

75% of them offered capstone courses.11 According to one study, the capstone:

is defined as a crowning course or experience coming at the end of a sequence of courses with the specific objective of integrating a body of relatively fragmented knowledge into a unified whole… [T]his course provides an experience through which undergraduate students both look back over their undergraduate curriculum in an effort to make sense of that experience and look forward to professional life by building on that experience.12

Reports from the National Center for Research on Vocational Education indicate that “capstone

courses and projects demonstrating a student’s ability to plan, execute, and present a work-like

product…are valuable instruments for communicating to students themselves and to potential

11 Henscheid, J.M, (2000). Professing the Disciplines: An Analysis of Senior Seminars and Capstone Courses. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The First Year Experience and Students in Transition. 12 Durel, Robert J. "The Capstone Course: a Rite of Passage." Teaching Sociology, Vol. 21, (July: 223-225), 1993.


employers what they know and are able to do.”13 An analysis of the proceedings of four National

Conferences on the Senior Year Experience identified common benefits of the capstone course:

Chart: Benefits of Capstone Courses14 fostering synthesis within the academic major promotion of connections between general education and the academic major explicit development of key skills and competencies initiated earlier in the curriculum enhancement of seniors' preparation for postgraduate education improvement of seniors' career preparation and facilitation of the transition from the

academic to the professional world

Finally, capstones provide opportunities to conduct comprehensive assessment. “By its very

nature, the capstone course is a method of summative evaluation,” argues one recent study. “It

not only assesses previous cognitive learning in the major, but also provides a forum that allows

an instructor to assess the student’s overall collegiate experience.”15

Despite their educational advantages, capstone courses have not yet been widely

integrated into the type of higher education institution serving the largest number of Hispanic

and other low-income students: the community college. LaGuardia is no exception to this rule.

LaGuardia departments have identified a capstone course for every major, but have not carefully

considered the ways that capstones should ask students to synthesize knowledge and skills

gained in earlier courses. The significant educational potential of the capstone course for

LaGuardia’s Hispanic and other low-income students is, as of yet, largely unrealized.

13 Badway, N., and Grubb, W.N., (1999) A Sourcebook for ReShaping the Community College: Curriculum Integration and the Multiple Domains of Career Preparation. (National Center for Research in Vocational Education, Berkeley, California). 14 Cuseo, J.B., (1998). “Objectives and Benefits of Senior Year Programs.” In The Senior Year Experience: Facilitating Reflection, Integration, Closure and Transition, ed. John N. Gardner, Gretchen Van der Veer, and Associates. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 15 Moore, Robert C. (2005) “The Capstone Course,” in Christ, WB, ed., Assessing Media Education: A Resource for Educators and Administrators, (Erlbaum, Hillsdale NJ).


Key 2nd Year Courses. Prior to the capstone course, all LaGuardia students must take a series of

required courses in their major and at least one class that fulfills an urban studies requirement,

such as Urban Sociology or Community Health. As part of the College’s program review

process, all programs have identified the courses in the major that prove most difficult for

students who have previously passed their first-year introductory courses. Like the capstone

courses, these courses need faculty attention that speaks to the specific content and pedagogy of

the course, linking it to broader discussions of effective pedagogy, college-wide core

competencies, and the use of ePortfolio for assessment. Similarly, the required urban studies

courses have not been thoroughly revised to address new college-wide priorities and initiatives.

An Interdisciplinary Faculty Development Program. Project RISE will enable LaGuardia to

undertake an intensive and comprehensive redesign of curriculum and pedagogy for key 2nd year

courses in the major, urban studies courses, and capstone courses in every program. Drawing

upon the approaches successfully developed by LaGuardia’s Center for Teaching and Learning,

the project will sponsor faculty seminars for “Capstone Courses” and “Key 2nd Year Courses”

that combine study and collegial discussion with classroom implementation and evaluation in

order to build capacity for long-term educational improvement.

The intensive focus on the capstone will begin with a research and planning year. A faculty

research team will review the literature and conduct site visits to examine best practices in

capstone education nationally. By Spring, the team will issue recommendations and begin

planning and recruiting for the faculty development seminar to be launched in Year 2 and

continued through the next two years of the project.

Led by experienced faculty-staff teams, the seminar will support faculty in a year-long

process of pedagogical improvement and curricular redesign. Faculty participants will reorganize


curricula to better synthesize prior educational experiences. They will develop and test classroom

strategies for reinforcing core competencies and for using the ePortfolio as a tool to support

student learning and college-wide program assessment. And they will experiment with ways to

strengthen the capstone as a site for developmental advisement focusing on career and transfer.

Over the course of the project, the seminars will involve at least 51 faculty and enrich the

education of at least 1,000 students enrolled in capstone courses.

The “Key 2nd Year Courses” seminar will address many of the same issues. Starting with an

examination of current curricula and pedagogy, faculty will rethink their approaches in order to

improve student learning (particularly in the most challenging courses in the major that block

student progress) and will help students make the transition from the first to the second year of

college. Urban studies faculty will identify opportunities for incorporating community-based

learning projects, for linking with cooperative education internships, and for integrating

discipline-appropriate forms of writing. Faculty will develop assignments that generate student

work for deposit in the ePortfolio system, demonstrating student growth and supporting

implementation of outcomes assessment. Over two years, the Key 2nd Year Courses seminar will

involve at least 50 faculty and serve 1,000 students.

While directly improving the education of 2000 students, these two seminars will also ensure

lasting change at LaGuardia. Following their initial year of professional development and

classroom experimentation, faculty participants will continue to implement and refine their

courses, serving at least 4,000 additional students during the five year grant period. A select

group of faculty will serve as Faculty Fellows, integrating sample syllabi and teaching materials

into a Capstone Handbook, and engaging their departments in a curricular review process. By the

final year, departments will adopt the revised curricula and pedagogy. By moving beyond


individual experimentation to a structured program of curricular renewal, faculty development

will ensure broad institutional change and enduring benefits for all LaGuardia students.

Outcomes Assessment. As mentioned above, both the Capstone and Key 2nd Year Courses

faculty seminars will contribute to the College’s outcomes assessment process. LaGuardia’s

outcomes assessment plan is designed to assess institutional effectiveness by examining student

learning longitudinally and using the resultant data to improve our pedagogies and programs.

This process has already begun with the adoption of core competencies required in all majors

and the development of assessment rubrics. ePortfolios are used to collect student work over the

course of a student’s academic career and provide faculty, counselors, and administrators with

the documentation of student learning needed to assess program effectiveness.

As part of the College’s Periodic Program Review process, the assessment plan calls for a

sampling of student portfolios to be reviewed by faculty in order to assess overall student

achievement of the core and programmatic competencies. Faculty develop recommendations for

programmatic improvement based on their analyses of student work and other outcomes data. To

date, the ePortfolio-based assessment process has been broadly implemented in the First-Year

Academies with the collection of work in basic skills courses and the first course in a student’s

major. The College gains a powerful snapshot of students’ early work and abilities as they begin

their academic careers. However, the assessment process will remain incomplete until student

work from 2nd year and capstone courses is also collected in the ePortfolios.

While strengthening curriculum and instruction, Project RISE will allow the College to

fulfill its vision of college-wide assessment. The curricular revision outlined above will

transform second-year and capstone courses into ePortfolio courses that reinforce core

competencies and collect student work. The faculty seminars will also serve to familiarize


faculty with the general principles, protocols, and goals of outcomes assessment. Seminar topics

will include: using rubrics to evaluate student work from their ePortfolios, conducting

meaningful analyses of data provided by the Office of Institutional Research, and generating

substantive recommendations for improvement, based on the data analyses. This training will

ensure effective completion of three Periodic Program Reviews in each year of the grant.

Finally, we will also equip an additional ePortfolio lab to accommodate increased

demand and train an additional cohort of ePortfolio Trainers and Student Technology Mentors

(STMs)–technologically-adept students hired to assist faculty and students with the

implementation of ePortfolio in classrooms and labs.

Integrating faculty development with technological innovation and advanced assessment

techniques will ensure that LaGuardia’s outcomes assessment process realizes its promise and

produces the type of instructional change that leads to improved learning outcomes for students.

Chart: Relationship of Activity Component #1 to CDP Goals & Weaknesses CDP Goal CDP Weaknesses Relationship of Activity

Revise 2nd -year curricula and pedagogy to improve student outcomes.

Weakness #1: Low retention, graduation, and transfer rates. Weakness #2: Insufficient concentration on 2nd year programs. Weakness #3: Insufficient faculty development around key 2nd year courses. Weakness #4: 2nd year advisement not adequate. Weakness #5: Assessment not implemented for 2nd year (ePortfolio not incorporated into 2nd year courses).

The seminars will apply to 2nd year courses the approaches that have made LaGuardia successful in strengthening the first-year experience.

Revised capstone courses will promote faculty advisement in the major, supporting students’ career and educational development.

The implementation of revised 2nd year and capstone courses will extend the use of the existing ePortfolio system to support learning and facilitate college-wide program assessment.


Improve academic programs through implementation of the College’s outcomes assessment plan.

Weakness #1: Low retention, graduation, and transfer rates. Weakness #5: Assessment not implemented for 2nd year (limited number of faculty versed in assessment protocols). Weakness #6: Need to keep pace with technology demands.

Professional development will enable faculty to use newly-developed assessment rubrics, frame hypotheses and draw conclusions based on outcomes data, introduce assessment protocols within departments, and tie recommendations for programmatic improvement to actual outcomes data.

Construction of new ePortfolio lab will accommodate growth in the program.

Activity Component # 2: Improving 2nd Year Academic Advisement

As research has pointed out, when “advisement works well, it significantly impacts students

retention, success, and satisfaction with the college experience.”16 Research on best practices

indicates that this finding is particularly true for Hispanic students.17 As LaGuardia moves

forward with implementing its Developmental Academic Advisement Plan, we seek funding to

enhance the effectiveness of advisement and, in particular, to engage faculty and students more

deeply through: (a) faculty development seminars on academic advising, (b)Virtual Interest

Groups (VIGs) designed to use online technologies to link students, faculty, and the local

professional community, (c) creation of a Student Peer Advising Network (SPAN), (d)

development of a web-based, interactive advisement handbook and supplemental advising

resources, and (e) further development of a data collection and evaluation system.

Faculty Development Seminar. While LaGuardia’s Developmental Academic Advisement Plan

has specified roles for faculty, most faculty members have received little or no training on how

to advise students and are not sufficiently familiar with the range of services and policies that

affect student progress. The literature recommends that faculty training should cover three main

16 Kramer, Gary L., ed. (2003). Faculty Advising Examined: Enhancing the Potential of College Faculty as Advisors. Bolton, MA: Anker. p. xv. 17 Santiago, Deborah A. and S. Brown (Feb. 2004) “What Works for Latino Students.” Excelencia in Education, Inc., Washington, DC.


areas: conceptual elements (student development theory and ethical concerns), informational

elements (policies, facts, and information needed to advise effectively), and relational elements

(rapport building and active listening).18 To implement an effective advisement program, faculty

members need sustained seminars that address these defined areas of knowledge and practice.

This process will involve 70 faculty serving at least 2,600 students over the course of the grant.

Virtual Interest Groups (VIGs). Research indicates the importance of integrating students into

a community that shares their specific academic/career interests.19 Creating such connections

and community has been shown to be highly effective in supporting Hispanic students in higher

education.20 We thus propose to enhance community between students and faculty and the

professional community by creating online, discipline-focused forums for developmental

advisement. Taking advantage of the enormous interest in online communication tools, these

“Virtual Interest Groups” will supplement traditional in-person advisement for major discipline

areas in the college (e.g., Allied Health/Science, Business, Liberal Arts, Teacher Education).

Facilitated by a faculty member in the discipline, each semester-long VIG will have its own

master website, developed by the VIG faculty leader, through which student participants will

have access to the VIG’s online communication tools (bulletin board, chat room, and e-mail).

Students will thus be able to exchange ideas, ask questions, and obtain advice (e.g., on career

paths or transfer colleges) relating to their particular discipline. The faculty leader will be

responsible for posting readings to the site, generating questions, and moderating the online

18 Vowell, F. and Farren, P.J. (2003). “Expectations and Training of Faculty Advisors.” In Kramer, Gary L. (Ed.), op cit. 19 Muraskin, L. and Lee, J. (2004). Raising the Graduation Rates of Low-Income College Students. Report published by The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education. 20 “Examples of Excelencia! 2006” Compendium: Profiles of selected programs that work for Latino students in higher education. Excelencia in Education, Inc., Washington, DC.


discussion. Serving 1,125 students over five years, all VIGs will provide developmental

advisement and career guidance, disseminate information about the major, stimulate motivation,

and immerse students in the academic discourse of their discipline. Advanced students majoring

in the discipline will participate as paid mentors, relating first-hand experiences about the

academic expectations of the faculty and sharing their own strategies and perspectives on how to

be a successful student; a particular effort will be made to recruit Hispanic students as online

peer mentors for the VIGs.

The VIGs will be enhanced by bringing in professionals from the local Hispanic

community for online sessions with students and in-person campus forums to be followed up by

VIG online discussions. LaGuardia has long-term relationships with key Hispanic organizations

who want to support the academic success of Latino students and have indicated a willingness to

provide such mentoring, career advising, and role modeling for our students.21

Student Peer Advising Network (SPAN). A recent report by NACADA22 states that 63% of

colleges use peer advisement as one element of their academic advising plan and that such

advising has a positive impact on students. Peer advising offers LaGuardia a level of flexibility

in terms of scheduling and access to students that faculty and professional advising staff can

rarely match. Recruited from the student body, peer advisors are effective in helping students

adjust to college life, particularly immigrant and low-income students who are often the least

likely to initiate contact with a faculty advisor. The establishment of a corps of students as highly

21 Partners in this activity will include: Puerto Rican Bar Association, Committee on Hispanic Children & Families, Inc., Queens Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, NYC Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, NYC Chapter of the Hispanic Bar Association, Somos El Futuro of the New York State Legislative Conference, Hispanic Institute of Aging, Coro Foundation, Latino Commission on AIDS, 100 Hispanic Women. 22 National Academic Advising Association. (2005). Peer Advising: Intentional Connections to Support Student Learning.


trained, part-time peer advisors will supplement LaGuardia’s advising staff, also enabling the

College to extend the advisement period and mitigate the last-minute crunch that typically occurs

near the start of each semester. Fifteen peer advisors will provide services through contact with

1,500 students each semester in several capacities: supporting faculty advising in the

departments, staffing advisement fairs and advising events (e.g. career nights, orientations to

majors), and mentoring students through the VIGs. An additional benefit of this program is that

students who become peer advisors - serving in a paraprofessional role and receiving training

and guidance - typically increase their own success and retention.23 LaGuardia will make a

special effort to recruit Hispanic students as peer advisors in this program. Their engagement in

this project will strengthen their own likelihood of success and will provide a valuable model,

inspiring others to a higher level of involvement and achievement.

Online Advisement Resources. Among the most basic requirements of an effective advisement

system is that students need to have timely access to accurate information. Such information can

make or break a student’s experience in college and can have a direct effect on who stays and

who leaves. At present, the flow of information is hampered by an inadequate system for

providing student-friendly information on an “as-needed” basis for students and faculty advisors

alike. LaGuardia’s advisement would be immeasurably improved by developing e-advisement

materials and resources. Such a system would be interactive and user-friendly, enabling a student

to find commonly-needed information in a web-based advisement handbook, download forms,

and e-mail a question to a centralized advising office. Most student inquiries are routine and can

be responded to by trained peer advisors or office staff. More complex questions can be referred 23 Branch, K., Taylor, A. & Douglas, J. (2003). “Identifying the Merits of Sophomore Involvement in New Student Orientation.” Journal of College Orientation and Transition, 11(1), 18-26.


to the appropriate advisor or can be discussed within the VIGs. The system will be designed to

track requests and referrals and to gather data for the purposes of evaluation and improvement.

Chart: Relationship of Activity Component #2 to CDP Goals and Weaknesses CDP Goal CDP Weaknesses Relationship of Activity

Enhance student success through improved academic advisement.

Weakness #1: Low retention, graduation, and transfer rates. Weakness #4: Inadequate second-year advisement: faculty feel ill-equipped for their advising roles; faculty unclear on how to access needed information; latest online technologies not being exploited; insufficient number of advisors.

Faculty professional development seminars will provide needed training.

Creating an up-to-date, centralized, interactive, and readily accessible web-based resource site will enable faculty to obtain much-needed information and provide appropriate referrals to campus resources.

Virtual Interest Groups will create a new avenue for faculty to participate in advisement and will allow students and faculty the flexibility of having questions answered from home. Community resources will be brought in to assist with career development.

The network of student peer advisors will address the issue of not having a sufficient number of advisors for second-year advisement and will help, in particular, with inadequate coverage during peak advisement periods.

Integrating the carefully designed elements of Activity Components 1 and 2, Project RISE will

create a comprehensive program that engages hundreds of faculty, addresses critical college-

wide issues, and advances the academic success of thousands of Hispanic and other low-income

students. By strengthening second-year instruction, assessment, and advisement, Project RISE

will improve student engagement and increase LaGuardia’s retention, graduation, and transfer

rates. Addressing a priority educational need that has often been overlooked in the community

college sector, Project RISE will help the College complete a thoroughgoing transformation of

the second-year experience and develop a model that can be considered for adaptation and

implementation by community colleges nationwide.


3. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

The following Implementation Strategy Chart provides a structured timeline for each Activity

Component: (1) Rethinking Curriculum, Pedagogy & Assessment for 2nd Year Courses; and (2)

Improving 2nd Year Academic Advising. As described in the Activity Objectives section, these

components are interlocking and mutually reinforcing, thereby maximizing their effectiveness

and long-term impact on student progress. For each component, the Implementation Chart

identifies year-by-year timeline of major tasks, key personnel, methodologies, and tangible

results. In accordance with Title V procedures, each project year begins on October 1 and ends

on September 30 of the following year.

The rationale for each specific Activity Component is detailed in the Activity Objective

section. Discussion of the relevant research literature supporting the proposed methodologies is

also provided in that section. For the rationale and references to Activity Component 1, please

refer to pages 21-27. For the rationale and references to Activity Component 2, please refer to

pages 27-31.

Faculty development plays a particularly important role in both components. The faculty

development seminars and workshops to be employed in this project will build directly on best

practices in the field,24 including the proven practices of the LaGuardia Center for Teaching and

Learning. The LaGuardia Center has helped to model best practices widely accepted by leading

groups in the field, such as the Professional and Organizational Developer’s Network and the

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

24 Angelo, Thomas A. “Doing Faculty Development as if We Value Learning Most: Transformative Guidelines from Research to Practice,” in To Improve the Academy, Professional & Organizational Developer’s Network, Vol. 19, 2000; Lieberman, Devorah A. and Alan E. Guskin. “The Essential Role of Faculty Development in New Higher Education Models,” in To Improve the Academy; Shulman, Lee S. “The Pedagogical Colloquium: Three Models,” in Teaching as Community Property: Essays on Higher Education, Jossey–Bass, 2004.

Project RISE, LaGuardia Community College, p.33

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY AND TIMETABLE FORM Period Major Tasks to be Completed Key Personnel Methodologies Tangible Results

Project Mgmt: Hire Project Associate, faculty leaders. Oversee fiscal & program management. Launch evaluation and oversee report to Title V.

PI and Ass’t Dean, Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL).

See Evaluation Plan.

Baseline and Year 1 data gathered.

Rethinking Curriculum, Pedagogy & Assessment - Plan faculty seminar on Key Courses in the Major; launch in January. Test courses in Spring. Students document learning with ePortfolios. - Launch Capstone Research team. Design faculty seminar for Year II. Select participants. - Build new ePortfolio lab; update ePortfolio system to support assessment. - Run workshops on Outcomes Assessment. Conduct 3 program reviews, using ePortfolios

- Dr. Eynon, Project Assoc., Center for Teaching & Learning (CTL) faculty leaders, Student Tech Mentors (STMs). - Dr. Eynon, Project Assoc.& faculty leaders - CTL, IT Division - Dr. Eynon, Project Assoc., CTL & faculty leaders

-Seminar supports curricular revision & implementation, documentation with ePortfolio. -Research in capstone literature, site visits, web-conferencing. -Upgrade ePortfolio - Established Program Review process

- 20 redesigned Key Course sections (400 students). 400 add’l pieces of work in ePortfolios - Research report. Design for Year 2 faculty seminar. - Improved ePortfolio software & assessment lab -3 completed Program Reviews

Year 1 2007-8

Improving Academic Advisement - Plan and run faculty workshops on Advisement & Virtual Interest Groups. Implement with students in Spring - Develop peer advisor training. Recruit, select and train student peer advisors. Implement SPAN in Spring student orientation and enrollment. - Develop on-line advising resource.

- Dr. Aherne, Office of Academic Advisement (OAA). Faculty trained by CTL, Project Assoc. - Dr. Aherne and OAA - Counseling Faculty, & web developer

- Explore advisement best practice (online, face-to-face). Use in training & handbook -Recruit & train peer advisors via direct application & faculty recommendations. - Research, writing & web development

-10 trained faculty advise 200 students face-to-face. - 5 faculty offer 5 VIGs (125 students). - 15 trained peer advisors. 10 advisement events (1,500 students). -Web-based advisement handbook.


Period Major Tasks to be Completed Key Personnel Methodologies Tangible Results

Project Mgmt: Oversee fiscal & program mgmt, evaluation and report to Title V.

PI and Ass’t Dean, CTL. Project Assoc.


Year 1 report submitted. Year 2 data gathered.

Rethinking Curriculum, Pedagogy & Assessment - Run 2 one-semester faculty seminars on Key Courses (Fall & Spring). Students document learning with ePortfolios. -Run year-long faculty seminar on Capstone courses. Implement in Spring. Students document learning w ePortfolios. - Conduct 3 program reviews, using ePortfolios.

Dr. Eynon, Project Assoc., CTL, and faculty leaders, with Student Technology Mentors (STMs).

Both faculty seminars support curricular revision and implementation and documentation with ePortfolios.

30 add’l redesigned Key Course sections + on-going implementation from Yr 1 (total 1,000 students). -15 redesigned Capstone course sections (300 students). - 3 Program Reviews Completed

Year 2 2008-9

Improving Academic Advisement - Plan and run faculty workshops on Advisement and Virtual Interest Groups. Implement with students. - Recruit, select and train student peer advisors. Implement SPAN. Utilize on-line advising resources.

Dr. Aherne, CTL and Project Assoc. Dr. Aherne, OAA and Project Assoc.

- Review and implement best practices in online & face-to-face advisement. - Recruit & train peer advisors via direct application and faculty recommendations

-15 trained faculty advise 600 students. -10 VIGs (250 students). -15 trained peer advisors, 20 advisement events (3,000 students).






Year 2 report submitted. Year 3 data gathered.

Rethinking Curriculum, Pedagogy & Assessment -Year-long faculty seminar on Capstone courses. Spring implementation. Students document learning with ePortfolios. -Capstone Faculty Fellows refine curricula and lead outreach workshops. -Run and assess on-going Key Courses. -Plan and run Outcomes Assessment workshops. Conduct 3 program reviews, using ePortfolios.


-Seminars support curricular revision and implementation, documentation with ePortfolios. -Implementation -Examine assessment methodology and use of ePortfolio system.

-15 newly redesigned Capstone course sections (300 students). - Fellows teach 10 add’l course sections (200 student), lead 5 workshops -50 Key Course sections offered (1000 students). -3 Program Reviews Completed

Year 3 2009-2010



-Review and implement best practice in online & face-to-face advisement Recruit and train peer advisors via direct application and faculty recommendation.

15 trained faculty advise 600 students. 10 VIGs (250 students). 15 trained peer advisors. 20 advisement events (3,000 students).






Year 3 report submitted Year 4 data gathered.

Rethinking Curriculum, Pedagogy & Assessment -Year-long faculty seminar on Capstone courses. Spring implementation. Students document learning with ePortfolios. -Capstone Faculty Fellows refine curricula and lead outreach workshops. -Run and assess on-going Key Courses. -Plan and run Outcomes Assessment workshops. Conduct 3 program reviews, using ePortfolios.


-Seminars support curricular revision and implementation, documentation with ePortfolios. -Implementation -Examine assessment methodology and use of ePortfolio system.

-15 newly redesigned Capstone courses (300 students). - Fellows teach 10 add’l courses (200 students), lead 5 workshops. -50 Key Courses offered (1000 students). -3 Program Reviews Completed

Year 4 2010-2011



-Review and implement best practice in online & face-to-face advisement -Recruit & train peer advisors via direct applications and faculty recommendations.

-15 trained faculty advise 600 students. 10 VIGs (250 students). -15 trained peer advisors. 20 advisement events (3,000 students).



Project Mgmt: Oversee fiscal & program mgt, evaluation and report to Title V.



Year 4 report submitted Year 5 data gathered.

Rethinking Curriculum, Pedagogy & Assessment -- On-going testing of revised Capstone courses. Students document learning with ePortfolios. - Capstone leadership seminar supports refinement of redesigned courses, creation of Faculty Handbook. -Run and assess on-going Key Courses. -Plan and run Outcomes Assessment workshops. Conduct 3 program reviews, using ePortfolios.


-Reinforce revised curriculum by developing & publishing Capstone Handbook. -Implementation -Examine assessment methodology and use of ePortfolio system.

20 redesigned Capstone courses offered (400 students). Completed Capstone Handbook -50 Key Courses offered (1000 students). -3 Program Reviews Completed

Year 5 2010-2011



-Review and implement best practice in online & face-to-face advisement -Recruit & train peer advisors via direct applications and faculty recommendations.

-15 trained faculty advise 600 students. 10 VIGs (250 students). -15 trained peer advisors. 20 advisement events (3,000 students).


4. KEY PERSONNEL Gail O. Mellow, the President of LaGuardia Community College, will

provide leadership for, and oversight of, Project RISE. The President will appoint Dr. Paul

Arcario, Dean for Academic Affairs, as the Title V Project Director and Principal Investigator

(PI). Dr Arcario will devote 40% of his time to administering the project as a College

contribution. The two activity components will be coordinated by high-level personnel reporting

to Dean Arcario:

Chart: Activity Component Coordinators Activity Component Activity Component Coordinator Percent of Time

1. Rethinking Curriculum, Pedagogy and Assessment

Dr. Bret Eynon, Assistant Dean for Academic Affairs and Director of the Center for Teaching and Learning

40% (College Contribution)

2. Improving Academic Advisement

Dr. Deirdre Aherne, Executive Director of Academic Support Services

40% (College Contribution)

Qualifications of Key Personnel: Serving as LaGuardia’s Academic Dean for the past seven

years, Dr. Arcario has extensive experience in academic program development and evaluation, in

training teachers in a variety of pedagogies, and in creating academic support structures. Dean

Arcario was the principal architect of the College’s First-Year Experience Program and First-

Year Academy initiative, the ePortfolio-based outcomes assessment plan, and the Developmental

Advisement Plan. He has published articles on these projects and presented on them at numerous

national conferences. He has extensive experience in successfully administering institution-wide

grant programs, serving as Project Director/Principal Investigator for two prior Title V grants

and two FIPSE comprehensive grants.

Dr. Bret Eynon is the Assistant Dean for Academic Affairs and the founding director of

LaGuardia’s Center for Teaching and Learning. A respected historian and educator, he has led

professional development programs for more than two decades. In the past five years he has

gained national and international recognition for his role in linking faculty development to


institutional transformation, through programs ranging from learning communities to diversity

initiatives and interdisciplinary literacy-building. This work has informed many scholarly

publications and presentations, from workshops to keynote speeches. He has served as PI and

Project Director on many grants (with funders ranging from Title V and the National Endowment

for the Humanities to the Ford Foundation, the Reader’s Digest Fund and the Pew Charitable

Trusts). He has overseen all aspects of project design and implementation, including faculty

development, staff supervision, fiscal management, evaluation, reporting, and dissemination.

Dr. Deirdre Aherne has extensive experience in academic program administration, budget

management and staff supervision. She joined LaGuardia in Fall 2005 as Executive Director of

Academic Support Services and brings fourteen years of experience at NYU, including oversight

of academic advisor training and three years as Assistant Dean of Students. At LaGuardia, Dr.

Aherne serves as PI for a major academic support services grant project and director of a yearly

$400,000 CUNY undergraduate support services grant, and manages the First-Year Academies.

Dean Arcario, Dean Eynon, and Executive Director Aherne are in the Division of

Academic Affairs. To provide assistance to the Division of Academic Affairs while Paul

Arcario, Bret Eynon, and Deidre Aherne are devoting 40% of their time to the Title V Project,

the College–as a LaGuardia in-kind contribution–will hire a full-time academic administrator to

assume a range of administrative responsibilities.

5. PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Responsibilities of the President of LaGuardia Community College and of the Title V

Project Director/PI. President Mellow will serve in a supervisory capacity and as a critical link

for communicating project objectives and progress to the College community. Through monthly

meetings with the Title V Project Director/PI, the President will keep in regular contact with the


project's operation, ensuring that implementation of Title V initiatives are integrated into the

College’s institutional plans. The project’s organization chart (below) indicates the lines of

authority between the College President, the Dean for Academic Affairs/Title V Project Director,

and project staff.

Title V Organization Chart

Dean Arcario, the Title V Director and Principal Investigator, will report directly to the President

and have the responsibility for the overall management of the project. The chart below delineates

the responsibilities of the Title V Director.

Chart: Responsibilities of the Title V Project Director/PI • Work directly with the President and the Executive Council to ensure that the

project's operation is consistent with the mission and goals of the College. • Develop and communicate to the College community an informed understanding of

the Title V project's purpose, objectives, and activities by preparing a regular Title V column in the College’s monthly newsletter.

• Assure that the project operates in total compliance with the terms and conditions of the grant under regulations of the U. S. Department of Education by overseeing the development of a Title V Project Manual based on EDGAR and GEPA. The Manual will specify policies and responsibilities and lines of authority, list specific job descriptions for all Title V staff, provide examples of forms, and demonstrate how to follow reporting procedures.

Title V Director/PI: Dean for Academic Affairs

(Dr. Arcario)

Title V Associate

Coordinator Activity Component #2:

Executive Director of Academic Support Services (Dr. Aherne)

Faculty Development Staff Advisement Faculty and Staff

Title V Advisory Committee

Coordinator Activity Component #1: Ass’t Dean for Academic

Affairs (Dr. Eynon)

President (Dr. Mellow)


• Provide supervision and guidance for the two Activity Component Coordinators and Project Associate.

• Monitor the completion of scheduled project activities in accordance with established time frames.

• Ensure the development of an effective internal and external evaluation program by producing rigorous and high quality formative and summative evaluations, and disseminating these evaluation results promptly to top-level administration.

• Serve as chief liaison between the College and the U.S. Department of Education's Title V program officer; ensure that the College remains in compliance with all Title V grant guidelines and regulations; and submit on a timely basis all technical and financial reports and continuation applications mandated by the federal government.

• Promote the integration of the Title V project with other College programs to ensure the continuation and institutionalization of project-sponsored activities beyond the federal funding period.

The Activity Component Coordinators will have administrative control of the

components of the project. Their responsibilities include:

Chart: Responsibilities of the Activity Component Coordinators • Assume primary responsibility for accomplishing activity objectives and facilitating

project evaluation. • Provide supervision for all personnel working on the Title V project. • Create and maintain data records regarding project outcomes. • Supervise records of all expenditures and obligations charged to the budget. • Supervise supply and equipment inventories. Responsibilities of the Title V Associate. The full-time Title V Associate will plan and manage

the Title V project budget, maintain accurate financial records and ensure the judicious

expenditure of these resources in accordance with the terms of the grant. To be hired following

award notification, the Title V Associate will also provide across-the-board support to the Project

Director and help in maintaining communication with the activity component coordinators and

their staff members, the external evaluator, the Office of Institutional Research, the Grants

Office, and the CUNY Research Foundation. The Title V Associate will assist with effective

record-keeping, payment processing, and the preparation of the project manual and periodic

reports to the President and the U.S. Department of Education. The Title V Associate will


provide assistance to the Activity Component Coordinators in the management of Activities 1

and 2, helping to ensure the effective development of these components and their alignment with

the overall goals, objectives, and annual targets established for Project RISE. With these

responsibilities in mind, the projected qualifications for the Title V Associate will include: an

MA degree; a minimum of three years of relevant professional experience; demonstrated skills in

program development and management; demonstrated skills in written and oral communication;

demonstrated effectiveness in budget management; demonstrated familiarity with issues of

pedagogy, assessment, and advisement in higher education, particularly in community colleges.

Title V Advisory Committee. Co-chaired by the President and Title V Project Director, an

Advisory Committee will provide a forum for communication with the LaGuardia community. It

will review formative assessments and periodic project reports and make recommendations for

project refinements. The Advisory Committee will include key Title V personnel, as well as the

Associate Dean of Enrollment Management & Student Affairs, the Director of Institutional

Research, two at-large faculty members, two representatives from community organizations, and

two at-large student representatives.

Project Management Procedures. LaGuardia has adopted the following management goals:

Chart: Goals of Project Management • Ensure complete compliance with all federal and institutional policies as they relate

to the Title V project. • Ensure fiscal responsibility for all Title V grant expenditures and budgetary

allocations. • Establish and maintain open communication among all campus personnel concerning

the activity of the project. • Schedule, achieve, and monitor progress toward project objectives. • Oversee and facilitate the evaluation process for the Title V project. • Ensure that project information is disseminated appropriately. • Support the institutional effort to integrate all components of the Title V project into

the practices and budget of the College at the conclusion of the grant period.

LaGuardia has identified a set of tools and structures that will help ensure effective project


management. Management tools include:

Chart: Project Management Tools • Developing and distributing a Title V Project Manual with all relevant policies,

staff responsibilities, job descriptions, Title V forms, and reporting timelines. • Scheduling and convening Title V Staff Meetings of key project staff and reporting

to the President on any major operational concerns discussed during these meetings. • Collecting and examining Time and Effort Reports for all full-time and part-time

project personnel on a monthly basis and dealing with any deviations from standard College personnel policies.

• Collecting and examining Periodic Progress Reports generated by key personnel responsible for faculty development and advisement initiatives and responding to the results of formative evaluation and incipient problems.

• Developing Annual Reports that are shared with the President, Executive Council, and Title V Advisory Committee.

6. EVALUATION: LaGuardia will retain Metis Associates, a New York City-headquartered

research and consulting firm to evaluate this project. Formed in 1977 to provide research and

evaluation support to public, philanthropic, and private-sector organizations, Metis has a cadre of

staff members who specialize in developing research designs, in providing technical assistance to

obtain and organize data, and in analyzing and reporting quantitative and qualitative data. Metis

staff has extensive experience in evaluating higher education initiatives, including NSF-funded

Math Science Partnerships and Local Systemic Change projects, as well as U.S. Department of

Education programs (e.g., FIPSE and Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology). Dr.

Lori Gerstein Ramsey, Senior Research Associate, will direct the evaluation, supported by a

team of researchers, data analysts, information technology specialists, and data entry assistants.

Evaluation Design. Metis has designed a comprehensive evaluation that will include formative

and summative components, addressing both process and outcome objectives. The evaluation

will employ multiple measures, combining qualitative and quantitative data in order to assist the

Project RISE team in assessing the impact of the initiative on participants and the institution.


Formative evaluation will be a continuous process of assessment designed to track the

extent to which the process and outcome objectives are met and inform project management

about the quality of implementation; identify problems needing immediate attention; and

generate recommendations for program improvement. The information obtained will be regularly

communicated to program staff, who will make programmatic adjustments as appropriate.

Formative evaluation data will include student surveys, project documentation (e.g.,

meeting agendas, course syllabi, professional development documentation) and interviews with

the program staff. Interview tapes will be transcribed and analyzed, coding for themes and

patterns across respondent groups. Formative evaluation will also examine the project’s ongoing

impact on student learning outcomes. Course completion, pass-rates and semester-to-semester

retention for capstone courses will be examined each semester to determine how the redesigned

courses affect priority student outcomes. The nationally-normed Community College Survey of

Student Engagement (CCSSE)25 will provide quantitative data on student learning behaviors.

The ACT Opinion Survey will track changes in student satisfaction. Both of these surveys will

be administered to participating students each semester.

Summative evaluation will examine the overall extent to which the program has met

desired outcomes and will address relevant GPRA performance indicators identified for the HSI

program (changes in retention, transfer and graduation rates). Summative evaluation will use

multiple methods and measures and triangulate findings across data sources to increase the

reliability and credibility of results. With the help of baseline data, changes in student and

25 The Community College Survey of Student Engagement is a highly regarded national instrument measuring key behaviors that indicate student engagement in the learning process, including critical thinking, writing, and collaborative learning. It provides data on how much time students spend on homework and other learning behaviors; their relationships with faculty, counselors, and peers; the kinds of work they are challenged to do; and how the college supports their learning.


faculty outcomes will be documented. Quantitative data will be compared using both the non-

parametric Mann-Whitney U Test and a Matched Sample T-Test to determine statistical

significance. Qualitative data will be content analyzed, using N-Vivo or other qualitative

software, as appropriate. The chart below summarizes how outcomes will be measured.

Chart: Outcomes, Data Sources, and Analyses Outcomes Data Source/Data Collection Data Analysis Plan Increased retention, graduation, and transfer rates

Course transcripts and other administrative documentation maintained by the registrar will be collected each semester.

The number and percent of students who re-register each semester will be determined at the end of each semester and compared to College baselines. The number and percent of students who transfer and graduate will be determined at the end of the grant period and compared to college baselines.

Lower attrition and failure rate in revised capstone courses

Course transcripts and other administrative documentation maintained by the registrar will be collected each semester.

The number and percent of students who drop or fail courses will be determined at the end of each semester and compared to those in similar courses (i.e., non-revised capstone courses).

Increased student engagement

The Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) will be administered to participating students each semester.

The mean score on the CCSSE for participating students will be determined at the end of each semester and compared to the College at large.

Improved Advisement

1. A locally developed pre-/post-survey measuring student knowledge of college services, requirements, and career information will be administered each semester in the VIGs. 2. The ACT Opinion Survey will be administered to participating students every semester. 3. The CCSSE will be administered to participating students every semester.

1. Pre- and post-test survey results of the student knowledge of college processes will be determined at the end of each semester and compared to other years. 2. The mean score on the ACT Opinion Survey for participating students will be determined at the end of each semester and compared to the College at large. 3. The mean score on the CCSSE for participating students will be determined at the end of each semester and compared to the College at large.

Timeline. The evaluation timeline will be aligned with the implementation of project

activities. During Year 1, the evaluators will collaborate with program staff to finalize


instruments and initiate data-gathering processes. Years 2 through 5will include the revision of

instruments, as needed, as well as additional data collection and analysis needed for each

semester’s formative evaluation, as well as the final summative report.

Reporting. Formative reporting will occur at regular intervals each program year. Metis

will submit reports on formative findings to the Project RISE staff during quarterly conference

calls throughout the project period. These reports will provide summaries of evaluation activities

conducted to date, present initial findings from the data analyses, and include preliminary

recommendations. Metis will prepare annual evaluation reports to be submitted as per the grant

requirement. Annual reports will include implementation data pertaining to the process and

outcome objectives. Reports will include contextual information to provide a firm foundation for

both formative and summative conclusions and recommendations.

7. BUDGET NARRATIVE The five year budget for Project RISE, outlined in the Summary Budget form, is carefully

planned to support effective implementation of all project components. It is matched by

extensive College contributions, detailed below. The fiscal agent for Project RISE will be the

Research Foundation of the City University of New York (RF-CUNY), the fiscal agent for all

grant funds at CUNY, which manages all funds in accordance with widely-accepted accounting

principles and CUNY policies and procedures.

1. Personnel & 2. Fringe Benefits

Faculty. Project RISE will use two mechanisms to support faculty participation in professional

development. Some intensive faculty work will be supported with released-time (see Chart

below). For less intensive seminars, faculty will receive stipends (see Chart in #11). The

LaGuardia mandatory rate for faculty release-time is $1,223 per contact-hour; the RF-CUNY


mandatory fringe benefit rate on faculty release = 33%.

Chart: Faculty Release-Time (Year-By-Year) Position Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5Capstone Seminar Leaders 2 @ 3 hr 2 @ 6 hr 2 @ 6 hr 2 @ 6 hr 2 @ 6 hrCapstone Seminar Participants

6 @ 2 hr 12@3 hr 15@ 3 hr 14 @ 3 hr 10 @ 3 hr

Key Courses in Major Leaders

2 @ 3 hr 1 @ 6 hr

Assessment Wksp Leader 1 @ 6 hr 1 @ 6 hr 1 @ 6 hrAdvisement Leaders/ Handbook Developers

2 @ 9 hr 1 @ 6 hr 1 @ 6 hr 1 @ 6 hr 1 @ 6 hr

VIG Faculty Coordinator 1 @ 3 hr 1 @ 3 hr 1 @ 3 hr 1 @ 3 hr 1 @ 3 hrVIG Faculty Leaders 5 @ 3 hr 10@3 hr 10@ 3hr 10 @ 3 hr 10 @ 3 hrReleased Time Salary $73,380 $113,739 $124,746 $121,077 $106,401Released Time Fringe $24,215 $37,534 $41,166 $39,955 $35,112

Full Time and Part-Time Personnel (Budgeted 4% Annual Increase to Base Salary)

All salaries are comparable to salaries for similar lines at the College. Full-time lines incorporate

a 4 % annual increase in Years 2 through 5.

Title V Associate (FT): Base salary of $60,000. The Title V Associate supports the entire

project. Provides across-the board support to the Project Director: responsible for maintaining

the project budget; ensuring accurate data collection; maintaining communication with the

activity coordinators, seminar leaders and participants. The Associate manages day-to-day

operations, helps to develop the project manual, and assists with the preparation of all reports.

Office Administrator (FT): Base salary of $32,000. Handles administrative details of program:

manages room and site coordination; processes time sheets and payroll; orders supplies and

materials; handles photocopying; assists with data entry and collection.

ePortfolio Trainers (FT): 2 positions at $25,000 base salary to teach students and faculty to

construct ePortfolios, facilitate data collection, and manage the ePortfolio/assessment lab.

Web Developer (FT): Base salary of $25,000; 60% of time in Year 1; 25% in Year 2; 15% in

Years 3 and 4; and 40% in Year 5. The Web Developer designs and builds the web-based


advisement resources. Most work will be done in Years 1, 2 and 5. In Year 1, working with

advisement leaders responsible for site content, the Developer will prepare a site design. In Year

2, the Web Developer will build the site. Student and faculty surveys gathered in Years 3-4 will

guide revisions in Year 5. The Capstone website will also be developed in Year 5.

Student Technology Mentors (PT): 15 student employees--paid $10/hr.X 8 hours/week X 24

weeks in Year 1; 5hrs/week x 38 weeks in Years 2-5)--support students building ePortfolios.

Student Peer Advisors (PT): 15 student employees–paid $10/hour X 10 hours/week (24 weeks

Year 1; 38 weeks Years 2-5)--to do individual peer advisement and assist at advisement events.

VIGS Student Leaders (PT): Student leaders (10 @ $500/ea.) provide on-line peer advisement.

Chart: Salary Expenditures, by Year Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5F-T Salary $157,000 $154,180 $157,643 $163,949 $177,819P-T Salary $69,800 $95,500 $95,500 $95,500 $95,500Total Salary $226,800 $249,680 $253,143 $259,449 $273,319Fringe $64,285 $65,826 $67,090 $69391 $74,454

NOTE: The RF-CUNY fringe benefit rate is 36.5% for Full-Time and 10% for Part Time Hires.

3. Travel: Year 1 includes travel funds needed to cover flights, hotels, and per diem expenses for

the 8-member research team studying exemplary capstone programs at other campuses. No more

than 4 team members will make each site visit. In addition to local sites where expenses will be

minimal, the team will visit Portland State University (PSU) and Miami University (MU), two

campuses highlighted in the AAC&U report on the capstone experience. (Estimated travel costs

for 4 members - PSU: $350/flight + $147 per diem for 3 days = $3164 for all four faculty. MU:

$406 flight + $140 per diem for 3 days = $3304 for all four faculty.) Per-diem travel costs

conform to federal and CUNY-RF rates. Annually, $3,000 is budgeted for travel-related

expenditures for trips to conferences to make project-related presentations.

4. Equipment: None


5. Supplies: Funds cover the cost of equipping an ePortfolio/assessment lab and general

operating supplies to support project office and programmatic activities. In Year 1, $69,400 will

be used to equip a networked ePortfolio lab with 28 Dell computer stations and monitors, 2 Dell

PCs for disabled students, printer, scanner, projector, Smartboard, workstations and chairs,

including specialized furniture for disabled students. $29,000 is allocated for necessary electrical

wiring and CAT-5 cabling. The Year 1 budget also includes funds for program and seminar

supplies. Additional software (total of $5,000), digital cameras and other peripherals (total of

$5,000) needed for the lab, will be purchased in Year 2. Supply expenditures vary slightly by

year, reflecting the differing numbers of LaGuardia faculty and students taking part in project-

related seminars, courses and activities. In addition to the software and computer peripherals (see

above), costs for a sample year (Year 2), when the project involves 70 faculty and more than

5,000 students, include: supplies for staff and seminar leaders ($1,000); copying ($1,000); office

supplies ($2,000); faculty training materials and meeting supplies ($3,000); books and

publications ($1,000); promotional, training and support materials for SPAN student advisors

($2,000); and materials for advisement events ($1,000).

6. Contractual: Metis Associates will be retained to provide independent project evaluation, at

an annual rate of $25,000/year (well below the market standard of 10% of project budget). Year

1 costs are somewhat higher ($30,000) to support the development of key instruments. In Year I

LaGuardia’s ePortfolio data management system will also be upgraded to improve the user

interface and to facilitate both ePortfolio publication for employers and transfer schools and the

use of ePortfolios for assessment purposes ($10,000 toward system-wide upgrade).

7. Construction: None 8. Other: Endowment: Each year the LaGuardia Community College Foundation will match


$20,000 of Title V grant funds.

9. Total Direct Costs: The sum of budget categories 1-8. 10. Indirect Costs: None. 11. Training Stipends: As noted above, faculty participation in selected program components

will be supported with stipends.

Chart: Faculty Training Stipends (Year-By-Year) Position Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5Capstone Fellows 10 @$500 10 @$500 Key Courses in the Major Participants

20 @$750 30 @$750

Assessment Workshop Participants

15 @$500 15 @$500 15 @$500

Advisement Seminar Participants

10 @$750 15 @$750 15 @$750 15 @$750 15 @$750

TOTAL $18,250 $33,750 $23,750 $23,750 $23,750 12. Total Costs: The sum of budget categories 9-11. Non-Federal Matching Funds. As noted earlier, Project RISE will mobilize institutionally-

supported LaGuardia staff as a LaGuardia contribution, including the Project Director (40% of

$120,000 base salary), Component Coordinators (40% of $80,000 and 40% of $101,000 base

salaries), and a new academic administrator (100% of $80,000 base salary) to backfill while the

project absorbs the time and attention of administrators in the Division of Academic Affairs. The

Division of Institutional Technology will contribute 30% of a programmer/analyst’s time

($65,000 base salary) to monitor and improve the ePortfolio system software. In sum, the

College is contributing $1,191,049 in Salaries, $393,046 in Fringe Benefits (CUNY mandated

at 33%) and $100,000 in Other matching funds for endowment (at $20,000 per year), for a grand

total of $1,684,096 in Non-Federal Funds.

Project RISE: Re-Invigorating Second-year Education at ......Project RISE, LaGuardia Community College, p. 3 2. LaGuardia is an institution with a highly successful first-year program.

Documents