Fostering Transfer Student Success Through Cross Campus - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Fostering Transfer Student Success Through Cross Campus Collaboration

Maia Randle, Ph.D., PI and Program Coordinator, Columbus State Community College

LSAMP (Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation)

• LSAMP was authorized by Congress and established in 1991 to

significantly increase the quality and quantity of students historically underrepresented in STEM who successfully complete baccalaureate degrees and who continue on to graduate studies in STEM disciplines.

• Funded by NSF
• Named after Ohio’s first Black Congressman, Louis Stokes (Cleveland)

LSAMP Student Eligibility

• Studying a STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math)

discipline(s) (nursing and health science majors are not eligible)

• Are a U.S. citizen, U.S. national, or permanent resident of the

United States

• Are an underrepresented minority:

African-American, Alaskan Native, American Indian, Hispanic American, Native Hawaiian, Native Pacific Islander, or two or more of the above

The Ohio LSAMP Alliance Partner Institution Locations

The Ohio LSAMP Alliance Collaborative Initiatives

• Peer Mentoring Program – alliance wide program
• Shared Bridge Programs – in addition, OSU has a transfer bridge program

for CSCC students which provides knowledge of campus resources

• Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REUs)
• Community College Pathways Task Force

a) Keeps track of current articulations and transfer agreements in the alliance b) Uses the Transfer Planning Tool (3-step guide to transfer planning and worksheet)

• Program Coordinator Retreat
• The Ohio LSAMP Alliance Conference – given every other year

Essentials of LSAMP Programming

• Advising and Counseling
• Bridge Program/Early Arrival Programs
• Tutoring or Supplemental Instruction
• Peer Mentoring
• Faculty Mentoring
• Undergraduate Research
• Professional Development

LSAMP Programming at Columbus State Community College (CSCC)

LSAMP Students participate in the following types of programming at CSCC:

• Tutoring – students are tutored by CSCC STEM faculty.
• STEM Club – exposes students to STEM careers and provides professional

development opportunities.

• STEM Bridge Program – 1 week program for 1st yr students which focuses on time

management and study skills, knowledge of campus resources, the development of faculty-student relationships, hands-on science labs, engineering activities, and identifying and remediating fundamental misconceptions in chemistry and math.

• Community Service Events:

We are STEM – CSCC hosts STEM activities for area high schools. Young Men of Color STEM Career Conference – CSCC and COSI co-host science related activities and experiences for 6-8th grade young men from area schools.

• Individual advising from STEM advisors

Columbus State Community College (CSCC) & The Ohio State University (OSU)Collaboration

CSCC LSAMP Students participate in the following types of programming at OSU:

• Peer Mentoring –1st and 2nd year CSCC students are matched (based on their plan of

study) with junior and senior OSU students who provide resources and guidance for transfer to a 4-yr institution.

• Faculty Mentoring – 1st and 2nd year CSCC students are matched (based on their plan of

study) with OSU faculty mentors. Faculty mentors help students to start thinking about an undergraduate research project. Meetings with faculty mentors may include the following: A tour of the laboratory with explanations by graduate students of their projects Introductions to other faculty researchers and their laboratories Short hands-on activities, projects, or experiments Assisting in data collection Discussions of possible research projects, funding opportunities, transferring to OSU, internship opportunities, study abroad opportunities, and the benefits of doing undergraduate research

• Undergraduate Research – 1st and 2nd year CSCC students are selected to participate in

REUs at OSU during autumn and spring semesters or during the summer http://cem.osu.edu/education-and-outreach/reu/community-college/

• Programming Opportunities at OSU for CSCC students

Average GPA of LSAMP participants vs. LSAMP- eligible Students (URM STEM)

Source: Higher Education Information System of Ohio

Average GPA School LSAMP Participants URM STEM Central State University 3.02 1.20 Cincinnati State University 3.23 1.99 Cleveland State University 2.40 2.21 Columbus State Community College 2.73 1.57 Cuyahoga Community College 2.93 1.90 Miami University 3.27 2.51 Ohio State University 3.19 2.62 Sinclair Community College 2.71 1.66 University of Cincinnati 2.62 2.61 Wright State University 2.45 1.83 Total 2.80* 2.27**

22% increase in STEM bachelor’s degrees 87% increase in URM STEM bachelor’s degrees 3% increase in total bachelor’s degrees Source: Higher Education Information System of Ohio

NonSTEM STEM Grand Total Academic Year Not URM URM Total Not URM URM Total 2011-12 16,965 2,332 19,297 4,880 356 5,236 24,533 2012-13 15,357 2,235 17,592 4,746 376 5,122 22,714 2013-14 15,723 2,492 18,215 5,148 450 5,598 23,813 2014-15 16,080 2,759 18,839 5,601 516 6,117 24,956 2015-16 16,167 2,623 18,790 5,697 666 6,363 25,153 % change from 2011-12 to 2015-16

• 5%

12%

• 3%

17% 87% 22% 3%

The Ohio LSAMP Alliance 2011-12 to 2015-16 Total Bachelor’s Degrees: STEM and Not STEM, URM and Not URM

Ohio Transfer Statistics

• There were 85,686 first-time enrollees at Ohio

public two-year institutions between Summer 2010 and Spring 2011. Table 1 provides an ethnic distribution of the entire cohort, while table 2 does the same for only the transfer students from the cohort; transfer is defined as enrollment at any four-year institution in the nation within six years (by 2016).

Table 1. Distribution by Ethnicity: 2010-11 First-Time Two-Year College Students.

All first-time students White Black Hispanic Numbers 85,686 55,397 16,576 2,616 Shares 64.7% 19.3% 3.1%

Table 2. Distribution by Ethnicity: 2010-11 First-Time Two-Year College Students Who Transferred to Four-Year Institutions Within Six Years.

All first-time students White Black Hispanic Numbers 85,686 55,397 16,,576 2,616 Shares 64.7% 19.3% 3.1% All first-time students who transferred in six years White Black Hispanic Numbers 19,030 12,486 3,466 551 Shares 65.6% 18.2% 2.9%

Sources

• Eaton, Judith S.(1991). Encouraging Transfer: Its Impact on Community Colleges. Education

Digest, Vol. 57, Issue 1, page 62. 4p.

• McGlynn, Angela Provitera (2013). Creating Better Pathways for Minority Student Transfer.

Education Digest, Vol. 78, Issue 7, p 60-64. 5p.

• https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/what-we-know-about-transfer.pdf
• http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Publications/Briefs/Documents/04052006faesbrief.pdf
• http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0013124589021003006
• http://mysite.du.edu/~cdlovell/05-InstResptoBarriers.pdf
• https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/low-income-minority-completion.pdf
• https://www.durhamtech.edu/reap/atd/Wassmer%20et%20al.pdf
• https://odi.osu.edu/ohio-state-lsamp-scholars/
• The Higher Education Information (HEI) System of the Ohio Department of Higher Education

Maia Randle, Ph.D., PI and Program Coordinator Columbus State Community College mrandle2@cscc.edu

The Ohio LSAMP Alliance Retention Rates of LSAMP Participants Compared to LSAMP Eligible Students LSAMP participants are retained at higher rates than LSAMP eligible students.

Source: Ohio Department of Higher Education

2nd Year Retention (enrolled prior to AY2016) 3rd year Retention (enrolled prior to AY2015) Fourth year Retention (enrolled prior to AY2014) LSAMP Participants URM STEM LSAMP Participants URM STEM LSAMP Participants URM STEM Two year total 73% 34% 58% 23% 22%* 15% Four-year total 90% 70% 90% 56% 83% 50% Total 85% 63% 80% 50% 63% 43% 2nd Year Retention (enrolled prior to AY2016) 3rd year Retention (enrolled prior to AY2015) Fourth year Retention (enrolled prior to AY2014) Partner Institution LSAMP Participants URM STEM LSAMP Participants URM STEM LSAMP Participants URM STEM Cincinnati State Technical and CC 45% 100% 18% 100% Columbus State Community College 78% 24% 75% 14% 25% 10% Cuyahoga Community College 68% 34% 48% 22% 18% 17% Sinclair Community College 83% 40% 50% 31% 0% 17% Two year total 73% 34% 58% 23% 22%* 15% Central State University 94% 59% 96% 38% 79% 31% Cleveland State University 93% 62% 71% 46% 50% 35% Miami University 100% 69% 100% 58% 52% The Ohio State University 100% 80% 97% 71% 93% 65% University of Cincinnati 81% 66% 52% 48% Wright State University 76% 58% 69% 40% 89% 34% Four-year total 90% 70% 90% 56% 83% 50% Total 85% 63% 80% 50% 63% 43%

The definition of annual transfer movements

• The definition of annual transfer movements relies on the following broad components:

–The institution of attendance –The characteristics of the movement

• What is the institution of attendance for a student in a given year?

–The institution where a student attempted the maximum number of credit hours in the year.

• How is the transfer movement defined?

–A student has to make a clean break from her institution of attendance in the following year.

• How does a clean break occur? In one of the following three ways:

–The student formally transfers credits from her college of attendance to another institution. –The student attends a single institution that is different from her institution of attendance. –The student attends multiple institutions and attempts the maximum number of credit in an institution that is different from her original college of attendance.

20

Annual transfer movements: Features of the definition

• Annual transfer movements are defined using the methodology described in the Ohio

Articulation and Transfer Network (OATN) Research Agenda, available at http://www.ohiohighered.org/transfer/research.

• Annual transfer movements do not include transients.

–Transients are those students who attend a different institution for a short period before reverting back to their original institutions of attendance in the same year.

• Because these are annual transfer movements, and also because transients are not

included, transfer numbers reported in this presentation will not match the number of transfer students who belong to a given cohort of first-time students.

• As such, these transfer numbers are not comparable to numbers from recent OATN

reports on transfer movement and graduation rates that use data on first-time cohorts.

21

Minority transfer shares: Black students Two-year institutions to four-year main campuses

12.1% 11.5% 13.1% 12.2% 13.0% 12.2% 12.9% 14.0% 14.5% 14.3% 15.1% 15.4% 14.6% 14.5% 14.6% 0.0 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 16.0% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Proportions of Black Students in Two-Year to Four-Year Transfers 2001-02 to 2015-16

22

Hispanic & Asian student transfer shares: Two-year institutions to four-year main campuses

23

2.3% 2.4% 2.3% 2.3% 2.1% 2.8% 2.5% 2.8% 2.1% 2.1% 2.3% 2.2% 2.5% 2.9% 2.9% 1.9% 1.9% 2.1% 2.1% 2.2% 2.6% 2.8% 2.7% 2.5% 2.9% 3.2% 3.3% 3.2% 3.5% 4.5% 0.0 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 0.5% 1.5% 3.5% 2.5% 4.5%

Asian Hispanic

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

2001-02 to 2015-16

Transfers Shares: Asian and Hispanic Students

Hispanic & Asian student transfer shares: Two-year institutions to four-year main campuses

2.3% 2.3% 2.1% 2.5% 2.1% 2.3% 2.5% 2.9% 1.9% 2.1% 2.2% 2.8% 2.5% 3.2% 3.2% 4.5% 0.0 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0%

Asian Students Hispanic Students

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

2001-02 to 2015-16

Transfer Shares: Asian and Hispanic Students

24

Non-Minority transfer shares: White students Two-year institutions to four-year main campuses

75.2% 76.2% 73.8% 75.0% 75.1% 75.3% 74.3% 72.8% 72.8% 72% 71.3% 71.7% 72.1% 71.7% 71.0% 0.0 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

2001-02 to 2015-16 Proportions of White Students in Two-Year to Four-Year Transfers

25

Minority transfer movements: What did we learn?

• Two-year to four-year main campus transfer flows have increased over time;

transfer numbers increased from 7,310 to 8,269 between 2002 and 2016; an increase of 13.1%.

• Over the same period, minority transfer numbers also increased.
• The number of Black students transferring from two-year institutions to four-

year university main campuses increased from 885 in 2002 to 1,206 in 2016; an increase of 36.3%.

• The share of Black students in transfer movements increased from 12.1% to

14.6%.

• Although transfer movements for Asian and Hispanic students are smaller, they

also experienced rising numbers and shares.

• The number of White transfer students also increased over the period although

their shares in transfer movements declined from 75.1% to 71.0%.

The data used in this presentation are obtained from the Higher Education Information (HEI) system of the Ohio Department of Higher Education.

26

Underrepresented Transfer Students

• Barriers to Success

–Lack of Early Momentum –Transfer Paths are Unclear –Transfer Credit Loss –Imposter Syndrome –Over competitive and unfriendly classmates –Unsupportive faculty and staff –Bigger classes –Lack sense of belonging –Rigorous (and often unclear) requirements –Little to no individualized support/attention

• Research based practices for supporting transfer students
• Outreach
• Credit Transfer & Application
• Pathways/Partnerships
• Web and social media
• FYE (First Year Experience) & Orientation
• Advising
• Environment
• Partner Collaboration
• Financial Assistance
• Data Sharing

Essential Practices

Potential Strategies

• What can be done to increase the number of

URM (underrepresented minority) students transferring from community colleges to 4-yr institutions?

• Two pathways

1) Student Centered Strategies 2) Institutional Based Strategies

Student Centered Strategies

• Using community college outreach to motivate and guide

URM’s in high schools

• Involving URM community college students (ambassadors) in

the outreach to high schools

• Establish learning communities to help commuters meet
• ther students with similar academic and career goals
• Establish peer tutoring and other academic supports for

URMs

• Creating a “sense of belonging” by hosting various cultural

events

Institutional Based Strategies

Institutional strategies for Community Colleges

• Establishing Transfer Centers
• Provide academic and financial counseling
• Develop different models of developmental

education to reduce the time spent in developmental courses so students have a quicker path to taking courses for college credit (e.g.)

MATH 1099 Bridge to College Math (Columbus State) http://www.cscc.edu/academics/courses16- 17/math.shtml

• Facilitating campus visits to local 4-yr institutions

Institutional Based Strategies

Institutional Changes for 4-yr Institutions

• Build strong partnerships between community

colleges and universities by utilizing 1) Financial Aid Specifically for URM Transfer Students (could be department/college specific) 2) Transfer Student Orientations 3) Providing transfer students with university peers in similar disciplines 4) Connecting transfer students to faculty/staff who are sensitive to the needs and problems of URM transfer students

Transfer Students: CSCC -> OSU

URM Transfer Students: CSCC -> OSU

STEM Transfer Students: CSCC -> OSU

What about the numbers?

The students who transfer from CSCC to OSU are

• 13% African American
• Approximately 4% Hispanic
• 1% Native American
• Compared to 73% White students
• Compared to 22% URM STEM students

CSCC -> OSU Transfer Students

We surveyed our 3 classes of CSCC→OSU LSAMP Transfer Students

• Ease of Transfer
• Half of respondents said the transfer process was “really easy”
• The other half were evenly split between “somewhat easy” and “somewhat

difficult”

• Obstacles during transfer process
• Wide range of responses including lack communication from OSU advisor,

application process, and securing funding/paying tuition - about 40% of respondents

• Useful Resources during transfer process
• Academic Advisors at both institutions
• Other transfer students
• CSCC Transfer Center

CSCC -> OSU Transfer Students

• Involvement with OSU prior to transferring
• OSU Peer Mentor* (75%)
• OSU Faculty Mentor* (about 40%)
• Attend OSU Student Organization Events (50%)
• Met with OSU admissions advisor (about 40%)
• Met with OSU academic advisor (about 40%)
• Biggest adjustments since starting at OSU
• Class Size (100%)
• Homework/workload (50%)
• Time management (about 40%)
• Getting around campus (nearly 90%)
• Getting involved (about 40%)
• Making new friends (25%)
• Other notable comments
• “CSCC professors care more about their students”
• “Although difficult at times, my transferring process has been a positive

experience”

CSCC Students Shine at the Ohio LSAMP Alliance Conference in July 2015 Examples of students who have successfully transferred to The Ohio State University.