1 / 37

Ohio Transfer Initiative Promising Practices for Degree Completion

Ohio Transfer Initiative Promising Practices for Degree Completion. Initial Advisory Committee Meeting Nov 1,2016 Columbus State Community College. Welcome/Introductions. Dr. Randy Smith –OSU (Co -chair) Dr. Mark Nutter - Washington State Community College (Co –chair)

srader
Télécharger la présentation

Ohio Transfer Initiative Promising Practices for Degree Completion

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Ohio Transfer Initiative Promising Practices for Degree Completion Initial Advisory Committee Meeting Nov 1,2016 Columbus State Community College

  2. Welcome/Introductions • Dr. Randy Smith –OSU (Co -chair) • Dr. Mark Nutter -Washington State Community College (Co –chair) • Ms. Becky Barnes- Cuyahoga Community College –Transfer & Articulation • Dr. Rebecca Butler –Columbus State Community College- Enrollment Management • Dr. Tim Dorsey -Cuyahoga Community College –Enrollment Management • Mr. Charles Long -Wright State University-Transfer & Admission Advising • Dr. Caroline Miller -University of Cincinnati - Enrollment Management • Mr. Matthew Moore-Sinclair Community College-Financial Aid • Mr. Kevin Neal -Cleveland State University –Registrar • Ms. Nichole Neal . -Shawnee State University-Financial Aid • Ms. Fedearia Nicholson-Stark State College-Student Service • Ms. Joan Ogg- Akron University –Transfer Advising • Dr. Mark Polatajko Kent State University - Chief Financial Officer • Ms. Kathy Pruckno -Miami University –Transfer Admissions Advising • Dr. Regina Randall – Columbus State Community College -Registrar • Ms. Deborah Rathke -Owens Community College- Institutional Research • Ms. Connie Strebe -Tollis -Career and Technical Center – Transfer Advising • Ms. Amy Sues –Clark State Community College – Student Service • Mr. Craig This -Wright State University-Institutional Research

  3. Committee Structure • Co-Chairs ( Representatives from the Ohio Guaranteed Pathways Statewide Steering Committee) • Student Service Deans/Enrollment Management Executives • Transfer Advisors /Transfer Coordinators • Admissions Transfer Advisors • Registrars • Institutional Research directors • Financial Aid Directors • Chief Financial Officer

  4. Overview Introduction • Over the past 25 years the State of Ohio has developed a highly sophisticated articulation and credit transfer system for Ohio’s public colleges and universities. The system is supported by policies, agreed upon practices and guidelines and state legislative initiatives and funding. It has provided a framework that allows students to transfer among Ohio’s 2 and 4 year colleges seamlessly without loss of time or additional expense for degree completion and guarantees both credit articulation and application to a degree. • An analysis of the data compiled over the past 10 years by the Higher Education Information System indicates that there are both regional and institutional variances in the effectiveness of Ohio’s articulation framework as it provides opportunities for transfer students degree completion goals. This is confirmed by a recent national study that indicates variations among institutions of higher education in Ohio in the mobility and success of students in transfer.

  5. Charter Action • Establish an advisory committee 0f knowledgeable volunteers from Ohio’s 2 and 4 year Higher Ed institutions .The committee will assist in the process of identification and analysis the best and most promising practices in place Nationally and within the University System of Ohio for improvement in transfers degree completion rates. • The committee, through a combination of national research, statewide discussion with stakeholders and surveys, will develop and provide an inventory of best and most promising practices that can be shared and implemented statewide to provide each college and university a comprehensive overview of processes for increasing transfer student degree completion.

  6. Goals • Identify and discuss emerging practices through a combination of national research, member discussions and survey. • Develop an inventory of promising practices in Ohio • Provide guidance in the implementation of promising practices for current and future statewide transfer initiatives • Develop a process for the implementation of the best and promising practices based on the data collection and analysis • Report findings to the Ohio Articulation and Transfer Network Oversight Board • Recommend process for statewide dissemination of inventory

  7. Background Information:Ohio Guaranteed Transfer Pathways Organizational Committee Structure Ohio Articulation and Transfer Network Oversight Board • Ohio Guaranteed Transfer Pathway Statewide Steering Committee • Co-Chairs (Representatives from the OATN Oversight Board) – President of a Two-Year Public Institution (Dr. Marcia Ballinger of Lorain CCC) and President of a Four-Year Public Institution (Dr. Mary Ellen Mazey of Bowling Green State University) • Representatives from Each of the Six Regions • OACC Representative (Dr. Jack Hershey) • IUC Representative (Mr. Bruce Johnson) Northwest Region 1. John Fischer (BGSU) 2. Steve Robinson (Owens) Transfer Practices Advisory Committee* Academic Transfer Support Services Central Region 1. Randy Smith (OSU) 2. Jack Cooley (Columbus State) Southeast Region 1. Howard Dewald (Ohio University) 2. Mark Nutter (WSCC) Northeast Region 1. Kevin Ball (YSU) 2. Lada Gibson- Shreve (Stark State) Southwest Region 1. Gigi Escoe (UC) 2. Robbin Hoopes (Cincinnati St) West Region Carl Brun (Wright State) 2. Dave Collins (Sinclair) *Research indicates that a clear pathway for students is important, but not without sound advising and easy-to-navigate transfer process. This Advisory Committee’s work can be strongly tied to the successful implementation of the statewide guaranteed transfer pathway work.

  8. What we know in Ohio: Definition of transfers • OATN definition: A student is defined as a transfer if she makes a clean break from her college in an academic year. A clean break occurs if one of three ways: • The student formally transfers credits from her college of attendance to another institution, or • The student does not transfer credit to another institution but attends a single institution of higher education that is different from the original college of attendance, or • The student does not transfer credit to another institution but attends multiple institutions and attempts the maximum number of credit hours in an institution different from the original college of attendance. • There is no standardized definition of annual transfer movements for the nation as a whole. • Different reports typically define transfer movements for a particular cohort of students. Such definitions are useful in calculating graduation rates. Ohio research data compiled by Dr. Shoumi Mustafa, Senior Research Analyst -Ohio Dept. of Higher Education

  9. What we know in Ohio:Annualized enrollment numbers

  10. What we know in Ohio:Annual transfer numbers

  11. What we know in Ohio:Transfer-to-enrollment ratios

  12. What we know in Ohio:Transfers mostly regional: 2009 numbers (36,295)

  13. What we know in Ohio:Transfers by source & destination Transfer Number in 2009: 36,295

  14. What we know in Ohio:The graduation question • How many transfer students complete graduation? What are their rates of graduation? • Two ways of answering the questions: • Tracking graduation outcomes of transfer students from a given year, or • Tracking graduation outcomes of transfer students from a specific cohort • Cohort specific analyses are more common. Recent example: Jenkins and Fink (2016). • Sample of first-time, fulltime, freshman 2-year college students from 2008. Defines them as transfers if they ever attend a 4-year institution. Tracks for six years. • We select a sample of first-time, fulltime, freshman 2-year college students who transferred to 4-year main campuses in 2009. • Our sample include students who started in 2006, 2007, and 2008. Track for six years.

  15. What we know in Ohio:Data for the graduation question Transfer Number in 2009: 36,295

  16. What we know in Ohio:Sample for the graduation question • Our sample comprises 2,701 students who transferred from Ohio public 2-year institutions to public 4-year institutions in FY2008-09. • They had started as first-time, full-time students in the 2-year institution in FY2005-06, FY2006-07, and FY2007-08. • First-time college students with accumulated college credit (earned as dual-enrollment high-school students) are included in the sample.

  17. What we know in Ohio:Regional nature of transfers in sample

  18. What we know in Ohio:Larger 2-yr institutions dominate transfers • Of the 2,701 students in the sample, eight large 2-year institutions account for 2,303 students – 85.3% of the sample. Fifteen other institutions account for the remaining 398 students in the sample – 14.7% of the sample. • However, there are some variations in the transfer-out student size (by institution size). Eight larger institutions: Institution Number Cuyahoga Community : 497 Columbus State : 629 Sinclair : 324 Owens State : 238 Lorain : 207 Stark State : 100 Cincinnati State : 109 Lakeland: 199 Some of the 15 other institutions InstitutionNumber Hocking College : 62 Clark State : 44 Central Ohio : 10 Southern State : 40 Edison State : 26 Eastern Gateway : 17 Rio Grande : 39

  19. What we know in Ohio:Larger 4-yr institutions dominate; some exceptions • Of the 2,701 students in the sample, six 4-year institutions account for 1,717 – 63.6% of the sample. Seven other institutions account for the remaining 984 students – 36.4% of the sample. Institution Number Ohio State : 681 University of Cincinnati : 177 Kent State : 231 Ohio University: 184 University of Akron: 210 University of Toledo: 234 InstitutionNumber Miami University : 29 Bowling Green State : 183 Wright State : 292 Cleveland State : 383 Youngstown State : 23 Shawnee State : 59 Central State : 15

  20. What we know in Ohio:Transfer student graduation rates

  21. What we know in Ohio:Higher rates for within-region transfers

  22. What we know in Ohio:Higher rates for larger 2-yr colleges, some variations • Average graduation rate for eight large 2-year institutions : 51.3% • Average graduation rate for other 15 2-year institutions : 41.7% Some of the 15 other institutions Institution Rate Hocking College : 56.5% Clark State : 38.6% Central Ohio : - Southern State : 30.0% Edison State : 53.8% Eastern Gateway : 23.5% Rio Grande : 46.2% Eight larger institutions: Institution Rate Cuyahoga Community : 44.9% Columbus State : 57.1% Sinclair : 49.4% Owens State : 50.4% Lorain : 62.8% Stark State : 35.0% Cincinnati State : 44.0% Lakeland : 53.8%

  23. What we know in Ohio:Higher rates for larger 4-yr institutions; some exceptions Graduation rates: 4-Year Main Campuses ordered by enrollment Institution Number Miami University : 62.1% Bowling Green State : 61.7% Wright State : 45.2% Cleveland State : 53.5% Youngstown State : 26.1% Shawnee State : 22.0% Central State : InstitutionNumber Ohio State : 60.1% University of Cincinnati : 42.4% Kent State : 49.4% Ohio University : 54.3% University of Akron : 30.5% University of Toledo : 42.3%

  24. What is the national scene?Results from Jenkins-Fink (2016) • Jenkins-Fink results for the nation: • 32% of 2-year first-time, full-time college entrants in the nation from 2008 attended a 4-year institution in a subsequent year (transfer-out rate) • 42% of the transfer-outs in the nation graduated in six years. • Jenkins-Fink results for Ohio • 28% of Ohio’s 2-year first-time, full-time college entrants from 2008 attended a 4-year institution in a subsequent year (transfer-out rate). • 31% of Ohio’s transfer-outs graduated in six years. • Our graduation results reproduced: • 2-Yr to 4-Yr college transfers in 2009 have a 49.9% six-year graduation rate. • These students had started as first-time, fulltime, freshman students at public 2-year institutions in 2006, 2007, and 2008.

  25. Non-comparability of results: Differences in definition, methodology, and data • Our results are not really comparable to those from Jenkins-Fink (J-F). • Our definition excludes transients; J-F includes transients. • We started with transfer students from a given year; J-F starts with a given cohort. • We have data on students attending Ohio public 2-year and 4-year institutions; J-F has information on students attending public, private non-profit, and private for-profit institutions in any state. • We tried to see how Ohio compares to J-F results when we relax our definition and sample selection rules. • Similar to J-F, we started with 2008 2-year college entrants & retained only first-time, fulltime students: 14,166 • Identified as transfer-outs if they ever attended any 4-year institution: 1,770 • Transfer-out rate: 12.5% (J-F rates for nation & Ohio: 32% and 28%, respectively). • Six-year graduation rate: 36.6% (J-F rates for nation & Ohio: 42% & 31%, respect.) • If we consider transfers using our definition, graduation rate: 44.5%

  26. Conclusion . • QuestionWhy is this and are there certain practices and environments that foster successful transfer , certificate and degree completion

  27. Why Now • This is critically important, not only the current transfer initiatives, but for the pending and future initiatives that provide new transfer opportunities for students. In order for new initiatives and transfer opportunities to achieve success the current system needs attention to ensure that the best practices are in operation across the public higher education system.

  28. What does the National research data tell us are the most promising practices in state’s with a high percentage transfer student degree completion rate 1.Transfer Student success and degree completion is a priority as indicated by: - A strong commitment to a transfer agenda - A focus on local/regional partnerships -Data sharing to prioritize transfer pathways and program success -Economic benefits of transfer and successful completion are well documented

  29. What does the National research data tell us are best practices in high performing states 2.Create clear Program Pathways - Transfer pathways for broad major area using relevant career information ( with a focus on meeting regional needs. Arizona -Collaboratively develop course sequences and imbed certifications. -Begin Pathway advising early in the students academic career to help identify General Education courses that provide readiness for the intended field of study. - Plan less used Pathways as data indicates

  30. What does the National research data tell us are best practices in high performing states 3.Tailored Transfer Student Advising -Continuously monitor student progress and intervene when students go off track ( pro-active advising) - Replicate elements of the first year experience for all transfer students. - Provide transfer focused financial aid advising. Examples of best and promising practices in use at colleges and universities can be found in The Transfer Playbook at http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/publications/transfer-playbook-essential-practices.html

  31. Areas of Discussion • Outreach • WEB/Social Media • Transfer Environment • Advising • Orientation • Financial Aid • Pathways/Partnerships • Partner Collaboration

  32. Timeline • September /October Research and review current state and national date relating to transfer student Baccalaureate completion rates and existing best practice information Develop and staff a statewide advisory panel based on best practice /high impact areas of transfer student contact identified through initial research .

  33. Timeline November -Convene advisory panel - Provide background information based on completed research - Develop with committee input mechanisms for solicitation and compiling most promising practices in uses throughout the University System of Ohio -Reach out to Colleges and Universities statewide for data on Ohio most promising practices in place at Ohio’s colleges and Universities fostering transfer student degree completion December - Preliminary Analysis and review of data

  34. Timeline January -June -Delineation and refinement of best practice processes in Ohio’s colleges and universities - Draft report presented to Ohio dept of Higher Ed Staff , and Advisory Committee -Additional Issues discussed /addressed • Final Analysis of data completed and compiled - Final report completed/presented - Dissemination of report Statewide and regionally ( possible statewide and regional conference presentations)

  35. Advisory Committee Input – Next Steps 1.How do we identify Ohio Promising practices 2. How best to use committees expertise 3. Best process for statewide dissemination/ implementation of best practice information collected

  36. Advisory Committee Input • Discuss Data gathering options • survey process • target groups • student input • other options

  37. Conclusion • Review and identify action items and next steps

More Related