Collegiate Transfer: Navigating the New Normal : New Directions for Higher Education, Number 162 [1 ed.] 9781118709139, 9781118701027

Citation preview

New Directions for Higher Education

Betsy O. Barefoot Jillian L. Kinzie Co-editors

Collegiate Transfer: Navigating the New Normal

Janet L. Marling EDITOR

Number 162 • Summer 2013 Jossey-Bass San Francisco

COLLEGIATE TRANSFER: NAVIGATING THE NEW NORMAL Janet L. Marling New Directions for Higher Education, no. 162 Betsy O. Barefoot and Jillian L. Kinzie, Co-editors Copyright © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., A Wiley Company. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means, except as permitted under sections 107 and 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the publisher or authorization through the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923; (978) 7508400; fax (978) 646-8600. The copyright notice appearing at the bottom of the first page of a chapter in this journal indicates the copyright holder’s consent that copies may be made for personal or internal use, or for personal or internal use of specific clients, on the condition that the copier pay for copying beyond that permitted by law. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying, such as copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating collective works, or for resale. Such permission requests and other permission inquiries should be addressed to the Permissions Department, c/o John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030; (201) 7486011; fax (201) 748-6008; www.wiley.com/go/permissions. Microfilm copies of issues and articles are available in 16mm and 35mm, as well as microfiche in 105mm, through University Microfilms Inc., 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346. NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION (ISSN 0271-0560, electronic ISSN 1536-0741) is part of The Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series and is published quarterly by Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company, at Jossey-Bass, One Montgomery Street, Suite 1200, San Francisco, CA 94104-4594. Periodicals Postage Paid at San Francisco, California, and at additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to New Directions for Higher Education, Jossey-Bass, One Montgomery Street, Suite 1200, San Francisco, CA 94104-4594. New Directions for Higher Education is indexed in Current Index to Journals in Education (ERIC); Higher Education Abstracts. Individual subscription rate (in USD): $89 per year US/Can/Mex, $113 rest of world; institutional subscription rate: $292 US, $332 Can/Mex, $366 rest of world. Single copy rate: $29. Electronic only–all regions: $89 individual, $292 institutional; Print & Electronic–US: $98 individual, $335 institutional; Print & Electronic–Canada/Mexico: $98 individual, $375 institutional; Print & Electronic–Rest of World: $122 individual, $409 institutional. Editorial correspondence should be sent to the Co-editor, Betsy O. Barefoot, Gardner Institute, Box 72, Brevard, NC 28712. Cover photograph © Digital Vision www.josseybass.com

CONTENTS EDITOR’S NOTES

1

Janet L. Marling

1. The Transfer Moment: The Pivotal Partnership Between Community Colleges and Four-Year Institutions in Securing the Nation’s College Completion Agenda

5

Stephen J. Handel This chapter addresses transfer from a community college to a fouryear institution, an important pathway for students seeking the bachelor’s degree, especially students from underserved groups. The transfer pathway will be an increasingly important source of bachelor’s degree holders as colleges and universities strive to meet President Obama’s college completion agenda.

2. Deciphering Articulation and State/System Policies and Agreements

17

Trudy H. Bers This chapter provides a brief description of articulation agreements and policies intended to facilitate transfer; examples of institutional partnership, system-level, and statewide approaches; and observations about the characteristics, underlying assumptions, and utility of these agreements and policies.

3. Campus Administrator and Student Perspectives for Improving Transfer Policy and Practice

27

Amy Fann This chapter offers a set of recommendations for two-year and four-year institutions related to the evaluation and implementation of transfer policy and practice. These recommendations were drawn from a major study to investigate the perspectives of students, staff, and administrators.

4. Institutional Practices That Facilitate Bachelor’s Degree Completion for Transfer Students Abby Miller This chapter presents findings from two recent Pell Institute studies, which explored the characteristics and experiences of low-income, first-generation community college transfer students in Texas and two-year and four-year institutional approaches to facilitating transfer student degree completion.

39

5. Building a Transfer-Receptive Culture at Four-Year Institutions

51

Alfred Herrera, Dimpal Jain This chapter reviews a four-year university’s role in developing and implementing a transfer-receptive culture. In particular, it focuses on the first element of a transfer-receptive culture by highlighting a series of visits by the chancellor of the University of California, Los Angeles, to community colleges within California.

6. Successful Transitions From Two-Year to Four-Year Institutions

61

Thomas J. Grites This chapter provides an analysis of a set of conditions that transfer students will most likely face in their transition to a new institution. The specific focus is on transfer from two-year to fouryear institutions.

7. The Shared Experiences: Facilitating Successful Transfer of Women and Underrepresented Minorities in STEM Fields

69

Dimitra Lynette Jackson, Soko S. Starobin, Frankie Santos Laanan This chapter addresses critical issues related to the transfer success of women and underrepresented minorities (URMs) in STEM disciplines and will highlight implications for fostering a successful transfer experience for these populations.

8. Navigating the New Normal: Transfer Trends, Issues, and Recommendations

77

Janet L. Marling This chapter establishes the use of data and effective communications as the foundation of comprehensive approaches to facilitating transfer student success and examines transfer trends and future issues. Recommendations are offered to institutions and individuals for navigating the new normal—collegiate transfer.

INDEX

89

EDITOR’S NOTES A

little over five years ago I started commenting to my colleagues, “I hope in ten years I am in a different line of work.” Met with inquisitive looks, I would quickly explain that my declaration did not mean I wanted leave higher education, but rather that I anticipated my efforts would be needed in a field other than the study of transfer students. I envisioned a day in the not-so-distant future when the National Institute for the Study of Transfer Students and related entities would redirect their energies to other issues because transfer had truly become seamless and there was equity for transfer students. Boy, was I wrong! There is still so much work to be done. Collegiate transfer is receiving more national, state, and local attention than ever, yet challenges remain. Rather than reducing the complexities of the transfer process, this exposure is illuminating the shortcomings of our traditionally focused institutional structures and pedagogy, and has left many wondering just what to do with this wonderfully diverse population. John N. Gardner refers to collegiate transfer as “the new normal” (2012). Although students have been moving between institutions and attempting to import credit for many years, current data show that transfer is becoming an increasingly common approach to higher education (Hossler et al., 2012). This volume is dedicated to exploring this new normal and has been written with a broad constituency in mind. It is intended to assist institutions, higher education agencies, and even state legislative bodies as they navigate the challenges of serving transfer students, a diverse, integral segment of our higher education system. Most available research has explored the two-year to four-year pathway, and the practical examples provided here often use that framework. However, transition issues are not restricted to a specific higher education sector, and readers interested in the complex processes of other transfer pathways will gain valuable insight was well. Stephen J. Handel in Chapter One takes a comprehensive look at the state of transfer. He addresses specific challenges faced by transfer students and the role of transfer in our national and state completion agendas, and he sounds a call to arms for increased collaboration between two- and fouryear institutions. In Chapter Two, Trudy H. Bers offers insight into the complexities of articulation and state policy agreements, noting that these agreements are necessary but not sufficient for creating more seamless transfer pathways. Chapters Three and Four highlight three research projects that examined state policies and promising institutional practices. In Chapter Three, Amy Fann describes how well-intentioned state higher education policies

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, no. 162, Summer 2013 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI:10.1002/he.20051

1

2

COLLEGIATE TRANSFER: NAVIGATING THE NEW NORMAL

can have unintended consequences for transfer students, and she gives a voice to two- and four-year students’ impressions of the transfer process. Abby Miller in Chapter Four provides guidance for two- and four-year institutions interested in creating conditions conducive to facilitating transfer student degree completion. Additional institutional insight is provided in Chapter Five as Alfred Herrera and Dimpal Jain emphasize the role of four-year institutions in creating transfer-receptive cultures utilizing the framework of critical race theory and offer an example of a successful university–community college outreach program. In Chapter Six, Thomas J. Grites discusses what institutions can do to mitigate transfer shock for new students, and he focuses on academic and environmental differences that transfer students may experience between two-year and four-year institutions. Moving to a very specific student focus, in Chapter Seven, Dimitra Lynette Jackson, Soko S. Starobin, and Frankie Santos Laanan provide an examination of collegiate transfer from the perspectives of women and underrepresented minority groups transferring in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) disciplines. Finally, in an effort to bridge the volume’s content, Chapter Eight concludes with a look at current transfer trends and future issues and provides recommendations for action. Reconciling all of the challenges related to collegiate transfer will not be accomplished overnight or without significant intra- and interinstitutional collaboration; but there appears to be an increasing interest in, and accountability for, transfer student success. I am heartened by the number of individuals willing to admit uncertainty related to meeting the needs of transfer students, and to them I say, “You are not alone.” Rather than focusing on what is not being done at their institutions, these professionals are encouraged to make a commitment to addressing the barriers and inequities transfers face as they transition from, or to, their new communities. Individuals and institutions already providing promising programs and services on behalf of transfers are urged to share successes and be available to others who want to learn from them. Together we can strengthen policies, processes, and practices that will facilitate transfer student persistence and increase degree completion. And just maybe in another 10 years, I will be looking to address the challenges of another higher education discipline. Janet L. Marling Editor References Gardner, J. N. (2012, September). The new normal—Transfer students in the majority: How can we serve them more effectively? Keynote address presented at the New York Transfer Summit, multiple sites, New York State.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

EDITOR’S NOTES

3

Hossler, D., Shapiro, D., Dundar, A., Ziskin, M., Chen, J., Zerquera, D., & Torres, V. (2012, February). Transfer & mobility: A national view of pre-degree student movement in postsecondary institutions. National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. Bloomington, IN. Retrieved from http://www.studentclearinghouse.info/signature/2/

JANET L. MARLING is the executive director of the National Institute for the Study of Transfer Students (NISTS) located at the University of North Georgia in Dahlonega, Georgia.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

1

This chapter addresses transfer from a community college to a four-year institution, an important pathway for students seeking the bachelor’s degree, especially students from underserved groups. The transfer pathway will be an increasingly important source of bachelor’s degree holders as colleges and universities strive to meet President Obama’s college completion agenda.

The Transfer Moment: The Pivotal Partnership Between Community Colleges and Four-Year Institutions in Securing the Nation’s College Completion Agenda Stephen J. Handel For nearly a decade, a chorus of higher education pundits, policy makers, and politicians has been sounding the alarm regarding the relatively low productivity of U.S. colleges and universities in producing students with certificates and degrees. The repeated reference to data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2008) about the United States’ relatively lackluster rank of sixth among developed nations in the percentage of 25- to 64-year-old adults with an associate degree or higher has galvanized the business, policy making, and philanthropic communities in a sustained examination of the productivity of U.S. colleges and universities. The most ambitious challenge has come from the federal government. During his 2009 address to a joint session of Congress, President Obama challenged every U.S. citizen “to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training” and urged this nation to attain the highest proportion of college graduates in the world by 2020 (White House, 2009). With his reelection in 2012, it is likely that this pressure will continue.

The author thanks Janet Marling, James Montoya, Ronald Williams, and Alicia Zelek for reviewing an earlier version of this chapter and offering valuable suggestions, although all errors are the responsibility of the author. The views expressed in this chapter do not necessarily reflect those of the College Board or its member institutions. NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, no. 162, Summer 2013 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI:10.1002/he.20052

5

6

COLLEGIATE TRANSFER: NAVIGATING THE NEW NORMAL

Whether one is convinced that the OECD findings justify the relentless hand-wringing among policy makers over the state of U.S. higher education—and a number of people are not (e.g., Adelman, 2009; Hauptman, 2012)—most will agree that there is room for improvement in the proportion of students who complete a postsecondary certificate or degree. The OECD analyses revealed that the United States ranked near the bottom of developed nations in the percentage of students entering college who completed a degree program. Although the United States ranked fourth among developed countries in the postsecondary degree achievements of 55- to 64-year-old adults (39.0%), the position rank slips to 12th when looking at the academic productivity of 25- to 34-year-old adults (39.2%; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2008). The uneven productivity of college degrees and credentials comes at a time when the need for highly skilled workers is growing. According to Jobs for the Future, by 2025 the United States must produce 25.1% more associate degree holders and 19.6% more bachelor’s degree holders over and above current production levels to meet the nation’s workforce needs (Reindl, 2007). Moreover, addressing this degree gap will require the nation to boost the number of degrees and certificates earned by individuals who represent groups traditionally underserved in higher education, including American Indian, African American, Latino, low-income, and first-generation students (National Center for Higher Education Management Systems and Jobs for the Future, 2007). This is because these groups, especially the Latino population, will increase significantly in the coming decades.

The Community College and the Completion Agenda Given the number of undergraduates that these institutions educate each year, and the fact that community colleges are especially welcoming to students from underserved backgrounds, community colleges must be a significant part of any national strategy to increase college completion. In responding to a question about the ability of the United States to meet President Obama’s college completion goals, Thomas Bailey, Director of the Community College Research Center, commented: [C]ommunity colleges must play a disproportionate role in any significant increase in postsecondary attainment. . . . According to data from the National Education Longitudinal Survey (NELS), which tracked students for eight years after their scheduled entry into a community college, about 15% of community college entrants left with between 30 and 59 credits. . . . [L]owincome students, first-generation college students, immigrants, and minorities, especially Latinos, are over-represented in community colleges, and any increase in college attainment will have to involve these groups. (Bailey, 2012, p. 76) NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

THE TRANSFER MOMENT

7

Although community colleges are seen as part of the solution in creating a better-educated workforce in the United States, the historic nexus of these colleges with public four-year institutions well over 100 years ago is rarely discussed in any systematic way. Since the early decades of the 20th century, community colleges and four-year institutions, mostly public entities, have worked collectively to develop a pathway to help students earn bachelor’s degrees. In the traditional transfer pathway, students begin postsecondary education at a local community college, usually completing lower-division, general education courses, along with introductory courses in whatever major they have selected. They next transfer as juniors to a four-year institution, where they complete upper-division, major-level courses in fulfillment of a bachelor’s degree. Today, although community college students rarely follow this pathway in such a lockstep way, the pathway remains an important one, not only for the diversity of students who only have access to a community college and still seek something more than a two-year degree (a rather large proportion of students), but also for the United States as it searches for ways to boost the number of individuals with postsecondary degrees and credentials.

Community Colleges, Transfer, and the Bachelor’s Degree Although the discussion around college completion focuses on increasing the number of people with certificates and degrees of all types, more recent analyses portend an especially urgent need to increase the number of bachelor’s degree holders. In their 2011 report, The Undereducated American, Georgetown University researchers Anthony P. Carnevale and Stephen J. Rose conclude that the United States will need an additional 20 million postsecondaryeducated workers by 2025. Of these 20 million individuals, at least 15 million must earn bachelor’s degrees. Carnevale and Rose argue that such growth, 2% per year for the next decade and a half, is necessary not only to fill job requirements in the United States but also to stem the widening earnings gap between those individuals who possess a high school diploma and those who hold a four-year degree (2011). Carnevale and Rose (2011) never mention community colleges or transfer students in their report. Nonetheless, they stress that increasing “the number of college graduates must be based . . . on removing barriers to degree completion for qualified students” (p. 32). Creating a smoother transfer pathway surely falls within this criterion. They also recommend improving the academic skills of graduating high school seniors. Betterprepared students entering college, whether a two- or four-year institution, are more likely to complete a certificate or degree. However, generating 15 million more bachelor’s degree holders in a little over 10 years is so ambitious that, barring a historic turnaround of the K–12 system, it is unlikely that Carnevale and Rose’s goal can be met without relying on the accessibility and capacity of community colleges and the transfer pathway. NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

8

COLLEGIATE TRANSFER: NAVIGATING THE NEW NORMAL

The good news is that a large proportion of students currently enrolled in higher education use community colleges as at least one strategy in their pursuit of a bachelor’s degree. A recent analysis by the National Student Clearinghouse (Shapiro et al., 2012) reveals that 45% of the students who completed bachelor’s degrees at the end of the 2011–2012 academic year had previously enrolled in a community college. The extensive use of community colleges as a springboard for the attainment of the four-year degree caught some higher education observers by surprise, but not practitioners who work with transfer students at two- and four-year institutions. Although National Student Clearinghouse findings provide one of the most complete national snapshots of the transfer process, data from other sources also signal that a large proportion of students completing certificates and degrees at U.S. postsecondary institutions do so at institutions different from the one in which they originally enrolled. What National Student Clearinghouse data reinforce is the importance of community colleges— and by implication the transfer pathway—in the production of four-year degree holders in the United States. National Student Clearinghouse findings also highlight how important community colleges are in helping states meet the ambitious college completion agenda targets set by the Obama administration. Those states producing over 100,000 four-year degree completers in 2010–2011 were also generally the ones that relied significantly on community colleges to boost those degree completions. Of the seven states producing more than 100,000 bachelordegree graduates, in five states (Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, and Texas) 50% or more of these graduates began at community colleges. Students’ reliance on community colleges to complete bachelor’s degrees is more than casual. National Student Clearinghouse data also reveal that the ubiquitous presence of community colleges nationwide makes these institutions a convenient place for students to pick up summer or intersession credits that boost progress toward a four-year degree. The National Student Clearinghouse reports that even within a single academic year, 8% of all students in higher education attended more than one postsecondary education institution and over 50% of these students moved between twoand four-year institutions. Furthermore, a large proportion of students (24%) attended a community college for a single term. While this suggests a relatively incidental use of the community college, Adelman (2005, 2006) and Moore, Shulock, & Offenstein (2009) have noted that the strategic use of summer sessions to earn college credits plays an important role in helping students generate academic momentum toward a four-year degree. More striking, however, was students’ nonincidental use of community colleges. Rather than attending these institutions for a single course or a summer term, National Student Clearinghouse data show that many students attend a community college for a significant period. Data reveal that 41% of students who earned a bachelor’s degree attended a community college for five terms or more, and 60% attended for at least three terms. NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

THE TRANSFER MOMENT

9

Clearly, the extent to which students are relying on community colleges to fuel their progress toward the bachelor’s degree is substantial.

The Increasing Importance of the Transfer Pathway Despite the historical popularity of community colleges and the willingness of students to use these institutions as an essential part of their strategy to earn a bachelor’s degree, the process itself is exceedingly complex. Transfer admission requirements vary across four-year institutions, sometimes among institutions within the same higher education system. Moreover, students must cope with the seemingly arbitrary translation of their community college courses into bachelor’s degree credit that will stand in lieu of specific four-year institution requirements. Some courses transfer and some do not; it all depends on academic policies of the four-year institution. Articulation agreements—formal arrangements that specify the type and number of courses a four-year institution will accept from a given community college—usually differ. The extent to which two- and four-year institutions align their curricula to address students’ academic progression from lower division to upper division is beyond the scope of this chapter, but it is safe to say that the variability is extensive and hardly ever works in favor of students who wish to apply to more than one transfer destination. Still, for the reasons outlined below, the need for a robust and efficient transfer process will become ever more important, and it will serve the nation well to focus on this academic pathway while attempting to increase the number of students with the bachelor’s degree. Community College Students Want to Transfer and Earn a Bachelor’s Degree. Recent surveys indicate that at least 50% and perhaps as many as 80% of all incoming, first-time, community college students seek to transfer and earn a bachelor’s degree (Horn, 2009; Horn & Skomsvold, 2011; Provasnik & Planty, 2008). According to a report from the U.S. Department of Education, the proportion of students surveyed who intended to earn a four-year degree rose from 70.7 percent to 81.4 percent between 1989–90 and 2003–04 (Horn & Skomsvold, 2011). Indeed, students’ desire to earn a bachelor’s degree has steadily increased since 1989–90 regardless of their racial/ethnic background, age, and income level. This educational goal is especially valued among students from underserved groups, including African American, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander students, as well as students from low-income groups. Researchers and policy makers often dismiss community college students’ intentions as unstable, sometimes even inauthentic. Although it is demonstrably true that not all students with transfer intentions go on to earn a four-year degree, the desire of most first-time community college students to earn a four-year degree has never wavered significantly in the published history of transfer (Brint & Karabel, 1989; Medsker, 1960). For example, NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

10

COLLEGIATE TRANSFER: NAVIGATING THE NEW NORMAL

Brint and Karabel quote student survey results from the 1920s through the 1950s, all of which report student intentions as primarily directed toward transfer and a bachelor’s degree (1989). Moreover, since 1966 the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI; 2013) at the University of California, Los Angeles, has documented the interests and concerns of freshmen entering U.S. higher education institutions, including their educational intentions. Up until 1999, HERI surveyed freshman students who began their postsecondary education at a community college. At no point in the 33-year history of this survey did the interest of these students in earning a bachelor’s and a graduate degree ever dip below 70%. In 1984, the HERI added a survey question about student interest in vocational credentials. For community college students surveyed between 1984 and 1999, no more than 5% in any given year expressed an interest in this educational goal (Higher Education Research Institute [HERI], 2013). Research has also established that many students who intend to earn sub-bachelor’s degree credentials at a community college often increase their educational aspirations after starting at a two-year college (Rosenbaum, Deli-Amen, & Person, 2006). This emphasis on the bachelor’s degree is not intended to devalue the worth of certificates or associate degrees. Providing opportunities for students to obtain work-related credentials is an essential mission of community colleges, and many students have benefited significantly from this training and education (Dougherty, 1994). The point here, however, is that transfer is seen as a pathway to a four-year degree by millions of students, highlighting again the value of time and investment in the improvement of this academic gateway. Community Colleges’ Share of the Undergraduate Population Is Likely to Increase. The U.S. Department of Education predicts that postsecondary enrollments will grow 13% between now and 2020, despite the fact that the national high school graduation rate is predicted to decline 3% during the same period. Part of the projected growth in college going will be made up of Latino students, students 25 to 34 years old, and part-time students. These groups are far more likely to attend a community college than a four-year institution (Hussar & Bailey, 2011). Community colleges already enroll more than seven million for-credit students, constituting nearly half of all undergraduates in the United States (American Association of Community Colleges [AACC], 2012; “Who Are the Undergraduates?,” 2010). Although community college enrollments, especially during the most recent recession, were far more volatile than four-year institution enrollments, two-year institution enrollment has increased 9% since 2006 (Dadashova et al., 2011). The College-Going Population Is Changing. Four-year colleges and universities have historically preferred to enroll students directly from high school rather than from community colleges, believing that the supply of first-time students was inexhaustible. But the supply, if not drying up, is certainly slowing down. As noted above, the U.S. Department of Education NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

THE TRANSFER MOMENT

11

predicts that the high school graduation rate will be in decline between 2012 and 2020. In 27 states, the department predicts that high school graduation rates will level off or decline (Hussar & Bailey, 2011). Thus, certainly in the near term, transfer students at four-year institutions will fill seats that would have otherwise been occupied by 18-year-olds. Community Colleges Attract Students From Underserved Groups in Significant Numbers. Community colleges enroll significant numbers of African American, Latino, and first-generation students, as well as students from the lowest-income level and single-parent families (AACC, 2012). Although White students constitute the majority of community college enrollments, as they do at four-year institutions, there is near universal agreement that the proportion of these students will decrease given the rise in the population of students from underrepresented ethnic groups. The Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE; 2008) estimates that virtually all the growth in the number of high school graduates between 2012–2013 and 2014–2015 will be among Latinos (54% growth), Asian American and Pacific Islanders (32%), American Indians (7%), and African Americans (3%). Moreover, students from underserved groups, especially Latino and American Indian students, have traditionally enrolled in community colleges in greater numbers than in public four-year institutions, regardless of their income level. For example, 53% of all Latino undergraduates and 55% of all American Indian undergraduates are enrolled in community colleges (AACC, 2012). Increasing Stratification of Higher Education Makes Transfer the Most Important—and Perhaps the Only—Viable Avenue for Students From Underserved Groups. The fact that students from underserved groups enroll in community colleges in significant numbers may have more to do with economics than institutional preference. Between 1994 and 2006, the share of African American students enrolling in community colleges increased from 10% to 14%, and the share of Latino students enrolling in community colleges increased from 11% to 19%. During the same period, both populations did not increase their share of participation in competitive four-year colleges and universities, despite increases in their respective high school graduation rates (Carnevale & Strohl, 2010). As noted in the above section using AACC (2012) data, this same pattern is seen in the enrollment of students from the lowest socioeconomic groups who now make up the majority of enrollments in community colleges. These institutions are the gateway for students from a variety of groups that have been—and continue to be—underrepresented in higher education. That community colleges welcome these nontraditional groups of students is well known. Yet the growing numbers of these students who begin at a community college, coupled with the nation’s need to produce more degree holders, makes the transfer process critically important. Community Colleges Will Prepare More Students for Transfer From Traditional Backgrounds. The College Board (Baum, Ma, & Payea, NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

12

COLLEGIATE TRANSFER: NAVIGATING THE NEW NORMAL

2012) reports that students attending community colleges on a full-time basis increased almost 50% in the last decade, a startling statistic considering the fact that these institutions welcome far more students on a part-time basis than more traditional four-year colleges and universities. Moreover, the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center (Dadashova et al., 2011) found that as a result of the most recent recession, “community colleges saw increases in full-time enrollments—suggesting the possibility that students who might otherwise have attended four-year institutions fulltime were instead enrolling in greater numbers at community colleges” (p. 46). Other researchers have suggested a similar trend within community colleges (Bailey & Morest, 2006; Mullin & Phillippe, 2009; Rhoades, 2012). Such students attending full-time are far more likely than other students to have transfer and a bachelor’s degree as goals. In addition, in a recent survey focusing on how families pay for college, there was a significant shift in the number of high-income families (over $100,000 per year) sending their children to community colleges, increasing from 12% in 2009–2010 to 22% in 2010–2011. A similar, though smaller, increase from 24% to 29% was noted among middle-income families (Sallie Mae, 2012). Community Colleges Cost Less to Attend Than Four-Year Institutions. As the national debate about college costs intensifies, the relative affordability of community colleges makes these institutions an increasingly attractive option for many U.S. households. Although community college costs are also rising, these institutions remain the most affordable higher education option in the United States. According to data compiled by AACC (2009), tuition and fees at community colleges average only 36.2% of the average four-year public college tuition and fee bill. In eight of the last 10 years, tuition and fees at four-year institutions, public and private, have exceeded tuition and fee increases at community colleges. In two of those years (1999–2000, 2000–2001), community college tuition and fees declined (AACC, 2009). The relative affordability of community colleges is reflected in the number of students from lower socioeconomic levels who attend these institutions. In 2006, over 58% of all students attending community colleges came from the two lowest income quartiles and 28% came from the lowest income quartile (Carnevale & Strohl, 2010). The Brookings Institution, in a recent analysis of the status of higher education in the United States, concluded: “Confronted with high tuition costs [at four-year institutions], a weak economy, and increased competition for admission to four-year colleges, students today are more likely than at any other point in history to choose to attend a community college” (Goldrick-Rab, Harris, Mazzeo, & Kienzl, 2009, p. 10). The need for a better-educated workforce, along with the centrality of community colleges as an avenue of higher education access for millions of students from underserved groups, and the untested potential of the transfer process as an expressway to the bachelor’s degree, make this an NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

THE TRANSFER MOMENT

13

especially opportune time to assess the strength and efficiency of the partnership between the community college and the four-year institution. References Adelman, C. (2005). Moving into town—and moving on: The community college in the lives of traditional age students. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education website: http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/comcollege/index.html Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school through college. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education website: http://www2 .ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/toolboxrevisit/toolbox.pdf Adelman, C. (2009). The spaces between numbers: Getting international data on higher education straight. Retrieved from Institute for Higher Education Policy website: http://www.ihep.org/assets/files/publications/s-z/(Report)_The_Spaces_Between _Numbers-Getting_International_Data_on_Higher_Education_Straight.pdf American Association of Community Colleges. (2009). AACC Statement on trends in college pricing and aid 2009. Retrieved from http://www.aacc.nche.edu/newsevents/News /articles/Pages/102020091.aspx American Association of Community Colleges. (2012). Reclaiming the American dream: A report from the 21st-Century Commission on the future of community colleges. Retrieved from http://www.aacc.nche.edu/aboutcc/21stcenturyreport/21stCentury Report.pdf Bailey, T. (2012). Can community colleges achieve ambitious graduation goals? In A. P. Kelly & M. Schneider (Eds.), Getting to graduation: The completion agenda in higher education (pp. 73–101). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Bailey, T. R., & Morest, V. S. (Eds.). (2006). Defending the community college equity agenda. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Baum, S., Ma, J., & Payea, K. (2012). Trends in public higher education: Enrollment, prices, student aid, and revenue and expenditures. New York, NY: The College Board. Brint, S., & Karabel, J. (1989). The diverted dream: Community colleges and the promise of educational opportunity in America, 1900–1985. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Carnevale, A. P., & Rose, S. J. (2011). The undereducated American. Retrieved from Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce website: http://cew .georgetown.edu/undereducated Carnevale, A. P., & Strohl, J. (2010). How increasing college access is increasing inequality, and what to do about it. In R. D. Kahlenberg (Ed.), Rewarding strivers: Helping low-income students succeed in college (pp. 129–144). New York, NY: Century Foundation Press. Dadashova, A., Hossler, D., Shapiro, D., Chen, J., Martin, S., Torres, V. . . . & Ziskin, M. (2011). National postsecondary enrollment trends: Before, during, and after the Great Recession. Retrieved from National Student Clearinghouse website: http://www .studentclearinghouse.info/signature/1/NSC_Signature_Report_1.pdf Dougherty, K. J. (1994). The contradictory college: The conflicting origins, impacts, and futures of the community college. Albany: State University of New York Press. Goldrick-Rab, S., Harris, D. N., Mazzeo, C., & Kienzl, G. (2009). Transforming America’s community colleges: A federal policy proposal to expand opportunity and promote economic prosperity. Retrieved from The Brookings Institution website: http://www .brookings.edu/research/reports/2009/05/07-community-college-goldrick-rab Hauptman, A. M. (2012). Increasing higher education attainment in the United States: Challenges and opportunities. In A. P. Kelly & M. Schneider (Eds.), Getting to graduation: The completion agenda in higher education (pp. 17–47). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

14

COLLEGIATE TRANSFER: NAVIGATING THE NEW NORMAL

Higher Education Research Institute. (2013). The American freshman: National norms (1966–2012). Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, Graduate School of Education and Information Science, UCLA. Annual reports can be retrieved from http://www.heri.ucla.edu/tfsPublications.php Horn, L. (2009). On track to complete? A taxonomy of beginning community college students and their outcomes 3 years after enrolling: 2003–04 through 2006 (NCES Publication No. 2009–152). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Horn, L., & Skomsvold, P. (2011). Web tables: Community college student outcomes: 1994–2009 (NCES Publication No. 2012–253). Retrieved from National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education website: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012253.pdf Hussar, W. J., & Bailey, T. M. (2011). Projections of education statistics to 2010 (NCES Publication No. 2011-026). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Medsker, L. L. (1960). The junior college: Progress and prospect. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Moore, C., Shulock, N., & Offenstein, J. (2009). Steps to success: Analyzing milestone achievement to improve community college student outcomes. Retrieved from California State University, Sacramento, Institute for Higher Education Leadership & Policy website: http://www.csus.edu/ihelp/PDFs/R_steps%20to%20success_10_09.pdf Mullin, C. M., & Phillippe, K. (2009). Community college enrollment surge: An analysis of estimated fall 2009 headcount enrollments at community colleges. Retrieved from American Association of Community Colleges website: http://www.aacc.nche.edu /Publications/Briefs/Pages/rb12172009.aspx National Center for Higher Education Management Systems and Jobs for the Future. (2007). Adding it up: State challenges for increasing college access and success. Indianapolis, IN: Lumina Foundation for Education. Retrieved from http://www.eric .ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED499087 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2008). OECD Factbook 2008: Economic, environmental and social statistics. Retrieved from http://www.oecdi library.org/economics/oecd-factbook-2008_factbook-2008-e Provasnik, S., & Planty, M. (2008). Community colleges: Special supplement to the condition of education 2008 (NCES Pub No. 2008-033). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Reindl, T. (2007). Hitting home: Quality, cost, and access challenges confronting higher education today. Retrieved from http://www.jff.org/publications/education /hittinghome-quality-cost-and-access-cha/251 Rhoades, G. (2012). Closing the door, increasing the gap: Who’s not going to (community) college? Retrieved from http://futureofhighered.org//wp-content/uploads/2012/04 /ClosingTheDoorFINAL_ALL32812.pdf Rosenbaum, J. E., Deil-Amen, R., & Person, A. E. (2006). After admission: From college access to college success. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Sallie Mae. (2012). How American pays for college 2011: Sallie Mae’s national study of college students and parents. Retrieved from https://www1.salliemae.com/NR/rdonlyres /BAF36839-4913-456E-8883-ACD006B950A5/14952/HowAmericaPaysfor College_2011.pdf Shapiro, D., Dundar, A., Chen, J., Ziskin, M., Park, E., Torres, V., & Yi-Chen, C. (2012). Completing college: A national view of student attainment rates. Retrieved from National Student Clearinghouse Research Center website: http://www.studentclearinghouse .info/signature/4/ Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. (2008). Knocking at the college door: Projections of high school graduates by state and race/ethnicity, 1992–2022. Boulder, CO: Author. NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

THE TRANSFER MOMENT

15

White House. (2009). Remarks of President Barack Obama—As prepared for delivery address to joint session of Congress, Tuesday, February 24th, 2009. Retrieved from http:// w w w. w h i t e h o u s e . g o v / t h e _ p re s s _ o f f i c e / R e m a r k s - o f - P re s i d e n t - B a r a c k -Obama-Address-to-Joint-Session-of-Congress Who are the undergraduates? (2010, December 12). The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/who-are-the-undergraduates-/123916/

STEPHEN J. HANDEL is the executive director of the National Office of Community College Initiatives at the College Board, San Jose, CA.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

2

This chapter provides a brief description of articulation agreements and policies intended to facilitate transfer; examples of institutional partnership, system-level, and statewide approaches; and observations about the characteristics, underlying assumptions, and utility of these agreements and policies.

Deciphering Articulation and State/System Policies and Agreements Trudy H. Bers Student transfer is affected by a host of factors, some of them studentspecific and some of them defined by institutional, system, and state policies and practices. This chapter provides an overview of the types of key articulation and transfer policies and agreements at the institutional, system, and state levels. Following this overview, three brief examples of policies are presented, the first describing an agreement between two institutions, the second describing a system-level approach to facilitating transfer, and the third describing statewide legislation and rules regarding transfer. Finally, the chapter concludes with some general observations about creating, communicating, and sustaining articulation and state/system policies.

Overview of Articulation and Transfer Policies This section briefly explains a number of policy approaches intended to facilitate transfer by making the transfer of credits from one institution to another more transparent and comprehensive, aligning curricula between two-year and four-year institutions, providing guarantees about acceptance into the four-year college, and giving students junior status upon transfer with an associate degree. The examples are presented in an ascending order of institutional to state-level initiation and control, although the distinction is not always clear. Some policies and practices might be initiated or managed at the institution or system or state levels. Course Articulation. Course articulation exists when courses at different institutions are considered to be the same. For example, two different schools might offer Psychology 101: Introduction to Psychology. While the specific course prefixes and numbers, titles, outlines, required readings, NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, no. 162, Summer 2013 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI:10.1002/he.20053

17

18

COLLEGIATE TRANSFER: NAVIGATING THE NEW NORMAL

student assignments, and teaching approaches might not be identical, the overall learning outcomes and content are evaluated as being sufficiently alike so that students successfully completing the course at one institution are evaluated as having successfully completed the same course at the receiving school. This simple explanation is insufficient, however, because course articulation is more complex. First, a course might be articulated as fulfilling a general education or major requirement, or being an elective at another school, with the determination dependent on the particular program at the receiving institution. Second, a particular program might require a specific grade or time frame within which the course must have been taken for it to be transferable into the program. Third, the extent to which course information is prescribed varies by state. Some states, such as Illinois, permit institutions to use their own prefixes, numbers, and titles; there is no commonality across institutions. Courses that Illinois Articulation Initiative (IAI) faculty panels evaluate as being equivalent are crosswalked to an IAI code, but this code is not the primary identifier used by colleges or students in catalogs, course schedules, or registration information. Other states, such as Florida, prescribe standard course prefixes, numbers, titles, and credit hours; there is uniformity and clarity across colleges within the state. And some states, such as North Carolina, prescribe course information for community colleges but not for universities. A caveat in all of this is that state prescriptions apply to public institutions, leaving private and for-profit institutions at liberty to develop their own nomenclature for courses. Fourth, when institutions engage in bilateral course articulation work, through which faculty at each institution evaluate and agree on whether or not specific courses articulate and how, the burden of recording and continually updating information may be decentralized and can be overwhelming. Program Articulation. Program articulation refers to the alignment of curricula such that the first two years of coursework at the community college transfer seamlessly into the junior to senior years of the program. Students will be given credit for all community college courses successfully completed in the program and accorded the same status as if they had completed their first two years of work at the transfer institution. Often programarticulation agreements include a provision that limits the time frame within which the agreement will be honored so that students who complete the first two years at the community college must transfer within a specified period of time. Some universities are willing to create program-articulation agreements that allow students to take up to three years or 90 semester credits at the community college, needing only one year of work after transfer. 2 + 2 Agreements. These agreements, usually reached between two institutions, specify the courses a student should take during the first two years at the community college for a specific major. Upon completion of the courses, the student moves to the senior institution, having fulfilled the NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

DECIPHERING ARTICULATION AND STATE/SYSTEM POLICIES AND AGREEMENTS

19

lower-division requirements for that major. These agreements require program articulation, and often contain benefits to students who “sign on” to the agreement early in their community college careers. Benefits offered by the senior institution may include the waiver of application fees, evaluation of credits for transfer every semester, academic advising, use of the university library, and participation in on-campus programs for 2 + 2 students who have not yet transferred. Dual Admission. Dual admission agreements enable students to apply to and be accepted by both the community college and the transfer institution at the same time. Ordinarily the transfer institution puts some caveats on admission, such as indicating that the student must transfer within a specified time period, requiring a minimum community college grade point average at the time of transfer, and guaranteeing admission to the institution but not necessarily to specific colleges or majors within the institution. Students participating in a dual admission agreement are often afforded similar benefits to those given to students in 2 + 2 agreements. The difference is that 2 + 2 agreements may not guarantee admission to transfer students, whereas under dual admission agreements, students are ensured of admission provided that they meet the provisions of the agreement. Statewide Articulation Agreements. The program and 2 + 2 agreements described in the preceding paragraphs are concluded between two institutions or systems. States also have agreements covering public institutions. Such agreements encompass two- and four-year institutions and, at least in theory, relieve colleges of the necessity for creating their own agreements. The details and comprehensiveness of agreements vary widely. For example, in Florida students who complete an associate degree at the community college have the opportunity to enroll in and earn a bachelor’s degree at a state university. Students who transfer without the associate degree will be evaluated based on their high school transcripts as well as their college records, and will compete with all entering freshman applicants. Thus, Florida has a powerful incentive for students to earn the associate degree. In Illinois, the IAI has a general education core curriculum; faculty panels review courses submitted by colleges to determine whether they align with IAI general education courses. A student completing the IAI general education core may transfer to another IAI school with lowerdivision general education requirements met, even if requirements for native students are different. The IAI has also created several program-ofstudy recommendations for students who know they will transfer but have not yet selected the institution to which they will transfer. The recommendations outline two years of lower-division courses in popular majors, but the utility and extent to which colleges honor the IAI majors is unclear. The IAI covers all public universities and a number of private schools as well, but institutions are not obliged to sign on to all IAI majors. NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

20

COLLEGIATE TRANSFER: NAVIGATING THE NEW NORMAL

General Education Core Curriculum. Some 15 states have a general education core curriculum, assurances that general education courses will broadly transfer across institutions (Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education [WICHE], 2010). Such agreements may be of special value in states that do not place a high priority on students completing an associate degree before transfer by giving a guarantee, explicit or implicit, that at least the general education requirements will be met and transfer as a bundle to the four-year school. Programs of Study/Career Pathways. The term “programs of study” can be confusing because it is used as a general term referring to curricula and majors, and also as a specific requirement of the Perkins IV federal legislation. Perkins IV requires states to offer “‘career and technical programs of study’ that comprise academic, career, and technical content that prepares students to make successful transitions to postsecondary education and the workplace” (Perkins Collaborative Resource Network, n.d.). States develop and implement career and technical programs of study, sometimes referred to as “career pathways,” in one or more of the 16 career clusters recognized by the Office of Vocational and Adult Education and the National Association of State Directors of Career Technical Education Consortium. Community colleges that receive Perkins funds for career and technical education programs develop programs of study in collaboration with high schools and employers. The programs of study depict sequences of courses students should take at the secondary and postsecondary levels, both community college and bachelor’s institutions, in the specific career clusters. Not policies or agreements per se, the programs of study are intended to provide students, parents, and educators with clear information about courses students should take that lead to the development of knowledge and skills required in a particular field, as well as industry-recognized credentials, including certificates and degrees at the associate, bachelor’s, and even graduate levels. Reverse Awarding of Degrees. One of the most recent initiatives bringing community college and senior institutions together is the reverse awarding of degrees, or the transfer of credits earned at the senior institution back to the community college to fulfill associate degree requirements. Whether instigated by specific institutions or as part of a larger state initiative, this approach enables students who have left the community college before completing their degrees to obtain that credential, and it enables community colleges to increase the number of degrees awarded. Graduates who were part of an Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System cohort of entering fall, first-time, full-time college students, and who received their associate degree within three or four years of the fall they entered the community college, can be included in the federal government graduate-rate calculations for that cohort. Even if the graduate was not part of an Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System cohort, or more than four years elapsed between entry and completion, the college will still NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

DECIPHERING ARTICULATION AND STATE/SYSTEM POLICIES AND AGREEMENTS

21

be able to report a higher absolute number of awards through this approach, if not a higher graduation rate. In October 2012, five national foundations provided $6.4 million in grants to programs in 12 states to support expansion of reverse transfer of credits to enable students to earn their associate degrees with credits earned after transfer to bachelor’s institutions (Lumina Foundation, 2012). Web-Based Information Systems. These systems permit students and others to access course articulation information, provided that institutions submit and update their data. u.select is one such system and is used by schools in 19 states (u.select, n.d.). A number of states and systems have their own course equivalency guides as well. For example, ASSIST is an online student-transfer information system for public colleges and universities in California (ASSIST, n.d.), and the State University of New York (SUNY) provides course equivalency information for a number of institutions within New York and in other states (SUNY, 2011). While the ease of access to web-based information is appealing, the comprehensiveness, currency, and accuracy of data on web-based systems rely on institutions continually updating their information. Users may require some time to become comfortable with any of these systems because they use different formats to provide information about course equivalencies and vary in the number of institutions included and the comprehensiveness of information provided.

Three Examples of Policies As is evident from the previous section, the variety of policies and agreements regarding transfer has created a complex higher education environment. To illustrate this notion, three approaches to articulation policies and agreements are described below. The first is a partnership between two institutions; the second is a system-level policy; and the third is a statewide approach. A Two-Institution Partnership: Oakton Community College and DePaul University. DePaul University—a private university located in Chicago—and Oakton Community College—a public community college located in the North Shore suburbs of Chicago—have joined together in the DePaul Admission Partnership Program (DAPP). Students join DAPP prior to earning 30 semester hours at Oakton and may join even before entering the college. They must remain in “good standing” at Oakton and when they transfer to DePaul. Benefits to DAPP participants include the freezing of DePaul degree requirements for three years, as long as the student transfers to DePaul within three years, and a DePaul transfer admission counselor advises students, who are invited to DePaul faculty presentations and workshops for transfer students and receive regular communications from DePaul about transfer announcement and campus events. Students may qualify for DAPP scholarships, and they are eligible for DePaul’s Accelerated NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

22

COLLEGIATE TRANSFER: NAVIGATING THE NEW NORMAL

Transfer Admission process when the student is ready to transfer (the opportunity to receive an immediate admission decision). DAPP is described in more detail on the DAPP website (DePaul University, 2013). During DAPP’s first year (2011–2012), 28 students enrolled in the program. Of these, seven transferred to DePaul in Fall 2012, none of whom had earned associate degrees at Oakton. Eighteen continued at Oakton in Fall 2012; one transferred to another university; and two are on the DePaul list but could not be identified at Oakton without further information from the university. Challenges in implementing DAPP include communicating about the DAPP program; helping students understand its benefits, especially what it means to have DePaul degree requirements frozen; and ensuring that students obtain and follow advising recommendations for courses. This is especially true when students change majors because Oakton courses that may have transferred seamlessly for one major may no longer work for a different major. A System-Level Approach: The CUNY Pathway. The City University of New York (CUNY) comprises 23 institutions. In June 2011, the university trustees adopted a new transfer policy, Pathways, in response to concerns that students were taking more credits than would transfer, and that transfer practices and requirements across colleges were inconsistent, complex, difficult to understand, and imposed barriers to transfer (Agustin, 2011). The new policy creates a 30-credit general education Common Core for all campuses and will be instituted in Fall 2013. Bachelor’s degree students may be required to take an additional 6 to 12 general education credits through the “College Option” (CUNY, n.d.). Pathways also aligns a minimum of three “gateway courses” in many popular majors; the courses are intended to transfer seamlessly to any CUNY institution offering that major. Many faculty opposed the new policy, arguing that it dilutes academic quality and their role in shaping academic policy (Brown, 2011). A November 2012 statement about the Pathways Initiative from the executive vice chancellor and university provost suggests concerns, and confusing information about the initiative continues to exist (Logue, 2012). At the same time, faculty committees are responsible for determining the majors, courses, and learning outcomes—indicating that the faculty is central to the process. Because Pathways will begin in Fall 2013, no data or evidence of its impact are available; it is premature to consider whether faculty concerns were realistic. A Statewide Approach: Florida. Florida has a statewide, welldeveloped set of state laws, rules, and policies governing the transfer of students from community colleges to public universities (however, we note that a number of Florida colleges that were two-year institutions are now authorized to award bachelor’s degrees in selected majors and are being classified as bachelor’s colleges in some listings). The Florida policies give a distinct advantage to students who transfer with an associate NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

DECIPHERING ARTICULATION AND STATE/SYSTEM POLICIES AND AGREEMENTS

23

degree. As spelled out on the Miami-Dade College website, these benefits include: ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Guaranteed admission to one of the eleven Florida state universities Equal opportunity with native university students to enter limited access programs [programs with limited capacity and additional admission requirements such as a higher grade point average and test scores, prerequisites, or portfolios or auditions] No additional General Education requirements Acceptance of at least 60 semester hours by the state universities Acceptance of credits earned in programs such as Advance[d] Placement, CLEP [College Level Examination Program], Dual Enrollment, and the International Baccalaureate Adherence to the university requirements and policies based on when students first enter a community college provided continuous enrollment Transfer of equivalent courses under the Statewide Course Numbering System Only the most recent final grades in repeated courses will be used in computing the GPA. (Miami-Dade College, n.d.)

Given these benefits, it is no wonder that Florida community colleges have among the highest graduation rates in the country.

Observations The following observations about articulation and transfer agreements suggest the value of transfer policies and agreements for facilitating transfer may not match the enthusiasm with which they are promoted by institution, system, and state officials; legislators; and the public. The Literature Includes Relatively Few Scholarly, Empirical Studies of the Impact of State Articulation and Transfer Policies. The more sophisticated studies show minimal or uneven effectiveness on transfer, retention, or completion (Anderson, Sun, & Alfonso, 2006; Gross & Goldhaber, 2009; WICHE, 2009). The language and practice of articulation and transfer agreements and policies are elastic and inconsistent. For example, agreements between institutions that outline program requirements at the lower- and upperdivision levels and give students benefits for adhering to the curriculum may be referred to as articulation agreements, 2 + 2 agreements, or program transfer agreements. They may be codified in official documents resembling contracts, memoranda of understanding, state or system rules, legislation, administrative policies, or less formal documents written by faculty or administrators and retained in bottom drawers. Information about agreements, particularly those created between departments rather than institutions, may not be widely available, NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

24

COLLEGIATE TRANSFER: NAVIGATING THE NEW NORMAL

especially when those who generated the agreement leave the institution. Absent a central office with the authority and responsibility to monitor and document agreements, reliance on good intentions and memories may result in agreements simply fading away. Reliance on Web-Based Information About Transfer Continues to Grow. De la Torres (2007) examined state higher education websites and found many examples where states posted transfer and articulation policies, course equivalency information, and rules regulating transfer. Clearly an advocate of web-based information, de la Torres also makes the important point that, “Despite the best attempts to provide current, comprehensive 24/7 transfer information via the internet, states also recognize the importance of real-time, first-person interaction to help demystify the transfer process” (p. 10). Continually updating articulation and transfer policies and agreements can be burdensome, especially in states or systems where individual institutions have the autonomy to change courses and curricula at will. Good intentions to conduct periodic reviews are frequently overridden by an enthusiasm to create new agreements rather than maintain existing ones, as well as other projects, which may divert attention away from articulation. Many policies rest on the implicit assumption that students begin with the end in mind and don’t waiver. It is assumed that students select both their majors and transfer institutions early in their college careers, if not before, obtain accurate advising to ensure that the courses they take fit the college and major, and follow the advice. However, we know that many students are unsure about their majors and where they wish to transfer, or they change their minds. Faculty involvement in partnership agreements among colleges is crucial not just in creating and sustaining partnerships, but in building cultures of transfer. Absent this involvement, faculty skepticism about students’ preparedness for transfer, the comparability of lower-division coursework at community colleges and senior institutions, and academic rigor will likely persist.

Final Comment The importance of transfer as a crucial component of the community college mission has recently been upstaged by a focus on completion. As Mullin (2012) reminds us, community colleges play a substantial role in bachelor’s degree attainment, and the success of transfer students is fostered by a combination of policies and practices in the two-year college, four-year college, and legislative arenas. What is most evident from this brief overview is the wide variation and complexity in policies and agreements within and across states, systems, and colleges. The intent is admirable: to facilitate transfer, minimize the loss of credits, and help students make wise decisions about course registrations and transfer. The reality is different: The variety of NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

DECIPHERING ARTICULATION AND STATE/SYSTEM POLICIES AND AGREEMENTS

25

policies and agreements; the absence of a centralized, official resource of information concerning them; and continuing changes in curricula and students’ choices of transfer institutions and majors render the policies and agreements less effective than desired.

References Agustin, H. M. (2011). CUNY board of trustees adopt new transfer policies. Retrieved from http://www.citytowninfo.com/career-and-education-news/articles/cuny-board -of-trustees-adopt-new-transfer-policies-11062801 Anderson, G., Sun, J. C., & Alfonso, M. (2006). Effectiveness of statewide articulation agreements on the probability of transfer: A preliminary policy analysis. Review of Higher Education, 29, 261–291. ASSIST. (n.d.). Welcome to ASSIST. Retrieved from http://www.assist.org/web-assist /welcome.html Brown, R. (2011, June 27). Despite faculty opposition CUNY board votes to standardize some requirements and streamline transfers. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Despite-Faculty-Opposition/128070/ The City University of New York. (n.d.). Pathways. Retrieved from http://www.cuny.edu /academics/initiatives/pathways.html De la Torres, D. (2007). Where there’s a web, there’s a way: Statewide approaches to promoting community college student transfer. Journal of College Admission, 194, 6–11. DePaul University. (2013). DePaul Admission Partnership Program (DAPP). Retrieved from http://www.depaul.edu/admission-and-aid/transfer-center/dapp/Pages/default .aspx Gross, B., & Goldhaber, D. (2009). Community college transfer and articulation policies: Looking beneath the surface. Center on Reinventing Public Education. Seattle: University of Washington. Retrieved from http://www.crpe.org/publications /community-college-transfer-and-articulation-policies-looking-beneath-surface Logue, A. W. (2012). A message on the pathways initiative from the executive vice chancellor and university provost. Retrieved from http://www1.cuny.edu/mu/academic-news /2012/11/29/a-message-on-the-pathways-initiative-from-the-executive-vice-chancellor -and-university-provost-2/ Lumina Foundation. (2012). Foundations help 12 state partnerships expand associate degree completion for students transferring from community colleges to universities. Retrieved from http://www.luminafoundation.org/newsroom/news_releases/2012-10-10.html Miami-Dade College. (n.d.). Transfer agreement details. Retrieved from http://www.mdc .edu/getin/articulation.htm Mullin, C. M. (2012, October). Transfer: An indispensable part of the community college mission (Policy Brief 2012-03PBL). Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges. Perkins Collaborative Resource Network. (n.d.). Career clusters and programs of study. Retrieved from http://cte.ed.gov/nationalinitiatives/localstudyimplementation.cfm The State University of New York (SUNY). (2011). Course equivalencies. Retrieved from https://www.suny.edu/student/transfer_equiv.cfm u.select. (n.d.). About u.select. Retrieved from https://clients.collegesource.com/home/ display/USL/About+u.select Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE). (2009). Best practices in statewide articulation and transfer practices: Research literature overview. Retrieved from http://wiche.edu/info/publications/ATlitOverview.pdf NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

26

COLLEGIATE TRANSFER: NAVIGATING THE NEW NORMAL

Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE). (2010). Promising practices in statewide articulation and transfer systems. Retrieved from http://www .wiche.edu/info/publications/PromisingPracticesGuide.pdf

TRUDY H. BERS is the executive director of research, curriculum, and planning at Oakton Community College. NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

3

This chapter offers a set of recommendations for two-year and four-year institutions related to the evaluation and implementation of transfer policy and practice. These recommendations were drawn from a major study to investigate the perspectives of students, staff, and administrators.

Campus Administrator and Student Perspectives for Improving Transfer Policy and Practice Amy Fann While community colleges have diverse missions, transfer has always been a primary function (Cohen & Kisker, 2010). These public institutions play a vital role in providing an open-access entryway to the bachelor’s degree. Data show that 81% of all first-time beginning community college students indicate completing a bachelor’s degree or higher as a goal (National Center for Education Statistics, 2011). However, in spite of these high aspirations, estimates of transfer rates reveal that only 25 to 35% of community college students successfully transfer to a four-year institution (Handel & Williams, 2012). This gap between educational objectives and outcomes is even greater for underrepresented students of color, low-income, and firstgeneration college-goers (National Center for Education Statistics, 2011) and has serious economic consequences for individuals, families, communities, states, and the nation (Goldrick-Rab, Harris, Mazzeo, & Kienzl, 2009; Lumina Foundation, 2012; Whitmore & Esche, 2010). According to the American Association of Community Colleges (2012) website (www.aacc.nche.edu), community colleges are the fastest-growing sector in U.S. public higher education, enrolling roughly half of all undergraduates. These colleges are incredibly diverse and admit disproportionately

The author wishes to acknowledge the contributions of coinvestigators to the Texas transfer policy study: Dr. Janet Marling, Dr. Bonita Jacobs, Dr. Marc Cutright, and Dr. Beverly Bower, as well as graduate students in the University of North Texas Higher Education Program who provided support for the project: Dawna Wilson, Kirsty Robertson, Mayra Olivares-Urueta, Roxanne Del Rio, and Raphael de la Peña. NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, no. 162, Summer 2013 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI:10.1002/he.20054

27

28

COLLEGIATE TRANSFER: NAVIGATING THE NEW NORMAL

high numbers of Latino, American Indian/Alaska Native, first-generation, and low-income students (Provasnik & Planty, 2008). But most students who begin at a community college do not complete any kind of certificate or degree nor do they transfer. Data presented by Provasnik and Planty (2008) on community college transfer rates to four-year institutions for the U.S. high school class of 2004 by race/ethnicity indicated that Asian/Pacific Islander students were the most likely to transfer within six years (60%), followed by White (49%), African American (40%), and Latino (35%) students. The growing policy interest in the community college pathway to the bachelor’s degree raises questions about how equitably transfer opportunities are distributed by student background and the role of both two-year and four-year institutions in assuring successful transfer and transition (Dougherty & Kienzl, 2006). The transfer process is exceedingly complex, as are student characteristics; and the nuances of state policy and how these policies are implemented in public two-year and four-year institutions will have a particular effect on students’ successful degree attainment. State policies, albeit well intended, may fall short if they fail to improve the transfer pathway from community colleges to four-year colleges and universities (National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, 2011).

A Study of Transfer Policy and Practice in the State of Texas In 2009, TG Philanthropy (http://www.tgslc.org/philanthropy) funded a study exploring the efficacy of transfer policies and practices within the state of Texas. While the size of the state and the number of Texas higher education institutions are unique, the recommendations for policy and practice that emerged from this study are applicable to other states, educational systems, and institutions. Texas boasts 146 public and independent institutions of higher education, including 50 public community college districts (with multiple campuses), 38 public four-year universities and upper-division centers, and four campuses in the Texas State Technical College System. Between Fall 2000 and Fall 2010, enrollment in Texas public community colleges increased 67.1% (from 431,934 students to 721,962 students). During that same period, enrollment in Texas public four-year institutions increased by 34.5% (from 414,626 students to 557,550 students; Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, 2012). With a nearly 21% increase in population between 2000 and 2010, Texas recorded the fastest growth of any state in the United States. At the same time, the percentage of Texans over the age of 25 who hold at least a two-year degree is below the national average. According to 2010 Census data, only 25% of Texans hold a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared to a national average of 28% (Ryan & Siebans, 2012). In order for Texas to NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

CAMPUS ADMINISTRATOR AND STUDENT PERSPECTIVES FOR IMPROVING TRANSFER

29

reach or exceed the national average in bachelor’s degree attainment, educators and policy makers have recognized that the state must work to improve the ease with which students can transfer from two-year colleges to four-year colleges and universities. A total of 14 institutions—7 four-year institutions and 7 two-year institutions—were originally targeted to be part of the TG Philanthropy study (Fann & Marling, 2012) of Texas transfer policies and practices. Four-year institutions were chosen based on a combination of: 1. Size of their transfer enrollment (institutions enrolling the highest number of community college transfer students); 2. Location within different state regions (regional diversity); and 3. Inclusion of each of the six Texas state higher education systems. Based on 2008 Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) enrollment data, the primary criterion for choosing the community colleges was the overall number of transfer students that had enrolled in the selected universities. In the end, one community college chose not to participate, resulting in a total of 13 participating institutions. The research project objectives were as follows: 1. To explore how campus administrators perceive and enact transfer policies; 2. To learn about transfer experiences of community college students preparing to transfer and university students who have recently transferred to four-year institutions from community colleges; and 3. To determine whether transfer experiences of minority, first-generation, and nontraditional students differ from transfer students’ experiences in general. In order to explore how campus administrators at multiple levels perceived and enacted transfer policies, a purposeful sample of interviews was conducted with a cross section of between four and seven administrators at each of the 13 campuses for a total of 67 individual interviews and five small focus group interviews. The project coordinator worked with a campus liaison at each site to recruit professionals from four functional areas: admissions, financial aid, academic advising, and registrar. Additionally, input was solicited from the two most senior-level administrators involved in transfer efforts. It was important to the researchers to interview both senior administrators involved in transfer policy and/or implementation and mid-level administrators responsible for directing and/or implementing departmental activities serving transfer students. The research team wanted to explore whether those who were responsible for directly administering the policies and/or who worked directly with students had differing perceptions on policy efficacy. NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

30

COLLEGIATE TRANSFER: NAVIGATING THE NEW NORMAL

Two student focus groups were conducted at each of the 13 sites. Criteria for inviting students to participate included community college students with intent to transfer, and university students who had transferred from a community college. Each focus group lasted 90 minutes. The size of focus groups varied between four and 15 students, with an average of 10 participants. A semi-structured protocol elicited participants’ experiences in navigating transfer, including questions on how they learned about transfer requirements and their recommendations for other transfer students. All interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed. The project team developed an initial set of open codes. From these, a comparative analysis was conducted to explore student experiences navigating transfer, including how they learned about transfer requirements and processes and how administrators in universities and community colleges perceived and enacted transfer policies, unintended consequences of these policies, and suggestions for improving transfer policies and practice. Student reports of their experience in the transfer process provided valuable information about how policy is enacted through institutional practices.

Findings and Recommendations The research team discovered that there were unintended consequences of state higher education policies, limitations of certain state measures for accountability, and challenges of policy implementation at the institutional level. The following are examples and suggestions for transfer practices based upon interviews with students, staff, and administrators. Address Limitations of Current Funding Formulas and Measures of Accountability. Administrators in both two- and four-year institutions participating in this study expressed frustration with the fact that they received no acknowledgement or credit from the state for graduating transfer students. “The other thing I would do is, I mean as far as actual changes that would make a big difference is, number one, give the transfer institution credit for the [bachelor’s degree] graduation for a transfer student. Number one, that’s huge.” (Community college, vice president, instruction; Fann & Marling, 2012, p. 21). This finding is in line with other policy recommendations (Handel & Williams, 2012). State legislatures are encouraged to examine fiscal credit offered to institutions for completion by nonoriginating students. The state counts bachelor’s degree completion only for completing first-time, fulltime students who started at the same institution. This does not recognize the prevalent nature of transfer, and particularly penalizes those institutions admitting and graduating as many, or even more, transfer students than native students. State completion formulas typically do not bestow any credit or recognition to community colleges for successfully transferring a student who completes a bachelor’s degree. Current funding formulas NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

CAMPUS ADMINISTRATOR AND STUDENT PERSPECTIVES FOR IMPROVING TRANSFER

31

encourage associate degree completion. However, in some cases completing an associate degree is not in the best interest of transfer students. For instance, in certain majors such as music, or science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM), students may find that certain courses in the major either will not transfer to a four-year institution or only transfer as electives. This situation causes the student to spend more time and money retaking certain courses at the university. Legislatures should institute policies that offer fiscal incentives for both community colleges and four-year colleges and universities to shape student course selection to create efficient pathways for transfer students to complete bachelors’ degrees. Require Both Two-Year and Four-Year Institutions to Collect Data on Transfer Student Success. Rarely do current measures of accountability include tracking transfer students. Administrators expressed support for evaluation and accountability, but felt that such measures should include their role in successfully transferring students. For example: One thing certainly I’d like to see—if we’re moving toward an evaluation system that’s going to hold us accountable. . . . I would certainly like to see the funding support that we will be fully funded based on our success rates, and that that be clearly defined, and out of the number of students that are not only retained, but that also are transferring onto a four-year college or university, since it is our core group. (Community college vice president for student success; Fann & Marling, 2012, pp. 21–22)

Handel (2008) argues that universities should report the number of community college transfer students enrolled, along with their bachelor’s degree completion rates, just as they report similar statistics for the first-year students; and both sets of institutions should link student outcomes to the specific community college from which the students originated. In order to make this happen, adequate resources need to be given to support community college institutional research efforts. Community colleges have not traditionally been encouraged, or given the resources, to maintain extensive data on transfer student migration and performance. Tracking student data and communicating with receiving universities is imperative to creating a comprehensive institutional and state transfer profile and identifying gaps in services. On a related note, accountability measures for both sets of institutions should encourage systemic, or certainly interinstitutional, articulation agreements across academic departments that lead to efficient transfer of courses. Some institutions have responded to this issue by creating “reverse transfer” collaborations, also referred to as “reverse articulation” and “reverse awarding of the associate degree,” whereby the receiving university tracks transfer students who enter with at least 15 community college hours. After students have completed university coursework equivalent to an associate degree, they receive a congratulatory letter from the community college stating that they have received their associate degree. According to an NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

32

COLLEGIATE TRANSFER: NAVIGATING THE NEW NORMAL

associate provost for undergraduate studies from a university that pioneered reverse transfer, their tracking efforts have been tremendously successful: “Hundreds and hundreds of students receive that first degree when they couldn’t have otherwise. And now that we have it all in our Banner system, we call it—‘it’s Bannerized.’ And so it’s done. It’s automatic. It just happens” (Fann & Marling, 2012, p. 22). As a result, the community college is able to receive credit for increasing associate degree completion rates, students have a credential supporting employment and other professional opportunities, and students are assured a degree in the event that they do not complete the bachelor’s degree. The reverse transfer program may have another positive residual effect at the familial and community level. When asked if students who received the letter actually went to the community college commencement, the associate provost replied that a large number of students do participate: So they get that letter in the mail that they received that associate degree and they go to commencement and they get that degree because that’s the first college degree of the family. And we just can’t help but think this provides motivation to keep on going and go to the next step. Take it to the next degree. (Fann & Marling, 2012, p. 22)

Understanding how and to what extent reverse transfer degrees may affect student motivation for bachelor’s degree completion and beyond, and how this may affect familial and community aspirations for college going and success, is worthy of future research. In 2011, the Texas State legislature passed a reverse transfer law, House Bill 3025 (THECB, 2011), whereby universities are required to track their community college transfer students entering with 30 or more credit hours. For those students who have earned at least 90 semester hours at the university and have granted permission for their transcript to be released, universities must notify the community college, which will then grant the student an associate degree pending an audit of the transcript. At present, institutions are struggling to develop the infrastructure necessary to comply with this new mandate. While this is a strong step supporting community colleges in their transfer role, if bachelor’s degree completion is a goal both institutions should track and receive credit for transfer student success. Reexamine Current Policies for Unintended Barriers to Transfer Success. Well-intended policies do not always translate equally for all student populations. Texas has several policies that were understandably developed as cost-containment measures and as stimulants to timely degree completion. These include: 1. The “6-Drop Rule” (Senate Bill 1231), which limits the number of times during an undergraduate career that a student may withdraw from courses after the semester’s census date (THECB, 2005); NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

CAMPUS ADMINISTRATOR AND STUDENT PERSPECTIVES FOR IMPROVING TRANSFER

33

2. The “3-Peat Rule” (House Bill 994), which limits the number of times a student may take a course and receive reimbursement from the state (THECB, 2007); and 3. The “30 Excess Hour Rule” (House Bill 1172), which refers to the number of hours a student can take beyond the 120 credit hours typically required for most bachelor’s degrees. Students who go beyond the 30 excess hours may be charged out-of-state tuition (THEBC, 2005). While at first glance these policies appear reasonable, they are seemingly developed with traditional four-year college and university students in mind, and without careful consideration for the academic and life challenges of nontraditional students and the more fluid nature of the transfer process. Circumstances, such as having an employer change work hours or not being able to secure child care, may force a student to drop or repeat courses. These policies are also more likely to have a negative effect on transfer students who may find that not all of their courses transfer to the university or to their major, necessitating them to repeat classes and take more than 150 hours. Administrators and transfer support staff, although appreciating the original intent of these polices, expressed frustration with some of the unintended consequences for transfer students. To further complicate matters, student focus-group participants were generally unaware of these policies in the first place or that they could be petitioned. There were a few students who learned about one or more of the policies following some sort of notification after the fact. Often this notification came in the form of a bill for additional tuition. The lesson learned is that state legislatures and educational institutions should review policies using a transfer-student lens to determine potential unintended consequences. Ensure Alignment Between the Use of the Common Course Numbering System at Community College and University Levels. The most frequent frustration reported by student focus-group participants had to do with course articulation and transfer at the university level. Community college students and those who advise them have a difficult time anticipating course applicability if four-year institutions are allowed to deviate from the common course numbering system when evaluating transcripts and awarding credit. Savvy transfer students know to contact their intended university ahead of time to create a degree plan and intentionally select only those courses that will transfer. However, the handful of students in the know reported that they had difficulty meeting with an academic advisor at the university, especially a departmental advisor as they had not yet been admitted to the institution. In many cases, new transfer students have to wait until they register or attend an orientation session to meet face-to-face with a university advisor who will formally evaluate their transcripts. States should develop a transparent and user-friendly common course numbering system to be used consistently across institutions. Transcript NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

34

COLLEGIATE TRANSFER: NAVIGATING THE NEW NORMAL

evaluations can be delayed by efforts to decode course equivalents, and students are unable to comparison shop when they are not provided advanced evaluations of their coursework. Priority must be placed on providing accurate, timely, and appropriate articulation. Institutions must remove the unpredictability and delay in the course evaluation and creditgranting process. Students also need to be engaged in conversation regarding not only which courses will be accepted, but of equal if not greater importance, which courses will apply to their intended major or course of study. Engage Two-Year and Four-Year Faculty in Meaningful Disciplinary Discussions to Address Inconsistent Application of Earned Course Credit Toward Degree. Perceptions persist, real or imagined, that faculty harbor prejudices against community college students regarding their academic potential and the quality of courses offered at the community colleges. This can especially be an issue for courses in students’ major fields of study and in specific disciplines such as STEM and business. This discrimination can manifest itself in the reluctance or refusal to award credits toward degrees, in spite of evidence of equivalency in course content and rigor. The transfer process could be made more seamless if university and college faculty were to participate in formal curricular alignment discussions. In a perfect world, course articulation would be a preschool through postsecondary endeavor so that students would experience a seamless pathway to the bachelor’s degree. Operate From a Dynamic, Comprehensive Academic Advising Model. Perhaps not surprisingly, students had much to say about academic and transfer advising. In some cases, they gratefully acknowledged the information and support given them from a specific academic or transfer advisor, university recruiter, or faculty member. But more often, they described deep frustration with their access to and encounters with advisors, their perceptions of advisor knowledge about transfer, and consequences of receiving inaccurate or conflicting information from staff across departmental units. At the community college in particular, students described their experiences with academic advisors as the “luck of the draw.” Students reported that they were not assigned to a particular advisor, met with a different person each time they sought counseling, and experienced support ranging from excellent to apathetic. To be fair, academic advisors are overloaded, sometimes meeting with up to 2,000 students in any given semester (Rose, 2012). You actually just wait in line for like two and a half hours until they get to you. And then someone calls you. And I think a lot of the advisors here are part-time. But there are times I go in and ask to see the same person and that person is not working that day. . . . When you have all these people trying to advise students where this isn’t their full-time job, I don’t think they take it as seriously as the students are expecting, because they really need the help. NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

CAMPUS ADMINISTRATOR AND STUDENT PERSPECTIVES FOR IMPROVING TRANSFER

35

And sometimes it’s just not there. (Community college student; Fann & Marling, 2012, p. 31)

Transfer students should be provided with a holistic view of the transfer process rather than given information on an as-needed basis, which increases the potential for missteps that add time and money to students’ degree paths. This requires the institution to formulate a comprehensive transfer-advising model inclusive of early identification of transfer-intending students at the community college, and designating specific transfer advisors at the four-year colleges and universities. Such a comprehensive and intentional advising model would entail teaching students, from their first advising encounter, about options for academic and career pathways and how classes, degree plans, and transfer options vary. The model is intended to help students avoid costly and demoralizing missteps, such as those described here. The student began her story by stating that, from her first day of college, she knew that she wanted to transfer to a specific university because of the reputation of the business program. I told [the counselor] I wanted to do a business management degree and they didn’t ask me if I planned on transferring, they didn’t ask me if I wanted a two-year or four-year degree, they didn’t ask me anything, they just grabbed the [degree plan], and it was an Associate of Applied Science, not an Associate of Arts . . . I got half way through [the program] and I went to talk to the [university] recruiter and he said, “We’re not going to take half these classes because they are technical vocational classes.” What was the point of getting a degree plan and following it if half of these classes aren’t even going to transfer? Essentially I started over. (Fann & Marling, 2012, p. 36)

The student ultimately decided to attend a different university that offered an applied bachelor’s degree in general studies and where the majority of her classes would be accepted. But she did so by giving up her dream school and forgoing her chosen major. This particular student was ahead of many of her peers in that she had an early plan to transfer and some knowledge of the process, enough to know that she should consult an advisor to develop a degree plan. This example speaks to the need for transfer advisors to ask exploratory questions and not assume student goals or knowledge about the process. For many first-generation students, college is a foreign land with a different language, different expectations, and myriad unfamiliar bureaucratic processes. Not all students are able to fully articulate their educational plans during their first advising session, in part because they are not aware of all of the possibilities. For this reason, advisors should begin each meeting free of assumptions about what students know, and view each encounter as a teachable moment when they can explain the differences NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

36

COLLEGIATE TRANSFER: NAVIGATING THE NEW NORMAL

between applied and academic courses and the career and transfer options for completing different types of programs. Others describe these interactions with students as providing them “structured academic pathways” (Rose, 2012; Smith, Miller, & Bromeo, 2009).

Conclusions The intention of the study was to explore the efficacy and implementation of Texas educational policies and institutional programs relating to transfer student success and bachelor’s degree attainment. Throughout the administrator interviews, it was clear that many of the well-intentioned state education policies had unintentional consequences for students attempting to transfer between institutions and were most acutely felt posttransfer. While attitudes toward and beliefs about policies sometimes varied by the higher education sector examined, both administrators and students expressed frustration about policies that were either inconsistently enforced across sectors or were simply not common knowledge to students. In spite of the potential challenges related to the policies, a committed institution can help students avoid running afoul of the policies by closely monitoring progress and intervening before there are complications. This study benefited from input from students preparing to transfer from a community college and those who had made the transition to a fouryear institution. Much research has been concentrated on one population or the other, with limited alignment between sending and receiving institutions. The study found common ground between both populations in relation to encountering multiple barriers in the transfer process, particularly situated around clear, consistent, and timely information acquisition. Communication regarding course transferability and applicability, general and discipline-specific transfer requirements, and state policies was found to be dependent on the students’ ability to ask questions in ways that solicited the correct response from institutional representatives. This supports the notion that the more transfer knowledge students possess, the more likely they are to make a successful transition between institutions. Without the resources and insight required to decipher the transfer process, moving between institutions can be daunting to the point of discouraging persistence in higher education. This does not bode well for minority, firstgeneration, and nontraditional students who often lack knowledge about and comfort with the transfer process. Because of its size and diversity, Texas is often referred to as a microcosm of the nation at large. Thus, it is the opinion of the researchers that these findings can be cautiously generalized to other states while noting differences in higher education governance, fiscal appropriations, and system structures. At least, the recommendations can be scaled appropriately for use by institutions in other states. The researchers also believe the study design is easily replicable for use by other states. The results of this study also NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

CAMPUS ADMINISTRATOR AND STUDENT PERSPECTIVES FOR IMPROVING TRANSFER

37

will contribute to the national conversation, particularly as the research relates to underserved students, where these issues and their resolution are most immediately and directly felt. References American Association of Community Colleges. (2012). About community colleges. Retrieved from http://www.aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/Pages/default.aspx Cohen, A. M., & Kisker, C. B. (2010). The shaping of American higher education: Emergence and growth of the contemporary system (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Dougherty, K. J., & Kienzl, G. S. (2006). It’s not enough to get through the open door: Inequalities by social background in transfer from community colleges to four-year colleges. Teachers College Record, 108(3), 452–487. Fann, A., & Marling, J. (2012). The efficacy of state transfer policies. Austin, TX: TG Philanthropy. Goldrick-Rab, S., Harris, D., Mazzeo, C., & Kienzl, G. (2009). Transforming America’s community colleges: A federal policy proposal to expand opportunity and promote economic prosperity. Blueprint for American Prosperity. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files /Reports/2009/5/07%20community%20college%20goldrick%20rab/0507_community _college_brief.PDF Handel, S. J. (2008). It’s not a math problem: Why focusing on transfer rates diverts us from promoting baccalaureate completion for community college students. Working Paper 4—Destinations of Choice Initiative: A reexamination of America’s Community Colleges. College Board Advocacy and Policy Center. Retrieved from http://media .collegeboard.com/digitalServices/public/pdf/rd/working-paper4_its-not-a-math -problem.pdf Handel, S. J., & Williams, R. A. (2012). The promise of the transfer pathway: Opportunity and challenges for community college students seeking the baccalaureate degree. College Board Advocacy & Policy Center. Retrieved from http://advocacy.collegeboard.org /sites/default/files/community-college-transfer-pathway-summary-5938.pdf Lumina Foundation. (2012). A stronger nation through higher education. Special report. Retrieved from http://www.luminafoundation.org/newsroom/newsletter/archives /2012-05.html National Center for Education Statistics. (2011, Web Tables). Community college student outcomes: 1994–2009 (NCES 2012-253). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. (2011, June). Affordability and transfer: Critical to increasing baccalaureate completion. San Jose, CA: Policy Alert, Author. The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.highereducation.org/reports/pa_at/fp/index.html Provasnik, S., & Planty, M. (2008). Community colleges: Special supplement to the condition of education 2008 (NCES 2008-033). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Rose, M. (2012). Back to school: Why everyone deserves a second chance at education. New York, NY: The New Press. Ryan, C. L., & Siebans, J. (2012). Educational attainment in the United States: 2009 population characteristics. Washington, DC: United States Census Bureau. Smith, C. T., Miller, A., & Bromeo, C. A. (2009). Bridging the gaps to success: Promising practices for promoting transfer among low-income and first-generation students. Retrieved from http://www.pellinstitute.org/downloads/publications-Bridging_the _Gaps_to_Success_2009.pdf NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

38

COLLEGIATE TRANSFER: NAVIGATING THE NEW NORMAL

Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. (2005). Summary of higher education legislation: 79th Texas legislature. Austin, TX: Author. Retrieved from http://www.thecb .state.tx.us/reports/PDF/0857.PDF?CFID=40299882&CFTOKEN=80050182 Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. (2007). Summary of higher education legislation: 80th Texas legislature. Austin, TX: Author. Retrieved from http://www.thecb .state.tx.us/reports/PDF/1389.PDF?CFID=40299882&CFTOKEN=80050182 Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. (2011). Summary of higher education legislation: 82nd Texas legislature. Austin, TX: Author. Retrieved from http://www.thecb .state.tx.us/files/dmfile/LegislativeSummaryReport82ndFINALRevised729.pdf Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. (2012). Texas Transfer Summit: Report and recommendations. Retrieved from http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/index.cfm? objectid=71D9226F-A83C-515C-FDA702956684F1B7 Whitmore, R., & Esche, C. (2010). Pathway to the baccalaureate: How one community college is helping underrepresented students succeed. Washington, DC: New America Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.Newamerica.net

AMY FANN is assistant professor of higher education at the University of North Texas. NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

4

This chapter presents findings from two recent Pell Institute studies, which explored the characteristics and experiences of low-income, first-generation community college transfer students in Texas and two-year and four-year institutional approaches to facilitating transfer student degree completion.

Institutional Practices That Facilitate Bachelor’s Degree Completion for Transfer Students Abby Miller

Background Recent research has developed a clear picture of the challenges facing community college students (The Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, 2008; Bailey, Jenkins, & Leinbach, 2005; Cabrera, Burkum, & La Nasa, 2005; Crisp & Nora, 2010; Dougherty & Kienzl, 2006). However, more information is needed on effective institutional support mechanisms for those students that increase the likelihood of successful transfer and eventual degree completion. The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education (Miller et al., 2011; Smith & Miller, 2009), with generous funding from TG Philanthropy (www.tgslc.org/philanthropy), conducted two recent studies on transfer students: one at the two-year level focused on institutional practices that facilitate transfer out, and the second at the four-year level focused on institutional support mechanisms that keep transfer students enrolled through graduation. The studies were designed to provide insight into the experiences and outcomes of lowincome, first-generation, and underrepresented community college transfer students at four-year institutions, and to help guide policy and practice at the institutional, state, and national levels. The first study asked the question: What are the promising practices for transferring students from two-year to four-year institutions? To answer this question, the Pell Institute examined the institutional characteristics, practices, and policies that might contribute to assuring that students matriculate and excel in community colleges and transfer to four-year NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, no. 162, Summer 2013 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI:10.1002/he.20055

39

40

COLLEGIATE TRANSFER: NAVIGATING THE NEW NORMAL

institutions. Six Texas community colleges with higher-than-predicted transfer rates of low-socioeconomic-status students were selected for study. Given the higher-than-expected transfer rates exhibited at these schools, we assumed that these institutions were successfully preparing their students academically and socially for completing a degree at a four-year institution. Lessons learned from these institutions will hopefully assist others who are considering promising practices to increase their transfer rates, particularly for low-income and first-generation students. While the two-year campuses Pell staff members visited were successful at achieving their transfer mission, we felt that success did not end there. Rather, success culminates when a student completes the end goal, which in most cases is a bachelor’s degree. The second study therefore aimed to examine community college transfer student support, experiences, and outcomes at four-year institutions. The specific objectives of the second study were to identify: (1) promising institutional practices for retaining and graduating low-income, firstgeneration community college transfer students at four-year institutions, including any transfer-specific support systems; (2) outcomes of transfer students (i.e., graduation rates and grade point average [GPA]) at four-year institutions in comparison with “native” peers who began their postsecondary education at the four-year institution; and (3) specific academic, personal, or financial challenges faced by community college transfer students that impede greater success.

Methodological Approach Both studies consisted of mixed methods to identify successful institutional outcomes and promising practices. Quantitative analyses led to the selection of institutions for site visits, which included focus groups and personal interviews with faculty, staff, and students. For the first study, a series of linear regression analyses identified institutions that achieved higherthan-expected rates of transfer and graduation, based on institutional and student characteristics, using both state-level and national data sets. For the second study, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) provided institutional data that compared the outcomes (i.e., graduation rates and GPA) of transfer students to the “native” students who began at the four-year institution. Those data yielded a list of 15 four-year institutions to which the majority of students transferred from the five predominantly low-income community colleges that the Pell Institute staff visited during the first study. In order to make a fair comparison to transfer outcomes, the Pell Institute and THECB together selected a comparison cohort of junior students based on the number of credits with which transfer students in Texas characteristically enter four-year institutions (above 45). Since institutions typically measure six-year graduation rates of freshmen, we tracked the NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

INSTITUTIONAL PRACTICES THAT FACILITATE BACHELOR'S DEGREE

41

four-year graduation rates of juniors (who had already completed two academic years). This information was used to calculate retention and persistence rates of transfers in comparison with equivalent native juniors. Using THECB data, the Pell Institute developed a “total transfer gap” rate, which takes into account the “transfer gap” (difference between transfer and native junior four-year graduation rates) and the “state transfer gap” (difference between transfer graduation rate at these 15 institutions and the state average transfer graduation rate; Miller et al., 2011). The institutions visited represent a mix of both high and low performers on all three transfer gap measures, but in all cases, native students outperformed transfers in terms of graduation rates. Site visit selection took these data into account to yield a diverse mix of institutions in terms of transfer performance, retention and graduation rates, degree offerings, size, locale, and student characteristics. In addition, site visit selection took into account the availability of institutions and their willingness to participate and share data. Institutional profiles utilizing data from the Integrated Postsecondary Data System, THECB, and institutional websites provided background information for each site visit. Each of the five site visits consisted of approximately two days of interviews with staff and faculty and focus groups with students. A case-study approach guided the qualitative component of this study. While interview data from site visits were analyzed for common themes and factors that may either help or hinder transfer student success, we took into account the unique combination of environmental factors at each institution that together contribute to its overall transfer performance.

Key Findings: Two-Year Institutions The two-year institution study identified three common themes or characteristics, each consisting of institutional programs and policies that appear to contribute to higher-than-expected transfer rates: 1. Structured academic pathway; 2. Student-centered culture; 3. Culturally sensitive leadership. Colleges that successfully cultivate a culture of transfer ensure that their students are well-informed about the transfer process and are supported, both academically and socially. These three characteristics and their individual components are described below. It should be noted that although community colleges may have already implemented specific strategies identified in this report, the campuses we visited incorporate each program or policy as part of a holistic approach to engaging and retaining students while encouraging them to transfer to four-year institutions. NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

42

COLLEGIATE TRANSFER: NAVIGATING THE NEW NORMAL

Structured Academic Pathway. While the colleges offer a range of academic, vocational, and workforce programs, each campus maintains high expectations about their students’ ability to transfer. The presidents emphasize the academic mission of their institutions and the importance of academic rigor as an essential component of the transfer pipeline. Each has infused the notion and importance of transfer into their campus culture, and thus they work with all students to develop realistic four-year degree plans, regardless of whether or not they initially aspire to transfer upon enrolling in college. Successful elements of a structured academic pathway include institutional articulation agreements, dual enrollment, developmental coursework initiatives, and active learning. Institutional articulation agreements. While the findings from research on the effects of statewide articulation agreements are mixed (Anderson, Alfonso, & Sun, 2006; Ignash & Townsend, 2000, 2001; Wellman, 2002), institutional partnerships have not been explored in depth and show promise. The colleges actively pursue relationships with four-year institutions, working to build a seamless transition through the educational pipeline. This helps get students on track not only for transfer to a four-year institution but also within a specific subject area. The colleges develop individually tailored degree plans that students can continually consult in order to make sure they are taking the coursework they need to transfer to their bachelor’s degree program of interest. In addition, they invite partnering colleges and universities to assign outreach and admissions staff and often provide dedicated space to house these representatives on campus. In this way, students can easily and accessibly obtain information about transferability of credits directly from the receiving institution without leaving the community college campus. Regular contact with four-year representatives also helps to demystify and humanize the college or university for firstgeneration college students who do not have a college-going background. Dual enrollment. In a state where graduating from high school with college credit is emphasized, each of the six colleges visited excels at offering such programs to students in their districts. Dual enrollment programs expose high school students to college coursework and introduce them to the college environment. That early exposure can be critical in ensuring a successful transition to college, particularly for low-income and firstgeneration students who are unfamiliar with higher education and what it will take to earn a baccalaureate degree. Many of the community colleges developed partnerships with the school districts in order to make dual credit more feasible for low-income students. Some institutions cover students’ tuition and fees, and provide transportation for students who do not have the means of reaching campus. Students can thus enter college already having accumulated 12 transferrable core credit units, which positions them at an advantage along the transfer pathway. Developmental coursework initiatives. Over half of recent high school graduates who enter community colleges require developmental coursework, NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

INSTITUTIONAL PRACTICES THAT FACILITATE BACHELOR'S DEGREE

43

which often becomes a barrier to transfer (Bailey, 2009; Bailey et al., 2005; Bettinger & Long, 2005; Schwartz & Jenkins, 2007). Each of the colleges visited uses innovative practices in their developmental education curriculum. They continuously examine, redesign, and improve their course offerings, all with the goal of moving students through the developmental education process quickly and preparing them for success in their transfer curriculum. They are particularly concerned with making the format, structure, and content of developmental coursework more accessible and effective. For instance, a number of the colleges break down developmental courses into tailored, manageable modules based on skills assessments. Some build in required, targeted academic support such as lab work or one-on-one faculty tutoring. The colleges are also integrating developmental skills into nondevelopmental coursework and programs. These innovative practices help to increase the number of students enrolling in and completing a transferbound curriculum. Active learning. The colleges we visited are shifting their focus from traditional lectures to active group-learning methods. For example, at several institutions faculty infuse practical hands-on research activities drawn from “real-world” scenarios into the curriculum. Their emphasis is on teaching students how to learn, and equipping students with critical thinking and analysis skills rather than simply preparing them to pass an exam. The belief that these skills strengthen students’ academic preparation for and personal motivation to excel at four-year college coursework is firmly rooted among the senior administrators and faculty we interviewed. Student-Centered Culture. Each of the institutions has developed a student-centered culture, emphasizing personal attention, ease of service, convenience, collaboration, and innovation. All their outreach and support programs, including TRIO Student Support Services, tutoring, and advising operate on flexible schedules designed to meet the needs of both day and evening students. A culture of change, access, and availability permeates all of the campuses we visited. Each is constantly innovating and developing new ideas and programs, such as volunteer faculty tutoring, learning communities, mentoring, and summer bridge programs. They are not afraid of trying new ideas and approaches. Essential elements of a student-centered culture include customer service focus, specialized advising, flexible scheduling, and learning communities. Customer service focus. Staff and faculty work collaboratively across departments and programs, often taking on multiple roles to encourage transfer. Each of the six colleges that we visited evidenced a close-knit campus culture in which staff, faculty, and students know each other by name. It is not uncommon for staff and faculty to have been at a college for 30 years or longer. A student-centered focus is engrained throughout the campus, and one-stop shops make services more user-friendly. Specialized advising. Professional advisors, faculty members, support program counselors, and staff help students to think about and adopt NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

44

COLLEGIATE TRANSFER: NAVIGATING THE NEW NORMAL

long-term strategies regarding their academic goals. In addition, they ensure that their students are aware of financial planning; financial aid availability; and college application procedures, requirements, and deadlines. Several of the colleges have transfer centers and full-time transfer coordinators who regularly schedule representatives from partnering universities to provide students with transfer-specific information. Early alert programs are particularly important in monitoring student attendance and performance and in identifying the many competing factors and responsibilities that could inhibit academic performance and transfer. Flexible scheduling. The colleges offer coursework and academic support in the evenings and on weekends at some campuses. Such flexibility recognizes that the students they serve juggle multiple responsibilities, ranging from work to family demands. This sensitivity to their needs provides students with the feasibility to complete their coursework and transfer to a four-year institution. Learning communities. Learning communities are especially important for students in community colleges, where the classroom may be the only opportunity to engage with the broader life of the institution (Bailey, Alfonso, Calcagno, Jenkins, Kienzl, & Leinbach, 2004; Tinto, 1997). Several campuses have developed programs through which students enroll as a cohort in a structured curriculum and engage in both academic and social activities. Students forge nurturing and sustaining communities that foster a transfer mind-set through integration into the campus community, successful completion of a transfer curriculum, and transfer to a university. Honors programs, while limited to students who meet minimum GPA requirements, are models of such cohort-based programs that can be replicated for specific populations of students. Culturally Sensitive Leadership. The presidents interviewed displayed strong leadership, energy, and dedication to their institutions and students. Many come from social, economic, and/or racial/ethnic backgrounds similar to those of their students. Their personal experiences allow them to understand their students’ lives, which helps shape their insights and expertise. Culturally sensitive leadership helps foster, shape, and develop a campus culture and environment that encourages students to take ownership of their academic experience, to participate as active citizens of the institution, and to use their education to improve their individual lives and those of their families and communities. Some essential elements of culturally sensitive leadership include staff and faculty role modeling, strategic planning, and outreach. Staff and faculty role modeling. Like the presidents, staff and faculty reflected on how much their students’ lives and backgrounds mirror their own. Many faculty and staff came from low-income families in the same surrounding towns and neighborhoods from which they draw their students. And many, like their students, were the first in their families to go to college. In a number of cases, staff and faculty owe their success to college NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

INSTITUTIONAL PRACTICES THAT FACILITATE BACHELOR'S DEGREE

45

personnel who reached out to them as students, and they want to replicate that mentorship role by encouraging students to excel beyond the two-year campus. Additionally, the campuses we visited recognize the importance of having faculty and staff that understand their student body. All are deliberately and strategically hiring staff and faculty that mirror their students’ socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds. Strategic planning. The colleges use data to gain a better perspective on the social and economic contexts that encourage or hinder students’ success in transfer. These insights are translated into campus-wide initiatives, including reaccreditation Quality Enhancement Plans (Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, 2011) that take identified factors into consideration when implementing new programs. This movement is being partly driven by Texas’ statewide Closing the Gaps plan (THEBC, 2010), which requires institutions to identify and close gaps in student success rates by 2015. Outreach. Each of the colleges emphasizes the importance of community outreach. Through partnerships and cosponsored events with school districts and local organizations, campuses inform parents and students about financial aid and scholarship guidelines and deadlines, college programs, courses, services, and transfer opportunities. Moreover, community colleges are a part of the fabric of the surrounding regions. Particularly in the close-knit nature of rural areas and small towns, college personnel share a common understanding and appreciation of the local culture with members of their communities. This helps drive the messages behind outreach efforts that emphasize students’ potential for academic success.

Key Findings: Four-Year Institutions Completion of the transfer pipeline at four-year institutions is a complex story and one that entails a host of relevant factors at both the student and institutional levels (Bensimon & Dowd, 2008; Cabrera et al., 2005; Ishitani, 2008; Long & Kurlaender, 2009; Melguizo & Dowd, 2009). It was originally hypothesized that four-year institutions with transfer-specific services would be the most successful at retaining and graduating community college transfer students, but what we discovered is that one must take into account the institutional mission, leadership, and culture to truly gain an understanding of the policies that ultimately affect transfer student success. Data collected show that native students always graduate at higher rates than their transfer peers at these four-year institutions in Texas. However, administrators at several of the case study institutions believed that transfer students were performing better than native students because they were comparing transfer graduation rates to those of freshmen. This is not a fair comparison given that transfer students in Texas most commonly enter the four-year institutions with 45 credits or more at sophomore or NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

46

COLLEGIATE TRANSFER: NAVIGATING THE NEW NORMAL

junior status. As a result, transfer students have already survived the attrition commonly seen during and after the first year of college, and they can be expected to complete their degrees at higher rates than incoming freshmen. While community college transfer students face a host of challenges typically associated with low-income, first-generation, and nontraditionalaged students, a few challenges emerged as specific to the transfer experience and particularly salient among students at the four-year institutions visited. Lack of Engagement. Perhaps the greatest challenge faced by community college transfer students at these four-year institutions in Texas is a lack of engagement or integration into the institution. Transfer students are often nontraditional-aged, attending part-time and/or working off-campus, and facing multiple responsibilities such as caring for dependents, which leaves little time for participating in anything on campus outside the classroom. In addition, the student “bonding” that many traditional-aged, firsttime students experience most often occurs during their freshman year. By the time transfers have arrived on campus, they may find that students with an equivalent number of credits (i.e., juniors) have already settled into a social niche. At the same time, it may be that transfer students have little interest in socializing beyond the classroom and simply come to campus to complete their coursework requirements in order to complete the degree. Regardless, without an attachment or connection to the campus, these students may get lost in the system. Financial Aid Problems. Financially, transfer students commonly face either a loss of financial aid at the four-year level or lack of continuous aid due to missed deadlines and having to essentially “relearn” the financial aid system. The community colleges we studied provided personal, closeknit cultures that proactively reminded students of upcoming financial aid deadlines. When these students arrive on the larger, often more bureaucratic campuses, they are not always prepared for more stringent deadlines and additional paperwork. In addition, transfer students often apply to the institution too late to receive institutional funds that have already been distributed to first-year students and are faced with taking out loans that they did not need at the two-year institution where grants were typically enough to cover costs. Academic Problems. Academically, students may risk transferring credits that do not apply to their degree plans if they enter with an unclear understanding of the requirements for their chosen degree program. Often, students have to take additional courses to meet major requirements. Academic preparation, in general, is also a challenge for the universities since it is difficult to effectively plan course sequences and degree programs when students enter at different levels and with different academic backgrounds. In terms of state policy, Texas recently reduced the number of excess credit hours eligible for formula funding from 45 to 30 credits, NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

INSTITUTIONAL PRACTICES THAT FACILITATE BACHELOR'S DEGREE

47

which has major ramifications for transfer students when the two-year and four-year degree programs are not properly aligned. Addressing the Specific Needs of Transfers. Transfer-specific practices identified include transfer centers, transfer-specific advising, required transfer orientation, transfer “ambassador” mentors, social and networking events for transfer students, transfer financial literacy workshops, and transfer scholarships. Perhaps more important than offering transferspecific services was the institution’s overall approach to, and understanding of, the common characteristics of community college transfer students, many of whom are first-generation, nontraditional-aged, and part-time students. For example, a number of institutions offered student organizations, extended-hour services, free transportation, and child care support that met the needs of nontraditional, working transfer students. Several administrators emphasized that seemingly minor logistical considerations can make a huge impact in a student’s ability to persist. Integration of the Curriculum. Seamless integration between degree plans at the community college and four-year university levels also seemed to be a critical component in transfer success. Such intrainstitutional partnerships included articulation agreements, curricular alignment, and reverse awarding of degree agreements. Ensuring that students receive accurate, updated information about transfer of course credits is critical to timely degree completion at the four-year institution. Cross-institutional training, online degree audit systems, and joint admissions are some examples of additional ways that two- and four-year institutions can work together. An unexpected finding that emerged is the stark contrast between two distinct transfer philosophies, both across and within the institutions. Leadership, staff, faculty, and students alike either express the need for transfer-specific support services to address transfers’ unique characteristics and challenges, or do not see a need for separate services. Individuals holding the latter philosophy design institution-wide programs and services with transfer student characteristics in mind (namely, low-income, firstgeneration, nontraditional-aged, working, or commuter students), but they express concern that creating separate transfer services would only serve to stigmatize or label these students rather than facilitate their integration into the institution. Further research should explore the effects of the two distinct transfer philosophies and subsequent institutional policies on transfer success rates using a larger sample of institutions.

Recommendations In order to implement the various promising practices described, the researchers recommend that institutions consider developing and implementing the following successful strategies. Collaborative Campus Programming. A strategic process to move students through a road map of transfer-preparatory coursework, coupled NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

48

COLLEGIATE TRANSFER: NAVIGATING THE NEW NORMAL

with academic and social support systems, instills a culture that requires all stakeholders on the campus to cooperate and actively participate through instruction and support. A collaborative culture among staff is indicative of the practice they extend to students daily, through the accessibility of transferspecific information. Administrative staff must be committed to assuring students that they are there for the students’ welfare and not vice versa. Data-Driven Decision Making. As colleges collect data on students, it makes a difference how those data are used to establish budgetary priorities and to educate the campus community. The strategic analysis of data, identifying when and what kind of support students need at various stages in the academic pathway, can help inform the decisions that play a role in student and institutional success. Faculty Engagement in the Transfer Process. Faculty at both sending and receiving institutions must be an integral part of developing a transfer culture. At the community college, the faculty’s role in rethinking and redesigning both developmental and transfer-bound curricula is central to developing a transfer culture and increasing transfer rates. Engagement in the transfer process can be fostered through the cooperation and collaboration of the institution’s academic leadership, faculty, program directors, and support staff. A Culture of Performance and Accountability. Faculty and staff at successful transfer-receiving institutions are aware that a culture of transfer exists at their college or university. All staff and faculty are willing to be innovative and take risks. They do not shy away from doing whatever it takes to ensure that their students succeed in achieving their dreams of completing a college degree. Given their cultures of performance and accountability, only those efforts that work and produce the verifiable outcomes will be implemented and supported.

Conclusions Our findings lead us to recommend that institutions consider the transfer student population in their strategic planning and goals, particularly now that community colleges are becoming a common entry point into postsecondary education, both in Texas and nationwide. It would serve institutions well to consider the entire transfer experience within the context of relevant state and institutional policies as they plan the programs and services that guide their transfer students toward bachelor’s degree completion. Moreover, the findings endorse the need for Texas and other states to identify transfer as a state priority. The current structure of Texas’ higher education accountability system does not place sufficient value on community college transfer success. Successful transfer by community college students should be tracked and systems put in place to reward community colleges that promote transfer. In addition, recognizing four-year institutions for their role in assisting community college transfer students in NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

INSTITUTIONAL PRACTICES THAT FACILITATE BACHELOR'S DEGREE

49

completing a bachelor’s degree will provide them with additional incentive to develop policies and practices that promote transfer student success. While four-year institutions are currently required to report the four-year graduation rates of transfer students to the state, little emphasis has been placed on these data by policymakers. Public universities should be required to report these graduation rates in comparison with native juniors, and successful institutions should be recognized for their work in this area. Finally, these studies, while gleaning a great deal of insight into the transfer experience at two- and four-year institutions in Texas, are exploratory in nature and merely scratch the surface on a number of challenges and strategies at student, institutional, and state levels. A larger national sample size would allow for a more definitive connection between institutional transfer philosophies and transfer success rates. Further research into the connection between practice and outcomes is critical to the success of economically disadvantaged students who begin the postsecondary pipeline at the two-year level with aspirations of achieving a bachelor’s degree. Our hope is that findings from both studies will help inform: (1) practitioners in programs and on campuses who work with community college transfer students, particularly with historically underrepresented populations; (2) institutional decision-makers concerned with improving transfer graduation rates; and 3) policy makers, particularly at the state level, interested in promoting transfer as a means for improving the baccalaureate degree attainment rate among their constituents to ensure a more educated workforce. Ultimately, it is the students who would benefit from further research on the effects of institutional policies and practices on transfer student success. References The Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance. (2008). Transition matters: From community college to bachelor’s degree. Washington, DC: Author. Anderson, G. M., Alfonso, M., & Sun, J. C. (2006). Effectiveness of statewide articulation agreements on the probability of transfer: A preliminary policy analysis. The Review of Higher Education, 29(3), 261–291. Bailey, T. (2009). Rethinking developmental education in community college. New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center. Bailey, T., Alfonso, M., Calcagno, J. C., Jenkins, D., Kienzl, G., & Leinbach, T. (2004). Improving student attainment in community colleges: Institutional characteristics and policies. New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center. Bailey, T., Jenkins, D., & Leinbach, T. (2005). Community college low-income and minority student completion study: Descriptive statistics from the 1992 high school cohort. New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center. Bensimon, E. M., & Dowd, A. C. (2008). Educational policy and institutional practice shrinking the transfer gap: To sustain momentum toward the four-year college degree. Los Angeles: University of Southern California Center for Urban Education. Bettinger, E., & Long, B. (2005). Remediation at the community college: Student participation and outcomes. In C. A. Kozeracki (Ed.), New Directions for Community NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

50

COLLEGIATE TRANSFER: NAVIGATING THE NEW NORMAL

Colleges: No. 129. Responding to the challenges of developmental education (pp. 17–26). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Cabrera, A. F., Burkum, K. R., & La Nasa, S. M. (2005). Pathways to a four year degree: Determinants of transfer and degree completion. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College Student Retention: A Formula for Student Success (pp. 115–214). Westport, CT: ACE/Praeger series on Higher Education. Crisp, G., & Nora, A. (2010). Hispanic student success: Factors influencing the persistence and transfer decisions of Latino community college students enrolled in developmental education. Research in Higher Education, 51(2), 175–194. Dougherty, K. J., & Kienzl, G. S. (2006). It’s not enough to get through the open door: Inequalities by social background in transfer from community colleges to four-year colleges. Teachers College Record, 108(3), 452–487. Ignash, J., & Townsend, B. K. (2000). Evaluating state-level articulation agreements according to good practice. Community College Review, 28(3), 1–21. Ignash, J., & Townsend, B. K. (2001). Statewide transfer and articulation policies: Current practices and emerging issues. In B. K. Townsend & S. B. Twombly (Eds.), Community colleges: Policy in the future context (pp. 173–192). Westport, CT: Ablex. Ishitani, T. T. (2008). How do transfers survive after “transfer shock”? A longitudinal study of transfer student departure at a four-year institution. Research in Higher Education, 49(5), 403–419. Long, B. T., & Kurlaender, M. (2009). Do community colleges provide a viable pathway to a baccalaureate degree? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(1), 30–53. Melguizo, T., & Dowd, A. C. (2009). Baccalaureate success of transfers and rising fouryear college juniors. Teachers College Record, 111(1), 55–89. Miller, A., Erisman, W., Bermeo, A., & Smith, C. (2011). Sealing the gaps: Supporting low-income, first-generation students at four-year institutions in Texas post-transfer. Washington, DC: Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education. Schwartz, W., & Jenkins, D. (2007). Promising practices for community college developmental education: A discussion resource for the Connecticut Community College System. New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center. Smith, C., & Miller, A. (2009). Bridging the gaps to success: Promising practices for promoting transfer among low-income and first-generation students. An in-depth study of six exemplary community colleges in Texas. Washington, DC: Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education. Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges. (2011). Handbook for institutions seeking reaffirmation. Decatur, GA: Author. Retrieved from http:// www.sacscoc.org/pdf/081705/Handbook%20for%20Institutions%20seeking%20 reaffirmation.pdf Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. (2010). Accelerated plan for closing the gaps. Austin, TX: Author. Retrieved from http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports /PDF/2005.PDF?CFID=40299882&CFTOKEN=80050182. Tinto, V. (1997). Classrooms as communities. Journal of Higher Education, 68(6), 599–623. Wellman, J. V. (2002). State policy and community college–baccalaureate transfer. Washington, DC: The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education and the Institute for Higher Education Policy.

ABBY MILLER is a senior research analyst with JBL Associates in Bethesda, Maryland, and a former research analyst with the Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education in Washington, DC. NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

5

This chapter reviews a four-year university’s role in developing and implementing a transfer-receptive culture. In particular, it focuses on the first element of a transferreceptive culture by highlighting a series of visits by the chancellor of the University of California, Los Angeles, to community colleges within California.

Building a Transfer-Receptive Culture at Four-Year Institutions Alfred Herrera, Dimpal Jain California is a bellwether state in many respects, including higher education. Its unique three-tier system of higher education has long been credited with providing multiple options for students to access postsecondary education (Johnson, 2010). The University of California (UC) holds the top tier with 10 campuses; the second tier is comprised of the 23 campuses of the California State University (CSU) system; and the 112 campuses of the California Community Colleges located throughout the state (California Postsecondary Education Commission, 2011a) constitute the third tier. Currently, the California Community Colleges represent the largest system of higher education in the nation, serving 2.6 million students (California Community College Chancellor’s Office, 2013). In accordance with the 1960 California Master Plan of Higher Education, all segments of the system are expected to coordinate and collaborate with each other in order to ensure the academic success of all students (University of California Office of the President, 2009). An example of this coordination is the ability for students to transfer from a community college to a UC or CSU campus to obtain their bachelor’s degree, and ultimately a graduate degree. But the transfer function often does not work well for students who attempt to transfer from a community college to a top-tier UC institution, in particular to a UC campus that is highly selective such as the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA; University of California Office of the President, 2012). This difficulty in transferring particularly affects the main constituents of California community colleges—low-income, underrepresented, first-generation, and/ or immigrant students who most often identify with communities of color (Woodlief, Thomas, & Orozco, 2003). The transfer function often fails these students who aspire to persist successfully throughout the educational NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, no. 162, Summer 2013 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI:10.1002/he.20056

51

52

COLLEGIATE TRANSFER: NAVIGATING THE NEW NORMAL

pipeline to ensure better social and economic futures for themselves and their families. Attempts have been made to address the shortcomings of institutions in serving transfer students by creating and identifying components of a transfer-sending culture at the community college level and a transferreceptive culture at the four-year level. A transfer-sending culture exists when a community college normalizes the transfer function so that all students who seek to transfer are able to do so (Ornelas & Solórzano, 2004). A transfer-receptive culture is defined as follows: Institutional commitment by a four-year college or university to provide the support needed for students to transfer successfully—that is, to navigate the community college, take the appropriate coursework, apply, enroll, and successfully earn a baccalaureate degree in a timely manner. (Jain, Herrera, Bernal, & Solórzano, 2011, p. 257)

A transfer-receptive culture is a dramatically different way of viewing the transfer function as the receiving institution shares responsibility with sending community colleges for the success of transfer students. By linking these two cultures together, a holistic view of transfer becomes possible that honors the critical intersections of identities held by students.

Elements of a Transfer-Receptive Culture Instrumental to creating and understanding a transfer-receptive culture is the realization that efforts toward the inclusion of transfer students begin prior to when the student arrives (Jain et al., 2011). What this means is that there are pretransfer and posttransfer initiatives that must take effect in order to ensure a successful and welcoming academic environment. A transfer-receptive culture consists of five elements, listed in the section that follows, which are operationalized through the theoretical framework of critical race theory. These elements ensure that transfer students have a sense of legitimacy as members of the university community (Jain et al., 2011). The first two elements of a transfer-receptive culture are the following pretransfer efforts: 1. Establish the transfer of students, especially nontraditional, first-generation, low-income, and underrepresented students, as a high institutional priority that ensures stable accessibility, retention, and graduation; and 2. Provide outreach and resources that focus on the specific needs of transfer students while complimenting the community college mission of transfer. (Jain et al., 2011, p. 258)

The last three elements of a transfer-receptive culture, which are posttransfer, include the following: NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

BUILDING A TRANSFER-RECEPTIVE CULTURE AT FOUR-YEAR INSTITUTIONS

53

3. Offer financial and academic support through distinct opportunities for nontraditional-reentry transfer students where they are stimulated to achieve at high academic levels; 4. Acknowledge the lived experiences that students bring and the intersectionality between community and family; and 5. Create an appropriate and organic framework from which to assess, evaluate, and enhance transfer-receptive programs and initiatives that can lead to further scholarship on transfer students. (Jain et al., 2011, p. 258)

The remainder of the chapter will focus on the first pretransfer element, which establishes transfer for nontraditional, first-generation, lowincome, and underrepresented students as a high institutional priority. To demonstrate the details of this element, we focus on the work of the Center for Community College Partnerships (CCCP) at UCLA. Specifically, we illustrate the role that the CCCP, the UCLA chancellor and top administrators, in coordination with local community college campuses, play in developing this element.

UCLA and the Center for Community College Partnerships As a large public research university, UCLA is distinguished by its academic excellence and commitment to a diverse academic community. The commitment to scholarship, research, and public service are core values that start at the top (UCLA, n.d.). UCLA has a long-standing commitment to recruiting, admitting, and enrolling transfer students. In fact, for the last 20 years nearly 40% of all new undergraduate students entering the university are transfer students (UCLA Office of Analysis and Information Management, 2013). Partnerships between UCLA and California community colleges have provided many opportunities to engage in various efforts designed to prepare students for the competitive environment of the UCLA campus. In 2001, the Center for Community College Partnerships (CCCP) was established at UCLA in the College of Letters and Sciences. In its commitment to social justice and diversity, CCCP empowers students to become selfadvocates and leaders in their communities by equipping them with the skills and knowledge of available transfer pathways (Herrera, 2012). Overall, CCCP’s mission is to work to increase transfer rates and the success of underserved community college populations (Herrera, 2012). On August 1, 2007, Chancellor Gene Block began his tenure at UCLA. During his first few weeks at the institution, in a meeting to learn about the campus academic development programs, he voiced his interest in several areas, including the diversity of the student population and transfer students. To capitalize on the chancellor’s interest in transfer students and student diversity, the assistant vice provost for academic partnerships/ NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

54

COLLEGIATE TRANSFER: NAVIGATING THE NEW NORMAL

director of the Center for Community College Partnerships developed a comprehensive transfer strategy for UCLA. This plan included hosting a meeting at UCLA for community college chancellors and presidents, and more notably, coordinating visits by the chancellor to community colleges. The philosophy behind this effort was to ensure that community colleges and their students heard this message: UCLA was very interested in transfer students, especially those who did not envision themselves at this elite public university.

Building a Transfer-Receptive Culture: Community Colleges Visits by the UCLA Chancellor As originally conceived, the idea was for the chancellor to have brief meetings with the presidents at the community colleges to discuss UCLA’s interests. After careful thought and discussion, CCCP administrators decided it was imperative that the visits be expanded beyond one to two hours. Rather, the visits should last several hours and incorporate a variety of opportunities to engage not only with the community college president but also with multiple stakeholders. The structure of the visits (which varied slightly for each community college) included several meetings throughout the day with the president of the community college, the administrative leadership team, deans, directors, academic senate president, student leaders, and faculty. These meetings were intended to introduce the chancellor to the community college community so that the chancellor could discuss UCLA’s genuine interest in diversity by continuing to strengthen its transfer population. In addition, the visit included a tour of each community college campus and visits to classrooms where students had an opportunity to ask questions. At some colleges, in addition to the president, the district chancellor, members of the board of trustees, and/or locally elected officials attended part of the day. Another important decision was to include on the visiting team others who could support the chancellor and demonstrate UCLA’s commitment to transfer students. These staff voices provided an opportunity for students to hear from others at the University who were dedicated to serving underrepresented transfer students. The UCLA team was led by the assistant vice provost for academic partnerships/director of the Center for Community College Partnerships and included the assistant vice chancellor for governmental relations; director of admissions; director of financial aid; coordinator of transfer recruitment services; and where possible, current UCLA students who had transferred from the community college being visited. The UCLA team attended the chancellor’s presentation to students, faculty, and staff, which was followed by a question-and-answer session allowing the team to provide answers and additional information related to admissions, financial aid and scholarships, support for undocumented students, housing, and academics. The presentation was followed by a reception NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

BUILDING A TRANSFER-RECEPTIVE CULTURE AT FOUR-YEAR INSTITUTIONS

55

where students and others could meet and greet the team and ask questions directly to any of the members. The visit to West Los Angeles College was one of the first that Chancellor Block made in 2008, marking the first time any UCLA chancellor had visited the campus since its opening in 1969 (UC, Los Angeles, 2008). Former West Los Angeles College President Mark W. Rocha escorted Block and his team around his campus for the half-day visit, which coincided with the college’s 40th anniversary. Both the chancellor and the president made affirming comments regarding the visit: “We’re here to recruit you,” Block told an assembly of students during the halfday of activities that included a campus tour, visits to classrooms, and receptions. “Transfer students are a big part of our community. Hopefully I’ll see some of you walking around our campus in a few years.” (UCLA, 2008, para. 3)

Former President Rocha echoed these comments: “This is about the partnership between UCLA and West Los Angeles College moving forward. . . . It’s been an absolute mission accomplished” (UCLA, 2008, para. 5). This visit by the chancellor reinforced the University’s commitment to a transfer-receptive culture by purposefully targeting a campus with a high number of underrepresented students, a key component of the first element of the culture. During the year of the chancellor’s visit, West Los Angeles College had an enrollment of over 21,000 students that included 35% identifying as African American, 25% as Latina/o, 13% as White non-Hispanic, and 6% as Asian American (California Community College Chancellor’s Office, 2008). Additionally, it is important to note that historically there had not been a robust transfer pathway between the two institutions, with only 24 students transferring from West Los Angeles College to UCLA during the 2008 to 2009 school year (California Postsecondary Education Commission, 2011b). For the chancellor to visit this campus and announce recruiting students for UCLA represented a crucial step forward in linking two institutional cultures that have similar goals—to increase the degree attainment of students who have been traditionally pushed out by higher education. Over the chancellor’s first five years, Block has visited 10 community colleges as part of the Center for Community College Partnerships strategy for building a transfer-receptive culture. This is an unprecedented number of visits to community colleges by a chancellor of a top-tier research university in California. The visits have been to both Southern California colleges—Los Angeles City College, Los Angeles Valley College, Pasadena City College, Santa Monica College, and West Los Angeles College; and Northern California colleges—City College of San Francisco, Evergreen Valley College, Foothill College, Laney College, and Merritt College. Chancellor Block’s willingness to participate in these visits demonstrates a commitment to ensuring that UCLA remains a viable and accessible NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

56

COLLEGIATE TRANSFER: NAVIGATING THE NEW NORMAL

option for California community college students, particularly those students who are underrepresented, first-generation, low-income and/or nontraditional.

Recommendations In some cases, a commitment to transfer is already an important value and high priority held by a four-year chancellor or president, but in others it is something that needs to be nourished and developed. The visits by Chancellor Block have been effective because of a strong institutional commitment to transfer. A successful visit to a community college by any four-year college or university chancellor or president requires key support, analysis, and cooperation among different entities on both campuses. The following recommendations are intended to assist four-year administrators in coordinating a campus visit to a two-year institution in order to encourage and welcome student transfer. Collect Institutional Data. Request data from the institution’s institutional research office on transfer students from each feeder community college. This will assist administrators in determining what colleges would be best to visit if there is more than one community college in the direct service area. If there is only one feeder community college, focus on that college. Data elements to request can include number of applicants, admitted students, enrollees, majors, grade point averages of transfer students at admission, performance data after one year, retention, and graduation rates. The objective of data analysis should be to examine the data in a way that provides information about the institution’s transfer applicant and admission pool. It is also imperative to include race/ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status so that the four-year institution has a holistic view of its transfer population. Survey the Institutional Transfer Climate. It is important to know who the transfer allies are on the four-year campus—faculty or staff who were once transfer students or those who are supportive of transfer students. These can include student service professionals, faculty, administrators, and staff. Identifying these individuals will provide a starting point for discussion on the importance of transfer students and could also lead to the creation of a transfer task force that includes student voices. Arrange a Meeting With the Chancellor or President. Prior to this meeting, administrators should make sure to analyze data that highlight the contributions transfer students make to the campus. At this meeting, administrators should present to the chancellor or president a rationale for the importance of visiting a local community college based on data analysis and dialogue with campus allies. Once the chancellor or president is supportive, the next step is to carefully select which community college campus to visit. Identify the Community College(s) to Visit. The data that were analyzed will help campus officials determine which community college(s) to visit. Once colleges are selected, administrators should explore any previous NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

BUILDING A TRANSFER-RECEPTIVE CULTURE AT FOUR-YEAR INSTITUTIONS

57

or current relationships between the institutions. Next, a representative of the four-year institution should schedule a visit with each community college president to discuss the importance of the visit. After a mutual agreement from both leaders, the next step is to work with a team from both institutions to develop an agenda that represents shared goals and strategies for a successful visit.

Conclusion Building a transfer-receptive culture is a multifaceted effort that requires the coordination of several units on campus. Strong support from top administrators is critical, as is support from across the campus. Focusing on the first element of a transfer-receptive culture requires coordination and collaboration within the four-year institution and with the community college partner. Data analysis will help drive the conversation about why the visits are important, and the successful visit will demonstrate how to improve the relationships between institutions. The visits that were made to community colleges by UCLA Chancellor Block over the last five years were coordinated by the staff in the UCLA Center for Community College Partnerships. The success of these visits can be attributed to the strong relationships developed between transfer allies at both the university and two-year campuses. Over the years, comments from presidents, administrators, faculty, and students have been positive. These visits have been followed by meetings between the transfer staff at sending and receiving institutions. In particular, the Center for Community College Partnerships has been successful in collaborating on several grants and is presently working on additional funding opportunities with partnering community colleges. These visits have been further reinforced by the center’s peer mentors, who visit the community college weekly and have been able to offer presentations in classes and conduct workshops about UCLA. The increased visibility of the CCCP program and UCLA partnerships continues to grow and develop, and there have been numerous requests from other community colleges for a chancellor’s visit. Currently, there are a series of visits being planned in the upcoming academic years to continue to strengthen and emphasize diversity at UCLA. A key component of the success experienced is having an office dedicated to the transfer function that can coordinate these efforts. Such an office, similar to CCCP, demonstrates to the campus community that a transfer-receptive culture is a priority. If no such office exists, we would recommend that a successful visit should include key personnel dedicated to transfer students—personnel who can coordinate and collaborate with other offices to develop strategies that impact transfer student success. Another strong recommendation is to have a commitment from the administration at both institutions. Such commitment is critical to ensuring the success of any visit and future partnerships that are developed. NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

58

COLLEGIATE TRANSFER: NAVIGATING THE NEW NORMAL

Overall, a transfer-receptive culture centers on students and their lived experiences. An example of the impact the UCLA chancellor’s visit had on one student is demonstrated through Latrice, an African American firstgeneration community college student. She stated: I can’t believe the Chancellor of UCLA actually came to our college. Having him and the other UCLA people here made me realize that UCLA does care and that it is a place I could transfer to. They made it real for me, made me feel wanted and I’m excited to transfer as soon as I can (West Los Angeles College student, personal communication, October 30, 2008).

Latrice’s comment is indicative of successful collective efforts to diversify the university and to ensure that UCLA continues to strengthen its transfer-receptive culture. Strengthening a four-year university’s commitment to transfer can be a monumental undertaking that requires support and collaboration across the campus. While trying to develop this culture, it is important to remember that all five elements of building a transfer-receptive culture should be present and harmonious (Jain et al., 2011). The five elements of a transferreceptive culture are built on the foundation of critical race theory, which allows institutions and educators to center race and racism when considering the experiences of nontraditional, first-generation, low-income, and/or underrepresented students who make the transition from the community college to the university. The first two elements—establishing the transfer of students as a high institutional priority and providing outreach and resources to meet the specific needs of transfer students—are focused on students prior to their admission. These elements are evident in the example of visits by the UCLA chancellor and his team to 10 community colleges in five years. The third and fourth elements—offering transfer-specific scholarships and academic support, and centering the lived experiences of students to honor family and community—are critical when students gain admission and enroll at the university. The last element—providing a framework to assess, evaluate, and enhance the transfer-receptive programs provided at the institution—is critical to the success of any initiative. This ensures that the efforts made to develop this culture are reviewed and changed as necessary. References California Community College Chancellor’s Office. (2008). Data mart. Retrieved from http://datamart.cccco.edu/Students/Enrollment_Status.aspx California Community College Chancellor’s Office. (2013). Chancellor’s office portal home. Retrieved from http://www.cccco.edu/ California Postsecondary Education Commission. (2011a). College guide. Retrieved from http://www.cpec.ca.gov/CollegeGuide/CollegeGuide.asp NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

BUILDING A TRANSFER-RECEPTIVE CULTURE AT FOUR-YEAR INSTITUTIONS

59

California Postsecondary Education Commission. (2011b). Transfer pathway charts. Retrieved from http://www.cpec.ca.gov/OnLineData/TransferPathwayChart.asp? Inst=A0004A Herrera, A. (2012, May). Whose responsibility is it anyway? Transfer from the community college to a four-year institution. Paper presented at The College Board Prepárate Conference, Miami, FL. Jain, D., Herrera, A., Bernal, S., & Solórzano, D. (2011). Critical race theory and the transfer function: Introducing a transfer receptive culture. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 35(2), 252–266. Johnson, H. (2010). Higher education in California: New goals for the Master Plan. Retrieved from http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=916 Ornelas, A., & Solórzano, D. (2004). The transfer condition of Latina/o community college students in California: Policy recommendations and solutions. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28, 233–248. University of California, Los Angeles. (n.d.). Mission & values. Retrieved from http:// www.ucla.edu/about/mission-and-values University of California, Los Angeles. (2008). Chancellor Block visits West L.A. college to encourage transfers to UCLA: UCLA newsroom. Retrieved from http://newsroom.ucla .edu/portal/ucla/PRN-chancellor-block-visits-west-los-70972.aspx University of California, Los Angeles Office of Analysis and Information Management. (2013). Student enrollment. Retrieved from http://www.aim.ucla.edu/admissions /admissions_history.asp University of California Office of the President. (2009). California Master Plan: Major features. Retrieved from http://www.ucop.edu/acadinit/mastplan/mp.htm University of California Office of the President. (2012). Admissions by campus and residency. Retrieved from http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/fall2012adm.html Woodlief, B., Thomas, C., & Orozco, G. (2003). California’s gold: Claiming the promise of diversity in our community colleges. Oakland, CA: California Tomorrow.

ALFRED HERRERA is the assistant vice provost for academic partnerships/director of the Center for Community College Partnerships at University of California, Los Angeles. DIMPAL JAIN is an assistant professor in educational leadership and policy studies at California State University, Northridge. NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

6

This chapter provides an analysis of a set of conditions that transfer students will most likely face in their transition to a new institution. The specific focus is on transfer from twoyear to four-year institutions.

Successful Transitions From Two-Year to Four-Year Institutions Thomas J. Grites If we have learned nothing else about transfer students recently (and within this volume), it is clear that there will be many more of them in our institutions of higher education in the near future, and most of them will be transferring from two-year to four-year institutions. Employment and economic conditions; new sources for earning transfer credit; new and revised federal, state, and local policies to evaluate and award transfer credits; and improved collection and use of data have already contributed to this growth. What is also likely is that the transition from the two-year to the four-year institution will continue to be characterized by the phenomenon known as “transfer shock,” the tendency for transfer students to experience a temporary dip in grade point average during the first or second semester at the new institution (Thurmond, 2007). What must be addressed to meet these challenges of educating more students and reducing the shock factor is the transition from one institutional sector to another. This chapter will identify many of the common challenges transfer students face simply because they are entering a new learning environment. It will also provide potential strategies to minimize the shock factor in order to improve transfer students’ success, that is, satisfactory completion of their degree, certificate, training, or personal enrichment.

Too Many Assumptions Both transfer students and their receiving institutions often fail to recognize the importance, need, and value of a positive and sustained transitional experience. Thus, the planning and implementing of such efforts become limited. NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, no. 162, Summer 2013 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI:10.1002/he.20057

61

62

COLLEGIATE TRANSFER: NAVIGATING THE NEW NORMAL

Student-Focused Assumptions. Transfer students can be both overand underconfident depending on the particular situation. Their occasional overconfidence might come from the belief that they know everything they need to know about the new institution. Many, if not most, transfer students tend to want to avoid the programs designed to make their transition more effective and productive. Orientation is the most evident of such programs. Because transfer students have already been college students, they may feel they don’t need a repeat of what they’ve already learned about college. Similarly, transfer students often expect that the learning environments in two-year and four-year institutions will be similar. For example, they might have been accustomed to completing four to five courses successfully each term, but the same credit values may not equal the same learning expectations in both types of institutions. Additionally, transfer students may erroneously assume that the policies, rules, and/or procedures at the new institution are similar to those at their previous institutions—the “at my other school” syndrome. They might even act on those previous policies, which could result in academic penalties. Their underconfidence manifests itself in two primary ways: the invisibility of the peer group and the lack of transfer student engagement. New transfer students attend their first classes and are often unaware of who else in the class has recently transferred. Because they don’t routinely identify themselves as transfer students, they are invisible to each other. Operating from the assumption that everyone else is a native student who is more knowledgeable, this lack of confidence can result in the failure to ask questions, seek help from other students, or find helpful resources. As a result of this sense of isolation within a peer group, two-year transfer students also may tend to avoid becoming engaged in campus programs, events, clubs, and/or organizations. They may not feel a sense of belonging and easily succumb to the classic “c2c2c” (car to class to car) behavior. Institution-Focused Assumptions. Institution personnel often overestimate the college readiness of transfer students as they enter their new institution, much like the students exhibit their own overconfidence as described in the previous section. Four-year faculty and staff often expect that transfer students are reasonably well prepared for their specific environment and, therefore, do not expend the same kinds and breadth of resources to prepare transfers for success as they do with first-year students. However, new transfer students are also first-year students at their new institutions and should be welcomed with no less attention than traditional first-year students. Four-year institutions may also have policies that exclude transfer students from certain academic programs such as honors programs, preprofessional programs, and merit-based scholarship programs. The institutions may assume that transfers cannot compete with those who entered the program from the outset of their college careers or cannot catch up to the required level of academic rigor. NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he .

SUCCESSFUL TRANSITIONS FROM TWO-YEAR TO FOUR-YEAR INSTITUTIONS

63

Finally, institution personnel often receive transfer students with a one-size-fits-all expectation. The variety of institutions, curricula, academic rigor, skill development, and goals that students have experienced are so varied that a multiple approach to transfer transition must be in place. In order for the two-year to four-year transition to be most effective, both the transfer students themselves and the receiving institutions need to identify and review the validity of their assumptions in order to realize the goals each student brings to the transfer process.

Too Many Differences Students who transfer from two-year to four-year institutions are often unaware of the differences they will encounter. Students need to be made aware of these differences before transferring; and institutions need to prepare these students for how they must negotiate their new learning environment. Areas that students frequently do not master until they have been on the four-year campus for some time are described in this section. Campus Geography. If two-year students have followed the c2c2c behavior in the past, they might have difficulty simply finding their way around a new campus. Because most transfer students do not live on campus, they need to know where to park, how far that location is to their first class each day, and the traffic patterns to and on campus at that hour. They need to know where resources, including the bookstore, the registrar, the financial aid office, the wellness center, the academic advising center, and a transfer center (if it exists), are located, in order to get ready assistance during the first few days on the new campus. Later, the tutoring center, the library, the recreation and fitness center, and of course, their academic advisors need to be readily identified. An often neglected, but important, activity is a simple campus tour for transfer students prior to their enrollment or during orientation. Such a tour can enable them to acclimate more quickly and ease the overall transition. Vocabulary. Imagine being a transfer student and hearing, “Be sure you have all your cognates; ASD; Gs; Ws; Qs; and one H, V, I, and A course. If you have any questions or problems, go see your preceptor or the staff in the SOBL office.” Sound confusing? This is how many institutions converse with their students. Each institution has its own vocabulary, and new transfer students probably have not learned it before entering. Even the most common curricular component, general education, has different names such as “gen ed,” “general studies,” and “core”—or it might even be reduced to an acronym in the institutional vernacular, for example, the “C.L.O.” (common learning outcomes). If transfer students are to negotiate their new learning environment, they need to know the local language. Institutions should consider providing a glossary of commonly used terms to each transfer student prior to orientation. NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

64

COLLEGIATE TRANSFER: NAVIGATING THE NEW NORMAL

Academic Policies and Procedures. As two-year transfer students make the transition to a four-year institution, they often unknowingly and unintentionally succumb to the “at my other school” syndrome. Policies such as those regarding repeating courses and the subsequent calculation of the grade point average, refunds of tuition when dropping courses, and registering a vehicle may be different. They need to know the new rules before they experience a negative consequence for their lack of knowledge or understanding. It is the institution’s responsibility to communicate policies and procedures clearly and in a timely manner to new transfer students. Academic Standards and Faculty Expectations. Academic standards and faculty expectations are likely the most influential contributors to the transfer-shock phenomenon. Critical differences between two- and four-year institutions in these areas can occur for a variety of reasons. First, course transfer can be a source of difficulty if course equivalencies are not adequately examined. Faculty often play a significant role in determining whether or not a transferred course meets departmental standards and expectations. To increase the likelihood of course credits being accepted, faculty at both the sending and receiving institutions must be teaching mostly the same content and at the same level of depth and understanding. Relying on articulation agreements or common course numbers and titles might not ensure such consistency. When possible, it is recommended that faculty from corresponding disciplines at the sending and receiving institutions convene to discuss course content and expected learning outcomes. Additionally, equivalent course credit does not always equal equivalent course content, requiring pre-enrollment conversations with transfer students about their content mastery in previous courses. This issue becomes particularly salient when addressing courses that are prerequisites for classes the students must subsequently complete at the four-year institution. Second, the standards for academic progress may vary between twoand four-year institutions. What enables a student to remain in good academic standing at one institution may not be the same at another. At many institutions, only courses and credits, rather than grades, transfer. These conditions contribute to the most common transfer-shock effect, that is, a lower GPA in the first term of transfer from a two-year to a four-year institution. Therefore, it is important to educate transfer students about the various methods for calculating grade point averages and the implications of poor grades, especially when students enter as upper-division transfers with fewer opportunities to mitigate poor grades. Third, transfer students may face different classroom experiences and faculty expectations. Four-year institution class sizes may be significantly larger than previously encountered, requiring students to be more proactive in order to receive individualized assistance. Courses may also be taught by graduate students, presenting a new classroom structure for transfer NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

SUCCESSFUL TRANSITIONS FROM TWO-YEAR TO FOUR-YEAR INSTITUTIONS

65

students to navigate. Transfer students could also be taking upper-level courses for the first time that require more independent learning or carry certain expectations of content mastery. Being required to be more responsible for their own learning can be intimidating and overwhelming to transfer students, especially as they attempt to negotiate and acclimate to so many other differences. Academic Advising Structures. National research finds that the median number of advisees for an academic advisor in two-year institutions is 441, twice that of almost all four-year institutions (Robbins, 2013). This ratio suggests that two-year students are normally accustomed to more of a centralized structure where the individuality and continuity of advisors are rare. In the four-year institution, however, when those students transfer, they may be assigned to an individual academic advisor, perhaps a faculty member in their major program of study, where more of an ongoing relationship is the norm. Of course, even in this environment, the student is expected to assume responsibility for seeking advice and maintaining this collaborative effort. New transfer students may not be ready to assume this role early in their experience. Computer Systems. The ability to succeed at any modern institution of higher education requires knowledge of both administrative and instructional computer systems. Specifically, transfer students moving from the PeopleSoft student information system to Banner and/or from the Sakai learning management system to Blackboard face new learning challenges in order to be able to adapt quickly to the complexity of their new learning environment. Most institutions and individuals will assume that new transfer students have mastered these skills prior to transfer and that they are able to adapt to the local structure immediately. At least some assessment of this knowledge should occur, and introductory workshops or tutorials need to be made available for those who need them. Course Scheduling Priorities and Procedures. There are many views regarding the registration priority for new transfer students from community colleges. One view asserts that these students may have planned for some time to enter the four-year institution most proximate to their current school, and may have accumulated credits and/or earned associate degrees that establish them as junior-level students. Therefore, they should be able to register early in order to be more assured that they can complete their bachelor’s degrees in a reasonable time. Another perspective argues that students who committed to the four-year institution much earlier, perhaps when they were freshmen, should be given priority to enroll in their firstchoice courses. There is no clear answer to this dilemma, but whatever the priority, it needs to be communicated accurately and in a timely manner to minimize unnecessary frustrations when registration conflicts occur. Similarly, the procedures for course enrollment need to be communicated clearly. Is online registration the only option? Is an advisor’s permission required to register? What restrictions might prevent one’s registration—for NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

66

COLLEGIATE TRANSFER: NAVIGATING THE NEW NORMAL

example, late tuition payments, outstanding library fines, academic probation, or others? New transfer students need to be informed of these potential conditions and the procedures to rectify them. Traditions and Culture. Many new transfer students want to become part of the college or university where they intend to earn their bachelor’s degrees, but they may be unaware of traditions or campus culture and illinformed about events, activities, and opportunities. In providing a fair and honest orientation to the traditions, both the positive and the less desirable ones must be addressed. For example, the extensive club and organization fairs, career days, homecoming activities, intramural participation, community service projects, and athletic events are highlights for most students. However, as part of the safety and security aspect of the transition, Thursday night parties that often include underage and binge drinking, offcampus rituals, and/or other unauthorized events also need to be acknowledged and addressed. Abby Miller, in Chapter Four of this volume, has described the institutional ingredients that facilitate a positive transfer environment. One descriptor that is often used to identify such a culture is the “transferfriendly” institution. Although this term is appealing, it can also be misunderstood. The term does not imply that new transfer students will be afforded all of their priorities—for example, the early selection of primetime and popular classes (unless the institution has guaranteed that and can provide them). What the term really means is that transfer students will be given all the support necessary to meet their academic goals in a timely manner, and that the experience along the way will be educational and productive as long as the students assume certain responsibilities and use the resources available to them.

Too Little Time The magnitude and complexity of the issues related to providing a successful transition from a two-year to a four-year institution cannot be addressed in a single program, on a single day, for a few hours. The transition must extend over as much time as the four-year institution can provide and dedicate to it. Similarly, the two-year institution needs to begin the transition process for its students well before they actually transfer. These programs can occur in a variety of formats, two of which are described below. Orientation and Transitional Programs. Perhaps the most critical transition activity for transfer students is the orientation (and registration) program provided by the four-year institution. Despite the resistance by students and the shortcomings of institutions described above, this effort is critical to both the short-term and long-term success of transfer students. During orientation, the many differences between two- and four-year institutions should be addressed and intervention strategies introduced. However, even the best of these orientation programs may not be adequate to NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

SUCCESSFUL TRANSITIONS FROM TWO-YEAR TO FOUR-YEAR INSTITUTIONS

67

serve the variety of needs and situations that pervade the transfer population, even (or especially) those who come from two-year institutions; therefore, additional transition initiatives are necessary. On the front end, two-year institutions need to more thoroughly prepare their transfer students. Insight gained in advance about the transfer process and future expectations can reduce students’ transfer shock and increase the likelihood of their success. On the receiving end, extended programming for transfer students can produce the same results. Obviously, collaborative efforts with common feeder institutions are strongly encouraged. One such popular, successful, and low-cost effort is a peer-mentoring program that pairs more experienced transfer students at four-year institutions with new transfers from their previous community colleges (Grites & Rondeau, 2011). Transfer Success Courses. As the length and the appropriate timing of information and programs are critical to community college transfer student success, the academic course format provides the optimal delivery of such efforts. Success courses can be provided in a variety of ways: for credit or not for credit, graded or pass/fail, required or voluntary, full term or partial term. Whatever the combination of characteristics, this format provides a more systematic transitional experience. It resembles the firstyear seminar approach that has been adopted by hundreds of institutions. The course-based approach to improving transfer students’ transition experiences is increasingly recognized and employed by both two-year and four-year institutions. A number of institutional course examples have been identified by Grites and Rondeau (2011). Additionally, the success of these transitional courses is reported by Grites and Farina (2012), with new transfer students indicating that the seminar course was a valuable experience in terms of their adjustment to the new academic environment. Specifically, the course provided more familiarity with the institution; an understanding of the curriculum, policies, and procedures; and made transfer students feel more welcome as a result of being associated with other transfer students during their transition.

Final Comments As the growth of the transfer population from two-year to four-year institutions continues, both sectors must provide avenues for the successful transition between them. Students’ success cannot be left to chance or assumptions. Systematic, strategic, and timely interventions must be developed, implemented, and assessed in order to establish a positive culture of transfer that enables these students to meet their goals, as well as those of legislatures, accrediting bodies, and employers. There are many stakeholders in this endeavor, and the stakes are high. Therefore, we must collaborate and plan carefully to ensure such success. NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

68

COLLEGIATE TRANSFER: NAVIGATING THE NEW NORMAL

References Grites, T. J., & Farina, A. (2012, Fall). Enhancing transfer student success: The transfer seminar. Teacher-Scholar, 4(1), 7–19. Retrieved from http://www.fhsu.edu/teacher -scholar/current/volume4/enhancing_transfer/page1.html#Evolution Grites, T. J., & Rondeau, S. (2011). Creating effective transfer initiatives. In T. Brown, M. C. King, & P. Stanley (Eds.), Fulfilling the promise of the community college: Increasing first-year student engagement and success (Monograph No. 56, pp. 83–97). Columbia: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition. Robbins, R. (2013). Implications of advising load. In A. Carlstrom (Ed.), 2011 National Survey of Academic Advising (Monograph No. 25). Manhattan, KS: National Academic Advising Association. Retrieved from http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources /Clearinghouse/View-Articles/Advisor-Load.aspx Thurmond, K. C. (2007). Transfer shock: Why is a term forty years old still relevant? Retrieved from http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Clearinghouse/AdvisingIssues/Transfer -Shock.htm

THOMAS J. GRITES is assistant provost at The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey. NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

7

This chapter addresses critical issues related to the transfer success of women and underrepresented minorities (URMs) in STEM disciplines and will highlight implications for fostering a successful transfer experience for these populations.

The Shared Experiences: Facilitating Successful Transfer of Women and Underrepresented Minorities in STEM Fields Dimitra Lynette Jackson, Soko S. Starobin, Frankie Santos Laanan This chapter addresses critical issues as related to the experiences of women and underrepresented minority (URM) transfer-student success in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) disciplines. Additionally, this chapter will highlight implications for fostering the successful transfer experiences for these populations. For the purposes of this chapter, URMs is defined by the National Science Foundation to include African Americans, Hispanics, American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians or other Pacific Islanders (NSF, 2012).

Women and URMs in STEM The representation of women and URMs who choose community college pathways to pursue undergraduate and graduate degrees in STEM areas is on the rise. Due to open admission, affordable tuition, flexible scheduling, small class sizes, and child care, community colleges have long been the institution of choice for women, URMs, and nontraditional students, especially those who are from low socioeconomic family backgrounds (Hagedorn & Purnamasari, 2012; Jackson, in press; Porchea, Allen, Robbins, & Phelps, 2010; Reyes, 2011). Today, community colleges have been recognized as a major entry point into higher education, with about 50% of college students starting their postsecondary education at two-year public institutions (Handel, 2011). According to the National Science Foundation (NSF; 2012), in 2008 49% of all female recipients of bachelor’s and master’s degrees in the sciences NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, no. 162, Summer 2013 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI:10.1002/he.20058

69

70

COLLEGIATE TRANSFER: NAVIGATING THE NEW NORMAL

and engineering had attended a community college. Additionally, the numbers for American Indian/Alaska Native, Hispanic, African American, Asian, and Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander degree recipients were 61%, 53%, 51%, 45%, and 43% respectively. This may be, in part, because the transfer function provides the opportunity for traditionally underrepresented populations, such as women and URMs, to obtain the necessary skills to pursue majors and advanced careers in STEM fields prior to enrolling in the university environment (Jackson & Laanan, 2011; Laanan, Starobin, & Eggleston, 2010; Packard, Gagnon, & Senas, 2012; Reyes, 2011). Of all U.S. students who finished a four-year degree in 2010–2011, 45% had previously enrolled at a two-year college (National Student Clearinghouse, 2012). Mullin (2011) cites interesting data on the increase of the enrollment of selected ethnic and racial groups over the past two decades in our nation’s colleges and universities. He asserts that there has been a 137% increase for African American students, a 131% increase for Asian/Pacific Islander students, and an 85% increase for American Indian/Alaska Native students. Additionally, fulltime and part-time community college enrollment of women has also increased (Reyes, 2011). With a large portion of these populations beginning at the community college, it is vital to explore more in-depth approaches to understand their experiences and the factors that impact their transfer experiences.

The Transfer Function The transfer function of community colleges is paramount to increasing the representation of women and URMs pursuing baccalaureate degrees in STEM fields. Given the increasing enrollment of diverse student groups in community colleges on the one hand, and the importance of higher levels of education for job security and economic stability on the other hand, the transfer function of community colleges has gained serious attention. While contributing to the competitiveness of the U.S. economy overall, pursuing degrees aligned with future careers in STEM fields can provide an important pathway to better lives for these students and their families (Dowd, Cheslock, & Melguizo, 2008). There is an increased pressure on community colleges to facilitate transfer effectively and efficiently. Research has highlighted many of the essential roles that the transfer function has in addressing the academic-achievement and job-outcomes gap among students from different ethnic, racial, and income groups (Berger & Malaney, 2003; Hagedorn, Cypers, & Lester, 2008; Handel, 2011; Ornelas & Solórzano, 2004; Reyes, 2011; Starobin, Jackson, & Laanan, 2012; Starobin & Laanan, 2008).

Factors Influencing STEM Persistence of Transfer Women and URMs Women and URMs experience very unique challenges as students in STEM disciplines, including being female in a male-dominated area and being a NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

THE SHARED EXPERIENCES

71

URM in a STEM discipline (Espinosa, 2011; Reyes, 2011). While each marginalized group has its own set of challenges, the challenges are compounded when considering the intersection of gender and race and being a community college transfer student. Positive self-efficacy, confidence in academic abilities, and positive attitudes are important factors that affect the persistence of women and URMs in STEM fields at both community colleges and four-year institutions (Packard, Gagnon, LaBelle, Jeffers, & Lynn, 2011; Packard et al., 2012; Starobin & Laanan, 2008). These factors become critical after transfer when students are exposed to the rigorous academic culture of four-year institutions. While at community colleges women and URMs may feel connected to peers and receive peer support and encouragement, they may feel intimidated by classmates at four-year institutions (Packard et al., 2011). Transfer students may perceive four-year campuses as unwelcoming, faculty and advisors as unsupportive, classroom atmosphere as chilly, and peers as overcompetitive and unfriendly. Women and URMs who have transferred may experience feelings of not belonging in four-year STEM classes due to gender, ethnicity, or age (Reyes, 2011). They may also feel uncomfortable interacting with faculty at four-year institutions (Jackson & Laanan, 2011). Isolation, invisibility, and the sense of not belonging, along with the academic pressures of bigger classes, rigorous requirements, and insufficient attention to individual students often lead women and underrepresented minorities to switch out of STEM majors or to switch within STEM (Packard et al., 2011). However, if transfer students survive the initial transition challenges in their first year at a four-year institution, they most likely excel and graduate (Reyes, 2011). Transfer student stigma aggravates the experiences of female students and URMs in STEM fields. In STEM classes where women and underrepresented minorities already feel isolated because of their small numbers, faculty and peer preconceptions that transfer students are not adequately prepared are discouraging (Reyes, 2011). Negative attitudes toward transfer students regarding their academic performance contradict research findings showing that the academic abilities of transfer students, including those in STEM fields, are comparable to the academic abilities of nontransfer students. While some transfer students who excelled at community colleges may experience transfer shock—a drop in academic performance in their first year of study at a four-year institution (Laanan, 2001)—overall, students who transfer to four-year institutions from community colleges are as likely to earn the bachelor’s degree as those who start at four-year institutions (Handel, 2011). In fact, recent studies also indicate that students who transfer to a four-year institution are likely to do better academically than nontransfer students attending four-year institutions from the start (Bowen, Chingos, & McPherson, 2009; Melguizo & Dowd, 2009). This highlights the essential role of the community college in the transfer experiences of women and URMs in STEM disciplines. NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

72

COLLEGIATE TRANSFER: NAVIGATING THE NEW NORMAL

The Role of Community Colleges in STEM Success for Women and URMs Researchers have recognized the critical role of the educational experiences at community colleges in transfer students’ persistence in STEM fields (Packard et al., 2011; Packard et al., 2012; Starobin & Laanan, 2008). Community colleges, in students’ eyes, have a unique culture that is characterized by a nurturing and supportive environment, which may be quite different from academic and social culture at four-year institutions (Jackson & Laanan, 2011; Packard et al., 2011; Starobin & Laanan, 2008). In a qualitative study of female transfer students in STEM before and after transfer, Packard et al. (2011) found that those participants who persisted in STEM after the first semester at the university expressed overall positive feelings about the community colleges they had attended prior to transfer. Students felt inspired by their community college professors, appreciated advising support, and had positive experience with peer academic support. At the same time, insufficient and inaccurate advising and lack of mentoring at community colleges were identified as barriers that contributed to delayed transfer or nontransfer of several study participants (Packard et al., 2011). A study conducted by Jackson (in press) focused on the impact of support systems among community college transfer students in STEM. Her study revealed that faculty at both the community college and university were vital in student success by providing mentoring and career advising to the students. Additionally, like Packard et al. (2011), Jackson’s study also indicated that while faculty members can have a positive impact on the experiences, negative interactions among students and faculty can discourage participation both inside and outside of the classroom. This suggests that community colleges are situated to positively position students to be successful upon transferring into the university environment.

Facilitating a Positive Transfer for URMs and Women in STEM: Implications for Community Colleges and Universities Given that many ethnic and racial minorities enter through the community college environment (Cole & Espinoza, 2008; Dowd, 2007; Hagedorn, et al., 2008; Jackson & Laanan, 2011; Starobin & Laanan, 2008), the critical decision points for those students will begin in the community college environment. However, both community colleges and four-year institutions are responsible for the successful transfer and academic success of transfer students (Jain, Herrera, Bernal, & Solórzano, 2011). Research has sought to identify the ways for community colleges and four-institutions to facilitate the transfer of women and URMs in STEM fields. This research, along with practice, testifies that in the fields of sciences and engineering, where learning is in most part sequential, program alignment between two-year NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

THE SHARED EXPERIENCES

73

institutions and four-year institutions becomes one of the keys to successful transfer and student persistence in STEM, especially for women and ethnic groups (Packard et al., 2012; Wolf-Wendel, Twombly, Morphew, & Sopcich, 2004). Consistent articulation agreements also play a key role in the seamless transfer of STEM students from community colleges to four-year institutions (Zinser & Hanssen, 2006). Recent research, however, suggests that articulation agreements may not be enough. Effective and efficient transfer requires a comprehensive and collaborative effort of all key constituents at community colleges and four-year institutions. Transfer partnerships that reach beyond articulation agreements, such as active collaboration of community college and university faculty, campus visits by university faculty for interaction with potential transfer students at community colleges, and joint undergraduate research programs, are critical to the ability of community colleges to increase transfer (Kisker, 2007). Jackson and Laanan (2011) attest to the importance of university visibility on a community college campus. Such visibility on community college campuses can help dismantle many of the stereotypes that community college students have of the university regarding the unwelcoming nature of university professors and the overall “chilly” environment. When university representatives are on community college campuses, community college students are given the opportunity to engage in conversations with the university faculty and staff in a nonthreatening environment prior to making the transition to a university. Additionally, this interaction allows for the sharing of ideas among community colleges and universities regarding effective ways to foster inclusive environments for transfer students. Mery and Schriorring (2011) describe a transfer-oriented culture at seven community colleges with high transfer rates and point to transfer relationships with four-year institutions as a major factor in student transfer. Six of the colleges in the study had programs that provided community college students opportunities to get engaged at four-year institutions, and the researchers believe firsthand knowledge of four-year institutions facilitated transfer. Programs and services that support transfer students are of paramount importance as well. Transfer student orientations, mentoring programs, undergraduate research programs, and opportunities for engagement with peers and faculty in extracurricular activities have proven to be beneficial for transfer adjustment and satisfaction of women and underrepresented minorities (Jackson & Laanan, 2011; Johnson, 2011; Ong, Wright, Espinosa, & Orfield, 2011). Peer and faculty mentoring has been linked to persistence of women and underrepresented minorities in STEM fields at different educational levels (Johnson, 2011; Ong et al., 2011) and to better adjustment of transfer students in STEM fields (Packard et al., 2011; Reyes, 2011). Jackson and Laanan (2011) indicate that transfer students viewed participation in transfer student orientations as a key facilitator in adjustment to a university. NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

74

COLLEGIATE TRANSFER: NAVIGATING THE NEW NORMAL

In addition to articulation agreements and support services, it is also important for students to be allowed the opportunity to develop a “STEM identity.” According to Conklin, Dahling, and Garcia (2013) “affective commitment to a major involves feelings of pride, enthusiasm, and strong identity with a field of study” (p. 69). When students are able to view themselves as a member of the STEM enterprise, they are able to commit to the challenges and obstacles that are presented as a result of their identification within the field. Community colleges are in ideal positions to educate students on the academic and career opportunities in STEM areas. Community colleges can create opportunities for students to engage in activities that clearly explain career options and academic pathways toward STEM careers. These opportunities can exist through first-semester seminars and workshops that are offered throughout their community college career. Allowing students to gain knowledge regarding STEM majors increases their self-efficacy and comfort level while in their STEM degree pursuit.

Conclusion Women and URMs in STEM disciplines are essential to the state of the U.S. workforce. The aforementioned populations, however, are faced with very unique challenges with respect to their identification as a female, ethnic/ racial minority, and as a transfer student. Understanding the challenges these populations face is essential in identifying ways to foster success. Articulation agreements, support systems, transfer partnerships, undergraduate research programs, faculty collaboration, and university visibility on a community college campus can positively impact the experiences of women and URMs in STEM disciplines. Providing opportunities for women and URMs to develop a STEM identity through STEM career seminars and workshops is also essential. These initiatives, however, will fall short without a mutual sense of responsibility and commitment by community colleges and universities for ensuring the transition and success of women and ethnic/racial minorities in STEM disciplines. References Berger, J., & Malaney, G. (2003). Assessing the transition of transfer students from community colleges to a university. NASPA Journal, 40(4), 1–23. Bowen, W., Chingos, M., & McPherson, M. (2009). Crossing the finish line: Completing college at American public universities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Cole, D., & Espinoza, A. (2008). Examining the academic success of Latino students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors. Journal of College Student Development, 49(4), 285–300. Conklin, A., Dahling, J., & Garcia, P. (2013). Linking affective commitment, career selfefficacy, and outcome expectations: A test of social cognitive career theory. Journal of Career Development, 40(1), 68–83. Dowd, A. C. (2007). Community colleges as gateway keepers: Moving beyond the access “saga” towards outcome equity. Harvard Educational Review, 77(4), 407–418. NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

THE SHARED EXPERIENCES

75

Dowd, A. C., Cheslock, J. J., & Melguizo, T. (2008). Transfer access for community colleges and the distribution of elite higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 79, 442–472. Espinosa, L. (2011). Pipelines and pathways: Women of color in undergraduate STEM majors and the college experiences that contribute to persistence. Harvard Educational Review, 81(2), 209–241. Hagedorn, L., Cypers, S., & Lester, J. (2008). Looking in the rearview mirror: Factors affecting transfer for urban community college students. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 32(9), 643–664. Hagedorn, L., & Purnamasari, A. (2012). A realistic look at STEM and the role of community colleges. Community College Review, 40(2), 145–164. doi:10.1177/0091552112443701 Handel, S. (2011). Transfer and the role of two- and four-year institutional partnerships in addressing the nation’s workforce and educational equity needs. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 18(2), 6–12. Jackson, D. L. (in press). Exploring the impact of support systems. Community College Enterprise. Jackson, D. L., & Laanan, F. S. (2011). The role of community colleges in educating women in science and engineering. In J. G. Gayles (Ed.), New Directions for Institutional Research: No. 152. Attracting and retaining women in STEM (pp. 39–49). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. doi:10.1002/ir.407 Jain, D., Herrera, A., Bernal, S., & Solórzano, D. (2011). Critical race theory and the transfer function: Introducing a transfer receptive culture. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 35(3), 252–266. doi:10.1080/10668926.2011.526525 Johnson, D. (2011). Women of color in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). In J. G. Gayles (Ed.), New Directions for Institutional Research: No. 152. Attracting and retaining women in STEM (pp. 75–85). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. doi:10.1002/ir.410 Kisker, C. (2007). Creating and sustaining community college-university transfer partnerships. Community College Review, 34(4), 282–300. doi:10.1177/0091552107300333 Laanan, F. S. (2001). Transfer student adjustment. In F. S. Laanan (Ed.), New Directions for Community Colleges: No. 114. Transfer students: Trends and issues (pp. 5–13). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. doi:10.1002/cc.16 Laanan, F. S., Starobin, S., & Eggleston, L. (2010). Adjustment of community college students at a four-year university: Role and relevance of transfer student capital for student retention. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 12(2), 175–209. doi:0.2190/CS.12.2.d Melguizo, T., & Dowd, A. C. (2009). Baccalaureate success of transfers and rising 4-year college juniors. Teachers College Record, 111(1), 55–89. Mery, P., & Schiorring, E. (2011). “It takes an integrated, college-wide effort” and other lessons from seven high transfer colleges. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 18(1), 33–34. Mullin, C. (2011). The road ahead: A look at trends in the educational attainment of community college students (Policy Brief 2011-04PBL). Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges. National Science Foundation. (2012). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/pdf /nsf11309.pdf National Student Clearinghouse. (2012). The role of two-year institutions in four-year success. Retrieved from http://www.studentclearinghouse.info/snapshot/docs /SnapshotReport6-TwoYearContributions.pdf Ong, M., Wright, C., Espinosa, L., & Orfield, G. (2011). Inside the double bind: A synthesis of empirical research on undergraduate and graduate women of color in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Harvard Educational Review, 81(2), 172–209. NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

76

COLLEGIATE TRANSFER: NAVIGATING THE NEW NORMAL

Ornelas, A., & Solórzano, D. (2004). Transfer conditions of Latina/o community college students: A single institution case study. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28(3), 233–248. doi:10.1080=10668920490256417 Packard, B., Gagnon, J., LaBelle, O., Jeffers, K., & Lynn, E. (2011). Women’s experiences in the STEM community college transfer pathway. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 17(2), 129–147. Packard, B., Gagnon, J., & Senas, A. (2012). Navigating community college transfer in science, technical, engineering, and mathematics fields. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 36(9), 670–683. doi:10.1080/10668926.2010.495570 Porchea, S. F., Allen, J., Robbins, S., & Phelps, R. P. (2010). Predictors of long-term enrollment and degree outcomes for community college students: Integrating academic, psychosocial, socio-demographic, and situational factors. Journal of Higher Education, 81(6), 750–778. Reyes, M. (2011). Unique challenges for women of color in STEM transferring from community colleges to universities. Harvard Educational Review, (81)2, 241–263. Starobin, S., Jackson, D. L., & Laanan, F. S. (2012). Increasing women and underrepresented students in STEM: Role of minority serving two-year colleges. In R. T. Palmer, D. C. Maramba, & M. Gasman (Eds.), Fostering success of ethnic and racial minorities in STEM: The role of minority serving institutions. New York, NY: Routledge. Starobin, S., & Laanan, F. S. (2008). Broadening female participation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: Experiences at community colleges. In J. Lester (Ed.), New Directions for Community Colleges: No. 142. Gendered perspectives on community colleges (pp. 37–46). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. doi:10.1002/cc.323 Wolf-Wendel, L., Twombly, S., Morphew, C., & Sopcich, J. (2004). From the barrio to the bucolic: The student transfer experience from HSIS to Smith College. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28(3), 213–231. doi:10.1080/10668920490256408 Zinser, R. W., & Hanssen, C. E. (2006). Improving access to the baccalaureate. Community College Review, 34(1), 27–43. doi:10.1177/0091552106289905

DIMITRA LYNETTE JACKSON is an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Psychology and Leadership at Texas Tech University. SOKO S. STAROBIN is assistant professor in the School of Education and director in the Office of Community College Research and Policy (OCCRP) at Iowa State University. FRANKIE SANTOS LAANAN is professor of community college leadership in the School of Education at Iowa State University. NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

8

This chapter establishes the use of data and effective communications as the foundation of comprehensive approaches to facilitating transfer student success and examines transfer trends and future issues. Recommendations are offered to institutions and individuals for navigating the new normal—collegiate transfer.

Navigating the New Normal: Transfer Trends, Issues, and Recommendations Janet L. Marling As has been well established throughout the chapters in this volume, student movement between institutions can no longer be deemed atypical. Approximately one-third of all students transfer during their college career and of those who transfer, 25% will transfer more than once. While movement from two-year to four-year institutions is still the most prevalent transfer pathway, it is important to note that 43% of students transfer from four-year institutions into two-year institutions (Hossler et al., 2012b). Students are also transferring laterally between four-year institutions and are co-enrolled in multiple brick-and-mortar and online institutions. A myriad of factors contribute to student transfer, including the convenience and affordability of community colleges, students’ desire to find a “best-fit” institution, and state higher education systems routing students to community colleges in an attempt to reduce costs by limiting four-year institution enrollment. The prevalence of multiple transfer pathways is challenging how institutions view recruitment, retention, and completion; the methods by which we track students; and the means by which institutions are given credit for their role in the education process. Higher education professionals must focus on assisting students at every transfer entry and exit point and helping them successfully persist to meet their educational goals. Far too many students who begin in a community college intending to transfer for a bachelor’s degree, even those who have achieved an associate degree, never reach their goals (Handel & Williams, 2012). And while 60% of students who do transfer successfully will graduate within four years (Fain, 2012), there is the other 40% to consider.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, no. 162, Summer 2013 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI:10.1002/he.20059

77

78

COLLEGIATE TRANSFER: NAVIGATING THE NEW NORMAL

But in order to assist transfer students, we need more and better data, assessment, and communication mechanisms. Although many four-year institutions have reams of data about first-year students, their data on transfers is scarce and rarely disseminated across the campus. At some public universities, employees would be surprised to learn that direct-entry students comprise less than 50% of the total new student population. And community colleges have traditionally captured very little data on transferintending students, focusing primarily on students who enter transfer preparation programs, and even then collecting only minimal information. Having little knowledge about transfer students makes it difficult to communicate with them in meaningful ways. It also means that an entire segment of the student body is unrepresented when policies are made and practices are developed.

The Importance of Data and Assessment Before transfer students can be adequately served, colleges and universities must be able to define their transfer student populations. Doing so means being familiar with students’ demographic information—how they compare to other transfer students across the state and nationally, and to the appropriate population of direct-entry students—and listening to their voices. This information allows for the creation of strategic plans and programs appropriately tailored to the particular student body rather than plans that are based on mismatched national data or other assumptions. Being armed with accurate data helps to address and dispel myths—those perpetuated by both students and institutions—and provides a basis for educating the institution at large about the transfer population. Accurate data also provide answers to burning questions such as how well upper-division transfer majors in any field compare academically with upper-division direct-entry students. Data can also provide justification for an increase in resources to support programs for transfer students. Emphases on new funding models and a national push to standardize data collected for transfer students will require institutions not previously engaged in broad-based data collection to revise their procedures, and potentially strain existing resources. Transfer student data collection and assessment should occur both institutionally and within individual service and academic departments. Understandably, not every college or university is equipped with an institutional research (IR) office, but there is generally someone who is the keeper of the data. Departments interested in learning more about their transfer students should consider these suggestions when working with departments or individuals responsible for collecting and reporting data. 1. Develop a clear sense of the data to be collected or questions to be answered. Rather than simply asking for statistics on the incoming NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

NAVIGATING THE NEW NORMAL

79

transfer class, request data on specific demographic variables. While not all data may be collected by the institution, possible data on transfers to request include: ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ●

●

● ● ● ● ●

Gender Ethnicity First-generation status Pell grant eligibility or position within the Free Application for Student Financial Aid/Expected Family Contribution Number of hours transferring into the four-year institution Sending institution(s), including those that are out-of-state Core or general education courses completed Whether an associate degree has been earned and type of associate degree Transfer grade point averages at the point of entry—total and broken into ranges, by upper- and lower-division status Intended major/program Academic college or school of enrollment Age or year transfer students graduated from high school Full-time/part-time status Employment status

2. Ensure that the questions being asked are complementary to the institution’s mission. IR departments have many campus constituencies, but are foremost charged with generating mission-driven, institutionally focused data. Projects that do not align with these priorities are less likely to receive timely attention. 3. Make requests for data interpretation at the time of the data acquisition request. IR offices often lack the human resources to interpret every requested data set. Therefore, the expectation is that the data will be interpreted by the requesting party. If the data are to be interpreted, in addition to reported, specify this along with the data request and be prepared to find outside assistance if necessary. 4. Allow ample time for data reports to be generated. IR departments field numerous requests and produce significant output. Therefore, plan ahead and understand that any request will likely fall into a queue built upon institutional priorities. If more timely feedback is required, be prepared to scale back the request or use alternative resources such as the annual institutional fact book. In addition to collecting local transfer data, it is helpful to review aggregate data at the regional, state, and national level. Data collection at the state level can be the responsibility of multiple entities, with some states being better positioned to provide transfer data than others. Institutions have the ability to influence what data are collected and made available and should lobby for the data needed to do their work with transfers. It is NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

80

COLLEGIATE TRANSFER: NAVIGATING THE NEW NORMAL

important to note that data uncovered but not shared represent a missed opportunity to educate and advocate on behalf of the transfer population. Once institutions develop greater understanding of their transfer population, they can begin to more broadly examine their transfer policies and practices through various self-audits and formal assessment tools. One recently developed self-assessment tool that can be used to measure program and service effectiveness, facilitate self-studies, prepare for accreditation, design new programs, structure staff development, justify budget allocations, ensure proper academic preparation, engage in strategic planning, and develop credibility and accountability is the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education Standards and Guidelines for Transfer Student Programs and Services (CAS). Released in 2012 by CAS, the standards and guidelines are basic statements that should be achievable by any program in any institution when adequate and appropriate effort, energy, and resources are applied. They reflect indispensable requirements of good program practice generally agreed upon by the profession at large, and were developed under the guidance of the National Institute for the Study of Transfer Students with input from transfer experts across the country and Canada. Careful consideration was given to factors unique to serving transfers. The Transfer Student Programs and Services standards are published in the eighth edition of the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education Professional Standards for Higher Education and can be found at the National Institute for the Study of Transfer Students website: http://www.transferinstitute.org. Another avenue for assessing institutional transfer priorities, policies, and programs is the self-study and action-planning process known as Foundations of Excellence (FoE) Transfer Focus, a service of the John N. Gardner Institute for Excellence in Undergraduate Education (www.jngi .org). Designed for use at two- or four-year institutions, FoE Transfer Focus provides an excellent opportunity for campuses to move beyond current support efforts toward an intentional, collaborative approach to evaluating their service to transfer students.

The Importance of Communication Creating an accurate portrait of the transfer student body allows for effective communication with, and about, transfer students, which is an integral part of designing appropriate and effective services. This communication is multilayered at best. The foundational layer entails connecting with the students and their families and providing them timely and accurate information. The second layer involves connecting with academic, service, and programmatic departments to develop a coordinated effort to communicate accurate information about policies, procedures, and services. The third layer requires communication with partner institutions responsible for NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

NAVIGATING THE NEW NORMAL

81

creating seamless entry and exit transfer pathways. The last layer engages multiple constituents at the regional, state, and national level who have a stake in transfer student success. At all points of communication, the goal should be to develop and communicate a common philosophy and set of expectations for transfer student success. A lack of accurate communication leads to erroneous assumptions and the perpetuation of misinformation, which can be detrimental to transfer students’ persistence. The messages crafted for, and communicated to, transfer students reflect the level of an institution’s transfer-affirming culture. Leaders and practitioners must be certain to develop a common language and common definitions when discussing transfer, both within and beyond the institution. This can be as seemingly basic as determining what constitutes a transfer—the number of hours brought to the institution, the format in which those hours we earned, and so forth—to the use of certain terms and jargon, such as “reverse transfer,” that could have multiple definitions. Transfer students cannot be relieved of their own role in the communication process. They must accept responsibility for seeking out information and meeting appropriate deadlines. However, no matter what level of previous experience students bring with them to their new college or university, they need—and institutions are responsible for providing—accurate information and appropriate resources in order for them to thrive. As students prepare to transfer, receiving institutions should provide complete and fully transparent information on issues such as application and financial aid deadlines; anticipated cost of attendance; the process and timeline for credit evaluation, credit acceptance, and applicability to intended degree; differences between being accepted to the institution and the program or department; and expectations for attendance at any mandatory events such as orientation. Ensuring that institutions are communicating appropriate messages to transfer students requires recurrent appraisal of printed and virtual materials, as well as development of mechanisms by which changes to policies and programs are regularly communicated to students and institutional partners. College and university administrators and staff can use the following questions when conducting audits of departmental websites, and similar questions can be used to evaluate the accuracy of printed materials. Regarding the department’s (and institution’s) home page: ● ●

●

●

Is there a link for transfer students prominently displayed? Are the photos on the page reflective of the demographics of the transfer population? If reference is made to new students, are these individuals defined both as first-time freshman students and new transfer students? Is the other language, as well as the topics addressed on the home page, relevant to both transfer and first-year students? NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

82

COLLEGIATE TRANSFER: NAVIGATING THE NEW NORMAL

Regarding web pages developed specifically for targeting transfer students: ●

●

●

●

What assumptions are being made about the students reading these pages? Do the web pages provide a collective approach to assisting transfer students by offering links to related programs and services in other departments or divisions? Are there opportunities for prospective transfer students to hear the voices of current transfers? Is the language free of university-specific acronyms and references that may be confusing to students unfamiliar with institutional departments, policies, and practices?

Current transfer students also have an important role to play in helping assess printed and virtual materials to ensure that appropriate and intended messages are being communicated. Another component of communication is advocacy. Transfer students need allies and, at the very least, professionals who are equipped to work with their unique transition needs. Individuals should follow these suggestions when assisting transfers. Never Make Assumptions. It is said that transfers are like snowflakes— no two are alike. They bring different educational and life experiences and proficiencies. They have specific motivators, goals, and obligations. Take time to get to know transfers as individuals and avoid sweeping generalizations about them as a group. Take Extra Time When Working With Transfers, Even if They Don’t Ask for It. Because they have some collegiate experience, transfers may assume they know the answers to important questions, or they may be too intimidated to ask because the “should” know. The result can be a reluctance to participate in important services such as orientation and ongoing academic advising. Conversely, professionals may assume transfer students can navigate their new environment with little assistance. Take the time to find out what transfers know without insulting their intelligence or discounting their history. Ask Follow-Up Questions. Anecdotal evidence indicates that too many transfer students have been given misinformation because either they failed to ask the right question in the right way or the respondent answered too quickly without gathering all the information or verifying the intention of the question. Asking follow-up questions prompts students to provide supplementary information that may result in more appropriate service delivery. Encourage Students to Share Their Goals and Intentions for Coming to the Institution. There are many different reasons students transfer. Not all students expect to complete a degree or have the same level of NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

NAVIGATING THE NEW NORMAL

83

enthusiasm for the institution. Having knowledge of a student’s goals provides context for providing the appropriate assistance. Help Students to Connect With Others. Creating a solid support system is a critical step to helping transfer students acclimate to their new environment. Transfer students can have a particularly difficult time in this area because they assume everyone has already made friends. Assist these students in finding others with common interests, goals, and abilities, and do not limit this circle to other transfer students. Don’t Underestimate Parental and/or Family Involvement. The parents and families of transfer students are crucial contributors to student success. It is important to find out about the role of family in the transfer students’ college careers and be prepared to partner with these individuals.

On the Horizon Attempting to predict the future can be a rather precarious proposition; however, anticipating transfer trends and related issues is important if we are to respond to the needs of this growing segment of the college-going population. The following trends—both broad and institutionally focused—are likely to influence the work of higher education professionals in the near future, if they have not already done so. These trends can have a significant impact on providing more knowledge about transfer and increasing educational opportunities for transfer students. Developing More Accurate Transfer Student Data Collection, Tracking, and Reporting. Until recently, with the release of reports by the College Board and the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center (Handel and Williams, 2012; Hossler et al., 2012a, 2012b), there was no accurate national picture of the transfer population or its migration patterns, transfer intentions, and success rates. Even with new available information from these credible sources, most national transfer data should be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism as there is no single data source that comprehensively records all transfer student data. The most complete transfer student data are most often collected locally and very rarely shared, except in cases where intrainstitutional partnerships have been established or strong college and university systems or state education agencies have required such reporting. Fortunately, the national spotlight on transfer students is resulting in the reexamination of how national transfer data is collected and utilized. Difficulties tracking students’ progress posttransfer, particularly across state lines, have also contributed to an inaccurate transfer portrait and made it difficult for colleges and universities to gauge their success in preparing students to transfer. Also contributing to the inaccurate transfer profile is the fundamental issue of varying definitions for what constitutes a transfer student. For example, Handel and Williams (2012) document 14 variations of the definition of transfer in their attempt to determine NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

84

COLLEGIATE TRANSFER: NAVIGATING THE NEW NORMAL

student transfer rates. The lack of a common vernacular poses significant problems for institutions interested in comparison data across institutions and states; until resolved, this will pose frustrations for educators interested in truly understanding transfer student mobility, persistence, and completion. Redistributing Credit for Educating Transfer Students. Historical funding formulas and data collection and reporting methodologies no longer accurately reflect the effort being put into educating and graduating the nation’s college students. Transfer students leaving the two-year sector prior to achieving the associate degree are currently not counted toward the reported success rates of their original institutions, and four-year institutions are most often credited only for retention and graduation of directentry students, not transfers. Therefore, there is a large segment of the higher education population—the nation’s transfers—that no one is incentivized to serve. Additionally, transfer student academic performance is not calculated in national rankings for four-year institutions, again offering little incentive to colleges and universities to allocate resources toward ensuring that this population achieves academic success. Fortunately, increased student mobility means the unit of analysis is shifting from institutions to the individual student, and traditional ways of evaluating success are being reexamined. Creative policies such as the reverse awarding of the associate degree are reconciling some of the credit issues, but more formal strategies must be developed. To this end, we can anticipate that state legislatures will begin evaluating reward structures and proposing formulas that better account for educating transfer students. Issuing of External Policy Mandates. As state legislatures seek to redistribute the credit for educating transfer students, they will also likely be searching for ways to encourage colleges and universities to be more accountable for policies and programs that foster transfer student success. Amid reduced higher education funding and an acute focus on state and national completion agendas, we can expect the continued issuance of policy mandates that most likely will not be accompanied by fiscal resources. As such, it behooves colleges and universities to be proactive and creative in forming inter- and intrainstitutional partnerships to share resources and streamline the pathway to degree attainment for all students, particularly transfers. Incorporating Transfer Student Success Into Institutional Strategic and College Completion Plans. The most salient sign of an institution’s commitment to transfer students is the deliberate inclusion of this population in the strategic plan. While the institution’s mission will dictate how prominently transfers are featured, the leadership must determine an institutional philosophy for attracting and serving transfers and then infuse it into all aspects of the strategic plan. Incorporating transfers into the plan establishes a transfer-affirming culture and allows institutions to communicate high expectations for transfer student success. NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

NAVIGATING THE NEW NORMAL

85

The various completion agendas and associated action plans will be unsuccessful without an intentional commitment to transfer and to retain more transfer-intending students. Individuals with college credit who are no longer progressing toward a credential are also critical targets for completion plans. Providing barrier-free (re)entry points and ongoing advising and transition services for these students can lead to improved graduation numbers. Changing Structures in Traditional Four-Year Institutions to Meet Capacity and Service Demands of Transfers. For many institutions, a depressed economy coupled with a future that bodes fewer high school graduates will necessitate a new or renewed emphasis on recruiting transfer students. This is a particularly new concept for many private and independent institutions that have primarily relied on direct-entry students to fill seats. Often the automatic reaction to decreased freshman enrollment is to recruit transfer students aggressively; however, without the appropriate processes and programs in place to support these individuals once they matriculate, maintaining an acceptable and profitable yield may be difficult. Colleges and universities should develop intentional and balanced recruitment and admission plans in concert with those responsible for instruction and student support services to encourage smooth transitions and persistence for transfers. Intentional recruitment of transfer students by major can also serve to sustain academic programs in the wake of reduced freshman enrollment. Transfer students are experienced in the classroom, and those meeting departmental grade point averages can immediately contribute to better positioning resource-challenged departments. Physical instructional space for upper-division courses and demands for alternate student service delivery hours and modalities are additional capacity issues that require attention if an institution desires an increase in transfer student enrollment. Online student support service delivery can be a viable option for assisting students unavailable during traditional 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. operating hours. Many campuses have the technology to determine the time frame when students are most likely to be using their computers and schedule their online programs and services accordingly for maximum impact. Refining the Focus on Portability and Applicability of Credits. Increased mobility of students leads to the accumulation of credits from multiple sources and the potential for complicated degree audits. The diversity of credits that military personnel and their families desire to transfer, providing credit via prior learning assessments, and the emergence of massive open online courses are examples of unique dimensions to a credentialing process that will only become more complex in the future. No matter how intricate the process, transfer-receiving institutions have an obligation to provide timely degree audits, preferably before enrollment, so that students can make informed decisions prior to incurring significant NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

86

COLLEGIATE TRANSFER: NAVIGATING THE NEW NORMAL

financial expenses. It is also crucial that the credentialing conversation be moved beyond credit acceptance to credit applicability. Too often potential transfer students focus solely on credit acceptance and are dismayed to learn they are not as well positioned in their majors as anticipated. Increasing Diversity of Transfer Populations. Transfer students are amazingly diverse and can bring a richness not always achieved by a more homogeneous direct-entry class. A transfer student classification is the common denominator between many underrepresented minorities; military personnel, veterans, and their families; low-income and firstgeneration students; and student athletes. While a diverse student body can contribute to an institution’s culture, it can be difficult for colleges and universities, especially smaller or resource-challenged ones, to serve constituents with such divergent needs. Rather than feeling overwhelmed or pressured to develop many specialized programs and services, institutions can begin by soliciting student feedback on what forms of support are needed prior to, during, and after transfer. Hosting focus groups for each transfer subpopulation is an excellent way to understand how the institution is supporting or failing to support students. Such focus groups are also useful in identifying common challenges and barriers along the transfer transition process. Once armed with this specific data, collaborative interventions and services can be designed or reimagined that pool resources and offer consistent support for all transfer students.

Conclusion Every student at a community college is a potential transfer. Students who begin in a technical or occupational field may discover abilities and interests that lead them to consider transfer. Four-year students may seek a different institutional experience. But transfer students do not succeed by accident. Supporting these individuals, wherever and however they began their educational journey, requires advocacy and an understanding of each institution’s distinctive transfer population, knowledge of issues specific to transfer students, and a purposeful approach to serving their unique needs, which leads to the creation of a transfer-affirming culture. Similarly, national completion agendas will not be successful without careful attention to, and intentional integration of, issues related to transfer student success. Creating a culture of transfer requires that two-year institutions, the most common entry point for transfer students, begin the conversation as early as new student orientation and infuse the expectation of transfer success into all facets of the institution. Four-year colleges and universities must embrace their responsibilities for acclimating and retaining two- and four-year transfers through to degree completion. Across all institutional sectors, goals for assisting transfer-intending and transfer-completing students must be developed with the institutional NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

NAVIGATING THE NEW NORMAL

87

strategic plan and specific student data in mind and will require creative approaches to ensuring that these students meet their academic objectives. Finally, in a climate of dwindling state resources and increased performance expectations, intra- and interinstitutional collaboration is a crucial aspect of implementing, or refining, transfer policies and practices and navigating the new normal. References Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education. (2012). Standards. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.cas.edu/index.php/standards/ Fain, P. (2012, November). Graduate, transfer, graduate. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/11/08/high-graduation-rates-community -college-transfers Handel, S. J., & Williams, R. A. (2012). The promise of the transfer pathway: Opportunity and challenge for community college students seeking the baccalaureate degree. College Board Advocacy and Policy Center. Retrieved from http://advocacy.collegeboard.org /sites/default/files/community-college-transfer-pathway-summary-5938.pdf Hossler, D., Shapiro, D., Dundar, A., Chen, J., Zerquera, D., Ziskin, M., & Torres, V. (2012a). Reverse transfer: A national view of student mobility from four-year to two-year institutions. Herndon, VA: National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.studentclearinghouse.info/signature/3/ Hossler, D., Shapiro, D., Dundar, A., Chen, J., Zerquera, D., Ziskin, M., & Torres, V. (2012b). Transfer & mobility: A national view of pre-degree student movement in postsecondary institutions. Herndon, VA: National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.studentclearinghouse.info/signature/2/

JANET L. MARLING is the executive director of the National Institute for the Study of Transfer Students (NISTS) located at the University of North Georgia in Dahlonega, Georgia. NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI:10.1002/he

INDEX Academic problems, 46–47 Academic standards, 64–65 Adelman, C., 6, 8 Advising, academic and transfer, 34–36, 43–44, 65 Affordability of community colleges, 12 Agustin, H. M., 22 Alfonso, M., 23, 42, 44 Allen, J., 69 Anderson, G., 23, 42 Articulation: course, 17–18; general education core curriculum, 20; institutional articulation agreements, 42; program, 18; and reverse awarding of degrees, 20–21; statewide, 19; 2 + 2 agreements, 18–19 Articulation policies: studies done on, 23–24; three approaches to, 21–23 Assumptions: institution-focused, 62–63; student-focused, 62 Bailey, T., 6, 10, 11, 12, 39, 43, 44 Baum, S., 11 Bensimon, E. M., 45 Berger, J., 70 Bernal, S., 52, 72 Bers, T. H., 1, 17, 26 Bettinger, E., 43 Block, G., 53, 55, 56, 57 Bowen,W., 71 Brint, S., 9, 10 Bromeo, C. A., 36 Brown, R., 22 Burkum, K. R., 39 Cabrera, A. F., 39, 45 Calcagno, J. C., 44 California, three-tier system of higher education in, 51. See also University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Campus geography, 63 Carnevale, A. P., 7, 11 Cheslock, J. J., 70 Chingos, M., 71 City University of New York (CUNY) pathway, 22 Closing the Gaps plan, Texas’ statewide, 45 Cohen, A. M., 27

Cole, D., 72 Community colleges: affordability of, 12; in California, 51; and completion agenda, 6–7; in Florida, 22–23; and pursuit of bachelor’s degree, 7–9; in Texas, 28–37; and transfer pathway, 9–13; visits to, 54–58; vital role of, 27–28 Conklin, A., 74 Core curriculum, general education, 20 Costs of attending community colleges, 12 Course articulation: description of, 17–18; Web-based information pertaining to, 21, 24 Course numbering system, common, 33–34 Course scheduling priorities and procedures, 65–66 Credits, portability of, 85–86. See also Articulation Crisp, G., 39 Culture: student-centered, 41, 43–44; transfer-receptive, 51–58 Cypers, S., 70 Dadashova, A., 10, 12 Dahling, J., 74 De La Torres, D., 24 Degree gap in U.S., 5–6, 7 Deli-Amen, R., 10 DePaul Admission Partnership Program (DAPP), 21–22 Diversity, of transfer populations, 86 Dougherty, K. J., 10, 28, 39 Dowd, A. C., 45, 70, 71, 72 Dual admission agreements, 19, 42 Eggleston, L., 70 Engagement: faculty, 48; lack of, 46 Espinosa, L., 71, 73 Espinoza, A., 72 Faculty: accountability of, 48; engagement, 48; expectations of, 64–65; role modeling by, 44–45 Fain, P., 77 Fann, A., 1, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 38 Farina, A., 67 89

90

COLLEGIATE TRANSFER: NAVIGATING THE NEW NORMAL

Financial aid problems, 46 Florida community colleges, benefits of graduating from, 22–23 Gagnon, J., 70, 71 Garcia, P., 74 Gardner, J. N., 1 General education core curriculum, 20 Goldhaber, D., 23 Goldrick-Rab, S., 12, 27 Grites, T. J., 2, 61, 67, 68 Gross, B., 23

Mazzeo, C., 12, 27 McPherson, M., 71 Medsker, L. L., 9 Melguizo, T., 45, 70, 71 Mery, P., 73 Miller, A., 2, 36, 39, 41, 50, 66 Moore, C., 8 Morest, V. S., 12 Morphew, C., 73 Mullin, C. M., 12, 24, 70 Nora, A., 39

Hagedorn, L., 69, 70, 72 Handel, S. J., 1, 5, 15, 27, 30, 31, 69, 70, 71, 77, 83 Hanssen, C. E., 73 Harris, D. N., 12, 27 Hauptman, A. M., 6 Herrera, A., 2, 51, 52, 53, 59, 72 Horn, L., 9 Hossler, D., 1, 77, 83 Hussar, W. J., 10, 11

Oakton Community College and DePaul University, partnership between, 21–22 Obama, B., 5, 6 Offenstein, J., 8 Ong, M., 73 Orfield, G., 73 Orientation programs, 62, 66–67 Ornelas, A., 52, 70 Orozco, G., 51

Ignash, J., 42 Ishitani, T. T., 45

Packard, B., 70, 71, 72, 73 Parental and/or family involvement, 83 Payea, K., 11 Perkins IV federal legislation, 20 Person, A. E., 10 Phelps, R. P., 69 Phillippe, K., 12 Planty, M., 9, 28 Porchea, S. F., 69 Program articulation, defined, 18. See also Articulation Provasnik, S., 9, 28 Purnamasari, A., 69

Jackson, D. L., 2, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 76 Jain, D., 2, 51, 52, 53, 58, 59, 72 Jeffers, K., 71 Jenkins, D., 39, 43, 44 Jobs for the Future, 6 Johnson, D., 73 Johnson, H., 51 Karabel, J., 9, 10 Kienzl, G., 12, 27, 28, 39, 44 Kisker, C. B., 27, 73 Kurlaender, M., 45 La Nasa, S. M., 39 Laanan, F. S., 2, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 76 LaBelle, O., 71 Leadership, culturally sensitive, 44–45 Leinbach, T., 39, 44 Lester, J., 70 Logue, A. W., 22 Long, B. T., 43, 45 Lynn, E., 71 Ma, J., 11 Malaney, G., 70 Marling, J., 2, 3, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 77, 87

Reindl, T., 6 Reverse awarding of degrees, 20–21 Reyes, M., 69, 70, 71, 73 Rhoades, G., 12 Robbins, R., 65 Robbins, S., 69 Rocha, M. W., 55 Rondeau, S., 67 Rose, M., 34, 36 Rose, S. J., 7 Rosenbaum, J. E., 10 Ryan, C. L., 28 Schriorring, E., 73 Schwartz, W., 43 Senas, A., 70

INDEX Shapiro, D., 8 Shulock, N., 8 Siebans, J., 28 Skomsvold, P., 9 Smith, C., 36, 39 Solórzano, D., 52, 70, 72 Sopcich, J., 73 Starobin, S. S., 2, 69, 70, 71, 72, 76 Statewide articulation agreements, 19 STEM fields, women and underrepresented minorities in, 69–74 Strategic planning, transfer students included in, 45, 84–85 Strohl, J., 11 Structured academic pathway, 41, 42–43 Student-centered culture, 41, 43–44 Students, transfer: assumptions of, 62; communication with and about, 80–83; differences encountered by, 63–66; orientation programs for, 66–67; statistics on, 27–28, 77–78; tracking, 31–32, 83–84. See also Transfer success Sun, J. C., 23, 42 Texas: transfer experience at two- and four-year institutions in, 39–50; transfer policies in, 28–37 Thomas, C., 51 Thurmond, K. C., 61 Tinto, V., 44 Townsend, B. K., 42 Tracking transfer students, 31–32, 83–84 Transfer pathway, importance of, 9–13

91

Transfer shock: defined, 61; and too many assumptions, 61–63; and too many differences, 63–66 Transfer success: barriers to, 32–33, 46–47; courses, 67; recommendations for, 77–87; in STEM fields, 69–74; three characteristics contributing to, 41–45; tracking, 31–32, 83–84. See also Students, transfer Transfer-receptive culture: building a, 54–56; conclusions on, 57–58; elements of, 52–53 Trends, anticipating, 83–86 2 + 2 agreements, 18–19, 23 Twombly, S., 73 Underrepresented minorities (URMs): defined, 69; STEM success for, 69–74 University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA): and the Center for Community College Partnerships (CCCP), 53–54; and visits to community colleges, 54–58 Visits to two-year institutions, by fouryear administrators, 54–58 Wellman, J. V., 42 Williams, R. A., 27, 30, 77, 83 Wolf-Wendel, L., 73 Women in STEM fields, successful transfer of, 69–74 Woodlief, B., 51 Wright, C., 73 Zinser, R. W., 73