The Institution as Learner: A Tale of Institution TransformationDr. Julie Phelps

Project Director, Achieving the Dream & Professor, Mathematics

Valencia Community College

Overview of Presentation

Timing of Institutional Transformation

Focus

Engagement and Commitment

Meaningful Data and Systemic Improvement

East Campus

Winter Park Campus

Criminal Justice Institute

Sand Lake Center

Osceola Campus

West Campus

Valencia Community College located in Orlando, FL now has four major campuses, two academic and administrative centers, and two more major campuses in the planning stages.

The Institution as Learner

AtD Opportunity Identify challenges

Include students historically underserved

Choose “fix” strategies & bring to scale

Study implementation results

Apply lessons toward further improvement

Continue the cycle…

AtD Leverage External commitment

Goals & time lines

Progress reports

Coaching guidance/encouragement

Connection to community of learners

Focus & discipline

Focus

What did we discover?

Valencia’s performance gaps:

Between college-ready & underprepared

Across racial and ethnic groups

Between math & other disciplines

What approaches did we choose?

Strategies that are effective, ripe, scalable:

Supplemental Learning Learning in Community (LinC) Student Life Skills course

All help build “connection and direction.”

Bring to Scale

Activity #1

If you agree that focus is a helpful discipline in this process, please jot down some steps you have taken at your own institution in order to focus your improvement efforts.

Engagement and Commitment

Institutional Shift to Broad Engagement

Core College Work

THEN NOW

Achieving the Dream

Leadership Team

Student Affairs Vice President

Academic Affairs Assistant Vice President

Tenured Faculty Member

Our Philosophy: “Ownership” vs. “Buy-in” – Our learning communities have the end users’ fingerprints all over them.

Student Success Expansion Mary Allen and SLS teaching faculty

Learning Communities Math and SLS and Interdisciplinary CoursesChristy Cheney, Philip Bishop, Mary Allen, David Hosman, Terry Rafter-Carles, Mia Pierre, Sonya Joseph and all LinC faculty/staff

Supplemental LearningShelby Fiorentino, Boris Nguyen,Damien Hammock, Albert Groccia, Linda Hidek, Jennifer McCormick. Russell Takashima, Roberta Brown & 2 SL leaders

Community Focus GroupsSusan Kelley and others

SAS Implementation for AtD Bill White, Jim Ferrari, David Colon, Juan Olivera, Roberta Brown, Daryl Davis, Donna Koslowski, and Jeff Cornett

AtD Consultant TeamPhilip Bishop, Mary Allen, Nick Bekas, Sonya Joseph, John Stover, Paul Flores, David Hosman, Michael Shugg, Christy Cheney, Cali Campanella, Shelby Fiorentino, Barbara Shell, Helen Clarke, Jeff Cornett, Roberta Brown, Kurt Ewen, and Tracy Harrison

West Campus TeamJared Graber, Mildred Francechi, Lisa Armour, Kim Long, Russell Takashima, Boris Nguyen, David Hosman, Claudia Genovese-Martinez, and Tyron Johnson

Coordinating Team/Leadership Team Julie Phelps Ann Puyana Joyce Romano

Valencia AtD Coordinating Teams

Data TeamRoberta Brown, Jeff Cornett, Kurt Ewen, Nick Bekas, Lisa Armour, Christy Cheney, Mary Allen, Daryl Davis, Maryke Lee, James May, Cheryl Robinson and Shelby Fiorentino

College Learning Council (Core Team)Kaye Walter, Rose Watson, Joyce Romano, Silvia Zapico, Jared Graber, Maryke Lee, Cheryl Robinson, Aida Diaz, Suzette Dohany, Tami Rogers, Shelby Fiorentino, Brenda Martinez Britt, Bill White, Brian Macon, Melody Boeringer-Hartnup, Richard Gair, George Rousch, Ruth Prather, Julie Phelps, Kurt Ewen , Karen Borglum, and Kari Makepeace

Coordinating Teams

(Campus Based and Collegewide)

Consultants

Focus Group FaciliatatorsRoberta Brown, Kurt Ewen, Celine Kavelac-Miller, Philip Bishop, Nick Bekas, Allison Sloan, Maryke Lee, Helen Clarke, Barbara Shell, and others

East Campus TeamRuth Prather, Myrna Villanueva, Maryke Lee, Della Paul, Michelle Foster, Paul Flores, Jennifer McCormick, Terry Rafter-Carles, Amanda Saxman, and Linda Vance

Osceola Campus TeamSilvia Zapico, Dale Husbands, Kevin Mulhulland, Melissa Pedone, Chris Klinger, Albert Groccia, Elizabeth Washington, Donna French, Shari Koopman, Teresa Nater, Lynn Paredes-Manfredi, Mia Pierre, David Rogers, Leila Sission, John Tobia, and Ron Von Behren

Winter Park Campus TeamRuth Prather, Michele McArdle, Chris Borglum, Cheryl Robinson, John Niss, Linda Hidek, and Damien Hammock

Campus Based Engagement and Collegewide Reflection Communication

Campus-based Leadership Team Meetings

College-wide Sharing Session

Website Development and Maintenance

Regular Reports to Councils & Departments

Planning

Activity #2

Write down a few ways that you institution has promoted broad engagement and commitment.

Meaningful Data and Systemic Improvement

Innovation Management System

1000’s ofopportuntiestried.Maintain aResearch andDevelopmentComponent.

Climate of Innovation

Level I

Level II

Level III

“Eye for Evidence”: More rigorousat each level.

Standard of evidence increases at each level.

100 areselectedfor supportas Phase IInnovations.

“Angel Capital Stage”

Prototype

10 supportedas Phase IIInnovations.

“Venture Capital Stage” Pilot Implementation (Limited Scale)

1 or 2are brought upto scale andInstitutionalized.

Level II Innovationsmust be scalableand must showpotential to bringsystemic changeand “business-changingresults.”

Valencia’s challengeis in moving from

Level II to Level III.

AtD Data Team Insights

Composition of members Development of Data Review Model

Data Processing

Defining the Message

Information Sharing

Identify needed

Changes based on reflection

Identify Intended Outcomes

New / Revised Assessment Activity

From Data to Meaningful Information

Our Data Processing Model is part of an Institutional Effectiveness process

Data Collection

New Work

AtD Data Team Insights

Composition of members Development of Data Review Model Various levels of analysis:

Term-based strategy level

Two and Four Year Global Measures

Strategy Research Proposals From Snapshots to Trends

Term Based Data for Needed for Adjustments per Term

Supplemental Learning Highlightssince implementation in Spring 2006

Success Rates in Developmental Math Courses For students enrolled in SL section:

+ 2.4% for Fall SL sections + 5.4% for Spring SL sections

With attendance in 1+ SL session: + 9.8% for Fall SL sections + 20.3% for Spring SL sections

Student participation in SL sections (>33%) Avg. 45% participation from Fall SL students Avg. 49% participation from Spring SL students

Supplemental Learning: Spring 2008

*Courses: Pre-algebra, Beginning Algebra, Intermediate Algebra

  attended   non-attended   SL course   non-SL course   % participation

Ethnicity % Success N % Success N % Success N % Success N  

AA 62 113 34 148 46 261 48 911 43%

Cauc 69 208 53 251 60 459 56 1557 45%

Hisp 70 181 47 165 59 346 55 1204 52%

All 69 573 47 663 57 1236 54 4238 46%

69% 70%

34%

53%47%46%

60% 59%55%

62%56%

48%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Afr. Am. Caucasian Hispanic

SL-Attended SL-Non-Attended SL-Overall Non-SL

Percentage of All enrolled students with a Grade of C or Better in Developmental Mathematics Course by Ethnicity

Two to Four Year Global Examples

1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-080%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

75.3% 76.9% 76.1% 76.7%78.6% 79.9% 79.2% 80.5% 79.2% 79.7%

81.6% 81.5%

55.3%56.8% 56.4%

58.2% 58.5% 58.7% 58.4% 59.6% 60.3% 61.3% 62.4% 63.8%

Fall Cohort Retention RatesFTIC Degree-Seeking Students

Fall-Spring Retention

Fall-Fall Retention

Fall Cohort to Spring/Fall the Following Year

Re

ten

tio

n R

ate

Spring 2006 Cohort

Persistence

Term SL and/or LinC Persistence (N) Persistence (%) Total Enrolled Spring 2006 to Fall 2006

No 596 53 1123Yes 119 61 195

Spring 2006 to Spring 2007

No 468 44 1063Yes 145 57 255

Spring 2006 to Fall 2007

No 344 34 1007Yes 150 48 311

Spring 2006 to Spring 2008

No 333 34 990Yes 170 52 328

Spring 2006 to Fall 2008

No 232 24 963Yes 131 37 355

Spring 2006 to Spring 2009

No 184 19 953Yes 126 35 365

AtD Data Team Insights

Composition of members Development of Data Review Model Levels of analysis From Snapshots to Trends From “Data Driven” to “Data Informed”

Example of Research Plan for Each Strategy

Meaningful Improvement

Statistically significant improvement in target quantitative measures

Reflection on the human impact in terms of the goals of

the initiative and the mission of the institution

Economic efficiency in relationship to difficulty of the task at hand

A consideration of faculty perception as it relates to benefit versus cost

A consideration of student perception as it relates to benefit versus cost

Supplemental Learning (SL)Course Success In each comparison, Fall, Spring and Summer:

Success (A, B, or C) was higher for SL sections Unsuccess (D, F, or WF) and Withdrawal (W, or WP) were lower for

SL sections Fall Success rates were significantly different for SL sections (*p<.10) for

all ethnicities (N = 65 Instructors, N = 5157 students) African American students

All courses: 10.36% higher (p=0.029) Developmental: 8.53% higher (*p=0.167) Gateway: 15.65% higher (p=0.019)

Hispanic students All courses: 7.07% higher (p=0.007) Developmental: 7.59% higher (p=0.025) Gateway: 6.65% higher (p=0.099)

*With one exception.

Supplemental Learning ResearchStudent Focus Groups

• Overall, students described the SL experience as positive, and felt that attending SL sessions helped their academic performance

• Students who did not attend SL sessions gave two major reasons:– time of session conflicted with work or other courses– felt confident in their own ability and did not need the help

• The following benefits of SL were reported:– learning study skill strategies– awareness of additional resources (CompHouse, SPA, etc.)– increased comfort with in-class participation and instructor

interaction

AtD Data Team Insights

Composition of members Development of Data Review Model Term-based strategy level and overall

strategy evaluation From Snapshots to Trends From “Data Driven” to “Data Informed” From “Culture of Evidence” to “Culture of

Inquiry”

Closing the Gaps

Overall, success in the 6 Gateway courses increased by 3% from 2004 to 2008.

Success gaps between African American and Caucasian students closed from 13.4% in 2004 to 3.6% in 2008.

Success gaps between Hispanic students and Caucasian students closed from 1.8% in 2004 to Hispanic students having higher success rates than Caucasian students by 4% in 2008.

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 F080.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

60.3% 61.7% 65.1%

62.6% 59.7% 60.3%

64.6% 65.6% 67.9%

Overall Success Rate (Grades of A, B or C)All Ethnicities Combined

ENC1101

POS2041

MAC1105

MAT0012C

MAT0024C

MAT1033C

Avg Success Rate

Academic Year

Su

cc

es

s R

ate

37

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 FA08-40.0%

-30.0%

-20.0%

-10.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

African American - CaucasianSuccess Rate Gap by Course

ENC1101

POS2041

MAC1105

MAT0012C

MAT0024C

MAT1033C

Average Total Combined Gap

Academic Year

Dif

fere

nce

in

Su

cces

s R

ate

Negative values mean African-Americans are not performing as well as Caucasians on average.

38

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 FA08-30.0%

-20.0%

-10.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

Hispanic - CaucasianSuccess Rate Gap by Course

ENC1101

POS2041

MAC1105

MAT0012C

MAT0024C

MAT1033C

Average Total Combined Gap

Academic Year

Dif

fere

nce

in

Su

cces

s R

ate

Negative values mean Hispanics are not performing as well as Caucasians on average.

Activity #3

What questions do you have for me?

Contact Information

Dr. Julie Phelps

Project Director, Achieving the Dream (AtD) & Professor, Mathematics

Email: jphelps@valenciacc.edu

AtD web site: http://www.valenciacc.edu/dream/

National AtD web site: http://www.achievingthedream.org