new jersey’s community colleges - confex · web viewnew jersey’s community...

New Jersey’s Community Colleges

Big Ideas Project

Action Plans for Implementation: Strategies, Goals, and Success Indicators August 2011

330 West State StreetTrenton, NJ 08618

Phone: (609) 392-3434Fax: (609) 392-8158

E-mail: [email protected]

1

About New Jersey’s Community Colleges

The mission of New Jersey’s 19 community colleges is to provide high-quality transfer programs, occupational programs, continuing education courses, business support services, and community service programs at a reasonably low cost in response to local and statewide needs. New Jersey’s community colleges annually serve 400,000 students.

About the New Jersey Council of County Colleges

The mission of the New Jersey Council of County Colleges is to provide statewide lead-ership for the advancement of New Jersey’s 19 community colleges and to perform sector coor-dinating responsibilities as required by state law.

About the Big Ideas Project

In Fall 2009, the Trustees and Presidents agreed that the community colleges should pur-sue research to find the best and boldest ideas to promote sustainability, maintain or improve quality, and, most significantly, improve student success. Several task forces were created to conduct that research, and white papers were delivered in late Summer 2010. Guided by these white papers, the Trustees and Presidents identified eight key statewide priorities in Fall 2010 and charged eight workgroups to develop action plans for implementing these “Big Ideas.” Coor-dinated by the New Jersey Council of County Colleges, each workgroup was co-chaired by com-munity college presidents and included representatives from all New Jersey community colleges. Their recommendations, as amended and approved by the presidents in June 2011, are presented in this report

2

Table of Contents

Group One Transforming Developmental Education ………………………………………..4

Group Two Aligning Expectations Between K-12 and Community Colleges………………28

Group Three Creating Student Success Data…..……………………………………………...45

Group Four Promoting Adjunct Faculty Development………………………………………62

Group Five Expanding Joint Purchasing Practices………………………………………….77

Group Six Building Academic Consortia…………………………………………………..89

Group Seven Building Alternate Learning Delivery Systems…….…………………………102

Group Eight Using Core Student Learning Outcomes and Common AssessmentTools in the Top 10 Highest Enrollment General Education Courses………...121

3

Transforming Developmental Education

Action Plan for ImplementationPrepared by Group One of the Big Ideas Project

August 2011


Phone: (609) 392-3434Fax: (609) 392-8158


4






In Fall 2009, the Trustees and Presidents agreed that the community colleges should pur-sue research to find the best and boldest ideas to promote sustainability, maintain or improve quality, and, most significantly, improve student success. Several task forces were created to conduct that research, and white papers were delivered in late Summer 2010. Guided by these white papers, the Trustees and Presidents identified eight key statewide priorities in Fall 2010 and charged eight workgroups to develop action plans for implementing these “Big Ideas.” Coor-dinated by the New Jersey Council of County Colleges, each workgroup was co-chaired by com-munity college presidents and included representatives from all New Jersey community colleges. Their recommendations, as amended and approved by the presidents in June 2011, are presented in this report.

5

Table of Contents

Executive Summary…………………………………………………………….. 7

Background………………….………………………………………….………. 8

Group Charge and Vision Statement……………..….……………………......... 9

Strategies, Goals, and Success Indicators……. .……...……………. .……...... 10

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….13

Charge to Affinity Groups……………………………………………................ 14

Appendices………………………………………………………………………

References and Reviewed Research……………………………………. 16

Appendix A: Group Members………………………………………...... 21

Appendix B: Methodology………………………....................................23

Appendix C: Evidence-Based Best Practices……………………………24

6

Executive Summary

For the past 45 years, New Jersey’s community colleges have helped thousands of stu-dents pursue higher education to gain skills, earn college credentials, and better their lives. To-day, New Jersey’s 19 community colleges enroll nearly 400,000 students across 70 campuses, fulfilling community colleges’ core mission: granting access to higher education.

Our country’s economic future depends on the ability to provide an educated workforce. The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that half of the new jobs created within the next eight years will require a postsecondary degree (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2009). If the United States were to proceed with current college graduation rates, our country would not produce enough graduates to fill these new jobs. Such projections make it imperative that institutions of higher education take a hard look at student success to improve the number of students completing a college credential. Access is no longer enough. Instead, community colleges across the country are adopting a new mission with access to success at its core.

In New Jersey, approximately 70 percent of students entering community colleges need developmental education (New Jersey Commission on Higher Education, 2010). Research shows that developmental education students are far less likely to complete a college credential. Ac-cording to National Education Longitudinal Study data, fewer than 25 percent of students who take developmental education classes complete a degree within eight years (Bailey 2009, p. 14). Improving developmental education is, therefore, a critical step to helping more students gain the skills they need to succeed in college. This may include better placement and testing practices, incorporating technology, and offering different developmental education modalities for different types of learners.

The following are five strategies the group has outlined as recommended steps to trans-form developmental education.

Strategy 1: Offer Multiple Evidence-Based, Successful Developmental Education Models Consistent with the Needs of the Students.

Strategy 2: Improve Accountability for Developmental Education Using the Student Success Model (developed by Group Three).

Strategy #3: Identify Alternatives for Students Whose Assessed Reading Levels Do Not support an Ability to Benefit From Developmental Programs.“It’s not closing doors - it’s about opening the right doors.”

Strategy 4: Build Statewide Approaches to Disseminating Best Developmental Education Programs and Provide Support and Professional Development Activities for Faculty and Staff.

Strategy #5: Initiate Statewide Conversation about ESL Pathways and How ESL Relates to Developmental Education Pathways.

7

Background

For the past 45 years, New Jersey’s community colleges have helped thousands of stu-dents pursue higher education to gain skills, earn college credentials, and better their lives. To-day, New Jersey’s 19 community colleges enroll nearly 400,000 across 70 campuses, fulfilling community colleges’ core mission: granting access to higher education.

Our country’s economic future depends on the ability to provide an educated workforce. The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that half of the new jobs created within the next eight years will require a postsecondary degree (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2009). If the United States were to proceed with current college graduation rates, our country would not produce enough graduates to fill these new jobs. Such projections make it imperative that institutions of higher education take a hard look at student success to improve the number of students completing a college credential. Access is no longer enough. Instead, community colleges across the country are adopting a new mission with access to success at its core.

In New Jersey, approximately 70 percent of students entering community colleges need developmental education (New Jersey Commission on Higher Education, 2010). Research shows that developmental education students are far less likely to complete a college credential. Ac-cording to the National Education Longitudinal Study data, fewer than 25 percent of students who take developmental education classes complete a degree within eight years (Bailey 2009, p. 14). Improving developmental education is, therefore, a critical step to helping more students gain the skills they need to succeed in college. This may include better placement and testing practices, incorporating technology, and offering different developmental education modalities for different types of learners.

There are also financial incentives attached to improving developmental education. It is estimated that between $1.88 and $2.35 billion1 is spent nationwide for developmental education at community colleges (Strong American Schools 2008). Additionally, since retention rates are quite low for developmental education students, colleges experience significant revenue losses when these students drop out. Thus, New Jersey can realize remarkable potential savings if the need for remediation were reduced and developmental education success improved.

Community colleges are entering the beginning of a new era. The changing economy is forcing community colleges to look beyond open access to a new priority of access to success. Transforming developmental education is critical to improving student success. Community col-leges must pursue aggressive action both individually and collectively if they are to remain true to their core mission of open access while increasing student achievement.

1 These costs are a combination of tuition and fees ($513-642 million) and subsidies derived from state appropriations, private gifts, and investment returns ($1.37-1.71 billion).

8

Group Charge and Vision Statement

Group ChargeNew Jersey’s community college presidents recognize that transforming developmental

education is a top priority for the future success of New Jersey’s community colleges. The main thrust of this priority is to improve developmental education with the overall goal of increasing student success.

In New Jersey, 70 percent of students who enter community colleges must take develop-mental education courses to help them prepare for college-level work. Research shows that only 25 percent of students who take developmental education courses go on to complete a college credential within eight years. Improving developmental education will help more students move on to college-level work and keep them on track to earn college credentials.

The presidents created a work group chaired by Dr. Joann La Perla-Morales of Middlesex County College and Dr. Ray Yannuzzi of Camden County College to focus on improving the placement and testing process and transforming developmental education.

The charge of this work group is to examine innovative best practices around the country and build a common commitment that will transform developmental education to help students complete developmental education courses in less time and with higher success rates. This group will explore ways to improve placement and testing procedures to ensure that students are ap-propriately placed in the courses that best fit their needs. ESL programs will also be looked at within this group.

Vision StatementCommunity colleges are committed to increasing the effectiveness of developmental

education programs by providing educational opportunities specific to student needs. Developmental education is offered in a variety of delivery systems and methodologies with the aim of expediting students’ transition into academic and career programs with higher rates of success.

9

Strategies, Goals, and Success Indicators

Strategy 1: Offer Multiple Evidence-Based, Successful Developmental Education Models Consistent with the Needs of the Students.

Goal #1: Call for colleges to implement evidence-based, transformative developmental education models in mathematics and English, which include but are not limited to:

Acceleration Breaking semester courses into units/modules Course redesign with technology Open entry/open exit courses Fast-track programs that compress the semester

Goal #2: Seek grants by Fall 2012 to create incentives and provide support for colleges to implement innovative developmental education models and allocate additional re-sources to implement new developmental education initiatives.

Goal #3: Establish a common framework of levels of remedial need (i.e. low remedial need, moderate to high remedial need, high remedial need) by Spring 2012, so as to iden-tify intervention strategies for students in need.

Goal #4: Make retesting policies clear and available (or more transparent) by Fall 2012.2

Success Indicators for Strategy #1:1. Student learning outcomes (pre/post test gains or other indicators) have in-

creased. 2. Persistence rates (average number of students who complete the courses) have

increased.3

3. Success rates (number of students moving from developmental education into college level courses) have increased.

4. Retention rates (students who return for a second semester and students who return after one year) have increased.

5. Graduation rates of developmental education students have increased.6. Improved levels of student engagement (academic engagement, social and

school activities engagement, community engagement). 7. Students are aware of retesting policies.

2 A survey done by the Big Ideas Project in Summer 2010 indicated that community colleges across the state have very divergent retesting policies. Out of the 14 colleges that responded, 1 responded that they do not offer retesting, while 13 said they do offer retesting under certain circumstances. However, the length of time before retesting and how to apply for retesting (showing proof of illness, having intervention, etc.) varied widely.3 Success indicators #2 through #5 will be collected through the revised Student Success Model being developed by Group Three of the Big Ideas Project.

10

Strategy 2: Improve Accountability for Developmental Education Using the Student Success Model (developed by Group Three).

Goal #1: Encourage all 19 community colleges to set respective goals that target devel-opmental education improvement by Fall 2012 (after first cohort of comprehensive Stu-dent Success Model).

Goal #2: Share data annually on developmental education.

Success Indicators for Strategy #2:1. Colleges (including faculty and staff members) are aware of their develop-

mental education progress (using data to inform their understanding) at their respective institutions.

2. Colleges have set specific goals to improve developmental education at their respective institutions.

3. The sector is aware of developmental education progress across the state.

Strategy 3: Identify Alternatives for Students Whose Assessed Reading Levels Do Not support an Ability to Benefit From Developmental Programs.“It’s not closing doors - it’s about opening the right doors.”

Goal #1: Adopt a common definition for identifying students who would benefit from al-ternatives to academic credit programs by Fall 2012. This definition could include but is not limited to placement test scores, prior educational achievement, and evidence of learning disabilities.

Goal #2: Identify a comprehensive and realistic list of alternative educational opportuni-ties for those students not demonstrating the ability to benefit from higher education ex-perience through placement testing.

Goal #3: Recommend that colleges provide counseling and/or advising for students with very low reading levels to discuss alternative paths and/or academic assistance.

Success Indicators for Strategy #3:1. There is a common definition for students with very low reading levels.2. There are clearly identified educational alternatives for students with very low

reading levels and these alternatives are communicated widely throughout each institution.

3. Students who are deemed to have very low reading levels take advantage of individualized intensive instruction.

4. Those students for whom higher education is not the reasonable choice at this point in their lives take advantage of educational alternatives identified.

Strategy 4: Build Statewide Approaches to Disseminating Best Developmental Education Programs and Provide Support and Professional Development Activities for Faculty and Staff.

11

Goal #1: Set-up innovation leaders/consultants at community colleges who have imple-mented successful new models of and best practices for developmental education by Fall 2012.

Goal #2: Annually host best practices conferences for developmental education (perhaps on a Saturday in October and again in March) by May 2012. Consider a summer institute to provide opportunities for in-depth work by developmental educators statewide. These initiatives may connect to the Achieving the Dream efforts.

Goal #3: Create an annual publication highlighting best and innovative practices in de-velopmental education programs across New Jersey’s community colleges by Summer 2012.

Success Indicators for Strategy #4:1. Community colleges have guidance from other community colleges to imple-

ment innovative best practices. 2. Faculty and staff have access to best practices information throughout the

state. 3. There is a systematic way to share best practices information among the New

Jersey community colleges.

Strategy 5: Initiate Statewide Conversation about ESL Pathways and How ESL Relates to Developmental Education Pathways.

Goal #1: Host a statewide conversation about ESL pathways.

Success Indicators for Strategy #5:1. Statewide conversation has taken place. 2. The outcomes of the conversation have produced goals and action steps.

12

Conclusion

This implementation action plan was shared with the eight New Jersey Community Col-lege Affinity Groups in April 2011 for further discussions, reactions, and recommendations.

The Affinity Groups returned the plan with comments to the Presidents for their review in May 2011.

The Presidents reviewed, amended, and approved the action plan at their May and June 2011 meetings, and presented the final action plan to the Trustees at the New Jersey Council of County Colleges meeting on June 20, 2011.

13

Charge to Affinity Groups

In providing leadership on this Big Idea, the Affinity Groups may want to refer to the se-ries of action steps originally supported by this workgroup as it developed these action plans.

(See separate document “Possible Action Steps for Big Ideas Project, June 2011.”)

Additionally, the presidents charge the New Jersey Community College Affinity Groups as follows:

TRANSFORMING DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION

AFFINTY GROUP WITH PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY ACADEMIC AFFAIRS

AFFINTY GROUPS THAT WILL SUPPORT THIS BIG IDEA: STUDENT SERVICES

The Presidents have reviewed the work required to advance the Big Ideas Project. It is clear that much of this work relies on the strong collaboration that has been established among Chief Academic Officers. Without a doubt, this group has the lion’s share of the effort outlined in the Big Ideas Project, but the Presidents believe that progress on these items is essential to our long-term viability as a sector. In order to make progress over the next academic year, the Presidents provide the following charge on Transforming Developmental Education.The Presidents believe that the work needed on developmental education is foundational and ought to begin immediately. Toward that end, we should by May 2012:1. Establish a common framework of levels of remedial need. This is not to say that all colleges

will adopt the same course structure; however, we need a way to talk across the sector without having to understand 19 different curricula for English and for math.

2. Collect, examine, and produce a document that outlines any retesting policy for each college.

3. Using the Student Success Model, lead an examination on each campus of developmental education success rates and develop, for each college, goals for improvement in the success rate of students in developmental English and math.

4. Collect current practices that have demonstrated higher success rate of students in developmental English and math. Host a statewide meeting for English faculty and a statewide meeting for math faculty to share these practices.

5. Consider the idea of a summer institute to provide opportunities for in-depth work by developmental educators statewide, and make a recommendation as to the cost necessary to hold such an institute.

14

6. Begin research necessary to develop a common definition of ability to benefit from developmental education programs. This definition could include but is not limited to placement test scores or prior educational experience.

7. Host a statewide meeting for ESL faculty to determine best practices in ESL, including workforce preparation as well as preparation for further academic study.

The presidents request that the Academic Officers Affinity Group provide updates on the above activities at the presidents’ meetings in October, February, and April and a final overall report in May 2012.

15

References and Reviewed Research

Achieving the Dream. Field Guide for Improving Student Success. Lumina Foundation, 2009.Achieving the Dream, Developmental Education Initiative. The Developmental Education

Initiative: State Policy Framework & Strategy. Policy Framework, Boston, MA: Jobs for the Future, 2010.

Alliance for Excellent Education. Paying Double: Inadequate High Schools and Community College Remediation. Issue Brief, Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education, 2006.

Bailey, Thomas. "Challenge and Opportunity: Rethinking the Role and Function of Developmental Education in Community College." New Directions for Community Col-leges, 2009: 11-30.

Bailey, Thomas and Mariana Alfonso. “Paths to Persistence: An Analysis of Research on Program Effectiveness at Community Lumina Foundation for Education”, New Agenda Series College 6, 1 (2005).

Bailey, Thomas, Shanna Smith Jaggers, and David Jenkins. Introduction to the CCRC Assessment of Evidence Series. New York: Community College Research Center. 2011. http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Publication.asp?uid=845 (accessed March 14, 2011).

Barnett, Elizabeth. The Costs & Benefits of Remedial Education. University of Illinois – Urbana/Champaign. 2002. http://occrl.illinois.edu/files/Other/Report/CostsRemedialEdu-cation-EB1.pdf (accessed March 5, 2011).

Bergen Community College. "We Want Our 27 Million Dollars Back! ." Developmental Education Initiative First Meeting. Burlington County College: Department of Retention Services, 2009.

Biswas, Radha Roy. Accelerating Remedial Math Education: How Institutional and State Policy Interact. Achieving the Dream. 2007. http://www.achievingthedream.org/_pdfs/_pub-licpolicy/remedialmath.pdf (accessed January 27, 2011).

Brancard, Ruth, Elaine DeLott Baker, and Laura Jensen. Accelerated Developmental Education Project. Lumina Foundation of Education and Community College of Denver. 2006. http://www.communitycollegecentral.org/Resources/research/Materials/CCDLuminaAc-celeratedResearchReport62106.pdf (accessed March 5, 2011)

Bringle, R. G., Hatcher, J., & Muthiah, R. The Role of S-L on the Retention of First Year Students to Second Year. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 16,2, (2010): 38-49

Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment Projections: 2008-2018. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor. 2009. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecopro_12102009.pdf (accessed March 25, 2011).

Chow, Oiyin Pauline, and Jean M. Shutters. Dos and Don'ts in Offering Online Developmental Math Courses. American Mathematical Association of Two Year Colleges - Annual Con-ference. 2005.

College Board. ACCUPLACER Diagnostic Brochure. 2010. http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/accuplacer-diagnostics-brochure.pdf (accessed March 4, 2011).

16

http://occrl.illinois.edu/files/Other/Report/CostsRemedialEducation-EB1.pdf

http://occrl.illinois.edu/files/Other/Report/CostsRemedialEducation-EB1.pdf

http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/accuplacer-diagnostics-brochure.pdf

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecopro_12102009.pdf

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecopro_12102009.pdf

http://www.communitycollegecentral.org/Resources/research/Materials/CCDLuminaAcceleratedResearchReport62106.pdf

http://www.communitycollegecentral.org/Resources/research/Materials/CCDLuminaAcceleratedResearchReport62106.pdf

Collins, Michael Lawrence. It's Not About the Cut Score: Redesign in Placement Assessment Policy to Improve Student Success. Achieving the Dream Policy Brief, Boston, MA: Achieving the Dream, Jobs for the Future, 2008.

Collins, Michael Lawrence. Setting Up Success in Developmental Education: How State Policy Can Help Community Colleges Improve Student Outcomes. Boston, MA: Achieving the Dream/Jobs for the Future, 2009.

Complete College America. New Jersey State Profile. Complete College America, 2009.Developmental Education Initiative Meeting. Middlesex County College: New Jersey Council of

County Colleges, 2010.Developmental Education Initiative. State Policy Framework and Strategy. Jobs for the

Future/Achieving the Dream. 2010. http://www.postsecondaryresearch.org/conference/PDF/NCPR_Panel1_Collins_StatePolicyFramework.pdf (accessed February 5, 2011).

Dougherty, Kevin, and Monica Reid. Fifty States of Achieving the Dream: State Policies to Enhance Access to and Success in Community Colleges Across the United States. New York: Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University. 2007. http://www.achievingthedream.com/_images/_index03/DoughertyReid_Fifty_StatesofPolicy4907.pdf (accessed March 5, 2011).

Dougherty, Kevin, and Esther Hong. State Systems of Performance Accountability for Community Colleges: Impacts and Lessons for Policymakers. Achieving the Dream Pol-icy Brief. 2005. http://www.achievingthedream.org/_images/_index03/Policy_brief-Per-fAccountibility.pdf (accessed March 14, 2011).

Dudley, Jennifer. "The Community College Student: Preparation for the Math Placement Test."Dissertation, Graduate School of Rowan University, March 31, 2010.

Dudley, Jennifer. "The Community College Student: Preparation for the Math Placement Test." New Jersey Developmental Education Initiative Meeting. Middlesex County College: New Jersey Council of County Colleges, 2010.

Earl, W. R. “Intrusive Advising of Freshmen in Academic Difficulty.” NACADA Journal 8 (1988): 27-33. http://www.diversityweb.org/diversity_innovations/student_development/recruitment_retention_mentoring/intrusive_advising.cfm (accessed March 14, 2011).

Epper, Rhonda, and Elaine DeLott Baker. Technology Solutions for Developmental Education: An Overview of Current an Existing Practices. 2009. http://www.gatesfoundation.org/learning/Documents/technology-solutions-for-developmental-math-jan-2009.pdf (ac-cessed March 14, 2011).

Housatonic Community College. A New Way to Take Math! 2010.http://www.hcc.commnet.edu/academics/ATD/OEOEmath.asp (accessed July 22, 2010).

Jenkins, Davis, Matthew Zeidenberg, and Gregory Kienzl. "Educational Outcomes of I-BEST17 Washington State Community and Technical College System's Integrated Basic Edu-cation and Skills Training Program: Findings from a Multivariate Analysis." CCRC Working Paper Number 16 (CCRC), 2009.

Jenkins, Davis, Shanna Smith Jaggers, and Josipa Roksa. Promoting Gatekeeper Course Success Among Community College Students Needing Remediation: Findings and Recommenda-tions from a Virginia Study (Summary Report). New York: Community College Research Center, 2009.

Jenkins, Davis, Cecila Speroni, Clive Belfield, Shanna Smither Jaggers, and Nikki Edgecomb. A Model for Accelerating Academic Success of Community College Remedial English Stu-dents: Is the Accelerated Learning Program (ALP) Effective and Affordable? New York:

17

http://www.diversityweb.org/diversity_innovations/student_development/recruitment_retention_mentoring/intrusive_advising.cfm

http://www.diversityweb.org/diversity_innovations/student_development/recruitment_retention_mentoring/intrusive_advising.cfm

http://www.achievingthedream.org/_images/_index03/Policy_brief-PerfAccountibility.pdf

http://www.achievingthedream.org/_images/_index03/Policy_brief-PerfAccountibility.pdf

http://www.achievingthedream.com/_images/_index03/DoughertyReid_Fifty_StatesofPolicy4907.pdf

http://www.achievingthedream.com/_images/_index03/DoughertyReid_Fifty_StatesofPolicy4907.pdf

Community College Research Center, 2010. http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Publication.asp?UID=811 (accessed February 28, 2011).

Kerrigan, Monica Reid, and Doug Slater. Collaborating to Create Change: How El Paso Community College Improved the Readiness of Its Incoming Students Through Achieving the Dream. Achieving the Dream, CCRC, and MDRC, 2010.

Malnarich, Gillies. “Learning Communities and Curricular Reform: ‘Academic Apprenticeships’ for Developmental Students.” New Directions for Community Colleges 129 (2005): 51-62.

Martin, D. C. Video-Based Supplemental Instruction (VSI). Journal of Developmental Education 24, 3 (2001): 12.

Mills, Kay. Redesigning the Basics: Tennessee's community colleges use technology to change Their approach to developmental reading and math. May 2010.http://www.highereducation.org/crosstalk/ct0510/news0510-tenn.shtml (accessed July 10, 2010).

New Jersey Commission on Higher Education. Institutional Profiles. 2010. http://www.state.nj.us/highereducation/IP2010/index.html (accessed March 15, 2011).

Perin, Dolores, and Rachel Hare. “A Contextualized Reading-Writing Intervention for Community College Students.” Teachers College, Columbia University. Community Col-lege Research Center Brief. 44 (2010).

Prentice, Mary. Service-learning’s impact on developmental reading/writing and student lifeskills courses. Community College Journal of Research and Practice 33, 3-4, (2009): 270-282

Price, Derek V., and Brandon Roberts. Improving Student Success By Strengthening Developmental Education in Community Colleges: The Role of State Policy. The Work-ing Poor Families Project Policy Brief. 2008-2009. http://www.workingpoorfamilies.org/pdfs/WPFP_policybrief_winter08-09.pdf. (accessed March 5, 2011).

Prince, Heath. Standardization vs. Flexibility: State Policy Options on Placement Testing for Development Education in Community Colleges. Achieving the Dream Policy Brief. 2005. http://www.jff.org/publications/education/standardization-vs-flexibility-state-pol/324 (accessed March 4, 2011).

Raftery, Susan. “Developmental Learning Communities at Metropolitan Community College.” New Directions for Community Colleges 129 (2005): 63-72.

Russell, Alene. Enhancing College Student Success through Developmental Education. American Association of State Colleges & Universities. 2008. http://www.aascu.org/me-dia/pm/pdf/pmaug08.pdf (accessed March 5, 2011).

Saxon, D. Patrick, Patti Levine-Brown, and Hunter R. Boylan. Affective Assessment for Developmental Students, Part I. Research in Developmental Education 22,1 (2008): 1-4.

Scrivener, Susan, Dan Bloom, Allen LeBlanc, Christiana Paxson, Cecilia Elena Rouse, and Colleen Sommo. A Good Start: Two-Year Effects of a Freshmen Learning Community Program at Kingsborough Community College. Opening Doors Report, New York: MDRC, 2008.

Smith, Matthew. Accountability and Continuous Improvement in Remedial Education. Education Commission of the States: Getting Past Go. 2011. http://www.gettingpast-go.org/docs/Acct-Brief.pdf (accessed March 5, 2011).

Steinke, Mollie Hand. Learning English By Helping Others: Implementing Service Learning into

18

http://www.gettingpastgo.org/docs/Acct-Brief.pdf

http://www.gettingpastgo.org/docs/Acct-Brief.pdf

http://www.aascu.org/media/pm/pdf/pmaug08.pdf

http://www.aascu.org/media/pm/pdf/pmaug08.pdf

http://www.jff.org/publications/education/standardization-vs-flexibility-state-pol/324

http://www.jff.org/publications/education/standardization-vs-flexibility-state-pol/324

http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Publication.asp?UID=811

http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Publication.asp?UID=811

the ESOL Classroom. The Journal for Civic Commitment. 2008. http://www.mesacc.edu/other/engagement/Journal/Issue12/Steinke.shtml (accessed March 14, 2011).

Stuart, Reginald. “Reinventing Remedial Education.” Diverse Issues in Higher Education 26, 18 (2009).

Tinto, V. & Goodsell-Love, A. A Longitudinal Study of Learning Communities at LaGaurdia Community College. National Center for Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assess-ment. 1995. http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED380178.pdf (accessed March 1, 2011).

Twigg, Carol. Increasing Success in Developmental Math: Following the NCAT Playbook. National Center for Academic Transformation, 2009.

University of Texas. Developmental Education Toolkit. Community College Central: Bridges to Opportunity. 2008. http://www.communitycollegecentral.org/Downloads/Developmen-tal_Education_TOOLKIT.pdf (accessed January 11, 2011).

Upcraft, M. Lee and Gary Kramer. Intrusive Advising as Discussed in the First-Year Academic Advising: Patterns in the Present, Pathways to the Future. The National Resource Center for The Freshman Year Experience & Students in Transition. 1995.

Vandal, Bruce. Getting Past Go: Rebuilding the Remedial Education Bridge to College Success. Education Commission of the States. 2010. http://www.gettingpastgo.org/docs/GPGpa-per.pdf (accessed March 14, 2011).

Venit, Edward. Improving Student Retention through Early Intervention. Education Advisory Board.

http://www.educationadvisoryboard.com/pdf/Improving_Student_Retention_Early_Inter-vention.pdf (accessed March 15, 2011).

Virginia Developmental Education Task Force. The Turning Point: Developmental Education inVirginia's Community Colleges. Report of Developmental Education Task Force, Vir-ginia Community College System, 2009.

Vischer, M., Schneider, E., Washington, H., Collado. Scaling Up Learning Communities: The Experiences of Six Community Colleges. National Center for Postsecondary Research. 2010. http://www.postsecondaryresearch.org/i/a/document/12894_LCExecSum-mary2010.pdf (accessed March 10, 2011).

Wachen, John, Davis Jenkins, and Michelle Van Noy. How I-BEST Works: Findings from a Field Study of Washington State’s Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training Pro-gram. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. 2010.

Walsh, Erin J. “P-16 Policy Alignment in the States: Findings from a 50-State Survey.” In States, Schools, and Colleges: Policies to Improve Student Readiness for College and Strengthen Coordination Between Schools and Colleges. (National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. National Center Report #09-2, November 2009), 23-34.

Wright, G. L., Wright, R., & Lamb, C. E. Developmental Mathematics Education and Supplemental Instruction: Pondering the Potential. Journal of Developmental Education 26,1 (2002): 30.

Zachry, Elizabeth. Promising Instructional Reforms in Developmental Education. Achieving the Dream. 2008. http://www.mdrc.org/publications/504/full.pdf (accessed March 14, 2011).

Zeidenberg, Matthew, Davis Jenkins, and Juan Carlos Calcagno. "Do Student Success Courses Actually Help." Association for Institutional Research. Seattle, WA: Community College Research Center, 2008.

19

http://www.communitycollegecentral.org/Downloads/Developmental_Education_TOOLKIT.pdf

http://www.communitycollegecentral.org/Downloads/Developmental_Education_TOOLKIT.pdf

http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED380178.pdf

Appendix A: Group Members

Melanie Walker Assistant Professor of Developmental Math-ematics

Bergen Community College

Stephanie Fitzsimmons Director Financial Aid Brookdale Community College

Stephen L. DiPietro Assistant to the President for Institutional Quality

Burlington County College

Alexandra Fields English Faculty and the Developmental English Coordinator


Eve Highstreet Director of Testing Camden County College

Ray Yannuzzi President, Co-Chair Camden County College

Nikkie Constantine-Guy Coordinator of Gateway to College Essex County College

Phil Linfante Dean of Educational Services Essex County College

Karen Durkin Executive Director, Institutional Research and Assessment

Gloucester County College

Chris Wahl Associate Dean, ESL/Bilingual and Devel-opmental Education

Hudson County Community Col-lege

Guy Generals Vice President of Academic Affairs Mercer County Community Col-lege

David Edwards Dean of Liberal Arts and Sciences Middlesex County College

Joann La Perla-Morales President, Co-Chair Middlesex County College

Bette M. Simmons Vice President of Student Development and Enrollment Management

County College of Morris

Janet Hubbs Assistant to the President for Institutional Quality

Ocean County College

Jaclyn Rodemann Director of Admissions and Recruitment Ocean County College

Bassel Stassis Senior Dean for Academic Affairs Passaic County Community Col-lege

Eileen Abel Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs Raritan Valley Community Col-lege

David Ross Director of First Year Experience Program Raritan Valley Community Col-lege

Ken Robell Academic Coordinator- Mathematics and Technology

Salem Community College

20

Lawrence Nespoli President New Jersey Council of County Colleges

James Davy

Casey Maliszewski

Strategic Planning Consultant

Research Assistant

James M. Davy Associates

New Jersey Council of County Colleges

Appendix B: Methodology

21

Our group’s first meeting was on December 14, 2010, at the New Jersey Council of County Colleges office in Trenton. The group decided on eight top strategies. After the meeting, a survey was sent to group members to determine the top five strategies, which were transform-ing the delivery of developmental education, improving diagnostic placement, promoting ac-countability, identifying alternatives for low performing students, and promoting best practices. The group created subgroups for each of these topics to conduct research.

A second meeting was held on January 27, 2011, to discuss the vision statement for the group. The group created some common themes for the vision statement and pieced the themes together to create a draft vision statement.

A conference call was held on February 2, 2011, to share research by the subgroups on the various strategies.

A meeting was held in Trenton on February 18, 2011. The group heard a presentation by Keith Henry from the College Board on the ACCUPLACER Diagnostic tool. The group also re-vised the vision statement and revised the wording of the strategies. The research assistant devel-oped goals and action steps for the group to react to. The group gave feedback and revisions via Google groups.

A meeting was held March 2, 2011, in Trenton to review the drafted goals and action steps. A strategy of discussing ESL pathways was added to the group’s work.

A meeting open to both Groups One and Two of the Big Ideas Project was held at Burlington County College for a presentation of the College ACCUPLACER Diagnostic pilot. The testing subgroup decided that the strategy on improving diagnostic placement would be best served under strategy one instead of as a separate strategy. A group member revised the goals and action steps for the strategy concerning alternatives for low performing students.

A meeting was held March 16, 2011, to review a first draft developed by the research as-sistant. The group decided to change the term “low-performing students” to “at risk, underpre-pared students,”which was later changed by the college presidents to “students with very low reading levels.”

A final conference call was held on March 25, 2011, to discuss any changes. Additional revisions were made and reviewed by group members via Google groups and Google docs.

22

Appendix C: Evidence-Based Best Practices

Transformative Models (Moving Away from Traditional 15-Week Models)

Course Redesign, Modularization, Self-Paced, Open Entry/Open ExitThere are some examples across the country showing that redesigning courses can signif-

icantly increase student success while improving efficiency. The National Center for Academic Transformation (NCAT) is one organization dedicated to this project. The Tennessee Board of Regents decided to pursue a grant to redesign developmental education courses at community and technical colleges through the state. Using the NCAT partnership, Cleveland State Commu-nity College in Tennessee has seen dramatic improvements with its developmental education stu-dents. After the implementation of course redesign for developmental math, completion rates in-creased from 52 percent to 65 percent for basic math, 52 percent to 70 percentfor elementary algebra, and 56 percent to 71 percent for intermediate algebra. Overall, the col-lege saved $50,000 (Twigg 2009). Other participating Tennessee colleges also reported financial savings ranging from 19 to 51 percent (Mills 2010).

The Virginia Community College System (VCCS) is also dedicating resources to re-designing developmental math and English courses. This past year, faculty members and repre-sentatives from around the state have worked together to redesign the developmental math cour-ses into 10 smaller modules. With improved diagnostic placement testing, the System’s ambition is to improve students’ placement so that they are able to complete developmental education courses more quickly (Schmidt 2010). They will fully implement the redesigned math courses in fall 2011 and will begin the English redesign process in fall 2010.

Cumberland County College is currently redesigning its entire set of developmental mathematics courses utilizing the Emporium model presented by the NCAT using a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation grant. CCC will pilot the design in spring 2011 in half of the developmental education sections, which will include approximately 500 students. In fall 2011, the College will condense a total of six developmental classes into one single modular class will no lectures. It is expected that the redesign will reduce CCC's cost per student by 25 percent – a savings of $87,000 per academic year (Westerfield 2010).

Some colleges are specifically focusing on self-paced developmental education courses. Housatonic Community College in Connecticut is piloting an open entry/open exit program for remedial math courses. The computer-based program is self-paced with instructors to facilitate learning. It is suggested for students who are not comfortable with the pace of a traditional class-room and enables student to complete their developmental math requirements in less than one se-mester (Housatonic Community College 2010).

Acceleration, Fast Track ProgramsThere is strong evidence to support that acceleration results in higher success rates for

students. At Community College of Baltimore County’s Accelerated Learning Program (ALP), students enroll in a developmental education English course while simultaneously completing

23

English I. The results indicate that students were able to accelerate their progress. 82% of ALP students completed their English I course within one year, as opposed to only 69% of non-ALP students. Additionally, the college saved $442 per ALP student, indicating that this is a sustain-able model. Another successful implementation of the acceleration model is from Community College of Denver, where students enroll in 2 levels of developmental reading, writing, and mathematics in the same semester (students complete the first levels of each subject in the first half of the semester, and the second level in the second half of the semester). Both student suc-cess and retention were higher for accelerated students. Only 61.5% of non-accelerated students successfully completed 6 developmental education courses, whereas 93.5% of accelerated stu-dents did so. Only 50% of non-accelerated students were retained the semester after completing 6 developmental education courses, whereas 100% of accelerated students were retained.

Other Best Practices

Learning CommunitiesLearning communities are a well-established student success strategy, particularly for

high risk student populations, such as ESL students and developmental education students. Kingsborough Community College in New York City participated in a MDRC learning commu-nity demonstration study where students were randomly assigned into a learning community and a control group. KCC found that the learning community group had impressive results. Students felt more integrated and better engaged than the control group. Learning community students at-tempted and passed more courses during their first semester and moved more quickly through their developmental English requirements (Scrivener, et al. 2008).

ContextualizationContextualization is gaining popularity as a way to better engage students in learning and

increase student success. In Washington, 10 community and technical colleges launched a pro-gram called the Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training program (I-BEST). The program paired adult basic education or ESL instructors in the classroom with instructors to teach occupa-tional skills. Studies revealed that students in the I-BEST program were more likely than other students to:

a. continue onto college level work;b. earn credits that count toward a college credential;c. earn occupational certificates, andd. gain points on basic skills tests (Jenkins, Zeidenberg and Kienzl 2009).

Student Success CoursesStudent success or developmental courses are also becoming a widely recognized tool for

improving student success. These courses are often at least one credit and offer students informa-tion on time management skills, study skills, note taking skills, how to use resources on campus, etc. One study by the Community College Research Center found that of students who had taken a student success course, non-developmental education students were 9 percent more likely to complete a credential and developmental education students had a 5 percent increase in the like-lihood of completing a credential (Zeidenberg, Jenkins, & Calcagno 2008). Many colleges and states are recognizing the value of these courses and are implementing them as mandatory cour-ses. In Virginia, one recommendation from the Developmental Education Task Force was to cre-

24

ate a student development course targeted toward students in developmental education courses (Virginia Developmental Education Force 2009). Beginning in fall 2011, all developmental edu-cation students will be required to take this course within their first year (Schmidt 2010). The Florida Department of Education piloted a Student Life Skills course for students during their first semester. Both general education and developmental education students who completed the courses were found to be more likely to earn a college credential, transfer to a four-year univer-sity, or remain continuously enrolled for five years. Florida now requires all developmental edu-cation students to enroll in the Student Life Skills course (Collins 2009).

Intrusive Advising and Predictive Models/Early Warning Systems to Target InterventionsUsing student support services can be critical to students who need the assistance, but

what about the students who will never seek those services out? Intrusive advising is more ac-tively assessing students’ advising needs and aggressive in making sure students’ needs are ad-dressed. The following are reasons why intrusive advising works: “A) Students who know that an academic advisor will contact them are more motivated to keep up with their work; B) Finan-cial worries, which account for a large percentage of student attrition are of less concern to stu-dents who are advised and helped to fill out their application; C) Intrusive advising provides the necessary nexus to make connections to the university retention services; and D) Referrals to needed student services, along with the ongoing attention which informs students that someone at the University cares about them, are the major contributions of intrusive advising” (Holmes).

Predictive models use data to provide information to colleges to intervene for at risk stu-dents. According to one study by the Education Advisory Board (Venit 2008), there are four pri-mary models for early intervention. First is the analysis of applicants’ personal statements. Re-sponse tactics include referring high risk students to support systems. This strategy has been shown to accurately predict the highest risk students in an incoming class. The second strategy is a mandatory freshman risk survey, where students fill out a survey. Response tactics include: “Instant e-advisement upon survey completion; Outreach by support offices to students with cor-responding risk flags; Automatic advising appointment referral” (p.4). Research shows that col-leges that use this strategy have seen at least a 2 percent gain in student persistence. The third strategy is freshman class absence tracking, which is setting up an electronic system to alert the college when a student is repeatedly absent. After three absences, the student receives the follow-ing responses: “’Soft’ check-in by RA explaining the importance of class attendance; Check-in from First-Year Seminar professor; and Letter from academic advising with support informa-tion” (p. 4). Results have been a 3 to 7 percent gain in student persistence and overall higher stu-dent GPA’s. The last model does not yet have results, but is the sophisticated student retention data analyses model: “Predictive scoring of students’ likelihood to persist generated from large sets of student data” (p. 4). Scores that are generated are used in a variety of intervention re-sponses.

Supplemental InstructionSupplemental instruction (SI) is when trained SI tutors lead subgroups within a class to

provide additional academic assistance. Research suggests that supplemental instruction may help improve the success of developmental education students. One study following 90 develop-mental mathematics courses suggested that students who participated in SI were more likely to score higher on exams and more likely to pass the course (Wright, Wright, and Lamb, 2002).

25

Service LearningThe incorporation of service learning curriculum within developmental courses may offer

another means of retaining developmental students and first-year college students. Service learn-ing courses require students to develop engaging partnerships within the community by applying skills taught in the courses to service activities that meet local community needs. Service learn-ing has gained popularity in recent years at both two-year and four-year institutions because of the many positive outcomes that these programs have on student achievement. Specifically, ser-vice learning experiences result in “enhanced learning and academic engagement for students…and contribute to overall satisfaction with college” as well as higher levels of satisfaction with personal development (Bringle, Hatcher, and Muthiah 2010). Moreover, service learning courses also positively impact students’ plans to “persist and return to the same campus” (Bringle, Hatcher, and Muthiah 2010). Although much research supports the positive correlation between service learning experiences and student satisfaction, less research has been conducted on its im-pact on the retention of developmental students.

However, in one community college study at Miami-Dade College, students in develop-mental courses that incorporated service learning into the curriculum had higher retention in fu-ture semesters than students who did not participate in service learning experiences (Prentice 2009). Thus incorporating service learning into first year college course work and developmental coursework may lead to positive gains in both student satisfaction and student persistence and re-tention.

Collaborative Learning/Project Based LearningCollaborative learning is when a class breaks into smaller groups to facilitate discussion

and learning among peers. Project based learning requires students to pick a topic which interests them and focuses the students’ energy on building skills through this project. Colleges that have implemented such collaborative, project based learning courses have had great success. The Dig-ital Bridge Academy (DBA) at Cabrillo College requires students to pick a social justice issue and break into teams to research the topic. This project becomes “a springboard for motivated study in the ‘feeder’ courses that surround the project: literacy, computer applications, team-work, movement and career planning” (Epper and Baker 2009, p. 6). After one full-time semes-ter of integrated courses, students enroll in college level courses. “DBA students showed in-creased GPAs (3.7 compared to 1.7) and a higher persistence rate in their subsequent semester (50% compared to 28%)” (p. 6).

26

Aligning Expectations Between K-12 and Community Colleges

Action Plan for ImplementationPrepared by Group Two of the Big Ideas Project

August 2011


Phone: (609) 392-3434Fax: (609) 392-8158


27







28

Table of Contents

Executive Summary…………………………………………………………. 31

Background………………….………………………………………….…… 32

Group Charge and Vision Statement……………..….…………………….... 33

Strategies, Goals, and Success Indicators…………………………………… 34

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………… 37

Charge to Affinity Groups…………………………………………………… 38

Appendices……………………………………………………………………

References and Reviewed Research…………………………………. 39

Appendix A: Group Members………………………………….......... 42

Appendix B: Methodology……………………………………........... 44

29

Executive Summary

In New Jersey, approximately 70 percent of students entering a community college must take at least one developmental education4 course (New Jersey Commission on Higher Educa-tion, 2010). There is clearly a gap in expectations between exiting high school and entering col-lege. Reducing the need for remediation in college is a critical step to increasing student success. Though this mission may not be an easy one, it is imperative that community colleges work to-gether with K-12 institutions and state leaders to align expectations between K-12 and commu-nity colleges. Aligning expectations will result in benefits for our students, our colleges, and our state.

The following are six strategies (see Figure 1 for visual representation) our group has out-lined as recommended steps to pursuing aligned expectations between K-12 and community col-leges:

Strategy #1: Collaborate with School Districts to Expand Implementation of College Readiness Assessments at the High School Level.

Strategy #2: Collaborate with School Districts to Expand Implementation of Strategic Inter-ventions to Improve College Readiness.

Strategy #3: Collaborate with the New Jersey Department of Education and Local School Dis-tricts on Implementation of Common Core State Standards and the Selected High School Assessment Tool.

.Strategy #4: Collaborate with School Districts in Aligning High School Common Core with

Higher Education Curriculum and Learning Outcomes.

Strategy #5: Collaborate with School Districts to Create High-Quality Professional Develop-ment Programs for Language Arts and Mathematics for Teachers.

Strategy # 6: Create County-Based College and Career Readiness Coalitions to Improve Student Success.

4 In this report, both “remedial” and “developmental education” refer to English and math courses that prepare students for college-level work. These courses cannot be applied to graduation credits.

30

Background

Every year, thousands of New Jersey students graduate high school and enter community colleges, yet a large number of those students are not college and career ready. Approximately 70 percent of students entering a community college must take at least one developmental educa-tion course (New Jersey Commission on Higher Education, 2010). Clearly, a gap exists in expec-tations between meeting high school requirements and arriving prepared to succeed in college.

There are severe consequences to this expectations gap. If students are not college ready upon entering community college, they must take developmental education courses to gain col-lege-level skills. This slows down students’ education, costs a great deal to students, colleges, and the government, and puts students at a much greater risk of dropping out of college. It is esti-mated that between $1.88 and $2.35 billion5 is spent nationwide for developmental education at community colleges (Strong American Schools 2008).

The Alliance for Excellent Education (2006) estimates that New Jersey would save $44.8 million if the need for remediation was eliminated. Thus, there are remarkable potential savings for New Jersey if the need for remediation were reduced for students coming from K-12. Re-search indicates that success rates are much lower for students needing remediation. According to one study by the Community College Research Center, fewer than 25 percent of students needing remediation move on to complete a community college credential within eight years (Bailey 2009, p. 14).………

As the community college sector moves forward in its efforts to align expectations, the Common Core State Standards will be a crucial part of this process. These common standards were developed as an initiative led by the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Coun-cil of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). These voluntary standards, which New Jersey for-mally adopted in 2010, are aligned with college and career expectations. The implementation process is currently underway in New Jersey.6 In addition to the Common Core State Standards, there is a common assessment tool being developed by two national consortia. New Jersey is part of the Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) consor-tium. This common assessment tool will be implemented in the 2014-2015 school year.

Reducing the need for remediation in college is critical to goals of increasing student success. Though this mission may not be an easy one, it is imperative that community colleges work to-gether with K-12 and state leaders to align expectations between K-12 and community colleges.

Aligning expectations will result in benefits for our students, our colleges, and our state.

5 These costs are a combination of tuition and fees ($513-642 million) and subsidies derived from state appropriations, private gifts, and returns on investments ($1.37-1.71 billion).6 The K-12 language arts standards will be implemented by September 2012. The mathematics standards will be implemented in stages: K-2 will be implemented in September 2011, 3-5 and high school will be implemented in September 2012, and 6-8 will be implemented in September 2013.

31


Group Charge

New Jersey’s community college presidents recognize that aligning expectations between community colleges and K-12 is one of the top priorities for the future success of New Jersey’s community colleges. The main thrust of this priority is to improve college readiness and student success in developmental education.

In New Jersey, approximately 70 percent of students who enter community colleges must take at least one developmental education courses to help them prepare for college-level work. Research shows that less than 25 percent of students who take developmental education courses go on to complete a college credential within eight years. Helping these high-risk students is a crucial element in the effort to further the completion agenda. Aligning expectations between K-12 and community colleges will have a large impact on reducing the need for remediation. In ad-dition, improving communication about college expectations to high school students will enable them to be better prepared for college-level work.

The presidents created a work group (see Appendix A for group members) chaired by Dr. Peter Contini of Salem Community College, Dr. Patricia Donohue of Mercer County Community College, and Dr. Jeremiah Ryan of Bergen Community College to focus on creating aligned ex-pectations between K-12 and community colleges. Their charge was as follows:

To develop a plan to provide a seamless transition from middle school and high school to community college. This seamless transition will define a process whereby expectations are fully communicated to middle and high school students. The plan will also address the ways students will graduate from high school better prepared for college work and with a better understanding of what will be expected of them at institutions of higher education.

The planning process of the group (methodology) is documented in Appendix B. During the planning process, the work group developed the following vision statement.

Vision Statement

Seamless curricular alignment from high school to community college leads to improved college and career readiness and greater student success. All of the community colleges are com-mitted to an institutional/strategic commitment to make college and career readiness a priority and to collaborate with K-12 and other strategic stakeholders to make it happen. Alignment is a vehicle for curriculum development, focused on language arts and mathematics. Students are provided with and participate in timely opportunities for college and career readiness interven-tions.

32


Strategy #1: Collaborate with School Districts to Expand Implementationof College Readiness Assessments at the High School Level.

Goal #1: Increase common college readiness assessments in high schools by Spring 2012.

Success Indicators for Strategy #1:1. Early assessment has expanded by both number of schools and number of stu-

dents tested. 2. Assessment data is fully communicated to high schools.

Strategy #2: Collaborate with School Districts to Expand Strategic Interventions to Im-prove College Readiness.

Goal #1: Expand strategic interventions to improve college readiness by Spring 2012.

Success Indicators for Strategy #2:1. Early strategic interventions to improve college readiness have expanded. 2. Fewer students need remediation in college.

Strategy #3: Collaborate with the New Jersey Department of Education (NJDOE) and Lo-cal School Districts on Implementation of Common Core State Standards and the Selected High School Assessment Tool.

Note: Goals for this Strategy will emerge as discussions with the New Jersey De-partment of Education and local school districts gets more fully underway.

Strategy #4: Collaborate with School Districts in Aligning High School Common Core Curriculum with Higher Education Curriculum and Learning Outcomes.

Goal #1: Support a curriculum that aligns the Common Core State Standards and learn-ing outcomes with and college readiness.

Goal #2: Align placement process from secondary to postsecondary institutions.

Goal #3: Community colleges and/or Readiness coalitions initiate and continue dialog between K-12 and college stakeholders to align performance expectations for college and career readiness.

Success Indicators for Strategy #4:a. Meetings between K-12 and the community colleges occur on an ongoing ba-

sis to assess collaboration and progress.

33

b. Alignment results facilitate evaluation and the implementation of the Com-mon Core State Standards and student learning outcomes.

c. Assessments lead to measures to improve pedagogy and student learning.d. Assessment is used in curriculum development and planning.

Strategy #5: Collaborate to Create High-Quality Professional Development Programs Re-lated to Common Core State Standards for Language Arts and Mathematics for Teachers.

Goal # 1: Collaborate with local districts to create ways the community colleges might support and or deliver high-quality professional development programs that address teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical needs, defining the knowledge and skills to teach for mastery.

Goal #2: Structure professional development programs in collaboration with local dis-tricts on instruction and student outcomes specific to district needs.

Goal # 3: In collaboration with local districts, build professional development programs that prepare teachers to design lesson plans that meet the Common Core State Standards.

Success Indicators for Strategy #5:a. A needs-based professional development program is established and im-

proved based on continuous needs assessment. b. Professional development initiatives result in a sustainable, long-term ap-

proach to improved teaching and learning as measured by student data and teacher attitudes.

c. Professional development programs support the interactions of state and school policy with curriculum initiatives as measured by teacher responses to professional development activities.

d. Funding is obtained for increased professional development.

Strategy #6: Create County-Based College and Career Readiness Coalitions to Improve Student Success.

Goal #1: Build a statewide common vision for College and Career Readiness Coalitions in collaboration with state leaders, including the New Jersey Department of Education and New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development by Fall 2011.

Goal #2: County college presidents partner with executive county superintendents and district superintendents to create the College and Career Readiness Coalitions by Fall 2011.

Goal #3: College and Career Readiness Coalitions prepare action plans linked to Strate-gies #2 through #6.

34

Success Indicators for Strategy #6:a. There are county-based College and Career Readiness Coalitions with developed

action plans.b. There is ongoing collaboration across the state, including the state departments

(i.e. Department of Education, etc.). c. There is diverse stakeholder involvement in each of the coalitions. d. Early diagnostic testing in high schools has expanded. Early interventions in high

schools to increase college readiness have expanded.

35

Conclusion




36





ALIGNING EXPECTATIONS BETWEEN K-12 AND COMMUNITY COLLEGES


AFFINTY GROUPS THAT WILL SUPPORT THIS BIG IDEA: STUDENT SERVICES

In order to make progress over the next academic year, the Presidents provide the following charge on Aligning Expectations between K-12 and Community Colleges.

1. By December 2011, develop an inventory of efforts across New Jersey that demonstrate collaboration with high schools to increase college readiness, including but not limited to early assessment activity, advising, concurrent enrollment, etc.

2. Assist presidents in discussions with the NJ Department of Education about K-12 alignment with higher education that might include the following:

Implementing one single common test that (a) assesses high school students on the Common Core and (b) simultaneously serves as a college placement test;

Using more extensive diagnostic assessments to better identify students’ academic strengths and weaknesses in preparation for college.

Offering bridge courses in the 12th grade directly tied to student needs, as identified by the diagnostics.

The presidents request that the Academic Officers Affinity Group provide updates on the above activities at the presidents meetings in October, February, and April and a final overall report in May 2012.

37


ACT. ACT at a Glance. Iowa City, IA: ACT, Inc. http://www.act.org/aap/pdf/glance.pdf. (accessed January 17, 2011). 2010.

ACT. A First Look at the Common Core and College and Career Readiness. Iowa City, IA: ACT, Inc. http://www.stanford.edu/group/bridgeproject/betrayingthecollegedream.pdf (accessed January 17, 2011). 2010.

ACT. College Readiness Benchmarks by Level of High School Preparation. Iowa City, IA: ACT, Inc. http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/cccr10/pdf/CollegeReadinessBenchmarks-byLevelofHighSchoolPreparation.pdf (accessed January 17, 2011). 2010.

Alliance for Excellent Education. Paying Double: Inadequate High Schools and Community College Remediation. Issue Brief, Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education, 2006.

Bailey, Thomas. "Challenge and Opportunity: Rethinking the Role and Function of Developmental Education in Community College." New Directions for Community Col-leges, 2009: 11-30.

Barnett, Elisabeth. Dual Enrollment: A Strategy for Educational Advancement of all Students. Blackboard Institute, 2010.

California State University System/University of California. Mathematics Diagnostic Testing Project. http://mdtp.ucsd.edu/ (accessed January 5, 2011). 2010.

Collins, Michael Lawrence. It's Not About the Cut Score: Redesign in Placement Assessment Policy to Improve Student Success. Achieving the Dream Policy Brief, Boston, MA: Achieving the Dream, Jobs for the Future, 2008.

Collins, Michael Lawrence. Setting Up Success in Developmental Education: How State Policy Can Help Community Colleges Improve Student Outcomes? Boston, MA: Achieving the Dream. Jobs for the Future, 2009.

Complete College America. New Jersey State Profile. Complete College America, 2009.DeHart, Mary. “Why do recent high school graduates need remediation before beginning

college-level math?” Dissertation, Graduate School of Rowan University, December 8, 2006.

Dounay, Jennifer. Landmines P-16/P-20 Councils Encounter - How They Can Be Addressed (or Avoided Altogether). Education Commission of the States. P-16 Policy Brief. http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/78/86/7886.pdf (accessed January 5, 2011). November 2008.

Dudley, Jennifer. "The Community College Student: Preparation for the Math Placement Test."Dissertation, Graduate School of Rowan University, March 31, 2010.

Dudley, Jennifer. "The Community College Student: Preparation for the Math Placement Test." New Jersey Developmental Education Initiative Meeting. Middlesex County College: New Jersey Council of County Colleges, 2010.

Freer-Weiss, Dana. "Community College Freshmen: Last In, First Out?" Journal of College Student Retention Research Theory and Practice, 6(2), 2004: 137-154.

Hughes, Katherine L. “Point of View: Dual Enrollment—Postsecondary/Secondary Partnerships to Prepare Students.” Journal of College Science Teaching. 31, 6 (July 2009): 12-13.

Howell, Jessica S., Michael Kurlaender, and Erin Grodsky. Postsecondary Preparation and

38

http://www.nsta.org/publications/browse_journals.aspx?action=issue&id=10.2505/3/jcst10_039_06

Remediation: Examining the Effect of the Early Assessment Program at California State University. http://www.stanford.edu/group/pace/PUBLICATIONS/CDP/Postsec-ondaryPreparationandRemediationEAP.pdf (accessed January 5, 2011). April 2009.

Kerrigan, Monica Reid, and Doug Slater. Collaborating to Create Change: How El Paso Community College Improved the Readiness of Its Incoming Students Through Achieving the Dream. Achieving the Dream, CCRC, and MDRC, 2010.

Kirst, Michael W., and Andrea Venezia. Improving College Readiness and Success for All Students: A Joint Responsibility Between K-12 and Postsecondary Education. Washing-ton, DC: Secretary of Education's Commission on the Future of Higher Education. 12th Issue Brief. 2006.

Kirst, Michael W., and Michael D. Usdan. The Historical Context of the Divide Between K-12 and Higher Education. In States, Schools, and Colleges: Policies to Improve Student Readiness for College and Strengthen Coordination Between Schools and Colleges. (Na-tional Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. National Center Report #09-2, November 2009), 5-22.

National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education/Southern Regional Education Board. Beyond the Rhetoric: Improving College Readiness Through Coherent State Policy. http://www.highereducation.org/reports/college_readiness/CollegeReadiness.pdf (ac-cessed January 5, 2011). June 2010.

National Evaluation of High School Transformation. Evaluation of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's High School Grants Initiative. Seattle, WA: Bill and Melinda Gates Foun-dation. http://www.gatesfoundation.org/learning/Documents/Year4Evaluation-AIRSRI.pdf (accessed January 7, 2011). 2006.

National Governors Association. Ready? Set? Go! Redesigning the American High School: Ten Steps to a State Action Agenda. http://www.nga.org/cda/files/04chairmantopten.pdf (ac-cessed January 5, 2011). 2004.

New Jersey Commission on Higher Education. Institutional Profiles. 2010. http://www.state.nj.us/highereducation/IP2010/index.html (accessed March 15, 2011).

Kober, Nancy, Diane Stark Renter. States' Progress and Challenges in Implementing Common Core State Standards. Washington, DC: Center on Educational Policy. 2011.

Krueger, Carl. June 2006. P-16 Collaboration in the States. Education Commission of the States. State Notes: P-16. http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/68/71/6871.pdf (accessed January 5, 2011). June 2006.

League of Innovation for Community Colleges. Significant Discussions: A Guide for Secondary and Postsecondary Curriculum Alignment. http://www.league.org/league/projects/Signif-icant_Discussions/files/SignificantDiscussions2.pdf (accessed January 11, 2011). 2011.

New Jersey Council of County Colleges. Model of Student Success. 2010.Sheppard, Rebecca. "K-12 Alignment Survey." New Jersey: New Jersey Developmental

Education Initiative Subcommittee on K-12 Partnerships, 2010.Strong American Schools. Diploma to Nowhere.

http://www.deltacostproject.org/resources/pdf/DiplomaToNowhere.pdfm (accessed Janu-ary 11, 2011). 2008.

Venezia, Andrea, Michael Kirst, Anthony Antonio. Betraying the College Dream: How Disconnected K-12 and Postsecondary Education Systems Undermine Student Aspira-tions. Final Report in Stanford's Bridge Project. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University.

39

http://www.deltacostproject.org/resources/pdf/DiplomaToNowhere.pdfm

http://www.league.org/league/projects/Significant_Discussions/files/SignificantDiscussions2.pdf

http://www.league.org/league/projects/Significant_Discussions/files/SignificantDiscussions2.pdf

http://www.highereducation.org/reports/college_readiness/CollegeReadiness.pdf

http://www.stanford.edu/group/pace/PUBLICATIONS/CDP/PostsecondaryPreparationandRemediationEAP.pdf

http://www.stanford.edu/group/pace/PUBLICATIONS/CDP/PostsecondaryPreparationandRemediationEAP.pdf

http://www.stanford.edu/group/bridgeproject/betrayingthecollegedream.pdf (accessed January 18, 2011).

Venezia, Andrea, Kathy Reeves Bracco, and Thad Nodine. One Shot Deal? Students' Perceptions of Assessment and Course Placement in California's Community Colleges. San Francisco, CA: WestEd. http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/OneShotDeal.pdf (ac-cessed January 18, 2011). 2010.

Virginia Developmental Education Task Force. The Turning Point: Developmental Education inVirginia's Community Colleges. Report of Developmental Education Task Force, Vir-ginia Community College System, 2009.

Walsh, Erin J. “P-16 Policy Alignment in the States: Findings from a 50-State Survey.” In States, Schools, and Colleges: Policies to Improve Student Readiness for College and Strengthen Coordination Between Schools and Colleges. (National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. National Center Report #09-2, November 2009), 23-34.


40

Robert Bumpus Executive County Superintendent for Salem and Gloucester Counties

NJ Department of Education

Ralph Choonoo Associate Dean of Students Bergen Community College

G. Jeremiah Ryan President, Co-Chair Bergen Community College

Edward Johnson Director of the Higher Education Center Brookdale Community College

John Polomano Director of School and Community Partnerships Burlington County College

Leigh Bello de Castro Assistant Dean, Academic Foundations Essex County College

Patricia Donohue President, Co-Chair Mercer County Community College

Yvonne Greenbaun Mathematics Faculty Mercer County Community College

Monica Weaver Dean and Provost – James Kerney Campus Mercer County Community College

Maria DeLucia Chair of the Mathematics Department Middlesex County College

Dwight Smith Vice President of Academic Affairs County College of Morris

Megan Springsted Recruitment Coordinator Ocean County College

Betsy Marinace Executive Director of Enrollment Management Passaic County Community College

Jaché Williams Admissions Counselor Raritan Valley Community College

William H. Clark, Jr. Executive Assistant to the President/Director of Public Relations

Salem Community College

Peter Contini President, Co-Chair Salem Community College

Amy Shew Director of Institutional Research and Planning Salem Community College

Kate Douglas Vice President of Academic Affairs Sussex County Community College

Elisa Donovan Senior Professor, English/Modern Language/Fine Arts

Union County College

Lawrence Nespoli President New Jersey Council of County Colleges

James M. Davy Strategic Planning Consultant James M. Davy Associates

Casey Maliszewski Research Assistant New Jersey Council of County Colleges

41

Appendix B: MethodologyOur group’s first meeting was on December 17, 2010, at Mercer County Community Col-

lege. After a discussion, the group decided to focus on five strategies: developing P-16 councils, aligning curricula with Common Core (which are aligned to college readiness standards), early assessment, early interventions to improve college readiness, and qualified teaching. Our group

42

members worked together to contribute and review relevant research in each area of the five strategies.

Our next meeting was on January 19, 2011, at the New Jersey Council of County Col-leges office in Trenton. The group reviewed and discussed the research findings and decided what further research was needed.

The following meeting was on February 18, 2011, also at the New Jersey Council of County Colleges office in Trenton. Keith Henry from the College Board gave a presentation on the new ACCUPLACER Diagnostic tool and how it can be used in high schools for early assess-ment and guiding interventions. The group worked on finalizing a vision statement and outlining the goals for each of the strategies.

Our group held a conference call on February 22, 2011 with individuals from El Paso Community College in Texas, a national leader in comprehensive approaches to reducing the need for remediation by working closely with high schools. Participants in the call included Den-nis Brown (Vice President of Instruction), Irma Camacho (Director of Student Success), Lydia Tena (Dean of Instructional Programs), Claude Mathis (Dean), Lucy Michal (Mathematics In-structor), Shirley Gilbert (Special Assistant to the President), and Joyce Ritchey (Dean).

A conference call among group members was held on March 1, 2011, to develop the goals of the second strategy.

The next group meeting was on March 4, 2011. The group worked on the action plan by developing goals and success indicators for the second strategy and developing action steps for the first strategy. At this meeting, P-16 councils were changed to College and Career Readiness Councils. The fourth strategy was changed to address Common Core implementation, and an ad-ditional strategy was added to address the development of curriculum and learning standards.

A conference call was held on March 11, 2011 to review strategy one, finalize goals, ac-tion steps, and success indicators for strategies five and six developed by a subgroup, and to de-velop action steps and success indicators for strategy two.

A final meeting was held on March 15th, 2011 to review a draft of the plan. Group mem-bers contributed additional feedback on the draft via Google groups.

Several meetings were held with New Jersey Department of Education Acting Commis-sioner Rochelle Hendricks. A meeting with Acting Commissioner Chris Cerf was also held on March 18, 2011. The purpose of these meetings was to discuss points of collaboration between the New Jersey Department of Education and New Jersey’s community colleges.

43

Creating Student Success Data

Action Plan for ImplementationPrepared by Group Three of the Big Ideas Project

August 2011


Phone: (609) 392-3434Fax: (609) 392-8158



The mission of New Jersey’s 19 community colleges is to provide high-quality transfer programs, occupational programs, continuing education courses, business support services, and

44

community service programs at a reasonably low cost in response to local and statewide needs. New Jersey’s community colleges annually serve 400,000 students.




In all 2009, the Trustees and Presidents agreed that the community colleges should pur-sue research to find the best and boldest ideas to promote sustainability, maintain or improve quality, and, most significantly, improve student success. Several task forces were created to conduct that research, and white papers were delivered in late Summer 2010. Guided by these white papers, the Trustees and Presidents identified eight key statewide priorities in Fall 2010 and charged eight workgroups to develop action plans for implementing these “Big Ideas.” Coor-dinated by the New Jersey Council of County Colleges, each workgroup was co-chaired by com-munity college presidents and included representatives from all New Jersey community colleges. Their recommendations, as amended and approved by the presidents in June 2011, are presented in this report.

45

Table of Contents


Background………………….………………………………………….…… 49


Strategies and Goals……….……......………………………………………. 51

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………… 52

Charge to Affinity Groups………………………………………………….. 53

Appendices…………………………………………………………………..

References………………………………………………………………. 54

Appendix A: Group Members…………………………………………... 55

Appendix B: Methodology…………………………………………….... 56

Appendix C: Student Success Model: 2002-2008 Cohort..…………….. 57

Appendix D: Revised Student Success Model………………………….. 58

46

Executive Summary

Traditionally, community colleges’ core mission has been centered on one word: access.Yet with stagnant two-year college graduation rates of less than 50 percent, and an increasing ed-ucational demand in the workplace, it is clear that access is no longer enough. Instead, commu-nity colleges across the country are adopting a new mission with access to success at its core.

The original New Jersey student success model measured success over a six-year period and included three indicators: graduation, transfer prior to earning a degree, and earning 30 or more college credits with a GPA of 2.0 or higher. However, this model still left the community college sector with further questions regarding student success. Why did so many students fail to earn even a single college credit? Are they being lost during developmental education courses? What barriers exist to student success? These questions prompted this group’s charge to create a more comprehensive student success model, one that included metrics on progression through developmental education and disaggregated success measures by: a. students who enter commu-nity college prepared for college level work; b. students who require developmental education; and c. English as a second language (ESL) students.

The following are the primary strategy and goals that our group has outlined as recom-mended steps to improving student success data within New Jersey:

Strategy #1: Develop a more comprehensive student success model that considers entering stu-dent skill level impact on success within a defined period of time.

Goal #1: Create a common data collection process with operational definitions that align with emerging national models of student success (Achieving the Dream and the Voluntary Framework of Accountability, for example) by September 2011.

Goal #2: Establish pilot of revised student success model (using IR Affinity Group subcommittee members’ colleges and ATD colleges) by October 2011.

Goal #3: Fully implement the model statewide by end of January 2012. Goal #4: Incorporate student success data model in assessment and benchmarking of colleges’ commitment to student success.

Goal #5: Use data to track long-term improvement of the sector. Assess long term sector-wide impact using the student success data model (valuable to policymakers, presidents, and other campus leaders).

Goal #6: Three-year reassessment of the model by Spring 2015.

47

Background

Traditionally, community colleges’ core mission has been centered on one word: access.Yet with stagnant two-year college graduation rates of less than 50 percent, and increasing edu-cational demands in the workplace, it is clear that access is no longer enough. Instead, commu-nity colleges across the country are adopting a new mission with access to success at its core.

While definitions for student success vary widely, common measures adopted by the sec-tor in 2009 include completion of a college credential, transferring without a degree, or earning 30 degree credits with a GPA of 2.0 or higher within six years of initial enrollment. Data on the 2002 entering cohort revealed that in 2008 (at the end of a six-year period) of the 29,436 first-time, degree-seeking freshmen enrolled in New Jersey’s community colleges, 20.1 percent earned a degree or certificate, 14.1 percent transferred without a credential, and 12.9 percent earned 30 college degree credits within a six-year time frame (see Appendix C). While 47.2 per-cent of students achieved one of the student success measures, more than half did not. Further analysis indicates that of the 15,553 students who did not achieve a student success indicator, 2,839 full-time students and 1,997 part-time students did not earn a single college credit.

This model still left the community college sector with further questions regarding stu-dent progress and success. Why did so many students fail to earn even a single college credit? Are they being lost during developmental education courses? What barriers exist to student suc-cess? These questions and others prompted this group’s charge to create a more comprehensive student success model, one that included metrics on progression through developmental educa-tion and disaggregated success measures by: a. students who enter community college prepared for college level work; b. students who require developmental education; and c. ESL students (see Appendix D).…………………………………………………

48


Group ChargeNew Jersey’s community college presidents recognize that improving student success

data collection is one of the top priorities for the future success of New Jersey’s community col-leges. The main thrust of this priority is to identify what data is needed to assess student success within the State of New Jersey and to develop an implementation plan for collecting and sharing student success data.

Previous models of student success have only looked at graduation rates within a three-year cohort, which is an inadequate measure considering our diverse student populations. Re-cently developed by the New Jersey Council of County Colleges, the new Student Success Model goes a step further and looks at success indicators of graduation rates, transfer rates and earning 30 or more college credits with a GPA of 2.0 or higher. Analyzing strong, longitudinal data is imperative to understanding the progress of student completion at New Jersey’s commu-nity colleges.

The presidents created a work group chaired by Dr. Will Austin of Warren County Com-munity College and Dr. Casey Crabill of Raritan Valley Community College to focus on improv-ing student success data collection and the public reporting thereof.

The charge to the work group is to identify what data indicators constitute student suc-cess (including student success within developmental education and after community college, such as after transferring to a four- year university and in the labor market) and create a plan on how to collect and share the data within the state. Having transparent student success data will ensure that all 19 community colleges have a clear understanding of student progress, which will enable the identification of best practices and benchmarking indicators.

The planning process of the group (methodology) is documented in Appendix B.

Vision StatementOur work in developing a comprehensive student success model impacts students,

faculty, and the New Jersey community college sector by providing a standardized bar from which all colleges are able to measure student success. There is reliable, comparable outcome data for faculty and other support staff members to inform work on improving programs. Students have access to accurate information about student success of comparable level. Colleges are able to improve programs to achieve greater student success based on strategies developed from this data. This outcome data informs our communication with state leaders, policymakers, and the community.

49


Strategy #1: Develop a more comprehensive student success model (see Appendix D) that considers entering student skill-level impact on success within a defined pe-riod of time.

SHORT TERM GOALS:

Goal #1: Create a common data collection process with operational definitions that align with emerging national models of student success (Achieving the Dream and the Voluntary Framework of Accountability, for example) by September 2011.

Goal #2: Establish pilot of revised student success model (using IR Affinity Group subcommittee members’ colleges and ATD colleges) by October 2011.

Goal #3: Fully implement the model statewide by end of January 2012.

LONG TERM GOALS:

Goal #4: Incorporate student success data model in assessment and benchmarking of colleges’ commitment to student success.

Goal #5: Use data to track long-term improvement of the sector. Assess long term sector-wide impact using the student success data model (valuable to policymakers, presidents, and other campus leaders).

Goal #6: Three-year reassessment of the model by Spring 2015.

Success Indicators:a. There is a common definition of student success in the state and a common

set of measures that is more inclusive than the current model. All 19 colleges are able to describe the success of their students (disaggregated by college readiness, developmental education, and ESL).

b. The data helps colleges measure the impact of changes in programs and services on student success.

c. The model ensures good communication among the sector and state leaders, policymakers, and the community on student success.

50

Conclusion




51





CREATING STUDENT SUCCESS DATA

AFFINTY GROUP WITH PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH

AFFINTY GROUPS THAT WILL SUPPORT THIS BIG IDEA: ACADEMIC AFFAIRS

In order to make progress over the next academic year, the Presidents provide the following charge on Creating Student Success Data.

1. Create a common data collection process and calendar ensuring operational definitions that align with emerging national models for assessing student success (Achieving the Dream, Voluntary Framework of Accountability, etc.).

2. Produce a pilot report using the revised student success model. Once the presidents have reviewed the pilot, establish a calendar to implement the model statewide.

3. Recommend a process to incorporate the student success data into assessment of progress on increasing student success.

The presidents request that the Institutional Research Affinity Group provide updates on the above activities at the presidents meetings in October and February with a final written report in April 2012.

52

References

Achieving the Dream. Achieving the Dream Database. 2011. http://www.achievingthedream.org/DATARESEARCH/DATATOOLSRESOURCESRE-SOURCES/achievingthedreamdatabase.tp (accessed March 15, 2011).

American Association of Community Colleges. Call to Action. April 20, 2010.http://www.aacc.nche.edu/newsevents/News/articles/Documents/callaction_04202010.pdf. (accessed July 29, 2010).

American Association Community College. Voluntary Framework of Accountability. 2010. http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Resources/aaccprograms/vfa/Pages/default.aspx (accessed March 5, 2011).

Fulton, Mary. State Reporting on Developmental Education Analysis of Finding. Education Commission of the States: Getting Past Go Project. 2010. http://www.ecs.org/clearing-house/85/27/8527.pdf (accessed March 15, 2011).

National Community College Benchmarking Project. Benchmarks. 2010. http://www.nccbp.org/content/benchmarks (accessed March 5, 2011).

New Jersey Council of County Colleges. Model of Student Success. 2010.New Jersey Developmental Education Initiative IR Subgroup. Proposed Indicators. 2010. Reyna, Ryan. Common College Completion Metrics. National Governors Association. 2010.

http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/1007COMMONCOLLEGEMETRICS.PDF (accessed March 15, 2011).

Vandal, Bruce. Getting Past Go: Rebuilding the Remedial Education Bridge to College Success. Education Commission of the States. 2010. http://www.gettingpastgo.org/docs/GPGpa-per.pdf (accessed March 14, 2011).

53


Paula R. Pitcher Assistant Dean, Institutional Research & As-sessment

Atlantic Cape Community College

Peter Dlugos Vice President of Research, Planning, Assess-ment, and Quality

Bergen Community College

Karen L. Archambault Director of Student Services, Branch Campus & Higher Education Centers

Brookdale Community College

Max Slusher Executive Director, Institutional Effectiveness and Research,


Margaret A. Hamilton Vice President of Academic Affairs Camden County College

Maud Fried-Goodnight Executive Director, Center for Academic and Student Success

Cumberland County College

Jacqueline Galbiati Vice President, Academic Affairs and Enroll-ment Services


Renita Ragan Director, College Yes Program Essex County College

Elena Nehrebecki Director of ESL/Bilingual Program Hudson County Community College

Gurvinder Khaneja Executive Director of Institutional Re-search and Planning,

Passaic County Community College

Casey Crabill President, Co-Chair Raritan Valley Community College

Joanne K. Damminger Dean of Student Affairs Salem Community College

Wallace E. Smith Vice President for Academic Affairs Union County College

Will Austin President, Co-Chair Warren County Community College

Linda Lam Vice President/Policy Research Officer New Jersey Council of County Col-leges


Casey Maliszewski Research Assistant New Jersey Council of County Col-leges


54

An initial conference call was held December 7, 2010, to introduce group members and discuss and finalize the group’s charge. The implementation plan template and timeline was also reviewed.

The first group meeting was held January 14, 2011, at Raritan Valley Community Col-lege. The purpose of this meeting was to outline data indicators for the revised student success model. Relevant research was reviewed, including Achieving the Dream and National Commu-nity College Benchmarking Project models. A proposed template of the revised student success model was created. This initial template was shared by group members to the IR Affinity Group for comments.

A conference call was held February 8, 2011. Group members shared the IR Affinity Group’s reactions and suggestions. The group discussed changes to the model. Group members further revised the model making it more comprehensive and brought it back to the IR Affinity Group for further comments.

An additional meeting was held on March 4, 2011, at the New Jersey Council of County Colleges office in Trenton. The revised student success model was reviewed by the group. Then, the group outlined goals and action steps.

The group’s first draft of the action plan was drafted by the research assistant and re-viewed via Google groups. A final conference call was held on March 18, 2011, to discuss the first draft and make any additional changes. A final draft was reviewed via Google groups.

55

Appendix C: 2010 Student Success Model

56

Appendix D: Revised Student Success Model

57

Promoting Adjunct Faculty Development

Action Plan for ImplementationPrepared by Group Four of the Big Ideas Project

August 2011


Phone: (609) 392-3434Fax: (609) 392-8158


61







62

Table of Contents

Executive Summary……………………………………………………………. 65

Background………………….………………………………………….……… 66

Group Charge and Vision Statement……………..….……………………........ 67

Strategies, Goals, and Success Indicators……………………………………… 68

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………69

Charge to Affinity Groups………………………………………………………70

Appendices……………………………………………………………………...

References…………………………………………………………………. 72

Appendix A: Group Members…………………………………………...... 73

Appendix B: Methods...............................……………………………........ 74

Appendix C: Survey and Summary of Results…………………………….. 75

63

Executive Summary

The majority of faculty at New Jersey’s Community Colleges are employed part-time and their ranks are growing. Identifying, training, and retaining these diverse faculty, many of whom teach at multiple institutions, is an essential component of providing quality instruction for our students. Working collaboratively across the state to develop the mechanisms to ensure that ad-junct faculty have the resources to successfully teach will benefit both the students as well as the community colleges that these faculty serve.

To achieve these objectives, this group has identified two key strategies with supporting goals to be undertaken through collaboration among the 19 community colleges.

Strategy #1: Develop a statewide credential and adjunct faculty orientation program to provide professional development for the adjunct faculty who work in the New Jersey community college sector.

Goal #1: Design a statewide Credential Program and orientation checklist for ad-junct faculty.

Goal #2: Develop a job bank infrastructure where adjuncts who complete steps in the Credential Program can be identified for potential teaching assignments.

Strategy #2: Develop a program for sharing and supporting best practices related to instruction methods and practices for adjunct faculty.

Goal #1: Develop a statewide mentoring model for adjunct faculty that may be replicated by the individual community colleges.

Goal #2: Develop a statewide online infrastructure for disseminating best prac-tices to adjunct faculty.

Goal #3: Develop an annual regional best practices conference for adjunct faculty focused on high-quality and innovative instructional delivery methods.

64

Background

The majority of instruction at New Jersey’s community colleges is provided by part-time (adjunct) faculty. While this is not a new phenomenon at community colleges, adjunct use has steadily increased over the past decade and is not likely to slow. As of 2009, there were approxi-mately 7,400 adjunct faculty working across the state. Although these individuals have the ap-propriate academic credentials, many have not had prior college teaching experience. These new faculty often have little experience working with the diverse populations found in New Jersey’s community colleges or knowledge of pedagogy and classroom management. At the same time, these new faculty are often hired last-minute and are challenged to orient themselves to the basic campus resources and office policies.

The good work of adjunct faculty should not go unrecognized. Evaluation and perfor-mance assessment will address both the quality of instruction and the need to recognize the work of adjunct faculty. It is crucial that these essential faculty members are made to feel – by both the institution and the full-time faculty – that they are an integral part of the whole in the business of educating students.

Community college students are often non-traditional and diverse with varying degrees of educational preparation. Therefore, it is crucial that training be available so that instructors can provide students with the best possible instruction.

65


Group ChargeNew Jersey’s community college presidents recognize that improving adjunct faculty de-

velopment is a top priority for the future success of New Jersey’s community colleges.Adjunct faculty members are New Jersey community colleges’ largest growing faculty group to-taling 7,422 in 2009. It is expected that the growth in the number of adjunct faculty will continue to increase. Even though adjunct faculty are being used more extensively and are vital to educat-ing hundreds of thousands of students each year, college resources for adjunct support and devel-opment are limited. Because more and more adjunct faculty members are delivering educational content to students, it is important for community colleges to provide adjunct faculty develop-ment programs to ensure quality. Improving adjunct faculty development will have a positive im-pact on student learning outcomes.

The presidents have created a work group chaired by Dr. Glen Gabert of Hudson County Community College and Dr. Steven Rose of Passaic County Community College.

The working group will focus its attention on improving adjunct faculty development among New Jersey’s community colleges. The work group will develop a plan to ensure that pro-gramming and resources are developed with adjunct faculty in mind (e.g. online, evening, and weekend development programs; formalized training and certification programs; and expanded mentoring for adjuncts).

The group’s plan development methodology is set forth in Appendix B.

Group Vision StatementThe students of New Jersey’s community colleges deserve a consistent high-quality edu-

cation. To help ensure this, New Jersey’s community colleges have developed a comprehensive program to ensure that adjunct faculty are provided with high-quality training and support through a coordinated credentialing program and continuous professional development and sup-port in the areas of instructional pedagogy and online teaching capacity. This coordinated pro-gram provides adjunct faculty support and evidence-based programming to facilitate their inte-gration into the fabric of their respective institutions and to provide opportunities to teach at vari-ous community colleges in New Jersey.

66


Strategy #1: Develop a statewide credential and adjunct faculty orientation program to provide professional development for the adjunct faculty who work in the New Jersey community college sector.

Goal #1: Design a statewide Credential Program and orientation checklist for adjunct faculty by January 1, 2012.

Goal #2: Develop a job bank infrastructure where adjuncts who complete steps in the Credential Program can be identified for potential teaching assignments by January 1, 2012.

Success Indicators:a. There is a fully operational and successful Credential Program and orientation

checklist.b. There is an increasing number of adjuncts participating in the Credential Pro-

gram.c. There is evidence that the community colleges are using the orientation checklist

at their respective institutions. d. The community colleges are utilizing the job bank for the identification of cre-

dentialed adjunct faculty for teaching assignments.

Strategy #2: Develop a program for sharing and supporting best practices related to in-struction methods and practices for adjunct faculty.

Goal #1: Develop a statewide mentoring model for adjunct faculty that may be replicated by the individual community colleges by June 30, 2012.

Goal #2: Develop a statewide online infrastructure for disseminating best practices to ad-junct faculty by December 30, 2012.

Goal #3: Develop an annual regional best practices conference for adjunct faculty fo-cused on high-quality and innovative instructional delivery methods by March 30, 2013.

Success Indicators:a. Individual community colleges have adopted and are using the statewide mentor-

ing model.b. Adjunct faculty have access to a statewide online resource for best practice infor-

mation. c. Widespread attendance by faculty and appropriate staff at the annual regional best

practices conference.

Conclusion

67




68





PROMOTING ADJUNCT FACULTY DEVELOPMENT


AFFINTY GROUPS THAT WILL SUPPORT THIS BIG IDEA: LABOR RELATIONS AND HUMAN RESOURCES

STUDENT SERVICES

In order to make progress over the next academic year, the Presidents provide the following charge on Promoting Adjunct Faculty Development.

1. Create a statewide Task Force on Adjunct Faculty to develop and plan the implementation of specific efforts to support the growing number of adjunct faculty who provide key educational services for our students. This task force should include presidents, chief academic officers, and human resource professionals – although the task force certainly may, during the course of its work, need to reach out to faculty, legal staff, student affairs professionals, and others to ensure the full scope of its work meets the needs of the colleges. The work of the statewide task force should include the following activities.

2. Design an orientation checklist for adjunct faculty that will serve as a statewide template.

3. Design a statewide credential program for adjunct faculty that includes information on pedagogy, classroom management, scholarship, and other topics.

4. Develop the framework of a job bank infrastructure where adjuncts who complete the steps in the credential program can indicate their availability for teaching assignments.

5. Design a statewide mentoring model for adjunct faculty that can be implemented by individual colleges.

6. Develop and recommend a statewide online infrastructure for disseminating professional development activities for adjunct faculty.

69

7. Design and implement annual regional best practices conferences for adjunct faculty focused on high-quality and innovative instructional delivery.

The Presidents request that the work of the statewide task force work be completed and a plan submitted by January 1, 2012 and that the first regional conferences be held by March 30, 2012.

70

References

Amey, M. 1999. Faculty development: Looking towards the 21st century. Journal ofApplied Research in the Community College, 7(1): 39–48.

Burnstad, H. 2002. Part-time faculty development at Johnson County Community College. New Directions for Community Colleges. 120: winter.

Caffarella, R.S. & Zinn, L.F. 1999, Summer. Professional Development for Faculty: A Con-ceptual Framework of Barriers and Supports. Innovative Higher Education, 23, (4).

Gapa, J. 2000. The New Faculty Majority: Somewhat statisfied but not eligible for tenure. New Directions for Institutional Research, 105: 77-86

Paridise Valley Community College. http://www.pvc.maricopa.edu/~afi/edge/

Richardson, R. 1992. The associate program: Teaching improvement for adjunct faculty. Com-munity College Review, 12 (1), P. 29.

Santovec, M. L. 2004. Building Better Online Adjuncts. Distance Education Report.

Texas Center for Teaching Excellence. http://www.texascollaborative.org/

71

http://www.texascollaborative.org/

http://www.pvc.maricopa.edu/~afi/edge/


Glenn Cvecich Coordinator of Adjunct Bergen Community CollegeEngagement

Patricia Gallo Academic Division Dean Brookdale Community CollegeBusiness and Technology

Scott Ridley Assistant Chair, Brookdale Community CollegeEnglish Department

Beverly Richardson Interim VP of Academic Burlington County CollegeAffairs

Elaine Bobrove Head of Adjunct Union Camden County College Nathaniel Alridge Assistant Director of Cumberland County College

Adjunct Faculty Development Abigail Douglas-Johnson VP for Academic Affairs Hudson County Community College Glen Gabert President, Co-Chair Hudson County Community CollegeRandi Miller Executive Director of Hudson County Community College

Human ResourcesBettina Caluori Professor & Coordinator Mercer County Community College

for English Composition 1Brian Richards Director of Instructional Middlesex County College

Design & Media Services Steven Rose President, Co-Chair Passaic County Community CollegeRicheleen Dashield Dean of Multicultural Affairs Raritan Valley Community College Judy Impell Director of Disability Raritan Valley Community College

Services Tom Valasek Dean of Faculty Raritan Valley Community College Beverly Marvin Manger of Human Relations Salem Community College

Jacob Farbman Director of Communications NJ Council of County CollegesJames Davy Strategic Planning Consultant James M. Davy AssociatesIshara Casellas-Katz Research Assistant NJ Council of County Colleges

72

Appendix B: Methods

Group Four conducted four meetings by utilizing conference calls and face-to-face meet-ings from December 2010 though March 2011. Group members collaborated on the development of the adjunct faculty professional development plan through the use of Google Groups and Google Docs.

At its first meeting, the group identified those strategies that would promote regional and statewide initiatives for adjunct faculty professional development as well as local programming. The group conducted a survey of current adjunct faculty programs across the state. See Appendix C for the survey questions and summary of results.

In subsequent meetings the group identified the two key strategies, goals and action steps for supporting adjunct faculty through professional development. The group also utilized infor-mation on similar regional projects and a literature review to support the development of the ad-junct faculty professional development plan.

73

Appendix C: Survey Questions & Summary Results

Results as of January 18, 2011

Survey Questions:• Do you currently have faculty development programming for adjuncts? • What type of programming do you offer?• What person or office is responsible for adjunct development, if any?• What are some challenges your college has encountered related to adjunct faculty devel-

opmentSurvey Participants: The survey was e-mailed to members of Group 4 and Academic Officers at the institutions not represented in the group.

Records: 16 responses from 14 Colleges

Summary:a. 13 of the 14 Colleges have some faculty development programming

specifically for adjunctsb. 8 of the 14 Colleges cited Adjunct Faculty Orientation as one of the main

programs that they offer.c. 11 of the 14 Colleges provide workshops through out the year to support

Adjunct Faculty Development. d. The Departments responsible for Adjunct Faculty Development include:

a. Academic Deansb. Academic Chairsc. Human Resourcesd. Vice President of Academic Programse. Dean of Facultyf. Provostg. Centers for Teaching and Learningh. Academic Support Servicesi. Instructional Technology Centerj. Adjunct Faculty Development Offices/Councils

74

a. Challenges:a. Timingb. Locationc. Compensationd. Incorporating Feedback from Adjunctse. Engaging contentf. High rates of turnover

75

Expanding Joint Purchasing Practices

Action Plan for ImplementationPrepared by Group Five of the Big Ideas Project

August 2011


Phone: (609) 392-3434Fax: (609) 392-8158


76







77

Table of ContentsExecutive Summary…………………………………………………………. 80

Background………………….………………………………………….…… 81


Strategies, Goals, and Success Indicators.............…………………………... 83

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………… 84


Appendices……………………………………………………………………

References………………………………………………………………… 86

Appendix A: Group Members……………..……………………………... 87

Appendix B: Methods................................……………………………...... 88

78

Executive Summary

Across the state, New Jersey’s community colleges are working to enhance purchasing practices to control costs. One mechanism for achieving increased purchasing power is through the collaborative efforts of the New Jersey Joint Purchasing Consortium (JPC), which since 1999 has worked to leverage the purchasing power of the participating institutions. Some of the most successful endeavors have been the joint purchases of gas and electricity. The group seeks to ex-pand upon the successful joint purchasing to date and to develop an enhanced joint purchasing model to support the work of the 19 community colleges.

To achieve the objective of increased joint purchasing, this group has identified the fol-lowing strategy and goal to be undertaken through collaboration among the 19 community col-leges.

Strategy: The Joint Purchasing Consortium (JPC) will work to achieve greater cost savings by working systematically to leverage the collective purchasing power of New Jersey’s community colleges.

Goal: Working with NJEDge, county purchasing offices, and other purchasing agencies, the JPC will serve as the vehicle to promote and achieve cost savings for the community college sector through the development of a business plan to outline an enhanced sustain-able structure by January 1, 2012. The business plan will assume a self-supported JPC with its own staff.

This plan will leverage purchasing power through the development of a new JPC busi-ness model as well as the identification of short- and long-term joint purchases, such as entities for collaboration and the development of a method of tracking cost savings.

79

Background

Since 1999, the New Jersey County College Joint Purchasing Consortium (JPC) has worked to maximize the purchasing power of the community colleges that participate in the con-sortium. The joint purchase of gas by 11 community colleges, under the leadership of Ocean County College, resulted in a savings of $1,337,499 over two years. Additionally, the joint pur-chase of electricity by six community colleges, under the leadership of Middlesex County Col-lege, yielded $647,015 in annual savings. However, these efforts have been reliant on the avail-ability of staff from individual colleges to oversee the project.

To maximize dollar savings many institutions across the country have developed pur-chasing consortia to leverage joint purchasing power. The Lehigh Valley Association of Inde-pendent Schools has developed a central office to support joint purchases among its members. In doing so, the consortium has grown from $2 million to over $50 million in joint purchasing power (Reich, 2011). In order to leverage purchasing power, states have conducted an inventory of common purchases to identify areas where collaboration may yield increased savings. Through the Virginia Reengineering Taskforce, the state has identified 20 commodities and ser-vices currently being purchased where collaboration would yield cost savings. Collaboration with organizations within New Jersey, such as NJEDge, represents an additional opportunity to leverage the joint purchasing power of the 19 community colleges. These programs have served as models for the generation of new ideas regarding the ways in which New Jersey’s 19 commu-nity colleges can enhance the JPC.

Central to the success of an enhanced JPC will be 1) the identification of new commodi-ties or services; 2) increased participation across the sector; 3) a transparent and simple process; and 4) the tracking of projected and actual cost savings for each college and for the sector. The development of an inventory of commodities and/or services that would benefit from collabora-tion will allow for the systematic analysis of the projected cost savings and provide an inventory that can be strategically revisited should circumstances change. In order to maximize the cost savings throughout the state, the increased participation among the 19 community colleges will be essential. To facilitate this broad participation, the enhanced JPC must provide a transparent and simple process for participating colleges, including an attainable timeline for the bid/request for proposal (RFP) cycle. Finally, the tracking of projected and actual cost savings among the in-dividual colleges and the sector will support greater participation thereby leveraging even greater purchasing power. This plan looks to build upon the current JPC to facilitate the creation of an enhanced JPC.

80


Group Charge

New Jersey’s community college presidents recognize that expanding cooperative pur-chasing practices is a top priority for the future success of New Jersey’s community colleges. The presidents believe that savings benefits will be achieved by strengthening community col-lege joint purchasing practices.

As public resources to support community colleges continue to diminish, it is critical that community colleges explore alternate ways to maximize cost savings. Creative collaborative ef-forts, such as the Joint Purchasing Consortium, can serve as a model for increasing cost savings and maximizing the resources of New Jersey’s community colleges.

The presidents have created a work group chaired by Dr. Peter Mora of Atlantic Cape Community College and Dr. Edward Yaw of County College of Morris to develop a plan to strengthen joint purchasing practices.

Such a plan will promote greater collaboration by aggregating the collective and/or re-gional purchasing power of the 19 community colleges as well as explore collaboration with en-tities such as counties and other higher education institutions. The group will also explore the purchasing of professional services as well as develop a method for systematically recording savings due to joint purchasing efforts. It is also possible that such a plan might recommend the engagement of a full-time Joint Purchasing Consortium staff member and other alternatives for promoting and institutionalizing a process for greater sharing of purchasing information and best practices among the colleges to more effectively aggregate purchases.

The group’s plan development methodology is set forth in Appendix B Methods.

Group Vision Statement

Through a re-charged mission and with the full support of New Jersey’s 19 community colleges, the NJ Joint Purchasing Consortium (JPC) in collaboration with like entities is actively engaged in achieving significant cost savings for the community college sector.

81

Strategy, Goal, and Success Indicators

Strategy: The Joint Purchasing Consortium (JPC) will work to achieve greater cost savings by working systematically to leverage the collective purchasing power of New Jersey’s community colleges.

Goal: Working with NJEDge, county purchasing offices, and other purchasing agencies, the JPC will serve as the vehicle to promote and achieve cost savings for the community college sector through the development of a business plan to outline an enhanced sustain-able structure by January 1, 2012. The business plan will assume a self-supported JPC with its own staff.

Success Indicators:a. The initiative will be deemed successful when the JPC is consistently effectuating

joint purchases for the community college sector and producing documented cost savings.

b. The initiative will be successful if 80% of the community colleges participate in the joint purchasing opportunities provided by the enhanced Joint Purchasing Consortium.

c. The initiative will be successful if the JPC’s collaboration leads to cost savings in many different areas.

d. The initiative will be successful if the JPC works collaboratively with partnering entities.

82

Conclusion




83





EXPANDING JOINT PURCHASING PRACTICES

AFFINTY GROUP WITH PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY BUSINESS OPERATIONS

AFFINTY GROUPS THAT WILL SUPPORT THIS BIG IDEA: ALL OTHER AFFINITY GROUPS SHOULD SUGGEST POSSIBLE GOODS

AND SERVICES FOR JOINT PURCHASING

In order to make progress over the next academic year, the Presidents provide the following charge to the Business Operations Affinity Group:

1. Working with NJEDGE, county purchasing offices, and other purchasing agencies, develop a business plan for a Joint Purchasing Consortium that could serve as a vehicle to promote and achieve cost savings for the community college sector. This plan should include an enhanced sustainable structure and should assume a self-supported Joint Purchasing Consortium with its own staff.

The Presidents request that the Business Operations Affinity Group submit the written plan by January 1, 2012.

84

ReferencesAbrams, Ron. Fundraising at the Ohio Association of Community Colleges. July, 2010. (Inter-view)

Bezich, Louis. (2010). Systemic changes in county will save money. Courier Post. May, 2, 2010.

Katz, Matt. (2009). “Camden County, college will study ways to save.” The Philadelphia In-quirer. February 19, 2009.

Reich, Patricia. Lehigh Valley Association of School- Joint Purchasing Consortium. January 23, 2011. (Interview)

Radwan, C. (2005). "Buying Smarter." from http://govpro.com/resource_center/gov_imp_27899/.

Virginia Reenginering Taskforce.(2010). "Managing with Productivity in Mind."

Virginia Reenginering Taskforce. (2010). VCCS Procurement – Leveraging our Volume to Pro-vide Cost Savings and Increase Efficiency

85

http://govpro.com/resource_center/gov_imp_27899/

http://govpro.com/resource_center/gov_imp_27899/


Peter Mora President, Co-Chair Atlantic Cape Community CollegeTerry Sampson Executive Director of Atlantic Cape Community College,

Administration and Business Services

Barbara Golden Director of Purchasing and Services Bergen Community CollegeChic Raimondi Director of Materiel and Printing Brookdale Community College

Services Matt Farr Director of Administrator and Burlington County College

Auxiliary Services John Pitcher VP of Finance and Administrative Cumberland County College

ServicesDominick J. Burzichelli VP of College Operation Gloucester County College Susan Bowen Executive Director of Information Mercer County Community College

Technology Services Susan Perkins VP of Finance and Administration Middlesex County College Edward Yaw President, Co-Chair County College of MorrisMaurice Feigenbaum VP of Finance and Administration Passaic County Community College

Linda Lam Vice President NJ Council of County CollegesJames Davy Strategic Planning Consultant James M. Davy AssociatesIshara Casellas-Katz Research Assistant NJ Council of County Colleges

86

Appendix B: Methods

Group Five conducted four meetings by utilizing conference calls and face-to-face meet-ings from December 2010 though March 2011. Group members collaborated on the development of the plan through the use of Google Groups and Google Docs.

The group focused its attention to enhancing the current JPC given its long history. How-ever, the group did review regional and national models that might support enhanced collabora-tion among the 19 community colleges. In order to consider areas for expanded collaboration, the group conducted a survey of the 19 community colleges regarding possible commodities and ser-vices that would benefit from joint purchasing. These results and a review of other models sup-ported the development of the implementation plan.

87

Building Academic Consortia

Action Plan for ImplementationPrepared by Group Six of the Big Ideas Project

August 2011


Phone: (609) 392-3434Fax: (609) 392-8158


88


The mission of New Jersey’s 19 community colleges is to provide high quality transfer programs, occupational programs, continuing education courses, business support services, and community service programs at a reasonably low cost in response to local and statewide needs. New Jersey’s community colleges annually serve 400,000 students.




In Fall 2009, the Trustees and Presidents agreed that the community colleges should pur-sue research to find the best and boldest ideas to promote sustainability, maintain or improve quality, and, most significantly, improve student success. Several task forces were created to conduct that research, and white papers were delivered in late Summer 2010. Guided by these white papers, the Trustees and Presidents identified eight key statewide priorities in Fall 2010 and charged eight workgroups to develop action plans for implementing these “Big Ideas.” Co-ordinated by the New Jersey Council of County Colleges, each workgroup was co-chaired by community college presidents and included representatives from all New Jersey community col-leges. Their recommendations, as amended and approved by the presidents in June 2011, are presented in this report.

89

Table of Contents

Executive Summary…………………………………………..………...….92

Background………………….………………………………..…………....93

Group Charge and Vision Statement……………………..…...….…….…..94

Strategies, Goals, and Success Indicators.……………………....……….…96

Conclusion……………….……………………………………..…………..97

Charge to Affinity Groups…………………..…...….…….…..……………98

Appendices………………………………………………………………….

References and Reviewed Research…………………….…………..99

Appendix A: Group Members...………………………..…..….…...100

Appendix B: Methodology………………………….……..…..…...101

Executive Summary

90

New Jersey’s community colleges are committed to increasing access to quality educa-tion for all students. Because the prospect of public funding support is in question, it is impera-tive that colleges seek alternate methods of course delivery that can cut costs and increase rev-enues to sustain the goal of increasing access and quality.

One possibility, a New Jersey Distance Learning Consortium, offers a significant oppor-tunity to address these important goals by sharing resources and using a common virtual plat-form. A New Jersey Distance Learning Consortium could serve the online learning needs of all 19 community colleges with a menu of options. In some cases, a single institution simply does not have the capability or capacity to deliver certain programs. A consortium arrangement could provide cost savings by sharing resources and educational, administrative, and instructional ex-pertise. This collaboration could provide greater access and opportunity for students to enroll online in programs not typically offered in their county or region.

Group Six has outlined two significant strategies toward this objective:

Strategy 1: Create consortial approaches to online student support services, online quality as-sessment, and further collaboration for online instruction.

.Strategy 2: Create and foster academic consortia among the 19 community colleges

Background

91

In New Jersey, the average annual total enrollment growth for the 19 community colleges from 2004 to 2009 was 17.3 percent. Given this growth, enhancing and increasing capacity is a crucial component to ensure the continuing future success of the colleges. Increased capacity will ultimately serve to replace lost state support and relieve the obligations of the counties, while, at the same time, generate new revenue and provide more students with access to a college education.

One very important and significant way to build capacity is to capitalize on innovations and new technology. Technology already has provided the opportunity for colleges to access the Internet for the online delivery of courses. With the advent and prevalent use of wireless mobile devices and high-speed broadband pipelines, the capacity to deliver virtual instruction has been increased dramatically. Just last year, online course enrollments increased by 17 percent, are steadily rising, and will continue to do so (The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2010). However, not all institutions are fully incorporating online education into their strategic plans, thus missing a very valuable opportunity not only to increase the number of students they serve, but also to re-duce expenditures. An academic distance learning consortium holds the promise for further ex-panding enrollment, particularly in the types of programs where costs are high.

Additionally, there has been a national and state imperative to foster greater discussion and facilitation of collaboration to deliver campus-based programs. The growth and development of course design and delivery modes and the evolution of teaching tools make shared programs across campuses more possible. When colleges consider the development of new academic pro-grams, one step – perhaps the very first step – should be to evaluate whether the programs can best be delivered through an academic consortium that is supported and promoted by the New Jersey community college presidents.

Group Charge

92

New Jersey’s community college presidents recognize that providing seamless course de-livery through virtual technology is necessary in order to provide more access and better align-ment among the 19 colleges. The main thrust of this priority is to improve access to instruction and academic support services.

The presidents have created a work group chaired by Dr. Thomas Isekenegbe of Cumber-land County College and Dr. Jon Larson of Ocean County College that included experienced and innovative thinkers with a vested interest in developing consortia – both virtual and campus-based.

The charge of the group was to focus on developing a plan for promoting academic con-sortia for new and existing programs. This group considered, among other approaches, consor-tia delivery in a distance learning format and how to monitor emerging opportunities to expand programs through the consortia format. This group investigated consortia programs that already existed and sought to learn from those models. Developing academic consortia may greatly ben-efit students by broadening the programs offered to them. Colleges will benefit from financial savings through consortia arrangements.

The workgroup recommends that the community college presidents and the New Jersey Council of County Colleges (NJCCC) charge the existing New Jersey Virtual Community Col-lege Consortium (NJVCCC) with re-energizing and re-inventing its role by facilitating a strategic plan and process to develop and implement the coordination and delivery of online distance learning programs offered by New Jersey's community colleges under the aegis of a new New Jersey Distance Learning Consortium. The consortium will build on the existing complement of online and hybrid course offerings in New Jersey as well as consider the existing strengths and assets of the NJVCCC for expansion and growth. This plan would also review the provision of full associate degree programs and the opportunity for transfer to available online baccalaureate programs.

The methodology to be used is outlined in Appendix B of this document.

Vision Statement

93

Through a consortium arrangement, New Jersey’s community colleges could offer expanded access to high-quality online courses for students. The consortium’s flexible structure could allow community colleges to participate in ways that best meet the needs and goals of each college and its students. Colleges could elect to participate in the consortium in a variety of ways by:

Developing courses;

Assuming the role of provider and deliverer of courses; and/or

Providing students.

Students will access courses via the web through the participating community colleges they are attending. The coordinating structure of the consortium could be modeled after that of the New Jersey Community College Consortium for Workforce and Economic Development. The consortium could be sustained by a cost and revenue sharing mechanism whereby investing colleges, the colleges delivering courses, the providers of students, and the consortium all share a percentage of the consortium’s revenues. Ultimately, the consortium could offer courses to high school students and to students in four-year institutions. In the longer term, this arrangement may be expanded to create a K-20 model, including workforce development and service learning opportunities.

This distance learning consortium model offers the following benefits to New Jersey’s community colleges:

1. For those colleges with limited distance learning offerings, it provides the opportunity for income generation and added value for students.

2. For those colleges that have only blended or hybrid courses, it provides a total online experience by sharing development and technology costs.

3. For all colleges, it provides revenue-sharing resources.4. For all colleges, the K-20 model opens the door to increased grant opportunities.5. For those colleges that cannot afford the cost of a distance learning program, it offers

substantial cost savings while providing access for their students.

94


Strategy 1: Create consortial approaches to online student support services, online quality assessment, and further collaboration for online instruction.

Goal #1: Direct the Distance Education Affinity Group to investigate the creation of a newly organized New Jersey Distance Learning Consortium.

Goal #2: Direct the Distance Education Affinity Group to investigate and recommend different consortial models for delivering online student support services, quality as-sessment, and instruction for consideration by the presidents by July 2011.

Success Indicators for Strategy #1:New Jersey’s community colleges have expanded the use of online student support services, assessments and instruction.

Strategy 2: Create and foster academic consortia among the 19 community colleges

Goal #1: The community college presidents will charge the Academic Affairs Affinity Group with the formation of a planning group to 1) scan existing and emerging job markets to identify short-term and longer-term careers and 2) recommend, develop, and promote community college academic program consortia arrangements to ensure student success in those job markets.

Goal #2: The community college presidents will adopt an informal policy by August 2011 that encourages colleges to explore academic consortia program possibilities as they institute new programs.

Success Indicators for Strategy #2:a. The adoption by the community college presidents of an informal academic consortia

policy by August 2011.b. The growth of academic consortia across the community college sector.c. The creation of academic consortia that offer students educational opportunities in exist-

ing and emerging employment sectors not previously offered.

95

Conclusion




96





BUILDING ACADEMIC CONSORTIA

AFFINTY GROUPS WITH PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY DISTANCE EDUCATION (SEE #1 BELOW)

ACADEMIC AFFAIRS (SEE #2 BELOW)

In order to make progress over the next academic year, the Presidents provide the following charge on Building Academic Consortia.

1. Investigate and develop a plan for a consortium model to deliver online instruction and online student services, including clear plans for quality assessment. The plan must include the three areas of: (a) a technology plan (to include an assessment of expenditures necessary for statewide implementation of this model) (b) an educational plan (to include a careful analysis of the programs/degrees to be offered and supported through such a model), and (c) a business plan (to include projections of both initial and ongoing revenues and expenses).

2. Form a program planning group within the Academic Officers Affinity Group to begin to look at opportunities for academic consortia to address emerging workforce needs. The group should consider how to involve continuing education officers in this effort as well. The group should develop a plan that includes, at a minimum, the following: (a) scan of existing and emerging job markets to identify short- and long-term needs and (b) recommendations of potential regional and/or statewide academic consortia to ensure student access to those careers

The Presidents request that the Distance Education Affinity Group submit the three-part plan on a possible distance education consortium by December 1, 2011.

The Presidents request that the Academic Affairs Affinity Group submit the plan on opportunities for academic consortia by December 1, 2011.

97


Andrew, C. (2004). “Oregon’s Seventeen-Member Statewide Distance Learning Collaborative”, book chapter in NEW DIRECTIONS FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGES, no. 128. Retrieved from:http://faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/abenson/472cc/W4articles/andrews_chap8_oregon.pdf on February 10, 2011.

Boria, S. and Mercy C. (2005). “Using Cohorts to Build an Online Learning Community”. Re-trieved from: http://sloanconsortium.org/effective_practices/using-cohorts-build-online-learning-community on February 2, 2011.

Hysom, T., and Morris, K. (2010). “Distance Learning: A Statewide View, A Local Perspec-tive”. Retrieved from http://www.literacyminnesota.org/sites/6bc90f8a-e528-403a-8c6b-ffd-d2e3dd3a7/uploads/Distance_Learning.pdf on February 16, 2011.

Parry, M. (January 26, 2010). “Colleges See 17 Percent Increase in Online Enrollment.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from: http://chronicle.com/blogs/wired-campus/colleges-see-17-percent-increase-in-online-enrollment/20820 on February 16, 2011.

Plato Learning, Inc. (2005). “ Distance Learning Consortium Provides Statewide Access to Edu-cation”. Retrieved from: http://www.plato.com/media/Implementation%20Stories/F/Florida%20Distance%20Learning%20Consortium%20Provides%20Statewide%20Access%20to%20Ed-ucation.pdf on February 10, 2011.

Texas International Education Consortium (TIEC). (2010). “Programs Tailored for Adult Professionals”. Retrieved from: http://www.tiec.org/study_faculty.html on Febru-ary 16, 2011.

The Connecticut Distance Learning Consortium. Retrieved from http://www.ctdlc.org/apple/ on February 16, 2011.

The Orange Grove Project. “Florida Orange Grove”. Retrieved from: http://www.theorange-grove.org/people.asp on February 10, 2011.

98

http://www.theorangegrove.org/people.asp

http://www.theorangegrove.org/people.asp

http://www.ctdlc.org/apple/

http://www.tiec.org/study_faculty.html

http://www.plato.com/media/Implementation%20Stories/F/Florida%20Distance%20Learning%20Consortium%20Provides%20Statewide%20Access%20to%20Education.pdf



http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/colleges-see-17-percent-increase-in-online-enrollment/20820

http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/colleges-see-17-percent-increase-in-online-enrollment/20820

http://www.literacyminnesota.org/sites/6bc90f8a-e528-403a-8c6b-ffdd2e3dd3a7/uploads/Distance_Learning.pdf

http://www.literacyminnesota.org/sites/6bc90f8a-e528-403a-8c6b-ffdd2e3dd3a7/uploads/Distance_Learning.pdf

http://sloanconsortium.org/effective_practices/using-cohorts-build-online-learning-

http://faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/abenson/472cc/W4articles/andrews_chap8_oregon.pdf


Anita Voogt Higher Education Centers and Communiversity Brookdale Community College

David Spang Dean of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Burlington County College

Thomas A. Isekenegbe

President, Co-Chair Cumberland County College

Vicki Simek Executive Director, Professional & Community Education


Josh Piddington Executive Director of Technology Gloucester County College

Walter Brooks Executive Director of Finance Mercer County Community Col-lege

Judy Ehresman Dean, Arts and Communication Division Mercer County Community Col-lege

Karen Hays Vice President, Academic and Student Affairs Middlesex County College

Patricia Fenn Executive Director of E-Learning Ocean County College

Jon H. Larson President, Co-Chair Ocean Ocean County College

Greg Fallon Associate Dean of Learning Resources Passaic County Community Col-lege

Nancy Jordan Dean of Academic Programs and Partnerships Raritan Valley Community Col-lege

Carl Cuttita Associate Professor, Communications Union County College

Jacob Farbman Director of Communications NJ Council of County Colleges

Linda Lam Vice President NJ Council of County Colleges


Sosanya Jones Research Assistant NJ Council of County Colleges


99

The first meeting of Group Six was conducted via conference call on December 13, 2010. After a discussion, the group decided to focus on identifying key research, strategies, and com-ponents needed to move forward.

To obtain information about the current use of online and hybrid courses in New Jersey community colleges, a survey was conducted to identify key strategies and components and dis-tributed to members of the group. Results indicated that members were interested in developing a community college consortium and also in issues like: the importance of addressing ownership, what that means, and what the benefits were to students, as well as the identification of sending and hosting institutions. Other issues revealed by the survey were: the need to discuss contrac-tual issues with sharing delivery systems; a consideration of joining an online student support consortium that offered e-advising and e-tutoring as a way to bolster academic support; linking students electronically so that there is an awareness about all of the programs; proposing models for how to arrange consortia for programs that are not offered and cannot be offered at some col-leges; developing systems for what goes on behind the scenes; assessing offerings for gaps as well as potential market saturation; and developing a course evaluation system.

The results of this survey were presented on February 2, 2011, at the second meeting of Group Six held at the New Jersey Council of County Colleges office in Trenton. During this meeting, assignments were made on the key strategies and components preferred by workgroup members.

On February 25, 2011, a conference call was held where Dr. Larson presented a new plan for the workgroup focusing on a distance learning consortium idea. Dr. Larson and Patricia Fenn, executive director of e-learning at Ocean County College, presented the benefits of such a strat-egy and fielded questions and concerns by workgroup members. The conference call concluded with consensus to focus on this new strategy and review a rough draft of the proposal to be de-veloped by Dr. Larson and Ms. Fenn.

The proposal was developed and reviewed by group members during the next meeting at the New Jersey Council of County Colleges office in Trenton. During this meeting, the plan was edited and refined by group members, with task assignments and questions left for members to address.

Taking the edits into account, an implementation plan was drafted and posted for work-group members to review. On March 14, 2011, this plan was reviewed and discussed with Dr. Larson and Dr. Isekenegbe. Suggestions were made for edits to be completed before the next Group Six meeting, scheduled for March 22, 2011, where the group would review and edit the most updated draft.

100

Building Alternate Learning Delivery Systems

Action Plan for ImplementationPrepared by Group Seven of the Big Ideas Project

August 2011


Phone: (609) 392-3434Fax: (609) 392-8158



101

http://www.njccc.org/

The mission of New Jersey’s 19 community colleges is to provide high quality transfer programs, occupational programs, continuing education courses, business support services, and community service programs at a reasonably low cost in response to local and statewide needs. New Jersey’s community colleges annually serve 400,000 students.


The mission of the New Jersey Council of County Colleges is to provide statewide lead-ership for the advancement of New Jersey’s 19 community colleges and to perform sector-coor-dinating responsibilities as required by state law.



102

Table of Contents

Executive Summary……………………………………………………………105

Background………………….…………………………………………………106

Group Charge and Vision Statement …..…………………..….……………….107

Strategies, Goals, and Success Indicators……………….……...……………….109

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………113

Charge to Affinity Groups………………………………………………………114

Appendices………………………………………………………………………

References and Reviewed Research………………………………………..116

Appendix A: Group Members…………………………………………...…118

Appendix B: Methodology………………………………………………....119

103

Executive SummaryNew Jersey’s community colleges embrace the ideal of serving a diverse group of stu-

dents through open access and the delivery of an affordable college education. The community colleges also embrace a stalwart commitment to delivering high-quality teaching and student success as an integral element of their mission. It is, therefore, imperative that New Jersey’s community colleges consider ways to incorporate new instructional methodologies, such as stu-dent learner-centered cognition, and enhance these new methods with new and emerging instruc-tion-based technologies. Today’s students have widely varying needs and learning styles. Incor-porating new technologies and course delivery methods into our course structures will enhance student success and completion. This implementation plan focuses on the overarching strategy of designing and implementing new best practice teaching and learning methods together with new and emerging technologies to enhance student success in cost effective ways.

The following are four strategies the group is recommending for incorporating and ex-panding alternate delivery methods:

Strategy #1: Support the emergence of active student, learner-centered, cognition-based educa-tion including discovery, experiential learning, and technology enhanced instruc-tion.

Strategy #2: Integrate the use of mobile devices to enhance active teaching and learning and to increase access to college services.

Strategy #3: Foster engagement between and among students, faculty, and staff through the use of collaborative synchronous online strategies as a complementary tool to asynchronous and face-to-face teaching and learning, student support, and service delivery.

Strategy #4: Expand the use of social media to enhance teaching, learning, and college ser-vices.

104

BackgroundThere is an increasing emphasis on reforming higher education through structural

changes that would standardize many of the elements of higher education systems and remove obstacles to mobility (Bologna process 2010: Final Report, 2009; The Degree Qualifications Pro-file, 2011). This is especially important in New Jersey, where enrollments have grown, while public funding has been decreasing. Given these difficult times, enhancing capacity is a crucial component to building the future of New Jersey’s 19 community colleges.

One significant and increasingly popular way to increase access, enrich curricula deliv-ery, and build capacity is to integrate alternate instructional delivery systems. Alternate delivery systems have the potential to expand the number of students an institution can serve, enhance the quality of the learning experience, as well as broaden the types of students served (The Bologna Declaration: An Explanation, 2009).

In addition, as institutions seek to make the educational process seamless, there has been an effort to develop common course content and instructional strategies that will maximize stu-dent learning by identifying core learning outcomes. Coupled with the recent focus on digital, mobile, and virtual learning, there are many possibilities for new alternate delivery systems.

Christensen (2011) sees the technological advances of recent years as a disruptive inno-vation that will gradually replace current approaches to teaching and learning. Consequently, we are seeing a shift from traditional instructional practices to disruptive pedagogical approaches (Hedberg, 2007).

With the advent of social networking tools, online communities, and crowdsourcing, old questions about the meaning of human social and academic behavior have taken on renewed sig-nificance. Social networking sites such as Facebook have more than 600 million users; Wikipedia currently features more than 13 million articles.

All of these technologies have led the majority of organizations, businesses, and colleges to create some type of social media presence. Educators must be prepared to utilize social media and integrate it into course structures across the curriculum. Synchronous e-learning, commonly supported by media such as videoconferencing and chat, has the potential to support technology-enhanced learning in the development of virtual learning communities. In a face-to-face class, students have numerous opportunities to interact with their instructor and fellow students. Creat-ing similar opportunities for collaboration in a Web-based environment using mobile devices is one of the biggest opportunities that New Jersey community colleges have yet to embrace.

Providing traditional and new types of instruction, course delivery, and support to stu-dents is essential in order to meet the increased demand for higher education in New Jersey. It

105

also holds great potential to cut costs and produce revenue in meeting the demand. This plan seeks to address how New Jersey’s community colleges can begin to incorporate these alternate delivery systems into their instruction and course offerings.


Group ChargeNew Jersey’s community college presidents recognize that developing a common com-

mitment and action plan for alternate delivery learning systems (e.g. virtual, open source, online, and hybrid learning) is a top priority for the future success of New Jersey’s community colleges. With community colleges experiencing unprecedented enrollment growth over the last five years, enhanced alternate learning delivery systems can help community colleges meet the in-creased demand for educational services. Cuts in state and county funding to New Jersey’s com-munity colleges during this same time period made it even more difficult to serve the growing number of students. Given these difficult times, enhancing capacity is a crucial component to building the future of New Jersey’s 19 community colleges.

The presidents created a workgroup, chaired by Dr. Robert Messina of Burlington County College and Dr. Margaret M. McMenamin of Union County College, that included innovative, out-of-the-box thinkers with a vested interest in rethinking the way educational content is deliv-ered by New Jersey’s community colleges.

The charge of the workgroup was to develop a plan that explores and incorporates new and innovative alternate delivery systems. This plans includes but is not limited to: online, hybrid and open source delivery models; centralized and/or regionalized coordination of alternate de-livery models; innovative cost/revenue sharing arrangements; converting the top high enrollment courses to alternate delivery formats; part-time and full-time faculty training and development for effective alternate delivery instruction; and appropriate assessment practices for online in-struction and student services.

The planning process methodology is documented in Appendix B.

Vision Statement

106

New Jersey’s community colleges work collaboratively to improve learning outcomes by providing optimal learning experiences for students. A variety of instructional delivery models are used to enhance student-learning outcomes such as open source technologies, collaborative learning strategies, and experiential learning. In addition, new and emerging technologies are used to support and enhance the student learning experience. New Jersey’s community colleges share best instructional and pedagogical practices for meeting the diverse learning styles of to-day’s students.


107

Strategy #1: Support the emergence of active student, learner-centered, cognition-based educa-tion including discovery, experiential learning, and technology enhanced instruction.

Goal #1: The Academic Affairs Affinity Group should be charged with creating an Inno-vation in Teaching Task Force to develop a strategic plan to promote active learner-cen-tered, cognition-based education across the community college sector. The strategic plan should be completed and presented to the community college presidents within nine months of authorization to begin the process.

Goal #2: The Innovation in Teaching Task Force should develop/adapt quality, technol-ogy-enhanced instructional methodologies with common student learning outcomes within one academic year.

Goal #3: The Innovation in Teaching Task Force should collaboratively develop a pro-fessional development program for faculty and staff across the sector in the use of disrup-tive pedagogical teaching approaches. The goal for delivery of professional development workshops to faculty and academic leaderships within the community college sector is September 2012.

Goal #4: The Academic Officers Affinity Group, working in conjunction with the Innovation Task Force, should design and sponsor a NJ Community College Fellowship Program by July 2012. This program will afford faculty members in discipline-specific groups the opportunity to research, inventory, develop and share resources and best practices for the delivery of disruptive pedagogical approaches and learner-centered Web-enhanced learning strategies.

Success Indicators for Strategy #1:1. An increase in the number of faculty using active student/learner-centered

cognition-based methodologies involving discovery, experiential learning, and technology-enhanced curricular delivery.

2. An increasing number of faculty taking advantage of the professional de-velopment offerings related to this new teaching and learning paradigm.

3. Widespread student and faculty support and satisfaction with the new par-adigm for teaching and learning.

4. A well functioning Fellowship Program with positive outcomes and satis-fied participants.

5. Improved student success as measured by the assessment tool.

108

Strategy #2: Integrate the use of mobile devices to enhance active teaching and learning and to increase access to college services.

Goal #1: The Information Technology (IT) Affinity Group should be charged with creat-ing a sector-wide planning group to develop a plan for expanding the use of mobile de-vices in teaching and learning, student support services, and administrative and back-of-fice functions.

Goal #2: The IT Affinity Group, working in collaboration with the sector-wide planning group, should form mobile readiness workgroups based on groupings of colleges that use the same unique learning management and administrative and backend systems (i.e. Ban-ner vs. Colleague, BlackBoard, Angel, Sakai, WebCt, and WebStudy). The purpose of the mobile readiness workgroups is to develop strategies and plans to expand the use of mobile devices for teaching and learning, as well as administrative and backend services in ways that are congruent with the unique systems and platforms currently in place and in use at local colleges.

Goal #3: Plan and implement multiple mobile initiatives (e.g. mobile website, genius bars, location based services, registration, library databases, online mobile payment, tailored mobile online instruction).

Success Indicators for Strategy #2:

1. Data from student satisfaction surveys indicate: 1) they are more con-nected to the campus community; and 2) that having the ability to use mo-bile devices in teaching and learning: a) increases their engagement in courses; b) improves their understanding of the course content; c) in-creases the amount of time (outside of class time) that they access course materials; and d) simplifies a variety of college-related tasks (e.g. registra-tion, payment, accessing the library, participation in student clubs).

2. There is increased use of mobile devices to deliver course content.

3. There is expanded use of mobile devices to support student services.

4. Mobile devices are used extensively to deliver administrative and backend college functions.

109

5. Data from faculty and staff surveys indicate improved delivery of instruc-tion and services.

Strategy #3: Foster engagement between and among students, faculty, and staff through the use of collaborative synchronous online strategies as a complementary tool to asynchronous and face-to-face teaching and learning, student support and service delivery.

Goal #1: The community college presidents should charge the Academic Affairs Affinity Group to form a synchronous learning task force to develop a strategy to promote the de-livery of synchronous online courses, student support services, and service delivery.

Goal #2: Identify a corporate partner to collaborate with the community college sector to develop a coordinated and unified synchronous online environment for teaching and learning, student support services and college service delivery

Goal #3: Develop a program relevant to the use of synchronous online tools that inte-grates with the professional development initiative (Strategy #1, Goal #3).

Goal #4: Community college presidents should charge their respective academic officers and e-learning administrators and staff to implement the expansion of synchronous online tools for teaching and learning, student support, and the delivery of college services on their individual campuses.

Success Indicators for Strategy #3:1. Expanded use of synchronous online teaching and learning across the

community college sector as measured by the system’s performance monitoring feature.

2. Increased use of synchronous online tools for student support services across the community college sector in such areas as counseling, advising, and tutoring.

3. The use of synchronous online tools is in widespread use in all facets of community college service delivery operations.

4. The level of student engagement and satisfaction has increased as measured by survey techniques.

5. The level of faculty and staff engagement and satisfaction has increased as measured by survey techniques.

Strategy #4: Expand the use of social media to enhance teaching, learning, and college ser-

110

vices.

Goal #1: The community college presidents should charge the Student Affairs and Insti-tutional Advancement Affinity Groups with the task of developing a strategic plan to ex-pand the use of social media in teaching, learning, and service delivery and integrating it into the sector’s course structure across the curriculum. The strategic plan should be de-veloped and presented to the community college presidents by May 2012.

Goal #2: The taskforce should develop a strategic plan for a faculty development pro-gram designed to optimize the use of social media as a tool for teaching, learning and ser-vices delivery. The professional development strategic plan should be completed and pre-sented to the community college presidents by May 2012.

Success Indicators for Strategy #4:1. The strategic plan identifies the measures of success based on the enhanced

levels of student engagement and improved student learning outcomes. The plan to measure success includes both formative and summative evaluations.

2. At least one social media tool has been utilized in each course across the com-munity college sector.

3. Social media is integrated into faculty development.

4. Students use social media to create electronic portfolios based on course re-quirements.

Conclusion


111



112





BUILDING ALTERNATE LEARNING DELIVERY SYSTEMS


AFFINTY GROUPS THAT WILL SUPPORT THIS BIG IDEA: BUSINESS OPERATIONS

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT

STUDENT SERVICES

In order to make progress over the next academic year, the Presidents provide the following charge on Building Alternate Learning Delivery Systems.

1. Create an Innovation in Teaching Taskforce to develop a strategic plan to promote active learner-centered, cognition-based educational practices across the sector. The Big Idea 7 Final Report provides further guidance to the Task Force.

2. Consider the development of a NJ Community College Fellowship Program to afford faculty members in discipline-specific groups the opportunity to research, inventory, develop, and share resources and best practices for the delivery of disruptive pedagogical approaches and learner-centered Web-enhanced learning strategies.

3. Create a Synchronous Learning Task Force to develop a strategy to promote the delivery of synchronous online courses, student support services, and service delivery. The Big Idea 7 Final Report provides further guidance on this charge.

The presidents request that the Academic Officers Affinity Group provide updates on the above activities at the presidents’ meetings in October, February, and April and a final overall report in May 2012.

113

Note: The Big Idea 7 Final Report also presented some very interesting recommendations on using mobile devices and social media to enhance teaching, learning, and student services. For now, the presidents suggest that action on these recommendations be delayed until 2012-2013. But if there are campus leaders who are willing and able to provide leadership on these issues over the next academic year, they should make that interest known to their presidents.

114


“The Bologna Declaration: An explanation” (2009). Retrieved fromhttp :// ec . europa . eu / education / policies / educ / bologna / bologna . pdf on January 22, 2011.

Bologna process 2010: Final Report (2009). Retrieved fromhttp://euro-case.org/documents/Final-report-Bologna-process-2010-01-181.pdf on January 22, 2011.

Christensen, C. M. (2011). “Disrupting College: How disruptive innovation can deliver quality and affordability to postsecondary education.” Retrieved from http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/02/pdf/disrupting_college.pdf on January 24, 2011.

D'Monte, Leslie (April 29, 2009). "Swine Flu's Tweet Causes Online Flutter". Business Stan-dard. http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/swine-flu%5Cs-tweet-tweet- causes-online- flutter/356604/. Retrieved February 27th, 2011. "Also known as the 'SMS of the internet', Twit-ter is a free social networking and micro-blogging service"

Hedberg, J. G. (2007). “Searching for disruptive pedagogies: Matching pedagogies to the tech-nologies”. Retrieved from http://www.curriculum.edu.au/leader/default.asp?id=18898 on January 25, 2011.

Lumina (2011). The Degree Qualifications Profile. Retrieved from http://www.luminafoundation.org/publications/The_Degree_Qualifications_Profile.pdf on Feb-ruary on January 22, 2011.

"There's a List for That". blog.twitter.com. October 30, 2009.http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.twitter.com%2F2009%2F10%2Ftheres-list-for that.html&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGq9PyugteW9o1w6EsBoUYIMqx8qA http :// blog . twit - ter . com /2009/10/ theres - list - for - that . html . Retrieved February 26th, 2011.

"Using Twitter with Your Phone". Twitter Support. Retrieved from: http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fhelp.twitter.com%2Fentries%2F14226-how-to-find-your-twitter-short-long-code&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGvN5BJnE2bPrB1-3NmGJMdtceLcg http :// help . twitter . com / entries /14226- how - to - find - your - twitter - short - long - code on February 26th, 1, 2010.

115

http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fhelp.twitter.com%2Fentries%2F14226-how-to-find-your-twitter-short-long-code&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGvN5BJnE2bPrB1-3NmGJMdtceLcg




























http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.twitter.com%2F2009%2F10%2Ftheres-list-for-that.html&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGq9PyugteW9o1w6EsBoUYIMqx8qA


















http://www.luminafoundation.org/publications/The_Degree_Qualifications_Profile.pdf

http://www.curriculum.edu.au/leader/default.asp?id=18898

http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/swine-flu%5Cs-tweet-tweet-

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/02/pdf/disrupting_college.pdf

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/02/pdf/disrupting_college.pdf

http://euro-case.org/documents/Final-report-Bologna-process-2010-01-181.pdf%20on%20January%2022

http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fec.europa.eu%2Feducation%2Fpolicies%2Feduc%2Fbologna%2Fbologna.pdf&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEWnNSqV5zpPeNTfgP3SOSttijfTQ



















Mutum, Dilip; Wang, Qing (2010). "Consumer Generated Advertising in Blogs". In Neal M. Burns, Terry Daugherty, Matthew S. Eastin. Handbook of Research on Digital Media and Adver-tising: User Generated Content Consumption. 1. IGI Global. pp. 248–261.

116

Appendix A: Group MemberArt Wexler Vice President of Academic Affairs Atlantic Cape Community College

Bo Zilovic Assistant Professor of Computer Information Sys-tems

Atlantic Cape Community College

Jose A. Adames Academic Vice President Bergen Community College

Patricia Kahn Executive Director of Information Technology Brookdale Community College

Nancy Kegelman Dean of Academic Affairs Brookdale Community College

Maris Lown Dean Science & Health Science Brookdale Community College

Michael Qaissaunee Chair & Associate Professor, Engineering and Technology

Brookdale Community College

Martin Hoffman Director of eLearning/ Exec. Director of Distance Education


Robert Messina President, Co-Chair Burlington County College

Sebastian (Ben) Vasta Dean of Academic Support Camden County College

Corey Vigdor Executive Director, The Center for Distance Educa-tion

Hudson County Community College

Debbie Kell Dean of Institutional and Instructional Effectiveness

Mercer County Community College

Jan-Marie Traynor Chairperson-Landscape & Horticultural Tech Dept County College of Morris

Richard Strada Interim Vice President of Academic Affairs Ocean County College

Greg Fallon Associate Dean of Learning Resources Passaic County Community College

Melanie Morris Associate Professor- Business Law Raritan Valley Community College

John Pardini Chief Technology Officer Salem Community College

Anthony Sorrento Director of Instructional Design Sussex County Community College

Elsie Donovan Senior Professor – English Union County College

Margaret M. McMenamin President, Co-Chair Union County College

Lawrence A. Nespoli President NJ Council of County Colleges


Sosanya Jones Research Assistant NJ Council of County Colleges


Group Seven met for the first time by conference call on December 17, 2010. Following that call, the group developed a survey of the 19 community colleges to learn more about how

117

the sector was using technology in instruction and student support services. Twelve of the 19 community colleges responded to the survey and the findings were as follows:

Sector-Wide Technology Survey Results:

• Spreadsheets, presentation software, and social networking sites were the most frequently used technology for instruction and student support services (over 80%).

• The next most frequent uses were identified as discipline specific technologies, student support technologies, and graphics software (over 70%).

• The data indicated moderate use of Video creation software, simulations and educational computer games, E-portfolios, e-books and e-textbooks.

• Text message voice over internet protocol and update micro-blogs were used by over 40 percent of the respondents (41.2%).

• Most institutions (over 58%) do not provide hand held devices capable of accessing the internet for the purpose of instruction, but 11.8% are considering doing so in the next year.

In addition, all of the survey respondents indicated that their institutions offer profes-sional development for faculty and staff relative to learning platforms for use in instruction. A high percentage (over 60%) also offer training on presentation software, spreadsheets, and the college university website. Nearly 60% of the survey respondents indicated that their institutions provide training for faculty regarding the pedagogy of teaching online classes.

The data further indicated that there is a moderate amount of training for faculty and staff on the use of graphics software, course lecture podcasts or video-to-video, E-portfolios, disci-pline specific technologies and social networking sites (all over 40%). There also appears to be a high prevalence of courses that use a learning management system for asynchronous learning (over 80%). All survey respondents indicated that their institutions provide professional develop-ment for faculty in these specific areas.

Almost 43% of the survey respondents indicated that their institutions were curious about new technologies but hesitant to adopt them “too fast,” while 28.6% thought that their institu-tions usually embraced new technologies and are often the first to experiment with them. These respondents indicated that the leaders in their institutions are eager to learn more about new and emerging technologies.Deliberative Process

The group held its next meeting on January 28, 2011, at the New Jersey Council of County Colleges office in Trenton. The group reviewed and discussed the survey and research findings and determined that further research was needed. Members of the group assumed re-sponsibility for conducting research on various topics that would eventually inform the develop-

118

ment of an implementation plan. Their reports were integrated into a rough draft of the imple-mentation plan, which was then reviewed and discussed at a subsequent group meeting.

On February 24, 2011, the group met again in Trenton, at which time members reviewed the rough draft of the implementation plan and identified major strategies and goals. Again, indi-vidual members and groups of members were assigned the task of further developing goals, ac-tion steps and success indicators for those strategies needing more consideration. The strategies relating to 1) active, student learner-centered cognition, 2) synchronous online learning environ-ments, 3) use of mobile devices for teaching and learning, and 4) the use of social media for the delivery of instruction and assessment needed to be further developed into a plan by those in the group with special expertise in those areas. These individual draft plans were submitted on March 5, 2011.

On March 18, 2011, the group met once again to deliberate and review the draft plan. The strategies were re-drafted and clarified.

The group determined that additional refinement of the goals, action steps, and success indicators were needed to comport with the revised strategies. A sub-committee of the group was formed to meet by conference call on March 23, 2011, to further develop the goals, action steps ,and success indicators. Following the call, strategic planning consultant James Davy worked individually with several members of the sub-committee to further refine the implemen-tation plan.

A final draft of the plan was presented to and reviewed by the entire group on March 30, 2011, at the offices of the NJCCC. At that meeting the plan was approved by the group.

119

Using Core Student Learning Outcomes and Common Assessment Tools in the Top 10 Highest Enrollment General Education

Courses

Action Plan for ImplementationPrepared by Group Eight of the Big Ideas Project

August 2011


Phone: (609) 392-3434Fax: (609) 392-8158




120



About the Big Ideas ProjectIn Fall 2009, the Trustees and Presidents agreed that the community colleges should pur-

sue research to find the best and boldest ideas to promote sustainability, maintain or improve quality, and, most significantly, improve student success. Several task forces were created to conduct that research, and white papers were delivered in late Summer 2010. Guided by these white papers, the Trustees and Presidents identified eight key statewide priorities in Fall 2010 and charged eight workgroups to develop action plans for implementing these “Big Ideas.” Coor-dinated by the New Jersey Council of County Colleges, each workgroup was co-chaired by com-munity college presidents and included representatives from all New Jersey community colleges. Their recommendations, as amended and approved by the presidents in June 2011, are presented in this report.

121

Table of Contents


Background………………….………………………………………….…… 125


Strategies, Goals, and Success Indicators.............……………. 128

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………… 129


Appendices……………………………………………………………………

References………………………………………………………………. 131

Appendix A: Group Members……………..……………………………... 132

Appendix B: Methods................................…………………………….... 133

122

Executive Summary

Across New Jersey’s 19 community colleges, over 100,000 students are enrolled in 10 common general education courses each semester. Based on Fall 2010 enrollments, the top 10 highest enrollment general education courses are (in rank order):

1. English Composition2. Introduction to Psychology3. English Composition II4. Introduction to Sociology5. Introduction to Computers6. Public Speaking7. Western Civilizations8. Contemporary Math9. Anatomy and Physiology10. Statistics

Faculty currently develop course objectives and learning outcomes at each institution.

Big Ideas Group Eight seeks to develop ways in which the 19 community colleges can collabo-rate to ensure that the top 10 general education courses are delivered with core learning out-comes and assessment tools that support enhanced student success across the state.

A number of promising national models are emerging to assist in these efforts. Nine New Jersey community colleges have recently joined Project DELTA, a national consortium that trains faculty in interactive course delivery methods and supports faculty in the beta testing of high-quality interactive general education courses (SIRIUS courses) at low cost to students

The following strategy is recommended to promote statewide action on the top 10 highest enrollment general education courses at New Jersey’s community colleges. Strategy #1: Charge the New Jersey Community Colleges Academic Affairs Affinity

Group to establish a statewide core learning outcomes task force to develop:

1. Core student learning outcomes for the top 10 highest enrollment general education courses;

2. A comprehensive inventory of instructional best practices;3. Common assessment tools; and4. Faculty training and development tools.

123

Background

Across New Jersey’s 19 community colleges, over 100,000 students are enrolled in 10 common general education courses each semester. Based on Fall 2010 enrollments, the top 10 highest enrollment general education courses are (in rank order):

1. English Composition2. Introduction to Psychology3. English Composition II4. Introduction to Sociology5. Introduction to Computers6. Public Speaking7. Western Civilizations8. Contemporary Math9. Anatomy and Physiology10. Statistics

Faculty currently develop course objectives and learning outcomes at each institution.

Big Ideas Group Eight seeks to develop ways in which the 19 community colleges can collabo-rate to ensure that the top 10 general education courses are delivered with core learning out-comes and assessment tools that support enhanced student success across the state.

Driven by an interest to support quality instruction and address increasing fiscal chal-lenges facing community colleges, the top 10 high enrollment general education classes were identified as a high impact area where statewide collaboration could greatly support increased student and institutional success in a cost-effective way. The first step in this process is to bring together faculty from across the state to develop a common definition of “core” and the subse-quent learning outcomes for each course. The development of the core learning outcomes for each of the top 10 high enrollment general education classes will also support the creation and sharing of best statewide teaching practices to ensure that faculty have access to the resources they need to support student learning in these courses.

Institutions will be provided the tools to support enhanced course delivery by building on collaborations with national and regional programs, such as Project DELTA and the National Center for Academic Transformation (NCAT).

Project DELTA is a national consortium that trains faculty in interactive course delivery methods and supports faculty in the beta testing of high-quality interactive general education courses (SIRIUS courses) at low cost to students. Over 20 SIRIUS courses have been developed to date, including courses for most of the New Jersey top 10 highest enrollment general educa-tion areas noted above.

Nine New Jersey community colleges have joined Project DELTA to date:

1. Atlantic Cape Community College

124

2. Burlington County College3. Camden County College4. Cumberland County College5. Essex County College6. Raritan Valley Community College7. Sussex County Community College8. Union County College9. Warren County Community College

Cumberland and Essex began offering SIRIUS courses in the Spring 2011 semester;

Camden plans to offer its first SIRIUS courses in Summer 2011, and the others plan to offer their first SIRIUS courses in 2011-2012.

NCAT provides five possible models for course redesign: 1) the supplemental model re-tains basic course structures but supplements them with technology and out-of-class work; 2) the replacement model replaces in-class hours with out-of-class, online, and interactive learning; 3) the emporium model replaces class meetings by providing an open attendance model with a learning resource center allowing online and on-demand personalized assistance; 4) the fully on-line model moves entire courses to an online platform; and 5) a buffet model provides custom-ized learning environments for each student based on a variety of factors such as background and learning preferences. Cumberland County College and Mercer County Community College, with support from the Gates Foundation, are currently working with NCAT on developmental math course redesign.

Both Project DELTA and NCAT offer opportunities for increased collaboration to sup-port student success in the top 10 highest enrollment general education classes. Based on the needs of the sector to enhance collaboration, the group has developed the following implementa-tion plan to develop core learning outcomes, pedagogy/androgogy methods, common assessment models, and the sharing of best practices.

125


Group Charge

New Jersey’s community college presidents recognize that exploring course redesign for the top 10 high-enrollment general education courses can improve student learning outcomes and success. Developing an action plan to implement across NJ’s 19 community colleges is a top pri-ority for the future success of New Jersey’s community colleges.

Community colleges and other institutions of higher education across the country are ex-ploring, implementing and evaluating the efficacy of “course redesign” as a way to improvestudent learning outcomes and success. The impetus for restructuring the delivery model for edu-cation is being driven by the confluence of expanding enrollments, diminishing public resources, growth in student diversity, and the expectations to meet students’ needs in new and different ways.

The presidents created a work group chaired by Dr. Edythe Abdullah of Essex County College and Dr. Russell Davis of Gloucester County College with the following charge:

To explore course redesign in order to improve student learning outcomes and success and to develop a sector-wide action plan with a particular emphasis on the top 10 high-enroll-ment general education courses. The group will also explore programs such as Project Delta and NCAT that may represent opportunities for NJ in the area of course redesign.

Through its deliberative process (see Appendix B), the group focused on the development of statewide core student learning outcomes and common assessment tools. The group believes that the successful implementation of this strategy will result in greater consistency in the deliv-ery of high-enrollment general education courses, enhanced articulation with senior colleges across the state, and the opportunity for improved faculty development.

Group Vision Statement

New Jersey’s community colleges as a sector, through the active engagement of faculty, provide the highest quality of course content and pedagogy/androgogy for its top 10 highest en-rollment general education courses. Across the sector, the community colleges have common core student learning outcomes for each of the top 10 highest enrollment general education cour-ses and actively promote the use of innovative instructional delivery methods by full-time and adjunct faculty. Common assessment methods, supplemented by those unique to each institution, are used to measure student success in the top 10 highest enrollment general education courses.

Strategy, Goals, and Success Indicators

126

Strategy #1: Charge the New Jersey Community Colleges Academic Affairs Affinity Group to establish a statewide core learning outcomes task force to develop:

1. Core student learning outcomes for the top 10 highest enrollment general education courses;

2. An inventory of instructional best practices;3. Common assessment tools; and4. Faculty training and development tools

Goal #1: Develop core student learning outcomes for the top 10 highest enrollment gen-eral education courses and a plan for integrating these into the course structures of New Jersey’s 19 community colleges by July 2012.

Goal #2: Develop an inventory of best practice pedagogy/androgogy methods (e.g. tech-nology-based, instructional methods, contextual instruction, etc.) for teaching the core student learning outcomes of the top 10 highest enrollment general education courses by July 2013.

Goal #3: Develop an inventory of best practice assessment tools aligned to the core stu-dent learning outcomes for each of the top 10 highest enrollment general education cour-ses by July 2013.

Goal #4: Create a statewide faculty development program for full-time and adjunct fac-ulty that supports student success in the core student learning outcomes using best prac-tices in instructional methods and assessment by December 2013.

Success Indicators for Strategy #1:a. Consistency of core course content across the sector.b. Enhanced quality of instruction by faculty.c. Greater retention of adjunct faculty.d. Greater student success as measured by student mastery of general education

course content.e. Colleges use benchmarking and performance data for continuous improvement.

Conclusion

127




128





USING CORE STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES AND ASSESSMENT TOOLS IN THE TOP TEN 10 HIGHEST ENROLLMENT GENERAL EDUCATION COURSES

THE PRESIDENTS ARE ASKING THE COUNCIL OF COUNTY COLLEGES’ COURSE REVIEW COMMITTEE TO PROVIDE LEADERSHIP ON THIS BIG IDEA, RATHER THAN ASSIGNING IT TO ONE OR MORE AFFINITY GROUPS.

In order to make progress over the next academic year, the Presidents provide the following charge on Using Core Student Learning Outcomes and Assessment Tools in the Top 10 Highest Enrollment General Education Courses.

1. Identify core student learning outcomes for the top 10 highest enrollment general education courses. Assess the degree to which there is consistency of core outcomes across the sector. Develop an inventory of best practice assessment tools aligned to the identified core student learning outcomes for these 10 courses.

The presidents request that the Course Review Committee provide the above review and analysis by May 2012.

129

References

The National Center for Academic Transformation. Course Redesign. A Structured Approach to Success for Higher Education Systems. 2011. http :// thencat . org / howtodoit . htm (accessed January 22, 2011).

SIRIUS Academics. Project Delta and the Consortium. 2009. http :// www . sirius - education . org / projectdelta . html . (accessed December 1, 2010).

Twigg, Carol. Course Redesign Improves Learning and Reduces Cost. National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education http :// www . highereducation . org / reports / pa _ core / index . shtml (accessed December 3, 2010)

130

http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.highereducation.org%2Freports%2Fpa_core%2Findex.shtml&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEeWXT_zQVT0u4BOzZmAx7c0T8GtQ

















http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sirius-education.org%2Fprojectdelta.html&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGNbbxyHpD93gCVqxiN2aEAAlew3w













http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fthencat.org%2Fhowtodoit.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFgOYgj_gt1UHUZU4XoX_KIhHEYCA










David Stout Associate Professor of Brookdale Community CollegePsychology

Kathryn E. Strang Student Outcomes Burlington County CollegeAssessment Coordinator

Edythe Abdullah President, Co-Chair Essex County CollegeSusan Gaulden Professor of Mathematics Essex County CollegeRussell Davis President, Co-Chair Gloucester County CollegeJohn Henzy Provost and Vice President, Gloucester County College

Academic Services Kris Krishnan Associate Dean, Office of Hudson County Community College

Institutional Research and Planning

Paula Pando Vice President of North Hudson County Community CollegeHudson Center and Student Affairs

Linda Bregstein-Scherr Professor, History/GECC Mercer County Community College, Virginia Reilly Professor of Accounting Ocean County College

and Economics Jackie Kineavy Vice President for Academic Passaic County Community College

and Student Affairs Mark McCormick Dean of Academic Affairs Salem Community College,

Jacob C. Farbman Director of Communications NJ Council of County CollegesJames Davy Strategic Planning Consultant James M. Davy AssociatesIshara Casellas-Katz Research Assistant NJ Council of County Colleges

131

Appendix B: Methods

Group Eight conducted four meetings by utilizing conference calls and face-to-face meet-ings from December 2010 though March 2011. Group members collaborated on the develop-ment of the plan through the use of Google Groups and Google Docs. During its first meeting, the group began to focus its attention on the development of core learning outcomes as the foundation needed to facilitate greater collaboration among the 19 com-munity colleges. The group gathered data to identify the top 15 highest enrollment general edu-cation course for Fall 2010. In addition, the group gathered the syllabi for each of these top 15 classes to ensure accurate categorization and to determine the level of consistency in student learning outcomes across the sector. This data was used to generate a list of the top 10 highest enrollment general education classes offered to students across the community college sector. One limitation of the research was the ability to categorize introductory math classes. The group concluded that a more detailed categorization of the introductory math classes will be needed during the implementation phase of the plan. The group also reviewed two national best practice models: Project DELTA/SIRIUS and National Center for Academic Transformation. Group members from the New Jersey General Education Project also provided background information regarding their previous work and pos-sible implementation structures. The group also utilized information on similar regional projects and a literature review to support the development of the implementation plans.

132