Evaluation of Arizona’s Transfer Articulation System May 16, 2007 Richard Hezel, Ph.D

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%


CC Students(n=427)

ATF Members(n=280)


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%


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%


CC Students(n=427)

ATF Members(n=280)


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%


CC Students(n=427)


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

http://az.transfer.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Admin_CEG

http://az.transfer.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Admin_CEG

http://az.transfer.org/cas/students/


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

[email protected]

Josh MitchellManager of Strategic Services

[email protected]

Craig Nicholls, Ph.D.Director of Research and Evaluation

[email protected]

1201 East Fayette StreetSyracuse, NY 13210

315-422-3512 www.hezel.com

Hezel AssociatesHezel Associates

mailto:[email protected]



Documents

Evaluation of Arizona’s Transfer Articulation System May 16, 2007 Richard Hezel, Ph.D