AACRAO Transfer and Technology Conference

1. AACRAO Transfer and Technology Conference What Do We Know about  State-Level College Transfer  Policy, Research, and Effectiveness? July 15, 2013

2. What is WICHE? Promotes access and excellence in higher education for all citizens of the West

3. Why Do States Care About Transfer? • National Educational Attainment Goals • “By 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world.” (President Obama, February 24, 2009) • “To increase the proportion of Americans with high-quality degrees and credentials to 60 percent by the year 2025.” (Lumina Foundation for Education) • Economic Competitiveness • Budget Constraints • Productivity • Student Success

4. Why Do Institutions Care About Transfer? State laws and policies Mission Performance Indicators and Incentives Political pressure Student success

5. Why Should Admissions and Registration Professionals Care About State-level Transfer? • Changing student demographics • State policy affects you • Outcomes-based funding incentives • Student success

6. A Lot of Students Transfer Source: National Student Clearinghouse Signature Report, Transfer & Mobility: A National View of Pre-Degree Student Movement in Postsecondary Institutions(February, 2012), 7. About one-third of all students change institutions at some point

7. It’s Not Clear that the Transfer Process Works

8. Best Practices in Statewide Articulation and Transfer Systems To develop a deeper understanding of how states coordinate their articulation and transfer programs • Literature Review • “Promising Practices in Statewide Articulation and Transfer Systems” • “Higher Education Web Portals: Serving State and Student Transfer Needs” • State Policy Summaries in WICHE’s State Higher Education Policy Database (higheredpolicies.wiche.edu) • Meeting of Web Portal Stakeholders (April 2011)

9. Promising Practices – Five Areas Statewide Collaboration Communication of Policies Academic Policies Use of Data Additional Promising Practices

10. Lessons Learned States vary in how they approach transfer and articulation. Overall, there is little evidence of what actually works. PROMISING practices, indeed!!

11. Statewide Collaboration • Develop a statewide, standing committee. • Massachusetts: Commonwealth Transfer Advisory Group • Minnesota: Transfer Oversight Committee • Involve faculty in policy development and implementation. • Arizona: Discipline-specific articulation task forces • Wyoming: Travel support as an incentive for participation

12. Communication of Policies • Establish a statewide office or official to facilitate statewide transfer. • Montana: Director of Transferability Initiatives • Designate campus personnel as contacts. • Nevada: Articulation coordinator • Convene or establish a presence at established conferences, summits, etc. • Texas:Transferpalooza • Build a strong presence on the Web. • Include student feedback. • Alaska: 800 number and anonymous email address

13. Academic Policy • Provide clear transfer pathways for community college students who have selected a major. • Colorado: 60 plus 60 agreements • Develop a pathway for community college students to meet general education requirements. • Arkansas: State minimum core • Implement guaranteed admissions policies. • Florida: Admission to upper division at a state university

14. Use of Data • Evaluate transfer and articulation policies and statutes. • North Dakota: Transfer Migration Study • Assess student success through quantitative measures of individual student-level indicators of performance. • Expand the reporting of results. • Florida: Evaluation and reporting by four different entities

15. Additional Promising Practices Publish a transfer student bill of rights (Colorado) Establish financial assistance programs that actively support transfer (Kentucky) Provide funding incentives to institutions that perform well in terms of student transfers (Oklahoma)

16. Remaining Challenges Developmental education courses Concurrent enrollment/dual enrollment courses Courses taken too long ago Lack of course transfer for those applied toward AAS degrees

17. Final Thoughts Institutions do not exist in a vacuum. State policy matters. And it can be changed. States do not systematically evaluate effectiveness, and we need to for the students. Outcomes-based funding may affect how your institution looks at and acts toward transfer students.

18. WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies (WCET) Founded in 1989 for WICHE states Now 310 members nationally, all sectors of higher ed, nonprofits, corporations Members include technology innovators from U.S. and Canada.

19. WCET’s Mission

20. Issues WCET is Tracking State Authorization of Distance Education Federal Policies Affecting Technology-Based Higher Education Academic Integrity in Online Learning Student Identity Authentication, Proctoring Student Success in Online Learning MOOCs Alternative Credentialing (including competency-based learning, prior learning assessment, badges) Mobile Learning & Accessibility Big Data, Data Analytics (PAR Framework)

21. The PAR Framework A non-profit multi-institutional data mining cooperative and tools provider focused on predicting and reducing academic risk. Creating cutting edge analytics and predictive modeling for campuses of every profile. The PAR Common Data Definitions make it possible to crosswalk between the variables in multiple data projects.

22. Survey of State and System Web Portals How do states and higher education systems use websites, web portals, and other web-based tools to help students navigate the transfer process?

23. Major Survey Topics Sectors represented Budget and operations Commercial products Use of web-based resources and tools Role of Institutions Measuring Impact and Effectiveness Future Plans

24. Criteria for Inclusion in Survey Credit transfer information specific to at least 3 or more public state institutions. Services or tools for the user beyond links/pointers to legislation, agreements, or institutional websites.

25. Survey Respondents (24 out of 37)

26. Institutional Sectors Represented • State public institutions • Participation required (16 sites) • Similar sites exist (5 sites) • Incentives to participate? (None) • In-state privates and non-profits – a trend to include in many • Out-of-state institutions – especially where high level of transfer occurs

27. Funding Sources for Development and FY 2010 Operational Budget

28. Commercial Services or Home Grown? • Commercial products/services (10 of 24) • Custom built software programs (12 of 24) • Commercial providers • Academy One (AR, PA, SC) • Decision Academic (NC) • College Source/redLantern/u.select (AZ, IL, IN, KY, MN, OH, OR)

29. Functions, Resources and Tools • User Accounts: login, portfolio, email communications, etc. • Transfer Resources and Tools: course equivalencies, articulation agreements, credit transfer guides, transfer of the general education core • Static tables vs. customizable? • Other tools: online applications, e-transcript, link to online course catalog, find an advisor, career planning, financial aid forms

30. Student and Faculty User Accounts

31. Does Portal Meet Expectations? • More than half launched within past 5 years; many just beginning to evaluate impact. • Better than expected – 55% • Meets expectations – 30% • Lower than expected – 15%

32. Satisfaction beyond the Numbers Students – Survey respondents were satisfied with usage. Faculty/Advisors – Reduce workload on faculty/advisors to maintain information on course equivalencies, program requirements, transfer agreements Policymakers – Makes transfer more transparent.

33. Advice from the Field Recruit state and institutional champions Build on pre-existing culture(s) of collaboration Build on established transfer agreements -- Complex policies can only result in a complex site Invest in marketing. Get the word out! Provide students with more regional resources -- too inward looking? Examine the transfer patterns. Social networking not widely used at time of the survey

34. Is an Ongoing Process • Be prepared for continuous involvement of institutions in updating • Assess impact on student decisions • Assess impact on institutional transfer-friendly policies and services • Audit your web presence • Can students, faculty, advisors find the site? • Survey showed high satisfaction with static tables vs. dynamic, personalized tables. Different today a few years later?

35. For More Information Demarée Michelau Director of Policy Analysis WICHE 303.541.0223 dmichelau@wiche.edu www.wiche.edu Mollie McGill Deputy Director, Programs and Membership WCET 303.541.0306 mmcgill@wiche.edu www.wcet.wiche.edu