Tutorial
•
•
•
John West – Career Coach, Pueblo Community College
Jeremy Mares – Data Analyst, CHEO Team
Heather McKay – Chief Evaluator, Rutgers University
•
•
Rollout of the Stitch-in instrument - John
• Introduction to instrument training - Jeremy
How this work fits in the overall evaluation - Heather
What is a “Stitch-In Report”?
 An everyday, Excel-based tool for career coaches to
easily track their students’ progress.
 A time-saving way to document the progress of each
participant and to build an accurate record.
 An efficient means for collecting data for grant
analysis.
 Your new best friend.
Why use this tool?
 Stitch-in refers to the important
process by which each student
is sewn into their CHEO
program and given the best
opportunity for success.
 Like the quilt pictured here,
each piece of the student
experience is stitched together
in a step-by-step process.
Benefits of this tool
 A career coach’s tool; designed to
create a useful student case file.
 Provides a useful balance of superb
coaching and efficient data
collection.
 Designed to evolve over time,
ensuring that it meets the needs of
our career coaching professionals.
Live Demonstration
 Become familiar with how the tool works (handouts)
 Learn necessary protocol needed for data collection
 Gain time-saving tricks to increase productivity
 Codebook resource tool provided for easy reference
Questions?
How do I get started?
 Where is this student data coming from?
 Institutional Research is your friend for directory
information.
 Create a listserv/BCC Distribution List.
 Begin filling in the appropriate fields as you work with
your students.
Best Practices
 Handy Tools:
 Autofilter - “Shift + CTRL + L”
 Edit a Cell - F2/Double Left Click
 Collapsible/Sizeable columns
 Save As – keep the original safe and only work in the
original
 Print the Codebook, display it somewhere for easy
reference
Guidelines
 Color Nomenclature
 IR Supplied Sections


Yellow – Generic student identifiers
Red – Student identifiable (FERPA protected)
 Coach Supplied Sections
 Blue – Gained through your work
 Green – Detailed narrative log
 Delimiters – the way to separate “green” text;
essential for data collection.
 Please retrofit any previous data from previous
semesters.
Guidelines [con’t]
 Beware of FERPA. Use caution when sending those
group e-mails. The Listserv/BCC option will help
with this tremendously.
 Each year has its own tab.
 Submissions – Name the file YYYYMMDD Campus
Stitch-In.xslx (i.e. 20130822 PCC Stitch-In.xslx
 Each college will receive their own template at the
end of the conference via e-mail.
Weekly Submissions
 This is a non-evaluative process.
 Helps coaches to stay current and back up their work.
 Coaches only need to submit their stitch-in report “as
–is” (minus red columns) on Fridays before you leave
for the weekend.
 This will also help close that feedback loop where you
can voice your opinions as our work gets underway.
You’re not alone!
 Call me, don’t be afraid to just call me.
 Continual support will be provided
throughout the life of the project.
 Follow-up training will be scheduled.
 Sounding boards – weekly submissions
 Evaluate and refine – evolve as needed
Questions?
Heather McKay
Director, Innovative Training and Workforce
Development Research
Rutgers CWW and Evaluation
 Conducted numerous evaluations and research
projects in education, training and workforce
throughout the US and abroad
 Rutgers CWW has worked in Colorado since 2008
 Conducted three research projects in Colorado to
date: online learning project, sectors project
evaluation, TAACCCT Round 1
Rutgers Team
 Heather McKay
 Suzanne Michael
 Debbie Borie-Holtz
 Sara Haviland
 Laura Barrett
 Renee Edwards
 Joseph Rua
Why Evaluate?
• Federal grant and an evaluation is required
• Understand the type and degree of impact of TAA on program
•
•
•
•
•
•
development, academic success and employment
Identify best strategies/practices
Collect observations, insights and lessons learned to inform, refine
and/or develop more effective programs/services to meet existent and
emergent needs of students, colleges and industries
Identify issues/needs that can inform academic practice and public
policy
Provide feedback to colleges throughout the lifetime of the grant so that
changes can be made mid-course
Share information between the colleges
Tell Rutgers what you need from this evaluation
\
COETC EVALUATION QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE ANALYSES
• Historical and Current
Academic & Student
Profile Data from College
Data Sources
• UI Data
• Career Coach data
• Pre & Post Course
Surveys
• Interviews
• Focus Groups
• College Administrators
• Grant Personnel – CC
•Partner Employers
• State-level Stakeholders
• Faculty
• Students
• NANSLO partners
Individual
Student Data
Comparative
Cohorts
Interviews &
Focus Groups
Observations
• Attending group
Sessions/calls
• Career Coach Sessions
• College Site Visits
• NANSLO Meetings
DATA PROCESS: INDIVIDUAL QUANTITATIVE DATA
Student
Variables
Banner/or
state
equivalent
Career
Coach
reporting
Data
Sources
Crosswalked
Possible
workforce
data
Wage Data
Data Reported
Individual &
Group Level
(Individual Level
Data: Identifiers
Removed)
Contact Information and
Questions
Heather McKay
hmckay@work.rutgers.edu
609-850-9424