The Successful Impact of Learning to Persist

Transcription

1 Part V: The Impact Report of the Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) Contents QEP Title: Learning to Persist: A Quality Enhancement Plan for Contents... i Executive Summary... ii Introduction and Brief Description of the Plan as Originally Presented... 1 Development of the Plan... 1 Original Design of the Plan... 2 Components of the QEP... 2 Initial Goals and Intended Outcomes of the QEP... 4 Changes to the QEP and Reasons for the Changes... 5 Changes to Supplemental Instruction (SI)... 5 Changes to First-Year Learning Experience (FYLE)... 5 Focus on Improving the Front Door... 6 Impact on Student Learning... 6 Impact on Environment Supporting Student Learning... 7 SI/tutoring to Support Student Persistence... 7 Faculty Development to Support Student Persistence... 8 Unanticipated Outcomes of the QEP... 9 Reflection on Lessons Learned from Learning to Persist... 10

2 Part V: The Impact Report of the Quality Enhancement Plan Executive Summary Learning to Persist: A Quality Enhancement Plan for (Marianna, FL) (As Reviewed by On-Site Committee in 2007 and Submitted to SACS in 2008) s Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP), Learning to Persist, was developed to increase student learning and three-year graduation rates by (1) implementing Supplemental Instruction (SI) in high-risk courses, (2) developing a required, one-semester-hour First-Year Learning Experience (FYLE) course, and (3) providing faculty development to support SI and FYLE. Development of the Plan: Learning to Persist resulted from a participatory process led by an eight-member QEP Development Team. QEP development began in January of 2006 and extended through August of The team studied institutional data, reviewed scholarly literature, and surveyed and interviewed faculty and students. They identified four serious issues to be addressed: (1) a high percentage of under-prepared and at-risk students enroll at Chipola, but the college s open door must remain open; (2) too many students fail to complete their programs of study; (3) specific high-risk courses present barriers for many students; and (4) many students will continue to drop out or stop out unless the college changes current practices. Analysis of a variety of data identified the college s major issue: the failure of most of its Associate degree-seeking students to persist until they graduate. In fact, one study showed that 69% of Chipola s most underprepared students leave the college within the first year and do not return. After much consideration, the QEP Development Team defined student learning in the context of the QEP as follows: The change in students knowledge, skills, abilities, behaviors, attitudes, and values attributable to SI and FYLE groups. They then narrowed the focus of the QEP to how SI and FYLE could be implemented at Chipola. Design of the Plan: After months of study, Chipola designed a QEP with two new initiatives and the supporting faculty development required for implementation. The purpose of these components is to achieve ambitious goals and objectives, among which are reducing the number of D s, F s, and W s in high-risk courses and increasing three-year graduation rates of AA degree-seeking students. The QEP should be fully implemented by Spring Component I: Supplemental Instruction (SI) will be based on the University of Missouri-Kansas City model. SI, a peerassisted academic support service, will provide help in courses that traditionally have a 30% or higher rate of Ds, Fs, or Ws. The SI Leader, a student who previously earned an A in the course with the same professor, will offer study sessions and share strategies for completing the course. A pilot study of SI was conducted in two high-risk courses in Spring 2007 and will continue with two additional courses in Fall Component II: First-Year Learning Experience (FYLE) will be based on the OnCourse model to increase student persistence by providing entering Associate degree-seeking students a set of well-defined learning opportunities designed to teach students to persist. The one-semester-hour course, led by FYLE mentors and consisting of students, will expand the existing one-semester-hour Orientation (SLS 1101) course. Four FYLE mentors will develop the course during Fall 2007 and conduct the first pilot study in Spring After assessment of the first pilot study, a second will be conducted in Fall 2008; full implementation will be in Spring Faculty Development to Support the Plan will provide opportunities for novice and seasoned faculty to gain the latest academic and professional knowledge to support the QEP. Summer workshops, guest speakers, and travel to professional meetings will be based on five themes identified by faculty. Implementation of the Plan: has the capacity and commitment required to implement the QEP as planned. The college has identified the human and financial resources, facilities, and logistical requirements for a successful QEP. In October 2006 Chipola was awarded a U.S. Department of Education Title III-Strengthening Institutions grant for $1.85 million to cover costs of two years of planning and pilot studies and the first three years of implementation. Projected increases in student fees and FTE funding will provide ample financial resources to continue indefinitely the components of the Title III project and the QEP. Separate projected budgets have also been developed for SI, FYLE, and the overall QEP. Budget plans include how these funds will be generated and expended. Qualified and responsible personnel will implement the QEP. ii

3 Introduction and Brief Description of the Plan as Originally Presented Part V: The Impact Report of the Quality Enhancement Plan s Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP), Learning to Persist, has created a learning renaissance across campus. The college has proven by example that an institution can create by design a campus-wide culture of student success. Over the last five years, increases in the three-year graduation rates of entering cohorts of all AA degree-seeking students have ranged from 16.7% to 52.9%. By this increase had settled at 28.75%. This means the QEP has definitely increased learning and student success at. When implementing Learning to Persist, Chipola allowed data to drive plans to create a campuswide culture in which students are accepted where they are in education and ability accomplished and capable or inexperienced and underprepared. Faculty and staff are now more aware that if students aren t equipped academically to make the journey, they can t get there. They must have academic assistance to succeed in their classes. Second, if students don t know where they re going, they won t get there. The data are convincing. That s exactly why there s now an excellent chance that at least 28% more AA degreeseeking students who entered Chipola this year will graduate in three years. About seven years ago, continuing a tradition of self-scrutiny and transformation and in preparation for SACS reaffirmation of accreditation, began intense efforts to encourage student persistence and increase three-year graduation rates of Associate degree-seeking students. By the time the SACS On-Site Committee visited campus in October 2007, the first pilot study had been conducted and the groundwork had been laid for full implementation. The On-Site Committee Report praised the work of the college, stating that a clear understanding of student needs provided a strong foundation for QEP development..., [and] [p]ilot study results indicate the plan for implementing Supplemental Instruction is viable with a firm foundation of faculty and administrative support to ensure its success (p. 32). Development of the Plan: The QEP was developed and has been implemented by the most collegial process ever to occur at. An eight-member QEP Development Team studied over 30 sets 1

4 Part V: The Impact Report of the Quality Enhancement Plan of new institutional data, reviewed over 100 scholarly articles and reports about best practices, and surveyed and interviewed faculty and students to identify four serious issues: (1) A high percentage of under-prepared and at-risk students enroll at Chipola, but the college s open door must remain open; (2) Too many students fail to complete their programs of study; (3) Specific high-risk courses present barriers for many students; and (4) Many students will continue to drop out or stop out unless the college changes current practices. Analysis of a variety of data identified a serious issue -- the failure of most Associate degreeseeking students to persist until they graduate. In fact, one study showed that 69% of Chipola s most underprepared AA students left the college within the first year and did not return. The focus was then narrowed to (1) how learning could be enhanced to help students complete AA degrees in three years and Table 1: High Risk Courses (at Least 30% Ds, Fs, and Ws) High-Risk Course % D/W/F Grades Biology -- BSC % Earth Science ESC % Intermediate Algebra MAT % Anatomy and Physiology BSC % College Algebra MAC % Elementary Algebra MAT % Courses Identified Later as High Risk Chemistry I CHM % Chemistry II CHM % (2) the specific courses which presented the greatest challenge(s) for these students. Data were analyzed to identify courses considered high-risk meaning a 30% or higher rate of D, F, and W final course grades (shown in Table 1). Original Design of the Plan. The QEP was also described in the On-Site Review Committee s report (November, 2007) as a viable blueprint to enhance student learning and success and a model comprehensive plan for improving the student s ability to succeed (p. 32). The QEP document included a 12-page detailed Action Plan for Implementation of Learning to Persist. This detailed plan was described by the On-Site Review Committee as a valuable guide of specific strategies, which indicated a clear understanding for successful implementation (p. 32). Shown below are the QEP components and an overview of how they were implemented: Component I: Supplemental Instruction (SI) (See Executive Summary for description.) A pilot study of SI was conducted in two high-risk courses in Spring 2007 and continued with two additional high-risk courses (a total of four courses) in Fall After the first year of full implementation, assessment resulted in modifications in SI to serve more students. 2

5 Part V: The Impact Report of the Quality Enhancement Plan Component II: First-Year Learning Experience (FYLE) (See Executive Summary for description.) Four FYLE mentors developed the course during Fall 2007 and taught the first pilot study in Spring After assessing the first pilot study, a second was conducted in Fall 2008 in preparation for full implementation in Spring However, plans for FYLE were not fully implemented, but alternate strategies were implemented to promote student persistence. Faculty Development to Support the Plan (See Executive Summary for description.) The college offered five one-day mandatory faculty workshops and three optional paid summer institutes for full-time and adjunct instructors. During these workshops, faculty became increasingly focused on promoting student persistence. An important element in the success of the plan was including the same components in a U.S. Department of Education Title III Strengthening Institutions grant project funded in October The college received $1.85 million to cover costs of planning and establishing SI, FYLE, and the Academic Center for Excellence (ACE); a year of pilot studies; implementing components for the first three years; and improving instructional technology. In addition, because of overwhelming student participation, in 2008 the college president requested and received a special Legislative allocation of $1.5 million to renovate and incorporate an adjoining space to enlarge the ACE into an eight-room center with a central atrium with three new entrances, additional state-of-the-art technology, a new arrangement of furniture to accommodate SI/group tutoring sessions, a kitchen, storage space, and many other upgrades. Initial Goals and Intended Outcomes of the QEP The overall purpose of the QEP was to increase the three-year graduation rates of AA degreeseeking students. Three broad goals have guided implementation: Goal 1: Increase student learning and academic success in high-risk courses by providing Supplemental Instruction (SI) based on the University of Missouri-Kansas City model. Goal 2: Increase student learning and engagement in the college experience by implementing a onesemester-hour First-Year Learning Experience (FYLE) course for entering AA degree-seeking students. Goal 3: Increase student learning by providing faculty development to increase the faculty s knowledge about student engagement, retention techniques, and instructional technology. These broad goals have been supported by six ambitious objectives. As shown below in Table 2, eleven specific sets of data on intended outcomes have been tracked throughout the project. 3

6 Objectives/ Intended Outcomes 1. Increase by 20% the graduation rate within three years of entry of first-time-in-college AA degreeseeking students with no dual enrollment credit. Part V: The Impact Report of the Quality Enhancement Plan Table 2: QEP Objectives/Intended Outcomes Tracking Grid Since Implementation Bold type* (with asterisk) indicates achievement of expected outcome Baseline Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 ( ) Entering Entering Entering Entering Entering Fall Fall 02 Fall 05 Fall 06 Fall Graduating Graduating Graduating Graduating Graduating Spring 05 Spring 08 Spring 09 Spring 10 Spring 11 Year Entering Fall 09 Graduating Spring 12 13% 24.8%* 15.6%* 16.28%* 16.67%* 15.38% College-Ready Students (No Dual Enrollment and No College- (90.7% (20% (25.4% Prep/Remedial Courses) (28.3% (18.3% Additional Graduation Rates Being Tracked by Chipola (not original QEP objectives) All Students (Including Students with Dual Enrollment Credit ) College-Prep/ Developmental (Took at least one remedial course) Objectives/ Intended Outcomes 24% 3.6% 36.7%* (52.9% 8.6%* (138.9% 31.4%* (30.8% 4.9%* (36.1% 31%* (29.2% 7.5%* (108.3% 28%* (16.7% 8.2%* (127.7% 29.07%* (21.1% 6.3%* (75% Other Expected Outcomes Student Persistence Objectives Measured by CCSSE Benchmarks or Survey Items Baseline ( ) Year Year Year Year Year Year Target Entering Fall 10 Graduating Spring % (18.46% 30.9%* (28.75% 4.3% (19.44% 15.6% 28.8% 4.4% Year Target 2. Increase by 20% student participation, as measured by sometimes or often responses on the Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) in the areas of academic advising/planning and peer or other tutoring, compared to 2005 baseline rates. (Annual CCSSE Report) Increase Academic Advising/Planning" 59.7% 61.4% 66.6% 70.6% 71.4% 74.4%* 71.5% 71.6% (Item 13.1a) "Peer or Other Tutoring" (Item 13.1d) 21.2% 22.8% 40.3%* 41.8%* 37.6%* 43.9%* 39.1%* 25.4% 3. Increase by 10% student engagement, as measured by the CCSSE in the areas of student-faculty interaction and support for learners, compared to the 2005 baseline rates. (Annual CCSSE Report) "Student-Faculty Interaction" (Benchmark 4) 47.6% 52% 55.5%* 52.1% 53.7%* 53%* 50.1% 52.4% "Support for Learners" (Benchmark 5) 51.3% 52% 56.3% 56.8%* 55.0% 56.5%* 56.1% 56.4% 4. Increase by 12% student responses of quite a bit or very much that the college provides the support needed to help you succeed at this college and instructors were available, helpful, and sympathetic as measured by CCSSE compared to the 2005 baseline rates. (Annual CCSSE Report) "The Support Needed to Help You 72.0% 80.5% 81.5%* 79.0% 83.2%* 81.4%* 78.7% 80.6% Succeed at This College" (Item 9b) "Instructors were available, helpful, and sympathetic" (Item 11b) 27.2% 27.3% 29.7% 38.7%* 35.1%* 36.1%* 39.2%* 30.5% Professional Development for Faculty Training in Student Persistence, Instructional Technology, and Learning Outcomes Assessment Objectives/ Baseline Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 4

7 Part V: The Impact Report of the Quality Enhancement Plan Intended Outcomes ( ) Target 5. Train at least 90% of full-time faculty in retention and student engagement 0 95%* 95%* 97.6%* 97.6%* 97.6%* 97.6%* 90% (Faculty Development Records) 6. Train at least 90% of full-time faculty and adjunct instructors in instructional technology and on-line learning (Faculty Development Records) 0 83% 87% 95.2%* 95.2%* 95.2%* 95.2%* 90% Changes to the QEP and Reasons for the Changes There were no modifications to the QEP s focus on promoting persistence and increasing threeyear graduation rates of AA degree-seeking students; however, changes were made to the implementation of components in response to ongoing formative and summative evaluation. QEP Component or Activity Supplemental Instruction (SI) First-Year Learning Experience (FYLE) Course Focus on Improving Table 3: Changes to QEP Implementation Plans and Justification for Change Change: In 2008 the formal SI sessions were restructured from the UM-KC model into more flexible group tutoring sessions in the ACE. This allowed all students in high-risk courses access to on-demand tutoring throughout the day. This change was made as a result of course assessments in four high-risk courses and because of the overwhelming success of the ACE. Data showed that only a few students in high-risk courses participated in SI sessions, which were originally conducted in the Math and Science Departments. Students who participated in pilot SI sessions did perform better than those who had not participated. However, attendance data, student surveys, and focus group feedback showed that many students could not participate in the sessions as scheduled. Commuting, employed, part-time students many with family commitments expressed a need for additional academic support but could not arrange their schedules to meet with SI leaders at specifically prescribed times. Thus, SI became CSI for Chipola Supplemental Instruction and was incorporated into the ACE. The new group-tutoring model proved to be a more effective way to provide academic support to all students in a course regardless of instructor. Plus, multiple sessions could be offered each week. Since 2011, SI leaders have been available for all eight high risk courses every hour the ACE is open. Since the end of the Title III project in 2011, the college has expended over $175,000 per year and remains committed to expending at least that much in recurring costs to support the ACE director s salary, peer tutors, and other costs for academic support. Change: The college delayed full implementation of this component as planned. The FYLE course was pilot tested during Results of the fall pilot were inconclusive because of how the course was structured. The course was thoroughly revised and a second pilot conducted in spring Two new instructors were engaged as FYLE mentors for the second pilot study. Again, results were not convincing. Therefore, plans for FYLE were not implemented because results of two pilot studies were too inconclusive to justify expending the required time, energy, and fiscal resources over the long term. The participating FYLE mentors concluded that there were some good results of the course for individual students. However, data were not convincing enough to justify such a college-wide effort. Change: After the disappointing FYLE pilot studies, the QEP s focus was redirected from having FYLE Groups mentored by full-time faculty to Improving the Front Door and engaging 5

8 the Front Door Part V: The Impact Report of the Quality Enhancement Plan students in their classes. This change was made to facilitate learning and increase student success in ways that were more likely to result in student persistence. To make new plans, in April 2009 a five-member team attended the Entering Student Success Institute (ESSI) sponsored by the University of Texas Community College Center for Student Success. The ESSI Team made nine recommendations: Continue to refine SI and the ACE as the first line of defense against attrition; Abolish/reduce late registration so students are not programmed to fail before they begin; Allow minutes for all initial sessions with academic advisors; Allow students to register earlier so they can plan for family and work; Offer new-student orientation in the summer before fall classes begin; Change the name of Curriculum Guides to Academic Plans so students will recognize them as clearly laid out steps to graduation; Ask all instructors to submit Excessive Absence Reports for advisor intervention; Implement OnCourse into the TRIO/SSS project as an efficient way to reach many of the college s most at-risk students; and Implement a one-hour ACE College workshop for all developmental classes during the first two weeks of each semester. All of these changes were implemented, and three years later, these successful efforts were featured in A Matter of Degrees: Promising Practices for Community College Success (CCCSE, Univ. of Texas, 2012, p. 25). Impact on Student Learning The most convincing evidence that the QEP has directly impacted student learning is the increase in graduation rates. As shown in Table 2 (p. 3-5), the three-year graduation rates of college-ready students those who entered Chipola with no dual enrollment credit but did not take remedial courses increased from 13% in 2005 to a high of 24.8% in and settled at over 15% in the last two years. During the same period, three-year graduation rates of all students increased from 24% to a high of 36.7% and settled at around 30% in the last two years. Impact on Learning in High-Risk Courses: The success of SI/tutoring has been demonstrated in overall course grades in high-risk courses. For example, over the five years of the QEP, the D,F, W grades in CHM 1030 Chemistry I decreased from 32% to only 18% in ; D,F, W grades in BSC Anatomy and Physiology decreased from 40% to only 19.21% during the same period. Other data also demonstrate the impact of SI/tutoring. Shown in Table 4 (p.7) are comparison data for ESC 1000 Introduction to Earth Science. Over 76% of SI/tutoring participants made A, B, or C grades, compared to only 32.6% of SI 6

9 Table 4: Typical Example Science Course Fall Course Summary: ESC Introduction to Earth Science Total Course Enrollment (4 class sections): 102 SI/Tutoring Participants: 59 SI/Tutoring Non- Participants: 43 Final Course Grade No. % No. % No. % A B % % C % D W % % F % Only students who participated in at least five CSI//group tutoring sessions in the ACE are considered participants Table 5: Typical Example \ Math Course Comparison of Exam Scores: Intermediate Algebra MAT 1033 Individual Class Ave. Exam Grades of SI/Tutoring Participants Ave. Exam Grades of SI/Tutoring Non-Participants Exam Exam Exam Exam Exam Exam Average Impact on the Environment Supporting Student Learning Part V: The Impact Report of the Quality Enhancement Plan non-participants. Faculty also collect comparison data according to performance on major exams in highrisk courses. Table 5 (left) compares performance on major exams in MAT 1033-Intermediate Algebra. These comparisons clearly demonstrate the positive impact of SI/tutoring on individual test grades. Data in Tables 4 and 5 are typical for high-risk courses, all of which continue to be math or science courses SI/tutoring in the ACE has emerged as the most obvious positive impact on the learning environment. The ACE had just opened when the SACS On-Site Committee visited Chipola in The Committee Report described it as "a transformational space and an effective conduit for the QEP goals." (p.32). Later, the decision to shift SI from the Math and Science Departments to the ACE brought the facility into the heart of the QEP. The 2013 Graduating Student Survey illustrates its impact on student learning. Of all AA degree graduates, 77% had attended the ACE. Of these, 34% attended almost every day, and 59% attended a few times a week. Some 93% responded SI/tutoring helped my overall grade average ; 95% reported "a tutor is always available to help me ; 99% reported "tutors are knowledgeable about what I am studying ; and 97% reported I received the help I needed in the ACE. These results are further confirmed by the ACE User s Survey of students attending the ACE during the last two weeks of the 2013 spring semester. Of these regular users, 98% reported someone 7

10 Part V: The Impact Report of the Quality Enhancement Plan was available to help me ; 94% credited ACE SI/tutoring for helping me maintain a higher overall G.P.A ; 67% would be struggling more in classes without ACE SI/tutoring ; 70% responded the ACE helped me with difficult classes ; and 16% said I would not likely have remained enrolled without the ACE. Professional Development of Faculty: Student responses to the CCSSE reveal dramatic differences in faculty attitudes since the QEP began. As shown in Table 2, (p. 4-5) student-faculty interaction and support for learners responses increased by more than 10%. [S]upport needed to succeed and instructors available, helpful, and sympathetic responses increased by over 12%. Participant evaluations of faculty workshops over the last five years reflect faculty opinions about the professional development provided them throughout the QEP. On-campus workshop speakers included Dr. Betsy Barefoot, national retention expert; Robin Middleton, OnCourse facilitator; Dr. Angela Oriano, of the University of Texas Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE), Dr. Lou Kind, leader of D2L Summer Institutes, and others. Groups also traveled to SI training at the University of Missouri Kansas City (two teams), National OnCourse Institutes in Texas and California; the Entering Student Success Institute (ESSI) in New Mexico; and numerous faculty traveled to academic meetings. Table 6: Representative Example of Workshop Evaluation 2010 Workshop -- Dr. Angela Oriano (Selected QEP-Related Items) Improving the Front Door Experience: Talking SENSE about Entering Students Indicate the extent to which you are likely to use the information Very presented in this workshop. Likely Likely Unlikely How likely are you to be a more effective teacher as a result of this Annual Employee Surveys further document that faculty have gained new instructional techniques and been trained in new ways to engage students and help them remain enrolled until they complete their Very Unlikely 54% 46% 0% 0% workshop? How likely are you to use what you learned to increase student success? 64% 36% 0% 0% How likely are you to serve students better as a result of this workshop? 59% 41% 0% 0% Would you likely voluntarily attend a follow-up activity on this same topic? 52% 38% 10% 0% Example of a Typical Faculty Comment on the Usefulness of This Workshop: These meetings help me refocus on the initial On-Course training I received. I m constantly trying to influence my students to become engaged learners in the classroom and to develop persistence in their study habits beyond the classroom. This workshop has intensified my determination to encourage all of my students to stay on course until they graduate. Just today at lunch, I noticed several lone students sitting in the cafeteria. We need to help them get connected right away. If we don t bring them into a circle of students, they will be the ones we lose before next August. 8

11 Table 7: Professional Development Activities 2013 Annual Employee Survey * Off-Campus Professional Development Yes No Have you attended an off-campus conference, meeting, or workshop during the last three years? 81% 19% If Yes, what kinds of things did you learn? Yes Maybe No New teaching techniques 81% 14% 5% Instructional technology 65% 0 35% Student motivation or engagement 72% 17% 11% Advising, counseling, or mentoring skills 41% 12% 47% Teaching or retaining at-risk students 44% 12% 44% On-Campus Professional Development Yes No Have you participated in on-campus professional development during the last years? 100% 0% What kinds of new ideas, techniques, or skills did you learn at these activities? Yes Maybe No Teaching/learning strategies 83% 13% 4% Ways to engage student in learning 92% 4% 4% Ways to engage students in campus life 62% 19% 19% Ways to promote student persistence 86% 9% 5% Ways to promote participation in SI/tutoring 70% 13% 17% Overall Impact of Professional Development on Yes No Faculty Have you discussed new ideas, techniques, or skills with your faculty colleagues? 76% 24% Do you think professional development activities have strengthened Chipola s faculty in the last three years? 92% 8% *Responses from the Faculty Addendum to the Annual Employee Survey Part V: The Impact Report of the Quality Enhancement Plan programs of study. Shown in Table 7 (left) are results of the most recent Employee Survey (Faculty Addendum). Similar results were reflected each year over the five years of the QEP. Unanticipated Outcomes of the QEP As a result of the QEP, Chipola has experienced several unanticipated outcomes reflecting growth in capacity to increase student success. No one at Chipola expected the outcomes shown in Table 8 (below). Table 8: Unanticipated Outcomes of the QEP National Recognition for Chipola: As a result of its high graduation rates, Chipola has received national recognition. For example, the college was named among the top 10% of the nation s community colleges (120 colleges) and eligible to compete for the Aspen Prize during both years of the competition. Also, Washington Monthly recently (August 2013) ranked Chipola 14 th among the top 20 community colleges in the nation. Faculty and academic administrators acknowledge that these and other examples of national recognition are direct results of the QEP which has helped students learn to persist. Student Enthusiasm for Academic Assistance: Student participation in and appreciation of SI/tutoring, test reviews, and other learning opportunities have been overwhelming. Attendance in the ACE ranged from 25 student visits per week early in 2006 to about 150 per week late in the 2007 fall term to over 560 per week in 2010 and over 800 visits per week in In fact, 888 (unduplicated headcount) students made about 8,000 visits during the 2012 Fall semester. One student logged in 94 times, and dozens made 75 or more visits. Chipola Serving as a Model: Chipola is serving as a model as other institutions learn of the QEP s success. The college has hosted numerous visitors, including a team from Missouri, which later established a similar effort to increase persistence. A group from Florida State University also visited and, the following fall, established an Academic Center for Excellence on their campus. (Note that they even used our name.) College personnel have also been asked to present at state and regional meetings. The 9

12 Part V: The Impact Report of the Quality Enhancement Plan External Evaluator asked the QEP Director and the ACE Director to co-present with him at the annual Southern Evaluation Association (SEA) Meeting in February The Faculty SI Coordinator and QEP Director presented at the Florida Association for Institutional Research (FAIR). The QEP Director was also asked to present about how Chipola has used CCSSE and SENSE results to track/document success at the Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Association for Community College Research (SACCR) with Dr. Angela Oriano, of the University of Texas CCCSE. The QEP Director also presented in 2012 with Dr. Oriano and Dr. Courtney Adkins (also of CCSSE) at a State Workshop for the Community College System of Delaware. Certainly, none of these opportunities were expected. Reflection on What Has Been Learned from Learning to Persist Faculty and staff have learned many lessons during Learning to Persist. Most of these were learned at the department and/or course level. Shown in Table 9 are three major lessons at the institutional level. Table 9: Lessons Learned from the QEP 1. Some students cannot be retained with academic support alone no matter how good it is. Though three-year graduation rates have increased by over 28% among all AA degree students and much more among developmental/remedial students, the fall-to-fall persistence rates of entering students have not increased during the same period. This means that the college s efforts to provide academic support, improve the front door, improve orientation and advising, engage students, and other changes have helped many students. However, some entering students face issues which cannot be addressed by academic support. These life situations prevent them from remaining enrolled into the second year. 2. True culture change takes time. It cannot be rushed. The changes in the learning environment facilitated by faculty development occurred gradually. Faculty came to realize that they were the only real link to the students. Other college personnel interact with students periodically, but the teachers in the classrooms must engage students and help them feel connected like they belong. This change in the faculty s mindset was very real but gradual and definitely crucial to the culture change. 3. Even when the best-laid plans must be changed, the ultimate objectives can still be achieved. While the college chose not to implement the FYLE component because of disappointing results of the pilot study, the alternate plans to Improve the Front Door and continue to fund the SI/tutoring efforts in the ACE proved successful. This new culture is inclusive rather than exclusive. It is responsive to student needs because data have driven plans to create a culture in which, on any given day, a National Champion Brain Bowl Team member and an extremely underprepared developmental student may work side by side in an SI/tutoring session for a high-risk course. Or where a 40-year-old single mother of three can fulfill her dream of becoming a nurse while sitting right next to a student who achieved a perfect score on her ACTs. These lessons continue to inform decisions as further institutionalizes the increases in student learning brought about by Learning to Persist. 10