Information
Overview
Academic and Student Affairs Leaders’ Institute
Costa Mesa, CA
January 2015
Overview
• About the Institute
• The Problem
• The Solution
– What is G2C?
– How G2C Works
• Fees
• Application Process
• Next Steps / Discussion
Who We Are
Signature Processes
and Services
Foundations of Excellence®
Gateways to Completion®
Retention Performance Management™
4
A Logical Extension
of Our Work
JNGI Cohort Institutions 2003-15
G2C Founding Institutions
The Problem
WHY WE ARE FOCUSING ON GATEWAY COURSES
High Enrollment Courses
and DFWI Rates
• FoE institutions identified
• the 5 courses with the highest
enrollment of new students
• the number of new students enrolled
in those courses &
• the number new students who receive
a D, F, W, or I
• Rate calculated from these numbers
High Enrollment First-Year Courses
by DFWI Rates for 2-Year Institutions
Field
Math – developmental
Math – college level
English – developmental
History
Sociology
Computer
PE / Health
English – college level
Political Science
Psychology
Biology
FYS/ Success
Speech
Number of Courses
DFWI Rate
71
12
25
12
14
26
3
82
7
46
8
21
19
46
42
41
39
37
35
35
35
32
32
31
29
25
High Enrollment First-Year Courses
by DFWI Rates for 4-Year Institutions
Field
Economics
Accounting/Finance
Math – developmental
Math – college level
History
Biology
Psychology
Chemistry
Political Science
Philosophy
Fine Arts
Sociology
English – college level
Computer
Health/PE
Speech
FYS/ success
Religion
Number of Courses
4
3
23
48
21
18
51
7
9
7
5
20
105
8
12
26
30
6
DFWI Rate
46
43
40
38
30
29
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
15
9
Percentage of High Enrollment Courses
High Risk for First-Year Students
Percent of Courses with DFWI rate of 30% or More
Academic Year
2-Year Institutions
4-Year Institutions
2004-2005
70%
32%
2005-2006
69%
30%
2006-2007
80%
36%
2007-2008
62%
25%
2008-2009
63%
51%
2009-2010
71%
27%
Overall
70%
32%
The Problem Further Defined
LESSONS LEARNED FROM G2C TO DATE
Early Lessons – Admitting the Issue
Early Lessons
Accounting
2
Column C.
Average DFWI Rate for All
Students
43.4%
Biology
8
30.8%
Chemistry
4
31.9%
English – College Level
6
30.3%
History
6
30.3%
Math – College Level
10
35.3%
Math – Developmental
3
49.4%
Psychology
5
30.0%
Column A.
Course
Column B.
Number of Institutions
Working on Course
Early Lessons
Accounting
2
Column C.
Average DFWI Rate for All
Students
43.4%
Biology
8
30.8%
Chemistry
4
31.9%
English – College Level
6
30.3%
History
6
30.3%
Math – College Level
10
35.3%
Math – Developmental
3
49.4%
Psychology
5
30.0%
Column A.
Course
Column B.
Number of Institutions
Working on Course
Early Lessons – Race / Income / First Gen.
• Race Matters
–And So Do Income and FirstGeneration Status
Early Lessons
Accounting
2
Column C.
Average DFWI Rate for All
Students
43.4%
Biology
8
30.8%
Chemistry
4
31.9%
English – College Level
6
30.3%
History
6
30.3%
Math – College Level
10
35.3%
Math – Developmental
3
49.4%
Psychology
5
30.0%
Column A.
Course
Column B.
Number of Institutions
Working on Course
Early Lessons – Race / Income / First Gen.
Column A.
Course
Accounting
Column B.
Subpopulation
African American
Column C.
Average DFWI Rate for Subpopulation
62.0%
Hispanic / Latino
69.5%
First Generation
48.2%
Early Lessons
• Gateway Course Success is a
DIRECT predictor of retention . . .
Early Lessons – Correlation with Retention
Column A. Course Examples
from Individual G2C Institutions
Column B.
Average
DFWI Rate
Column C.
Column D.
DFWI Rate for NonDFWI Rate for
Retained EligibleAcademic Dismissal
to-Return
Students
Students*
Principles of Accounting I
54.0%
81.6%
100%
Foundation for Physiology / Biology
18.9%
55.0%
92.9%
General Chemistry
36.3%
73.9%
82.4%
Writing and Rhetoric I
10.6%
25.8%
61.4%
Survey of American History
26.8%
67.2%
100%
College Algebra
59.7%
73.5%
89.6%
Beginning Algebra
24.4%
65.1%
100%
(Introduction to Psychology
28.1%
46.1%
83.7%
32.4%
61.0%
88.8%
Mean of Average DFWI Rates for Examples
* These students left voluntarily. In other words, their lack of retention was not due to formal academic dismissal.
Early Lessons – Correlation with Retention
Column A. Course Examples
from Individual G2C Institutions
Column B.
Average
DFWI Rate
Column C.
Column D.
DFWI Rate for NonDFWI Rate for
Retained EligibleAcademic Dismissal
to-Return
Students
Students*
Principles of Accounting I
54.0%
81.6%
100%
Foundation for Physiology / Biology
18.9%
55.0%
92.9%
General Chemistry
36.3%
73.9%
82.4%
Writing and Rhetoric I
10.6%
25.8%
61.4%
Survey of American History
26.8%
67.2%
100%
College Algebra
59.7%
73.5%
89.6%
Beginning Algebra
24.4%
65.1%
100%
(Introduction to Psychology
28.1%
46.1%
83.7%
32.4%
61.0%
88.8%
Mean of Average DFWI Rates for Examples
* These students left voluntarily. In other words, their lack of retention was not due to formal academic dismissal.
The Solution (What is G2C?)
Gateway Courses Defined
Foundation-Level
• High-Risk
• High Enrollment
• “Killer Courses”
•
Broad Charge
Create and subsequently implement
an evidence-based plan
for improving student learning
and success in high-enrollment courses
that have historically resulted in
high rates of failure and/or
unsatisfactory progress.
G2C Goals
Your institution will strive to:
• improve student learning as measured by survey
responses and content outcome measures;
• increase student success in high-enrollment
courses as measured by the grades;
• increase student success as measured by
retention rates;
• increase student success as measured by
graduation / program completion;
G2C Goals
Your institution will strive to:
• study and learn about promising practices for
improving gateway courses applied in local context;
• engage in and promote a culture of continuous
improvement by linking G2C to efforts such as:
– reaffirmation of accreditation
– strategic planning
– other comparable efforts
• shape and reflect the body of scholarship on gateway
course success; and,
• provide feedback to the Gardner Institute.
The National Advisory Committee
• Associations
• Institutional
• Discipline
•
•
•
•
Accreditor
Administrative Leaders
Institutional Researchers
Institutional Types
• Public & Private
• 2-Year & 4-Year
• Not-for-Profit & Proprietary
• Scholars
The National Advisory Committee
Lou Albert – Pima Community College
Linda Baer – Minnesota State U – Mankato
Trudy Bers – Oakton Community College
Hunter Boylan – National Center for Developmental
Education
Linda Braddy – Mathematical Association of America
John Campbell – West Virginia University
Elizabeth Cox Brand – Oregon Department of
Community Colleges & Workforce Development
Jeff Cornett – Ivy Tech Community College
Brent Drake – Purdue University
Johanna Dvorak – University of Wisconsin Milwaukee
& NCLCA
Maribeth Ehasz – University of Central Florida
Scott Evenbeck – CUNY Stella and Charles Guttman
Community College
Trinidad Gonzales – South Texas College / American
Historical Association Learning Division
Casey Green – The Campus Computing Project
Bob Guell – Indiana State University
Jeanne Higbee – University of Minnesota
Amber Holloway – Higher Learning Commission
Christine Keller – APLU
Jillian Kinzie – Indiana Univ. Center for
Postsecondary Research & NSSE Institute
Robert Kubat – Pennsylvania State University
Tricia Leggett, Zane State College
Julie Little – EDUCAUSE
Jean MacGregor – Washington Center
Jodi Koslow Martin – North Park University
George Mehaffy – AASCU
Jerry Odom – University of South Carolina
Karan Powell – American Public University System
Lynn Priddy – National American University
Elaine Seymour – University of Colorado at Boulder
Marion Stone – International Center for
Supplemental Instruction
Emily Swafford – American Historical Association
Uri Treisman – University of Texas at Austin
Ross Peterson-Veatch – Goshen College
Kaye Walter – Bergen Community College
Cynthia Wilson – League for Innovation in the
Community College
Theoretical Underpinnings
Foundations
of Excellence®
• Evidence-Based
Action Planning
• Task Force-Based
Assessment (Faculty)
Chickering
& Gamson
• Seven Principles for
Good Practice in
Undergraduate
Education (1987)
Campbell
& Pistilli
• 5 Components of
Analytics
The Solution (How G2C Works)
Institutional Expectations
Your institution will:
• Appoint a G2C Task Force
• Collect and analyze evidence to create plan(s) for
improving two or more gateway courses
• Implement and refine the plan(s)
• Participate in the G2C Community of Practice Annual
Meeting
• Strive to adhere to the G2C timeline
• Strive to meet the broader G2C process goals
• Participate in feedback and evaluation sessions
Gardner Institute Expectations
The Gardner Institute will:
• Appoint a G2C advisor
• Provide general support from other staff
– Survey
– Technology platform
• Provide and maintain the G2C on-line technology platform
• Conduct / provide:
– Process webinars
– G2C Community of Practice Annual Meetings
– Annual Gateway Course Experience Conference
• Guide feedback sessions
• Facilitate research opportunities and disseminate findings
Three Year Timeline
Analyze & Plan Tools (Year One)
Gateway Course Success Inventory (Historical Data Analytics)
Roles
Liaisons
(At Least 2)
Serve as
overall project
leaders/
managers
Roles
Liaisons
(At Least 2)
Course-Specific Committees
(At Least 2 Committees)
One committee for each course. Each committee
led by one chair or two co-chairs.
Roles
Liaisons
(At Least 2)
Steering
Committee
(Approximately 10-15 persons)
Course-Specific Committees
(At least 2 Committees)
Comprised of
Liaisons,
Course-Specific
Committee
chairs, and
other key
stakeholders
Analyze & Plan Tools (Year One)
Modified Student Assessment of Learning Gains Survey (SALG)
Analyze & Plan Tools (Year One)
Principles & Key Performance Indicators
Analyze & Plan Tools (Year Two)
Four Phase Implementation Process
Analyze & Plan Tools (Year Two)
Dashboards and Predictive Analytics
Why Gateways to Completion?
The Value Added
• Did You See the Data?
• Opportunity Cost
– How Your Faculty and Staff Spend Their Precious Time
• Learn with & Through Others
• Expertise from the Academy for the Academy
– Scholars
– Practitioners
– Student Success Innovators / Pioneers
45
The Return on Investment
• Drake 2010 and 2011 Foundations of Excellence
Studies
– External Evaluator
• Average Retention Increases = 5.62 percentage
points (8.2%)
• Average Return on Investment = $26.32 per
every $1 – Annually
46
Fee Structure
How does my
institution apply?
www.jngi.org/g2c-application/
How does my institution apply?
Create
Account
How does my institution apply?
Create & Submit
Application
Additional Discussion
QUESTIONS & COMMENTS