Faculty and Staff
Focus Group Data
Persistence: First Semester
to
Second Semester
Data Team Presentation July 2008 Faculty and Staff Focus Group Data
Review: Four Components
1.
What’s Wrong?
(quantitative data)
1. 25% of TCC’s first-time freshmen were not
retained to the second semester.
2.
Why?
–
–
3.
Student Focus Group Data
Faculty and Staff Focus Group Data
Interventions & Policy Changes
–
4.
(qualitative data)
Data-driven strategies to address barriers
Assessment
Data Team Presentation July 2008 Faculty and Staff Focus Group Data
The Four Components
What’s Wrong?
Why?
(Quantitative Data)
(Student Data)
Top
Persistence Barriers:
• Persistence
(Year 2-4)
• Reading
(Year 3-4)
• Developmental
Math (Year 4)
Revised Interventions
New Interventions
Policy Changes
1.
Orientation
2.
Advising
3.
Tulsa Achieves
Implementation
Adjusting to college
Balancing school and
life
Textbook issues
Tulsa Achieves
Communication issues
with instructors
Choosing courses
Data Team Presentation July 2008 Faculty and Staff Focus Group Data
Assess Impact
Formative:
• To what extent
did interventions
(or policy changes)
effectively address
common barriers?
1. LASSI , pre and post
Summative:
• To what extent
did interventions
increase
persistence?
Faculty and Staff Data
Data Team Presentation July 2008 Faculty and Staff Focus
Group Data
Faculty and Staff Data:
Definition of Terms


Focus Groups: faculty and staff
Targeted Question: “What are your
barriers and challenges in working
with first-semester students?”
-- Dr. Ken Gonzales, AtD Data Coach


Frequency
Group

Subgroup
– Barriers/Challenges
Faculty and Staff
Focus Groups



2 focus groups offered per campus*
7 total groups conducted
64 total participants
• 25 faculty and 39 staff

First groups on each campus were mixed
groups of faculty and staff volunteers. The
second focus groups on each campus
contained only faculty.
*One campus filled one focus group; the second group on that campus was not attended.
Data Team Presentation July 2008 Faculty and Staff Focus Group Data
Groupings

Data Team classified barriers/challenges
into subgroups (categories) and groups
(larger categories) to provide the best
overall understanding of the data.
Data Team Presentation July 2008 Faculty and Staff Focus Group Data
General Findings

Faculty/staff data results differ from the student data
results. Students and faculty/staff voiced different
viewpoints and concerns, as might be expected.

Wide variety of barriers identified on all four campuses.

Some barriers/challenges seemed related to each other.


No single barrier was mentioned in every focus group on
all four campuses.
Barriers specific to individual campuses did not occur
frequently overall; College-wide barriers were identified far
more frequently overall.
Data Team Presentation July 2008 Faculty and Staff Focus Group Data
Specific Findings

76% of all barriers fell into one of
three major groups:
– Policies and Administrative Practice (37)
– Instruction (27)
– Student Attitude/Motivation (15)
Data Team Presentation July 2008 Faculty and Staff Focus Group Data
Groupings: Barriers/Challenges
from Faculty and Staff Working with
First-Semester Students
Policies and
Administrative
Practices
(37)
Student
Attitudes/
Motivation
Instruction
(includes Academic
Under-preparation)
(27)
(15)
Resources
(11)
3 of 4
campuses
Barriers cited on
all four campuses
Textbooks
(6)
Data Team Presentation July 2008 Faculty and Staff Focus Group Data
FACULTY AND STAFF
BARRIERS AND CHALLENGES
by sub-group and frequency
Data Team Presentation July 2008 Faculty and Staff Focus
Group Data
Student
Attitudes/
Motivation
(15)







Faculty view of class expectations differs from student
view of class expectations
Faculty value system different from student value system
Faculty feel unable to get students to understand the
consequences of students’ actions
Faculty viewed as the adversary by students
Lacking strategy to get students to commit time needed
for class assignments/tests
Students’ passive learning styles
Students’ not accepting ownership of their problems
Instruction
(27)
Academic Under-preparation 13/27







Spending too much time teaching prerequisite/basic skills
Lacking effective methodologies to support developmental
students
Not enough resources to bring students to college level
Students lack academic success skills
Difficulty maintaining course integrity while working with underprepared students (student placement issue)
Early identification of students needing remediation or disability
accommodation
Not always able to meet students’ needs/basic skills needs
Data Team Presentation July 2008 Faculty and Staff Focus Group Data
Policies and
Administrative
Practices
(37)
General policy-related issues 15/37
•Inconsistent/incorrect information listed in
catalogs, schedules, degree audits, online systems
and programs
•Inconsistent enforcement of prerequisites
•Lack of empowerment within the discipline to
make decisions, lack of shared governance
Instruction
(27)
Other Classroom Teaching Issues 7/27
 Not being able to address course content on multiple
levels (related to academic under-preparation)
 Adapting class expectations for students who miss class
with personal problems
 How to maintain class integrity with students’
overbooked schedules
 Faculty doesn’t have a good understanding of some
learning disabilities
 Grade inflation pressure from students
Data Team Presentation July 2008 Faculty and Staff Focus Group Data
Textbooks
(6)



Dealing with irate students regarding textbook
funding
Not having enough textbooks for students
Students who can’t afford and/or obtain class
textbooks and materials—impact on class integrity
and agenda (may be related to financial aid to
some degree)
Data Team Presentation July 2008 Faculty and Staff Focus Group Data
Policies and
Administrative
Practices
(37)
Part-time instruction 4
•Relying too much on part-time faculty with
insufficient time for training and quality control
of part-time faculty
•Difficulty contacting part-time instructors
for mentoring, coordination
Policies and
Administrative
Practices
(37)
Advisement-related issues 4
• Faculty not having enough information about
withdrawal statistics
•Lacking sufficient personnel to process student
records for student advisement
•Students bypassing advisement (faculty statement)
• Faculty lacking correct/enough information
concerning student background/competencies
Instruction
(27)
Online Courses 4
• Not having enough time to teach course content
because of teaching technology skills
•
•
Online students lacking proper information and
advisement
Student resistance to using My TCC e-mail and
Blackboard
Data Team Presentation July 2008 Faculty and Staff Focus Group Data
Policies and
Administrative
Practices
(37)
Financial Aid 4
•Students having difficulty processing through
financial aid and other services
•Unresolved student financial aid issues
•Can’t process in a timely manner late
applications for financial aid
•Can’t purchase books because of financial aid
Summary: Top Barriers and
Challenges for Faculty and Staff

Student attitudes/motivation

Academic under-preparation

General policy and administrative practice issues

Classroom issues other than academic under-preparation

Textbooks

Part-time instruction issues

Online courses

Advisement-related issues

Financial Aid
Data Team Presentation July 2008 Faculty and Staff Focus Group Data
Comparing Faculty and Staff Data
with
Student Data
Data Team Presentation July 2008 Faculty and Staff Focus
Group Data
The Four Components
What’s Wrong?
(Quantitative Data)
Why?
(Qualitative Data)
Student Data
GOALS
Persistence
(Year 2-4)
Adjusting to college
Balancing school and life
Textbook issues
Tulsa Achieves
Communication issues with
instructors
Dev. Reading
(Year 3-4)
Choosing courses
Faculty and Staff Data
Student attitudes/motivation
Academic under-preparation
Dev. Math
(Year 4)
Other classroom issues
General policy issues
Textbooks
Part-time instruction issues
Online courses
Advisement-related issues
Financial Aid
Revised Interventions
New Interventions
Assess Impact
Policy Changes
Interventions:
Orientation
Advisement
Tulsa Achieves
Implementation
Questions:
• How do we revise
current interventions
to directly address
common barriers?
• What new
interventions can
be implemented to
address common
barriers?
• What policy changes
need to be made to
address common
barriers?
Formative:
• To what extent
did interventions
(or policy changes)
effectively address
common barriers?
Summative:
• To what extent
did interventions
increase
persistence?
Next Steps



TCC’s goal is to achieve a 3% increase in
student persistence.
Based on the data, barriers are selected for
intervention and improvement to reach
increased persistence.
Intervention and assessment strategies are
modified or developed for selected barriers.
Data Team Presentation July 2008 Faculty and Staff Focus Group Data