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

1. Evaluation of Arizona’s Transfer Articulation System May 16, 2007 Richard Hezel, Ph.D. Josh Mitchell Craig Nicholls, Ph.D.

2. Outline • Methods • Survey Findings • Arizona Transfer Website (CAS) • Focus Group Findings • ASSIST Student Data Analysis • Conclusions and Recommendations

3. Methods • 5 Surveys • 11 Focus Groups • Analysis of student data in ASSIST database • Review of transfer website

4. Survey and Focus Group Findings

5. Survey Response • Advisors: 483 • ATF Members: 279 • Admissions & Registrars: 57 • University Students: 713 • CC Students: 427

6. University 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

7. University 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)

8. CC 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

9. Student 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

10. Overall Satisfaction is High Level of satisfaction with the Arizona transfer system/experience as a whole, by group surveyed.

11. Differences 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

12. Available 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

13. More 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

14. Advisor 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

15. Problems 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

16. 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

17. System’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

18. System’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

19. Recommendations 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

20. AGEC Awareness Extent to which respondents are familiar with the AGEC, by group surveyed.

21. Differences 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

22. Satisfaction 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

23. AGEC’s Goals Extent 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.

24. AGEC 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

25. AGEC 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”

26. Clarity 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

27. AGEC 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

28. Reasons for Completing or Not 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

29. AGEC’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

30. AGEC’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

31. AGEC’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

32. AGEC 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

33. Transfer Pathway Degrees Awareness Extent to which respondents are familiar with the transfer pathway degrees, by group surveyed.

34. Differences in Transfer Pathway Degrees Awareness • 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

35. Transfer 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

36. Reasons for Completing or Not Completing 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

37. Transfer Pathway Degrees and Preparation 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.

38. Transfer Pathway Degrees Clarity 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

39. Transfer Pathway Degrees and Curricular 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).

40. Transfer Pathway DegreesGreatest 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

41. Transfer Pathway DegreesLeast 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

42. Transfer Pathway Degrees Greatest 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

43. Transfer Pathway Degrees Recommendations • 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

44. Common Course Matrices Awareness Extent to which respondents are familiar with the common courses/common course matrices, by group surveyed.

45. Differences in Common Course Matrices Awareness • 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

46. Completion 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

47. Reasons for Taking/Planning to Take Common Courses Primary reasons respondents took/are currently taking/plan to take courses identified as common courses, by group surveyed.

48. Common Course Matrices as 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

49. Common Course Matrices and 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.

50. Common Course MatricesGreatest 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