Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Evaluation of Arizona’s Transfer Articulation System
May 16, 2007
Richard Hezel, Ph.D.Josh Mitchell
Craig Nicholls, Ph.D.
OutlineOutline
Methods
Survey Findings
Arizona Transfer Website (CAS)
Focus Group Findings
ASSIST Student Data Analysis
Conclusions and Recommendations
MethodsMethods
5 Surveys
11 Focus Groups
Analysis of student data in ASSIST database
Review of transfer website
Survey and Focus Group Findings
Survey ResponseSurvey Response
Advisors: 483
ATF Members: 279
Admissions & Registrars: 57
University Students: 713
CC Students: 427
University Student Survey RespondentsUniversity Student Survey Respondents
79% attending a university; 10% dual enrolled and 9% graduated
74% of currently enrolled students at ASU
59% transferred from Maricopa; 28% rural CCs and 13% Pima
69% white
58% female
University Student Survey RespondentsUniversity Student Survey Respondents
85% felt prepared for university studies
How prepared did you feel for university studies after transferring from your community college? (n = 711)
Somewhat prepared
44%
Somewhat unprepared
11% Veryprepared
41%
Veryunprepared
4%
CC Student Survey RespondentsCC Student Survey Respondents
48% are enrolled at a Maricopa CC, 23% at Pima and 29% at a rural CC
86% at least “somewhat likely” to transfer to an AZ public university
35% expect to transfer to ASU, 27% to UA, 17% to NAU and 12% unsure
63% white
69% female
Student Transfer Planning ActivitiesStudent Transfer Planning Activities
Slight majorities of both groups meet/met with an academic advisor at CC at least once per semester
• 7% of university students and 11% CC students never meet/met with an academic advisor
• Rural CC students met most frequently
• Minority students met more frequently than white students
~75% of students reported engaging in additional planning activities
• Most common was meeting with a faculty advisor
Overall Satisfaction is HighOverall Satisfaction is High
Level of satisfaction with the Arizona transfer system/experience as a whole, by group surveyed.
36%
21%
36%
35%
30%
49%
63%
57%
53%
62%
12%
12%
5%
9%
7%
1%
3%
2%
4%
3%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
University Students(n=699)
CC Students(n=385)
Admissions andRegistrars (n=56)
ATF Members(n=269)
Advisors (n=467)VerySatisfied
SomewhatSatisfied
SomewhatDissatisfied
VeryDissatisfied
Differences in Overall SatisfactionDifferences in Overall Satisfaction
Advisors: rural CCs had highest satisfaction; Maricopa the lowest
University students:
• Students who felt most prepared had highest satisfaction
• Maricopa transfers were most likely to be dissatisfied
CC students: rural students were least likely to be dissatisfied; Maricopa the most likely
Available InformationAvailable Information
Moderate majorities (63%-75%) of advisors and students felt that sufficient information is available regarding the transfer process
• Students had similar agreement regarding AGEC, transfer pathways and common courses
University students had lower agreement regarding the AGEC
• Maricopa transfers were more than twice as likely to feel that sufficient information was not available as other students
More Regarding Available InformationMore Regarding Available Information
University students: ASU students disagreed most often, UA students least often that sufficient information was available
CC students: Pima students were more likely to agree than those at Maricopa or rural colleges
CC advisors from rural colleges were more likely to disagree than those at Maricopa and Pima
~2/3 of advisors and students agreed that during pre-enrollment visits and/or orientation sessions, students have adequate opportunities to discuss issues related to transfer
Advisor AwarenessAdvisor Awareness
2/3 of advisors reported feeling sufficiently aware of all components of the transfer system
Nearly half (47%) did not feel that they know of changes in a timely manner after they are made
• University advisors were more likely to feel unaware of changes
CC advisors at the rural colleges were far more likely to feel unaware of all components and of changes
Problems and DifficultiesProblems and Difficulties
Most commonly given problems and difficulties facing students during the transfer process:
• Issues with the transferability of courses and credits
• Issues with advising
• Confusing and/or misinformation
• Problems and delays in admissions and with transcripts
A Matter of Perspective…A Matter of Perspective…
Students most frequently mentioned the same three things as both the easiest and hardest parts of the transfer process:
• Transferring credits and grades
• Paperwork and administrative details
• Meeting and working with academic advisors
System’s Greatest StrengthsSystem’s Greatest Strengths
Ease of transfer and the fact that courses are guaranteed to transfer
Available information resources, such as the course equivalency guide and the CAS website
Communication and collaboration between the community colleges and universities
Consistency and ease of use
System’s Greatest WeaknessesSystem’s Greatest Weaknesses
Lack of consistency and communication
Too many changes being made resulting in out of date information
System is too complicated and difficult to use
Lack of awareness among and use by students
Recommendations for ImprovementRecommendations for Improvement
Bring greater standardization to the process
Better advising for students and more training for advisors
Improve and increase communication between the community colleges and universities
Simplify the process and make it more user-friendly
Publicize the transfer system to students more
AGEC AwarenessAGEC Awareness
Extent to which respondents are familiar with the AGEC, by group surveyed.
36%
34%
61%
68%
36%
38%
38%
28%
28%
28%
1%
4%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
UniversityStudents (n=713)
CC Students(n=427)
ATF Members(n=280)
Advisors (n=483)VeryFamiliar
SomewhatFamiliar
NotFamiliar
Differences in AGEC AwarenessDifferences in AGEC Awareness
Advisors:
• 91% of CC advisors were “very familiar”
• 51% of university advisors were “very familiar”
Students:
• Those attending or who transferred from Pima were most familiar
• Those attending or who transferred from Maricopa were least familiar
Satisfaction with AGECSatisfaction with AGEC
Generally high satisfaction among all groups: Between 87% and 94% were “somewhat satisfied” or “very satisfied”
CC advisors were more satisfied than university advisors
ATF members from Maricopa were most likely to be dissatisfied (20%)
University students who never visited with an academic advisor were more than twice as likely to be dissatisfied as others (37% dissatisfied)
Maricopa and ASU students had lowest satisfaction
AGEC’s GoalsAGEC’s GoalsExtent to which respondents agree that the AGEC has reduced barriers for students to transfer, and has facilitated student progress toward meeting baccalaureate degree requirements, by group surveyed.
19%
32%
35%
19%
35%
35%
57%
56%
55%
62%
51%
51%
6%
4%
4%
9%
7%
7%
2%
1%
1%
2%
8%
5%
9%
17%
5%
5%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Admissions and Registrars (n=53)
ATF Members (n=275)
Advisors (n=464)
Admissions and Registrars (n=53)
ATF Members (n=273)
Advisors (n=463)
Impr
oved
pro
gres
s to
war
dde
gree
req
uire
men
tsR
educ
ed b
arrie
rs t
otr
ansf
er
StronglyAgree
Agree
Disagree
StronglyDisagree
Not Sure
AGEC and AdmissionsAGEC and Admissions
69% of university A&R respondents said a student who otherwise would not be admitted but who completed an AGEC would be at least “somewhat likely” to be admitted nonetheless
62% said a student with an associate’s degree would be at least “somewhat likely” to be admitted
AGEC Processing IssuesAGEC Processing Issues
Variability between institutions regarding:
• How students apply for an AGEC
• When students can apply for an AGEC
• How “AGEC in progress” is recorded
• How a student’s AGEC status is communicated to their academic department at the university
One consistency: Universities use standard admissions procedure for students with “AGEC in progress”
Clarity of AGEC RequirementsClarity of AGEC Requirements
~3/4 of students who were familiar with the AGEC felt the requirements for successful completion of the AGEC are clear
• Past and present Maricopa students were most likely to be unclear
• University students who met with an academic advisor at least once per semester before transferring were more familiar than those who met less frequently or not at all
48% of university students and 45% of CC students were either unfamiliar or unclear about the AGEC
AGEC CompletionAGEC Completion
44% of university students completed an AGEC
61% of CC students plan to complete an AGEC
• 41% of these were unsure which AGEC they will complete
AGEC-A was most popular UA students were most likely to have
completed an AGEC, ASU students least likely
Reasons for Completing or Reasons for Completing or Not Completing an AGECNot Completing an AGEC
Most common reasons for completing an AGEC:
• Ease of/guarantee of transfer
• Take care of general education requirements
• Convenience, efficiency, and cost
Most common reasons for not completing an AGEC:
• University students:
Not aware of it
Planned to transfer early
Perception that classes are unnecessary or a waste of time
• CC students: plan to complete an associate’s degree instead
AGEC’s Greatest Strengths/BenefitsAGEC’s Greatest Strengths/Benefits
Transfers as a block/makes transferring easier
Satisfies general education requirements
Consistency and standardization
Collaboration between universities and CCs
Students:
• Useful as a framework
• Variety of courses/well-rounded
• Preparation for university studies
AGEC’s Least Beneficial AspectsAGEC’s Least Beneficial Aspects
Given by students:
• Too time consuming/too many extraneous classes
• Too complicated and/or confusing
• Lack of and/or bad information/ advising
• Problems with transfer
• Classes too easy or too confining
AGEC’s Greatest WeaknessesAGEC’s Greatest Weaknesses
School-specific requirements not always met; extra courses needed
Lack of consistency and coordination between universities and CCs
Confusing/complex Lack of standardization Lack of flexibility/applicability/customization Infrequency of updates when changes are made Lack of familiarity/information among students
and advisors
AGEC RecommendationsAGEC Recommendations
Increase consistency between CCs and universities
Increase quality of advising given to students and improve advisor training
More standardization/consistency of administrative processes
More communication between CCs and universities
Transfer Pathway Degrees AwarenessTransfer Pathway Degrees Awareness
Extent to which respondents are familiar with the transfer pathway degrees, by group surveyed.
42%
37%
49%
49%
42%
49%
47%
38%
16%
14%
12%
4%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
University Students(n=713)
CC Students(n=427)
ATF Members(n=280)
Advisors (n=483)VeryFamiliar
SomewhatFamiliar
NotFamiliar
Differences in Transfer Pathway Degrees Differences in Transfer Pathway Degrees AwarenessAwareness
CC Advisors were much more familiar than university advisors
CC ATF members only slightly more familiar than university members
Past and current Pima students were most familiar
Greater frequency of visits with an academic advisor among university students while at the CC was associated with a higher level of familiarity
Transfer Pathway Degree CompletionTransfer Pathway Degree Completion
50% of university students completed a pathway degree
70% of CC students plan to complete a pathway degree
AA was most popular
Students who transferred from Pima were most likely to complete all 3 pathway degrees
CC students who plan to transfer to NAU were most likely to plan to complete a pathway degree
Reasons for Completing or Not Reasons for Completing or Not Completing a Transfer Pathway DegreeCompleting a Transfer Pathway Degree
Most common reason for completing a transfer pathway degree was that students plan(ned) to stay at the CC for as many credits as possible
Most common reasons for not completing a transfer pathway degree:
• Student knew the university and degree they wanted and followed the transfer guide
• Student planned to transfer before completing
Transfer Pathway Degrees and Transfer Pathway Degrees and Preparation for University StudiesPreparation for University Studies
Extent to which respondents agree that compared to students who do not complete transfer pathway degrees (AA, AS, ABus), students who complete transfer pathway degrees (AA, AS, ABus) prior to transfer are better prepared for university studies, by group surveyed.
11%
22%
21%
52%
37%
34%
14%
11%
15%
21%
28%
27%
2%
3%
3%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Admissions andRegistrars (n=56)
ATF Members(n=269)
Advisors (n=423)
StronglyAgree
Agree
Disagree
StronglyDisagree
Not Sure
Transfer Pathway Degrees Transfer Pathway Degrees Clarity and StabilityClarity and Stability
~25% of students, ATF members and advisors who were familiar with transfer pathway degrees indicated some uncertainty about the requirements for successful completion
• Past and present rural CC students had lowest levels of disagreement that they are clear
• Students who met with an academic advisor most frequently were most likely to be clear
54% of advisors and 58% of ATF members agreed that the requirements have remained stable over time
Maricopa ATF members were most likely to disagree that requirements are clear and stable
Transfer Pathway Degrees and Transfer Pathway Degrees and Curricular PlanningCurricular Planning
Extent to which respondent agrees with the following statement: The transfer pathway degrees (AA, AS, ABus) have a positive impact on curricular planning and delivery at my institution (Question 15), by Community College (Question 1, CCs only).
23%
18%
18%
51%
64%
40%
13%
9%
20%
9%
13%
20%
2%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Rural CCs (n=70)
Pima CC (n=11)
Maricopa CCs(n=50)
StronglyAgreeAgree
Disagree
StronglyDisagreeNot Sure
Transfer Pathway DegreesTransfer Pathway DegreesGreatest Strengths/BenefitsGreatest Strengths/Benefits
Ease of transferability Preparation for admission to and study at the
university Students:
• Taking care of general education courses
• Cheaper cost
• Having a certificate
Advisors, ATF members and A&R:
• Clear direction and specific path for students
• Clarity and uniformity of the system
Transfer Pathway DegreesTransfer Pathway DegreesLeast Beneficial AspectsLeast Beneficial Aspects
Among students:
• Transferability problems
• Too time consuming/too many extraneous classes
• Lack of or unclear information and advising
• Lack of prestige
Most common response by CC students was that nothing is not beneficial
Transfer Pathway Degrees Transfer Pathway Degrees Greatest WeaknessesGreatest Weaknesses
Program-specific requirements at the university not always met
Inconsistency/lack of standardization
Confusing/unclear and/or poor information and advising
Inclusion of unnecessary courses
Perception that students are not adequately prepared for university studies
Lack of flexibility
Transfer Pathway Degrees Transfer Pathway Degrees RecommendationsRecommendations
Provide better advising to students
Make better information and guides available to students and advisors
Increase quality and volume of communication between CCs and universities
ATF members also recommended expansion to cover more courses and degrees
Common Course Matrices AwarenessCommon Course Matrices Awareness
Extent to which respondents are familiar with the common courses/common course matrices, by group surveyed.
40%
32%
59%
52%
46%
48%
35%
34%
14%
20%
6%
14%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
University Students(n=713)
CC Students(n=427)
ATF Members(n=280)
Advisors (n=483)VeryFamiliar
SomewhatFamiliar
NotFamiliar
Differences in Common Course Matrices Differences in Common Course Matrices AwarenessAwareness
CC Advisors were more familiar than university advisors
University ATF members were more familiar than CC members
Past and current Pima students were most familiar, as were students who transferred or intend to transfer to UA
University students were more likely to have a higher level of familiarity with common courses the more often they met with an academic advisor while at their CC
Completion of Common CoursesCompletion of Common Courses
64% of both groups of students who were familiar with common courses took them or plan to take them
Only 6% of CC students and 4% of university students said they did not/do not plan to take common courses; remainder were not sure
CC students who plan to transfer to ASU or UA were most likely to plan to take common courses
Reasons for Taking/Planning to Take Reasons for Taking/Planning to Take Common CoursesCommon Courses
Primary reasons respondents took/are currently taking/plan to take courses identified as common courses, by group surveyed.
8%
1%
4%
6%
39%
43%
4%
2%
2%
3%
33%
55%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Other
It worked for someone I know
I did not know the alternatives
I did not know what university I plannedon attending
I planned to stay at the communitycollege for as many credits as I could
It was part of my degree program CCStudents(n=213)
UniversityStudents(n=391)
Common Course Matrices Common Course Matrices as Transfer Toolsas Transfer Tools
~3/4 of advisors and ATF members agreed that the common course matrices have been effective in helping students plan for transferring
• CC advisors agreed more often than university advisors
• Pima advisors most likely to agree; Maricopa advisors most likely to disagree
Common Course Matrices Common Course Matrices and Curricular Planningand Curricular Planning
Extent to which ATF Survey respondents agree that the common course matrices have been stable enough to permit adequate curriculum planning at their institution, and flexible enough to allow adequate room for curriculum change and growth, by Community College or University.
12%
10%
13%
11%
55%
49%
68%
63%
23%
20%
9%
10%
5%
13%
18%
5%
5%
3%
5%
3%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Univ ATFMembers
(n=57)
CC ATFMembers(n=199)
Univ ATFMembers
(n=56)
CC ATFMembers(n=203)
Fle
xibl
e en
ough
to
allo
w f
or c
hang
e an
dgr
owth
Sta
ble
enou
gh t
ope
rmit
plan
ning
StronglyAgree
Agree
Disagree
StronglyDisagree
Not Sure
Common Course MatricesCommon Course MatricesGreatest Strengths/BenefitsGreatest Strengths/Benefits
Students:
• Ease of transferability
• Cost and/or time effective
Advisors:
• Help advising by making it clear to students if and how courses will transfer to the university
• Clear and easy to use
• Aid in transfer process and prepare students for university studies
ATF members:
• Help academic planning and advising
• Provides uniformity in curriculum
• Clear transferability
Common CoursesCommon CoursesLeast Beneficial AspectsLeast Beneficial Aspects
University students:
• Inconsistency between CCs and universities in terms of academic rigor, grading and/or course titles
• Issues with transferability
• Courses may be a waste of time in some programs
CC students:
• Sometimes boring or in inapplicable disciplines
• Issues with transferability
Common Course Matrices Common Course Matrices Greatest WeaknessesGreatest Weaknesses
Confusing and difficult to use; lack of clarity
Students don’t know about or use them enough
Inconsistencies and poor communication between CCs and universities
Common Course Matrices Common Course Matrices RecommendationsRecommendations
Better information and training for students and advisors
Increasing and improving communication between CCs and universities
Increasing consistency, flexibility and uniformity
Expansion to include more courses and majors
Transfer Website UsageTransfer Website Usage
About how often respondents utilize the Arizona transfer website (az.transfer.org/cas), by group surveyed.
35%
16%
32%
24%
6%
18%
24%
11%
8%
27%
18%
49%
11%
66%
66%
9%
6%
2%
26%
40%
1%
1%
2%
4%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
University Students(n=713)
CC Students(n=427)
Admissions andRegistrars (n=57)
ATF Members(n=280)
Advisors (n=484) Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Less than onceper month
Never
Differences in Transfer Website UsageDifferences in Transfer Website Usage
CC advisors use the site much more frequently than university advisors
• 58% of CC advisors visit daily
• 28% of university advisors visit daily
University ATF members use the site more often than CC members
Rural CC students most likely to have never visited the site
Pima students most likely to have visited
University students at UA were most likely to have visited
Rating the Transfer WebsiteRating the Transfer Website
Percent of respondents that rated the Arizona transfer website (az.transfer.org/cas) “good” or “very good” on each of the following, by group surveyed.
Advisors ATF
Members
Admissions & Registrar
Staff CC Students University Students
Quality of information 97% 98% 89% 88% 85% Aesthetic appeal 83% 86% 65% 75% 66% Ease of navigation 82% 80% 67% 80% 68% Ease of finding information 83% 76% 69% 80% 67% Helpfulness in facilitating the transfer process 91% 91% 75% 75% 76% Intuitiveness 78% 77% 67% 77% 67%
Student Usage of Transfer WebsiteStudent Usage of Transfer WebsitePurposes for which students use(d) the Arizona transfer website, by group surveyed.
1%
19%
30%
37%
47%
89%
1%
32%
40%
44%
50%
81%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Other
Planning Guides
Answer questions about AGEC,common courses and/or transfer
pathways
Major Guides
Information about ASU, NAU and/or UA
Course Equivalency GuideCCStudents(n=140)
UniversityStudents(n=230)
Admin Usage of Transfer WebsiteAdmin Usage of Transfer Website
All groups most commonly use the Course Equivalency Guide and to check transferability of courses
Advisors and ATF members use the site for advising purposes
ATF members use it when preparing for ATF meetings
Transfer Website RecommendationsTransfer Website Recommendations
Improve navigation and make the site more user-friendly
Ensure that information is current
Provide more detailed information
Advisors recommended making transfer guides easier to use and interpret
Transfer Website Transfer Website Content and Usability AnalysisContent and Usability Analysis
Web analytics:
• The average web visitor sees 8 pages per session
• 66% of the sessions last less than 30 seconds
• More people enter the website through http://az.transfer.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Admin_CEG than the actual home page at http://az.transfer.org/cas/students/
• 14% exit rate from home page
Transfer Website Transfer Website Content and Usability AnalysisContent and Usability Analysis
Good features to maintain:
• The site encourages feedback from users (Tell us! We want to hear your feedback)
• Site Search feature
• Great Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) content
• Vast amount of valuable information
Transfer Website Transfer Website Content and Usability AnalysisContent and Usability Analysis
Good features to replicate:
• Provide an access hotline for additional questions (Ohio)
• Data portal to store and allow search of historical information (Kentucky)
• News link for changes and up to date information
• Site just for parents
Transfer Website Transfer Website Content and Usability AnalysisContent and Usability Analysis
Areas in need of improvement:
• Make the site easier to navigate and make it easier to locate information
• Make the site more aesthetically pleasing
• Modernize the design and layout
Focus Group ParticipantsFocus Group Participants
2 advisor groups
2 ATF groups
1 A&R group
6 student groups
5 admin groups and 2 student groups were in-person
Remaining student groups were via teleconference
Some student groups were supplemented with personal interviews
6 student focus groups included 36 total students
Administrative Focus Groups Administrative Focus Groups General FindingsGeneral Findings
Vast majority of advisors, ATF and A&R participants viewed the system as effective
Excepting one group, participants thought the system needs tweaking
Much discussion regarding problems and areas for improvement
Administrative Focus Groups Administrative Focus Groups Positive FactorsPositive Factors
The AGEC is a good concept and works well for what it is intended to do, i.e., transfer a block of courses to meet general education requirements at a university
The pathway degree programs, while seemingly under-used, are quite effective for students who know what they want to do
The common course matrices are useful tools for advising
Participants at all levels within the CCs and universities appreciate the opportunity to work together on issues related to the transfer system
Administrative Focus Groups Administrative Focus Groups Issues to AddressIssues to Address
Better communication between CCs and universities
Improve quality and timeliness of information related to transfer issues
Increase collaborative decision-making
• Those from the CCs feel decisions are made by universities and “passed down” to them
Growing number of offerings, options and exceptions is problematic
Student Focus Groups Student Focus Groups General FindingsGeneral Findings
Students were generally positive about their transfer experiences and the transfer system
Most students do not start planning their transfer until the semester preceding it
Students do not view the transfer process from a systematic perspective – they focus on what will transfer from the CC to the university
CCs are viewed as more welcoming or friendly than universities
Many students have limited contact with advisors and move through the process on their own
Student Focus Groups Student Focus Groups Component-Specific FindingsComponent-Specific Findings
Many, if not most, students are not very well informed about the AGEC
• Many simply know that it is a way to take care of general education requirements, but lack an understanding of its various options and exceptions.
Most students are not familiar with the pathway degree programs, nor do they use them
Most students are not familiar with the common course matrices
Many students know about the course equivalency guide and find it useful
Student Focus Groups Student Focus Groups Issues to AddressIssues to Address
Better communication between university and community college personnel related to advising, program requirements and student records (transcripts, course evaluation, etc.)
A need for more knowledgeable advisors, especially at the CC level where they expect to receive better information about university programs
A need for targeted assistance for transfer students, especially at the universities. Suggestions include transfer centers, transfer orientation programs and a general commitment to helping transfer students.
ASSIST Student Data Analysis
Outcomes TestedOutcomes Tested
Persistence
• One-year (all); two-year, three-year (non-grads)
Time to Graduation
• Two-year, three-year, four-year, and five-year
Grade Point Average
• One-year, two-year
Credits at Graduation
Maricopa/Pima/rural community college effects
• Only for degree or AGEC earners
Variables controlled for:Variables controlled for:
Transfer credits
Entry semester (spring, fall)
Entry year (2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005)
Entry age
Gender
Ethnicity (white, non-white)
University
Average semester earned hours
PersistencePersistence
Students with an AGEC (only) are 50% more likely to persist after one year, compared to students with no degree at all
Students with the transfer pathway degree of AGEC plus AA, AB, or AS are no more likely to persist after one year than students with no degree
Students with an Associates only (AAS, AGS) are less likely to persist after one year than students with no degree at all
Time to GraduationTime to Graduation
Students with an AGEC (only) or a transfer pathway degree are 30% to 40% more likely to graduate within two years than students with no degree at all
• AGEC (only) is the stronger effect (40%)
• Students with an AAS or an AGS are no more likely to graduate within two years than a student with no degree at all
Same pattern, but stronger for 3-year graduation
Pattern for 4-year and 5-year graduation only favors students with AGEC (only)
Grade Point AverageGrade Point Average
Students with an AGEC (only) or a transfer pathway degree outperformed students with no degree at all
• Students with an AAS or AGS had half as big an advantage
Female students, white students, and older students also performed better on 1-year and 2-year GPA
Students with more transfer hours and more average semester hours (to date) also performed better
Credits at GraduationCredits at Graduation
Students with an AGEC (only) graduate with about 3 ½ fewer credit hours than students with no entry degree
• Students with a transfer pathway degree have an advantage of less than one credit hour
Gender and ethnicity confer an advantage of about two credits apiece—favoring females and white students
Later cohorts graduate with fewer credits—nearly 2 ½ per year
Community College EffectsCommunity College Effects
Comparisons made among Maricopa, Pima, and rural community colleges
• Only among degree/AGEC earners
Pima students had better outcomes than rural for:
• One-year persistence
• 2-yr, 3yr, 4-yr, 5-yr graduation
• Credits at graduation
Maricopa students had better outcomes than rural for persistence, 3-yr/4-yr graduation, and credits at graduation
• Pima effects stronger than Maricopa effects
Conclusions and Recommendations
ConclusionsConclusions
Transfer system is working well, at least functionally
Stakeholders are generally satisfied
Large scale changes are not necessary
RecommendationsRecommendations
Recommendation 1: Sponsor campaign to increase student awareness
• Students should be aware of all options to make more fully informed decisions
• More information should be available to students
• CCs should require mandatory orientation an/or advising opportunities before or during the students’ first semester enrolled at the college
RecommendationsRecommendations
Recommendation 2: Provide additional and on-going training to advisors
• Training should be standardized at both the university and community college levels
• Efforts should be made to ensure that students know who the transfer student ombudsperson(s) are at their institution
• Academic advising is perhaps the most critical part of the entire transfer system and process for students
RecommendationsRecommendations
Recommendation 3: Improve and increase communications between CCs and universities
• ABOR and CC presidents should communicate this as a priority
• Review ATFs for effectiveness, efficiency, and composition
• Universities and CCs should establish policies and practices to discuss curricular changes that impact each other
RecommendationsRecommendations
Recommendation 4: Streamline the system and components
• Confusion was evident among respondents and too many options exist for students
• Too much specialization of program requirements and too many options have led to an unwieldy system
RecommendationsRecommendations
Recommendation 5: Redesign CAS website as a portal for all, especially students
• Make the site more user-friendly and easily navigable
• Make the site more attractive and appealing to students
• Ensure that site is consistently up to date
• Remove or archive old information
• Once complete, publicize the redesigned site to students
RecommendationsRecommendations
Recommendation 6: Update all information and resources in a timely manner when changes are made
• Advisors, in particular, should be informed electronically about the changes, via email and via the advisors’ portal
RecommendationsRecommendations
Recommendation 7: Standardize administrative processes related to transfer system
• Standardize the way AGECs and AGEC in progress are designated on student transcripts
• Standardization will result in less confusion among staff and fewer delays and problems for students
RecommendationsRecommendations
Recommendation 8: Universities should create student-oriented transfer centers or offices
• Places where transfer students can find one-stop/quick-stop answers from advisors and other staff
• Alternatively, designate transfer-oriented staff in each office on campus
RecommendationsRecommendations
Recommendation 9: CCs applications should include early alert system focusing on older students
• Redress ongoing problems associated with archived student records specific to this group of students
Richard Hezel, Ph.D.President
Josh MitchellManager of Strategic Services
Craig Nicholls, Ph.D.Director of Research and Evaluation
1201 East Fayette StreetSyracuse, NY 13210
315-422-3512 www.hezel.com
Hezel AssociatesHezel Associates
