Evaluation of Arizona’s Transfer System - Recommendations for Improvements

1. 2013 Evaluation of Arizona’s Transfer System AZTransfer Steering Committee MeetingDecember 6, 2013

2. Agenda • Methods • Analysis • Recommendations & Findings • Questions

3. Hezel Associates • Custom research since 1987 • Research and evaluation capabilities • Evidence based strategic planning • Focus on education • Unique expertise • Distance & online learning • Transitions in education • Professional development • Educational interventions

4. Introduction • Reinforcement of the transfer system’s effectiveness • Stakeholders are.. • Aware of the system components • Positive about their effectiveness and impact • More students are… • Transferring • Persisting • Graduating • Data don’t lie, but don’t tell the whole story.

5. Methods • Statewide Data Analysis • Transfer students from Fall 2006 to Spring 2012 • Comparisons to 2007 data • Factors impacting educational outcomes • Employee and Student Surveys • Online surveys of relevant employees, current & former students • Surveys analyzed by group (employee and student) and compared • Comparisons to 2007 when appropriate

6. Recommendations & Findings

7. Recommendation 1 Maintain the existing transfer system components as they are effective in promoting degree completion among transfer students.

8. Findings • Over 1,500 more students transferred in 2011-12 than in 2006-07. • When compared to 2007, transfer students collected about 5 fewer credits over the course of their college career. • Students who had completed an AGEC had greater odds of completing a bachelor’s degree. • Almost 80% of students and 70% of employees were satisfied with the transfer system.

9. Recommendation 2 Continue efforts to increase student awareness of the various components of the transfer system to ensure all students have the information necessary for a smooth transfer process.

10. Findings • About 50% of students were aware of transfer opportunities. • About 2/3 of students were familiar with AGEC, slightly less with transfer pathways and Common Courses. • Publicizing and/or informing students of the transfer process was one of the most commonly cited areas for improvement by employees and students.

11. Recommendation 3 Enhance training opportunities for transfer-relevant employees to increase awareness of all components of the transfer system and the requirements of degree paths to ensure all students receive appropriate transfer guidance.

12. Findings • More than a third of employees with fewer than 5 years in current position. • Students’ perceived faculty/advisors lacked familiarity with some transfer system components. • Focus on maintaining high levels of familiarity and communicating relevant information to students. • Confusion remained over AGEC application processes, coursework requirements for majors, and courses applying to various university programs.

13. Recommendation 4 Expand opportunities for communication between community college and university personnel to increase message consistency across institutions.

14. Findings • Discrepancies between perceptions of community college and university employees in terms of… • Student readiness • Coursework rigor • Extent of engagement in transfer process • Perceived inconsistencies and need for increased communication between community colleges and universities.

15. Recommendation 5 Standardize administrative processes to ensure appropriate and consistent identification of student progress and certifications on community college transcripts to ease student transitions to universities.

16. Findings • Many employees were not aware of how or when students applied for AGEC. • Variability between colleges on how AGEC completion was reported and communicated potentially producing confusion. • Unclear how/if AGEC in progress were recorded.

17. Recommendation 6 Expand transfer resources available to students at the universities to enhance the post-transfer experiences for students.

18. Findings • About half of students transferred with no difficulties. • Advisors perceived that students did not have adequate time pre-enrollment to discuss transfer issues. • Some barriers to transfer could potentially be alleviated with additional supports on the university end (e.g., acclimation, major declaration, perceptions of inconsistencies).

19. Recommendation 7 Utilize former transfer students as resources for current and future transfer students.

20. Findings • Most students met with advisors four times per year or less. • Employees and students agreed that one-on-one advising was the most effective way to learn about transfer. • Students tended to rely on word-of-mouth for information on transfer.

21. Next Steps? • Capitalize on previous successes using established processes to promote future efforts. • Expand or revise resources to meet changing needs.

22. Questions?

23. Contact Us Laurene Johnson, PhD Senior Research AssociateHezel Associates, LLC (315) 422 3512 laurene@hezel.comhttp://www.hezel.com