GS Lot of hard work to create format for folks to understand. New format - whole category of thinking around retention. Deal with that topic right after presentation by Bob Turner.
DM We changed formats prior format was nice from global perspective but didn't have detail topics deserved. Self explanatory stand alones. Have drafts as that is what they are. New layout has 1-2 sentence description. Do not make prior assumptions. Brief listing of expected benefits. Number of beneficiaries - measurable outcomes - follow that by notes (general descriptor of what has been accomplished) and then costs, calendar, and greatest influences. Looking to build on where have successful pieces in place already.
GS Article in Oregonian - comments? DM Article in Sunday Oregonian. General tone of article was good. Some questionable data points. Need to work with Oregonian to come up with better understanding of students starting in CC who end up getting bachelors degree. JA Had extended conversation to try to explain dynamics to understand numbers. DM Had slant on data side. RN Concern for couching whole conversation in terms of degree completion -- community colleges have much broader charger. Lots of people are doing certificates or workforce training. Overall concern is larger mission is missed in article. DM Data 2000 students of 60000 doesn't count Linn Benton-OSU link or other links. Within OUS revisit admission codes to recapture those codes to get students who come through the program. Ongoing data problem with OUS. Make data much more transparent. LD Say is not "junior college system" they get it. Junior colleges are just feeders whereas community colleges have broader mission.
GC Support statewide student data system - collect data to make compelling
case. Want to build support for community colleges and university systems.
Better prepared students will produce better retention and graduation rates. Academic preparation prior to college is one of the better indicators of college success. More will enroll because know are college ready. Placement issue. Expand TESSE to add more upper end questions, we have local placement efforts -- this may complement - provide one more piece of information. Help students do more self placement. Talk another 4-6000 students. Huge number of students. Half way there there -- EOU PSU and good community college participation with some high schools. Prototypes should be available May/June. Moving along. Just getting it scaled up.
GS. Lot of students taking transfer before taking. RN. Guess because is prototype -- any hard data or other state models show exactly how much this improves numbers. DM. Data from other states giving impact of increased college attendance and improved graduation rates.
Florida is moving that kind of data. Other states of Note. Ohio has post secondary information system. Iowa. All posted on web site. Think about prototype is Technology makes MBF. Only find out information on type of data actually transfer. Have to build the system in Oregon to actually follow the kind of data we really want. Will learn from individual campuses what is useful and what is an indicator or predictive. Life is easier the more the data system is linked. Creates greater efficiencies. Will realize those right away. Are a number of national reports - governor's association. Integrated data systems that link K-12 to post secondary. All encourage linked data systems. Leads to post secondary accountability. Does transfer of data cause retention? Could lead to greater sense of how to support students. GS If our contention is efficiency - characterize that. In what ways can we hold ourselves accountable. How can we identify barriers. Use it for students. Put some more detail. DM Add other category of measurable outcomes. SC - Governors report recommends this kind of data system. This is a big priority to K-12 and not just CC and OUS. LD Set up data system but not forcing it all into one model of delivery. Even within OUS have 7 versions of Banner. And CC have 17 different systems. Not a big lay on coming.
Look at costs at bottom pages - is only part of the costs. Work is proceeding on a translation template. Training costs are not included. This leverages the K-12 side investment in statewide system. As K-12 moves in their side designing for 161,000 students to have records. Want to link everything together. Leveraged off very large meeting. Expanded student self advising. This is the piece to the student level. WOU is already doing this.
This is still very high on the priority list. GR. It is important enough.
Bob Turner. How do dual enrollment and common core fit on priority list for different constituencies. DM Top priority for advisory group was data system followed closely by these two. Popular as well. But Data system was most popularly received. GS already have a lot under way - could build on. Create opportunities throughout the state. DM Writing and math curricular groups have done this for a number of years. That type of approach has been done. JM Two ways to do common core. Try to match course by course. Frankly hasn't been very successfully. As faculty move, courses change. Another way to be do this would be to look at transfer of academic majors. Ask bunch of chemists could agree on cluster of courses that have best fit. Might be able to get further with this approach - common core to move people towards major and graduation rather than to deal with general ed prior to a major. We can get into a lot of disagreements about whether there are are 2 or 3 courses but not so much disagreement on what it would take to get into a major. More of a fruitful discussion than to work on general ed. General ed is artifact of campus and history of making it work is not great.
Are solid articulation agreements. Core stuff seems harder than articulation agreements. We can do well course to course and when we don't we talk about it to each other. Sequence versus range of courses is problem for students. If could get to point where could solve the two. Choose sequences versus courses. Work is important to do both ends. Stronger alignment between curriculums. Students not quite there. Core of classes need to get somewhere. JA Unfortunately what has been done in 28 other states is to take a different approach. States have transferable general ed core use distributional model. What is being proposed by articulation committee is a bit different. An outcomes based model for model. In each of 5 disciplinary areas have outcome statements. Courses would follow that. Every institution would be able to specify what course or courses in any disciplinary area would lead to satisfaction of outcomes statewide. More complicated and involved process but which is more satisfying in terms of what expect students to achieve without getting messed up in individual institutions general ed requirements. Proposing something different to avoid the complications and simplistic. More satisfying.
JA. Go to proficiency model. Bring concept to fruition is nebulous. Have not even identified what the questions are yet. Did distribute general template - outcome statements for each area - develop courses that fulfill outcomes. JM Sounds reasonable. At WOU if let academics divide issue, do it quite finely. Move students move into English - have no sense of grammar. Require 2 courses. One in literature and one in grammar. Didn't help. Just slowed transfer down. Now looking at just 1. Duplicated time and time again with various pieces of general ed requirement. We would rather say either one of those and human beings can pick up other one. LD at what point do you get that assessment to properly place a student to be successful. In addition - set of student skills, knowledge, and experience. Broader than a check list. Those are issues that certain transfer students run into in their ability to respond to what is expected of them. DM We may end up having will be a combination of a lot of different people's thoughts - as long as focused on student's being better prepared. GR resonate with JM and LD's comments. Checklist have to be very careful with - easier buy in from faculty perspective. GS have we picked the appropriate next steps or process that would be student centered and make it more likely for students to be prepared. Move us toward common core? JA on a very general level. When JBAC was asked to estimate cost? Realized were trying to put number to process that doesn't exist. Process has to be developed that would lead to a desired outcome. I am not sure this is the process we should use. We should discuss what process to use before putting a process in place. RN. How does this jell with timeline given to put something together. GS. As a piece for legislature? I am not sure what is right question. How far away are we from having a clear idea of where we are and what process we need to get there. We should do this with some dispatch. Get from here to there in a short time frame? JA How big a process is this. This is a big deal. Talking in terms of 5 disciplinary areas. Bringing faculty from all post secondary institutions together to reach agreement on outcomes. That is a big job. Lots of areas. Lots of campuses. Lots of faculty in each area. More than likely demand to be included included in the process. BT this is the most critical piece of this. Politically and culturally and economically that we not be just putting out people that have rights stamps but right skills and ... This is a critical piece. This is quite difficult. Getting faculty together is like herding cats. This is a place at which faculty can be brought into faculty at an early stage. Not to be a turf battle. Not my course better than yours. Come to agreement on what is better for students. Faculty can give best insight into why students backtrack in the first place.
GS this is crucial to understanding. JM. Strategy to work it out in terms of a faster way to do this. Could we more quickly agree on kinds of skills for students to enter a major. Gives you leverage on general ed. Some lower division are more generalized than some others.
Average student when transferring issue is not about major. It is about other other courses took in process. Their issue is the general ed. Will that count. It works here. It won't work there. Advising students. Hardest what works in that form. How to get faculty and advisors and students. I took the courses and now I have to repeat x. Around outcomes. LD. Problem. Talk about transfer students. More often than not. Do not know what they want to major in. They jump and go to 4 year institution. CC turns out to be exploration grounds. Once at University can't get to point of declaring major. Common core is very difficult to come to agreement on. Don't get students through faster when they don't know what they want. Set of concepts all general ed concepts should have in hand in non major biology majors. One course is course to take if that is only biology course they are going to take. Concepts in that course can be taught in any one of a number of biology courses. Get concepts identified for each of these areas and then to have mechanism identified to see if those concepts were included. Whether that means 1 or 6 courses.
JR. could come up with concepts in biology, chemistry, and physics that everyone should have. Already articulated in our certified degrees. LD common core versus AAOT. Not end all to transfer. Whereas common core look to less than AAOT but none the less more useful - more mobile - can't get into my course better than your course. Conceptual - faculty want to be sure is what is gained conceptual understanding of what is conceptual and core to that discipline. BT. If focus on concepts that should minimize the course to course comparison. GS support to continue to work on this. Critical from student point of view. Features identified by JBAC. Framework to move us forward. But not clear what would the next steps?
Gather people in particular arenas. BT have not had much discussion about skills - perhaps a more difficult one to deal with. Proficiency. Encourage this process to have some interdisciplinary conversations. Cross cutting skills. Ability to write clearly and correctly applies to more than English classes. Probably 4-5 crosscutting skills. Set everyone could agree on.
GS look at 03/4 and 04/5 and presentation of steps. JA If design process GC state level meetings for faculty. LD need faculty participation in developing core competency. GS implement state level process for faculty in 04/5. JM had a few meeting where JBAC got to together with K-12 with professional facilitators would get some focus and get through it quickly. Could be done without much more cost and in as much time as were available. Could do it in 2-3 weekends could do it much more quickly. Could in fact commit ourselves to finite blocks of time and make good progress. SC have a lot of experience with AAOT there are standards established by national associations. Many states have gone route of common core. Lot of preliminary work should be done prior to people coming to together to make it much more efficient. Much more developed point. LD 2004/5 almost looks like we are starting from scratch. No need to start from scratch. Perhaps doesn't involve as much. DM can't mandate involvement on privates. Should welcome involvement. Don't have a lot of outflow from out institutions to private. Have some transfer from privates to OUS. Capacity of privates different from OUS.
In terms of sharing of data, financial aid, enrollment. Financial aid data, admissions and enrollment data. Some of other systems (EDI) can address the admissions and enrollment data sharing. Was never assumed everyone would have an agreement with everyone. Some are naturals and some are not. Everyone will have the capability of EDI but not everyone will have to do it. How to leverage where most students go back and forth. Two different legal agreements for financial aid. First is memorandum of understanding. Financial aid offices also have to sign agreement that meets fed requirements. Have standard template consortium that any institution could sign so current enrollment counts. Template out on web site but so much disagreement that it never got off the ground. So for this proposal to be implemented the statewide consortium agreement would have to be into place. (Financial aid director at OUS). Some technical things that have to be done to transfer credits to count financial aid.
Partnership - confederation of Oregon school administrators. Work with school leaders directors. IB north america - 17 programs in the state. Another area is engagement of faculty in this effort. Need to be involved with working with teachers who are giving college level offerings in high school. When teacher offering college level work is connection to college to ensure it is really preparatory course.
GS Early options - running start (like Washington does). Running start provides high school student the college credit at the college. Throughout the state. Funding for it. Make sure arguing. Stop fighting over the students. Students should have access to get running start. Students can get into them. Money follows the students. Very successful. Do we want to duplicate it in Oregon. BT do you have information? LG Financial implications - resource implications. DM tuition savings - when go to 2/4 to get courses paid by state. No out of pocket cost to student. Saves 40,000,000 tuition savings to family of students. Washington justifies savings to family. But does involve loss for K-12. Here the early options - problem is revenue loss to K-12. How to fund without loss of resources.
RN: Student bill of rights to fund options. Battles come from loss of money to K-12. Amount of funding that goes to CC without CC losing funding. Type of students. Liability issues on account of age. Expanded options or student bill or rights has political stigma. Serious lines drawn between supports and non-supports. If we come forward without addressing that, people will say why not. LD if state has not been able to pay for students we have now, where does that money come from. Fixed pot of money has to come from somewhere. Who gets the dollars and who gets the dollars taken way. DM don't want to lose sight of sight of what follows. Get past some of the funding of politics. Can't lead with running start. GM perhaps there is a prototype can try it out. Agreement for funding. LD Do something with duck link. GS keep it in scheme of things.
Not much extra capacity. Have some capacity is certificate in certain places. Everything else has low capacity. Going through stuff. Biggest stuff are writing and math. Those fill up the fastest. Could fill 25 writing sections would add and fill. Could fill 6-10 math sections - offer and fill. Capacity on line. Part of it is instructors. How much can put online. Balance online with rest of delivery. Many more classes on line than would want for balance. Stop writing classes about 20 writing classes ago. Now at point on how far go. Part of it is faculty. How far out do you go? Writing 121 or do you say have to balance Writing 121 with other things you are doing. JM we can't go into high tech front loading any more than we can -- have capacity in terms of terms of instructors. Math 095 biggest math instruction. LD look at outcomes there a lot. Writing faculty at UO would not go down that route given outcomes at other programs. JM. Other disciplines have capacity would be very interested in. GS need to put some of data about effectiveness in an available fashion so people can see how it has worked. That is critical. Some best practices. Some faculty do both. Do in class and on on line. On line class students out perform in class. Extremely effective. Example second languages. Spanish. Types of programs for online fit for accelerated high schools. JM do ASL classes at masters level. Can probably do it with other things.
Three term biology course for science majors. Goal of PLTL to improve student success, material mastery, and retention. Text is $125 text used by lots of places for majors. Important component is first year sequence team taught by 2 instructors each quarter so 6/7 faculty get involved. Workshops are 1 credit P/NP and grade based on active participation. Only open to students enrolled. Led by peers -- upper division biology students -- on day training program. Peer leaders meet with students. Methodology is organized review with some guiding principles. Each student buys into being responsible for other students. Peer leaders give no answers - lead students to discover answers. Peer leaders select specific content - and meet with instructors once an hour. No mandatory format - workshop leaders - collaborative learning. Students are to work actively together. Devote a lot of time to get students to take ownership of their own learning. The students are asked to being accountable to peers. During first 3 weeks put a lot of emphasis on study skills and minimum emphasis on content.
Taking notes, going through materials. Simulations are meant to get students to see they are responsible for their own academic success. In contrast to just being another content driven study hall, we know we are going to get students that have diverse set of concepts about what need to succeed. Adequacy set of skill set. Main emphasis of first 2-3 weeks is to get them up to speed on what they really will need.
In addition to getting students to taking responsibility. Metacognition about own progress. Step outside process and ask them to see what they are doing. Ask are they really contributing to team success. Not our place to tell a student this is where ought to be. But can ask student to ask themselves that question. Success or failure can be studied using exam grades, retention, and end of course surveys. Grade are higher, tend to maintain GPA, retention is 10% higher. Without PLTL in first term, 74% and 42%. With PLTL in first term 77% and 63% continue to 3rd term. Significant effect on retention through first 3 terms. End of terms. Not diverse population. PLTL is send as increasing time spent on course work. Increasing their ability to keep up. Understand content better. Etc.
I am confident positively impact retention. Submit has potential -- cost effective way to increase retention. Pay peer students. DM How many peer students. JT Pay $7/hour. Number peer students is function of upper division students. Ranges from 2-8 per term. It is essential that peer tutors buy into this format. What is measure of peer tutor's effectiveness is how do 3 quarter. This format has been going since F00. Trying different things with this course for several years. GS. People have asked why retention strategies have not been addressed. That is something the OSU measures themselves on. LD our trigs and figs - getting involved in small groups. Operated in different model. Accomplishes some of same outcomes. Most institutions have some activity of some kind with some of same principles. Not one size fits all. GS lots of support activities for entering freshmen. What are programs for entering students. BT More experience with post secondary that students (transfer have). Sort of approach where is supplement to a course. Gives faculty a bit more comfort with Better aspect of MBF. Turning out students who have mastery of content and skills. As a biologist, I have the luxury of having standards imposed by professional schools and graduate schools. I can't tell a student you are doing fine if you can't meet standards.
Transfer and also scholarships to support. LD both have resource implications
that are difficult to program out. Without understanding some of those
it is difficult. Who pays. Who pays. Who benefits. Where does it come from.
Enrollment management part. Ann Levitt (UO) could help a lot. Cathy Campbell at Chemeketa.
Five key concepts to moving forward. That is what you want agreement on Data System, Dual Enrollment, Common Core, On line, Retention and advising. The others take to access. We get students who are extending their time by taking courses they don't need to take and not taking courses they need to take owing to advising problems.
| Web page spun on 16 March 2004 by Peter B Gilkey 202 Deady Hall, Department of Mathematics at the University of Oregon, Eugene OR 97403-1222, U.S.A. Phone 1-541-346-4717 Email:peter.gilkey.cc.67@aya.yale.edu of Deady Spider Enterprises |
