Institution As Learner
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Institution As Learner

on

  • 1,505 views

Presentation given by Julie Phelps at the Inaugural BSI Leadership Institute on June 16, 2009.

Presentation given by Julie Phelps at the Inaugural BSI Leadership Institute on June 16, 2009.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,505
Views on SlideShare
1,497
Embed Views
8

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0

2 Embeds 8

http://bsili.edulounge.net 6
http://www.slideshare.net 2

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Institution As Learner Institution As Learner Presentation Transcript

  • The Institution as Learner: A Tale of Institution Transformation Dr. Julie Phelps Project Director, Achieving the Dream & Professor, Mathematics Valencia Community College
  • Overview of Presentation  Timing of Institutional Transformation  Focus  Engagement and Commitment  Meaningful Data and Systemic Improvement
  • Valencia Community College located in Orlando, FL now has four major campuses, two academic and administrative centers, and two more major campuses in the planning stages. Criminal Justice Institute Osceola Campus East Campus Winter Park Campus Sand Lake Center West Campus
  • The Institution as Learner
  • AtD Opportunity  Identify challenges  Include students historically underserved  Choose “fix” strategies & bring to scale  Study implementation results  Apply lessons toward further improvement  Continue the cycle…
  • AtD Leverage  External commitment  Goals & time lines  Progress reports  Coaching guidance/encouragement  Connection to community of learners  Focus & discipline
  • Focus
  • What did we discover? Valencia’s performance gaps:  Between college-ready & underprepared  Across racial and ethnic groups  Between math & other disciplines
  • What approaches did we choose? Strategies that are effective, ripe, scalable:  Supplemental Learning  Learning in Community (LinC)  Student Life Skills course All help build “connection and direction.”
  • Bring to Scale
  • Activity #1  If you agree that focus is a helpful discipline in this process, please jot down some steps you have taken at your own institution in order to focus your improvement efforts.
  • Engagement and Commitment
  • Institutional Shift to Broad Engagement THEN NOW Core College Achieving Work the Dream
  • Leadership Team  Student Affairs Vice President  Academic Affairs Assistant Vice President  Tenured Faculty Member Our Philosophy: “Ownership” vs. “Buy-in” – Our learning communities have the end users’ fingerprints all over them.
  • Valencia AtD Coordinating Teams Consultants Coordinating Teams (Campus Based and Collegewide) AtD Consultant Team Philip Bishop, Mary Allen, Nick Supplemental Learning Bekas, Sonya Joseph, John Stover, Paul Shelby Fiorentino, Boris Nguyen, Flores, David Hosman, Michael Damien Hammock, Albert Groccia, Shugg, Christy Cheney, Cali Linda Hidek, Jennifer McCormick. Russell Coordinating Campanella, Shelby Fiorentino, Barbara Takashima, Roberta Brown & 2 SL leaders Team/Leadership Team Shell, Helen Clarke, Jeff Cornett, Roberta Julie Phelps Brown, Kurt Ewen, and Tracy Harrison Ann Puyana Learning Communities Math and SLS Joyce Romano and Interdisciplinary Courses Christy Cheney, Philip Bishop, Mary West Campus Team Allen, David Hosman, Terry Rafter- Jared Graber, Mildred Francechi, Lisa Armour, Kim Carles, Mia Pierre, Sonya Joseph and Long, Russell Takashima, Boris Nguyen, David all LinC faculty/staff Hosman, Claudia Genovese-Martinez, and Tyron Johnson Student Success Expansion East Campus Team Mary Allen and SLS teaching faculty Ruth Prather, Myrna Villanueva, Maryke Lee, Della Paul, Michelle Foster, Paul Flores, Jennifer McCormick, Terry Rafter-Carles, Amanda Saxman, and Focus Group Faciliatators Linda Vance Roberta Brown, Kurt Ewen, Celine Kavelac- Miller, Philip Bishop, Nick Bekas, Allison Sloan, Maryke Winter Park Campus Team Lee, Helen Clarke, Barbara Shell, and others Ruth Prather, Michele McArdle, Chris Borglum, Cheryl Robinson, John Niss, Linda Hidek, and Damien Hammock Community Focus Groups Susan Kelley and others Osceola Campus Team Silvia Zapico, Dale Husbands, Kevin Mulhulland, Melissa Pedone, Chris Klinger, Albert Groccia, Elizabeth SAS Implementation for AtD Washington, Donna French, Shari Koopman, Teresa Bill White, Jim Ferrari, David Colon, Juan Nater, Lynn Paredes-Manfredi, Mia Pierre, David Olivera, Roberta Brown, Daryl Rogers, Leila Sission, John Tobia, and Ron Von Behren Davis, Donna Koslowski, and Jeff Cornett Data Team College Learning Council (Core Roberta Brown, Jeff Cornett, Kurt Ewen, Nick Bekas, Lisa Armour, Christy Cheney, Mary Team) Allen, Daryl Davis, Maryke Lee, James Kaye Walter, Rose Watson, Joyce Romano, Silvia Zapico, Jared May, Cheryl Robinson and Shelby Fiorentino Graber, Maryke Lee, Cheryl Robinson, Aida Diaz, Suzette Dohany, Tami Rogers, Shelby Fiorentino, Brenda Martinez Britt, Bill White, Brian Macon, Melody Boeringer-Hartnup, Richard Gair, George Rousch, Ruth Prather, Julie Phelps, Kurt Ewen , Karen Borglum, and Kari
  • Campus Based Engagement and Collegewide Reflection  Communication  Campus-based Leadership Team Meetings  College-wide Sharing Session  Website Development and Maintenance  Regular Reports to Councils & Departments  Planning
  • Activity #2  Write down a few ways that you institution has promoted broad engagement and commitment.
  • Meaningful Data and Systemic Improvement
  • Innovation Management System Climate of Innovation Level I 1000’s of Level II “Eye for opportunties 100 are Evidence”: selected 10 Level III More rigorous tried. supported Maintain a for support at each level. as Phase II as Phase I Research and Innovations. Innovations. 1 or 2 Development are brought up “Venture Capital Component. “Angel Stage” to scale and Institutionalized. Capital Pilot Stage” Implementation (Limited Scale) Prototype Level II Innovations Valencia’s challenge must be scalable is in moving from and must show Level II to Level III. potential to bring systemic change and “business-changing results.” Standard of evidence increases at each level.
  • AtD Data Team Insights  Composition of members  Development of Data Review Model
  • From Data to Meaningful Information Identify New Work Intended Identify Outcomes needed Data Data Defining the Information New / Changes Collection Processing Message Sharing Revised based on Assessment reflection Activity Our Data Processing Model is part of an Institutional Effectiveness process
  • AtD Data Team Insights  Composition of members  Development of Data Review Model  Various levels of analysis: Term-based strategy level Two and Four Year Global Measures Strategy Research Proposals  From Snapshots to Trends
  • Term Based Data for Needed for Adjustments per Term
  • Supplemental Learning Highlights since implementation in Spring 2006  Success Rates in Developmental Math Courses  For students enrolled in SL section:  + 2.4% for Fall SL sections  + 5.4% for Spring SL sections  With attendance in 1+ SL session:  + 9.8% for Fall SL sections  + 20.3% for Spring SL sections  Student participation in SL sections (>33%)  Avg. 45% participation from Fall SL students  Avg. 49% participation from Spring SL students
  • Supplemental Learning: Spring 2008 Percentage of All enrolled students with a Grade of C or Better in Developmental Mathematics Course by Ethnicity 80% 69% 70% 62% 60% 59% 60% 56% 55% 53% 46% 48% 47% 40% 34% 20% 0% Afr. Am. Caucasian Hispanic SL-Attended SL-Non-Attended SL-Overall Non-SL attended non-attended SL course non-SL course % participation Ethnicity % Success N % Success N % Success N % Success N AA 62 113 34 148 46 261 48 911 43% Cauc 69 208 53 251 60 459 56 1557 45% Hisp 70 181 47 165 59 346 55 1204 52% All 69 573 47 663 57 1236 54 4238 46% *Courses: Pre-algebra, Beginning Algebra, Intermediate Algebra
  • Two to Four Year Global Examples
  • Fall Cohort Retention Rates FTIC Degree-Seeking Students 100% Fall-Spring Retention Fall-Fall Retention 90% 80.5% 81.6% 81.5% 78.6% 79.9% 79.2% 79.2% 79.7% 80% 76.9% 76.1% 76.7% 75.3% 70% 63.8% 61.3% 62.4% 59.6% 60.3% 58.2% 58.5% 58.7% 58.4% 60% 56.8% 56.4% Retention Rate 55.3% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Fall Cohort to Spring/Fall the Following Year
  • Spring 2006 Cohort Persistence Term SL and/or LinC Persistence (N) Persistence (%) Total Enrolled Spring 2006 to Fall No 596 53 1123 2006 Yes 119 61 195 Spring 2006 to Spring No 468 44 1063 2007 Yes 145 57 255 Spring 2006 to Fall No 344 34 1007 2007 Yes 150 48 311 Spring 2006 to Spring No 333 34 990 2008 Yes 170 52 328 Spring 2006 to Fall No 232 24 963 2008 Yes 131 37 355 Spring 2006 to Spring No 184 19 953 2009 Yes 126 35 365
  • AtD Data Team Insights  Composition of members  Development of Data Review Model  Levels of analysis  From Snapshots to Trends  From “Data Driven” to “Data Informed”
  • Example of Research Plan for Each Strategy
  • Statistically significant Reflection on the human improvement in target impact in terms of the goals of quantitative measures the initiative and the mission of the institution Meaningful Improvement A consideration of student perception Economic efficiency as it relates to in relationship to A consideration of benefit versus cost difficulty of the task faculty perception at hand as it relates to benefit versus cost
  • Supplemental Learning (SL) Course Success  In each comparison, Fall, Spring and Summer:  Success (A, B, or C) was higher for SL sections  Unsuccess (D, F, or WF) and Withdrawal (W, or WP) were lower for SL sections  Fall Success rates were significantly different for SL sections (*p<.10) for all ethnicities (N = 65 Instructors, N = 5157 students)  African American students  All courses: 10.36% higher (p=0.029)  Developmental: 8.53% higher (*p=0.167)  Gateway: 15.65% higher (p=0.019)  Hispanic students  All courses: 7.07% higher (p=0.007)  Developmental: 7.59% higher (p=0.025)  Gateway: 6.65% higher (p=0.099) *With one exception.
  • Supplemental Learning Research Student Focus Groups • Overall, students described the SL experience as positive, and felt that attending SL sessions helped their academic performance • Students who did not attend SL sessions gave two major reasons: – time of session conflicted with work or other courses – felt confident in their own ability and did not need the help • The following benefits of SL were reported: – learning study skill strategies – awareness of additional resources (CompHouse, SPA, etc.) – increased comfort with in-class participation and instructor interaction
  • AtD Data Team Insights  Composition of members  Development of Data Review Model  Term-based strategy level and overall strategy evaluation  From Snapshots to Trends  From “Data Driven” to “Data Informed”  From “Culture of Evidence” to “Culture of Inquiry”
  • Closing the Gaps  Overall, success in the 6 Gateway courses increased by 3% from 2004 to 2008.  Success gaps between African American and Caucasian students closed from 13.4% in 2004 to 3.6% in 2008.  Success gaps between Hispanic students and Caucasian students closed from 1.8% in 2004 to Hispanic students having higher success rates than Caucasian students by 4% in 2008.
  • Overall Success Rate (Grades of A, B or C) All Ethnicities Combined 100.0% ENC1101 90.0% 80.0% POS2041 70.0% MAC1105 67.9% 65.1% 64.6% 65.6% 60.0% 61.7% 62.6% 60.3% 60.3% Success Rate 59.7% MAT0012C 50.0% 40.0% MAT0024C 30.0% MAT1033C 20.0% 10.0% Avg Success Rate 0.0% 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 F08 Academic Year
  • African American - Caucasian Success Rate Gap by Course Negative values mean African-Americans are not performing as well as Caucasians on average. 30.0% ENC1101 20.0% POS2041 10.0% Difference in Success Rate MAC1105 0.0% MAT0012C -10.0% MAT0024C -20.0% MAT1033C -30.0% Average Total Combined Gap -40.0% 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 FA08 Academic Year 37
  • Hispanic - Caucasian Success Rate Gap by Course Negative values mean Hispanics are not performing as well as Caucasians on average. 30.0% ENC1101 20.0% POS2041 Difference in Success Rate 10.0% MAC1105 0.0% MAT0012C MAT0024C -10.0% MAT1033C -20.0% Average Total Combined Gap -30.0% 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 FA08 Academic Year 38
  • Activity #3  What questions do you have for me?
  • Contact Information Dr. Julie Phelps Project Director, Achieving the Dream (AtD) & Professor, Mathematics Email: jphelps@valenciacc.edu  AtD web site: http://www.valenciacc.edu/dream/  National AtD web site: http://www.achievingthedream.org