College Readiness Now EvaluationFindings from the first yearJanuary 9, 2015

Monica Reid Kerrigan, Ed.D.Assistant Professor, Rowan University

Overview• New Jersey activities• Grant awarded to the New Jersey Council of County Colleges• All 19 New Jersey community colleges received funding• 18 colleges implemented a transition program in Spring 2014 or

Summer 2014• One college developed a program model and related academic

curricular to be used for future implementation• Broader context• National interest in transition programs• Research on transition programs (next speaker)

Implementation Plan• Year One• Colleges had latitude to choose their approach• Programs reached out to a wide range of low-income students,

some who were almost college ready and others who were not• Evaluation sought to understand the breadth of approaches and

explore promising practices• Year Two• Converge around three approaches to transition programs• Focus on students who are almost college ready• Colleges select the most appropriate approach for their

population• Rigorously evaluate the outcomes of the three approaches

Evaluation • Interview data from 25 program coordinators and instructors

at 13 NJ community colleges. • Five focus groups with students.• Surveys from 172 students at six colleges.• Analyses of 19 final reports provided to the NJ Council of

County Colleges office.

Note: Five county colleges required a separate Institutional Review Board process which was not completed before the interim report was submitted; therefore they are not included in this interim report. They will be added to the final report. One college did not implement a transition program during the Spring or Summer of 2014.

FINDINGS

The Numbers• 18 community colleges implemented a spring and/or summer

transition program in 2014 • They• connected with 60 high schools, • tested 4,055 high school students, and• enrolled 921 students in transition programs

• 440 students were subsequently college ready • 450 students improved their arithmetic, algebra, reading,

and/or writing skills.

Program Outcomes Program Successes # of ProgramsPrograms in which at least two-thirds of their participants improved

13

Programs in which at least half of their participants were college ready

10

Programs in which at least two-thirds of their participants were college ready

5

Program Structure• Of the 18 programs implemented, 13 were new programs and

6 were extensions of existing programs. • There is no data to suggest either group was more effective than

the other. • Programs varied in their timing. • Nine colleges offered programs during the Spring 2014 term that

were closely tied to their partnering high schools’ academic year. • Fourteen colleges offered summer transition programs that

ranged from one week to 8 weeks long. • Four colleges offered programs in both Spring and Summer.

Subjects & Pedagogy• 18 colleges offered instruction in math and 16 offered

instruction in writing and/or reading.• Colleges used all four different instructional models

characterized by the College Board (2014) as : 1) independent study, 2) independent study with guidance, 3) lab, and 4) blended learning.

Pedagogy, cont’d• 6 colleges relied extensively on computer based instruction

(CBI) –either through MyFoundationsLab or other products—to remediate students in specific subjects. • Some of these colleges also provided instructional support • Students’ experiences with the CBI varied:• “it’s boring; it’s impersonal” • “nobody is there to tell you why you’re wrong”

• The majority of other programs adapted existing college developmental education courses to the Spring/Summer format.

Promising Practices: Short & Intensive Program

Location• All of the colleges that worked with the high schools during

the Spring term offered their program at the high school. • Among the summer programs • 11 colleges offered programs at the high schools • 11 colleges offered programs at their college.

• Students who participated in programs located at the college campus were excited to be on campus. • They appreciated the physical and personal aspects of taking a

class at a college. • quality of the furniture, • the freedom to take emergency phone calls, and • using college facilities

• No clear advantage to one location or the other

College Experience & Knowledge• 2 programs offered specific credit-bearing college success

courses• 13 colleges included some form of college information

through workshops, trips, etc. • 31% of students reported that learning about college, how to

navigate college, or having the experience of a “real” college course was the most useful thing about the program.

• The importance of college workshops/college success courses:

“Now I know there is help if I need it.”

Promising Practice: College Information

In their own words

“I wanted to know the feeling of college”

“It’s way different than high school. It’s more independent”

The college instructor “helped you expand your thinking”

Program Recruitment• How did students learn about the program?• 64% of the respondents indicated that they learned of the

program from their School Counselor. • 2% reported learning about the program from a parent or

caregiver• 5% from a teacher• 8% from a friend

• Recruitment intensity varied between programs• The messaging was consistent; students knew the program

would help them be better prepared for college• The possibility of saving money was very appealing

Promising Practices: Recruitment

Challenges• Transportation• Semester and summer programs each had their own challenges• Programs tried various approaches, including purchasing bus

passes and arranging transportation, but these solutions were not easily enacted.

• Meals• Program coordinators and students alike raised the issue of

meals.• Planning Time for the Grant• Ability to recruit schools and students • For those programs that offered Spring programs at the high

schools, the tight timeline constrained their ability to work most effectively with local high schools given existing commitments in the academic year.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Program Structure• Three models• a short and intensive (1 week) Computer Based Instruction model

with instructor support; • a semester based model that is incorporated into students’

school day; and • a five week summer bridge model with course meetings Monday

through Thursday that is based on a traditional college developmental course.

• Regardless of model, each should offer some form of college experience and information through workshops or a college success course.

College Exposure• Existing research suggests that students can benefit from

experiencing a college environment and college expectations because they are then able to imagine themselves in the role of a college student (Karp, 2012).

• Possible approaches • the distribution of a syllabus• the freedoms and related expectations of college classes• college visits• college success courses

Students• Continue to focus efforts on juniors and seniors• Students, program coordinators, and instructors emphasized

that it is better to know as soon as possible if students are not going to be ready for college.

“Earlier is better so you’ll know to ask for help. Doing it earlier means you can use those skills and adapt.”

“I can’t wait for school to start to show my teachers and friends how much I learned.”

Students’ Experiences

“The program is helping kids who know they are struggling”

“I used to be terrified of going to college, but now I’m not.”

“The summer program was a wakeup call. I need to be more responsible”

“[The program] gets you rolling; helps your work ethic.”

Questions & Discussion