Dr. Cathryn Neiswender, Ed.D., Community College Leadership

1. Effective Partnerships
from Noncredit to Credit
in Mathematics
Cathryn Neiswender, Ed.D ~ California State University, Fullerton

2. My career has been about connecting
students and instructors
In the classroom
In administration
As an academic dean, counselor, curriculum director,
coach, librarian and educational leader
Currently as a
Student Learning Outcome & Professional Development Coordinator
Director of Student Scholarships
Member of the District Wide Staff Development Team
District Management Association
and a founding member of the Southern California SLO Coordinator Network
Intertwined in my leadership is the privilege to learn
Master of Science, Educational Leadership (2005)
Doctorate, Educational Leadership, Community College Emphasis (2015)
California State University, Fullerton
Master of Information Science (2017)
San Jose State University
A History of Connections

3. (ASCCC, 2009; Arena, 2012; CA CC Chancellor’s Office, 2012; Tinto & Pusser, 2006
Unprecedented
Challenges
Disconnects
Untapped
Resources
Background

4. What the district knew:
Basic skills mathematics courses in the credit institution were impacted
Students were placed on a waiting list
Students in credit basic skills/remedial courses were not persisting
A noncredit institution offered courses on their campus
What the district didn’t know:
Is noncredit the untapped resource?
Would a noncredit – credit partnership provide additional access?
Would a noncredit – credit partnership develop a curriculum map that
prepared students with math competency
Would a noncredit – credit partnership prepare students with study and
cognitive skills to persist and succeed?
Will the institutions unify and construct an effective partnership?
Background

5. (Bailey & Dynarski, 2011; Boilard, 2009; Booth, et al., 2013; Moore, Offenstein & Shulock, 2012; SB1256
The problem this research study explored was if a
noncredit/credit partnership course (Math Co-Lab)
designed by instructors, deans, and administration
would facilitate student success in entry level mathematics.
Problem Statement

6. Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine
the factors of and variables that develop
effective academic partnerships.

7. Questions We Asked
1
Curriculum Design
If a noncredit to credit partnership would increase student access,
strengthen persistence and subject competency, and lead to
success in entry level and higher math
2
Partnership Components
If a noncredit to credit partnership would contribute to effective math
instruction from the perspective of the stakeholders
3
Student Preparation
If a noncredit to credit partnership would contribute to academic success
from the perspective of the students
4
Academic Success
If a noncredit to credit partnership would demonstrate a difference
in success rates in entry level mathematics courses

8. Setting
Noncredit and Credit Institutions in southern California
Diverse Student Population
Juxtaposition of extreme wealth and poverty
Sample
Students assessed below credit entry level mathematics
Dual enrollment in noncredit and credit courses
Stakeholders of the partnership
Research Method and Design
Mixed Method to gain empirical awareness that included educational
theory and practice from as many perspectives as possible
Instruments
Data Base, Student Survey, Semi-Formal Interviews and a Focus Group

9. Exposition
Rising Action
Implementation
Progress
Climax (Success)
Falling Action
Continual Improvement
Characters
Dénouement
Partnership Stakeholders
Initial Idea - casual lunch table “What If”
conversation between chancellor, credit
math department dean and noncredit dean
Of instruction and student services
Chancellor
(did not participate in the study)
Credit President
Credit Vice President of Instruction and Researcher
Credit and noncredit researchers
Noncredit Provost
Credit Dean
Noncredit Dean
Team of Credit Instructors and Noncredit Instructors
(represented in the study by one who served in both institutions
and the counselor hired for the Math Co-Lab program)
Basic skills students
The Story Continues
Students are the priority
Data informs decisions
Institutional Unity
Team of Instructors
New sessions
Persistence & Success

10. (Tinto & Pusser, 2006)
INSTITUTION COMMITMENT
INSTITUTIONAL LEADERSHIP
LEARNING
QUALITY
OF EFFORT
SUPPORT
FEEDBACK
INVOLVEMENT
INSTRUCTION FOCUS
Partnership Model

11. Success for the purpose of this study was defined with three levels:
Level One Success
Enrollment in entry-level credit mathematics
Achieved in one of two ways:
1. Elementary Algebra [M-20] (2 levels below university transfer)
or
2. Algebra I/II [M-41] (1 level below university transfer)
Level Two Success
Completion of the credit entry-level mathematics course
Level Three Success
Completion of at least one sequential credit mathematics course
Student Success

12. General Findings
Phase One
Quantitative Institutional Data
Comparable Rates of Access, Persistence & Success
Findings demonstrated incremental success
based on levels of success between fall 2011 & spring 2012
71.38% (n = 197) of the sample (n = 276)
Achieved Level Two Success in 7 terms
83.24% (n = 164) completed Elementary Algebra
16.75% (n = 33) completed the accelerated Algebra I/II
29.34% (n = 81) of the sample (n = 276)
Achieved Level Three Success by passing Intermediate Algebra
0.72% (n = 2) of the sample (n = 276)
Achieved Level Three Success by completing Finite Math
A Math Co Lab high and university mathematic transfer course
Findings - Academic Success

13. General Findings
Phase Two
•Effective Instruction Practices Perceived By All Stakeholders
•Students are Prepared for the Rigor in Credit Math
•Students Acquired Study Skills, Academic Behaviors and Habits of the Mind
that Lead to Persistence and Success
•Student Support Systems Strengthened Student Quality of Effort
Data from the student survey responses evidenced valued partnership program components
72.22% (n = 26) valued the in-course tutor
58.33% (n = 21) valued the resources provided in the Math Co Lab
44.44% (n = 16) valued the course materials
33.33% (n = 12) valued the one-on-one counseling component
Findings – Effective Instruction
Student Survey Responses: Valued Program Components
N = 36 Students selected three components they valued in the program
Valued Program Component N= Percent
Tutor 26 72.22
Lab &/or Campus Resources 21 58.33
Classroom Structure 17 47.22
Textbook/Course Materials 16 44.44
Counselor 12 33.33
Friends & Family 6 16.67
Orientation 1 2.78

14. Valued Partnership Components
Table shows top 12 of 411 valued partnership components collected in all instruments
Table 18
Valued Partnership Components
N = 411 N %
Communication 20 4.87
Pedagogy 19 4.62
Training 16 3.89
Program Review 12 2.92
Noncredit alternative 10 2.43
Partnership/Collaboration 10 2.43
Technology 8 1.95
Accessibility 6 1.46
Assessment 6 1.46
Staffing 6 1.46
Structure 6 1.46
Curriculum 5 1.22
Table shows top 12 of the 411 valued partnership components collected in all data points

15. Students shared value in:
accountability, course structure, target dates in Math Co Lab curriculum
the time management skills they developed
awareness of various student support programs and connections to opportunities
developing social connections
the study skills they developed
the instruction methods and curriculum design
the open lab structure and instructors and ability to ask questions
additional training, technological, test-taking and study skills
the basic mathematic concepts that strengthen ability to progress in credit mathematics
the orientation and bridge sessions in the transition process to credit
learning to set short and long range goals
Valued Partnership Components

16. General Findings
Phase Three
•Partnership Key Components Perceived by Students and Stakeholders
•Partnership Curriculum and Flexibility Made a Difference in Math
•Competency and Preparation for Credit Courses
Table 20
Student Success Key Components - Instructor Interview
N = 62 N %
Preparedness 12 19.35
Motivation 8 12.90
Pedagogy 6 9.68
Accountability 4 6.45
Pathway 4 6.45
Training 4 6.45
Curriculum 3 4.84
Technology 3 4.84
Articulation 2 3.23
Individualized 2 3.23
Tutoring 2 3.23
Components were shared in the instructor interview. The discussion yielded 62
references to key components. Eleven components received at least two references.
Findings – Key Partnership Components

17. Stakeholders shared similar key components.
Table 21
Student Success Key Components: Administrator Focus Groups
N = 207 N %
Preparedness 26 12.56
Self-Awareness 16 7.23
Communication 16 7.23
Motivation 11 5.31
Program Review 11 5.31
Planning 9 4.35
Pedagogy 9 4.35
Social Connectedness 9 4.35
Assessment 6 2.90
Pathway 6 2.90
Structure 6 2.90
Training 6 2.90
The administrator focus group discussion yielded 207 references to key components.
Thirty components received at least two references.
The parallel between the students’ perceptions, the instructor and the administrator focus
group perceptions validate the construction of the mathematic partnership program.
Terminology varied, but the core ideas, concepts, & components are evident
Each stakeholder group supported the valued components of the partnership design
Findings – Key Partnership Components

18. Findings Relate to Valued Elements of Partnership Design
Institutional commitment – unified focus – measurable, data-driven information
Integrated curriculum and instruction
Flexibility in design and instruction
Curriculum maps
Counselor and Accountability
Comfortable learning environment - prepares students for rigor and competency
Ability for students to pivot from past to positive future
Findings Establish Key Elements of Partnership Design
Different stakeholders discussed multiple components and prioritized them
in slightly different order, but all found common key components
Prioritize student access
Train for persistence
Expect “quality of effort” from students
Scaffold for success
Tap into resources – like the noncredit institutions – community businesses
– student support programs to ensure connections students can make to set
short and long range goals, persist and reach success
Findings – Key Partnership Components

19. Implications
► Well-designed partnerships effectively use resources
and educate students
► Instruction that integrates subject competency with the
development of study skills and academic habits of the mind
strengthens persistence and student success
► Guiding students to develop an individual “quality of effort”
leads to higher engagement and achievement of personal goals
(Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Tinto & Pusser, 2006)

20. Recommendations
► Develop and maintain academic and professional relationships
that enrich shared vision and innovative teamwork
focused on students
► Develop a culture where students are the priority
► Develop an environment of inquiry and professional growth
that informs best practices in instruction, purposeful
partnerships, and student services that lead to success

21. ►CA Assembly Bill 86 legislation - framework for collaboration to develop partnerships
►Development strategies and best practices of partnership programs and courses
►Consistent review of effective instruction in partnership environment
►Meaningful learning assessment and data collection
►Technological aspects of curriculum & communication (Campus Tech. Forum, 2014;
Online Ed. Initiative, 2014) [UCI Digital Media & Learning & TechySci Blog by author]
Planning for Success
• Assessment and Placement
• Orientation
• Academic Goal Setting
• Academic Planning
• Early Registration
Initiating Success
• Accelerated/Fast Track
Developmental Education
• First-Year Experience
• Student Success Course
• Learning Community
Sustaining Success
• Class Attendance
• Alert and Intervention
• Experiential Learning
• Tutoring
• Supplemental Instruction
The Center for Community College Student Engagement established 3 focus areas to strengthen
student persistence and success. Center for CC Student Engagement & Columbia University
Teacher’s College (2012)
Future Research

22. Literature
Partnership
Arena, M. L. (2012). “The crisis in credit and the rise of non-credit.” New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media, Innovative Higher Education, DOI 10.1007/s10755-012-9249-5.
Ballou, D. (2012, February). Review of the long-term impacts of teachers: Teacher value-added and student outcomes in adulthood. National Education Policy Center (NEPC), University of
CO. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-long-term-impacts
Brown, R.S., Niemi, D.N. (2007). “Investigating the alignment of high school and community college assessments in California.” San Jose, CA: The National Center for Public Policy and
Higher Education.
California Academic Partnership Program (CAPP ). (2013, July). California State Education. Retrieved from www.calstate.edu/CAPP/ - Long Beach CA Alliance of PreK-18 Partnerships
(2004) Seminar (2012) Fullerton College.
Fouts, S., Mallory, J. (2010). “The credit/non-credit divide: Breaking down the wall.” Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 58(3), 180-183.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Houck, J.W. (2004,
Spring). Leadership to ensure all new teacher candidates are prepared to work successfully with students with disabilities. Long Beach, CA: Teacher Education, California State
University, Long Beach. Retrieved from http://www1.chapman.edu/ITE/houck.pdf
Long Beach Unified School District. (2010). “Seamless education a ‘national model’.” Retrieved from
http://www.lbusd.k12.ca.us/Main_Offices/Superintendent/Public_Information/Newsroom/articleDetails_NEW.cfm?articleID=1191
Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research, Vol. 2. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Tinto, V. ,Pusser. B. (2006). Moving from theory to action: Building a model of institutional action for student success. (National Postsecondary Education Cooperative Report). Retrieved
from national Center for Educational Statistics website: nces.ed.gov/npec/pdf/Tinto_Pusser_Report.pdf
Tinto, V. (2003). “Learning better together: The impact of learning communities on student success.” Higher Education Monography Series, 1, NY, NY: Syracuse University.
Cooper, D. (2014). What is student support? Research and Planning Group for Community Colleges. Retrieved from www.rpgroup.org/sites/default/files/Student Support(Re) defined.
Academic Pathways
Altbach, P., Berdhal, R., Gumport, P. (1999). “American higher ed. in 21st century: Social, political & economic challenges.” Washington, DC: ERIC (ED427629).
Barnett, E., Hughes, K. (2009). “Community college and high school partnerships.” Community College Research Center. Washington, DC: US Department of Education
Ganzglass, E., Bird, K., Prince, H. (2011). “Giving credit where credit is due: Creating a competency-based qualifications framework for postsecondary education and training.” Center for
Law & Social Policy, Inc. (CLASP).
Grubb, N. (2012). Basic skills education in community colleges: inside and outside of classrooms. Florence: Routledge.
Moore, C., Offenstein, J., Shulock, N. (2011). “Consequences of neglect: performance trends in CA higher education.” Sacramento, CA: CA State University, Sacramento.
Park, V., Cerven, C., Nations, J., & Nielsen, K. (2013, February). What matters for community college success? Assumptions and realities concerning student supports for low-income
women. (Policy Report No. 2). Retrieved from Pathways to Postsecondary Success website: pathways.gseis.ucla.edu/publications/201302_WhatMattersPR.pdf. Cambridge University
press, 16, Health Res 2006.
Saret, L. (Retrieved 2013). Retaining students in classes: Putting theory into everyday practice. Oakton Community College. Retrieved from
www.oakton.edu/user/1/lsaret/LauraSaretOaktonWebSite/Ways%20Faculty%20Can%20Encourage%20Student%20Retention.htm
Presentation
AACC - American Association of Community Colleges. (2012, March). Community colleges past to present. Author. Retrieved from
www.aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/history/Pages/pasttopresent.aspx
Academic Senate for California Community Colleges (ASCCC).(2007-2009). “Noncredit instruction: Opportunity and challenge.” Sacramento, CA: CA Academic Senate for CA CC.
Bailey, M. J., Dynarski, S. M. (2011). Gains and gaps: Changing inequality and U.S. college entry and completion. National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from
http://www.nber.org/papers/w17633
Boilard, S. (2009, November). The master plan at 50: Assessing California’s vision for higher education. Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO). Retrieved from
www.lao.ca.gov/2009/edu/master_plan_intr o/master_plan_intro_111209.pdf
Booth, K., Cooper, D., Karandjeff, K., Large, M. Pellegrin, N., Purnell, R., Rodriguez-Kimo, D., Schiorring, E. and Willet, T. (2013, January). Using student voices to redefine support.
Research and Planning Group. Retrieved from www.rpgroup.org/
California Community College Chancellor’s Office. (2012). Community colleges scorecard and Datamart links. Retrieved from www.cccco.edu
Purtell, V. (2013). Personal communication – Noncredit and California Department of Education Practices.
SB 1456 (Lowenthall). (2012, May). The Student Success Act of 2012.
Literature

23. Thank you
Cathryn Neiswender, cneiswender@sce.edu
“Bridgeworks: An Exploratory Mixed Method Study of
Student Transitions from Noncredit to Credit in Mathematics”
is published in the California State University, Fullerton ProQuest Library