Search

In 2016, the Research and Planning Group for California Community Colleges (RP Group) launched a two-part transfer study called "Through the Gate" to take a fresh look at addressing California's transfer challenges. When a more nuanced look at this population is taken, a "transfer continuum" emerges, revealing students at different points along a transfer path: transfer explorers, momentum students, students near the transfer gate, students at the transfer gate, and transfer achievers who made it through the transfer gate. This research aims to identify strategies for increasing transfer among "high-leverage" California Community Colleges (CCCs) learners--individuals who have completed all or most of their transfer requirements, but who do not make it "through the gate" to a university. It specifically focuses on the Inland Empire and Central Valley, as students in these areas of the state have lower college completion and transfer rates, which suggests that they may face unique challenges and barriers along their transfer journey. The report details findings from the study's first phase and maps the landscape for a sample of students who have made significant progress along the transfer continuum. It shares findings on high-leverage students who are near or at the gate, and transfer achievers who made it through the gate to university, zeroing in on: (1) how many students in California stop short of the transfer gate; (2) who they are and where they reside; and (3) what can be gleaned about opportunities to increase their transfer success.

This primer introduces 23 practices designed to support students inside and outside of the classroom and increase their community college success. These case studies illustrate the five themes for effective student support that emerged from Student Support (Re)defined--a multi-year study performed by the Research and Planning Group for California Community Colleges (RP Group). Through Student Support (Re)defined, the RP Group conducted phone surveys and focus groups to ask almost 900 students from 13 California community colleges what supports their educational success. Findings from this research indicate that: (1) colleges need to foster students' motivation; (2) colleges must teach students how to succeed in the postsecondary environment; (3) colleges need to structure support to ensure all six success factors are addressed; (4) colleges need to provide comprehensive support to historically underserved students to prevent the equity gap from growing; and (5) everyone has a role to play in supporting student achievement, but faculty must take the lead. This primer is not a research report. Rather, it offers a range of practical examples and aims to inspire concrete dialog about what community college practitioners can do to strengthen student support at the individual, program and institutional levels. Some practices offer simple ideas that can be readily pursued. Others are more complex, call for careful coordination and planning, and require a significant investment of time and resources. All practices are student-centered and either show potential for scaling and/or replication or are already successfully reaching significant numbers of learners. The RP Group selected these practices based on over 20 years of experience conducting research in the California community college system and drew on the research team and project advisory committee's engagement with national initiatives such as the Aspen Prize for Community College Excellence, Completion by Design, the Hewlett Leaders in Student Success Award and Excelencia in Education. Each case study includes a brief description of the practice's purpose and design, a discussion of the participant experience, implementation support and challenges, and a consideration of scalability and sustainability. The primer includes a bookmarked table of contents and a series of quick guides at the beginning of the document to help readers connect with the practices that are of greatest interest and relevance to their work. It incorporates discussion questions throughout the document designed to help practitioners reflect on their own college's practices, consider ways to strengthen existing supports and/or begin planning for the adoption of new approaches that promote the success of all learners on campus. The primer additionally offers an introduction to the Student Support (Re)defined study and the student voices that the RP Group has presented to thousands of practitioners, leaders and other stakeholders around California. (Contains 23 references and two sets of discussion questions designed for practitioner and college leadership engagement in the study's findings.)

Research indicates that students are more likely to succeed when they experience the following six factors: (1) have a goal and a path leading to this goal; (2) stay motivated to achieve this outcome; (3) believe that their success matters to others; (4) are engaged in the classroom; (5) feel connected to the college community; and (6) feel they are contributing positively to the college culture and community. In Student Support (Re)defined--a multi-year study of what community colleges can do to improve success for all students--the Research and Planning Group for California Community Colleges (RP Group) summarized these six success factors as (1) directed, (2) focused, (3) nurtured, (4) engaged, (5) connected, and (6) valued. The RP Group conducted phone surveys and focus groups to ask almost 900 students from 13 California community colleges what supports their educational success, focusing particularly on the importance of these six factors to their educational achievement. The research over-sampled African-American and Latino learners and integrated survey findings with student background data extracted from the California Community Colleges State Chancellor's Office Management Information System. This report begins by synthesizing findings identified across the six success factors into five key themes. These five themes are: (1) colleges need to foster students' motivation; (2) colleges must teach students how to succeed in the postsecondary environment; (3) colleges need to structure support to ensure all six success factors are addressed; (4) colleges need to provide comprehensive support to historically underserved students to prevent the equity gap from growing; and (5) everyone has a role to play in supporting student achievement, but faculty must take the lead. The report then provides a detailed description of students' responses by success factor, including a full definition of each factor, key findings about that factor from both the survey and focus groups, and any significant highlights by survey participant subgroup. This section includes a one-page summary that underscores which aspects of the six success factors are particularly important to first-generation, African-American and Latino participants. This resource concludes with actions that faculty, counselors, staff, administrators and students can take to help students experience one or more of the six success factors, based on the suggestions of study participants. (Contains 2 references, 8 tables and 6 sets of discussion questions designed to facilitate campus conversations about the study's findings)

This research brief presents key findings and actionable themes from Student Support (Re)defined--a multi-year study that asked almost 900 students from 13 California community colleges what they think supports their educational success, paying special attention to the factors Africa Americans and Latinos cite as important to their achievement. The Research and Planning Group for California Community Colleges (RP Group) conducted this research to understand how community colleges can feasibly deliver support both inside and outside the classroom to improve success for all students. Through a review of leading studies on effective support practices and interviews with practitioners and researchers, the RP Group determined that "six success factors" contribute to students' success: (1) Directed: students have a goal and know how to achieve it; (2) Focused: students stay on track--keeping their eyes on the prize; (3) Nurtured: students feel somebody wants and helps them to succeed; (4) Engaged: students actively participate in class and extracurricular activities; (5) Connected: students feel like they are part of the college community; and (6) Valued: students' skills, talents, abilities and experiences are recognized; they have opportunities to contribute on campus and feel their contributions are appreciated A full report of student perspectives on these six success factors can be accessed at www.rpgroup.org/sites/default/files/StudentPerspectivesResearchReportJan2013.pdf. This brief presents five key themes that synthesize what students say about the six success factors and that share strategies students suggest may improve their achievement. These five themes are: (1) colleges need to foster students' motivation; (2) colleges must teach students how to succeed in the postsecondary environment; (3) colleges need to structure support to ensure all six success factors are addressed; (4) colleges need to provide comprehensive support to historically underserved students to prevent the equity gap from growing; and (5) everyone has a role to play in supporting student achievement, but faculty must take the lead. Collectively, the themes: acknowledge students as key agents in their own educational success while highlighting that the motivation learners bring to college may not be enough to guarantee completion; speak directly to the need to teach students how to navigate the community college environment; highlight the value of providing support that helps students experience multiple success factors; and underscore the importance of comprehensive service delivery to particular populations. Finally, the themes recognize the important role the entire college community plays in student success, but emphasize the need for faculty leadership. The brief concludes with a list of discussion questions readers can use to engage the college community in conversations about the findings. Also included are many ideas for change--including actions that individuals and programs can take immediately to improve students' achievement. Colleges are encouraged to use the five themes as a framework for (1) reflecting on the outcomes they want for their students and (2) identifying how support can be strategically integrated across institutional divisions and holistically into students' educational experience.

In Spring 2007, the State Chancellor's Office of the California Community Colleges awarded the Transfer Leadership Center (TLC) study to investigate two-to-four year transfer practices and strategies. As part of the study's qualitative component, research teams from the Center for Student Success of the Research & Planning Group of the California Community Colleges conducted site visits to seven community colleges with higher-than-expected transfer rates. The site visits included extensive interviews and focus groups conducted with students, college counselors, faculty, administrators, classified staff, representatives from special programs, and high school counselors. This paper presents findings from site visits to De Anza College. Appended are: (1) De Anza Study Participants; (2) Documents Reviewed for De Anza Case Study Analysis; (3) De Anza College Descriptors; (4) De Anza College Transfer Indicators; and (5) De Anza's Agreements with Four-Year Colleges and Representative Visits. (Contains 1 footnote.) [For related reports, see the following: (1) "Transfer Issues and Effective Practices: A Review of the Literature" (ED521887); (2) "A Qualitative Study of Two-To-Four-Year Transfer Practices in California Community Colleges: An Analysis of Seven Case Studies Featuring Colleges with Consistently Higher-than-Expected Transfer Rates, Fall 2008" (ED521877); (3) "Transfer Velocity Project: Key Findings on Student Transfer in California Community Colleges" (ED521885); (4) "Transfer Practices at Irvine Valley College: Case Study #2 of 7 Featuring Colleges with Consistently Higher than Expected Transfer Rates, Fall 2008" (ED521884); (5) "Transfer Practices at Los Angeles Southwest College: Case Study #3 of 7 Featuring Colleges with Consistently Higher than Expected Transfer Rates, Fall 2008" (ED521889); (6) "Transfer Practices at Porterville College: Case Study #4 of 7 Featuring Colleges with Consistently Higher than Expected Transfer Rates, Fall 2008" (ED521880); (7) "Transfer Practices at Reedley College: Case Study #5 of 7 Featuring Colleges with Consistently Higher than Expected Transfer Rates, Fall 2008" (ED521878); (8) "Transfer Practices at San Diego City College: Case Study #6 of 7 Featuring Colleges with Consistently Higher than Expected Transfer Rates, Fall 2008" (ED521876); and (9) "Transfer Practices at Skyline College: Case Study #7 of 7 Featuring Colleges with Consistently Higher than Expected Transfer Rates, Fall 2008" (ED521879).]

In Spring 2007, the State Chancellor's Office of the California Community Colleges awarded the Transfer Leadership Center (TLC) study to investigate two-to-four year transfer practices and strategies. As part of the study's qualitative component, research teams from the Center for Student Success of the Research & Planning Group of the California Community Colleges conducted site visits to seven community colleges with higher-than-expected transfer rates. The site visits included extensive interviews and focus groups conducted with students, college counselors, faculty, administrators, classified staff, representatives from special programs, and high school counselors. This report presents findings from site visits to Porterville College. Appended are: (1) Porterville College Study Participants; (2) Documents Reviewed for Porterville College Case Study Analysis; (3) Porterville College Descriptors; (4) Porterville College Transfer Indicators; and (5) Porterville College's Agreements with Four-Year Colleges and Representative Visits. (Contains 1 footnote.) [For related reports, see the following: (1) "Transfer Issues and Effective Practices: A Review of the Literature" (ED521887); (2) "A Qualitative Study of Two-To-Four-Year Transfer Practices in California Community Colleges: An Analysis of Seven Case Studies Featuring Colleges with Consistently Higher-than-Expected Transfer Rates, Fall 2008" (ED521877); (3) "Transfer Velocity Project: Key Findings on Student Transfer in California Community Colleges" (ED521885); (4) "Transfer Practices at De Anza College: Case Study #1 of 7 Featuring Colleges with Consistently Higher than Expected Transfer Rates, Fall 2008" (ED521886); (5) "Transfer Practices at Irvine Valley College: Case Study #2 of 7 Featuring Colleges with Consistently Higher than Expected Transfer Rates, Fall 2008" (ED521884); (6) "Transfer Practices at Los Angeles Southwest College: Case Study #3 of 7 Featuring Colleges with Consistently Higher than Expected Transfer Rates, Fall 2008" (ED521889); (7) "Transfer Practices at Reedley College: Case Study #5 of 7 Featuring Colleges with Consistently Higher than Expected Transfer Rates, Fall 2008" (ED521878); (8) "Transfer Practices at San Diego City College: Case Study #6 of 7 Featuring Colleges with Consistently Higher than Expected Transfer Rates, Fall 2008" (ED521876); and (9) "Transfer Practices at Skyline College: Case Study #7 of 7 Featuring Colleges with Consistently Higher than Expected Transfer Rates, Fall 2008" (ED521879).]

In Spring 2007, the State Chancellor's Office of the California Community Colleges awarded the Transfer Leadership Center (TLC) study to investigate two-to-four year transfer practices and strategies. As part of the study's qualitative component, research teams from the Center for Student Success of the Research & Planning Group of the California Community Colleges conducted site visits to seven community colleges with higher-than-expected transfer rates. The site visits included extensive interviews and focus groups conducted with students, college counselors, faculty, administrators, classified staff, representatives from special programs, and high school counselors. This report presents findings from site visits to Reedley College. Appended are: (1) Reedley College Study Participants; (2) Documents Reviewed for Reedley College Case Study Analysis; (3) Reedley College Descriptors; (4) Reedley College Transfer Indicators; (5) Reedley Colleges Transfer Investments; and (6) Reedley College's Agreements with Four-Year Colleges and Representative Visits. (Contains 1 footnote.) [For related reports, see the following: (1) "Transfer Issues and Effective Practices: A Review of the Literature" (ED521887); (2) "A Qualitative Study of Two-To-Four-Year Transfer Practices in California Community Colleges: An Analysis of Seven Case Studies Featuring Colleges with Consistently Higher-than-Expected Transfer Rates, Fall 2008" (ED521877); (3) "Transfer Velocity Project: Key Findings on Student Transfer in California Community Colleges" (ED521885); (4) "Transfer Practices at De Anza College: Case Study #1 of 7 Featuring Colleges with Consistently Higher than Expected Transfer Rates, Fall 2008" (ED521886); (5) "Transfer Practices at Irvine Valley College: Case Study #2 of 7 Featuring Colleges with Consistently Higher than Expected Transfer Rates, Fall 2008" (ED521884); (6) "Transfer Practices at Los Angeles Southwest College: Case Study #3 of 7 Featuring Colleges with Consistently Higher than Expected Transfer Rates, Fall 2008" (ED521889); (7) "Transfer Practices at Porterville College: Case Study #4 of 7 Featuring Colleges with Consistently Higher than Expected Transfer Rates, Fall 2008" (ED521880); (8) "Transfer Practices at San Diego City College: Case Study #6 of 7 Featuring Colleges with Consistently Higher than Expected Transfer Rates, Fall 2008" (ED521876); and (9) "Transfer Practices at Skyline College: Case Study #7 of 7 Featuring Colleges with Consistently Higher than Expected Transfer Rates, Fall 2008" (ED521879).]

Which factors promote transfer from community colleges to four-year colleges and universities? What can individuals learn about transfer from tracking cohorts of students? What can they learn from studying colleges that have a strong track record of transferring students? These questions are at the center of a study funded in 2007 by the California Community College State Chancellor's Office, based on a competitive grant competition and grant written by Dr. Andreea Serban, Superintendent/President, Santa Barbara City College. The study has been implemented by the System Office of the California Community Colleges (CCC), the Center for Student Success (CSS) of the Research and Planning Group of the CCC, and California Partnership for Achieving Student Success (Cal-PASS). The study--called the Transfer Leadership Center (TLC)--is directed by Dr. Andreea Serban and administered by the Santa Barbara City College. The study is guided by an Advisory Committee whose members include leading experts on transfer. This report summarizes and considers findings generated by the first phase of the TLC's qualitative study component--case studies of seven community colleges with consistently high transfer rates. This report introduces charts that identify actions and activities that the seven colleges are implementing to promote each transfer factor. These actions and activities--which explain what the colleges are doing--are then associated with specific practices that illustrate how the colleges are doing it. The report includes a section with suggestions for how colleges can use this report. Appended are: (1) Methodology; (2) Interview Protocol Template; (3) Documentation Template; (4) Transfer Rates for Selected Colleges; and (5) Sample Support Programs from Skyline College. (Contains 5 footnotes.) [For related reports, see the following: (1) "Transfer Issues and Effective Practices: A Review of the Literature" (ED521887); (2) "Transfer Velocity Project: Key Findings on Student Transfer in California Community Colleges" (ED521885); (3) "Transfer Practices at De Anza College: Case Study #1 of 7 Featuring Colleges with Consistently Higher than Expected Transfer Rates, Fall 2008" (ED521886); (4) "Transfer Practices at Irvine Valley College: Case Study #2 of 7 Featuring Colleges with Consistently Higher than Expected Transfer Rates, Fall 2008" (ED521884); (5) "Transfer Practices at Los Angeles Southwest College: Case Study #3 of 7 Featuring Colleges with Consistently Higher than Expected Transfer Rates, Fall 2008" (ED521889); (6) "Transfer Practices at Porterville College: Case Study #4 of 7 Featuring Colleges with Consistently Higher than Expected Transfer Rates, Fall 2008" (ED521880); (7) "Transfer Practices at Reedley College: Case Study #5 of 7 Featuring Colleges with Consistently Higher than Expected Transfer Rates, Fall 2008" (ED521878); (8) "Transfer Practices at San Diego City College: Case Study #6 of 7 Featuring Colleges with Consistently Higher than Expected Transfer Rates, Fall 2008" (ED521876); and (9) "Transfer Practices at Skyline College: Case Study #7 of 7 Featuring Colleges with Consistently Higher than Expected Transfer Rates, Fall 2008" (ED521879).] [Contributors to this report were Denice Inciong, Rob Johnstone, Carol Kozeracki, Lucinda Over, Craig Hayward, and Andreea Serban.]

This report presents findings from an ethnographic study of technology integration and diffusion in two California community colleges. The study was commissioned to examine whether faculty behavior and student learning outcomes have changed as a result of @ONE instructional technology training and resources. The California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office funded the @ONE project for a 5-year period to assess faculty training needs, build a statewide training infrastructure, and develop and deliver instructional technology training. The findings of this study (the first of three parts) were generated through site visits conducted in May 2002 to Santa Monica College (SMC) and Fresno City College (FCC) by researchers from the Center for Student Success. In comparing the level and pace of technology integration at SMC and FCC, the research team found a contrasting pattern of development. While SMC has enjoyed steady growth since 1985, FCC's path to technology integration was truncated until the late 1990s. The report makes recommendations, based on the site visits, including (1) a faculty-driven initiative to identify what technology can do for student learning, by discipline and program; (2) a comprehensive cyclical planning process with a written, flexible technology plan; and (3) local training and faculty development activities. (NB)

The California Community Colleges Chancellors Office funded the @ONE project for a five-year period to assess faculty training needs, build a statewide training infrastructure, and develop and deliver instructional technology training. In its last year of operation, @ONE commissioned an evaluation of its impact on faculty teaching and student learning processes and outcomes. The Center for Student Success conducted this evaluation study between January and June, 2002. The study employed a three-pronged approach: a review of the literature, combined with two separate ethnographic investigations of @ONE--one a study of two California community colleges and the other a broad survey of participants in @ONEs technology training. In evaluating the impact of @ONE training on faculty teaching, the following factors influencing the results were identified: (1) training methods; (2) training needs; and (3) organizational environment. The survey research found that 67-85% of faculty respondents indicated they are more or much more enabled to engage in a variety of instructional activities using technology as a result of the training. The study also found that systematic and routine assessment of student learning is not yet underway across courses using the new tools. Recommendations include acquiring information directly from students about the effect that integration of technology into classrooms has had on their class evaluations. (Author/NB)

While increases in remedial education (or basic skills instruction or developmental education) have taken place at several levels of the education and training system, there are reasons for thinking that the issue is particularly acute in community colleges. This introductory working paper divides the problem into two. The first is the high proportion--perhaps 60 percent for the country, and 80 percent in California--of students entering colleges who assess into developmental courses. This can be explained by the pattern of dynamic inequality in American education, where inequalities among students increase as the move through the system. The second problem arises from the evidence that students entering a remedial trajectory are unlikely to move into college-level work, so remediation has become a serious barrier to success for many students. Unfortunately, like other second-chance efforts, basic skills instructions often works under difficult conditions, and there are many hypotheses about why success rates in basic skill are not higher--most of which will be examined in this series of papers. Since developmental education is first and foremost an instructional issue, this series of papers rests on a conceptual foundation focusing on the--triangle of instruction, considering the instructor, students, and content within a set of institutional influences. The underlying research for these papers involves classroom observation, and interviews with instructors and administrators, to understand both classroom settings and the institutional setting. This framing paper then introduces the subjects for remaining papers in the series. The methodology of the study is appended. (Contains 2 figures and 17 footnotes.) [For the "Basic Skills Instruction in Community Colleges: The Dominance of Remedial Pedagogy. Working Paper, Number 2", see ED523552.]

A previous working paper argued, that, to understand basic skills education, it is necessary to observe classrooms to see what the "instructional triangle" involving the instructor, students, and content is like. This working paper presents the results of observing classes in 13 community colleges. It starts with a conceptualization of instruction, distinguishing behaviorist teaching, constructivist teaching, and hybrid teaching that combines the two (as well as several other dimension of quality), and provides various reasons why hybrid or constructivist teaching is likely to be more effective than behaviorist teaching. One notable feature of remedial classrooms is the consistent encouragement and support of students. Sometimes this takes the form of support classes or Student Success courses, but often it is simply part of common instructional practice. However, the majority of basic skills classes follow what the authors call "remedial pedagogy"--drill and practice on sub-skills, usually devoid of any references to how these skills are used in subsequent courses or in adult roles. Remedial pedagogy takes different forms in math, reading, writing, and ESL (where it is least common). Unfortunately, remedial pedagogy violates many of the precepts of effective instruction presented in the first section of this paper, so there are reasons to think that this approach is partly responsible for the lack of success in developmental education. The methodology of the study is appended. (Contains 1 figure and 24 endnotes.) [For the "Understanding the "Crisis" in Basic Skills: Framing the Issues in Community Colleges. Basic Skills Instruction in California Community College. Working Paper, Number 1", see ED523553.]