contents learning to persist: a quality enhancement plan (qep) for … qep/qep-final-9-27.pdf ·...

CONTENTS

Learning to Persist: A Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) for Chipola College

Executive Summary 1

I. Introduction to the College and Its Community 4

II. Broad-Based Process to Develop the QEP 10 III. Focus of the Plan 21

A. Definition of Student Learning in the Context of the QEP 22 B. Narrowing the Focus 24 C. Review of Related Literature, Research, and Best Practices 26 D. References 33

IV. The Quality Enhancement Plan 35 A. Component 1: Supplemental Instruction (SI) 35 B. Component 2: First-Year Learning Experience (FYLE) Groups 44 C. Faculty Development to Support Plan Components 50

V. Institutional Capability for the Initiation and Continuation of the QEP 51 A. Financial and Physical Resources and Budget 52 B. Human Resources 58 C. Administrative Processes for Implementation and Assessment 59

VI. Broad-Based Involvement to Implement the QEP 61 VII. Assessment of the Plan 64

A. QEP Evaluation Design and Responsible Personnel 64 B. Formative and Summative Evaluation 65 C. Assessing the QEP Purpose Goals, Objectives, and Outcomes 67

APPENDICES A. “Timeline for Reaffirmation” and “Tentative Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) Timeline” B. “End-of-Term Supplemental Instruction Survey” C. Summary of Proposed Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) presented to Executive Council,

July 11, 2006 D. “Assess Yourself: Self-Assessment Questionnaire,” from OnCourse by Skip Downing and

“Alignment of Course Objectives with Pre/Post Assessment Tool” E. “Action Plan to Implement Learning to Persist” (blue pages; a stand-alone document)

Chipola College_____________________________________________________Learning to Persist

1

Executive Summary

Chipola College’s Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP), Learning to Persist, is a proposal to

increase student learning and success by (1) implementing Supplemental Instruction (SI) in high-

risk courses and (2) developing a required, one-semester-hour First-Year Learning Experience

(FYLE) course. Both components are designed to help students become more engaged and

persistent in college. The QEP is divided into five sections, each of which is summarized below:

Introduction to the College and Its Community: Chipola College was established in 1946

as an open-admissions junior college serving five rural counties in the Florida panhandle.

Affiliated with the Florida Division of Community Colleges, Chipola awards AA and AAS

degrees, Certificates of Training, and BS in Education degrees; the four-year degrees address the

critical need for middle and high school math and science teachers. Chipola’s unduplicated

headcount has ranged in recent years from 2816 to 3293. The college is committed to meeting

the educational needs of its district which faces significant technological and social change in the

next decade because of development along the Interstate 10 (I-10) Corridor.

Broad-Based Process to Develop the QEP: The QEP resulted from a participatory process

led by an eight-member QEP Development Team. QEP development began in January of 2006

and extended through August of 2007. The team studied institutional data, reviewed scholarly

literature, and surveyed and interviewed faculty and students. They identified four serious issues

to be addressed: (1) a high percentage of under-prepared and at-risk students enroll at Chipola,

but the college’s “open door” must remain open; (2) too many students fail to complete their

programs of study; (3) specific high-risk courses present barriers for many students; and (4)

many students will continue to drop or stop out unless the college changes current practices.

Focus of the Plan on Student Learning: Analysis of a variety of data identified the

college’s focus, which is failure of most of its Associate degree-seeking students to persist until


2

they graduate. In fact, one study showed that 69% of Chipola’s most under-prepared students

leave the college within the first year and do not return. After much consideration the QEP

Development Team defined student learning in the context of the QEP as follows: “The change

in students’ knowledge, skills, abilities, behaviors, attitudes, and values attributable to SI and

FYLE groups.” They then narrowed the focus of the QEP to how SI and FYLE could be

implemented at Chipola.

The Quality Enhancement Plan: After months of study, Chipola designed a QEP with two

new initiatives and the supporting faculty development required for implementation. The purpose

of these components is to increase student learning and success in college. The QEP will be fully

implemented in Spring 2008.

• Component I: Supplemental Instruction (SI) will be based on the University of Missouri-

Kansas City model. SI, a peer-assisted academic support service, will provide help in courses

that traditionally have a 30% or higher rate of Ds, Fs, or Ws. The SI Leader, a student who

previously earned an A in the course with the same professor, will offer regular study sessions

and share specific strategies for completing the course. A pilot study of SI was conducted in two

high-risk courses in Spring 2007 and will continue with two additional high-risk courses in Fall

2007.

• Component II: First Year Learning Experience (FYLE) will be based on the OnCourse

model. FYLE will increase student persistence by providing entering Associate degree-seeking

students a set of well-defined learning opportunities designed to teach students to persist. The

one-semester-hour course, led by FYLE mentors and consisting of 15-20 students, will expand

the existing one-semester-hour Orientation (SLS 1101) course. Four FYLE mentors will develop

the course during Fall 2007 and conduct a pilot study in Spring 2008.

• Faculty Development will provide opportunities for novice and seasoned faculty to gain


3

the latest academic and professional knowledge to support the QEP. Summer workshops, guest

speakers, and travel to professional meetings will be based on five themes identified by faculty.

Institutional Capability to Initiate and Continue the QEP: Chipola has the capacity and

commitment required to implement the QEP as planned. The college has identified the human

and financial resources, facilities, and logistical requirements for a successful QEP. In October

2006 Chipola was awarded a U.S. Department of Education Title III-Strengthening Institutions

grant for $1,750,000 which will cover costs for the first two years of planning and pilot studies

and the first three years of implementation. Increases in student fees and FTE funding will

provide ample financial resources to continue indefinitely the components of the Title III project

and the QEP. Separate projected budgets have also been developed for SI, FYLE, and the overall

QEP. Budget plans include how these funds will be generated and expended. Qualified and

responsible personnel will implement the QEP.

Broad-Based Involvement to Implement the QEP: Faculty, administrators, staff, and

board members are committed to their roles in a successful QEP, which will be implemented

through a well planned, five-year college-wide effort. A detailed Action Plan will guide

implementation from 2008-2009 through 2012-2013.

Assessment of the QEP: A comprehensive evaluation plan will measure the impact of

Learning to Persist and guide decisions as the components are implemented. The assessment

plan includes (1) an external evaluator who monitors data, visits campus at least twice annually,

and submits an annual report to the president; (2) both formative and summative evaluation; (3)

quantitative assessment and qualitative feedback from students and faculty; and (4) baseline data

on multiple and varied outcomes for SI, FYLE, faculty development, and the overall impact of

the QEP.


4

I. Introduction to the College and Its Community

Chipola College (Chipola) is a public, open-admissions institution in Marianna, Florida,

serving five rural counties. Located in the Florida Panhandle, Chipola is the third oldest of

Florida’s 28 public community colleges. Chipola “promotes learning and student achievement

by embracing excellence, opportunity,

diversity, and progress” (Vision Statement).

All resources of the college are

concentrated on fulfilling this vision.

The college’s primary mission is to

offer programs leading to Associate degrees

and workforce certificates. Degrees

awarded include the (1) Associate in Arts

(AA) degree for university transfer programs paralleling the first two years of a Baccalaureate

degree; (2) Associate in Science (AS) and Associate in Applied Science (AAS) degrees for

entry-level preparation for a variety of technical and occupational fields; and (3) Workforce

Development Certificates of Training for students seeking immediate entry into a career field. In

addition, in 2003 Chipola was authorized by Florida’s State Board of Education to offer

Baccalaureate degrees through a Teacher Education Program. This was in response to the critical

need for middle and high school math and science teachers.

Chipola was accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) in

1957 and has maintained continuous accreditation since that time. In June 2003, SACS approved

the college’s Application for Substantive Change to a Level II Institution. In August 2003, the

institution’s name was changed to Chipola College, and in January 2004, the first students

enrolled in Bachelor of Science in Secondary Education (BSE) classes. Chipola’s Teacher


5

Education Program has since been approved following site visits by SACS and the Florida

Department of Education.

Because the college offers Associate degrees for transfer to state universities, Chipola

remains part of the Florida Community College System for administration and funding.

However, the state allocates adequate special BSE recurring funds to train math and science

teachers for middle and high schools in the college district and across Florida. Chipola is

governed by a nine-member District Board of Trustees representing the five district counties. All

operations are subject to the Florida Department of Education, other state agencies, the Florida

Division of Community Colleges, and policies of the Chipola District Board of Trustees.

The college district’s population is just over 114,436 (Florida Trend—Economic Yearbook

Comparisons, 2006). Chipola is the only source of public comprehensive postsecondary

educational opportunity in its economically depressed district. The college is committed to

meeting the needs of a student population with increasing numbers of low-income,

nontraditional, part-time students seeking education and skills for the job market. As the

community’s resource for postsecondary education and career advancement, Chipola College

seeks to mitigate the poverty and declining economic and social conditions that characterize the

area.

As shown in Table 1, the region is more sparsely populated than the rest of the state. This

decreases the local tax base. Incomes are also much lower than the state average. For example,

the median household income in Holmes County is only $23,416, and 24.7% of the population

lives below the poverty level. The state’s median income is $32,877, and only 14.4% of Florida’s

population lives below poverty level. The other four counties reflect similar data. Every

semester, 85-90% of Chipola’s students come from this five-county district.


6

Table 1: Demographic Profile of District Counties, Compared to State

Calhoun Holmes Jackson Liberty Washington FLORIDA Population in 2000

13,017 18,564 46,755 7,021 20,973 15,982,376

% Population Change 1990-2000

18.2% 17.7% 13.0% 26.1% 24.0% 23.5%

% White persons

79.9% 89.8% 70.2% 76.4% 81.7% 78.05%

Non-white persons

20.1% 10.2% 29.8% 23.6% 18.3% 22%

Households 4,468 6,921 16,620 2,222 7,931 6,337,929 Persons per household

2.53 2.43 2.44 2.51 2.46 2.46

Median house-hold income

$25,362 $23,416 $25,953 $27,178 $25,224 $32,877

Persons below poverty

23.0% 24.7% 20.8% 22.3% 22.5% 14.4%

Land Area (sq. mile)

567 482 916 836 580 53,927

Persons per sq. mile

23 38.5 51.0 8.4 36.2 296.4

Source: 2000 U.S. Census

During the last five years, Chipola’s unduplicated headcount enrollment has ranged from

2,816 to 3,293. About 76% are first-generation college students; over 90% commute to classes,

25% from 30 or more miles (one way) each day. About 75% are employed with 55% describing

themselves as “full-time employees and part-time students” (2006 Entering Student Survey).

Fewer than half are full-time students. In 2006-2007,

of the 2830 students enrolled, Associate degree

students made up 80% (2,269); about 19% (532) were

seeking Workforce Development Certificates; about

one percent (29) were enrolled in Bachelor’s degree

programs. (See Table 2 for a profile of student

characteristics in 2005-2006.) Over 3,000 community

Table 2: Student Characteristics

Enrollment (Headcount) 3293

Enrollment (FTE) 1695

Percent Female 58.2%

Percent Minority 23.1%

Percent Part-Time 54.6%

Academically Disadvantaged 64%

Pell Grant Recipients 713 Source: Data Center, “Enrollment Facts,” 2005-2006


7

members participate annually in non-credit courses through Continuing Education or the Public

Service Department, which provides inservice training in law enforcement, corrections, and fire

fighting.

Urgency of Postsecondary Education in the College District

Chipola finds itself at a unique time and place in its own history with unprecedented

economic trends unfolding in the Southeastern United States. The college is increasingly more

important to the citizens of its district. In addition to the local economy, national and

international events are affecting the region’s economy and social conditions in new ways. The

area served by Chipola never made the full transition from an agrarian to an industrial and

manufacturing economy. The region’s young people must now make a significant shift from

semi-agrarian to the new information-based culture.

The Interstate 10 (I-10) corridor from Jacksonville, Florida, to Houston, Texas, has been

developing rapidly for the past decade. Its growth potential is still enormous. Local

neighborhoods will change a great deal in the next decade. Chipola is located almost in the

center of the Northwest Florida I-10 corridor. There is no tourist industry as in Central and South

Florida, just the dying agricultural economy based on timber, peanuts, and livestock. North

Florida has never industrialized except for a brief effort to establish a textile industry in the ‘60s

and ‘70s. Most textile manufacturing jobs have since been transferred overseas. More recently,

a furniture manufacturing company and a commercial washing machine manufacturer also

closed. In the last two decades, many local citizens have found employment in state and federal

prisons, which are now among the area’s major employers. A different economy is emerging.

In the same way the change from agrarian to industrial economies produced human

migration, economic explosion, and mechanical advances, the shift to a post-industrial

information-based economy will produce changes in the college district. The duty of Chipola


8

“Chipola is a change agent. Self-definition is a product of one’s assessment of where one fits into the social structure. One measures himself/herself against a backdrop of what he or she “knows,” on the basis of learned concepts of what is good or not good, what is of value or not of value. Therefore, ideas of success or achievement are not universal but culturally defined and circumscribed by the social era and setting. Now we are attempting to change the culture of Chipola.”

Dr. Rene Tharpe, QEP Team Member

College is to ensure that the people of Northwest Florida are prepared to meet the new challenges

of the 21st Century. The change is already in motion. Chipola must not only recruit students from

the area, but the college must also introduce these students to the realities of the changing

economy, inspire them, and train them for the future they are about to face.

Eventually, the advanced technical occupations of the Florida Panhandle will be filled, if not

by local residents and their children, then by migrating professionals from other parts of the

nation who long for the serene and safe

life in the South’s rural communities. This

means local citizens, if not prepared, will

become second-class citizens in their own

home towns. For this reason, Chipola is

committed to enrolling, retaining,

teaching, and graduating more students

with the knowledge, skills, credentials, and plans they need to take advantage of their own

opportunities and be successful in life.

Chipola is recognized for its excellent instructional programs, all of which undergo annual

program assessments. All AA graduates take the Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency

(CAAP) exam for comparison to national norms on tests and subtests. Students in AS and AAS

degree and Certificate programs meet strict state competencies and pass licensure and

certification examinations. The new Ready-to-Work credential also enhances employment

potential. Chipola emphasizes quality teaching and ranks among the top performers on state-

mandated accountability outcome measures. Chipola also enrolls a high percentage of Florida’s

Bright Futures Scholarship recipients and has a nationally recognized Phi Theta Kappa Chapter.

In the last three years, six Chipola scholars have been recognized as Phi Theta Kappa/USA Today


9

First Team Academic All-Americans. The 2007 Brain Bowl Team also advanced to the national

finals. These high performing students are headed for professional schools in medicine, law,

pharmacy, engineering, or business. In August 2007 the Washington Monthly named Chipola

18th among the nation’s top 30 community colleges. Data from many sources show that students

who persist and graduate excel in the workplace and at transfer universities.

Despite the exemplary performance of Chipola’s most capable students, over half the

students who enroll do not complete their programs of study. These students lack the necessary

academic background, do not have study skills or life management skills, or do not become

engaged and connected to the college in ways which help them remain enrolled until they

graduate. Chipola College has developed Learning to Persist, a plan to increase student learning

and success by (1) implementing Supplemental Instruction (SI) in high-risk courses which

present barriers for many students and often prevent them from advancing, and (2) developing a

required, one-semester-hour First-Year Learning Experience (FYLE) course to help students

become engaged in learning, change what they believe about themselves, and understand their

role in preparing for the future.


10

II. Broad-Based Process to Develop the QEP

The decision to develop Learning to Persist resulted from one of the most participatory and

collegial processes ever to occur at Chipola College. While the recognition of the need to

increase student learning and success resulted from the college’s on-going planning and

evaluation process, the interest in approaching the issue in proactive ways evolved after new,

more focused conversations. Faculty and administrators examined data in new ways and

conducted a thorough review of literature in search of best practices and documented successes

in other institutions.

The QEP development process was initiated during the first months of 2006 in response to

the SACS ten-year reaffirmation of accreditation. In the January, February, and March faculty

meetings, Dr. Sarah Clemmons, Senior Vice President of Instruction and Student Services,

outlined the requirements of the QEP component of the SACS reaffirmation process. SACS

Liaison Gail Hartzog, Associate Dean of Development and Planning, presented a tentative

timeline for the development of a successful QEP prior to the On-Site Committee visit in Fall

2007. Plans for how the college would complete both the Compliance Certification and QEP

were discussed at length. Faculty soon began to realize that they would have an opportunity to

affect the future of the college and its students by developing a QEP to address student learning.

(See Appendix A for timelines for preparation of the Compliance Certification and QEP.)

During the first three faculty meetings in Spring 2006, a variety of institutional data were

presented. These data included the percentage of students completing a degree or program, the

percentage of Associate degree-seeking students still in school after three, four, and five years,

the percentage of students who enter Chipola under-prepared, the percentage of students who

drop out at various points, and other student-related data. These results were discussed in relation

to student learning and the obstacles students face when trying to achieve their academic goals.


11

Extensive discussion focused on possible actions the college could take to help more students be

successful.

Forming the QEP Development Team

A QEP Development Team was invited to lead the college in the important task of

developing an appropriate QEP for Chipola College. Six doctoral degree-holding faculty

members representing six different academic areas agreed to serve.

QEP Development Team

Dr. Cherry Ward, Chair Professor of Education and Mathematics Dr. Kitty Myers, Co-Chair Vice-President of Instruction and Baccalaureate Programs Dr. Jeff Bodart Professor of Physics Dr. Ed Lyon Professor of Music (no longer at the college) Dr. Gina McAllister Professor of Education Dr. Rene Tharpe Professor of Sociology Dr. David Saffo Assistant Professor of English Gail Hartzog, SACS Liaison Associate Dean of Development and Planning

Two administrators were named to assist the faculty: the Vice President of Instruction and

Baccalaureate Programs, who is also a former statistics professor, and the Associate Dean of

Development and Planning, who is also the SACS Liaison. The eight-member team met with the

Senior Vice President of Instruction and Student Services Dr. Sarah Clemmons for the first time

on March 15, 2006. Dr. Clemmons thanked the team for serving, expressed her expectations, and

charged the group to (1) study data related to student learning at Chipola; (2) identify major

issues affecting student success; (3) seek faculty and student input; (4) review educational

literature for solutions to the issues; (5) engage faculty, staff, and students in discussions about

how such research-based solutions might be adapted and implemented at Chipola; (6) submit by

the end of the Summer 2006 a proposal with recommendations to the Executive Council; and (7)

submit a near-final draft of the full document by Summer 2007. Dr. Clemmons also offered

$2,500 as compensation to each faculty member for completing this charge. Dr. Ward as chair

also received release time from one class during Fall 2006 and Spring 2007.


12

The QEP Development Team accomplished the following during the early stages of its work

in the late spring and summer of 2006: (1) collected and analyzed over 30 sets of new

institutional data; (2) reviewed at least 100 pieces of research; (3) identified best practices of

exemplary institutions; (4) surveyed and interviewed faculty and students; and (5) considered

Chipola’s past experiences and available resources.

The team established a weekly meeting schedule that extended approximately six months and

a research and writing schedule that extended thirteen months. During that time they learned

about the QEP process and examined institutional data, including regular reports like the Annual

Institutional and Educational Effectiveness Report, the Community College Survey of Student

Engagement (CCSSE) for students and faculty (CCFSSE), Chipola’s own entering and

graduating student survey results, College Assessment of Academic Proficiency Exam (CAAP)

results, and performance reports on Florida’s Accountability Outcome Measures. They also

requested from Chipola’s Data Center numerous special reports regarding student performance,

retention, completion, and time lapse to graduation for different student populations.

The QEP Development Team shared some of their earliest research of student populations

during the April 2006 faculty meeting. The data presented were for a 2002 entering student

cohort tracked through 2005. The percentage of students who graduated was disaggregated into

three categories: (1) advanced students who had completed dual-enrollment courses; (2) college-

ready students who had no dual-enrollment credit and no need for college-preparatory (remedial)

classes; and (3) under-prepared students who needed at least one college-preparatory class.

Faculty members were struck by research showing that students with dual-enrollment credit had

been masking Chipola’s high attrition rate. The attrition rate for students with dual-enrollment

credit was 33% as opposed to 69% for those requiring college-preparatory classes. The data for

this same cohort showed that not one student who repeated a college-preparatory class had


13

graduated. (See “Defining the Issues to Be Addressed,” pp.15-20, for more about institutional

data used to determine the focus of the QEP.)

Incorporating Faculty and Student Feedback

Faculty members were asked to consider the QEP as an impetus to provide effective learning

opportunities for their students. A Faculty QEP survey was distributed in each academic

department. The survey listed several possible ideas for a QEP topic based on the Development

Team’s initial research and discussion. Faculty were also asked to make comments and include

any additional ideas that might increase student learning.

About 23% of the full-time faculty responded in writing to the Faculty QEP survey. Many

others shared their ideas during interviews and discussion groups with QEP Development Team

representatives in academic departments. The comments were summarized and grouped into

clusters to determine faculty viewpoints. The following are examples of broad ideas for possible

QEP topics that surfaced during this early stage of the process:

• Promote information literacy by linking it to instruction, technology, innovative instructional methods, and learning communities;

• Institute reality counseling which redirects academically under-prepared students into Workforce Development certificate programs if they must take all three college-preparatory courses;

• Revamp the English composition sequence by creating two levels of Communication Skills I (ENC 1101), one for students who took College-Preparatory Writing (ENC 0004) and another for college-ready students;

• Provide tutoring for all students, including extended evening tutoring for non-traditional students;

• Develop an outreach program for secondary teachers to enhance the quality of instruction at the secondary level and to improve the quality of students entering Chipola;

• Teach reading strategies in content areas and incorporate pre- and post-tests and writing assignments to assess increases in reading skills;

• Create a way to help students learn to manage class assignments and the many other demands on their time. Stress time management in classes, emphasize the importance of


14

attending class, increase awareness of career options and the value of a college education, and help students set realistic goals;

• Establish an intervention program taught by faculty to help students with time management, study skills, other career options, and survival strategies;

• Assess students’ learning styles during Orientation (SLS 1101). Then share these results with their professors;

• Design the QEP for all students at Chipola and not just those enrolled in college-preparatory courses because so much has been done already for the under-prepared student population; and

• Support officially faculty who make a concerted effort not to simplify or “water down” course content or compromise the integrity of college-level courses, thus maintaining high academic expectations.

Simultaneously, about 400 students completed Student QEP Feedback Questionnaires

regarding the difficulties they had encountered at Chipola and how they thought the college

could better engage students and assist them academically. Some professors allowed students to

complete the surveys during scheduled classes while others discussed the survey with student

groups or interviewed individual students to collect information. These comments were

summarized and analyzed by the QEP Development Team.

Students were asked to answer the following open-ended questions:

1. Since coming to Chipola, what has been your biggest challenge academically? How did you address this challenge? What could Chipola have done to help you?

2. What has been your biggest non-academic challenge?

How did you address this challenge? What could Chipola have done to help you?

3. Have you ever withdrawn from a course(s)?

Why? What could Chipola have done to help you stay in the course?

4. Do you know anyone who has dropped out of Chipola? Why do you think he/she dropped out? What do you think Chipola could have done to help him/her remain in school?

5. What do you think Chipola could do to help students be more successful?


15

While student responses included suggestions like “add more parking” and “get rid of this

teacher or that course,” they also included many beneficial comments and helped clarify the

picture for the QEP Development Team. The following are some of the most frequent issues

revealed by the students’ responses:

• Most students see “hard classes” and “academic difficulties” as their biggest challenges;

• Many students’ major problems stem from managing family or work schedules with a full class load;

• Many students are unsure how to prepare for exams and don’t know what else they can do to be successful in their classes;

• Many returning students deal with financial problems, work schedules, long commutes, sick children, and family problems which take precedence over study and class attendance;

• Students report withdrawing from classes or leaving college because of “difficult courses,” “low grades,” “personal problems,” “work schedules,” and “too many work hours”; and

• Students need to become more effective learners who are academically, emotionally, and socially equipped to achieve their academic goals.

Defining the Issues to be Addressed

As a result of data analysis, the QEP Development Team identified four serious issues to be

addressed in order to increase student learning and success. These were analyzed, published on

campus, and presented for consideration by faculty, administrators, and board members.

1. A high percentage of under-prepared and

at-risk students enroll at Chipola, but the

college’s “open door” must remain open.

About 64% of entering Associate degree-

seeking students must take at least one

college-preparatory (remedial) course in

math, reading, or writing. About 33% must take all three. These students struggle to complete

college-level course work without intense remediation. In communications and math classes,

A telling comment by a student explaining why her friend left Chipola: “. . . she made a low grade on a test and didn’t know what else she could do to pass the class—besides she didn’t really know anybody but me anyway, and nobody else cared if she stayed in school or not.”

QEP Student Questionnaire


16

“Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts.”

Calvin Coolidge

students cannot advance to the next level course unless they make a grade of C or better. Too

many students become frustrated or distracted, drop out before the end of the first semester, and

never return.

Although the two components of the QEP could potentially assist any student at Chipola,

AA and AS degree-seeking students are more likely to benefit from them because data show

that these students are more likely to drop out before completing their programs of study.

Research shows that Workforce Development programs provide more one-on-one contact with

fellow students and professors, and students become more engaged in learning. However, many

Associate degree-seeking students face academic difficulties in high-risk “barrier” courses, fail

to make the adjustments necessary to remain enrolled, or are not fully engaged in the college

experience soon enough to become

committed to remaining enrolled.

2. Too many students fail to complete

their programs of study. This is a

complex issue because many factors

cause students to drop out. Data show that most Chipola graduates who enter as academically

advanced or dual-enrollment students do well when they transfer to four-year schools or join the

workforce. Data also show that as many as 69% of some at-risk student groups do not complete

degrees or certificates in four years. In fact, college-ready students are more than twice as likely

to graduate as students who enter under-prepared and must take college-preparatory courses.

A recent attrition study contrasts completion rates of dual enrollment, college-ready, and

underprepared students. Only 5% of the academically advanced dual-enrollment students were

still enrolled at Chipola in three years. However, Chipola is not as equipped to support students

who enter with no dual-enrollment credit and those with weak academic skills. Table 3 also


17

shows the high attrition rates among students who enter academically under-prepared and the

much lower attrition among the well-prepared students with dual-enrollment credit. Only 33% of

the 2002 cohort who took no dual-enrollment and no college-preparatory courses had graduated

by fall 2005; over 56% had left the college; only 11% remained. The most alarming results

concerned students who earned no dual-enrollment credit and took one or more college-

preparatory courses in reading, writing, or math. Only 16% had graduated by fall 2005, only

14% were still enrolled, and 69% had left the college without a degree or certificate.

Table 3: Total Attrition in Three Years (2002 Entering Cohort) Comparison of Academically Advanced, College-Ready, and College-Preparatory (Remedial)

Student Groups

Graduated by Fall 2005

Still Enrolled Fall 2005

Attrition by Fall 2005

(withdrawing, transferring,

not re-enrolling)Academically Advanced w/ Dual Enrollment (Not College-Preparatory) 63% 5% 33%

College-Ready (Not Dual Enrollment; Not College-Preparatory) 33% 11% 56%

Academically Under-Prepared (Not Dual Enrollment; at least one College-Preparatory)

16% 14% 69%

Source: QEP Research Reports, “Graduation and Attrition Summaries,” Feb. 2006

A stratified sample of entering degree-seeking students was identified, and a cohort was

tracked through four years to reveal alarming trends. By the beginning of the second semester,

23% of the AA students and 50% of the AS students were no longer enrolled and have not since

reappeared in the database. At the end of the “traditional” 2-2½ years (for 2-year degree), only

23% had graduated. This means that 54% were “somewhere in between.” Even four years later,

only 34% had completed any program of study.

Table 4 shows results of a follow-up survey of 275 students who had completed between 25

and 50 semester hours. The survey identified stress factors among students who had persisted for


18

at least two semesters. A wide range of academic, personal, and family issues were shown to

create stress for Chipola’s students. Studying these and other data caused the QEP Development

Team to consider possible ways to help students deal with stress, lack of engagement, and other

issues which create academic challenges. This inquiry eventually resulted in the design of

Component 2—FYLE groups with mentoring for entering students.

Academic departments have also analyzed specific course enrollments to further define the

problems preventing success for some students. For example, students entering college-level

math classes make an average ACT score of 19.5 on the math portion, but those who have not

taken challenging core academic courses in high school have an average math ACT of 16.7.

Table 5 shows a summary of the combined performance of 168 students in three entry-level

college-credit math classes. Scores are grouped by ACT score. Students must make a grade of C

or better to advance to the next level course. This study showed that at least 48% of the students

who entered a college-preparatory math course could not advance to the next level math course.

Table 5: Grade Distributions – Entering College-Level Math Courses in Intermediate Algebra, College Algebra, and Math for Liberal Arts Majors

Grade

Entering ACT Below 18 67 students *

Entering ACT 19+ 101 students

All 168 students

A 10% 30% 22% B 21% 24% 23% C 21% 25% 23%

D, F,W (cannot advance) 48% 21% 32% Source: Fall Grade Report, Department Work Papers, *Students have completed one remedial course

Table 4: Student Survey Results on the Identification of Major Stress Factors* 1. Inadequate test-taking skills .............. 65% 2. Difficulty of course work .................. 58% 3. Inadequate study techniques ............. 58% 4. Not enough money to go to school ... 45% 5. Home responsibilities ........................ 41%

6. Lack of computer skills ...................... 36%7. Attempted to work too many hours .... 36%8. Personal or family illness ................... 22%9. Dissatisfied with non-teaching staff ..... 7%10. Dissatisfied with teaching staff .......... 3%

Source: Current Student Survey Results, 2005 *Students with 25-50 Semester Hours Credit


19

“I can see it in their eyes when work, health, a long commute, and personal problems are compounded by difficult course work. There’s a look they get when they’re about to ‘give it up’—and then they disappear.”

English Professor, Employee Survey

3. Specific high-risk courses present obstacles for many students. Each year, numerous students

do not perform well in their classes, become frustrated, and leave—most during their first

semester. The QEP Development Team examined student success across the curriculum in

specific courses in order to identify high-risk courses that consistently have the highest rate of

Ds, Fs, or withdrawals (Ws) for final course grades. In the initial study, six courses consistently

appeared. These are shown in Table 6.

Table 6: Identification of Chipola’s High-Risk Courses

Course Title and Prefix Percentage of Ds, Ws, and Fs Introduction to Biology—BSC 1005 46% Introduction to Earth Science—GLY 1001* 44% Intermediate Algebra—MAT 1033 41% Anatomy and Physiology—BSC 2093 40% College Algebra—MAC 1105 30% Elementary Algebra—MAT 0024 36% *State changed course prefix and number to ESC 1000 for Fall 2007.

Since all degree programs at Chipola require hours in mathematics and/or general science,

students must succeed in such courses in order to fulfill general education requirements for

graduation. Failure to complete the science and math courses presents a serious roadblock to

many degree-seeking students. Teachers have reported frustration over lack of an academic

support system. Hence the development team began to research a QEP component designed to

increase student success in these critical courses.

4. Many students will continue to drop

or stop out unless the college changes

current practices. Based on the

preceding data, the college has

determined that many students withdraw or do not re-enroll if they (1) do not receive sufficient

support to help them succeed in their classes or (2) cannot adjust to college quickly enough to


20

become fully engaged in learning. They have not learned to persist until they achieve their

educational goal.

On July 11, 2006, approximately six months after the QEP Development Team began its

work, the Chair, Dr. Cherry Ward, presented a proposal with recommendations to the president,

vice presidents, and deans in a special meeting of the Executive Council. President Prough and

the Executive Council approved the document. Work began immediately to adapt the

presentation for the faculty on its first day back for the fall term on August 14, 2006. A

presentation was made to faculty, including a timeline for the next year and details of the

projected pilot studies of the two components. Later, on October 24, 2006, Dr. Ward also

presented plans to the District Board of Trustees. (See Appendix C for the QEP proposal

presented to Executive Council, July 11, 2006). Monthly progress reports on the QEP and the

Compliance Certification were published to all employees as “SACS Updates” in Chipola Facts

and distributed to the District Board of Trustees at each monthly meeting.

Drafts of assigned sections of the QEP document were submitted in early June 2007, about 18

months after the QEP development process began. Another presentation was made to the faculty

on August 13, 2007, the first day back for the fall term. In addition, the Back-to-School

Luncheon theme “Get on Board the Chipola Express” supported the QEP. The President’s annual

address outlined the components of the plan and charged all employees to participate as

requested in the college-wide effort. He reminded personnel of tasks to be completed in

preparation for the SACS On-Site Visit in late October. The final draft of Learning to Persist

was made available for college-wide review from August 20 through September 4. The final

document was completed and published in mid-September 2007.


21

“I have no doubt that self-discipline and persistence are learned behaviors. The question is whether these behaviors can be learned after students get to college—and whether they can be taught to our students. I want to think they can.”

Chipola Administrator, Employee Survey

III. Focus of the Plan

After months of study and discussion of options, the QEP Development Team determined

that Chipola College should implement a plan to help students learn to persist until they graduate

by focusing on three important goals:

Goal 1: Increase student learning and academic success in high-risk courses by providing Supplemental Instruction (SI) based on the University of Missouri-Kansas City model. Goal 2: Increase student learning and engagement in the college experience by implementing a one-semester-hour First-Year Learning Experience (FYLE) course for entering degree- seeking students. Goal 3: Increase student learning by providing faculty development to increase the faculty’s understanding of student engagement, retention techniques, and instructional technology.

To achieve these goals, the college will (1) establish a system to offer Supplemental

Instruction (SI) based on Martin, Blanc, and Arendale (1996), and (2) create and require of

entering students a new one-semester-hour course First-Year Learning Experience (FYLE) based

on Cuseo and Barefoot (1996). It will

expand the impact of the existing

orientation course. (See “The Quality

Enhancement Plan,” pp. 35-50, for

detailed descriptions of these

components.) The combination of these two components into an integrated and focused plan is

based on the premise that persistence and commitment are learned behaviors. If that is true, then

these behaviors can be taught. Therefore, a specific set of experiences and lessons can help more

students learn to persist. The faculty and administration also worked together to develop an

extensive faculty development plan to assist faculty in understanding these new initiatives and

how to teach, support, and engage students in new ways.


22

“Learning how to learn has become an important objective for students because this is a learning that will positively transfer into every new learning situation.”

Madeline Hunter

A. Definition of Student Learning in the Context of the QEP

Extensive discussion of student learning contributed to the rationale for including SI and

FYLE classes as the two components of Chipola’s Quality Enhancement Plan. The QEP

Development Team, faculty, administrators, and students have considered both theoretical and

practical definitions in determining exactly

what issues need to be addressed if the

college is to affect student learning in new

ways.

Following are the Development Team’s five major theoretical conclusions about learning: (1)

useful learning involves self-assessment and rational decision making within a particular context

to produce a desired outcome; (2) responsible learning involves being accountable for one’s

knowledge and use of that knowledge; and (3) practical learning involves acquiring appropriate

tools and knowing how to use them. Another theory supports (4) developing self-efficacy, which

Bandura (1986) defines as “self referent thought, . . . a generative capability in which cognitive,

social, and behavioral subskills must be organized into integrated courses of action to serve

innumerable purposes. . . . It is people’s judgment of their capabilities to organize and execute

courses of action” (p. 391). Learning also results in the (5) ability to establish life goals within

the context of society. Ultimately, gaining an education is acquiring knowledge and

understanding of society. Learning is the process of adapting one’s behavior to the social system

for maximum success, which is also defined by society.

In the practical application of these five theoretical concepts, SI will help students succeed in

the courses in which they are most likely to have academic difficulties; the FYLE groups will

provide learning that changes attitudes and behaviors and assists students in achieving academic

and personal goals. Arriving at this practical application means the college’s faculty,


23

Definition of Student Learning for the QEP Student learning defined for Learning to Persist is as follows:

The change in students’ knowledge, skills, abilities, behaviors, attitudes, and values attributable to Supplemental Instruction (SI) and First-Year Learning Experience (FYLE) groups.

administrators, and support staff view the components of Learning to Persist as thoughtfully

structured, concrete opportunities for students to develop the knowledge, skills, abilities,

behaviors, attitudes, and values they need to succeed as learners—and to persist until they

complete a degree or certificate.

This definition is based on the SACS Handbook for Reaffirmation of Accreditation (2004)

which defines student learning as “students’ knowledge, skills, behaviors, and/or values that may

be attributable to the college experience” (p. 22).

The college has developed Learning to Persist as a continuation of its commitment to

provide appropriate academic support while equipping students to accept responsibility for and

be committed to their own successes. It is also based on and reflects Chipola’s efforts to meet the

challenge of its own vision statement, which expresses a commitment to “promote learning and

student achievement.”

The following excerpt from the college’s mission statement also provides a clear context for

the importance of implementing both components of Learning to Persist.

Institutional Vision Statement Chipola College promotes learning and student achievement by embracing excellence, opportunity, diversity, and progress.

Institutional Mission Statement “The college creates a student-oriented atmosphere of educational excellence and maintains an intellectual environment which inspires the full development of each individual’s goals, abilities, and interests.” Excerpt, Chipola College Mission –Revised June 15, 2004


24

Arising from Chipola’s vision and mission are the following institutional goals, which guide

decision-making, budgeting, planning, and assessment:

Institutional Goals Underlined are the college goals addressed directly by the QEP.

1. Provide quality instruction in academic, workforce development, and continuing education programs, including sufficient instructional support to meet the needs of students. 2. Present the college and its programs in positive ways, making every effort to attract and enroll as many students as possible by marketing the college through a variety of methods and enrolling students in efficient and customer-oriented ways. 3. Provide a wide-range of academic, developmental, and support services to help retain students in programs by increasing the percentage who remain continuously enrolled through completion of a degree or certificate. 4. Promote the responsible management of resources by maintaining sound fiscal operations, seeking additional resources, improving college facilities, and providing an environment conducive to progressive implementation of technology. 5. Encourage staff and organizational development by supporting an efficient and productive work environment where employees demonstrate competence, integrity, and professional excellence. 6. Foster strong community involvement and workforce development by supporting local and state economic growth and encouraging civic, cultural, recreational, and service activities. 7. Maintain a strong reputation for promoting student satisfaction and long-term success by equipping students with the knowledge and skills necessary to pursue their goals and become more productive citizens.

Institutional Goals relate to seven Success Factors and are assessed annually in the Annual Institutional and Educational Effectiveness Report

B. Narrowing the Focus

Students must pass classes in order to achieve their educational goals. Learning to Persist

supports student learning by providing practical solutions to complex problems. It is an

integrated solution with two distinct components. It maps out clear steps toward providing

additional tools for students to succeed in their curricula while becoming confident, capable

learners.


25

“When students declare a major or enroll for career training, they are telling us what they want to accomplish. Their goals often change over time, but they must pass their classes to make progress toward any degree or certificate.”

Faculty Member, Chipola Facts, Nov. 2004

The Supplemental Instruction (SI) component will increase learning outcomes and course

mastery in high-risk courses. It will help students persist through and beyond their first

difficult—and often most difficult courses. SI, a peer-assisted academic support service, will

provide help in specific, carefully selected courses that traditionally have a 30% or greater rate of

Ds, Fs, or Ws. The SI leader will attend class with the students, offer regularly scheduled study

sessions, and share specific strategies for

completing the course. This system is based

on the University of Missouri-Kansas City

model. A pilot study of SI was conducted

in Spring 2007 and will continue in Fall

2007. SI will be fully implemented in Spring 2008. (See “Component I: Supplemental

Instruction,” pp. 35-44, for a detailed description of SI at Chipola.)

The First-Year Learning Experience (FYLE) component will increase learning outcomes by

providing a set of well-defined learning opportunities intentionally designed to teach students to

persist. Specific assignments will complement the existing orientation class by emphasizing the

skills needed to adapt to college life. It will incorporate such concepts as study strategies,

learning styles, test-taking, career and life planning, life management, goal setting, time

management, self-awareness, and ethical and non-emotional decision making. It will include a

unit on emotional intelligence to help students recognize the driving or inhibiting forces of their

lives. Chipola considers this course so important that the one-semester-hour FYLE class will be

mandatory for entering degree-seeking students. The curriculum-specific course will be

developed in Fall 2007, pilot tested in Spring 2008, and fully implemented in Fall 2008. It will

facilitate self-discovery and provide students a blueprint for change. (See “Component 2: First-

Year Learning Experience (FYLE),” pp. 44-50, for a detailed description of FYLE at Chipola.)


26

“Perhaps the most remarkable and interesting fact is that, even with all the challenges Chipola students face, they still come. They still come regardless of car trouble, massive mixed signals provided by American culture, family ignorance, poverty, and lifelong fears. It is as if they can sense Chipola is the city on the highest hill in five counties, but they lack the knowledge (i.e., light) or experience (e.g., study skills) to understand fully how or why. Chipola’s responsibility as the district’s only source of public higher education is to do everything within its power to provide students with the skills and knowledge to figure out for themselves everything after their initial impulse to continue their education. FYLE and SI are just the beginning.”

Faculty Member QEP Team Member

Through research, Chipola’s

faculty and administrators more fully

understand that learning wanes if

engagement is lacking; hence the

QEP integrates two components to

achieve a broad, single purpose. The

two components were chosen to

promote student learning in specific

targeted courses while addressing the

largest number of challenges which

prevent students from persisting until

they graduate. When fully implemented at Chipola, SI and FYLE have great potential to promote

learning among the academically diverse student population resulting from the college’s open

enrollment policy. These initiatives provide support for students coming underprepared—be it

academically, ideologically, socially—or after long educational hiatuses.

C. Review of Related Literature, Research, and Best Practices

During the summer of 2006, the QEP Development Team reviewed over 100 articles and

books of scholarly research and identified best practices in exemplary institutions.

Literature Identifying Solutions to the Problem

The literature review revealed that Chipola is not unique; all community colleges and many

four-year institutions—especially those with “open doors”—face a “retention dilemma” that

must be overcome if students are to fulfill their potential. (Achieving the Dream, 1999; Barefoot,

Gardner, et. al., 2005; Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, Whitt, et. al. 2005; Upcraft, Gardner, Barefoot, et. al.,

2005).


27

“Frequency and quality of contact with faculty, staff, and students has repeatedly been shown to be an independent predictor of student persistence. This is true for large and small, rural and urban, public and private, and two and four-year colleges and universities. It is true for women and men, students of color and anglo students, and for both part-time and full-time students. Simply put, involvement matters and at no point does it matter more than during the first year when student attachments are so tenuous and the pull of the institution is so weak.”

Vincent Tinto, Speaking at AACRAO,

Minneapolis, MN, April 15, 2002

The philosophical base of Chipola’s QEP was found in the writings of Dr. Terry O’Banion of

the League for Innovation in Community Colleges and Dr. Vincent Tinto of Syracuse University,

a leading expert in student retention, engagement, and learning communities. O’Banion (1999)

promotes “overhauling the traditional architecture” and describes the current system of higher

education as “time-bound, place-bound,

efficiency-bound, and role-bound” (p.

3). He says when “jump starting” an

institution-wide learning initiative,

leaders should take advantage of a

“teachable moment” or “trigger event”

which “launches energy and creates

opportunity, an event the leaders can use

to focus thought and rally troops to

action” (p. 11). The team became convinced that the SACS reaffirmation in 2008 and the QEP

could provide the ideal “trigger event” and “teachable moment” to create lasting change at

Chipola.

In Rethinking the First Year of College Tinto (1996) identified what he terms the “causes of

student leaving.” Among them are academic difficulty, adjustment difficulties, vague goals,

commitments, finances, poor fit, lack of involvement, and lack of learning (pp. 1-3). Tinto also

found that nearly half the students at two-year colleges leave before returning for their second

year and that almost three-fourths of all attrition occurs during the first year alone. While

numerous programs exist to increase persistence and student success, two were recommended by

the QEP Development Team because they focused on improving student performance and

producing effective, persistent learners.


28

SI Motto: “Tell me, and I forget. Show me, and I remember. Involve me, and I understand.”

Chinese Proverb

Literature Review of Component 1: Supplemental Instruction (SI)

After studying current research, the QEP Development Team decided that the college should

be more proactive in providing instructional support by targeting specific high-risk courses. A

U.S. Department of Education archived report Supplemental Instruction: Improving Student

Performance and Reducing Attrition makes three claims about the effectiveness of SI: (1)

participants earn higher mean final course

grades than non-participating students; (2)

despite ethnicity and prior academic

achievement, students participating in SI

succeed at a higher rate; and (3) participants persist (re-enroll and graduate) at higher rates than

non-participants (pp.1-2).

SI, based on the University of Missouri-Kansas City model, provides a peer-assisted

academic support program offered in traditionally high-risk academic courses, those that

consistently have the highest rate of Ds, Fs, and Ws for final course grades. SI is designed “to

reduce high rates of attrition, increase the level of student performance in difficult courses, and

increase graduation rates” (Crissman & Upcraft, 2005, p. 44). SI began in 1973 at the University

of Missouri-Kansas City to help medical students who lacked some prerequisite skills. SI proved

to be so successful that it is now being implemented in 39% of four-year schools and 30% of

two-year schools (Crissman & Upcraft, 2005). Its design is based on proven learning theories,

behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism. SI also responds to four of Tinto’s factors that

lead to attrition: adjustment, isolation, difficulty, and incongruence (Martin, Blanc, & Arendale,

1996; McGuire, 2006).


29

SI has four categories of key players: SI Supervisor, SI Leaders, the course professors, and

the students (Hurley, Jacobs, & Gilbert, 2006). The common format is for SI discussion and

review sessions to be facilitated by trained students, SI Leaders, who previously earned an A in

the same course with the same professor. The SI Leader attends all class sessions with the

students, prepares additional study aids if needed, completes all homework assignments, and

facilitates two supplemental sessions per week to help students study. Students who are in

courses using SI are ten percent

more likely to persist to

graduation. They “can develop

content, competency, and

transferable academic skills”

(Martin, Blanc, & Arendale,

1996, p. 124). The QEP Development Team became convinced that implementing SI would

improve student success in high-risk courses and help students persist. (See “Component 1:

Supplemental Instruction,” pp. 35-44, for details of how SI will be implemented at Chipola.)

However, the QEP Development Team also realized that SI alone would not be enough to

increase student success and increase overall persistence rates. The team understood that a

variety of complex issues had to be addressed because academic challenges and problems in

personal lives are complicated by social conditions in the rural college district.

Literature Review of Component 2: First-Year Learning Experience (FYLE)

The second component identified by the QEP Development Team was a First-Year Learning

Experience (FYLE) program, defined by some researchers as an “extended orientation seminar.”

These seminars have evolved in various ways in two- and four-year institutions, but all of them

include small groups of entering students in a structured setting led by trained mentors who

“Students fail to do well in college for a variety of reasons, and only one of them is lack of academic preparedness. Factors such as personal autonomy, self-confidence, ability to deal with racism, study behaviors, or social competence have as much or more to do with grades, retention, and graduation than how well a student writes or how competent a student is in mathematics.”

Hunter R. Boylan, Director of the National Center for Developmental Education


30

“Treat people as if they were what they ought to be and you will help them become what they are capable of being.”

Johann Goethe

guide and encourage students through the first semester or year of college. The QEP Team

concluded that Chipola’s version of FYLE would have to be developed because it would be

unique to the institution, its existing class schedule, its students, and its faculty.

Such freshman seminars have been shown to have a significant impact on retention,

persistence, and academic performance for both academically under-prepared and well-prepared

students (Cuseo & Barefoot, 1996).

Hunter and Linder (2005) found that, in

the majority of their studies, first-year

seminars “positively affect retention,

grade point average, number of credit hours attempted and completed, graduation rates, student

involvement in campus activities, and student attitudes and perceptions of higher education, as

well as faculty development and methods of instruction” (p. 289). The size of a successful

seminar section should be “no more that 25 students (preferably 15 to 20) to ensure substantive

class interaction” (Cuseo & Barefoot, 1996, p. 65; Hunter & Linder, 2005). Ideally, the class

sections are taught by credentialed teaching faculty trained to facilitate this student-focused

experience. Research findings encourage institutions to offer academic credit for the seminars,

preferably three semester hours or four quarter hours of credit (Cuseo & Barefoot, 1996; Hunter

& Linder, 2005).

In a 2001 study Hunter and Linder also found that traditional one-hour orientation courses

need to be extended. Institutions offering only one-hour credit had lower gains in nine of ten

defined outcomes compared with institutions offering two or three semester hours of credit.

Some of the outcome factors used were “improved study strategies, improved connections with

peers, increased out-of-class engagement, satisfaction with college or university, and sense of

belonging and acceptance” (p. 282). Researchers recommend the extended orientation seminar


31

include information about college life and services offered at the institution, academic skills to

help students learn, life skills to help them manage increased responsibilities, and academic and

career planning (Cuseo & Barefoot, 1996; Hunter & Linder, 2005).

In planning for Chipola’s FYLE course, the QEP Development Team identified many

examples of freshman seminars already in place at other institutions. Their intent was to develop

a course outline likely to fit the needs of Chipola’s students by equipping them to succeed

academically, remain continuously enrolled, and understand their role in preparing for their own

future.

Chipola’s First-Year Learning Experience (FYLE) groups will complement the present

orientation class, emphasizing the skills needed to succeed in college and beyond. Larger

Orientation (SLS 1101) classes of 45-60 students will be divided into mini-sections of 15-20

randomly-placed students. These seminar groups will be led by trained faculty mentors who plan

and conduct group activities involving academic skill development, educational and career

planning, and life management. At Chipola the FYLE course and the present Orientation (SLS

1101) course will each become one-semester-hour parts of a two-semester-hour extended

orientation.

While the details of the course arrangement, syllabus, and day-to-day seminar activities are

still being developed, the QEP Development Team is convinced by research that the proposed

FYLE course can provide the ideal format for addressing concerns shown in both student and

faculty surveys regarding the need to equip and engage students before they fall into risky

learning behaviors. (See “Component II: First-Year Learning Experience,” pp. 44-50, for details

of how FYLE will be implemented at Chipola.)


32

Literature Review of Faculty Development to Support Components

The college is committed to faculty development as a vital link among the practical skills

taught—or discovered—in the FYLE groups, the academic support offered by SI, and the culture

change required to increase student learning and success. This commitment is supported by

significant research concerning community college faculty. Richard Keeling edited a report of

two important studies. First, a Commission on the Future of Community Colleges’ study (2004)

urged “each community college to commit itself to the recruitment and retention of a top-quality

faculty and to the professional development of these colleagues. It is through the careful

selection and continuous renewal of faculty that the future of community colleges will be built”

(p. 34). Second, a National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA) Task

Force (2004) of professionals from eight leading colleges and universities recommended that

institutions provide “ongoing professional development programs that address the changing

nature of the student experience and student learning so that all campus educators can

continuously assess and improve their efforts in enhancing the learning process” (p. 34).

Following are key concepts gleaned from literature and recommended by the QEP

Development Team as a proper environment for faculty development: (1) enable faculty to get

training when and where they need it; (2) allow leaders to emerge and mentor others in new

instructional and student engagement techniques; (3) provide enough lead time for faculty to

accept new ideas and methods; (4) plan ahead and allow enough funds for faculty to attend

national and regional conferences and then report to the full faculty; (5) when possible, establish

a year-round program of workshops, multi-day institutes, and special interest sessions allowing

professors to discuss research; and (6) keep faculty development activities simple and stress free

so faculty will participate.


33

References

Achieving the Dream: Community Colleges Count. (2007, July). Success is what counts. Retrieved August 15, 2007, from http://www.achievingthedream.org/_images/_index03/ SuccessIsWhatCounts.pdf

Barefoot, B. O., Gardner, J. N., Cutright, M., Morris, L. V., Schroeder, C. C., Schwartz, S. W.,

et. al. (2005). Achieving and sustaining institutional excellence for the first year of college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Commission on the Future of Community Colleges, (1988). Building communities: A vision for a

new century. Washington, DC: American Association of Community and Junior Colleges.

Crissman Ishler, J. L., & Upcraft, M. (2005). The keys to first-year student persistence. In M. L.

Upcraft, J. N. Gardner, B. O. Barefoot and Associates (Eds.), Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college (pp. 27-48). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cuseo, J. B., & Barefoot, B. O. (1996). A natural marriage: The extended orientation seminar

and the community college. In Hankin, J. N. (Ed.), The community college: Opportunity and access for America’s first-year students. (pp. 59-68). Columbia, SC: National Resource Center for The Freshman Year Experience, University of South Carolina.

Focus. (2006,Winter) Lumina Foundation for Education. Hunter, M. S., & Linder, C. W. (2005). First-year seminars. In M. L. Upcraft, J. N. Gardner, B.

O. Barefoot and Associates (Eds.), Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college (pp. 275-291). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hurley, M., Jacobs, G., & Gilbert, M. (2006). The basic SI model. Supplemental Instruction:

New Visions for Empowering Student Learning 106, 11-22. Keeling, R. (Ed.). (2004). Learning reconsidered: A campus-wide focus on the student experience. Washington, DC: NASPA & ACPA. Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J.H., Whitt, E. J., & Associates. (2005) Student success in college:

Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Martin, D. C., Blanc, R., & Arendale, D. R. (1996). Supplemental instruction: Supporting the

classroom experience.” In J. N. Hankin (Ed.), The community college: Opportunity and access for America’s first-year students (pp. 123-133). Columbia, SC: National Resource Center for The Freshman Year Experience, University of South Carolina.

http://www.achievingthedream.org/_images/_index03/ SuccessIsWhatCounts.pdf�

http://www.achievingthedream.org/_images/_index03/ SuccessIsWhatCounts.pdf�


34

McGuire, S. Y. (2006). The impact of supplemental instruction on teaching students how to

learn. Supplemental Instruction: New Visions for Empowering Student Learning 106. 3-10.

O’Banion, T. (1999). Launching a learning-centered college. Mission Viejo, CA: League for Innovation in the Community Colleges. Supplemental instruction (SI): Improving student performance and reducing attrition. US

Government Archived Report. Retrieved June 2, 2006 from www.ed.gov/pubs/EPTW/eptw14/ eptw14d.pdf

Tinto, V. (1996). Persistence and the first-year experience at the community college: Teaching

new students to survive, stay, and thrive. In J. N. Hankin (Ed.), The community college: Opportunity and access for America’s first-year students. (pp. 97-104). Columbia, SC: National Resource Center for The Freshman Year Experience, University of South Carolina.

Tinto, V. (n.d.) Rethinking the first year of college. Retrieved June 2, 2006, from

www.SOEweb.syr.ed/academics/grad/higher_education Upcraft, M. L., Gardner, J. N., Barefoot, B. O. & Assoc. (Eds.). (2005). Challenging and

supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. See also the Annotated Bibliography for Learning to Persist.

http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EPTW/eptw14/ eptw14d.pdf�

http://www.soeweb.syr.ed/academics/grad/higher_education�


35

IV. The Quality Enhancement Plan

The intent of the QEP Development Team was to devise a plan to equip students to be

successful learners who are likely to persist through the completion of their academic program

because they have acquired the knowledge, skills, abilities, behaviors, attitudes and values which

characterize successful learners. The two interrelated components of the plan are based on the

premise that students can learn to persist toward their goals and—more importantly—that the

college can teach them to persist through intentional, specifically designed learning activities.

A. Component 1: Supplemental Instruction (SI)

In an effort to design a sustainable SI program at Chipola College, the QEP Development

Team sought assistance of an SI Subcommittee of five volunteers to guide its development. The

QEP Development Team recommended the members from among volunteers; the administration

appointed them. Those selected had some experience working with tutors, had previously

attempted to offer a form of supplemental instruction for their students, or had read extensively

about SI. Dr. Cherry Ward was named chair of this subcommittee and SI Supervisor.

Supplemental Instruction Subcommittee

Dr. Cherry Ward, QEP Chair Professor of Education and Mathematics Dr. Kitty Myers Vice-President of Instruction and Baccalaureate Programs Dr. Rene Tharpe Professor of Sociology Rose Cavin Professor of Education and Mathematics Angie Tyler Professor, Success Center

The SI Subcommittee met for the first time in Fall 2006. Although all five members were

convinced that some form of SI should be implemented at Chipola, they had questions regarding

(1) scheduling SI sessions; (2) identifying high-risk courses and SI Leaders for them; (3) training

SI Leaders; (4) modifying current contracts for tutors; (5) compensating SI Leaders and the

Supervisor; (6) determining the role of professors in SI courses; and (7) determining the best


36

facilities for SI sessions. After extensive discussion of major issues, the SI Subcommittee

decided to wait until after attending SI training to resolve these questions.

Four of the five members of the SI Subcommittee were able to attend training at the

University of Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC) in November 2006. Dr. Deanna Martin at UMKC

began SI in the 1970s. Since that time UMKC has been helping other institutions establish SI for

their students. The UMKC staff members offer two types of sessions each year. The SI

Supervisor Workshop helps participants understand the purposes and processes of SI. The other

workshop “How to Train SI Leaders Effectively” helps SI Supervisors learn to train their SI

Leaders. Staff members at UMKC conduct conferences throughout the year, sponsor an SI

listserve, and publish articles and monographs to share SI research. Chipola’s SI Supervisor Dr.

Cherry Ward returned to Kansas City in January 2007 to observe the training of the UMKC’s SI

Leaders. Since that time she has joined the Supplemental Instruction listserve (SINET) to learn

of additional strategies for establishing and supervising an effective SI program.

Planning an SI Pilot Study

The SI Subcommittee and the QEP Development Team decided to begin the pilot study of SI

in Spring 2007. They analyzed the data from the previous year to determine which courses were

considered high-risk—meaning a 30% or higher rate of Ds, Fs and Ws. Data showed six possible

courses for the SI pilot study.

Table 7: High-Risk Courses (at Least 30% Ds, Fs, and Ws)

Course Percentage of Ds, Fs and Ws Biology—BSC 1005 46% Earth Science—GLY 1001* 44% Intermediate Algebra—MAT 1033 41% Anatomy and Physiology—BSC 2093 40% College Algebra—MAC 1105 30% Elementary Algebra—MAT 0024 36% *Course prefix and number changed by state to ESC 1000 for Fall 2007


37

“We’ve done so many things right in the last 60 years. Both the FYLE classes and Supplemental Instruction seem like the next logical steps for us.”

Faculty Member, 2007 Employee Survey

The SI Subcommittee decided to conduct a pilot study in two courses: (1) Intermediate

Algebra (MAT 1033) because it had the highest rate of Ds, Fs and Ws among mathematics

courses and (2) Earth Science (GLY 1001) (state changed course prefix and number to ESC 1000

in 2007) because only one professor taught this course. Having one professor would eliminate at

least one variable when examining the data for the pilot study. Furthermore, a professor teaching

MAT 1033 was on the SI Subcommittee and was willing to implement SI in her section. Even

though the Earth Science

professor did not fully understand

SI processes, he was open to

anything that would help his

students be more successful. As anticipated, the SI training at UMKC answered important

questions and prepared the SI Subcommittee to conduct the upcoming pilot study.

The SI Subcommittee made four recommendations which the administration approved. First,

Chipola’s SI program should adhere to guidelines and policies recommended by UMKC.

Second, pilot studies should be conducted in at least two courses prior to the full implementation

of the program. Third, the pilot study should extend through two semesters. And fourth,

appropriate compensation should be paid to students serving as SI Leaders. The recommended

amount was $1,500 per semester for fulfilling specific contractual responsibilities. This

constituted about $10 per hour. SI Leaders would be expected to (1) attend all class meetings for

the course section to which they were assigned; (2) hold a minimum of three SI sessions per

week; (3) plan the SI sessions; (4) attend any training sessions; and (5) maintain up to four office

hours per week. The estimated total time for SI sessions, office hours, and class attendance

would be ten hours per week; occasional training could go beyond ten hours. The SI sessions

would begin the second week of school, giving the SI Leaders time to survey the class for the


38

best time to hold sessions. SI Leaders would hold sessions each week through the last week of

classes. No SI sessions would be held during the week of final exams so that leaders might focus

on their own studies.

The SI Supervisor Dr. Cherry Ward would be given release time from two classes during the

fall and spring semesters. Dr. Ward would be responsible for (1) recruiting, hiring, training, and

evaluating the SI Leaders; (2) collecting and preparing data to evaluate the effectiveness of SI;

and (3) educating and reporting news about SI to all constituents of the institution. SI would be

housed in the Academic Center for Excellence (ACE), a new center for on-demand tutoring and

instructional support funded by a Title III grant. The SI Supervisor and the SI Leaders would

have work spaces in the same location. Such common office space was recommended by UMKC

to aid in training, evaluation, and communication between leaders and the supervisor.

Implementing an SI Pilot Study

After returning from the first workshop at UMKC, the SI Supervisor began the search for SI

Leaders. UMKC trainers recommended that SI Leaders be selected from students who had taken

the course under the same professor and earned an A. The SI Supervisor first asked the

professors of Earth Science and Intermediate Algebra for the names of students who had made

an A in their classes in past semesters. Appropriate SI Leaders were soon found among students

seeking Baccalaureate degrees in Chipola’s Teacher Education Program. A secondary science

education major had taken Earth Science, earned an A, and was willing to be an SI Leader in

Earth Science in Spring 2007, pending approval from the professor. A middle school

mathematics education major had taken a course comparable to MAT 1033 from a different

professor but had performed well in other courses taught by the professor in the targeted SI

section.


39

Both candidates were approved by the two professors, the SI Subcommittee, and the QEP

Development Team. These SI Leaders were trained according to the UMKC model, which

included scheduling, promoting, conducting, and recording data about SI sessions. As the pilot

study progressed, participation was closely monitored throughout the semester, and monthly

updates were published in Chipola Facts to faculty, administrators, staff, and board members.

Assessing the SI Pilot Study

The SI Subcommittee met in late April 2007 (just prior to the end of the pilot semester) to

examine the SI pilot study data and determine the course of action for Fall 2007. Attendance in

the SI sessions and average test scores were analyzed to determine SI’s effectiveness.

Attendance: Earth Science attendance records revealed that most of the participating

students had come from the section attended by the SI leader, but a few students from the other

two daytime sections had also participated. The average attendance per SI session in Earth

Science was 1.8 for all sections and 1.3 for the SI section only. All sections of Earth Science

were taught by the same professor. Intermediate Algebra had two different professors for the day

sections. Average attendance per session in Intermediate Algebra was 2.2 for all sections and

0.59 for the SI section only. This analysis showed that the SI Leader’s presence in the classroom

had not been as important in the mathematics class as in the science class.

Performance: Test data comparing performance of SI participants to non-participants in the

SI sections showed that SI participants scored, on average, higher on every test than those who

did not attend, excluding one test in Intermediate Algebra. Records for the third test showed that

two students who attended SI had missed an entire week of school due to illness and had come to

SI for assistance. This instance documents that SI must be used in addition to class attendance,

not as a substitute for class attendance.


40

Using these data, the SI Subcommittee discussed the following options for the second SI

pilot study: (1) add another section of SI for Earth Science; (2) drop SI in the Intermediate

Algebra class and simply offer study sessions in the Academic Center for Excellence (ACE); (3)

expand SI to sections of other high-risk courses in both science and mathematics; or (4) keep SI

as it is for another semester.

The members agreed that SI should be continued in the same courses, Earth Science and

Intermediate Algebra, and should be added in two new high-risk courses, Anatomy and

Physiology (BSC 2093) and Elementary Algebra (MAT 0024). The SI Supervisor began the

process of contacting professors in these courses to gain their approval for SI in their class

sections and recruiting SI Leaders for these four courses.

End-of-semester data confirmed the decisions made by the SI Subcommittee. Attendance

reports for the 10:00 a.m. SI section of Earth Science revealed that 16 students attended SI at

least once with six attending at least three times; two students came 16 or 17 times during the

semester. Only two students in the 8:00 a.m. non-SI section attended, and no one attended more

than three times. Six students attended from the 12:00 p.m. non-SI section; one student came

four times, one came three times, and the others fewer than three. (See Figure 8.)

The results for Intermediate Algebra confirmed research at UMKC and other institutions.

Their research indicates that students taking Elementary, Intermediate, and College Algebra

generally do not attend SI unless it is mandatory, at which time it is no longer SI, but a hybrid.

There appeared to be no difference between attendance for the section the SI leader attended and

the other sections. Participation did not seem to be affected by different professors for

Intermediate Algebra either. Data were not collected for the other MAT 1033 sections because

only one student attended from any other section.


41

Figure 8: SI Pilot Study Results—Comparison of Exam Scores

Source: SI Coordinator’s Work Papers, May 2007

As illustrated in Figure 8, data from the Spring 2007 pilot study showed that students who

attended SI sessions made about one-half a letter grade higher on average than those who did not

attend. These results are based on the fact that most SI participants only attended the “test

marathon” session, a two-hour session just prior to each test. Attendance in these marathon

sessions averaged six students per marathon for each piloted course. In the SI Leader sections,

only one student in Intermediate Algebra and two students in Earth Science attended more than

one session per test.

In Earth Science, 19% of the students who attended SI made a B, and 81% made a C. (See

Figure 9 and Table 10.) Everyone who attended from the targeted SI section successfully

completed the course. This was not true in the sections not attended by the SI Leader. The

original data examined by the QEP team showed that 44% of Earth Science students received a

D, F or W. Of the 70 students enrolled in the daytime sections of this pilot study, only 28

received a D, F or W, lowering the rate to 40%. Intermediate Algebra’s original data showed a

41% rate of Ds, Fs or Ws. The results of the pilot study show that only seven of 21 students

received a D, F or W, a rate of 33%.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Grade

Earth Science Exam Results, Spring 2007

SI 77 73.2 72.9 79.3 84.5 90.3

Non-SI 62.7 65.2 66.2 62 64.5 69.9

Exam 1 Exam 2 Exam 3 Exam 4 Exam 5 Exam 60 20 40 60 80

100

Intermediate Algebra Exam Results, Spring 2007

SI 68 100 58 95 87.3 Non-SI 65.56 72.43 67.4 70.7 52.7

Exam 1 Exam 2 Exam 3 Exam 4 Exam 5

Grade


42

Figure 9: SI Pilot Results--Comparison of Earth Science Mean Course Grades

Table 10: Supplemental Instruction (SI) Semester Report--Spring 2007 Impact of SI Pilot Study of Two Class Sections

Courses with SI

Component *denotes

section SI leader

attended

% of class who

attended one or

more SI session

# of times students attended

SI sessions for these

data

Mean Final Course Grade

sig = statistically significant at the .05

level ns = not significant

Final Course Grade Average Groupings

SI Non-SI A-B-C D-F-W *GLY 1001

10:00 am 55% or 16 out of 29

Mean-3.8 Mode-1

2.19 (sig) 0.92 SI-100% Non-31%

SI-0% Non-69% p = .0004

GLY 1001 12:00 pm

21% or 6 out of 29

Mean-2.2 Mode-1,2

1.83 (ns) 1.43 SI-67% Non-52%

SI-33% Non-48% p = .3878

GLY 1001 8:00 am

17% or 2 out of 12

Mean-2 Mode-1,3

1.00 (ns) 1.3 SI-50% Non-50%

SI-50% Non-50% p = .7664

GLY 1001 All daytime

sections

34% or 24 out of 70

Mean-3.25

Mode-1

2.00 (sig) 1.26 SI-87.5% Non-46%

SI-12.5% Non-54% p = .0042

*MAT 1033

10:00 am

14% or 3 out of 21

Mean-5 Mode-3

2.67 (ns) 2.00 SI-100% Non-61%

SI-0% Non-39% p = .4510

Source: Chipola Facts, Vol. XV, No. 7, July 2007, p. 1. Incorporating Assessment Results Into the Fall 2007 SI Pilot Study

Data support the continuation and expansion of SI at Chipola. The SI Supervisor noted

several improvements to be implemented in the second pilot study. First, increase campus-wide

promotion of SI. Make all students and professors aware of what SI is and how it can benefit

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Mean Course Grade

Section

GLY 1001, Earth Science Mean Course Grades –Spring 2007

SI 2.19 1 1.83 2

Non-SI 0.92 1.3 1.43 1.26

10:00 AM (SI) 8:00 AM 12:00 PM All Three


43

those who take advantage of it. Second, improve data collection. In addition to studying

attendance at sessions and test scores, conduct student surveys in the SI sections to collect

student opinions about the effectiveness of SI sessions and reasons for attending or not attending.

(See Appendix B for “End- of-Term Supplemental Instruction Survey” to be administered to SI

participants.) Finally, modify the SI Leader schedule. After the SI Supervisor learned new

information during a visit to the University of Central Florida (UCF), she modified Chipola’s SI

Leader schedule. In the first pilot, SI Leaders attended three class meetings, conducted three SI

sessions, and used the remaining four office hours for planning, training, and collecting data. The

office hours were viewed by students as a time for one-on-one tutoring. Not only were the SI

Leaders hindered from completing their other duties, but the students did not benefit from the

group discussions which characterize SI sessions. The UCF SI Supervisor stated that UCF’s SI

Leaders did not have office hours but encouraged students to go to their course professor during

office hours. In the second pilot study (Fall 2007), SI Leaders will conduct four SI sessions per

week; the remaining time will be used for planning, training and collecting data.

Looking Ahead for SI

The results of these pilot studies will influence the full implementation of SI. The SI

Supervisor will monitor attendance in same-course sections not attended by the SI Leader to

determine the need versus cost of an SI Leader in each section. Increased marketing could

possibly help reduce the number of SI Leaders required each semester. Also, the results of the

Fall 2007 pilot study could stimulate an SI hybrid for Elementary Algebra, a five-semester-hour

course. One future possibility is to change it to a three-semester-hour course with a two-

semester-hour lab, led by an SI Leader. There are many other possibilities for SI at Chipola.

Faculty development and thorough monitoring will help SI become a valuable instrument to

increase student learning.


44

Table 11: Abbreviated Timeline for Initiating Component 1: Supplemental Instruction Fall 2006

Attend training at UMKC; plan the first SI pilot study; orient faculty in SI pilot classes.

Spring 2007

Train SI Leaders; conduct SI pilot study in one class section of Earth Science and one class section of Intermediate Algebra.

Summer 2007

Assess and publish results of the SI pilot study; plan for fall pilot study; select and train new SI Leaders.

Fall 2007

Conduct second pilot study in same classes and expand to Anatomy and Physiology and Elementary Algebra; assess results; select and train new SI Leaders; orient SI faculty.

Spring 2008

Implement SI in at least one section of each high-risk course; select and train SI Leaders; orient SI faculty; collect data; assess results of Fall 2007 pilot study; modify as indicated by assessment.

Summer 2008

Assess previous SI pilot studies; publish results; orient new SI faculty; select and train SI Leaders; attend SI Conference.

Fall 2008

Fully implement SI for each consenting professor of high-risk courses (based on pilot studies).

For detailed SI implementation, see Appendix E, “Action Plan to Implement Learning to Persist,” Goal 1. B. Component 2: First-Year Learning Experience (FYLE) Groups

To implement the First-Year Learning Experience (FYLE) the QEP team utilized a list of

volunteers to form a FYLE Subcommittee consisting of five faculty members, a Student Services

advisor, and three administrators. On the subcommittee were individuals who shared a common

interest in developing a mentoring program along with those who were knowledgeable about the

logistics of developing and integrating a new course. Dr. Gina McAllister was named chair of

this subcommittee and the FYLE Coordinator.

First-Year Learning Experience Subcommittee

Dr. Gina McAllister, Chair Professor of Education Dr. Kitty Myers, Co-Chair Vice-President of Instruction and Baccalaureate Programs Dr. Jeff Bodart Professor of Physics Georgia Ashmore Instructor of Mathematics Amanda Myers Assistant Professor of English Bud Riviere Dean of Workforce Development Dr. Joan Miller Dean of Student Services Lindsay Roach Articulation Coordinator and Honors Advisor Dr. Cherry Ward, Ex Officio Professor of Education and Mathematics


45

Developing Chipola’s Version of the First-Year Learning Experience (FYLE)

An orientation meeting was held in September 2006. Ongoing research and periodic

meetings continued. During the initial meeting, the FYLE Subcommittee determined that there

were three main areas to be addressed: (1) course development, including student outcomes and

instructional resources; (2) the logistics of implementation, including the integration of FYLE

seminars with existing Orientation (SLS 1101) sessions, registration, and grouping of students;

and (3) identifying and compensating FYLE mentors, including impact on course loads, faculty

contracts, roles of adjunct faculty, and other faculty-related issues.

Designing the FYLE Program and Scheduling FYLE Groups

After exploring many options, the subcommittee determined that the FYLE should be

scheduled as a separate, one-semester-hour course tied to the existing one-semester-hour

Orientation (SLS 1101) course. Each orientation course already has compensation established for

instructors, and Student Services Department personnel teach it. The decision was made to leave

the existing orientation course intact. The additional FYLE course will be SLS 1106.

For each Orientation (SLS 1101) section there will be an appropriate number of FYLE

sections. Research indicates that the best student-to-teacher ratio for a mentoring program of this

type is between 10:1 and 15:1, although some programs range up to 20:1. The issue of how to

divide the students into mentor groups was discussed. Following suggestions from current

research, the subcommittee agreed first to try random grouping. The limit on each of the FYLE

(SLS 1106) sections was set at 15. Only an administrative override will allow additional

students.

The following explanation shows how Orientation (SLS 1101) sections will be divided into

FYLE groups. This model allows students to enroll in their FYLE groups on the same day they


46

register for all classes. The following scenario outlines the scheduling and logistical details of

how FYLE can work at Chipola.

Hypothetical FYLE Arrangement

Day Classes: Example: Suppose SLS 1101 004 at 8:00 a.m. has 46 students enrolled. This would require 46/15 = 3.1 or three sections of SLS 1106 at the same hour on Monday. The section numbers would tie the FYLE groups to the corresponding Orientation (SLS 1101) section. Explanation: (Table 12) SLS 1106 014, SLS 1106 024, SLS 1106 034 for the three groups at the same time as SLS 1101 004. Individuals who sign up for SLS 1101 004 must also enroll in one of the SLS 1106 04x sections in order to complete registration.

Table 12: Sample Meeting Schedule for One Orientation Class w/ 46 Students Monday 8:00 a.m.

Tuesday 8:00 a.m.

Wednesday 8:00 a.m.

Thursday 8:00 a.m.

FYLE (sessions with 3 different

faculty mentors) SLS 1106 014 (15 students) SLS 1106 024 (15 students) SLS 1106 034 (15 students)

SLS 1101 004 SLS 1101 004 SLS 1101 004

FYLE meets for the entire semester SLS 1101 meets for the first six weeks of the semester

In the above example one of the SLS 1106 sections would have 16 students in it instead of 15. Feedback from administrators across campus revealed there would be no problem with room assignments. Night Classes: Over half of the students who take night Orientation (SLS 1101) are also day students. Those students could be placed in day FYLE classes. There are typically 62 day/night students who take a night SLS 1101 in the fall and 17 in the spring. At least 2/3 of the fall students are athletes, leaving 20-22 day/night students to place in day FYLE sections. That averages to one day/night student added to the day FYLE sections. (This is assuming that athletes are placed in separate FYLEs during their study halls.) As a result, there would be a need for two night sections of FYLE in the fall and one in the spring. There are typically 30 night-only SLS students in the fall and 13 in the spring

These data indicate a need for 30–33 sections of FYLE annually.

Compensating the FYLE Mentors

The QEP Development Team recommended a flat compensation for all faculty mentors. A

fee of $750 per semester was considered a reasonable amount and would encourage faculty to


47

participate by teaching a one-semester-hour FYLE course for which the curriculum and course

resources are already prepared. This issue was later addressed during faculty bargaining, voted

on, and approved. Additionally, the committee agreed that there was a need for credentials for

mentors. It was suggested that a mentor be required to have at least two years’ teaching

experience at Chipola and a willingness to participate in required mentor training. It was also

suggested that students be allowed to recommend mentors.

A Spring 2007 preliminary survey yielded 16 (of 26 respondents) full-time faculty members

who were already willing to be faculty mentors for FYLE groups. The QEP Development Team

expects from 15 to 20 more, based on faculty feedback since learning about how FYLE will

work, the potential impact of FYLE groups on entering students, and how they will be trained

and compensated as faculty mentors.

Developing the FYLE Course

In addition to scheduling FYLE groups and establishing funding for faculty mentors, course

content was also an important issue. The following are questions which needed to be answered:

• What is our goal for the FYLE course?

• What are the learning outcomes we expect?

• How can this course help both traditional and older “returning” students?

• How can the FYLE course redirect at-risk AA students to more appropriate career paths?

• How can FYLE focus all students on career and life planning?

• How can the college ensure the curriculum is thorough but flexible enough to be adapted by a wide range of teachers? and,

• How will grades be determined? What should be the criteria for passing the FYLE course?

Numerous ideas for the curriculum were discussed, and several existing textbooks were

reviewed. The textbook OnCourse by Skip Downing was attractive because of the corresponding

faculty development workshops available for all mentors. Another textbook Becoming a Master


48

Student had an accompanying survey to identify students who are at risk of dropping out. These

and several others seemed appropriate for Chipola’s needs.

In an effort to make accurate decisions regarding course content, potential mentors attended

two conferences. First, two faculty members attended the 26th Annual Conference on The First-

Year Experience, February 16-20, 2007, in Addison, Texas. Next, two different faculty

members attended the OnCourse Workshop, March 1-3, 2007, in Dallas, Texas. Both workshops

provided valuable insight into the elements and course content necessary for successful first-year

mentoring programs. Based on the information and training received, the FYLE Subcommittee

determined that Chipola’s FYLE project would initially follow the OnCourse model.

Initial Focus of the FYLE Course

The OnCourse model has many components in place to guide course development. The

specific objectives of the model closely parallel the overall intended outcomes of FYLE groups.

These objectives include ways to help students learn to persist by developing the following skills

and behaviors:

1. ACCEPT SELF-RESPONSIBILITY, seeing themselves as the primary cause of their outcomes and experiences. 2. DISCOVER SELF-MOTIVATION, finding purpose in their lives by discovering personally meaningful goals and dreams. 3. MASTER SELF-MANAGEMENT, consistently planning and taking purposeful actions in pursuit of their goals and dreams. 4. EMPLOY INTERDEPENDENCE, building mutually supportive relationships that help them achieve their goals and dreams (while helping others to do the same). 5. GAIN SELF-AWARENESS, consciously employing behaviors, beliefs, and attitudes that keep them on course. 6. ADOPT LIFE-LONG LEARNING, finding valuable lessons and wisdom in nearly every experience they have. 7. DEVELOP EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE, effectively managing their emotions in support of their goals and dreams.


49

8. BELIEVE IN THEMSELVES, seeing themselves as capable, lovable, and

unconditionally worthy as human beings.

The OnCourse program provides extensive faculty development programs to assist in

successful implementation of the model. The QEP Coordinator and four FYLE mentors who will

develop the course and participate in the Spring 2008 pilot study will attend a five-day OnCourse

workshop in San Francisco in late October 2007. More specific details of the FYLE course will

be determined after these pilot FYLE mentors return from the conference and before thy begin

the Spring 2008 pilot study with four FYLE groups.

Plan for Continued Course and Faculty Development for FYLE

As indicated in Table 13 and in the “Action Plan to Implement Learning to Persist”

(Appendix E), college personnel will continue with intensive training in preparation for course

development during Fall 2007. Plans are to conduct a pilot study of the FYLE course with one

section of the existing Orientation (SLS 1101) in Spring 2008 with full implementation occurring

in Fall 2008. The FYLE Coordinator Dr. Gina McAllister will be given release time from two

classes during both Fall 2007 and Spring 2008 semesters to facilitate course development and the

pilot study. After the course has been developed (Fall 2007) and the pilot study has been

conducted and assessed (Spring 2008), professional development, including paid attendance at

campus summer workshops, will prepare FYLE mentors for full implementation in Fall 2008.


50

For detailed FYLE implementation, see Appendix E, “Action Plan to Implement Learning to Persist,” Goal 2. C. Faculty Development to Support Plan Components

A comprehensive plan of faculty development will build the capacity of the faculty to

implement SI and FYLE. Title III funds are already allocated to help achieve the following goal:

QEP Goal 3: Increase student learning by providing faculty development to increase faculty understanding of student engagement, retention techniques, and instructional technology. The Action Plan includes a tentative schedule of travel to conferences, visits to exemplary

institutions, workshops, summer institutes, and guest speakers. The Title III Team, Council of

Chipola Educators, and the Staff and Program Development Committee will assist in

implementing these plans each year. These innovative opportunities will provide novice and

seasoned faculty with additional knowledge and equip them to create a culture of learning—as

opposed to teaching. The underlying theme of all faculty development will be how to help

students learn to take responsibility for their own learning and success.

For detailed plans for implementation of faculty development, see Appendix E, “Action Plan

to Implement Learning to Persist,” Goal 3.

Table 13: Abbreviated Timeline for Initiating Component 2—FYLE Course Fall 2006

Establish FYLE Subcommittee; conduct initial research and planning.

Spring 2007

Continue planning logistics of FYLE; begin faculty development.

Summer 2007

Continue to refine plans; continue faculty development; recruit four FYLE mentors for pilot study; adopt textbook.

Fall 2007

Develop course and plan FYLE pilot study; prepare course materials; finalize syllabus; recruit FYLE mentors; continue faculty development.

Spring 2008

Conduct a pilot study in four FYLE classes in one Orientation (SLS 1101) section; adapt course as required during pilot study.

Summer 2008

Evaluate pilot study results; revise course as required; train all FYLE mentors in summer institutes.

Fall 2008

Implement fully the FYLE groups for all entering students; continue faculty development.


51

V. Institutional Capability for the Initiation and Continuation of the QEP

Chipola College has the capacity to develop, implement, and sustain the QEP. In its planning

process the QEP Development Team identified the personnel, facilities, financial, and logistical

requirements essential for successful implementation of both the Supplemental Instruction (SI)

and First-Year Learning Experience (FYLE) components, including appropriate professional

development to help faculty implement the two components. The college has made plans to

ensure that the institution has resources to meet these requirements in the short and long term.

The QEP will be fully implemented in Fall 2008.

In October 2006 Chipola was awarded a U.S. Department of Education Title III-

Strengthening Institutions five-year grant for $1,750,000 to cover the establishment of the

Academic Center of Excellence (ACE), SI program, FYLE groups, and faculty development to

support these components. The years of the actual QEP will be 2008-2009 through 2012-2013.

The Title III monies have funded most of the cost of QEP planning and development (2006-2007

and 2007-2008) and will fund the first three years of full implementation (2008-2009 through

2010-2011). The college is committed to all elements of the Title III project and the QEP.

Funding them beyond the Title III grant period will be a high priority as budgets are constructed

over the next few years.

In addition, a successful QEP will lead to increased revenues associated with increased

student success and persistence. Revenue benefits will accumulate. Additional student FTE

funding based on 30 semester hours for each FTE in Florida will be generated by FYLE and SI

students. FYLE students will be equipped with the abilities and skills to persist in college. SI

participants who satisfactorily complete high-risk classes will also continue to re-enroll. This

student FTE funding will pay for all costs of the QEP. Chipola’s 2006-2007 Operating Budget,

which included student fees, totaled $12,410,414. The total student FTE of 1,524 yielded $8,143


52

per student FTE. The projected funding for 2007-2008 will be higher. The QEP Development

Team used the 2006-2007 FTE funding level for purposes of estimating annual revenues to be

generated by the QEP in 2011-2012 and thereafter. This calculation yields a very conservative

estimate because student FTE funding in Florida has historically increased over time.

While there is no way to predict exactly the increase in student success and persistence as a

result of the QEP, the QEP Development Team has calculated a very conservative estimate of the

revenues that might result. As detailed below, increased student FTE funds and student fees,

resulting from improved student success and persistence rates, will sustain the QEP in the future.

A. Financial and Physical Resources and Budget

The following is a description of projected expenditures for the QEP, Chipola’s plan for

funding them, and separate budgets for SI, FYLE, and the overall QEP.

Assessing Costs of Supplementary Instruction (SI)

The SI component, which offers peer-assisted study sessions in high-risk courses, has three

primary expenses: an SI Supervisor, SI Leaders, and materials used for advertising, planning,

and conducting sessions. The SI Supervisor will oversee all aspects of the SI program, including

developing, marketing, and assessing the program; selecting and training the SI Leaders;

supervising study sessions; maintaining communication among all involved parties; and

providing assistance when other tasks arise. The SI Leaders, students who have previously taken

the targeted high-risk course and received a grade of A, will attend each class meeting; hold

three or four study sessions each week; attend training sessions; communicate with the SI course

instructor; encourage class attendance; and collect data for assessment. The required materials

include training manuals for the SI Leaders, course textbooks, copying, and miscellaneous costs.

The SI pilot study was conducted with two leaders in Spring 2007 and continued at the pilot


53

phase, adding two more leaders in Fall 2007. Information gained from these pilot studies will be

used to implement SI in one section of each high risk course in Spring 2008.

Dr. Cherry Ward, a mathematics and education professor, has been named the Quality

Enhancement Coordinator and will oversee the implementation of all components of the QEP.

She will serve as the SI Supervisor and teach two classes during fall and spring semesters, a

reduction of four classes annually. Adjunct instructors will be selected to teach those four classes

at an approximate annual cost of $9,600.

SI Leaders will receive $1,500 per semester for their duties, the customary remuneration for

SI Leaders at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. This includes training days prior to the

beginning of classes and ten hours per week for 15 weeks. SI Leaders will make approximately

$10 per hour. The SI Subcommittee and the Chipola administration agree that $1,500 is a

reasonable and fair amount for students who do such high-level work.

Currently at Chipola College, there are 52 sections of high-risk courses taught annually by 29

professors. (These data do not include MAC 1105, which has a 30% rate of Ds, Fs, and Ws. If SI

is successful in MAT 0024 and MAT 1033, MAC 1105 might no longer be a high-risk course.

Annual assessments will guide decisions about whether SI is offered in MAC 1105.)

Table 14 profiles the high-risk courses identified initially by the QEP Development Team.

These data are typical for other school years as well. Four of the six high-risk courses are

developmental or freshman-level gateway courses for many students. A high percentage of

academically under-prepared students and non-science majors have difficulty passing these

courses and drop out of college. Students who test into the two mathematics courses but do not

earn a C or higher cannot progress to courses that satisfy the mathematics general education

requirements in Florida. This essentially ends their college career before it begins.


54

Table 14: 2005–2006 High-Risk Courses and DWF Information

High-Risk Courses # Professors # Sections Enrollment % DWFs #DWFs

MAT 0024 7 14 365 36% 131 MAT 1033 8 13 306 41% 125 BSC 1005 9 14 376 46% 173 BSC 2093 2 3 149 40% 60 GLY 1001 3 8 214 44% 94

Totals 29 52 1410 41% 583

During a visit to University of Central Florida (UCF) in May 2007, the SI Supervisor learned

that assigning one SI leader to multiple sections taught by the same professor is an effective

model for SI. UCF has been using this format for years with very successful results. Based on

this information, Chipola will select one SI Leader per instructor. The cost for 29 leaders per

year will be $43,500 (29 * $1,500 = $43,500).

The SI Supervisor’s training materials will be approximately $500 per year. Materials needed

for 29 SI Leaders include a training manual, instructional materials, paper, and copying costs of

$100 for a total cost of $2,900 (29 * 100 = $2,900). The textbook costs will vary over time

because (1) used books can be purchased; (2) textbooks can be borrowed from professors; (3) SI

Leaders can use their own textbooks. An average of $100 per book is estimated, for a total of

$2,900. Annual costs for materials, supplies, and textbooks will total $5,800.

Revenues Generated by the SI Program

One goal of the SI program is to decrease the rate of Ds, Fs, and Ws in high-risk courses by

five percentage points after the third year of implementation. A five percent reduction in Ds, Fs,

and Ws will increase by 71 the number of students receiving grades of C or higher (1,410 * .05 =

71). Most students take these high-risk courses during their freshman year. Using a

conservative estimate that one-fourth of these 71 students who would have dropped out will now

persist to graduation, this equals to the completion of at least 30 additional semester hours per


55

student. This five percent increase yields an additional 17.8 (1/4 * 71 = 17.8) student FTE

annually. Revenues that will be generated from student FTE funding will be approximately

$144,945 (17.8 * $8,143 = $144,945) beginning in 2010-2011. Table 15 shows the conservative,

predicted SI budget for the next five years.

Research has shown that SI is cost-effective. Martin, Blanc, and Arendale (1996) found that

every dollar spent on SI at the University of Missouri-Kansas City returned $1.50 to the

university in revenues from retained students. Shown in Table 15 is a five-year SI budget.

2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013Revenues

Title III Federal Grant 64,400$ 65,027$ 65,673$ -$ -$ FTE Funding Generated 144,945 149,294 153,773 Total Estimated Revenues 64,400 65,027 210,618 149,294 153,773

ExpensesPersonnel

Additional Adjunct Instruction 9,600 9,888 10,185 10,490 10,805 SI Leaders 43,500 43,500 43,500 43,500 43,500 Total Personnel Expenses 53,100 53,388 53,685 53,990 54,305

OperatingLeader Training 500 515 530 546 563 Travel (Conferences, etc) 5,000 5,150 5,304 5,464 5,627 Materials and Supplies 2,900 2,987 3,077 3,169 3,264 Textbooks 2,900 2,987 3,077 3,169 3,264 Total Operating Expenses 11,300 11,639 11,988 12,348 12,718

Total Estimated Expenses 64,400 65,027 65,673 66,338 67,023

Est. Revenues over Expenses -$ -$ 144,945$ 82,956$ 86,750$

As of September 2007Table 15: Supplemental Instruction (SI) Budget of the QEP

Assessing Costs of First-Year Learning Experience (FYLE)

The FYLE will be required for all entering freshmen beginning Spring 2008. Students will be

assigned in groups of 15-20 students who meet once each week with a FYLE mentor. The FYLE

mentors will provide academic and career advice; guide discussions on ethical and non-


56

emotional decision-making, leadership, and responsible citizenship; foster an atmosphere of

respect; and assist students with their transition into the first year of college.

FYLE mentors will receive compensation of $750 per semester. Based on past freshman

enrollment, no more than 33 FYLE groups will be required annually. This yields an estimated

cost of $24,750 for funding FYLE mentors. Dr. Gina McAllister, a professor of teacher

education, will lead in developing and implementing the FYLE program. She will teach two

fewer courses each semester, resulting in four courses to be taught by adjunct professors at a cost

of approximately $9,600. This arrangement will continue until the FYLE is fully implemented.

Revenues Generated by the FYLE Program

A conservative estimate is that, after the implementation of the FYLE program, an additional

5%, or 25, of these students will persist for at least an additional semester or 15 semester hours

over the pre-QEP enrollment figures. This will yield an additional annual student FTE of

approximately 12.5. Similar increased funding will result if these students return in succeeding

semesters. Additional state revenues generated from student FTE funding will be approximately

$101,788 (12.5 * $8,143 = $101,788) beginning in 2010-2011. See Table 16 for projected

revenues and expenses associated with the FYLE component of the QEP. Shown in Table 16 is a

five-year FYLE budget.


57

2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013Revenues

Title III Federal Grant 61,350$ 62,741$ 64,173$ -$ -$ FTE Funding Generated 101,788 104,841 107,986

Total Estimated Revenues 61,350 62,741 165,961 104,841 107,986

ExpensesPersonnel

Additional Adjunct Instruction 9,600 9,888 10,185 10,490 10,805 FYLE Mentors 24,750 25,493 26,257 27,045 27,856 Total Personnel Expenses 34,350 35,381 36,442 37,535 38,661

Operating ExpensesMentor Training 12,000 12,360 12,731 13,113 13,506 Faculty Development 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 Total Operating Expenses 27,000 27,360 27,731 28,113 28,506



As of September 2007Table 16: First Year Learning Experience (FYLE) Budget of the QEP

QEP Budget of Anticipated Expenditures vs. Anticipated Revenue

Table 17 gives the projected costs and revenue of the QEP when fully implemented.

2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013Revenues

Title III Federal Grant 125,750$ 127,768$ 129,846$ -$ -$ SI Generated 144,945 149,294 153,773 FYLE Generated 101,788 104,841 107,986

Total Estimated Revenues 125,750 127,768 376,579 254,135 261,759

ExpensesSI Program 64,400 65,027 65,673 66,338 67,023 FYLE Program 61,350 62,741 64,173 65,648 67,167



Table 17: Total Budget of the QEPAs of September 2007


58

Facilities

Chipola has the capacity to provide appropriate facilities to implement and sustain the QEP.

The college has excellent facilities and has completed construction and renovation projects

totaling $7.5 million over the last three years. There are ample classrooms available for SI

Leaders and FYLE mentors to meet with their students. Sufficient technology, student labs, and

learning resources also are available to support the QEP. While the new state-of-the-art

Academic Center for Excellence (ACE) is not part of the QEP, it will provide excellent facilities

and resources to implement the components of the plan. The college provided funds to renovate

Building L to serve as the ACE, but Title III funds paid for furniture, equipment, and staffing of

the center. There are four full-size classrooms equipped with computers, instructional software,

and study carrels. Three of these rooms are available for SI study sessions and faculty training as

the QEP progresses. Professional teaching staff in selected academic disciplines and trained

student tutors are available daily in this facility.

B. Human Resources

As illustrated in the “Action Plan to Implement Learning to Persist” (Appendix E), the

college has committed adequate human resources to implement a successful QEP. Campus

personnel will mobilize to accomplish specific tasks. In August 2007 Dr. Cherry Ward was

named QEP Coordinator. She will coordinate SI, FYLE, and professional development to

support these QEP components. Dr. Ward is qualified for this new work because she chaired the

QEP Development Team, coordinated the SI pilot studies, will complete OnCourse training, and

has attended numerous other national and regional meetings regarding quality enhancement,

student success, and academic support. She is a certified Dunn and Dunn Learning Styles

Trainer. As shown in the organizational chart in Figure 18, Dr. Ward will work directly under the


59

Senior Vice President of Instruction and Student Services and in partnership with the Title III

Director because the QEP and Title III project are linked.

The FYLE Coordinator Dr. Gina McAllister will be released from teaching two classes per

semester to oversee the full implementation of FYLE. FYLE mentors and SI Leaders will receive

appropriate compensation and training to complete their tasks. As shown in “Broad-Based

Involvement to Implement the QEP,” pp. 61-63, personnel across campus are aware of their roles

as the QEP progresses.

Figure 18: QEP Organizational Chart

C. Administrative Processes for Implementation and Assessment

The Senior Vice President for Instruction and Student Services will delegate implementation

and assessment responsibilities to the Associate Dean of Development and Planning/Title III

Director and the Quality Enhancement Coordinator. These two employees will have appropriate

authority and resources to ensure that the QEP goals are achieved.

President Dr. Gene Prough

External Evaluator Dr. Dan Kaczynski

Senior VP of Instruction and Student Services Dr. Sarah Clemmons

Associate Dean of Development and Planning / Title III Director

Gail Hartzog

Quality Enhancement Coordinator Dr. Cherry Ward

• SI • FYLE • Faculty Development

FYLE Coordinator Dr. Gina McAllister Supplemental

Instruction Leaders

FYLE Mentors


60

As shown in the Organizational Chart (Figure 18), the projected expenditures (Tables 15, 16,

and 17), and “Action Plan to Implement Learning to Persist,” (Appendix E), the college has

contemplated its plans for a successful QEP. Appropriate administrative processes and resources

are already in place and will be utilized to implement, administer, and assess the QEP.


61

VI. Broad-Based Involvement to Implement the QEP

As described in “Broad-Based Process to Develop the QEP,” (pp.10-20), the QEP was

developed through an inclusive and collegial process. The plan is also being implemented

through similar broad-based participation of the college community. The following is a brief

summary of ways constituent groups and individuals will be involved in Learning to Persist.

• Students, of course, will be the most frequent participants and beneficiaries of SI and

FYLE. Students will also work as SI Leaders and provide feedback through surveys, focus

groups, and other forms of annual assessment activities which incorporate student

feedback.

• Faculty members will participate as FYLE mentors and teachers of classes where SI is

offered. Faculty will also have opportunities to plan and participate in professional

development activities included in the QEP. They will provide feedback through surveys,

group discussions, and department-level feedback via Council of Chipola Educators

(CCE) representatives, Staff and Program Development (SPD) Committee members, and

other colleagues who help plan professional development.

• Student Services Advisors will assist in creating the FYLE curriculum, establishing the

sequence of assignments as an extension of the existing Orientation (SLS 1101), serving

as FYLE mentors, helping assign students to FYLE groups, and providing feedback for

assessment and improvement.

• Librarians will assist by teaching information literacy to FYLE groups; serving as

mentors for FYLE groups; and securing resources for research regarding SI, FYLE,

student success, persistence, and other QEP-related topics.

• Quality Enhancement Coordinator Dr. Cherry Ward, who also served as QEP

Development Chair, was named Quality Enhancement Coordinator in August 2007. She


62

will work with faculty and administrators to facilitate SI and FYLE. She will assist with

assessing the QEP and incorporating results of assessment if modifications are needed.

She also serves on the Title III Team.

• Administrators will facilitate the success of the QEP by providing leadership and

organizational support, funding the FYLE and SI components, and providing other

administrative assistance.

• President Gene Prough and Executive Council will provide leadership to achieve the

goals and objectives of the QEP through personnel in departments across the college.

See the organizational chart (Figure 18, page 59) for the names and titles of personnel

Dr. Prough will hold responsible for implementing an effective QEP.

• Senior Vice President of Instruction and Student Services Dr. Sarah Clemmons will

assume responsibility for the overall success of the QEP. She will advocate for the plan

and lead department directors and other personnel in achieving the goals of the QEP.

She also serves on the Title III Team, which positions her to ensure that the QEP is

adequately funded and well managed.

• Associate Dean of Development and Planning/Title III Director Gail Hartzog will

implement the assessment plan, publish data, and provide assistance in coordinating SI

and FYLE and the faculty development to support both. She will also incorporate

Quality Enhancement as an operational planning unit overseen by the Quality

Enhancement Coordinator. As Title III Director, she will ensure that the QEP is funded

as described in the Title III proposal. She chairs the Title III Team, approves all

expenditures, submits reports to the U.S. Department of Education, and coordinates site

visits by the External Evaluator.


63

• Department Directors arrange faculty teaching schedules in academic departments

and will assist in scheduling FYLE mentors, identifying SI classes, and assigning

rooms for QEP activities.

• Administrators of Other Departments and Their Staffs are also committed to and

will provide support for the QEP. These additional departments include, but are not

limited to, the following: Human Resources, Information Technology, Physical Plant,

Business Office, and Foundation.

• The District Board of Trustees will monitor the progress of the QEP through monthly

updates, both written and oral. The Board also will make important funding and personnel

decisions to facilitate implementation of the QEP.


64

VII. Assessment of the Plan

A comprehensive, scientifically-based evaluation plan will measure the impact of Learning

to Persist and guide decisions as the components are implemented throughout the next five

years. The goals are clear; measurable objectives and outcomes will provide quantifiable

evidence of progress toward achieving the goals. Dr. Cherry Ward, Quality Enhancement

Coordinator, and Gail Hartzog, Associate Dean of Development and Planning, will be

responsible for carrying out the evaluation with the assistance of an external evaluator, Dr.

Daniel Kaczynski of the University of West Florida.

A. QEP Evaluation Design and Responsible Personnel

Data elements and collection procedures will be targeted to the assessment of each

component of the QEP. The procedures include (1) identifying specific performance indicators

for each of the two components and faculty development; (2) assigning responsibility for

collection of each data element to the Quality Enhancement Coordinator and Associate Dean of

Development and Planning; (3) determining a schedule for collection of each data element; (4)

maintaining longitudinal data on each indicator to track progress through trend analysis; (5)

reporting results of the evaluation to college personnel and the Board of Trustees; and (6)

incorporating QEP assessment results into the feedback loop and operational unit planning

process of the college.

Data reports from the student database will be provided by the Data Center. Survey results

will be provided by the Development and Planning Office. Accutrack student tracking software

will document student participation in Supplemental Instruction and tutoring in the Academic

Center for Excellence. Accutrack will be increasingly useful as pilot studies end and both

components are fully implemented. As shown in Tables 21, 22, 23, and 24, benchmarks have

been established for measures for each component and for the overall QEP.


65

Planning and evaluation events occur systematically and at approximately the same time

every year so that results of evaluation can be incorporated into the next year’s budget and plans

to improve programs, services, and operations at all levels of the institution. Table 19 illustrates

how the QEP will be incorporated into the operational unit planning process as Unit 8-A: Quality

Enhancement.

Table 19: Annual Formative Evaluation Merged with Operational Unit Planning 1 2 3 4 5

Collect data on unit measures, objectives, and

outcomes; prepare annual

Unit 8-A Report Card.

Evaluate/assess data; conduct

SWOT Analysis*;

review External Evaluator’s

report(s); draw conclusions.

Report conclusions,

major accomplishments,

and plans at annual Spring

Report Meeting; submit Unit 8-A budget requests for the coming

year.

Submit Unit 8-A Unit Report Card;

use data to develop the next year’s Unit 8-A Operational Unit Plan, including strategies in the Action Plan to implement the

QEP.

Carry out Unit 8-A Unit Plan for the year; review and

revise measures and outcomes as appropriate.

January-February

March April (3rd week) June -August September-June

*SWOT Analysis: analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats conducted annually by operational units. B. Formative and Summative Evaluation

Both formative and summative evaluation will occur. Formative evaluation—which seeks

to improve implementation and increase success along the way—will help personnel make

informed and accurate judgments about the adequacy of strategies used toward achieving the

objectives and outcomes. The focus will be the ongoing assessment of both SI and FYLE as well

as faculty development to support the two components. It will also monitor implementation

strategies as shown in the Action Plan, achievement of objectives and outcomes, and collection

and analysis of data (see Tables 21, 22, 23, and 24). In addition, the President, Senior Vice

President for Instruction and Student Services, and other members of the Executive Council will

take a more global perspective to ensure efficient management of the plan. In addition to the


66

steps shown in Table 19, annual reports by QEP personnel will provide (1) highlighted

overviews of what is working well; (2) what has been accomplished; and (3) what requires

attention for improvement. Results of these evaluations will be reported in Chipola Facts to all

constituent groups, including the District Board of Trustees. The annual report will indicate

whether the college is successfully achieving its QEP objectives.

Summative evaluation—which seeks to prove whether strategies have been effective—will

provide an end-of-project evaluation of the overall impact of the QEP based on both quantitative

and qualitative data. As directed by SACS, a final report will be prepared for the Commission on

Colleges summarizing the overall impact of the QEP on the institution and its students. The

“Action Plan to Implement Learning to Persist” (Appendix E) will be updated and submitted to

document that the college has implemented the QEP as planned.

Benchmarks and Baseline Data

In some cases, academic year 2005-2006 data have already been identified as baseline data to

benchmark progress toward meeting objectives and outcomes. SI benchmarks are based on

results of the Spring 2007 SI pilot study. These benchmarks will be adjusted as necessary after

the Fall 2007 SI pilot study. FYLE benchmarks will be established during the FYLE pilot study

scheduled for Spring 2008. Each year’s performance will then be measured against baseline data

for each outcome criterion. As directed by SACS in 2013, the end of the fifth year of QEP

strategies, the Quality Enhancement Coordinator, Associate Dean of Development and Planning,

and External Evaluator will prepare a summative final report that tracks the history and progress

of Learning to Persist toward meeting it goals, objectives, and outcomes.

External Evaluator

Chipola has already engaged an external evaluator, Dr. Daniel Kaczynski, to assist in

evaluating the QEP as part of the Title III project. Dr. Kaczynski is an Associate Professor at the


67

University of West Florida. He teaches graduate courses in research and program evaluation. He

is a former community college faculty member and administrator with eight years of experience

as an external evaluator. In addition to his academic training in evaluation, he has designed and

conducted evaluations at state and national levels. He is an active member and presenter with the

Southeastern Evaluation Association and the American Evaluation Association. Dr. Kaczynski

provided feedback about the QEP evaluation design, objectives, and expected outcome measures.

He has also reviewed the strategies in the “Action Plan to Implement Learning to Persist.” Dr.

Kaczynski will visit campus as requested, but at least twice per year. Each visit will be followed

by a written report of findings and recommendations. He will report directly to the President in a

written report following the annual end-of-year on-site evaluation. He will also assist in

designing assessment instruments, selecting focus groups, and training focus group leaders. He

has committed to work closely with college personnel for successful implementation of the QEP.

C. Assessing the QEP Purpose, Goals, Objectives, and Outcomes

Shown in Table 20 are the purpose and goals of the QEP. A detailed Action Plan (Appendix

E) will guide implementation to ensure that the purpose is fulfilled and goals are achieved.

Table 20: QEP Purpose and GoalsPurpose: Learning to Persist will increase student learning by equipping students to persist through the completion of their academic program because they have acquired the knowledge, skills, abilities, behaviors, attitudes, and values which characterize successful learners. Goal 1: Increase student learning and academic success in high-risk courses by providing Supplemental Instruction (SI) based on the University of Missouri-Kansas City model. Goal 2: Increase student learning and engagement in the college experience by implementing a one-semester-hour First-Year Learning Experience (FYLE) course for entering degree- seeking students. Goal 3: Increase student learning by providing faculty development to increase the faculty’s understanding of student engagement, retention techniques, and instructional technology.


68

Objectives and Expected Outcomes of Each Component

Specific objectives and outcomes of each component of the QEP will be assessed each

semester and year, as appropriate. Reporting data annually on each objective and outcome will

provide feedback for ongoing formative assessment and improvement. Cumulative reports will

provide evidence of whether Learning to Persist is fulfilling its purpose.

Assessing the Effectiveness of Component 1: Supplemental Instruction

The effectiveness of SI in fostering student success in high-risk courses will be assessed at

the end of each fall and spring semester. An annual summary will be published each July. Grade

distributions will compare performance of participants with non-participants. Opinions and

attitudes will be monitored through surveys and focus groups of faculty, student participants, and

SI Leaders. (See Appendix B for “End-of-Term Supplemental Instruction Survey.”) Results will

be collected and reported regularly in an established format to facilitate interpretation and

decision-making. See Table 10 (p. 42) for an example of one way the effectiveness of SI will be

reported and monitored on campus. Beginning in May 2008, as the first SI participants approach

graduation, specific items will be added to the Graduating Student Survey to monitor student

attitudes toward SI and determine whether they feel SI helped them persist to graduation.

CCSSE results will also provide longitudinal data for identifying changes in students’ attitudes,

behaviors, and values.

As shown in Table 21, the college has established high expectations by setting a goal to

decrease Ds, Fs, and Ws in each high-risk course by five percentage points, as opposed to

only 5%.


69

Table 21: Supplemental Instruction Objectives and Outcomes Target data for Outcomes SI-3-a and SI-3-b to be determined (TBD) during 2008 FYLE pilot study.Objective SI-1 Improve student learning and increase the likelihood that students will

persist to graduation by decreasing the rate of Ds, Fs, and Ws in each high- risk course.

5-Year Target Outcome SI-1-a Decrease by 5 percentage points the rate of Ds, Fs, and

Ws in BSC 1005 compared to the 2005 baseline of 46%. 41%

Outcome SI-1-b Decrease by 5 percentage points the rate of Ds, Fs, and Ws in ESC 1000 compared to the 2005 baseline of 44%.

39%

Outcome SI-1-c Decrease by 5 percentage points the rate of Ds, Fs, and Ws in MAT 1033 compared to the 2005 baseline of 41%.

36%

Outcome SI-1-d Decrease by 5 percentage points the rate of Ds, Fs, and Ws in BSC 2093 compared to the 2005 baseline of 40%.

35%

Outcome SI-1-e Decrease by 5 percentage points the rate of Ds, Fs, and Ws in MAT 0024 compared to the 2005 baseline of 36%.

31%

Outcome SI-1-f* (if offered in

MAC 1105)

Decrease by 5 percentage points the rate of Ds, Fs, and Ws in MAC 1105 compared to the 2005 baseline of 30%.

25%*

Objective SI-2 Increase student success and improve mastery of course content and competencies based on the mean course grades in each high-risk course.

Semester Target

Outcome SI-2-a Students participating in SI earn mean course grades that are 0.5 higher than non-participants (on 4.0 scale).

0.5 higher in each course

Objective SI-3 Increase student success by offering SI sessions at appropriate times and locations that are led by efficient and well-trained SI Leaders.

Semester Target

Objective SI-3-a At least [ ]% of the End-of-Term SI survey respondents report attending three or more sessions of SI.

TBD

Objective SI-3-b At least [ ]% of the End-of-Term SI survey respondents report that SI sessions were “helpful” or “very helpful” (4-5 on Likert Scale).

TBD

*Annual assessment will determine whether SI is offered in MAC 1105. SI in MAC 1105 might not be necessary if SI is successful in MAT 0024 and MAT 1033. Assessing the Effectiveness of Component 2: FYLE

Several measures will help assess the success of FYLE groups. First, the OnCourse program

utilizes a 64-item on-line pre- post- self-assessment designed to measure changes in the students’

skills and behaviors. A statistical analysis (paired t-test) of the pre- and post- scores on the self-

assessment will be utilized to measure student gains. (See Appendix D for the entire self-


70

assessment questionnaire from OnCourse, Second Edition, by Skip Downing, Houghton

Mifflin.) In addition, measures of fall-to-fall student enrollments will be evaluated to monitor

changes in attrition rates. The results will be used to improve the course as the FYLE component

is refined from year to year. Beginning in 2009, as the first FYLE participants approach

graduation, specific items will be added to the Graduating Student Survey to help monitor

student attitudes toward the FYLE class and determine whether students feel the course helped

equip them to persist to graduation.

QEP personnel and FYLE group mentors will also study the annual CCSSE results.

Responses to specific items relating to student engagement will be extracted from the full

CCSSE report and prepared for close analysis. (See Table 24 for specific CCSSE items to be

monitored in assessing the overall QEP objectives.) Faculty also will be asked to respond to

survey items which indicate their observations of student attitudes, decision-making, study

habits, research skills, and other concepts taught or discovered in the FYLE groups. The Quality

Enhancement Coordinator will work with the Associate Dean of Development and Planning to

report these data annually to appropriate constituent groups.

Table 22: FYLE Objectives All baseline data to be determined (TBD) at conclusion of Fall 2008 FYLE pilot.

Objective FYLE-1

Increase student learning by implementing a First-Year Learning Experience (FYLE) course with faculty mentors who help students engage in college and develop the behaviors, attitudes, and values they need to become successful learners.

Outcomes as measured by “Assess Yourself: Self-Assessment Questionnaire,” a pre- and post- assessment tool by OnCourse.

Sem/Yr. Target %

Outcome FYLE-1-a

Students’ post-intervention assessment scores will exceed pre-assessment scores by [__]% on items measuring their perceived ability to accept self-responsibility (seeing themselves as the primary cause of their outcomes and experiences).

%TBD

Outcome FYLE-1-b

Students’ post assessment scores will exceed pre-assessment scores by [__]% on items measuring their perceived discovery of self-motivation (finding purpose in their lives by discovering personally meaningful goals and dreams).

%TBD

Outcome Students’ post assessment scores will exceed pre-assessment


71

FYLE-1-c scores by [__]% on items measuring their perceived mastery of self-management (consistently planning and taking purposeful actions in pursuit of their goals and dreams).

%TBD

Outcome FYLE-1-d

Students’ post assessment scores will exceed pre-assessment scores by [__]% on items measuring their perceived employment of interdependence (building mutually supportive relationships that help them achieve their goals and dreams, while helping others to do the same).

%TBD

Outcome FYLE-1-e

Students’ post assessment scores will exceed pre-assessment scores by [__]% on items measuring their perceived self-awareness (consciously employing behaviors, beliefs, and attitudes that keep them on course).

%TBD

Outcome FYLE-1-f

Students’ post assessment scores will exceed pre-assessment scores by [__]% on items measuring their perceived adoption of life-long learning (finding valuable lessons and wisdom in nearly every experience they have).

%TBD

Outcome FYLE-1-g

Students’ post assessment scores will exceed pre-assessment scores by [__]% on items measuring their perceived development of emotional intelligence (effectively managing their emotions in support of their goals and dreams).

%TBD

Outcome FYLE-1-h

Students’ post assessment scores will exceed pre-assessment scores by [__]% on items measuring their perceived belief in themselves (seeing themselves capable, lovable, and unconditionally worthy as human beings).

%TBD

Objective FYLE 2

Develop and implement a First-Year Learning Experience (FYLE) course which helps students persist through completion of a program of study.

Outcome FYLE 2-a

At least [__]% of the degree-seeking graduates who participated in a FYLE group and complete a Graduating Student Survey “agree” or “strongly agree” that participation in a FYLE group helped them persist to graduation.

%TBD

See Appendix D for (1) the “Assess Yourself: Self-Assessment Questionnaire” from OnCourse by Skip Downing and (2) “Alignment of Course Objectives to Pre- and Post- Assessment Tool.”

Qualitative assessment will also occur as students record journal entries as part of the

OnCourse model. In addition, near the end of each semester, professors in Composition I (ENC

1101) and College Preparatory Writing I (ENC 0004) will be asked to assign an essay or

paragraph which allows students to write about self-discovery during their first semester on

campus. Students’ experiences will be grouped into broad categories and summarized. The

External Evaluator will train college personnel in qualitative analysis and publication of results.


72

Assessing the Effectiveness of Faculty Development

The assessment plan includes objectives and outcomes for faculty participating in faculty

development activities which support SI and FYLE and influence positive changes in teaching

strategies. Table 23 shows specific outcomes to be achieved.

Table 23: Faculty Development Objectives and Outcomes 5-Year

Target Objective F-DEV 1 Improve student learning by implementing a coordinated program of faculty

development that utilizes workshops, institutes, guest speakers, and registration/travel to state, regional, and national meetings and conferences.

Outcome F-DEV 1-a Increase by 90 percentage points the number of full-time faculty trained in the Desire 2 Learn system for blended and on-line learning, compared to a 2005 baseline of 0%.

90%

Outcome F-DEV 1-b Increase by 90 percentage points the number of full-time faculty trained in learning styles, alternative teaching styles, and alternative classroom techniques, compared to a 2005 baseline of 0%.

90%

Outcome F-DEV 1-c Increase by 75 percentage points the number of full-time faculty trained in mentoring, student engagement, and retention techniques, compared to a 2005 baseline of 0%.

75%

Overall Objectives of Learning to Persist

Because the components of the plan address a variety of complex factors influencing student

persistence, the objectives shown in Table 24 were selected by the QEP Development Team to

assess overall success of the QEP during the next five years. Reporting data annually on these

objectives will provide clear, quantifiable evidence of progress resulting from the integrated,

interrelated components of Learning to Persist.


73

Table 24: Overall QEP Five-Year Tracking Grid

2008-2009 through 2012-2013 QEP Objectives (indicator/data source)

Baseline Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Target by

Year 5 1. By September 2011, the fall-to-fall retention rate of degree-seeking students will increase by 20% over 2005 baseline data. (Entering fall 2004/remaining fall 2005)

58%

69.6%

2. By September 2011, increase by 20% the graduation rate within three years of entry of first-time-in-college degree-seeking students with no dual enrollment credit over 2005 baseline data. (Entering fall 2002 with no dual enrollment/graduating by spring 2005)

13%

15.6%

3. By September 2011, student participation, as measured by "sometimes" or "often" responses on the Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) in the areas of "academic advising /planning," "peer or other tutoring," and "skill labs" will increase by 30% compared to 2005 baseline rates. (Annual CCSSE Report, items 13a, 13d, 13e-1) 3-A Academic Advising/ Planning" (item 13a-1)

61.4% 79.82%

3-B "Peer or Other Tutoring" (item 13d-1)

22.8% 29.64%

3-C "Skill Labs" (item 13e-1) 54.9% 71.37%4. By September 2011, student engagement, as measured by the CCSSE in the areas of "student-faculty interaction" and "support for learners," will increase by an average of 20% compared to the 2005 baseline rates. (Annual CCSSE Report, Benchmarks 4,5) 4-A "Student-Faculty Interaction" (Benchmark 4)

52% 62.4%

4-B "Support for Learners" (Benchmark 5)

52% 62.4%

5. By September 2011, student responses of "quite a bit" or "very much" that the college provides "the support needed to help you succeed at this college" and "instructors were available, helpful, and sympathetic" will increase as measured by the CCSSE by an average


74

of 12% compared to the 2005 baseline data. (Annual CCSSE Report, items 9b, 11b) 5-A "The Support Needed to Help You Succeed at This College" (item 9b)

68.2% 76.38%

5-B "Instructors were available, helpful, and sympathetic" (item 11b)

27.3% 30.58%

6. By September 2011, the number of faculty and Student Services advisors trained in retention and student engagement will increase by 90 percentage points compared to 2005 baseline data. (Title III records/Faculty Development Report)

0

90%

7. By September 2011, the number of faculty trained in "blended" and on-line learning will increase by 90 percentage points compared to 2005 baseline data. (Title III records/Faculty Development Report)

0

90%

External Evaluation

The External Evaluator will also provide feedback about the effectiveness of SI, FYLE, and

the faculty development activities supporting the entire plan. Reports on all indicators shown in

Tables 21, 22, 23, and 24 will be made available to the External Evaluator who will consider

them in addition to the interviews and other evaluation he conducts during site visits. The

External Evaluator’s annual reports to the President will include quantitative and qualitative

assessments and recommendations for improvement. President Prough will present the

recommendations to the Executive Council for consideration. Appropriate changes will be

implemented through the institution’s operational unit planning process.


75

APPENDICES

A. “Timeline for Reaffirmation,” as published in Chipola Facts, Vol. XIV, No. 2 (February 2006) and “Tentative Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) Timeline,” as published in Chipola Facts, Vol. XIV, No. 3 (March 2006)

B. “End-of-Term Supplemental Instruction Survey” C. Summary of Proposed Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) presented to Executive

Council, July 11, 2006

D. “Assess Yourself: Self-Assessment Questionnaire,” from OnCourse by Skip Downing and “Alignment of Course Objectives with Pre- Post-Assessment Tool”

E. “Action Plan to Implement Learning to Persist” (blue pages; a stand-alone

document)

Appendix A

Source: Chipola Facts, March 2006, p. 5

Appendix A

Source: Chipola Facts, February 2006, p. 4

Appendix B

End-of-Term Supplemental Instruction Survey

(This information is for research purposes only, and will in no way influence your final grade.)

Course Name: ____________________________________________________ Your Name: ______________________________________________________ Term: ___________________________________________________________

Please fill out only the side of this questionnaire that applies to you. ______________________________________________________________________________

If you attended even one SI

session, please fill out this side.

1. How helpful were the sessions to you? 1 2 3 4 5

not helpful very helpful

2. What grade do you expect to make in this course?

A B C D F 3. How many sessions did you attend?

1-2 3-5 5-10 more than 10

4. If you have any comments on the sessions and/or suggestions for improving future sessions we would appreciate having them. Use the back of the page if needed.

5. If you are interested in becoming an SI

leader for this or other courses please provide us with the following information:

Name_______________________________ Address_____________________________ ______________________________ Phone_______________________________ Course(s)____________________________ ____________________________________

If you did not attend any SI sessions, please fill out this side.

1. Please indicate the reason(s) you didn’t

attend any sessions. I wanted to but couldn’t. The session schedule conflicted with work or other classes.

I didn’t feel it was necessary.

I have been to similar kinds of study sessions for other courses and did not find them helpful.

I have been to SI sessions for other courses and did not find them helpful.

I intended to, but couldn’t find the time.

Other. Please explain, using the back of the page if needed.

2. What grade do you expect to make in this

course? A B C D F

3. Did you fill out the time schedule

questionnaire for SI sessions at the beginning of the term?

Yes No Can’t remember

Appendix C Summary of Proposed Quality Enhancement Plan - 1

Summary of Proposed Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP)

From the Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) Development Team

Dr. Cherry Ward, Chair Dr. Kitty Myers, Co-Chair

Dr. Jeff Bodart, Dr. Ed Lyon, Dr. Gina McAllister, Dr. Rene Tharpe, Dr. David Saffo Gail Hartzog, SACS Liaison

Presented to the Chipola College Executive Council, July 11, 2006

Chipola College’s small size is no measure of the impact it has on the residents in the five county area it serves. Many residents in this area are place-bound and Chipola College provides an opportunity for interested individuals to advance their education by acquiring the knowledge and skills needed to advance in this information age and enter the technological society of today. The students who choose to attend Chipola, as with any community college, are often unprepared for the rigors of college. In 2003-04, 78% of all those who enrolled in Florida’s community colleges were in need of some degree of remediation in math, writing, or reading. (OPPAGA, April 2006). About 64% of Chipola’s entering students need at least one remedial course, with up to one-third of the students needing remediation in all three areas. Chipola has created an outstanding testing and placement process to address this serious problem. After assessment, students are placed in the appropriate course(s) to help them get where they need to be academically. In time all students can successfully achieve the high academic expectations that Chipola maintains. Upon graduation, average scores of AA and AS degree graduates are higher than the national average for two year public colleges on the Collegiate Assessment of the Academic Proficiency Exam (CAAP). This having been said, what does Chipola need to do to improve student learning? The QEP team began an in-depth examination of placement scores and student performance. We found by disaggregating the data that our dual enrollment students were skewing our attrition rates (see Table 1). For example, in a study of students entering in 2002, 69% of students who had dual enrollment credit had graduated in 2005. Of this same cohort, only 33% who took no dual enrollment and no college prep courses had graduated by fall 2005. Over 56% of these had left the college and only 22% remained. The most alarming data surrounded students who earned no dual-enrollment credit and took one or more college-prep courses in reading, writing, or math. Only 16% had graduated by fall 2005, only 14% were still enrolled, signifying that 69% had left the college without completing a degree or certificate.

Table 1: Total Attrition in Three Years (2002 Entering Cohort) Student Groups Graduated

by Fall 2005 Still Enrolled Fall 2005

Attrition by Fall 2005 (transfer/withdrew/drop out)

Academically Advanced/ Dual Enrollment (NOT College Prep)

63% 5% 33%

College-Ready 33% 11% 56%


(No Dual Enrollment; Not College Prep) Academically Underprepared (No Dual Enrollment; at least one College Prep)

16% 14% 69%

Source: QEP Research Reports , “Graduation and Attrition Summaries,” Feb. 2006 Since 2000, as many as 21% of Chipola’s under-prepared students drop or stop temporarily during the first semester, and 49% drop or stop temporarily during the first year. Chipola is losing a large number of students well before graduation; far too many of these are our under-prepared students.

Between March and July 2006, the QEP Development Team reviewed over 100 articles and research reports in search of expert opinion and best practices. This study of the literature revealed that Chipola is not alone. All community colleges and many four-year institutions face this “retention dilemma” and are working to overcome it. Many are addressing the problem by creating a program to help students transition into college, a first-year experience. We are proposing that our QEP incorporate two of the more effective initiatives being implemented in other schools, (1) a new course, The First-Year Learning Community: 21st Century Survival Skills (Cuseo & Barefoot, 1996) and (2) supplemental instruction (Martin, Blanc, & Arendale, 1996).

The First-Year Learning Community

The First-Year Learning Community would complement our present orientation class

emphasizing skills needed to transition into college life and beyond. It would incorporate such concepts as academic skill development (study strategies, learning styles, test-taking strategies, etc.), academic and career planning, and life management (goal setting, time management, self-awareness, etc.). This course and the present Orientation would be treated as one two semester-hour course with Orientation being one-semester-hour and The First-Year Learning Community being one semester-hour.

Orientation presently enrolls between 40 and 65 students per class. At the beginning of the

semester each Orientation section will be divided by common interests or programs of study into mini-sections of around 15 students each and this will form the First-Year Learning Community. The individual mini-sections will be taught by volunteers from the faculty, administration, or staff. These volunteers will become First-Year Mentors for the students in their section(s). The Orientation component will serve the same purpose as it does now with perhaps very few changes. The Learning Community component will provide students a small group of peers with whom they interact on a consistent basis. The First-Year Mentor will provide academic and career advice, conduct exercises on ethical decision making, leadership, and responsible citizenship, foster an atmosphere of mutual respect and acceptance, and assist these new students with their transition into the first year of college. There are approximately 63 faculty members and 10 or so administrators who have a lot of experience as faculty members and educators. When fully implemented 28 communities (based on current annual spring and fall Orientation


enrollment) would require about a 40% volunteer rate. We propose to prepare the curriculum during the fall 2006 semester and pilot one Orientation class with its First-Year Learning Community mini-sections during the spring 2007 term. We also plan to prepare a day-by-day assignment schedule, resource notebooks, and extensive professional development for First-Year Mentors as the course is refined.

The cost of this program would be based on the point value paid to those who will teach the

course. Student Services personnel who teach the current Orientation course receive $200 per point for one contact and one content point (plus extra money for overload class sizes). No additional expense would be needed for this portion. It is likely that the First-Year Mentors would receive on average $400 for two points as well. At $400 for 28 Learning Community sections the annual cost would be $11,200. It is possible that student activity fees might pay for a portion of this.

Supplemental Instruction (SI)

Supplemental Instruction (SI) is an academic enrichment program offered in traditionally

high-attrition academic courses, those that consistently have the highest rate of withdrawals or D’s and F’s for final course grades. There are many successful, model SI programs in colleges and universities as well as three training sessions held per year at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. The common format is for SI discussion and review sessions to be facilitated by trained students, SI Leaders, who previously earned an A in the same course with the same instructor. The SI Leader attends all class sessions with the students, prepares additional study aids if needed, completes all homework assignments, and facilitates two supplemental sessions per week to help students study. Possible Chipola courses for Supplemental Instruction are Biology – BSC 1005 (46% D,F&W), Earth Science – GLY 1001 (44% D,F&W), Intermediate Algebra – MAT 1033 (41% D,F&W) or Elementary Algebra – MAT 0024 (36% D,F&W). A faculty member will be assigned to be the SI Supervisor, perhaps with the release of one class per semester. We propose to develop the SI process, identify the pilot SI course, and train the first SI Leaders during the fall 2006 semester and implement SI for the first high-attrition course during the spring 2007 term.

The cost of implementing Supplemental Instruction would be an hourly rate for the SI

Leader, ranging from $6.40 to $10.00 per hour for 6 to 8 hours per week. The cost per class with SI would range from $614.40 ($6.40/hr x 6 hr/wk x 16 weeks) to $1280 ($10/hr x 8 hr/wk x 16 wks) per class. Presently, the average number of Fall/Spring classes for the above listed courses is, BSC 1005 – 12 sections, GLY 1101 – 7 sections, MAT 0024 – 13 sections, and MAT 1033 – 12 sections. At these rates the initial annual cost would be between $27,034 and $56,320. This should decrease dramatically once the program is implemented because fewer sections of the high–attrition courses will be needed since there will be fewer repeaters. Research on the value of SI indicates that the revenue gained from retaining students typically exceeds the cost of the SI program (Martin, Blanc, & Arendale, 1996).

An additional cost for both initiatives is staff development to train faculty and support staff

for their roles as learning facilitators for the first year experience and for training SI Leaders.


Chipola presently provides significant funds for faculty and staff professional development. Some of the staff development cost could come from this existing fund.

Timeline

The Quality Enhancement Plan will be presented to the faculty when they return August 14,

2006. At that time, they will be asked to provide feedback and assist in the development of The First-Year Learning Community and Supplemental Instruction programs. Volunteers for field testing each component will receive professional development during fall semester 2006. This plan will field test one class for Orientation/The First-Year Learning Community and one class for Supplemental Instruction Spring 2007. Additional professional development will take place during the spring and summer semesters of 2007. By fall 2007, additional classes (if not all) of Orientation/The First-Year Learning Community will be implemented. Also, more classes of Supplemental Instruction will be added. The number of SI classes to be added over time will be determined by need, effectiveness, faculty requests for SI in their classes, and the college’s capacity to support SI.

References

Cuseo, J.B. & Barefoot, B.O. (1996). A natural marriage: The extended orientation seminar and

the community college. In J. N. Hankin (Ed.), The community college: Opportunity and access for america’s first-year students. (Monograph No. 19). Columbia, SC: National Resource Center for the Freshmen year Experience, University of South Carolina.

Martin, D.C., Blanc, R., & Arendale, D.R. (1996). Supplemental instruction: Supporting the

classroom experience. In J. N. Hankin (Ed.), The community college: Opportunity and access for america’s first-year students. (Monograph No. 19). Columbia, SC: National Resource Center for the Freshmen year Experience, University of South Carolina.

OPPAGA, Steps can be taken to reduce remediation rates; 78% of community college students,

10% of university students need remediation. Report No. 06-40, April 2006.

Appendix D

Alignment of Course Objectives to Pre/Post Assessment Tool Personal Responsibility 1. I control how successful I will be. 9. Forces out of my control (like poor teaching) are the cause of low grades I receive in school. 17. When I have a problem, I take positive actions to find a solution. 25. I make poor choices that keep me from getting what I really want in life. 33. Forces outside of me (like luck or other people) control how successful I will be. 41. I am the cause of low grades I receive in school. 49. When I have a problem, I complain, blame others, or make excuses. 57. I make wise choices that help me get what I really want in life. Discovering a Motivating Purpose2. I'm not sure why I'm in college. 10. If I lose my motivation in college, I know how to get it back. 18. I don't know how to set effective short-term and long-term goals. 26. I have a written plan that includes both my short-term and long-term goals. 34. College is an important step on the way to accomplishing my goals and dreams. 42. If I lose my motivation in college, I don't know how I'll get it back. 50. I know how to set effective short-term and long-term goals. 58. I live day to day, without much of a plan for the future. Planning and Taking Effective Actions 3. I spend most of my time doing important things. 11. I don't need to write things down because I can remember what I need to do. 19. I remember to do important things. 27. I lack self-discipline. 35. I spend most of my time doing unimportant things. 43. I use self-management tools (like calendars and to-do lists) that help me remember to do important things. 51. I forget to do important things. 59. I am a self-disciplined person. Building Mutually Supportive Relationships

4. When I encounter a challenging problem, I try to solve it by myself. 12. I have a network of people in my life that I can count on for help. 20. When I have a difficult course in school, I study alone. 28. I listen carefully when other people are talking. 36. When I encounter a challenging problem, I ask for help. 44. I know very few people that I can count on for help. 52. When I have a difficult course in school, I find a study partner or join a study group. 60. I get distracted easily when other people are talking. Gaining Heightened Self-Awareness

5. When I get off course from my goals and dreams, I realize it right away. 13. If I have habits that hinder my success, I'm not sure what they are. 21. I'm aware of beliefs I have that hinder my success. 29. I'm stuck with any habits of mine that hinder my success.

Appendix D

37. I can be off course from my goals and dreams for quite a while without realizing it. 45. I'm aware of the habits I have that hinder my success. 53. I'm unaware of beliefs I have that hinder my success. 61. I know how to change habits of mine that hinder my success. Becoming a Life-Long Learner 6. I'm unsure how I learn best. 14. When I don't like the way an instructor teaches, I know how to learn the subject anyway. 22. I don't know how to study effectively. 30. When I face a disappointment (like failing a test), I ask myself, "What lesson can I learn here?" 38. I know how I learn best. 46. If I don't like the way an instructor teaches, I'll probably do poorly in the course. 54. I've learned to use specific study skills that work effectively for me. 62. When I face a disappointment (like failing a test), I feel pretty helpless. Developing Emotional Maturity 7. Whether I'm happy or not depends mostly on me. 15. When I get very angry, sad or afraid, I do or say things that create a problem for me. 23. When choosing between doing an important school assignment or something really fun, I usually do the school assignment. 31. I often feel bored, anxious, or depressed. 39. My happiness depends mostly on what's happened to me lately. 47. When I'm very angry, sad, or afraid, I know how to manage my emotions so I don't do anything I'll regret later. 55. I often feel happy and fully alive. 63. When choosing between doing an important school assignment or something really fun, I usually do something fun. Believing in Myself

8. I'll truly accept myself only after I eliminate my faults and weaknesses. 16. When I think about performing an upcoming challenge (like taking a test), I usually see myself doing well. 24. I break promises that I make to myself or to others. 32. I feel just as worthwhile as any other person. 40. I accept myself just as I am, even with my faults and weaknesses. 48. When I think about performing an upcoming challenge (like taking a test), I usually see myself doing poorly. 56. I keep promises that I make to myself or to others. 64. I feel less worthy than other people.

Alignment with “Assess Yourself: Self-Assessment Questionnaire,” from OnCourse by Skip Downing

Ap

pen

dix

EError!

Chipola College

ACTION PLAN

for Implementation of

Learning to Persist: a Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) for Chipola College

QEP Purpose: Learning to Persist will increase student learning by equipping students to persist through the completion of their academic program because they have acquired the knowledge, skills, abilities, behaviors, attitudes, and values which characterize successful learners.

Goal 1: Increase student learning and academic success in high-risk courses by providing Supplemental Instruction (SI) based on the

University of Missouri—Kansas City model.

Goal 2: Increase student learning and engagement in the college experience by implementing a one-semester-hour First-Year Learning Experience (FYLE) course for entering degree-seeking students.

Goal 3: Increase student learning by providing faculty development to increase the faculty’s understanding of student engagement, retention

techniques, and instructional technology.

Definition of Student Learning in the Context of the QEP: Student learning defined for Learning to Persist is the change in students’ knowledge, skills, abilities, behaviors, attitudes, and values attributable to Supplemental Instruction (SI) and First-Year Learning Experience (FYLE) groups.

September 15, 2007

Chipola College

3094 Indian Circle Marianna, Florida 32446-2053

(850)526-2761-- www.chipola.edu

Ap

pen

dix

EKEY Person(s), office, or group responsible for participating ACE Faculty Advisory Com.

Rachel West, Literature/Language; Lee Shook, Social Science/Business; Gina Porter-Lankist, Health Sciences; Daniel Powell, Fine/Performing Arts; Janice Holley, Workforce Development; Dr. Cherry Ward, Math/Science/Education

Ashmore Georgia Ashmore, Instructor, mathematics; member FYLE Development Team Cavin Rose Cavin, Intermediate Algebra Professor in first SI pilot; member SI Subcommittee Clemmons Dr. Sarah Clemmons, Senior Vice President for Instruction and Student Services; charged with overall responsibility for the QEP Cleveland Dr. Lou Cleveland, Department Director—Math/Science/ Teacher Education Davis Karan Davis, Associate Vice President of Human Resources DeFelix Geraldine DeFelix, Professor, developmental reading/writing; trained in collaborative learning and in instruction and retention of at-risk students Department Directors

Dr. Lou Cleveland, Math/ Science/ Teacher Education; Dr. Willie Spires, Social Science/Business; Joan Stadsklev, Fine/ Performing Arts; Bud Riviere, Dean of Workforce Development

District Board of Trustees

Gina Stuart, John Padgett, Jeff Crawford, Brenda Taylor, Jenny Goodman, Gary Clark, Abby Hinson, Mark Plummer, Danny Ryals

D. Everett Dennis Everett, Associate Vice President of Information Services/Technology J. Everett JoAnn Everett, Assistant Professor, developmental mathematics; trained in instruction and retention of at-risk students Executive Council President Dr. Gene Prough; Senior VP of Instruction and Student Services Dr. Sarah Clemmons; Associate VP, Human Resources Karan Davis;

Dean of Student Services Dr. Joan Miller; Dean of Enrollment Services Dr. Jayne Roberts; Associate VP of Information Technology Dennis Everett; VP of Finance Steve Young

FYLE Dev. Team Dr. Gina McAllister, Georgia Ashmore, Geraldine DeFelix, Lindsay Roach, Dr. Cherry Ward, Ex Officio FYLE Mentors Faculty, administrators, or other professionals trained as FYLE Mentors to lead FYLE groups. FYLE Subcommittee

Dr. Gina McAllister, FYLE Coordinator; Dr. Kitty Myers, Dr. Jeff Bodart, Georgia Ashmore, Amie Myers, Bud Riviere, Dr. Joan Miller, Lindsay Roach, Dr. Cherry Ward

Hartzog Gail Hartzog, Associate Dean, Development and Planning; SACS Liaison; Title III Director Kaczynski Dr. Daniel Kaczynski, External Evaluator from University of West Florida Kind Dr. Lou Kind, Learning Resources Technology Coordinator; Coordinator of Summer E-Learning Institutes McAllister Dr. Gina McAllister, Professor Education Myers Dr. Kitty Myers, Vice President for Instruction and Baccalaureate Programs Prough Dr. Gene Prough, President PR/Media Depts. Bryan Craven, Director of Publications and Public Relations; Royce Reagan, Director of Video and TV Production; other office staff QEP Development Team

Dr. Jeff Bodart, Dr. Gina McAllister, Dr. Rene Tharpe, Dr. David Saffo, Dr. Cherry Ward, Dr. Kitty Myers, Gail Hartzog, Dr. Ed Lyon (no longer at the college)

SI Leaders Students trained and paid to lead SI sessions for high-risk courses SI Subcommittee Angie Tyler, Dr. Rene Tharpe, Rose Cavin, Dr. Kitty Myers, Dr. Cherry Ward Smith Bonnie Smith, Academic Center for Excellence (ACE) Coordinator Tharpe Dr. Rene Tharpe, Professor , Sociology, Member QEP Development Team Tidwell Allan Tidwell, Earth Science Professor in first and second SI pilot Tyler Angie Tyler, Success Center professor; trained in instruction and retention of at-risk students; member SI Subcommittee Ward Dr. Cherry Ward, Chair QEP Development Team (now Quality Enhancement Coordinator); Professor of Mathematics and Education, SI

Supervisor; ACE Faculty Advisory Committee West Rachel West, Professor of English, member ACE Faculty Advisory Committee Young Steve Young, Vice President of Finance

Ap

pen

dix

E

Month Strategies Person(s)/Group Responsible/Participating

Completion Date/ Comments

2006-2007: Assess and Plan Spring and Summer 2006

Jan.- Mar.

Publish master schedule campus wide; include explanations about SACS Reaffirmation process. Begin and continue publishing monthly “SACS Updates” to communicate progress.

Hartzog, Board of Trustees, all employees

Completed—Jan.17, Feb.21, and Mar. 21

Jan. Make presentation to Board of Trustees about SACS reaffirmation process; focus on clear differentiation between the Compliance Certification as an administrative effort and the QEP as a faculty effort.

Clemmons, Hartzog Completed--Jan. 17

Feb. Make presentation at Faculty Meeting about the new SACS reaffirmation process; focus on the QEP as a faculty effort; present student-related data; engage in extensive discussion of possible topics for the QEP.

Clemmons, Hartzog, Myers, faculty

Completed—Feb. 6 faculty meeting

Mar. Invite faculty members and appropriate administrators to serve on the QEP Development Team; officially appoint and charge them with developing the QEP.

Clemmons, QEP Dev. Team

Completed—Mar.15, 2006

Apr.- May

Establish a weekly meeting schedule for late spring and summer 2006; • study institutional data; • review literature; • survey and interview faculty and students; • determine recommendation for components; • prepare recommendations for components of QEP; present to President and Executive Council.

QEP Dev. Team, Data Center staff, Librarians, President and Executive Council, others as required

Completed--Weekly meeting schedule Mar. 15 through July 11, 2006; bi- monthly meeting schedule continued through Apr. 2007

Apr.- May

Engage faculty in planning faculty development activities to be incorporated into the QEP; include Board of Council of Chipola Educators (CCE) and other faculty members.

CCE, other faculty as requested; Clemmons

Completed—May 30

Mar.- June

Conduct intensive study of existing and new data on student learning, success of student groups, completion rates in high-risk courses, and a variety of other related institutional data.

QEP Dev. Team, Data Center Staff

Completed--June 30

Apr.- June

Administer surveys, request written and oral feedback from faculty and students; analyze feedback QEP Dev. Team; students; department faculty

Completed—June 30

Mar.- July

Review literature from a variety of sources; analyze research reports, monographs, professional journals, and other periodicals; make oral reports and discuss best practices to promote student learning, persistence, engagement, and other student success-related topics.

QEP Dev. Team Completed—Initial research comp. July 31; through Aug.

June- July

Prepare and submit a proposal with recommendations to President Prough and Executive Council during special meeting; recommend that QEP include SI, FYLE, and faculty development to support these two components; begin writing QEP sections describing SI and FYLE components.

QEP Dev. Team; Prough, Executive Council

Completed--July 11, 2006

Fall 2006 Aug.

Present major findings and recommendations to faculty on first day back during fall term, 2006; present broad plans for SI, FYLE, and faculty development to support these two components; include projected timeline for the next year; meet with departments to answer questions and seek volunteers.

Clemmons, Ward, QEP Dev. Team

Initiated—Aug. 14; Completed by Aug. 21, 2006

Aug.- Dec.

Continue study of data and review of literature to finalize broad plans for implementing SI and FYLE (See below, plans for implementing Goals 1, 2, 3); begin preparing QEP document.

QEP Dev. Team Completed—Sept. 2007

Ap

pen

dix

EMonth Strategies Person(s)/Group

Responsible/Participating Completion Date/

Comments Oct.

Present plans for the QEP to District Board of Trustees, including projected pilots and plans for extensive review of literature.

Ward

Completed—Oct. 24, board meeting

Spring and Summer 2007 Jan.- May

Continue review of literature, study of data, and development of details of the QEP; write and submit drafts of QEP sections; review all sections by the entire QEP Team.

QEP Dev. Team Completed—early May at end of Spring 2007 term

Apr. Host External Evaluator for first visit; receive report; implement suggestions and recommendations Kaczynski, Hartzog Completed—Apr. 26 (visit); June 5 (written report)

May- July

Finalize assessment plans; determine objectives and outcomes, including how baseline data and benchmarks will be determined; confer with External Evaluator.

Hartzog, Ward, McAllister, Kaczynski

Completed—all identified July 30

May- Aug.

Prepare combined draft of Learning to Persist. QEP Dev. Team Completed—Reports, Apr.16; Draft, Aug. 20

Fall 2007 Aug. Present overview of QEP during faculty’s first day back for the Fall 2007 term; include details of SI and

FYLE components and faculty development to support them; request faculty assistance in reviewing the last draft of the QEP document.

Hartzog, Ward, McAllister Completed—Aug. 13, 2007, during faculty meeting

Aug. Focus all employees on the QEP at back-to-school luncheon by including in the President’s annual address a focus on the QEP theme “Learning to Persist.”

Prough, PR/Media Depts., Back-to-School Chairs

Completed—Aug. 13, 2007

Aug.- Sept.

Submit the QEP for college-wide review; invite all college personnel to review and refine final draft between August 20 and September 4; receive edits; complete the QEP document on or near Sept. 10.

All personnel Completed—Sept. 10

Sept. Complete and submit the QEP, Focused Report, and other documents to the On-Site Committee on or near September 25.

Hartzog, others as required To be completed—Sept. 25

Oct. Host SACS On-Site Team and receive feedback about the QEP; receive feedback from On-Site Team; submit additional documents, as required.

All personnel, SACS On-Site Team

Planned—Oct. 29-Nov.1 and beyond

2008 June Receive reaffirmation of accreditation from SACS. Dr. Jack Allen, Com. on

Colleges, all personnel

Strategies to Achieve GOAL 1: Increase student learning and academic success in high-risk courses by providing Supplemental Instruction (SI) based on the University of Missouri-Kansas City model.

Fall 2006 Sept.- Oct.

Appoint SI Subcommittee; begin and continue research and discussion of how SI should be implemented at Chipola; establish regular meeting schedule.

QEP Dev. Team; Clemmons; SI Subcom.

Completed—Oct. 30

Oct.- Nov.

Plan SI pilot in two classes; identify classes; recruit SI Leaders; orient teachers of SI pilot classes, etc. SI Subcommittee Completed—Nov. 30

Nov. Send college representatives to the Supplemental Instruction (SI) training at University of Missouri—Kansas City; receive orientation on the purposes and processes of SI; gain understanding of how it should

Ward, Myers, Cavin, Tharpe attended SI

Completed—Nov. 5-7, 2006 in Kansas

Ap

pen

dix



Comments be implemented at Chipola. orientation City

Nov.- Dec.

Complete plans to initiate SI pilot in January 2007; finalize administrative details, including establishment of payment, work schedule, responsibilities for SI Leaders, and other details for a successful pilot.

Ward, SI Leaders, others as required

Completed—by Dec.15

Spring 2007 Jan. Send SI Supervisor to University of Missouri—Kansas City to attend “How to Train SI Leaders

Effectively.” Ward Completed—Jan.

4-5 Jan. Train SI Leaders and initiate SI Pilot in Intermediate Algebra—MAT 1033 and Earth Science—GLY

1001 (since changed to ESC 1000); establish schedule of SI sessions, etc. Ward; SI faculty (Tidwell, Cavin); two SI Leaders;

Completed—Feb. 28

Jan.- May

Continue first SI pilot; monitor progress; gather data; publish monthly updates to faculty and staff; establish SI as part of the Academic Center for Excellence (ACE).

SI participants, Ward, SI faculty, two SI Leaders, SI Subcommittee

Completed—May 3 (end of Spring 2007 term)

Summer 2007 May

Visit the University of Central Florida to see successful tutorial lab and SI program, interview personnel, and learn to implement a similar plan at Chipola.

Ward, Smith, West Completed—May 23

May- Aug.

Assess first SI Pilot; publish results; use assessment to make plans for second SI Pilot; allocate funds for next year.

Ward, Hartzog, SI faculty/ Leaders, D. Everett; Young

Completed—Aug. 13

Fall 2007 Aug.- Dec.

Initiate and conduct 2nd SI Pilot in same classes and expand to include Anatomy and Physiology—BSC 2093 and Elementary Algebra—MAT 0024 Secure and train SI Leaders; establish and publish SI schedule; implement SI for the entire semester; monitor progress.

SI Participants, Ward, Cleveland, SI faculty, SI Leaders

2nd Pilot initiated—Aug. 20 To be completed—Dec. 15

Begin Dec.

Assess 2nd SI Pilot; publish results; incorporate results into plans for implementation of SI; allocate funds for implementation in Spring 2008

Ward, Hartzog, D. Everett, Kaczynski, Young

To be completed— Jan. 2008

Spring and Summer 2008 Jan. May

Implement SI in at least one section of each high-risk course (likely 6 sections); select and train SI leaders; orient SI faculty; implement SI for the entire semester; assess results and incorporate into plans for the next semester.

Ward, SI faculty, six SI Leaders, others as requested

Feb. Attend Annual Conference on the First-Year Experience, San Francisco, February 15-19 McAllister, Ward, others as requested

May Attend the Annual International Conference on Supplemental Instruction, Orlando, May 28-30.

Ward, others as requested

June- Aug.

Assess all previous SI pilots; publish results; orient new faculty; select and train SI Leaders; allocate funds for full implementation next year.



Fully implement SI for each consenting instructor of high-risk courses (likely 14 total sections each semester); orient SI faculty; train SI Leaders; schedule, advertise, and conduct SI sessions; implement for entire semester

SI Participants, Ward, Cleveland, SI faculty, SI Leaders, others as requested

Ap

pen

dix



Comments Dec. Assess results at end of each semester and year; incorporate assessment into plans for next term. Ward, Hartzog, D. Everett,

Kaczynski, Young

Spring 2009 Jan.- May

Fully implement SI for each consenting instructor of high-risk courses (up to 6 total sections each semester); orient SI faculty; train SI Leaders; schedule, advertise, and conduct SI sessions; implement for entire semester.

Ward, Cleveland, SI faculty, SI Leaders, others as requested

May- Aug.

Assess SI and publish results at end of each semester of full implementation; incorporate assessment into plans for next term; allocate funds for continued implementation.


2009-2010 July- June

Fully implement SI for each consenting instructor of high-risk courses (up to 29 total sections); orient SI faculty; train SI Leaders; schedule, advertise, and conduct SI sessions; implement for entire semester.


July- June

Assess SI and publish results at end of each semester and year; incorporate assessment into plans for the next term; allocate funds for continued implementation.





July- June


Ward, Hartzog, SI Faculty, SI Leaders, D. Everett, Young, Kaczynski,




July- June


Ward, Hartzog, SI Faculty, SI Leaders, D. Everett, Young, Kaczynski

2012-2013 Date set by SACS

Continue SI component; complete and submit the QEP Impact Report to SACS, including (1) an assessment of the overall impact of SI groups, (2) an update on all SI-related objectives and outcomes, and (3) an update on the Goal 1 strategies in the Action Plan.

SACS Liaison, Clemmons, D. Everett, Kaczynski, others as requested

Strategies to Achieve GOAL 2: Increase student engagement in learning and the college experience by implementing a one- semester-hour First-Year Learning Experience (FYLE) course for entering degree-seeking students.

Fall 2006 Sept.- Oct.

Appoint FYLE Subcommittee; begin and continue research and discussion of how FYLE should be implemented at Chipola; establish regular meeting schedule.

QEP Dev. Team, SI Subcommittee, Clemmons

Completed—Oct. 30

Nov. Finalize plans/schedule for course development, pilot, and implementation. FYLE Subcommittee Completed—Nov.

Ap

pen

dix



Comments 30

Spring and Summer 2007 Feb. Send college representatives to the First-Year Learning Experience Conference, Addison, Texas. Ashmore, Ward Completed—Feb.

16-20 Mar. Send college representatives to the OnCourse Conference, Dallas, Texas Tharpe, McAllister Completed—

Mar.1-3 Apr.- May

Include questions on the Annual Employee Survey; ask for feedback about how the FYLE groups should be implemented; ask for volunteers who might be willing to serve as FYLE mentors.

McAllister, Ward, Hartzog, faculty respondents

Completed—May

July-Aug.

Make definite plans for how FYLE will be developed and implemented at Chipola. McAllister, Ward Completed—Aug. 20

Fall 2007 Aug. Make presentation to faculty on first day back for fall term; include broad overview of how FYLE will

work and why the QEP Development Team and FYLE Subcommittee have recommended it as Component 2 of the QEP.

McAllister Completed—Aug. 13

Aug. Confirm names of FYLE Development Team to develop and pilot FYLE, with Dr. Cherry Ward as ex officio member; appoint and charge them with specific responsibilities.

Clemmons, Ward Completed—Aug. 27

Aug.- Dec.

Engage FYLE Development Team in the following: • developing the FYLE course; • finalizing FYLE Syllabus (SLS 1106); • submitting syllabus to Curriculum and Courses of Study Committee for approval; • developing day-by-day materials for FYLE mentors; • preparing FYLE resource materials for the FYLE Pilot; and • developing assessment and planning procedures to improve FYLE.

FYLE Dev. Team; Curriculum and Courses of Study Committee

Begun—Aug. 20 To be completed—Dec.15

Sept. Order OnCourse textbooks and other instructor resources for FYLE Course Development Team. McAllister, Hartzog Completed—Sept. 10

Sept. Organize and begin regular meeting schedule; make plans for development and pilot of FYLE. FYLE Dev. Team Begun—Sept.5 Oct. Send FYLE Course Development Team to OnCourse Conference, October 25-28, San Francisco. FYLE Dev. Team Nov.-Dec.

Complete plans to initiate FYLE pilot in January 2008; finalize administrative details of scheduling, classrooms, and other details for a successful pilot.

FYLE Dev. Team, Clemmons

Spring 2008 Jan.- May

Initiate a pilot of four FYLE groups in one section of SLS 1101—Orientation (likely the 12:00 pm section); gather data; publish monthly updates to faculty and staff.

Student FYLE groups, FYLE Dev. Team, Department Directors

Ap

pen

dix



Comments Jan.- May

Continue pilot throughout the semester; pilot FYLE course materials; refine plans and instructor resources; test the following: • registering FYLE groups as part of Orientation class; • assigning/scheduling FYLE mentors and classrooms; • meeting FYLE sessions and Orientation classes for 6 weeks; • syllabi and faculty resource notebooks; • administration of OnCourse pre/post assessment tool; • other FYLE elements which must be established.

Student FYLE group participants, FYLE Dev. Team, Roberts, Clemmons, Department Directors

Mar.- May

Recruit faculty to serve as FYLE mentors; schedule them to attend summer FYLE Mentor Workshops; finalize plans for summer FYLE Mentor Workshops; engage at least 25 mentors.

FYLE Dev. Team; Clemmons, Dept. Directors

Summer 2008 May Assess FYLE Pilot; publish results; incorporate assessment results into plans for the Fall 2008 semester;

prepare for FYLE Mentor Summer Workshops. McAllister, Ward, Hartzog, Kaczynski

May- July

Conduct FYLE Mentor Summer Workshops; arrange schedule, stipends, training schedule/speakers; prepare FYLE resource notebooks; construct webpage of resources; take other actions to ensure that FYLE mentors will be successful.

FYLE Dev. Team; guest speakers; others as requested

July- Aug.

Prepare all FYLE resource notebooks and other resources for full implementation in Fall 2008; budget for full implementation of FYLE; finalize administrative details of scheduling, classrooms, etc., to ensure successful implementation.

FYLE Dev. Team, Department Directors, Young, others as requested


Fully implement the FYLE groups (likely 25 groups during fall term) in all Orientation classes; compensate faculty mentors; as semester progresses, conduct regular meetings of FYLE mentors and encourage communication via phone, e-mail, and on-line discussion.

Student participants in FYLE groups, McAllister, FYLE Mentors

Nov.- Dec.

Assess first semester of FYLE implementation; incorporate assessment results into plans for further implementation; recruit FYLE mentors for the next semester; prepare materials for next implementation.

McAllister, Ward, Hartzog, Kaczynski

Spring and Summer 2009 Jan.- May

Continue implementation of the FYLE groups (likely 6 groups during spring term) in all orientation classes; compensate faculty mentors; as semester progresses, conduct regular meetings of FYLE mentors and encourage communication via phone, e-mail, and on-line discussion groups.


Apr.- May

Assess FYLE implementation; incorporate assessment results into plans for the next semester’s implementation; recruit mentors for the next semester; prepare materials for next implementation.


June- Aug.

Prepare FYLE mentor materials; Conduct summer institute on FYLE-related topics as appropriate according to assessment of first year of implementation.

McAllister, Ward, Hartzog, Young

2009-2010 Jan.- May

Continue implementation of the FYLE groups in all Orientation classes; compensate faculty mentors; as semester progresses, conduct regular meetings of FYLE mentors and encourage communication via phone, e-mail, and on-line discussion groups.

Students in FYLE groups, McAllister, FYLE Mentors

Ap

pen

dix



Comments Apr.- May

Assess FYLE implementation; incorporate assessment results into plans for the Spring 2009 implementation; recruit faculty for Spring 2009 FYLE groups; improve FYLE materials in light of assessment; prepare materials for Spring 2009 implementation.


June- Aug.



2010-2011 Jan.- May


Students in FYLE groups, McAllister, FYLE Mentors

April- May



June- Aug.



2011-2012 Jan.- May



Apr.- May



June- Aug.



1212-1213 Date set by SACS

Continue FYLE component; complete and submit the QEP Impact Report for SACS, including (1) an assessment of the overall impact of the FYLE groups, (2) an update on all FYLE-related objectives and outcomes, and (3) an update on Goal 2 strategies in the Action Plan.

Hartzog, Clemmons, D. Everett, Kaczynski, others as requested

Strategies to Achieve GOAL 3: Increase student learning by providing faculty development to increase the faculty’s understanding of student engagement, retention techniques, and instructional technology. Faculty development activities planned around the following themes to equip faculty to implement Learning to Persist:

• Theme 1: Instructional Technology • Theme 2: Learning Styles and Human Learning Research • Theme 3: Student Engagement Techniques • Theme 4: At-Risk Students • Theme 5: The Millennial Student

Ap

pen

dix



Comments Summer 2006

June Send two faculty members from the Teacher Education Program to Dunn and Dunn Learning Styles training to begin certification process. (Theme 2)

McAllister, Ward, QEP Dev. Team, Clemmons, Hartzog

Training — June 10-14; Ward certified—July 2007

Fall 2006 Oct. Establish Title III as source of funds for faculty development to support development and implementation

of the QEP; merge or revise implementation strategies for the Title III project with the Action Plan of the QEP; begin communicating faculty development opportunities to faculty and administration.

Prough, Hartzog Completed—Oct. 30

Nov. Send college representatives to the Supplemental Instruction (SI) training at the University of Missouri—Kansas City; receive orientation on the purposes and processes of SI; gain other details for successful implementation of SI at Chipola. (Themes 2, 3, 4, 5)

SI Subcommittee (4 members: Ward, Myers, Cavin, Tharpe)

Completed—Nov. 5-7, 2006, Kansas City

Spring and Summer 2007 Jan. Send SI Supervisor to University of Missouri—Kansas City to attend “How to Train SI Leaders

Effectively.” (Themes 2, 3, 4, 5) Ward Completed—Jan.

4-5 Feb. Send college representatives to the First-Year Learning Experience Conference, Addison, Texas.

(Themes 3, 4, 5) Ashmore, Ward Completed—Feb.

16-20 Mar. Send college representatives to the OnCourse Conference, Dallas, Texas. (Themes 3, 4, 5) Tharpe, McAllister Completed—Mar.

1-3 Apr.- Engage the Council of Chipola Educators (CCE) in planning faculty development activities to be

incorporated into the QEP; make tentative plans for Summer E-Learning Institutes. CCE Board; other faculty as requested; Clemmons

Initiated—Apr. 3

May Ask for faculty feedback by requesting that they respond to a faculty development addendum to the Annual Employee Survey; compile faculty feedback; incorporate feedback into plans for Goal 3.

Hartzog, faculty respondents

Completed—May 5

May Visit the University of Central Florida to see successful tutorial lab and SI program; interview personnel; learn to implement a similar plan at Chipola. (Themes 2, 3, 4, 5)

Ward, Smith, West Completed—May 23

May- Sept.

Schedule and conduct eight 2-day E-Learning Institutes to help faculty learn to use Desire 2 Learn (D2L); pay faculty stipends; train faculty; make course materials available to students via D2L. Provide support for faculty as they implement D2L. (Theme 1)

Kind; participants Completed—Aug. 13

Fall 2007 Aug. Further engage faculty in developing a comprehensive, long-range plan for faculty development in

support of SI, FYLE, student persistence and engagement, innovative teaching, and instructional technology including • establishing a schedule of topics and speakers/consultants to speak at faculty meetings or other

meetings on campus; • engaging departments in planning to attend state, regional, and national professional meetings; • planning and conducting summer institutes to increase faculty knowledge; • helping establish ways to leverage funds from multiple sources, including grants, Staff and Program

Development funds, foundation, departmental resources, etc. • providing feedback for evaluation and planning for the future.

Clemmons, CCE, participating faculty

Begun—Aug. 20; continuing through Dec. 15

Ap

pen

dix



Comments Aug.- Sept.

Establish ways to address the following themes for faculty development to equip faculty to implement Learning to Persist: • Theme 1: Instructional Technology • Theme 2: Learning Styles and Human Learning Research • Theme 3: Student Engagement Techniques • Theme 4: At-Risk Students • Theme 5: The Millennial Student

Clemmons, faculty

Sept.- Oct.

Emphasize Theme 2: Learning Styles during September faculty meeting; continue in October and November faculty meetings; include faculty self-assessment, exercises, and web resources.

Clemmons, Ward, McAllister, faculty

Begun—Sept. 5

Sept. Finalize and approve tentative plans for guest speakers and travel by academic departments to professional meetings. Allocate Title III funds to implement plans, including guest speakers and consultants, summer institutes, and travel in addition to existing Fund I resources available for professional development. Tentative Schedule for Guest Speakers and Consultants

• August 2008: Day 1—Engaging Students in Learning Dr. Betsy Barefoot on First-Year Learning Experience (Theme 3)

Day 2—Helping Students Learn Dr. Ken Bain on Human Learning Research (Theme 2)

• August 2009: Day 1—Social Conditions in the Florida Panhandle (Theme 4)

Perhaps Ruby Payne on A Framework for Understanding Poverty Day 2—Teaching Millennial Students (Theme 5)

Perhaps Neil Howe and/or William Strauss on Millennials Rising

• August 2010: Dealing with At-Risk Students (Theme 4) • August 2011: Student Engagement (Theme 3) • August 2012: Theme and speaker to be determined

Clemmons, CCE Board, other faculty

Begun—Sept. 5 Planning to continue throughout the QEP

Oct. 17-19

Send faculty to the Florida Developmental Education Association (FDEA); learn new techniques for teaching and retaining underprepared at-risk students; communicate with faculty. (Theme 4: At-Risk Students)

Faculty: Tyler, DeFelix, Everett

Oct. 25-28

Send FYLE Development Team for training at OnCourse Workshop, San Francisco.

All five members of FYLE Dev. Team

Spring and Summer 2008 Feb.- Apr.

Continue emphasis on Theme 3: At-Risk Students at faculty meetings in February, March, and April.

Clemmons, participating faculty

May- July

Plan and conduct Summer FYLE Mentoring Institutes for mentors in preparation for full implementation of FYLE in Fall 2008.

FYLE Dev. Team, participating faculty/adm.

Ap

pen

dix



Comments April-May

Assess 2007-2008 faculty development activities; confirm faculty development for 2008-2009 and allocate funds.

Hartzog, Clemmons, faculty reps., Young

2008-2009Aug. Host Dr. Betsy Barefoot (FYLE/Student Engagement) on first day and Dr. Ken Bain (Human Learning

Research) for second day of August back-to-school activities. Clemmons, Prough, faculty, others as requested

Aug-July

Implement plans by scheduling and funding other faculty travel in support of the QEP.

Faculty, Dept. Dirs., Young

April- May



2009-2010Aug. Host back-to-school speaker on social conditions in the Florida Panhandle. (Theme 3: At-Risk Students). Clemmons, Prough, faculty Aug-July



April- May

Assess 2009-2010 faculty development activities; confirm faculty development for 2010-2011and allocate funds.


2010-2011 Aug. Host back-to-school speaker on Millennial Student. (Theme 5: The Millennial Student) Clemmons, Prough, faculty Aug-July



April- May



2011-2012 Aug. Host back-to school speaker on student engagement or a related topic. (Theme 3: Student Engagement) Clemmons, Prough, faculty Aug-July


Faculty, Dept. Directors,,Young

April- May



2012-2013 Aug. Host back-to-school speaker on a theme to be determined later. Clemmons, Prough, faculty

Aug-July

Implement plans by scheduling and funding other faculty travel in support of the QEP. Faculty, Dept. Dirs., Young

April- May

Assess 2012-2013 faculty development activities; confirm faculty development for future. Hartzog, Clemmons, faculty reps.

As set by SACS

Continue to plan faculty development in support of the QEP; complete and submit the QEP Impact Report to SACS, including (1) an assessment of the overall impact of faculty development, (2) an update on all objectives and outcomes, and (3) an update on the strategies in the Action Plan.

SACS Liaison, Clemmons, Everett, Kaczynski, others as requested

contents learning to persist: a quality enhancement plan (qep) for … qep/qep-final-9-27.pdf ·...

Documents