Faculty and Staff Focus Group Data

1. Faculty and Staff Focus Group Data Persistence: First Semester to Second Semester Data Team Presentation July 2008 Faculty and Staff Focus Group Data

2. Review: Four Components • What’s Wrong? (quantitative data) • 25% of TCC’s first-time freshmen were not retained to the second semester. • Why? (qualitative data) • Student Focus Group Data • Faculty and Staff Focus Group Data • Interventions & Policy Changes • Data-driven strategies to address barriers • Assessment Data Team Presentation July 2008 Faculty and Staff Focus Group Data

3. The Four Components What’s Wrong? (Quantitative Data) • Persistence (Year 2-4) • Reading (Year 3-4) • Developmental Math (Year 4) Why? (Student Data) Top Persistence Barriers: Adjusting to college Balancing school and life Textbook issues Tulsa Achieves Communication issues with instructors Choosing courses Revised Interventions New Interventions Policy Changes Orientation Advising Tulsa Achieves Implementation Assess Impact Formative: • To what extent did interventions (or policy changes) effectively address common barriers? 1. LASSI , pre and post Summative: • To what extent did interventions increase persistence? Data Team Presentation July 2008 Faculty and Staff Focus Group Data

4. Faculty and Staff Data Data Team Presentation July 2008 Faculty and Staff Focus Group Data

5. Faculty and Staff Data:Definition of Terms • Focus Groups: faculty and staff • Targeted Question: “What are your barriers and challenges in working with first-semester students?” -- Dr. Ken Gonzales, AtD Data Coach • Frequency • Group • Subgroup • Barriers/Challenges

6. Faculty and Staff Focus Groups • 2 focus groups offered per campus* • 7 total groups conducted • 64 total participants • 25 faculty and 39 staff • First groups on each campus were mixed groups of faculty and staff volunteers. The second focus groups on each campus contained only faculty. *One campus filled one focus group; the second group on that campus was not attended. Data Team Presentation July 2008 Faculty and Staff Focus Group Data

7. Groupings • Data Team classified barriers/challenges into subgroups (categories) and groups (larger categories) to provide the best overall understanding of the data. Data Team Presentation July 2008 Faculty and Staff Focus Group Data

8. General Findings • Faculty/staff data results differ from the student data results. Students and faculty/staff voiced different viewpoints and concerns, as might be expected. • Wide variety of barriers identified on all four campuses. • Some barriers/challenges seemed related to each other. • No single barrier was mentioned in every focus group on all four campuses. • Barriers specific to individual campuses did not occur frequently overall; College-wide barriers were identified far more frequently overall. Data Team Presentation July 2008 Faculty and Staff Focus Group Data

9. Specific Findings • 76% of all barriers fell into one of three major groups: • Policies and Administrative Practice (37) • Instruction (27) • Student Attitude/Motivation (15) Data Team Presentation July 2008 Faculty and Staff Focus Group Data

10. Groupings: Barriers/Challenges from Faculty and Staff Working with First-Semester Students Policies and Administrative Practices (37) Student Attitudes/Motivation (15) Instruction (includes Academic Under-preparation) (27) Resources (11) 3 of 4 campuses Textbooks (6) Barriers cited on all four campuses Data Team Presentation July 2008 Faculty and Staff Focus Group Data

11. by sub-group and frequency Faculty and Staff Barriers and Challenges Data Team Presentation July 2008 Faculty and Staff Focus Group Data

12. Student Attitudes/ Motivation (15) Faculty view of class expectations differs from student view of class expectations Faculty value system different from student value system Faculty feel unable to get students to understand the consequences of students’ actions Faculty viewed as the adversary by students Lacking strategy to get students to commit time needed for class assignments/tests Students’ passive learning styles Students’ not accepting ownership of their problems

13. Instruction (27) Data Team Presentation July 2008 Faculty and Staff Focus Group Data Academic Under-preparation 13/27 Spending too much time teaching prerequisite/basic skills Lacking effective methodologies to support developmental students Not enough resources to bring students to college level Students lack academic success skills Difficulty maintaining course integrity while working with under-prepared students (student placement issue) Early identification of students needing remediation or disability accommodation Not always able to meet students’ needs/basic skills needs

14. Policies and Administrative Practices (37) • General policy-related issues 15/37 • Inconsistent/incorrect information listed in catalogs, schedules, degree audits, online systems and programs • Inconsistent enforcement of prerequisites • Lack of empowerment within the discipline to make decisions, lack of shared governance

15. Instruction (27) Data Team Presentation July 2008 Faculty and Staff Focus Group Data Other Classroom Teaching Issues 7/27 Not being able to address course content on multiple levels (related to academic under-preparation) Adapting class expectations for students who miss class with personal problems How to maintain class integrity with students’ overbooked schedules Faculty doesn’t have a good understanding of some learning disabilities Grade inflation pressure from students

16. Textbooks (6) Data Team Presentation July 2008 Faculty and Staff Focus Group Data Dealing with irate students regarding textbook funding Not having enough textbooks for students Students who can’t afford and/or obtain class textbooks and materials—impact on class integrity and agenda (may be related to financial aid to some degree)

17. Policies and Administrative Practices (37) • Part-time instruction 4 • Relying too much on part-time faculty with insufficient time for training and quality control of part-time faculty • Difficulty contacting part-time instructors • for mentoring, coordination

18. Policies and Administrative Practices (37) • Advisement-related issues 4 • Faculty not having enough information about withdrawal statistics • Lacking sufficient personnel to process student records for student advisement • Students bypassing advisement (faculty statement) • Faculty lacking correct/enough information concerning student background/competencies

19. Instruction (27) Online Courses 4 • Not having enough time to teach course content because of teaching technology skills • Online students lacking proper information and advisement • Student resistance to using My TCC e-mail and Blackboard Data Team Presentation July 2008 Faculty and Staff Focus Group Data

20. Policies and Administrative Practices (37) • Financial Aid 4 • Students having difficulty processing through financial aid and other services • Unresolved student financial aid issues • Can’t process in a timely manner late applications for financial aid • Can’t purchase books because of financial aid

21. Summary: Top Barriers and Challenges for Faculty and Staff Student attitudes/motivation Academic under-preparation General policy and administrative practice issues Classroom issues other than academic under-preparation Textbooks Part-time instruction issues Online courses Advisement-related issues Financial Aid Data Team Presentation July 2008 Faculty and Staff Focus Group Data

22. Comparing Faculty and Staff Data with Student Data Data Team Presentation July 2008 Faculty and Staff Focus Group Data

23. The Four Components What’s Wrong? (Quantitative Data) GOALS Persistence (Year 2-4) Dev. Reading (Year 3-4) Dev. Math (Year 4) Why?(Qualitative Data) Student Data Adjusting to college Balancing school and life Textbook issues Tulsa Achieves Communication issues with instructors Choosing courses Faculty and StaffData Student attitudes/motivation Academic under-preparation Other classroom issues General policy issues Textbooks Part-time instruction issues Online courses Advisement-related issues Financial Aid Revised Interventions New Interventions Policy Changes Interventions: Orientation Advisement Tulsa Achieves Implementation Questions: • How do we revise current interventions to directly address common barriers? • What new interventions can be implemented to address common barriers? • What policy changes need to be made to address common barriers? Assess Impact Formative: • To what extent did interventions (or policy changes) effectively address common barriers? Summative: • To what extent did interventions increase persistence?

24. Next Steps • TCC’s goal is to achieve a 3% increase in student persistence. • Based on the data, barriers are selected for intervention and improvement to reach increased persistence. • Intervention and assessment strategies are modified or developed for selected barriers. Data Team Presentation July 2008 Faculty and Staff Focus Group Data