HCC QEP Final Version

Classroom Innovations Result in Creative Learning Environments

A QUALITY ENHANCEMENT PLAN SUBMITTED

IN COMPLIANCE WITH CORE REQUIREMENT 2.12

October 5 7, 2010

Dr. Ervin Griffin, President

Dr. Erica Holmes, Vice President for Academic Affairs

Halifax Community College

2

Contents

I. Executive Summary3

II. Introduction to Halifax Community College........4

III. Broad-Based Participation and Topic Selection.6

IV. Broad-Based Participation and QEP Development.21

V. Definition of Learning and Student Learning Outcomes.23

VI. Literature Review..24

VII. QEP Initiatives...29

VIII. HCC Learning Community Pilot Study..34

IX. Implementation Timeline..37

X. Organizing for Success42

XI. Communication of the Plan.55

XII. Assessment56

XIII. Resources..68

XIV. References.71

XV. Appendices74


3

Executive Summary

Halifax Community Colleges (HCC) Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) addresses what the Colleges stakeholders suggest to be the primary barrier to student learning. This barrier is a weakness in the foundational skills that underlie the ability to self-regulate learning and solve problems.

HCCs QEP will utilize two sets of Learning Communities (LC), CIRCLE One and CIRCLE Two, to facilitate the development of the skills necessary to self-regulate learning and to solve problems. As a result, the following will be enhanced: 1. Goal Management 2. Time Management 3. Stress Management 4. Problem Solving 5. Academic Self-Efficacy

CIRCLE One LCs link the study skills course (ACA 085), which all developmental English students are required to take, to a developmental English class (ENG 095). A second CIRCLE One learning community will link ACA 085 to a developmental math course (MAT 060). The LCs are titled Steps to Reading and Writing Success and Steps to Math Success. The primary goal of CIRCLE One LCs is to facilitate the development of self-regulated learning in the linked course.

CIRCLE Two learning communities link HUM 115 Critical Thinking and ENG 111 Expository Writing, as well as HUM 115 Critical Thinking and MAT 070 Introduction to Algebra. They are titled English, Its Critical and Thinking about Algebra. CIRCLE One LC students will be encouraged to enroll as a cohort into a CIRCLE Two Learning Community the following semester.

The College will primarily target first-year developmental students; however, non-developmental English students, regardless of year, will be invited to participate in CIRCLE Two Learning Communities.

A pilot study for the Steps to Math Success learning community was implemented Spring 2010. The pilot study provided data to strengthen the CIRCLE One LC initiative and assessment plan, as well as to provide some baseline learning outcome data. Indirect assessment results suggest that the implementation of learning communities at Halifax Community College (HCC) may improve retention and pass rates for MAT 060 Basic Math Skills and ACA 085 Study Skills.


4

Introduction to Halifax Community College

On these statements the North Carolina Community College System is founded: The only valid philosophy for North Carolina is the philosophy of total education; a belief in the incomparable worth of all human beings. that is why the doors to the institutions of North Carolinas System of Community Colleges must never be closed. We must take the people where they are and carry them as far as they can go... (Cited in Ralls, 2008).

In 1964, Dallas Herring took the brave steps to make a vision reality when he put into words this philosophy of the North Carolina Community College System (NCCCS). His vision ultimately helped to propel extraordinary numbers of North Carolinians to higher levels of academic achievement and quality of life.

Todays economic crisis emphasizes the salience of this mission, and the challenges community colleges face seem insurmountable. Forty-six years after Dallas Herring spoke these famous words, community colleges have opened their doors to unprecedented numbers of underprepared students, have been described as working on the front lines of higher education (Arenson, 1997), and were recently designated North Carolinas Economic Emergency Room (NCCS, 2010). Despite their overwhelming tasks and gross underfunding, NC Community Colleges are making an enormous effort to prepare the 64% of entering students who need remedial education to receive a college education and to strengthen the States weakened job force (NCCS, 2010). CHALLENGES

Halifax Community College (HCC) services the second most economically distressed county in the State where 24% of its residents live below the poverty level (2009, GAO), the unemployment rate is 14.7% (2010, U.S. Dept. of Labor), and ten of its public schools (including three high schools) have been designated low performing (2009, NCDPI). Despite the grim economic and educational snapshots, the College has experienced record-breaking enrollments. It admitted 1,697 students at the beginning of Fall 2009, and the following spring experienced the largest spring enrollment in the history of the College-- 1,730 students. To illuminate the challenges this poses for the College according to the ASSET database, of those taking the Placement test Fall 2009, 96% percent placed into developmental Math Courses and 78% into Developmental English Courses. In contrast, 2004 records show that 82% of new students placed into Developmental Math and 59% of new students placed into Developmental English (Julia Horsley, HCC Testing Coordinator, personal communication, March 10, 2010). In only five years, rising enrollments have brought a 37% rate of increase for placement into Developmental Math and a 19% rate of increase for placement in Developmental English. To further illuminate the extent of HCCs challenges, the 2008-2009 academic year saw overall success rates of 46%, 32%, and 65% for the Basic Math Skills, Introduction to Algebra, and Reading and Writing Success Courses, respectively. The overall success rates reflect the rate of students who completed and passed the courses relative to the number of students who


5

enrolled. Those rates fluctuated during the 2009-2010 academic year-- which saw 41%, 46%, and 58% rates of success. These numbers are not far from external statistics on the success of community college students in developmental courses. According to research reported by Visher, et al. (2008), even after several attempts, about 70 percent of developmental students pass all their precollege reading and writing courses, and about 30 percent pass all their developmental math courses. They state that most of these developmental students drop out due to discouragement and lack of financial resources. HCCs alarmingly high rates of placement into developmental courses, coupled with low rates of achievement in developmental courses, have prompted the College to focus strategic planning in part on developmental education and assessment, and its Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) to target developmental math and English courses for its Learning Communities. THE HCC QEP: ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE QEP

HCC strives to meet the diverse needs of our community by providing high-quality, accessible and affordable education and services for a rapidly changing and globally competitive marketplace. In support of the mission of the College, the primary goal of the QEP is to develop self-regulated learners and problem-solvers through learning communities. The outcome is that students will achieve greater academic success and, subsequently, enter the workforce with skills that local employers have identified as critical. Students who have the ability to direct their own learning will be better equipped to adapt to a changing environment (Schloemer & Brenan, 2006). As HCC continues to be a catalyst for educational, cultural, and economic progress in the Roanoke Valley, the chosen QEP topic reflects a general consensus that improved self-regulation and problem-solving skills will enhance learning and prepare students to anticipate and respond to the needs of an evolving global community. As students learn how to self-regulate through, improved goal management, time management, stress management and problem-solving skills, their likelihood of developing self-efficacy, succeeding academically and adapting to the changing demands of the workforce increases significantly. HCC will implement learning communities for developmental and college-level courses, and students and instructors will hold to the values that are intrinsic to the wellbeing of our campus and community. This will be evident by emphasis on the continual development of integrity, truth, humility, respect, and fair-mindedness. As the founders of the Learning Community movement, John Dewey and Alexander Meiklejohn, had originally conceived, learning communities at HCC will serve to:

Actively support the growth and development of a culture of service in our community by word, example, and collaboration

Inspire a life-long pursuit of education, both formal and informal

Embrace new and creative approaches to continually improve the quality of academics

Instill in self and others that diversity adds to the richness of the learning environment and the personal development of all.

By holding true to our Mission, Vision, and Values, HCC will be able to demonstrate to the campus and community its dedication and responsibility toward continuous quality enhancement, serve the needs of our community, utilize its fiscal and educational resources wisely, and provide quality education and services with strategic learning outcomes.


6

Broad-Based Participation and Topic Selection

The QEP development process began April 2008, when the current Vice President of Academic Affairs, Dr. Joy Cooley, appointed Dr. Julie Dilday (Department Head, Humanities and Social Sciences; Psychology Instructor) QEP Coordinator. Dr. Cooley, Dr. Dilday, and the current SACS Liaison, Ms. Cathy Farabow, worked together to develop a core, volunteer, QEP team. Members of the QEP team represent a variety of campus programs, which lend to unique points of view in terms of student learning. The initial team members were: Jason Bone, Industrial Maintenance Instructor; Verna High, Dental Hygiene Instructor; Sherry Agee, alumna and Administrative Assistant for the HCC Foundation; Carolyn Stuart, Director of Counseling; James McCachren, English Instructor; and Julie P. Dilday, QEP Coordinator. Teresa Raymond, SGA president, volunteered to be the teams student representative. Mrs. Agee took medical leave in 2009. Calvin Stansbury, Math Instructor, filled the empty position during the 2009 2010 academic year, and the Director of Institutional Effectiveness, Dr. Edwin Imasuen, was added to the team after he was hired by the College during the 2009-2010 academic year. Dr. Dilday attended the SACS Summer Institute June 2008 to adequately prepare for QEP development coordination. The QEP team held its first team meeting August 4, 2008. The QEP coordinator shared what she had learned at the SACS Summer Institute before they began developing a plan and timeline for gathering data necessary for topic selection. Initial plans included:

A faculty informational meeting on the following day, during which round table discussions about issues in student learning would be implemented

The development and implementation of faculty, staff, student, and community surveys

Participation in the Community College Survey of Student Engagement

Implementation of Focus Groups.

Team members were asked to develop questions for a new student survey to be administered to the ACA (College Success) classes during the third week of the semester, and to develop new and creative ideas for data gathering and QEP promotion.

FACULTY DISCUSSION GROUPS, AUGUST 5, 2008 The QEP Coordinator held a one-hour informational meeting with the faculty on August 5, 2008. An informational PowerPoint presentation was discussed before guidelines for a proper

brainstorming protocol. After a brainstorming icebreaker activity, faculty answered openended questions asking for their definitions of student learning, perceived barriers to student academic success, and possible strategies for overcoming the identified barriers. Each faculty group submitted a report form documenting their findings. An analysis of data retrieved from faculty group report forms reveals that the faculty of Halifax Community College (HCC) defines student academic success as including:

The demonstration of learning, with an emphasis on the behavioral/skill component Passing classes, board and certification exams, and graduating Wellroundedness The demonstration of the ability to set and achieve goals


7

The ability to secure and retain a job/career and to become a productive member of society

High grades The ability read and write at a college level The ability to think critically

The HCC faculty most often listed the learningrelated barriers to student academic success as: Weak personal skills for success, (e.g. motivation, commitment, interpersonal skills,

communication skills, timemanagement) Weak basic academic skills

The faculty suggested several strategies to improve student academic success. They are listed according to the frequency they were directly listed or implied on the report forms:

Faculty advising and mentoring program Improved Student Support Services Faculty development/teaching strategies First Year Initiatives including improved ACA classes and course embedded workshops, programs, speakers Student groups Learning communities Improved Summer Bridge program, and Improved developmental education program

Adjunct Faculty and New Students

The QEP Coordinator provided an informational session with the Adjunct faculty during the adjunct orientation on August 7, 2008. Information was also relayed at the New Student Orientation.

BROAD-BASED SURVEY PARTICIPATION Students, Full-time and Adjunct faculty, as well as HCC staff and advisory committee members responded to surveys developed by the QEP Team and from the faculty discussion group data. Everyone was also invited to submit his or her feedback to the QEP suggestion box on the QEP webpage.

Comparison of Academic Barriers to Success Survey Results

Full-time faculty, adjunct faculty, staff, administration, new students, and general students were invited to take surveys focused on barriers to academic success and strategies to improve student learning. The response rates were: new (ACA) students, 45%; adjunct faculty, 59%; full-time faculty, 56%; administration, 29%; staff, 25%; general students, 50 responses. New students participated in two surveys: a longer exploratory survey, and a short survey nearly


8

identical to that for faculty and staff. They are referred to as the new student short survey and the new student long survey in the discussion.

Because many of the survey questions were exploratory in nature, the QEP team gathered a tremendous amount of data. That which is more relevant to the direction QEP topic selection took, is discussed here.

The faculty, staff, and students expressed similar and dissimilar points of view in terms of their definitions of academic success. We explored this question in order to determine what was most important to students and college employees in terms of student learning. Students and administrative staff consider passing classes, graduating, and securing a job as the definition of academic success. This is important to faculty and support staff; however, they place greater importance on reading and writing at a college level, as well as the ability to think critically.

Definitions of Student Success Considered Extremely Important

Figure 1

From the list of barriers to academic success listed by faculty during discussion groups, students rated those which they believed to be the most important. Students rated basic reading skills as more important than math skills. This was unexpected because developmental math classes are higher risk courses at HCC than developmental English classes. Students also rated personal skills for success as an important barrier to academic success. The QEP Team addressed this unexpected finding in a subsequent survey, discussed in the following sub-section.


9

Barriers to Student Success Considered Most Important

Figure 2

One of the barriers to student academic success most cited by faculty during the original discussion groups, and by students in this survey, was the personal skills for success such as, motivation, commitment, and time management. Interestingly, most ACA students rate these skills and attributes as being high to average in themselves. The most frequently high rated skills and attributes are: Commitment to Career 79%; Commitment to Education 75%; Ability to Achieve Goals 66%; Motivation 63%. The most frequently average rated skills and attributes are: Ability to Manage Time 56%; Ability to Manage Stress 50%; Communication Skills 51%; Self-Esteem 48%. The most frequently low rated skills and attributes are: Ability to Manage Stress 21% and Ability to Manage Time 15%. The QEP Team interpreted the new student survey results to suggest that new students perceive that primary learning-related barriers are stress management and time management.


10

Figure 3

All of the stakeholder groups were asked to rate strategies for the improvement of learning (originally listed by faculty in the original discussion groups) in order of preference. All groups rated a first-year program and more intensive advising as being the most desirable strategies.

Most Desired Strategies to Improve Learning

Figure 4

Discussion of Broad Results: Advising and Developmental Courses The full-time faculty, adjunct faculty, and new student surveys all indicate a need for more intensive advising and mentoring for students. It is notable that the longer new-student survey suggests that 34% of ACA students do not know what a tracking-sheet is. However, 98% of ACA students know who their advisors are and 92% have actually met with their advisors. The majority of ACA students rated positive feelings after pre-registration/registration. Nearly half of new student respondents (49%) were not taking a developmental course the semester of the survey. Those students who indicated that they were taking developmental courses were most frequently taking:

o Math 060 (33%) o English 095/095A (13%)

Almost all students who stated that they were taking Math 060 were confident of passing. This is an unexpected finding because an analysis of Spring 2008 grade rosters for all sections of Math 060 show a retention rate of 62% and a pass rate of 72% for completers. Grade rosters for developmental education have been analyzed since 2008, and the data is discussed in a subsequent sub-section. Student expectations coupled by the fact that 49% of new student respondents stated that they were not enrolled in a developmental education course Fall 2008 may explain the disparity between Faculty and New Student perceptions of a need for an improved developmental education program at HCC. For example, an improved developmental education program was the most frequently marked strategy for full-time faculty (58%), and it was one of the least marked strategies for ACA students (27%). Also notable are student perceptions about their ACA classes: 79% find it helpful to their academic success, which is not consistent with student focus group results (see Student Focus Group Results in subsequent section). Forty -Five percent of ACA student respondents also


11

indicated a desire for HCC to implement a first year program; 44% would like to see more intensive advising and mentoring.

An Unexpected Finding

In order to increase internal validity of the final student survey administered to HCCs student body via Gmail, a new question regarding barriers to success was added. The QEP team had considered the possibility that new students understanding of question # 2 of the short ACA student survey administered September 2008 was more generalized than intended. We questioned whether the answer basic reading skills as the most important barrier to student academic success reflected a generalized perception of the entire student body rather than the individual students personal barrier to success. The basic reading skills finding was unexpected. According to institutional records, the highest risk courses at HCC are math classes, particularly developmental math. We expected that students would name math as the more important barrier to academic success. For the final overall student survey administered in November and December of 2008, the question Using a scale from 5 to 1, 5 being the most important and 1 being the least important, please rank the following learning-related barriers to academic success in order of importance, using each number only once. Consistent with respondents to the new student survey, basic reading skills was ranked the most important (54%) barrier to academic success. Personal skills were ranked the second most important (31%). The clarifying question, Which of the following is your greatest barrier to successfully reaching your personal academic goals? followed. Math skills were ranked the number one greatest barrier (48%); personal skills were ranked the number two greatest barrier (30%). Reading skills was ranked near the bottom (6%). The implication of this finding is that the internal validity for the question, Using a scale from 5 to 1, 5 being the most important and 1 being the least important, please rank the following learning-related barriers to academic success, is weak. It appears that many students did not understand the question as the survey writers had intended. Based on the answers to the clarifying question in the final student survey, one may infer that the actual greatest learning related barriers to student academic success at HCC are:

Math skills, and

Personal skills for success.


12

Figure 5

Community Input

The QEP Team sent a survey to a sample of 135 advisory committee members of Halifax Community College. Advisory committee members consist of area community members, including those who employ our graduates. Ten surveys were returned undeliverable. Forty-Six surveys were completed and submitted. (46/125 = 37% response rate).

Advisory members were asked the following questions: 1) Which of the following skills do you expect HCC graduates to have developed at HCC? 2) What are the 5 most important skills you think that HCC graduates need to have to

successfully secure and retain a job? 3) Which skills do you perceive to be stronger for the HC graduates you have had contact

with? 4) What skills do you perceive to be weaker in the HCC graduates you have had contact

with? 5) (Open-ended) In your opinion what does HCC need to do to better prepare its students

for the workforce?

Advisory Committee Survey Results

Figure 6

According to responses, the five most expected and important skills are basic computer skills, effective communication skills, effective interpersonal Skills, problem solving skills, and critical thinking skills. Of these five skills the respondents rated:

Basic Computer Skills as the stronger skill set in our graduates


13

Effective communication as both the second strongest of the skills, as well as the weakest of the skills (alongside critical thinking)

The largest disparity between weak and strong ratings is critical thinking skills. This appears to be, in respondents opinions, the weakest skill, tied with effective communication.

Writing, time management skills, problem-solving, and effective interpersonal skills was also listed as the weaker skill set.

Of the eleven skill sets surveyed, only three skill sets rate higher in the response stronger in HCC graduates than weaker in HCC graduates. Those skills are basic computer, reading, and goal setting/achievement.

FOCUS GROUPS

During the Fall 2008 semester, the QEP Team solicited faculty, staff, and students to participate in volunteer focus groups. Patsy Ferguson from the Roanoke Valley Chamber of Commerce facilitated the focus groups.

Each set of focus group questions was designed to meet agreed upon focus group outcomes, was derived from survey results, and may be found in appendix A. Student focus groups were held on November 21, 2008. Sessions were transcribed, analyzed and summarized.

Student Focus Group Results

Outcome #1: to understand how students perceive the college in helping them achieve their goals.

Students tend to view the college as being effective in helping them meet their goals. Our strength is the helpfulness of faculty and staff, as well as programs like the Men of Distinction, Student Support Services, tutoring, and financial aid. Our weaknesses are that we sometimes dont take the time to explain things. Especially for students entering the college for the first time, we tend to assume that they know more than they do about processes like financial aid and registration. We can leave them confused and frustrated. Some students perceive math as their primary weak area. They would like to see more emphasis on helping students succeed in math.

Outcome #2: To understand what the college needs to improve and build upon to help students succeed.

Again, some students find math to be an area of weakness; and one student participant in particular would like to see an improvement in math instruction. Students also would like to see instructors teach to a variety of learning styles. Advising, in terms of how informed advisors are about courses students need to take, should also be improved. And for students who feel uncomfortable making complaints, provide an anonymous suggestion box. A perception is that some students have been blackballed. Again, what students find helpful to their success are student support services and the opportunity to become involved in activities and organizations. Of particular importance is the accessibility of the college, the opportunity to transition to a four- year institution, and the friendliness and helpfulness of the college community. This is what keeps students coming back.


14

Outcome #3: To clarify and discuss student survey results

This set of questions did not generate much discussion. Its possible that the students didnt understand some of the concepts, like structured first year, intensive advising, and student interest groups. Generally, they did not like the idea of structure in the first year. They enjoy the flexibility and choice offered by the community college. There is an interest in participating in groups and organizations, particularly those specific to individual programs (i.e., nursing). Most of the discussion centered on advising: instructors need to be more accessible in terms of extended office hours; advisors need to be more informed about college transfer; registration needs to be extended so that it is less hectic; offer more advising for all students, not just first year students; be aware that non-traditional students need more support dont assume that they know more than they do. Outcome #4: To understand students academic experience at the College

Each student spoke about specific academic experiences he or she has had at the college. Math is a difficult subject area for some of our students. Some students in the focus group, however, found the more challenging courses like Math and A&P to be the most rewarding classes. Some students named instructors known for being hard instructors as their best instructors. Qualities and characteristics they like about these instructors are availability; the ability to break down difficult and abstract material into simpler concrete concepts that students could more easily grasp; using study guides that student works on; willingness to help students outside of class; teaching to a variety of learning styles; and motivating students to work harder. The question about online instruction received mixed results. Some like it and some do not. Some of the positives: it gives the opportunity to practice teaching self; student can take time working on an assignment and submit it at 2 a.m. No student in the focus group ever considered leaving school because of developmental courses. These courses are seen by some as beneficial, particularly for students who have been out of school for a while. Issues with developmental courses include: receiving inconsistent information from different program advisors regarding scores needed to place out of developmental math; instructors are required to move too quickly through the subject matter; and, an all day math lab is needed. One student had previously dropped a course due to being under prepared for the course and a lack of encouragement from the instructor. She said that more encouragement and fewer put downs may have helped her be more successful with the class. She plans to take the class again when she is better prepared.

Negative feedback was given for ACA classes. Most of the focus group found it to be a waste of time. They would rather see the class offered online, as an optional elective, or as a book, only. Only one student said she enjoyed the class. Outcome #5: To understand the significance of relationships in student persistence and success

Relationships appear to be important to student persistence. In the opinion of the QEP Coordinator, the most powerful and insightful comments came from students speaking of the relationships and interactions that helped them to persist in school and to achieve academically.


15

Based on some of these comments, one may infer that students come to the Community College not only to learn course work, but to develop personally. We teach and nurture the whole person when we relate to, encourage, listen to, and help our students. When we fail, as described so poignantly by one student participant, we do damage.

Faculty and Staff Focus Group Results

A group of faculty and staff participated in a Focus Group on December, 5, 2008. The sessions were transcribed, analyzed, and summarized. Consistent with the student focus group protocol, general outcomes agreed upon by the QEP team and survey results guided question development. Questions may be found in Appendix B. Outcome #1: To understand how faculty/staff perceive the colleges effectiveness in meeting student academic needs.

Faculty and staff focus group participants tend to view the caring and supportive nature of the faculty and staff as a key ingredient to meeting student needs. A great deal of discussion focused on the willingness of most faculty and staff to go the extra mile to help HCCs students achieve their goals. Another strength mentioned was the relevance of the colleges programs to the area.

Outcome #2: To understand what the college needs to improve and build upon to help students succeed.

The goal for outcome #2 was to focus on learning issues that emerged from surveys, the student focus group, and an analysis of high risk courses at HCC. The first issue discussed was the math skills issue. A mastery learning program for developmental math was suggested. According to one participant who has researched Mastery Learning, it is a tested and successful program that involves developmental students picking up where they left off the semester after receiving an IP (in progress) in math. A math lab with tutors and computer software could be part of the plan. Discussion about adding constant backtracking and reinforcement as a pedagogical improvement (if not already implemented) followed. (Disclaimer: No math instructors participated in the focus group, so current pedagogical practices were unknown by the group). Other suggestions included: more practice, more homework, preparation for placement testing; and videos on loan from Student Support Services. The second learning issue discussed was time management and stress management skills. There were fewer solutions offered and more discussion about what the problems are. There was some consensus that one-on-one work seems to work better for students than group work (i.e., counseling vs. ACA class). Students have individualized problems with their lives outside the college. Other suggestions involve improving communication by going where they are (ex., MySpace) and imbedding time management and organizational lessons in conjunction with project assignments. Outcome #3: To clarify and discuss student and faculty survey results

The goal for outcome #3 was to clarify and discuss some of the issues that emerged from faculty and student survey results and to make suggestions for a preferred QEP topic. The top three strategies to improve student learning suggested by faculty surveys were improved developmental education, more intensive advising, and a structured first year program. An


16

improved developmental education program was one of the least requested by students. The faculty and staff focus group participants discussed little about a structured first year program beyond the fact that our applied programs are already sequential (structured), so the only thing we could improve upon is the ACA courses. Weaknesses in the spoken and written English language emerged as a learning issue at the college. Many of our students dont seem to transfer what they learn in developmental English courses to other classes. A great deal of discussion centered on intensive advising as a way to reach developmental students: motivate them, encourage them, and teach skills that many of us (faculty and staff) take for granted. It was suggested that one-on-one work is more effective for the culture of our students, who can be intimidated in groups and who often do not have family support. We need to find a way to get the entire faculty to buy in to the importance of individual work/advising. A seemingly equal amount of discussion focused Math skills and/or developmental education as a QEP topic. Suggestions revolved around a mastery learning component to developmental math classes, a math lab, and math across the curriculum, writing across the curriculum, and a developmental computer skills class as a component to improving developmental math skills. Outcome #4: To understand what the college needs to do to achieve faculty buy-in for a quality enhancement plan.

Many of the faculty and staff participants had to leave prior to the conclusion of the focus group. Those who remained made suggestions about how to achieve faculty buy in to a QEP. Discussion focused on a few key points: communicate the plan, including where it came from and the reasons for it; give faculty a sense of ownership; assure faculty that the plan is more than just a plan, that we will actually implement it; and all good plans evolve-- give faculty the freedom to express concerns or issues about the plan; keep deadlines and expectations clear; acknowledge the hard work of faculty and staff, and maybe give some release time or build some work days into the calendar. ANALYSIS OF HIGH RISK COURSES Beginning Spring 2008, the QEP Coordinator conducted analyses of the highest risk courses for Halifax Community College (HCC) students. High risk courses are those with retention and pass rates of less than 70%. It became apparent that developmental education courses, in particular developmental math, as well as College Algebra, are trouble spots for our students. An unexpected realization is that ACA 085- Study Skills, has a lower overall success rate than expected. The college offers four ACA courses for first year students. ACA 118 is offered to pre-nursing students, ACA 122 is offered to college transfer students for credit, and ACA 111 is offered to students pursuing an Applied Science degree. Students who place into developmental English are generally enrolled into ACA 085 (Basic Study Skills) during their first semester, and then take the next level ACA course their second semester.


17

Developmental Education Retention and Pass Rates

Spring 2008

Developmental

Courses

Enrolled Retention Rate Pass Rate for

Completers

MAT 050 6 50% 66%

MAT 060 110 62% 72%

MAT 070 125 64% 65%

MAT 080 28 61% 65%

ENG 085 40 72% 86%

ENG 095 80 61% 82%

2008-2009 Developmental Education

Course Enrollment Retention Rate Pass/ C or better

for Completers

Fall 2008

MAT 050 11 38% 50%

MAT 060 169 68% 61%

MAT 070 126 67% 64%

MAT 080 34 82% 32%

Spring 2009

MAT 050 20 65% 31%

MAT 060 152 75% 69%

MAT 070 147 73% 59%

MAT 080 38 82% 45%

Fall 2008

ENG 075/075A 14 64% 78%

ENG 085/085A 73 68% 90%

ENG 095/095A 120 82% 89%

Spring 2009

ENG 075/075A 13 85% 64%

ENG 085/085A 69 75% 88%

ENG 095/095A 92 68% 86%


18

2008-2009 ACA Retention and Pass Rates

Course Enrollment Retention Rate Pass/ C or better

for Completers

Fall 2008

ACA 085 123 78% 95%

ACA 111 79 91% 89%

ACA 118 58 91% 96%

ACA 122 41 98% 98%

Spring 2009

ACA 085 72 64% 100%

ACA 111 64 89% 80%

ACA 118 30 93% 89%

ACA 122 46 93% 70%

These statistics were shared with the institution via blackboard, email to School Chairs and administration, and to faculty during meetings about QEP development. TOPIC IDENTIFICATION: FACULTY DISCUSSIONS AND INSTITUTIONAL VOTING The next step of topic identification began during faculty orientation Spring 2009. An informational PowerPoint presentation, In Search of a QEP Topic, was discussed along with QEP research results obtained during Fall 2008. Faculty then formed breakout groups and brainstormed topic ideas grounded in the QEP research. Topic ideas were submitted and the overall topic list later reviewed and synthesized by the QEP team. The list was placed into electronic voting ballots for faculty/staff and students. On January 15, 2009, the faculty/staff voting ballot was delivered via email and the student voting ballot was administered via blackboard. The results for both votes identified Personal Skills for Success as the broad topic. The Faculty and Staff voted for the narrower topic, Develop Self Efficacy and a Work Ethic by Targeting Personal Skills for Success.

Improve Personal Skills for Success Students: 47% Faculty/Staff: 54%

Improve Math Skills Students 37% Faculty/Staff: 23%

Improve Advising and Mentoring Students: 17% Faculty/Staff: 24%

On January 27, 2009 the QEP Coordinator presented A Recommended QEP Topic to the Halifax Community College Board of Trustees. Several board members offered feedback on


19

the topic, including the need to prepare students for the workforce by giving them hands-on experiences with interviewing techniques. Trustee members were asked to contact the QEP Coordinator with more feedback via email communication.

Refining the Topic

A personal skills survey was delivered via email to faculty and to staff on February 5, 2009. They were asked to rate their perceptions of student personal skills. The results of the survey were analyzed and compared to the results of previous student surveys and the advisory committee survey. The QEP Outcomes Team used the survey results to choose specific personal skills to target in the QEP.

Summary of Student Personal Skills Surveys

Figure 7

Questions related to personal skills were included on two student surveys administered in September 2009. Students rated various skills as perceived in themselves. Skills were rated as high, average, or low. Most students rated these skills as either high or average. The chart reflects responses rated as average. The most frequently rated average skills for general students are:

Stress Management (34%)

Time Management (40.4%)

Social Skills (52%) The most frequently rated average skills for ACA students are:

Time Management (29.2%)

Communication Skills (44.6%)

Stress Management (28.5%)

Self-Esteem (43.1%)


20

The faculty/staff personal skills survey, administered in February, 2009, rated personal skills as above average, average, and below average. Most skills were rated by faculty and staff as average or below average. The chart reflects the percentage of responses rated average. Critical thinking, problem solving, and self-efficacy were not included on the student surveys. The most frequently rated average skills as perceived by faculty/staff are:

Critical Thinking (18.4%) Time Management (26.5%) Stress Management (26.5%) Problem Solving (30.6%)

The Advisory Committee Survey, administered in December 2008, addressed personal skills perceived to be stronger and weaker in HCC graduates. Self-efficacy was not included on the survey. The most frequently rated weaker skills as perceived by advisory committee members are:

Critical Thinking (50%) Effective Communication (50%) Time Management Skills (38%) College Writing Level (38%) Problem Solving Skills (33%) Effective Interpersonal Skills (33%)

According to the Advisory Committee Survey, the following weak skills are also deemed to be the most important skills for securing and retaining a job:

Effective Communication Skills (74%) Problem Solving Skills (59%) Effective Interpersonal Skills (56%) Critical thinking (52%) Time Management (46%)

Four Surveys Comparison

Comparisons of the four surveys suggest that all four stakeholder groups believe that the following personal skills are least developed in HCC students/graduates:

Stress Management

Time Management

Advisory Committee members and Faculty/Staff also agree that the following personal skills are least developed in HCC students/graduates:

Critical Thinking

Problem Solving

Critical Thinking and Problem Solving were not included on the Student Surveys.


21

The specific skills identified by the QEP Team to target for QEP learning outcomes are: Goal Setting and Achievement, Time Management, Stress Management, and Problem Solving. The presumption of the team is that mastery experiences with these specific topics will naturally enhance students academic self-efficacy.

Broad-Based Participation and QEP Development

Faculty and Staff were given the opportunity to volunteer to participate in various QEP

sub-teams. Each sub-team was developed based on volunteerism. SPRING 2009

The QEP Outcomes and QEP Literature Review sub-teams began their work during spring semester. The Outcomes sub-team was charged with using data gathered the previous year to develop a definition of learning and QEP goals and learning outcomes. They met each week for 4 weeks until the work was complete. The Outcomes team consisted of the following members:

Jason Bone, Industrial Maintenance Faculty

Julie Dilday, Psychology Faculty & QEP Coordinator

Cathy Farabow, English Faculty & SACS Liaison

Sherida Gholston, Director of Student Support Services

Verna High, Dental Hygiene Faculty & QEP Team Member

Daniel Lovett, Director of PRIDE Male Mentoring Program Donny Moseley, Prison Faculty

Carolyn Stuart, Director of Counseling & QEP Team Member

Catherine Sykes, Dental Hygiene Faculty

The Literature Review Sub-Team began working after the Outcomes Sub-Team had developed a definition of learning, goals, and learning outcomes. They used the information to guide their literature review. The Literature Review sub-team consisted of the following members:

Sherry Agee, Alumna and Administrative Assistant to the VP of Institutional Advancement & QEP Team Member

Bryan Carter, English Faculty


Walter Goode, English Faculty

James McCachren, English Faculty & QEP Team Member

Sandra Weden (chair), English Faculty

Don Worrock, Electronic Resources, Technical Assistant


22

SUMMER 2009 At the close of Spring 2009 semester, the Literature Review Team met, discussed their findings, and made recommendations for QEP Initiatives that were based on best practices. They recommended that the College enhance the ACA 085 study skills class, develop an initiative to facilitate the development of Self-Regulated Learning (Zimmerman, Bonner, & Kovach, 2008), and implement Learning Communities.

The QEP Initiatives Sub-Team met several times over the summer to further develop the teams recommendations and create a detailed initiatives plan. The QEP Initiatives Sub-Team consisted of the following members:

Bryan Carter, English Faculty

Cornelius Dickens, Student


Barbary Hasty, Dean of Student Services and Enrollment Management

Daniel Lovett, Director of PRIDE- male mentoring program

James McCachren, English Faculty & QEP Team Member

FALL 2009 The QEP Coordinator met with faculty during Fall Orientation and discussed progression of QEP Development. They were each invited to participate in several QEP Initiatives teams to further develop the recommended initiatives of the summer Initiatives Sub-Team. They were also invited to participate in other sub-teams to further develop the QEP. Each Fall 2009 sub-team and volunteer members are listed:

ACA 085/ENG Learning Community Development Team o Bryan Carter (chair), English Faculty o James McCachren, English Faculty & QEP Team Member o Sandra Weden, English Faculty o Chris Wright, ACA Faculty

ACA 085/MAT 060 Learning Community Development Team o Bryan Carter, English Faculty & Chair of ENG LC Development Team o Brenda Cousins, Continuing Education o Julie Dilday, Psychology Faculty & QEP Coordinator (Pilot Study Team) o Chuckie Hairston (chair), Math Faculty o Calvin Stansbury, Math Faculty & QEP Team Member (Pilot Study Team) o Nina Swink, Math Faculty & Math Department Head

Learning Strategies Team (Research Learning Strategies for ACA Learning Communities)

o Jason Bone, Industrial Maintenance Faculty & QEP Team Member o Sithah Campbell, Early Childhood Education Faculty o Donny Moseley, Prison Faculty


23

o Catherine Sykes, Dental Hygiene Faculty o Gloria Tysinger (chair), Graphic Design Faculty o Alice Vaughan, Interior Design Faculty o Jenne Vaughan, Psychology Adjunct Faculty

Student Services Initiative Team o Howard Bethany (chair), Alumnus & Book Store Clerk o B.T. Brown, School of Public Services Chair & Early Childhood Education

Instructor o Sherida Gholston, Director of Student Support Services o Teresa Mayle, Counselor Student Support Services

HUM 115 Critical Thinking/ENG 111 Learning Community Development Team o Walter Goode (Chair), English Faculty o Thomas Schwartz, VP for Institutional Advancement & Critical Thinking Instructor o Carolyn Stuart, Director of Counseling & QEP Team member

Assessment Team o Julie Dilday, Psychology Faculty & QEP Coordinator o Julie Galvin, Biology Instructor & Science Department Head o Edward Imasuen, Director of Institutional Effectiveness o Nina Swink, Math Instructor & Math Department Head

QEP Marketing/Communication Team o Julie Dilday, Psychology Instructor & QEP Coordinator o Kim Edwards (co-chair), Graphic Artist o Melanie Temple (co-chair), Public Relations o Gloria Tysinger, Graphic Design Instructor o Alice Vaughan, Interior Design Instructor o Jenne Vaughan, Psychology Adjunct Instructor o Holly White, Nursing Instructor

QEP Video Team o Sandra Weden, English Instructor o Cliff Jones, Graphic Design Adjunct Instructor o Sandra Wedens ENG 101 class

Definition of Learning and Student Learning Outcomes

For the purpose of the Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP), learning is defined as a series of transformative experiences that result in improved competence in the core foundational skills and attitudes that drive success and lie at the heart of a work ethic that will enhance graduates ability to secure, retain, and excel in a career. The core foundational skill on which the QEP focuses is goal management, which will be accomplished with a concentration on goal setting and goal achievement through strategic learning. Relative to this concentration, behavioral/cognitive skills include 1) time-management and 2) problem solving; key affective


24

enhancements include 1) stress management and 2) improved academic self-efficacy. Thus students ability to undertake the transformative experiences of learning is dependent on their ability to motivate themselves and sustain positive attitudes, beliefs, feelings, and thoughts that will enable them to manage self and adjust to change in an evolving global community. The overarching goal of Halifax Community Colleges (HCC) Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) is to develop self-regulated learners and problem solvers through learning communities. Specifically, as a result of participation in the Colleges QEP, students will acquire the knowledge to:

1. Develop an academic goal management and strategic learning plan. 2. Monitor the effectiveness of an academic goal management and strategic learning plan. 3. Implement weekly schedules for goal-oriented tasks. 4. Manage environmental, behavioral, and cognitive stressors that impact student

academic success. 5. Use critical thinking skills to analyze available information and devise solutions to

problems. 6. Relate personal academic self-efficacy to academic goal achievement.

Literature Review and Best Practices SELF-REGULATED LEARNING

If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime. Confucius (551-479 B.C.) famous words embody the self-regulated learning model on which Halifax Community College (HCC) builds its QEP. According to Zimmerman, Bonner, & Kovach (2008), education has failed students by not teaching them how to learn for themselves. High school drop-out rates as high as 40% in some areas in the country indicates that students are not prepared for life-long learning. The QEP Topic discussions among HCC faculty, staff, and students, resonate with Zimmerman et al.s (2008) assertions that low-performing students lack self-regulated learning skills. It is the ability to self-regulate learning that HCC constituents agreed was the primary barrier to HCC student academic success.

Academic self-regulation refers to self-generated thoughts, feelings, and actions intended to attain specific educational goals, such as analyzing a reading assignment, preparing to take a test, or writing a paper (Zimmerman, Bonner, & Kovach 2008, p. 2). Academic underachievement is related to a failure to self-regulate learning (Schloemer, P. & Brenan, K., 2006). Halifax Community Colleges Learning Community Initiative is based on the self-regulated learning (SRL) Academy Model posited by Zimmerman et al., who state that the development of SRL skills results in increased intrinsic motivation because it gives students a sense of control of their own learning (2008).

SRL: The Academy Model

The self-regulated learning cycle suggested by Zimmerman, Bonner, and Kovach (2008) and based on the Cognitive Psychologist Albert Banduras (1993) work on self-efficacy and self-regulation is an open-ended process that incorporates 4 self-reinforcing steps:


25

1. Self-Evaluation 2. Goal Setting and Strategic Planning 3. Self-Monitoring 4. Outcome evaluation and strategy revision

Figure 8

Students learn and practice the steps of the cycle, subsequently developing the metacognitive skills necessary to understand their own academic strengths and weaknesses, as well as the ability to develop strategies for strengthening their weaknesses. To become more self-regulated, students should develop the following:

1. Realistic goal setting skills and commitment 2. Heightened academic self-efficacy 3. Lowered academic anxiety (Bandura, 1993; Liff, S., 2003; Zimmerman, Bonner, &

Kovach, 2008). According to the research, students who can effectively self-regulate and maintain high self-efficacy are more likely to meet their academic potential (Bandura,1993; Cleary, Platten, & Nelson, 2008; Liff, S., 2003; Zimmerman, Bonner, & Kovach, 2008).

SRL and Goal Management

A first step in becoming a self-regulated learner is to set challenging yet realistic academic goals. Strategic planning for goal achievement and self- monitoring follows (Zimmerman, Bonner, & Kovach, 2008). Simple surveys and assessments can be completed in class to monitor strategies and goal achievement. This process has been helpful in the development of Goal Management skills, as indicated by Schloemer and Brenans (2006) three-year study with university accounting students. Even though it was not required, as a result of writing attainable goals, some students began keeping a daily time log to document learning


26

activities. Other by-products included increased enthusiasm for the course, improved learning behaviors such as time on task and student collaboration, as well as decreased number of absences and missed homework assignments. Students ability to regulate learning and achieve academically improved after they wrote personal academic goals and monitored the strategies they developed to meet those goals. Winne and Stockley (1998) assert that successful learners are goal-directed. However, writing long-term goals is not sufficient for self-regulated learning. To illustrate, they cite a study by Morgan that suggests that learning outcome goals and study goals are met more often by students who set specific, short-term sub-goals. Long-term and short-term goals provide students with a reason to create learning strategies. And according to the literature, monitoring learning strategies and goal outcomes facilitates the development of self-regulation and motivation (Liff, 2003; Winne & Stockley, 1998).

Time Management

Success in college is positively correlated with clearly stated goals, time management skills, and time on task (George, D., et al., 2008). And time management goals are the first targeted by Zimmermans Academy Model for SRL. According to Zimmerman et al., students must learn to manage study time because not to do so is antithetical to self-regulated learning (2008). Instructors can facilitate time management skills by first having students log all use of time over a two-day period. After a lecture on time management, students bring their time logs to class and collaborate with other students, who help them to detect patterns in time-use and to develop alternative time strategies. The overall goal is that students create and monitor the use of a flexible guide for weekly academic work. This should cause them to reflect on and assess the effectiveness of how they use their time, develop time-management skills, and subsequently gain control over their own schedule (Hofer, Yu, & Pintric, 1998, p. 76). Zimmerman, Bonner, and Kovach (2008) offer a Self-Monitoring form for study time that may be used to facilitate the development of time-management skills (Appendix C).

Self-Efficacy

According to Bandura (1993), Educational Psychology has historically focused on how the mind works in terms of processing, organizing, and retrieving information. He argues that more than knowledge and reasoning abilities is needed for academic effectiveness. It is students beliefs about their ability to regulate their own functioning and to exercise control over their environments, or their efficacy beliefs, that influence how they feel, think, motivate themselves, and behave (p. 118). An individuals perception of self-efficacy impacts these domains of functioning through four major processes: cognitive, motivational, affective, and selective.

Purposeful behavior is regulated by foresight, and constructed goals. Stronger perception of self-efficacy influences higher goal-setting and commitment. People with stronger self-efficacy visualize success-related scenarios that serve to guide their actions. Those plagued by self-doubt are guided by failure related visualizations. He supports his position by describing a study conducted by Collins (p. 119). Children with differing levels of mathematical ability were selected to participate. At each level (low, medium, and high), some of the children had high self-efficacy and others had self-doubt. At each level, children with higher self-efficacy performed math problems better; they were more likely to re-work problems they failed more accurately than children at the same ability level, but who exhibited higher levels of self-doubt. It is self-efficacy, he says, that guides the use of skills in a more effective manner.


27

As indicated by organizational research, evidence of performance mastery strengthens self-efficacy, efficient thinking, and performance. Social evaluation (feedback) has also been shown to increase self-efficacy, which, in turn, can alter performance levels. Feedback that highlights mastery experiences rather than deficiency can heighten perceived self-efficacy and achievement. Feedback focusing on deficiencies can have the opposite effect. In sum, Bandura (1993) states,

Learning environments that construe ability as an acquirable skill, deemphasize competitive social comparison, and highlight self-comparison of progress and personal accomplishments are well-suited for building a sense of efficacy that promotes academic achievement. (p. 119) Bandura (1993) asserts that the best way to equip students for academic

success is to improve self-efficacy and self-regulatory skills for life-long learning. High self-efficacy is related to more challenging goals and persistence to meet those goals. Monitoring self-efficacy is an affective mechanism for the development of self-regulated learning. Low self-efficacy ratings can help students to identify areas to apply more effort. Subsequently, they may self-correct learning strategies before receiving a low grade. Academic success leads to increased self-efficacy, higher motivation, and the tendency to take more responsibility for learning (Zimmerman, Bonner, & Kovach, 2008).

Stress-Management

Students who do not believe they have some control over their environmental stressors have higher levels of anxiety and impaired functioning. Students with low academic efficacy are more likely to exhibit achievement anxiety. Higher academic efficacy is related to academic achievement. Therefore, according to Bandura (1993), the best way to relieve academic anxiety is to build a strong sense of efficacy. This is achieved through development of cognitive capabilities and self-regulative skills for managing academic task demands and self-debilitating thought patterns (p. 134). Avoidance behavior is common with people who do not believe they can cope. They tend to view challenging situations as threatening. People will choose challenging activities if they believe they have the capability of coping and achieving. Self efficacy beliefs impact the choices that guide life direction. The stronger peoples belief in their efficacy, the more career options they consider possible, the greater the interest they show in them, the better they prepare themselves educationally for different occupations, and the greater their staying power and success in difficult occupational pursuits (Bandura,1993, p. 135). The relationship between a positive mood and low tension with academic efficacy, realistic yet challenging goal setting, and academic achievement has been documented in the literature (Liff, 2003; Neuville, Frenay, & Bourgeois, 2007). According to Liff (2003), the regulation of stress is a component of the learning process, particularly for at-risk students. Her study supports Banduras assertion that the ability to control physiological stress reactions is related to efficacy and achievement. Recent research by Putain, Conners, & Symes (2010) supports Banduras theory and indicates that the inverse correlation between test anxiety and achievement is mediated by certain cognitive distortions (see Beck et al., 1979). And Wong found a relationship between Becks cognitive triad (see Beck, 1979) and negative self-view with debilitating anxiety among undergraduates (2008).


28

Problem-Solving The ability to problem-solve is a necessary component of self-regulated learning. Belfiore & Hornyak state that students knowledge of when and when not to problem-solve, as well as the ability to solve problems during self-monitoring is necessary to manage self in the absence of an instructor (1998).

The ability to effectively analyze and solve problems is inherent to the development of critical thinking skills as posited by Paul and Elder (1996, 2005). The authors outline and discuss nine elements of thought and seven intellectual standards for developing and assessing student critical thinking skills. The elements of thought are: 1) Purpose, goal, or end in view; 2) Problem to be solved; 3) Point of view or frame of reference; 4) Concepts or ideas; 5) Assumptions; 6) Implications or consequences; 7) Inferences; 8) Conclusions. The intellectual standards are: 1) Clarity; 2) Accuracy; 3) Precision; 4) Relevance; 5) Depth; 6) Breadth; 7) Logic. LEARNING COMMUNITIES

Learning Communities (LCs) have been around since the 1960s and began with Alexander Meiklejohns Experimental College at the University of Wisconsin and the work of John Dewey. They gained popularity in the 1980s and 1990s and today take many forms (Smith et. al., 2004). The most common model utilized by community colleges is two or more courses thematically linked for a common student cohort (Visher, et. al., 2008).

An extensive body of literature exists describing the positive impact of Learning Communities on retention, academic achievement, and graduation rates (Laufgraben, 2005; Shapiro & Levine, 1999; Smith et. al. 2004; Visher et. al., 2008); however, only 20% of two-year institutions utilize them (Laufgraben, 2005). This observation, coupled with low achievement rates, supports Laufgrabens assertion that despite a preponderance of new research describing how individuals actually learn and the development of technologies to support student learning, colleges and universities are still relying on outdated and ineffective methods of teaching and learning (2005).

Learning Communities have been named as one solution to low achievement in Higher Education. A study examining conditions of excellence in higher education and conducted by direction of the National Institute of Education (NIE) suggested that Learning Communities would help bring the focus of Higher Education back to Student Learning. The researchers asserted that institutions were failing to meet societys expectations for higher education and ignoring information on student achievement and retention (Shapiro & Levine, 1999, p. 10).

Learning Communities are reported to be a method to facilitate stronger connections and collaboration among faculty and students, connections among various courses, relevant application of classroom learning to the real world, critical thinking, personal and social growth, and service to society. They shift the focus away from teaching-centered to student-centered learning and, if implemented effectively, may lead to institutional transformation and play a role in general education reform (Laufgraben, 2005; Shapiro & Levine, 1999; Smith et. al., 2004).

In recent years, due to a paucity of well-designed research on the student outcomes of Learning Community participation, several institutions have begun collecting and analyzing data on the causal effects of Learning Communities on educational outcomes. The first major review of the effectiveness of learning communities was carried out in 2003 by leaders of the National Learning Communities Project, based at The Washington Center for Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Education at The Evergreen State College. Taylor, Moore, MacGregor, and Lindbald analyzed, synthesized, and drew conclusions for research and assessment reports for


29

learning communities implemented through 2003. They reviewed 32 formal research studies and 119 assessment reports from 78 institutions of higher education. Major findings include:

Learning communities are being implemented in a variety of institutions of higher education

Most learning community programs are designed for first-year students

Learning communities strengthen retention

Learning communities strengthen academic achievement Areas for improvement as indicated by the study:

Assessment should focus on intervention strategies and the direct assessment of learning outcomes rather than retention and pass rates alone

Future studies should focus on the quality of student learning and intellectual development

An examination of Learning communities effects on people who serve on teaching teams needs to conducted

Issues related to developing, sustaining, and institutionalizing learning communities programs should be studied

Because there is no standard learning community model, curricula, co-curricular activities, as well pedagogical and assessment strategies need to be examined (p. iv).

The authors assert that there is sufficient data to indicate that learning communities have positive student outcomes. However, retention and pass rates are not sufficient to deepen and clarify the body of literature. Direct assessments of learning outcomes and intervention strategies are needed to indicate what factors contribute to learning community success and to which specific populations of students (p. 66).

Kingsborough Community College in New York developed one of the larger and more rigorous studies with community college students as part of the Opening Doors project. The authors found that at the conclusion of the project, learning community students felt more integrated and engaged than controls, attempted and passed more courses in the first semester, and completed Developmental English requirements more quickly than the control group (Scrivener, et. al., 2008).

As an effort to improve the success rates in community colleges, the Lumina Foundation for Education launched a massive multi-year national initiative called Achieving the Dream: Community Colleges Count. Eighty-two Institutions in 18 states are now involved in the grant-funded project. The effort primarily focuses on data collection and analysis to build a culture of evidence to improve learning outcomes. The implementation and assessment of Learning Communities has been but one strategy attempted to improve academic outcomes. In the first year of project implementation, 11 of 27 participating colleges used Learning Communities as an instructional strategy to help achieve specific project goals and improve student-learning outcomes. Some of these colleges targeted developmental courses, and others focused on credit-bearing courses (Brock et. al., 2007). The outcomes of the initiative have not yet been published.

In addition to the Lumina Foundation, in 2009 the Education Sciences of the U.S. Department of Education to the National Center for Postsecondary Research (NCPR), MDRC and other NCPR research partners completed a two-year demonstration of learning


30

communities at six community college sites. It used an experimental research design to take the work of Kingsborough Community College a step further. The study emphasized the impact of Learning Communities on the completion of developmental education and the results will be published in 2010 (MDRC, 2010).

Learning Communities are suggested to be a promising intervention to improve the outcomes of developmental education in community colleges. Based on an in-depth case study by the Community College Research Center (CCRC) of 15 community colleges in the United States, positive outcomes have been documented to the extent that Perin (2005) asserts that they are worth the resources and effort that goes into their design and implementation.

QEP Initiatives

Four QEP initiatives will serve as the vehicles to help students develop self-regulated learning and problem-solving skills:

1. Enhanced Study Skills Course Initiative: The developmental study skills course, ACA 085, has been redesigned to teach students how to learn by self-regulating learning (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1998; Zimmerman, Bonner, & Kovach, R., 2008). All of the QEP learning outcomes fall neatly within the context of self-regulated learning (SRL). By developing the chosen personal skills for success, self-regulated learning will be enhanced. By using best practices for developing self-regulated learners, QEP learning outcomes should be met. Students will utilize several tools to help them develop self-regulated learning skills, which are described in the assessment section.

2. Learning Communities Initiative: First-year developmental students will be invited to enroll in one of two CIRCLE One learning communities (LC): Steps to Math Success or Steps to Reading and Writing Success. These learning communities link the newly re-designed ACA 085 Study Skills course with MAT 060 Basic Math Skills and ACA 085 Study Skills with ENG 095 Reading and Composition Strategies. The overarching goal for CIRCLE One learning communities is to facilitate the development of self-regulated learning by specifically targeting goal management, time management, stress management, and academic self-efficacy. Problem-solving will be targeted to the degree that it involves creating new learning strategies within the context of the self-regulated learning model. The overarching goal for CIRCLE Two learning communities is the facilitation of the critical thinking skills that enhance the students ability to solve problems, as well as the reinforcement of self-regulated learning skills.

The original CIRCLE One cohorts will be encouraged to enroll in the subsequent CIRCLE Two LCs the following semester. Steps to Math Success students will enroll in the Thinking about Algebra LC, which will be offered during the same time slot as the original CIRCLE One LC, and the Steps to Reading and Writing Success students will enroll in the English: Its Critical LC, also offered during the same time slot as the original CIRCLE One LC. CIRCLE Two LCs link HUM 115 Critical Thinking with MAT 070 Introductory Algebra and HUM 115 Critical Thinking with ENG 111 Expository Writing. The number of Learning Community sections will increase until full-implementation is achieved during academic year 2013-2014. And beginning Fall 2011, two additional CIRCLE Two LCs will be offered for students who placed out of developmental courses.


31

Semester One

CIRCLE One Learning

Communities

Semester Two

CIRCLE Two Learning Communities

Steps to Math Success

ACA 085 Basic Study Skills/

MAT 060- Basic Math

Thinking about Algebra

MAT 070 Introduction to Algebra/

HUM 115- Critical Thinking

Steps to Reading and Writing

Success

ACA 085 Basic Study Skills/

ENG 095 Reading &

Comprehension Strategies

English, Its Critical

ENG 111 Expository Writing/

HUM 115- Critical Thinking

3. Student Services Initiative: will target academic self-efficacy, stress management, and

problem-solving goals within the context of CIRCLE One LCs. Special workshops and projects will be facilitated by student services staff. Multiple workshops on stress management will be provided, as well as communication, Financial Aid rules, and test-anxiety. Student services staff will also be involved in problem-oriented service projects that are appropriate for individual cohorts and budget. Student Support Services counselors will be available for referral for high anxiety, low self-efficacy, and other behavioral or attitudinal problems.

4. Professional Development Initiative: will provide education and support to faculty and staff who participate in the Quality Enhancement Plan. The institution was fortunate to have professional development funds available during the 2009-2010 academic year through a Title III Grant. Therefore, the following professional development opportunities were made available to faculty and staff during QEP development:

January 5, 2010: Best Practices in Learning Communities workshop provided by Kristie Sullivan of Sandhills Community College, Pinehurst, NC.

March 18-19, 2010: Promoting Achievement, Motivation, and Strategic Learning: Essential Tactics and Applications to College Settings provided by Dr. Timothy Cleary, University Wisconsin Milwaukee.

June 27-July 1: National Summer Institute on Learning Communities provided by the Washington Center, Evergreen State University. Three CIRCLE Program faculty members and the Dean of Curriculum attended.


32

Date QEP-Related Professional Development Activity

Attendees Cost

February April, 2009

NC-NET Blackboard Course Learning Communities

Julie Dilday, QEP Coordinator

$ 0

January 5, 2010 Clearing the Path: Building and Sustaining Learning

Communities Presented by Kristie Sullivan, Sandhills Community College

All Faculty; Student Services Staff;

PRIDE Staff

$ 600

March 18-19, 2010 Promoting Achievement, Motivation, and Strategic Learning: Essential Tactics

and Applications to College Settings Presented by Dr. Timothy

Cleary, University Wisconsin Milwaukee

All Faculty; Counselors

$6000

June 27-July 1, 2010 National Summer Institute on Learning Communities at the Washington Center,

Evergreen State College

Julie Dilday, QEP Director Walter Goode, English/Critical Thinking Instructor

Calvin Stansbury, Math Instructor

$4666

August December, 2010 Online Course: CT 700 Introduction to Critical Thinking for Instruction and Learning

Three Critical Thinking

Instructors

$3276

August, 2010 Workshop: Developing and Assessing integrated assignments

Julie Dilday, Calvin Stansbury, and Walter Goode

All faculty $65 Supplies/materials

January, 2011 Workshop:

Teaching, Learning, and

Assessment in HCCs

CIRCLE 2 Learning

Communities:

Presented by,

Thomas Schwartz, Walter

Goode, Julie Dilday

New CIRCLE 2 Faculty $65

Supplies/materials

January May, 2011 Online Course:

CT 701 Critical Thinking for

Instruction and Learning

Three Critical Thinking

Instructors

$3276

July, 2011 Train-the-Trainer Video

Series

Graduates from CT 700

course and NSILC

$2184

August, 2011 Workshops:


Assessment in HCCs

CIRCLE 1 Learning

Communities:

Presented by,

Julie Dilday, Calvin Stansbury,

and Walter Goode


August, 2011 Workshop:


Assessment in HCCs


Supplies/materials

Professional Development Plan


33

CIRCLE 2 Learning

Communities:

Presented by,

Tom Schwartz, Walter Goode,

Kevin Argo, Julie Dilday

August December, 2011 Online Course:

CT 700 Introduction to

Critical Thinking for Instruction

and Learning





and Learning


January, 2012 Workshops:


Assessment in HCCs

CIRCLE 1 Learning

Communities:

Presented by,

CIRCLE 1 Faculty


Supplies/materials

January, 2012 Workshop:

Teaching and Learning in

CIRCLE 2 Learning

Communities:

Presented by,

Thomas Schwartz, Walter

Goode, Kevin Argo, and Julie

Dilday


Supplies/materials

March, 2010 Promoting Achievement,

Motivation, and Strategic

Learning: Essential Tactics

and Applications to College

Settings (The next level)

Dr. Timothy Cleary, University

Wisconsin Milwaukee

All Faculty;

Counselors and Student

Services Staff

$6000



Assessment in HCCs

CIRCLE 2 Learning

Communities:

Presented by,

Julie Dilday, Calvin Stansbury,

and Walter Goode


Supplies/materials

August, 2012 Workshop:


Assessment in HCCs

CIRCLE 1 Learning

Communities:

Presented by,

CIRCLE 1 Faculty


Supplies/materials


Presented by,

CIRCLE 2 Faculty


Supplies/materials



Assessment in HCCs


Supplies/materials


34

HCC Learning Community Pilot Study

The Pilot-Study Team organized and implemented the Steps to Math Success Pilot Study Spring 2010. Advisors were encouraged to register students who reported math anxieties and low self-efficacy in math. Twenty first-year students registered for the learning community and fifteen students completed it. The QEP assessment plan was used to evaluate the success of the learning community, and as a result, several improvements have been planned for more effective CIRCLE One learning community implementation and assessment. The complete assessment grid for the Spring 2010 pilot study may be found in Appendix D. Assessment grid changes resulting from closing the loop on Pilot Study assessment are indicated by red font.

INDIRECT MEASURES: RESULTS

Learning community (LC) students surpassed the 85% pass rate benchmark for the ACA 085 Study Skills section and did not meet the 85% pass rate benchmark for MAT 060 Basic Math Skills. Eighty-seven percent of LC students passed ACA 085 and 67% passed MAT 060. However, when compared to MAT 060 stand-alone courses, the LC students exceeded the 59% pass-rate for MAT 060 as a whole. Even though stand-alone ACA 085 classes show a 92% pass-rate, its low retention rate, 64%, indicates a low overall success rate for traditional ACA 085 courses as compared to the pilot study group. The benchmark for retention is set at 80%.

CIRCLE Learning

Communities:

Presented by,

CIRCLE 1 Faculty

August December, 2013 Online Course:



and Learning

Two Critical Thinking

Instructors

$2184




and Learning

Two Critical Thinking

Instructors

$2184



Assessment in HCCs

CIRCLE 2 Learning

Communities:

Presented by,

CIRCLE 2 Faculty

CIRCLE 2 Faculty $65

Supplies/materials



Assessment in HCCs

CIRCLE 1 Learning

Communities:

Presented by,

CIRCLE 1 Faculty


Supplies/materials


35

In sum, the pilot LC sections ended the semester with 79% retention for Math and ACA as compared to 77% for stand-alone MAT 060 classes and 64% retention for ACA LC students. The ACA 085 LC group had an overall success rate of 68% while traditional ACA 085 classes had a 59% overall success rate. Overall success rate considers the number of students who pass as compared to the number of students who enrolled in the course.

Math Self-Efficacy scores showed improvement for the LC students at the end of the semester. The Math Self-Efficacy Scale (MSES) (Betz & Hackett, 1993) was administered to students in all ten sections of MAT 060 at the beginning of the semester. Mean scores for each MAT 060 section range from 4.7 to 5.8. The overall mean is 5.3, which according to percentile equivalents published by the authors (1993); HCC students are in the 20th percentile as compared to undergraduate samples. Scores ranging from 4.7 (for females) and 5.3 (for males) constitute the 20th percentile for math self-efficacy for undergraduate students. The LC group was one of three sections that scored a mean below 5.0, indicating that advisors in fact registered students reporting math anxiety and low math self-efficacy. The benchmark for MSES improvement is: 80% of LC students will score higher on the MSES as compared to pre-semester scores. Mean scores for the group as a whole rose from 4.9 to 5.3. Because the group was 86% female, overall, the group moved from the 25 th percentile to the 35th percentile in math self-efficacy over the course of the semester. Ten students took the pre and post MSES. Of those ten, 60% showed increased math self-efficacy over the course of the semester.

Indirect Assessment Results for Steps to Math Success as Compared to

Non-Learning Community Students Spring 2010 Pilot Study

Figure 9


36

HCC Math 060 MSES Scores, Spring 2010

4.8

5.8

5.25.5

5.14.8

5.55.8

5.3

4.7

5.3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

LC 1 LC 2 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 10A

Pre-Score

Post-Score

Figure 10

DIRECT MEASURES: RESULTS

The direct assessment results for the Steps to Math Success Learning community suggested that significant pedagogical improvements need to be made. As a group, students did not meet the 90% proficient benchmark for any of the student learning outcomes.

Eighty percent are proficient with the following student learning outcomes:

Develop an academic goal management plan that will enhance academic success.

Manage environmental, behavioral, and cognitive stressors that impact student academic success.

Proficiency rates for other student learning outcomes are:

Implement and monitor the effectiveness of an academic goal management plan: 33%

Implement weekly schedules for goal-oriented tasks: 54%

Solve problems by analyzing available information and devising solutions to problems: 66%

Relate personal academic self-efficacy to academic goal achievement: 60% Student portfolios and capstone essays were assessed with the HCC Self-Regulated learning (SRL) and HCC CIRCLE One Capstone Essay Rubrics. They are located in Appendix H and Appendix I, respectively.


37

CLOSING THE LOOP As a result of pilot study implementation and low success rates on direct assessments, the Pilot Study team has developed several strategies to improve pedagogy for the CIRCLE program:

1. Spend less time learning how to graph with software. Begin Semester by having students list assignment due dates on a printed calendar for portfolio/journal. Students will list long-term goal for LC courses. Students will list short term goals and strategies for specific assignments. Plan will be reviewed during one-on-one conference with LC instructors, during which feedback will be given and plan checked-off-on.

2. Spend less time in class re-writing daily schedules each week. Students will develop one basic weekly schedule template. Each week they will schedule time for LC course goal-oriented tasks as they relate to due date calendar. Each week they will complete pre-printed form monitoring their actual use of time. These forms will be part of short-term goal setting and monitoring.

3. Lecture on cognitive distortions prior to mid-term. Identify class time at least every other week to discuss cognitive distortions as identified in stress diaries. Give class time each week for students to review and update stress diaries.

4. Implement strategies for Math Improvement Plan requiring students to participate in tutoring if they do not pass first math quiz. Identify students who do not pass first quiz and schedule one-on-one consultations with Math Instructor for learning strategy development.

5. Use dated pre-printed reflection forms for students to analyze the SRL cycle. Use pre-printed grade tracking graph for strategy monitoring. Discontinue use of computer software for graphing. Its too time-consuming.

6. Begin Capstone Essay no less than three weeks before the end of the semester. One revision must be made for each essay.

Overall, the CIRCLE Program Pilot Study demonstrates promise for successful implementation of HCCs QEP. Indirect measures indicate that learning communities focused on the facilitation of the development of self-regulated learning and problem-solving skills enhance learning and academic self-efficacy for some students. Retention and pass rates exceed that of traditional courses, and for more than half of LC students, academic self-efficacy improves. Direct measures support the Colleges position that the foundational skills needed for self-regulated learning are under-developed in HCC students and the deficit is the primary barrier to learning. Direct measures also provide important baseline data describing where weaknesses lie in the QEP CIRCLE One Learning Communities so that the plan may be further developed.

Implementation Timeline

Halifax Community Colleges (HCC) CIRCLE Program will utilize two sets of Learning

Communities to develop self-regulated learners and problem solvers. As a result, the following

Documents

HCC QEP Final Version