Changes on the Ground: Site Visit Report of the Third Year of Developmental Education Reform in the Florida College System (original) (raw)
Related papers
This report summarizes findings from three focus groups conducted by the Retention and Graduation Council in fall 2009 with second-, third-, and fourth-year students at Central Connecticut State University who had a high probability of graduating from the institution in six years or less. A total of sixteen students participated in this research project, and these “successful” students exhibited a number of common characteristics, including: motivation and self-confidence, connectedness, frustrations with curricular structures, frustration with university communication and processes, mixed perceptions of advising, and several year-specific issues. Only tentative conclusions should be drawn from qualitative research of this nature. Nevertheless, much of the material provided here re-emphasizes the importance of educational practices typically deemed to be highly effective, such as helping students form bonds with other students and university employees as well as experiential education activities that connect academic learning with application outside the classroom. Further, successful students making progress toward graduation appeared to be very motivated; they filled their time with academic work and co-curricular activities, expected to make progress, and appreciated recognition for their efforts. While campus services were perceived to be helpful in some areas, unfriendly personnel, inefficient communication, difficulty registering for classes, and uneven advising detracted from their educational experience.ns of advising, and several year-specific issues.
The Center for Postsecondary Success (CPS) has been conducting a comprehensive evaluation of developmental education (DE) reform on Florida College System (FCS) institution campuses. Though many FCS institutions had been engaged in DE reform efforts prior to the passage of Florida Senate Bill 1720 (SB1720) in 2013, DE reform in Florida accelerated after the legislation required FCS institutions to implement comprehensive DE reform. The reform designated some Florida high school graduates and military personnel as “exempt” from DE and placement testing. Exempt students are not required to take a placement test and can also opt into or out of DE in math, reading, and writing regardless of prior coursework or academic performance. FCS institutions were also required to offer developmental courses in math, reading, and writing in at least two of the following instructional modalities: modularized, compressed, contextualized, and co-requisite. To facilitate students’ enrollment in the new course offerings, colleges were also required to offer enhanced advising to students and to develop meta-majors, or major-course pathways for students to select based on their interests, academic goals, and career aspirations. In year two of DE reform implementation across the FCS institutions, CPS researchers conducted two-day site visits to each of eight FCS institutions in fall 2015 and spring 2016. In this report we present findings from our analysis of focus group interviews conducted with college administrators, advisors, and other personnel, faculty members, and students. The key findings from our site visits to FCS institutions answer the research question: How have the Florida College System institutions implemented developmental education reform? Initial perspectives on the legislation have shifted with time and, as a result, implementation practices evolved in the second year of implementation. Deep concern about the possible negative consequences of the legislation remained among campus personnel across the FCS. However, many campus personnel’s worst fears about SB1720 had not been realized, due in large part to the continuing effort of institutions to focus on the practices most likely to positively impact student success. After the quick implementation timeline following passage of the legislation, campus personnel were able to refine their reform efforts in the second year of implementation. Our findings identify six themes related to: (1) holistic advising, (2) influences on student choice, (3) instructional modalities, (4) innovative academic support services, (5) students’ intersecting and complex social identities, and (6) helping underprepared students transition to college-level coursework.
2013
Benefits of collecting student feedback on courses, programs, learning experiences, and their perceptions of teaching quality, are well documented in literature. In the higher education system, this feedback is generally collected via student evaluation surveys. During the past few years, the Faculty of Engineering and Surveying (FoES), one of five faculties at USQ, has identified problems of small response rates, possible bias, general questions over data validity, relevance and wording of survey questions, and systems problems such as timeliness of official reports. Due to these problems, the data may not be reliable and the views of those who respond may not be representative of the overall student cohort. It is therefore risky to base management decisions on student satisfaction, teaching quality, and course quality on these data. Clearly, a more robust and reliable method of gathering feedback from students was needed that would provide more confidence in the data. For various ...
Using Student Focus Groups as a Component of General Education Assessment
ABSTRACT To help us act on general education assessment results and create improvement plans, we included student focus groups in our assessment procedures. The presenter highlights results including (a) course elements that students stated would help them meet outcomes in written communication, symbolic reasoning, and global and multicultural perspectives; (b) how students used general education knowledge and skills learned during the first two years to complete third-year assignments; and (c) how we used these results to engage faculty in constructive conversations that led to curricular changes. The presentation also features focus-group formats with activities such as “course timelines” and concept maps. EXTENDED ABSTRACT Using assessment results to improve student learning is a necessary but difficult task. To help us take action and create improvement plans, we included student focus groups as part of our general education assessment procedures. We wanted to add student voices to general education assessment in order to explore why learning was or was not happening and identify ways to improve. First, we wanted students to describe which assignments, pedagogical approaches, class size, etc., helped them achieve the general education learning outcomes. Second, we wanted to know if students perceived the first-year general education curriculum as foundational to subsequent courses, particularly courses in their major. To answer these questions, in 2010 we started a longitudinal study of learning in the general education program that included an annual focus group. We invited all first-year, first-time students (N=1,956) in fall 2010 to participate. Out of 356 volunteers, we used stratified random sampling to select 251 who closely matched the fall 2010 freshman class on these characteristics: age, high school GPA, college entrance scores, ethnicity, gender, and residency. All participants complete six online surveys each year and in addition, half of the participants submit coursework/exams from their general education courses each semester and attend an annual focus group. In spring 2012, 83 students participated in one of 10 focus groups, and 70 students (estimated) participated in eight focus groups in spring 2013. Our first-year general education curriculum includes a course on written communication (e.g., English 100), a symbolic reasoning course (e.g., Math 100), and two global and multicultural perspectives courses (e.g., History 151, Anthropology 151). The goals of the first-year general education curriculum are that students have skills and knowledge that are fundamental to undertaking higher education and necessary for living and working in diverse communities. With these goals, the general education outcomes, and use of assessment results in mind, we developed research questions for the annual focus groups: 1. What course structures (e.g., assignments, class size) would help students meet the learning outcomes related to written communication (WC), symbolic reasoning (SR), and global and multicultural perspectives (GMP)? [2012] 2. What WC, SR, and GMP knowledge and skills learned during the first two years do third-year students identify as being valuable? [2013] 3. Are students using WC, SR, and GMP knowledge and skills learned during the first two years to complete assignments or meet professor expectations in their third year? [2013] Course Structures That Encouraged Learning Related to the First-year Outcomes. Near the end of their second year (spring 2012), participants attended a focus group session in which they designed a first-year general education course aimed at helping students achieve the learning outcomes. The participants saw clear differences among the three areas: WC, SR, and GMP. For example, while their ideal WC and SR courses were limited to 15-20 students, the ideal GMP course enrollment was either a 50-student lecture or a large lecture plus a small-enrollment recitation section. Participants had mixed perceptions of the effectiveness of peer review in writing courses but were positive that peer-to-peer learning was effective in SR courses. Participants were able to describe the current and future value of the WC and SR outcomes, but the majority found little value in the GMP outcomes. Valuable WC, SR, and GMP Knowledge and Skills Learned During the First Two Years. Near the end of their third year (spring 2013), participants attended a focus group session in which they identified valuable WC, SR, and GMP knowledge and skills learned during the first two years. Preliminary results indicated that learning about doing research, using the library, and citing sources were most valued. Knowledge and Skills Learned During the First Two Years Used to Complete Assignments in the Third Year. In the third-year focus group (spring 2013), participants also described if and how they were using the WC, SR, and GMP knowledge and skills learned during their first two years to complete assignments or meet professor expectations in their third year. Preliminary results were as follows: first-year WC knowledge and skills had the strongest connections to third-year assignments across all majors. Regarding SR and GMP, the student’s major influenced student responses. Only students in business, science, and engineering programs reported using SR knowledge and skills. While most students felt GMP was not useful for third-year courses, more students now believed GMP would be useful after graduation. Use of Results. Our results serve as an entry into conversations with faculty about how to create a first-year experience that subsequent years build upon. We have and continue to present results to faculty committees that are responsible for the general education curriculum and faculty in departments that teach the general education courses. The use of results has varied. For example, the Anthropology Department restructured its GMP course from a large lecture only to a lecture plus small recitation sections. The General Education Committee has taken the findings into consideration as it debates policy decisions about whether students should be required to complete the GMP requirement during the first year or allowed to complete it at any time during their academic career. Learning Outcomes. Attendees will leave knowing 1. Course structures (e.g., assignments, class size) that students believed would help them meet the learning outcomes related to written communication (WC), symbolic reasoning (SR), and global and multicultural perspectives (GMP); 2. Knowledge and skills related to WC, SR, and GMP that third-year students identified as valuable; 3. How students used WC, SR, and GMP knowledge and skills learned during their first two years to complete assignments in their third year; and 4. How we use this information to engage faculty in constructive discussions about improving teaching and learning in the general education program. "
Focus Group Interviews in Education and Psychology
Physiotherapy, 1996
Although there are numerous books and articles that address focus groups, most are directed at business and marketing. Focus Group Interviews in Education and Psychology shows the specific steps to take to conduct focus groups in educational and psychological settings. Through the use of numerous examples, the authors show readers how to prepare for a focus group. In addition, they devote an entire chapter to doing focus groups with adolescents and children. Each chapter contains numerous procedural tables as well as end-of-chapter applications for performing "trial runs" of the techniques discussed. Qualitative and quantitative researchers and students in education and psychology will find this book a useful guide for refining their research instruments and for opening new vistas to understanding their subjects' responses.