Skagit Valley College: Creating Connections to Increase Retention

1. Maureen Pettitt, Ph.D. Director of Institutional Research Skagit Valley College: Creating Connections to Increase Retention

2. Session Overview • Introductions • Retention Strategy Framework • Strategies • Learning Communities • “Fast Track” Course • Peer Calling • Framework Applied to Your Campus • Sharing Ideas

3. SVC District:Skagit, Island & San Juan Counties

5. A Framework for Thinking about Retention Strategies Improvement Target Audience/Outcomes Evaluation Preconceptions/ Assumptions Theoretical/ Evidentiary Foundations Assessment Strategy Implementation

6. Assessment & Evaluation • Assessment focuses on measuring: planning, collecting, and analysis of data. • Evaluation is more concerned with valuing: determining the value of the data and/or a subjective interpretation of the data. • The two terms are not mutually exclusive, but both “measuring” and “valuing” must occur in order to move to improvement.

7. Learning Communities “The common denominator in this current rash of innovations is making connections, and that basic concept has strong support in research and is, therefore, not likely to be just one more passing fad.” – K. Patricia Cross

8. A Fractured Fairy Tale A long time ago (in the 1980s), the tiny kingdom of Skagit did battle with the great and terrible dragon, “Smorgasbord”…

9. A mighty champion declared that with a sufficient number of valiant knights (and an appropriate disbursal of florins and doubloons), he could defeat the dragon.

10. So, the knights errant traveled far and wide, and faced the Treacherous Library Stacks to discover how other kingdoms had defeated their petty dragons of “Loose Distribution Requirements” and “Transfer Restrictions.”

11. It took a long, long, long, long time, but the Knights of the Skagit Round Table prevailed with their powerful weapon—General Education Reform.

12. Yet another group of brave knights debated how the weapon should be used. After much wailing and gnashing of teeth, they finally agreed the weapon would include skills designated courses, English writing links, and its holiest of grails…Learning Communities.

13. And then there was peace in the tiny kingdom of Skagit.The End.…Or Not

14. Learning Communities: Target Audience • Faculty initiative started in 1986 • Gen Ed reform process 1989 to 1992 • New degree requirements effective 1993-94 • Learning Communities/English Links • Transfer degree • Professional/technical degree • Some developmental education

15. Learning Communities: Outcomes • Advantages (greater retention, student involvement, etc.) were known, but not the initial rationale for requirements • A response to curricular issues—faculty felt that students • did not see connections between and among disciplines, and • needed to engage subjects more fully, to see education as a dynamic and interconnected process of exploration and discovery

16. Learning Communities: Preconceptions/Assumptions • If students took courses that combined fields, they would learn how different disciplines approached the same issues • Linked composition would provide composition experience within an academic context • Collaborative and active learning would key to successful outcomes • Faculty training and support essential

17. Learning Communities: Theoretical/Evidentiary Foundations • Astin (1985) – student involvement • Chickering & Gamson (1987) – seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education • Bruner (1990) – socially constructed knowledge • Gabelnick, MacGregor, Matthews & Smith (1990) – learning communities to create connections • Ramsden (1992) – surface versus deep learning • Vince Tinto (1994) – impact of learning communities in community college student retention

18. Learning Communities: Assessment CCSSE Multiple Methods Quarterly Surveys Student Writing

19. Assessment #1: Quarterly Surveys • Faculty-developed survey • 2 LC and 4 Link survey questions • All responses on a scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” • Space for students to make comments • Faculty are provided their course results + the cumulative for the quarter for all courses of that type

20. Learning Communities“Classes were more valuable together”

21. Links: “More valuable to have taken these two classes together”

22. Student Comments • LC: “This class has been fun and not sucky at all. I think I have learned a lot.” • DE LC: “Doing both [topics] in depth was overwhelming at times.” • DE LC: “Art History rocks!” • Link: “I did not learn too much other than how to explore more in depth, how to write more.”

23. Student Comments • “If they had been separate, I would have known the what and where, but not the why, and the why is always the most important question.”

24. Assessment #2: Student Writing • Identified courses being taught in Learning Communities, stand-alone, and DE that could be “matched” over a two-year period • Faculty agreed to participate and give students course credit • Developed a set of questions for students beginning-, mid-, and end-course • Lots of faculty involvement in coding and analysis of student work

25. Student Responses • “After taking this course I feel that I can make connections to various things, such as history, influences, people, and culture. This course taught me the value of making connections and things from my own perspective.” • “I think I will be more likely to make connections between subjects, both similarities and differences.”

26. Comparing Responses • Comparing student responses in the stand-alone courses with students in collaborative courses—same courses with the same instructors—students in the stand-alone courses: • were less likely to write about making connections or about learning, and • tended to focus on personal growth, liking faculty, etc.

27. Assessment #3: CCSSE • Administered Spring 2003; N = 782 • Survey Elements • Student Characteristics • Student Engagement/Effort • Services: Use, Importance, Satisfaction • College Contribution to Learning & Development

28. Students who had taken a learning community: • Reported greater active and collaborative learning experiences • Spent more time preparing for class, working on papers or projects, using the computer lab & library • Had more interaction with instructors • Engaged in higher levels of mental activities (analyzing, synthesizing, making judgments)

29. Learning Communities:Evaluation • Advantages of LC environments for student learning and engagement • Need for faculty development; opportunities for faculty renewal • Inadequate groundwork = lack of support in professional/technical programs • Scheduling challenges (college & students) • Critical role of advising

30. Learning Communities: Improvement • Professional/technical degree requirement dropped; became optional • Implemented “college readiness” LCs—but reduced the degree requirements • Developed Guidelines for Implementation • Annual LC “planning retreat” for faculty • Refine assessment tools

31. Fast Track “Effective orientation programs… go beyond the provision of information per se to the establishment of early contacts for new students not only with other members of their entering class but also with other students, faculty and staff of the institution.” – Vincent Tinto

32. Fast Track: Target Audience & Outcomes • Give new students--regardless of age, gender, SES--an opportunity to get on a “fast track” by enrolling in a five-day, five hrs/day orientation course during the week prior to the beginning of the Fall quarter • Student would have a better understanding college systems and procedures, could create their annual course schedule with less difficulty, and have more confidence

33. Fast Track: Preconceptions/Assumptions • ‘Every student will want to do this.’ • Participation would increase retention • Content: college and its resources, degree requirements, their own learning styles, and strategies to help them manage their time and stress, be efficient readers and note-takers • ‘This will be fun!’ Most counselors participated by teaching at least one session

34. Fast Track: Theoretical/Evidential Foundations • Vincent Tinto (1987) • Early results from First-Year Experience & First Year of College projects • Success of Master Student–type activities used in SVC’s TRIO program and in the Counseling Center during regular school year

35. Fast Track: Assessment • Students keep daily journal • End-of-course assessment • Periodic tracking of student retention and performance • Retention Fall to Winter ~70%; retention to Spring quarter ~60% • GPA for students during their first year is always close to or above 3.0 • Over 90% of the students enrolled for 10+ credits

36. Student Comments • Like: • “The campus tour and hunt.” • “Time management – you gotta have a goal!” • “Scavenger hunt and mission impossible because interacting is better than lecturing.” • Change: • “Have something about test-taking.” • “More activities out of your seat. Probably small group discussions moving around.” • “I think the scavenger hunt could be made better.”

37. Fast Track:Evaluation • Like its instructional counterparts, this course needs to be integrative, interdisciplinary and to require students to be active participants • Include other students (peer mentoring) • Modify course content to address suggestions

38. Fast Track: Improvements • Added a student panel so students could hear other students (not just faculty & staff) • Eliminated Catalog review • Added a daily walking activity and a test-taking skills segment • End of class “celebration” expanded • Utilize the Making It Count program (free to college)

39. “Learning communities, collaborative learning, and similar forms of learning in socially interactive settings are supported by additional research, which shows improved student retention and satisfaction when social connects are part of the educational experiences.” -- K. Patricia Cross Peer Calling

40. Peer Calling: Target Audience & Outcomes • Second-year students trained as “peer callers” …call in evenings, have adequate information to provide referrals to other campus services, and a supervisor always available • Create 1) a feeling of community with new students, and 2) a growing cadre of students who were are of resources, not afraid to ask for them, and could pass on this info to other students

41. Peer Calling: Preconceptions/Assumptions • All students new to SVC called four calls per quarter: How is it going? Do you need a study group or study skills workshop? An appointment with an advisor? Etc. • Would be expensive (training) • Difficult to have standards due to low pay & high turnover of peer callers • Students might not appreciate being called (same time as telemarketers)

42. Peer Calling: Theoretical/Evidential Foundations • Done successfully at an East Coast college in a large metro area; good student feedback • The student learning and engagement basis for Service Learning and Peer Mentoring Models

43. Peer Calling: Assessment • Immediate new student feedback during phone call – “Is this working for you?” • (We call this “assessment within service delivery”) • Also ask if it is o.k. to call again…rare to have any objection to future calls • Peer callers also provide information about their own experience

44. Peer Calling:Evaluation • Peer callers report positive feedback from new students called • Peer callers report a greater understanding of their own educational needs and resources available; increased confidence and self-image (most have financial need or other risk factors)

45. Peer Calling: Improvements • Structure with co-administrators—one who screens and trains peer callers (a faculty advisor) and an administrator who provides desk space and supervision during calling times (usually the director of admissions) • Plan for a database, so that info could be used by advisors and/or registration for follow-up after student’s first quarter

46. Success of Students with Risk Factors • Fall-to-Fall retention of students with risk factors is better than for low-risk students by approximately 5% - 10% (as high as 61%) • GPA and graduation rates of students with risk factors is only slightly lower than for students who are low-risk • (Risk factors = academically under-prepared, financial need, first generation)

47. What about your kingdom? • Working in groups or on your own, take about 20 minutes to fill out the worksheet. • If you have time, fill out more than one…we have plenty! • If you have a group, designate a recorder. • Each group/individual will share some of the highlights from their worksheet.

48. Resources • Learning Communities • National Learning Communities Project http://learningcommons.evergreen.edu/ • Peer Calling • AACC’s Horizons Service Learning Project http://www.aacc.nche.edu/ • Fast Track • Policy Center on the First Year of College http://www.brevard.edu/fyc/ • Master Student http://college.hmco.com/collegesurvival/ellis/master_student/10e/instructors/index.html

49. "The best thing for being sad is to learn something." -- T.H. White, The Once and Future King (Book 1, Chapter 21, pg. 186)