I HOW COURSE ARTICULATION AGREEMENTS

HOW COURSE ARTICULATION AGREEMENTS FACILITATE THE TRANSFER AND COMPLETION OF A BACHELOR’S DEGREE: A COMPARISON OF NATIVE AND TRANSFER STUDENTS

by Klaus-Georg Tenbergen B.A. (Kendall College, Chicago, IL) 2002

M.A. (Cardinal Stritch University, Milwaukee, WI) 2005

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctorate in Education

Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership at Fresno State Kremen School of Education and Human Development

California State University, Fresno 2010

Klaus-Georg Tenbergen April 2010 Educational Leadership

HOW COURSE ARTICULATION AGREEMENTS FACILITATE THE TRANSFER AND COMPLETION OF A BACHELOR’S DEGREE: A COMPARISON OF NATIVE AND TRANSFER STUDENTS

Abstract

A seismic economic shift has changed the rules by which Americans strive to get ahead in society. Hard work, once the bedrock of opportunity, is no longer sufficient in and of itself to ensure individual prosperity and security for either individuals or the larger community. The consequence of this new economy is the need to educate students in the shortest possible timeframe, so they will have an impact on society. This study was designed to research the use of well-established articulation agreements traditional within higher education institutions in California and their impact on student’s transfer and completion time-frames and rates. The purpose of this study was to explore how long it takes a student who has transferred from a 2- year college to a 4-year university (transfer students) to complete a bachelor’s degree and compare it to the completion rates of students who enter and graduated from 4-year universities (native students) at selected institutions in California. In addition, perception of the administration of those 2-year colleges and 4-year universities related to the policies and procedures of articulation agreements were gathered to explore what barriers or assistance these policies and procedures created for students or the articulation process.

This study provides important information for the benefit of students, academic articulation officers and administrators, and to reach an understanding of the impact of articulation agreements, policies, and procedures on students who desire to transfer articulate coursework within the higher education environments. From the study was learned that starting at a 2-year college and transferring to a 4- year university will accelerate the degree completion time-frame dramatically. This research provides data and findings to administrators and articulation officers interested in continuous improvement, allowing them to plan their implementations to avoid pitfalls, break down any existing barriers and enhance the benefits of any student who desires to complete a bachelor degree in these systems in a timely and acceptable manner. The failure of the community colleges and state 4-year universities to agree on common transfer requirements creates tremendous confusion. It has become one more factor discouraging students from pursuing a 4-year degree. The 110 community colleges have created individual articulation agreements with 4-year universities to which they feed the most students. Beyond that, the transfer system is a maze to negotiate. Unsure where the students will transfer to, community college students hedge their bets by taking more courses than they need. Once the students have been re-admitted to a 4-year university, community college transfer students learn they often have to take extra courses peculiar to that school’s requirements for a major.

iii

California State University, Fresno Kremen School of Education and Human Development Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership

This dissertation was presented by

Klaus-Georg Tenbergen

Defended on April 26, 2010 and approved by:

______Sharon Brown-Welty, Ed. D. Chairperson Kremen School of Education and Human Development

______Susan Tracz, Ph.D. Committee member Kremen School of Education and Human Development

______James Marshall, Ph.D. Committee member Kremen School of Education and Human Development

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation was conducted as part of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education (Ed. D.) through the Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership at Fresno State (DPELFS), Fresno California. The dissertation was successfully completed with the invaluable support of a number of people who deserve my deep appreciation. First and foremost, I would like to thank my dissertation chair, Professor Sharon Brown-Welty, Ed. D., for her leadership, vision, knowledge and guidance during the completion of my degree. I express my appreciation for the time taken to meet with me and provide constructive criticism during the writing of my dissertation. Her contributions were the backbone not only for this study, but also for the doctoral program. I greatly value the relationship we have formed, which has been educational, inspirational and enriching. I express my heartfelt thank you to Professors Susan Tracz and James Marshall. Their contributions can be found on every page. I was extremely fortunate to have had them as mentors, motivators, and so much more. I have valued the collaboration more the words can express. Thank you both for your tireless efforts throughout the process and for your enthusiasm for and commitment to this study. I particularly appreciate their time, encouragement, intellectual stimulation, and the many “reality checks” all of which helped me move forward. I could have never completed my dissertation without them. Thank you for believing in me, and for the many ways that I was supported throughout the process, both personally and professionally. The guidance, encouragement, and incredible support of my colleagues at the Jordan College of Agricultural Sciences and Technology (JCAST) of

California State University, Fresno were deeply appreciated, everyone had different ways to provide me with moral support throughout the last three years. Most especially, I owe a great debt of appreciation to everybody who I had contact with during this journey, for giving me the opportunity to learn from them and let me apply what I learned into my professional and personal life. My cohort, for believing in my, keeping up with me, accepting me and letting me be part of a “family.” I am so proud of you for achieving the same. How did we ever do it? Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to my mother, family and friends, especially P.D. who have giving me support and assistance whenever needed. I appreciate the understanding and convivial wide berth given to me. Vati, Mutti, Kimberly and Sebastian - this is for you! Klaus-Georg Tenbergen

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

LIST OF TABLES ...... xi

LIST OF FIGURES ...... xiv

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Purpose of the Study ...... 1

Background ...... 2

History of Community Colleges ...... 3

Transfer ...... 11

Articulation ...... 12

Transfer Students ...... 15

Recent Legislation on Student Transfer ...... 15

Quality of Instruction and Curriculum ...... 18

Financing Articulation ...... 19

Context of the Study ...... 20

Significance of the Study ...... 25

Theoretical Framework ...... 29

Challenges to a Successful Transfer Process ...... 30

Knowledge About Transfer Requirements ...... 31

Definitions ...... 32

Summary ...... 37

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...... 39

What is Articulation? ...... 41

What is an Articulation Agreement? ...... 42

viii

California’s Master Plan ...... 49 Articulation Between Community Colleges and Universities: Examples from

Other States ...... 50

California Articulation ...... 54

Role of Faculty in the Articulation Process ...... 61

Summary ...... 62

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ...... 64

Purpose of the Study ...... 64

Research Design ...... 65

Data Mining ...... 65

Web-based Survey ...... 65

Creating Web-based Surveys Using Survey Monkey ...... 67

Face-to-Face Interviews ...... 68

Research Questions ...... 68

Participants ...... 69

Instrumentation ...... 70

Face Validity ...... 71

Pilot Study ...... 72

Survey Procedures ...... 73

Data Analysis ...... 76

Limitations ...... 77

Summary ...... 80

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS/OUTCOMES ...... 82

Review of Methodology ...... 82

Demographic Survey Data for Web-based Responses ...... 83

Survey Results ...... 85

Demographics of Interviewees ...... 89

Results of Research Questions ...... 91

Summary ...... 119

Areas of Agreement for 2-year and 4-year Articulation Officers ...... 119

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION/SUMMARY/CONCLUSION ...... 133

Summary of Results ...... 133

Discussion and Recommendations ...... 138

Suggestions for Future Research ...... 140

REFERENCES ...... 142

APPENDIX A: MODEL OF THE ARTICULATION PROCESS ...... 158

APPENDIX B: GENERAL MODEL OF CSU ARTICULATION PROCESS .. 159

APPENDIX C: GENERAL MODEL OF UC ARTICULATION PROCESS ..... 160

APPENDIX D: SURVEY QUESTIONS ...... 161

APPENDIX E: PRE-NOTIFICATION LETTER ...... 168

APPENDIX F: PERMISSION TO VOICE RECORDING INTERVIEW ...... 170

APPENDIX G: INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT...... 171

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Display of Research Questions, Data Collection Methods, and Types of Analysis ...... 78 2. Areas of Expertise Indicated by Respondents ...... 84 3. Educational Systems in Which Respondents´ Work...... 85 4. Number of Years Respondents Worked in Current Position ...... 86 5. Percentage on Work Day Spent on Articulation Issues ...... 88 6. Percentage on Work Day Spent on Transfer Issues ...... 89 7. Administrator Positions at their Respective Institutions ...... 90 8. Highest Degree Earned by Administrators ...... 91 9. Educational System in which Administrators´ Work ...... 91 10. Role Held by Respondents in Regards to Articulation ...... 92 11. Area in Which the Articulation Office is Housed ...... 92 12. Hours Spent per Week Related to Articulation ...... 93 13. Five-Year Span: Frequencies and Percentages of Transfer Students Entering, Graduating, and Not Graduating, for the Years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 ...... 94 14. Six-Year Span: Frequencies and Percentages of Transfer Students Entering, Graduating, and Not Graduating, for the Years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 ...... 95 15. More than 6-Year Span: Frequencies and Percentages of Transfer Students Credits Entering, Graduating, and Not Graduating, for the Years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 ...... 96 16. Five-Year Span: Frequencies and Percentages of 5-Year Graduation Information for Native Students from 1999-2005 ...... 97 17. Six-Year Span: Frequencies and Percentages of 5-Year Graduation Information for Native Students from 1999-2005 ...... 98

18. More than 6-Year Span: Frequencies and Percentages of 5- Year Graduation Information for Native Students from 1999-2005 ...... 99 19. Five-Year Span: Comparison of Graduation Percentages between Transfer Students and Native Students from 1999-2005 ...... 101 20. Six-Year Span: Comparison of Graduation Percentages between Transfer Students and Native Students from 1999-2005 ...... 102 21. More than 6-Year Span: Comparison of Graduation Percentages between Transfer Students and Native Students from 1999-2005...... 103 22. Five-Year Span: Frequencies, Percentages and Chi Square Results for 5- Year Graduation Rates from 1999-2004 ...... 104 23. Six-Year Span: Frequencies, Percentages and Chi Square Results for 6-Year Graduation Rates from 1999-2003 ...... 106 24. Five-Year Graduation Status by Student Population Combined from 1999-2004 ...... 106 25. Six- Year Graduation Status by Student Population Combined from 1999-2004 ...... 107 26. Combined Results for 5 and 6-Year Graduation Status by Student Population from 1999-2004 ...... 108 27. Most Important Part of Articulation Agreements ...... 110 28. Strengths of Articulation Agreements ...... 110 29. Weaknesses of Articulation Agreements ...... 111 30. Articulation Officer on Campus ...... 112 31. Function of Articulation ...... 112 32. Articulation Agreements Beyond/Not Beyond Primary Feeder/Receiver Campuses ...... 113 33. Degree of Involvement in Regards to Articulation Politics ...... 113 34. Role of Administrators Helping Students through the Articulation Process ...... 114 35. Contact Administrators have with Students in Need of Advice in Regards to Credit Transfer ...... 114 36. Current State of Articulation ...... 115 xii

37. Students’ Degree of Awareness of Articulation Agreements between Their Institution and Others ...... 115 38. Most Important Information Given to Students to Understand Articulation ...... 116 39. Students Use of the ASSIST tool ...... 116 40. Overall Institutional Strategy with Other Institutions ...... 117 41. Recommendations of Administrators in Regards to Redesign the Existing Articulation Procedures ...... 118 42. Tools Administrators Use to Measure the Success of Their Current Articulation Efforts ...... 118 43. Difference of Articulation Agreements between Today and 5 Years Ago ...... 119 44. Changes related to Articulation in the Next 12 Months ...... 120 45. Issues of Significance as Responded by 2-Year and 4-Year Institution Articulation Officers (Significant at .001) ...... 121 46. Issues of Significance as Responded by 2-Year and 4-Year Institution Articulation Officers (Significant at .01) ...... 123 47. Issues of Significance as Responded by 2-Year and 4-Year Institution Articulation Officers (Significant at .05) ...... 124 48. Issues of Non Significance as Responded by 2-Year and 4-Year Institution Articulation Officers ...... 127

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. 4-year Universities and Their Major Feeder 2-Year Community College...... 21 2. Graphically Display of Percentages for 5-Year Graduation Information for Transfer Students and Native Students from 1999-2004 ...... 107 3. Graphically Display of Percentages for 6-Year Graduation Information for Transfer Students and Native Students from 1999-2003...... 108 4. Graphically Display of Percentages for 5 and 6-Year Graduation Information for Transfer Students and Native Students from 1999-2004...... 109

xiv

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to explore how long it takes a student who has transferred from a 2-year college to a 4-year university to complete a bachelor’s degree. In addition graduation rates for students who began and completed their degrees at 4-year institutions (native students) were examined and compared to those of transfer students. Select California 4-year universities and their major 2-year feeder community colleges were used in the study. In addition, perception of the administration of those 4-year universities and major community colleges related to the policies and procedures of articulation agreements were gathered to explore what barriers or assistance these policies and procedures created for students. Finally, the study proposed a conceptual framework for understanding articulation trajectory, the way in which a process or event develops over a period of time, in the evolving educational framework. This framework may provide an improved framework for developing a wide range of articulation agreements and procedures for the benefit of students, academic articulation officers and administrators. The intention of this study was also to contribute to the field of educational leadership related to student transfer by examining the factors contributing to student completion rates. The overall aim, therefore, was to reach an understanding of the impact of articulation agreements, policies, and procedures on students who desire to transfer articulate coursework within the higher education environments. This process included examining traditional articulation models, those based on historical practices, and the evolution of those models and the

2 examination of current articulation practices and policies. This study explored the following 5 research questions: Research Question 1: What is the degree completion rate of students with transfer course credits from selected 2-year community colleges who transferred to a 4-year university in California (transfer students)? Research Question 2: What is the degree completion rate of students who wanted to obtain a bachelors degree and started as well as completed their degree at a 4-year university in California (native students)? Research Question 3: Is there a difference in completion rates between transfer students and native students in California? Research Question 4: What are the perceptions of administrators about how their policies and procedures facilitate or place barriers before transfer students wanting to obtain a bachelor degree in California? Research Question 5: What are the perceptions of articulation officers about how their policies and procedures facilitate or place barriers before transfer students wanting to obtain a bachelor degree in California? Background A seismic economic shift has changed the rules by which Americans strive to get ahead in society. Hard work, once the bedrock of opportunity, is no longer sufficient in and of itself to ensure individual prosperity and security for either individuals or the larger community. The consequence of this new economy, compounded by national demographic changes, is that workforce requirements and civic responsibilities combine to demand ever-increasing, individual knowledge and skills (National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, 2003).

History of Community Colleges The community colleges in the United States grew out of elementary and secondary school systems in their surrounding communities. They were managed like other educational institutions in the local school system, where faculty members were trained as teachers rather than as scholars or researchers, and administrators were just as likely to have received their advanced degrees in higher education as in a specific academic discipline (Bergquist, 1992). Probably the simplest reason for the growth of community colleges was and still is an increased number of demands on the schools at every level of the educational system. Whatever the social or personal problem, schools were the social institutions expected to overcome these hurdles. Historically, society has turned to educational institutions to address issues such as racial integration and unemployment. In fact, Cohen and Brawer (1989) suggested that, “The list can be extended to show that the responsibility for doing something about drug abuse, alcoholism, teenage pregnancy, inequitable incomes, and other individual and societal ills has been assigned to the schools soon after the problems were identified” (p. 2). The easily accessible, publicly supported school became an article of American faith, first in the 19th century, when responsibility for educating the individual shifted from the family to the school, then in the 20th century, when the schools were unwarrantedly expected to relieve society’s ills. The community colleges thrived on the new responsibilities: having no traditions to defend, no alumni to question their role, no professional staff to move aside, no statements of philosophy that prevented them from taking on responsibility for everything (Cohen and Brawer, 1989).

Two generic names have been applied to 2-year colleges. From their beginnings until the 1940s, they were known most commonly as junior colleges. At the second annual meeting of the American Association of Junior Colleges, in 1922, a junior college was defined as “an institution offering 2 years of institutions of strictly collegiate grade” (Bogue, 1950, p. xvii). William Rainey Harper, the first president of the University of Chicago, is usually identified as the father of the junior college movement in the United States. Arguing that the pedagogical distinction between the first and last two years of college is greater than that between high school and college, he advocated the division of undergraduate institutions into junior and senior colleges (Hillway, 1958). Two junior colleges were established on the basis of Harper’s model: the Lewis Institute in Chicago (1896) and the Bradley Polytechnic Institute in Peoria, Illinois (1897). During the 1950s and 1960s, the term junior college was applied more often to the lower-division branches of private universities and to 2-year colleges supported by churches or organized independently, while community college came gradually to be used for the comprehensive, publicly supported institutions. By the 1970s, the term community college was usually applied to both types. Cohen and Brawer (1989) defined the community college as “any institution accredited to award the Associate in Arts or the Associate in Science as its highest degree” (pp. 4-5). According to Bergquist (1992), “The junior and community college movement is usually considered a public sector and twentieth-century phenomenon” (p. 62). The development of community colleges should be placed in the context of the growth of all higher education in the 20th century. As secondary school enrollments expanded rapidly in the early 1900s, the demand for access to college

5 also grew quickly. The states could have accommodated most of the people seeking college attendance simply by expanding their universities’ capacity. However, several prominent 19th - and early 20th -century educators wanted the universities to abandon their freshman and sophomore classes and relegate the function of teaching adolescents to the new junior colleges. These educators insisted that the universities could not become the research and professional development centers until they relinquished their lower-division preparatory work. The advent of the community college as a neighborhood institution did more to open higher education to broader segments of the population than did its policy of accepting even those students who had not done well in high school. Increased enrollments supported Palinchak’s (1973) statement, “People are the community, and providing service to people is what the community college is all about” (p. 162). Throughout the nation as community colleges opened their doors, the percentage of students attending college expanded dramatically. According to Cohen and Brawer (1989): During the 1950s and 1960s, whenever a community college was established in a locale where there had been no publicly supported college, the proportion of high school graduates in that area who began college immediately increased, sometimes as much as 50 percent. (p. 12) Fueled by the high birthrates of the 1940s, this rapid expansion of community colleges was eagerly supported. Growth in budgets, staff, and students was normal. As enrollments and budgets were on an upswing, new programs were launched and new staff members were found to operate them. Obviously, expansion could not continue forever. In 1972, Cohen studied the relationship between the number of community colleges in a state, the state’s population density, and its area. He found that community colleges tended to be built so that

90-95% of the state’s population lived within reasonable commuting distance, about 25 miles. When the colleges reached this ratio, the state had a mature community college system, and few additional colleges were built. As that state’s population grew larger, the colleges expanded in enrollments, but it was no longer necessary to add new campuses. “The remarkable growth of the 2-year institution was due, in great part, to its curricular relevance, accessibility, and adaptability to constantly changing societal needs” (Palinchak, 1973, p. 28). Unlike the university’s functions of research and scholarship, the curricular functions of the community colleges included academic transfer preparation, vocational-technical education, continuing education, remedial education, and community service. A brief description of each of the curricular functions follows. According to Cohen and Brawer (1989), the academic transfer or collegiate studies were meant to fulfill several institutional purposes: a popularizing function, a democratizing pursuit, and a function of conducting the lower division for the universities. The popularizing function was to have the effect of advertising higher education. This function promoted the community college by showing what it could do for the individual and encouraging people to attend. The democratizing function was realized as the community colleges became the point of first access for people entering higher education. The function of relieving the universities from having to deal with freshmen and sophomores was less pronounced. Instead, community colleges made it possible for universities everywhere to maintain selective admissions requirements. Diener (1994) stated: To a lesser extent, the provision of a general education useful to many citizens was an early junior college function; to a greater extent, the intent

to provide a college transfer program-one which provided the two year general education component of a 4-year liberal arts program-was a legitimate, indeed laudable function. (p. 7) Bergquist (1992) noted that offering courses in areas where clear curricular guidelines could be defined and where the desired competencies of students could readily be specified, these colleges focused on vocational preparation. Vocational technical education was a function of the community college from the beginning and career education in the 2-year colleges was designed to teach skills more complicated and advanced then those taught in high schools. Diener (1994) noted that as the country became more heavily industrialized, as business and commerce expanded, the need for trained technicians, accountants, and clerical personnel increased rapidly. The vocational or job training function became an important mission of any community college. It was also the community college mission not only to prepare men and women for initial employment, but also to provide programs to retrain and upgrade those who have been displaced from present jobs or forestalled in their advancement to better positions (Gleazer, 1968). Between new students enrolling specifically for the purpose of vocational training and adults enrolling to retrain and upgrade their present skills, “the percentage of students in career education had reached parity with that in the collegiate program by the 1970s” (Cohen and Brawer, 1989, p. 18). The continuing education function arose early, and the percentage of adults enrolled increased dramatically. Gleazer noted as early as 1968 that the expanding and changing properties of knowledge as well as the variable needs and interests of the learner call for a concept of lifelong learning and hence continuous opportunity for education. Remedial education, also known as developmental,

8 preparatory, or compensatory studies, grew as a function of the community colleges. According to Cohen and Brawer (1987), there are three categories of remedial education: classes for nonnative English speakers, remedial studies for young matriculates whose high school preparation was inadequate, and basic literacy training for functionally illiterate adults. Remedial education focuses on basic skill development. Students who have weak skills in reading, writing, and/or math must increase their basic skills to college-level in order to be successful in college courses. According to Palinchak (1973), there is an overwhelming need to provide educational services to the marginal or disadvantaged student by use of remedial or developmental studies even though “there is nothing remedial about learning grammar or arithmetic for the first time, even if the learner is older than most others with comparable learning capacity” (p. 128). The community service function was pioneered by private junior colleges and by moral colleges, which often served as the cultural centers for their communities. The community service function included a wide range of cultural and recreational events sponsored by the colleges but open to the public as well as to students. Today, community service activities are broad. Gleazer (1968) noted that they seem limited only by the creativity of leadership, the objectives of the institution, interest in the community, the means available, and provisions made by other institutions and organizations. They may include programs that do not fit the standard curriculum, such as short courses or courses devised especially for particular groups. New courses may be tried out in community service before they are proposed for the regular programs. Concerts, recitals, and other musical events, art exhibits, lectures, seminars, theatrical productions, and film series all find a home in the community service area. Other activities include health or book fairs, special

9 days highlighting a particular ethnic group, tours of local cultural facilities, community-based forums, and historical celebrations. Community colleges have affected notable changes in American education, especially by expanding access: “Any history of twentieth-century junior and community colleges or any historical document that concerns them is filled with growth charts and statistics about increasing access of young, middle-class men and women to higher education” (Bergquist, 1992, p. 62). Higher education was not accessible to the masses until the middle of the 20th century. Until then, most students were from the middle and upper classes. The GI Bill, the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, commonly known as the GI Bill of Rights, implemented after World War II, provided the first large-scale financial aid packages supporting tuition and living expenses for veterans. As the numbers of students attending college increased, the composition of the student body underwent a drastic change. College was no longer only for the wealthy and cultured. The community colleges reached out to attract those who were not being served by traditional higher education: those who could not afford the tuition; who could not take the time to attend college on a full-time basis; whose ethnic background had constrained them from participating; who had inadequate preparation in the lower schools; whose educational progress had been interrupted by some temporary condition; who had become obsolete in their jobs or had never been trained to work at any job; who needed a connection to obtain a job; who were confined in prisons, physically handicapped, or otherwise unable to attend classes on a campus; or who were faced with increased leisure time. A 1947 report from the President’s Commission on Higher Education (Hillway, 1958) offered the following observation:

Only a few decades ago, high school education in this country was for the few. Now most of our young people take at least school work. Until recently, college education was for the very few, now a fifth of our young people continue their education beyond the high school. Many young people want less than a full 4-year college course. The 2-year college is about as widely needed today as the 4-year high school was a few decades ago. Such a college must fit into the community life as the high school has done. (p. 3) The community college opened its doors to those who would otherwise never consider further education thus, the open door philosophy of admissions to education. According to Palinchak (1973), “The success of the community college concept is measured by the ability to extend the college to the community with a full range of services” (p. 156). Community colleges have experienced significant success as well as growth over the years. According to O’Banion (1989), “The community college as an institution is one of the most important innovations in the history of higher education” (p. 1). Community colleges provide low-cost but high-quality postsecondary opportunities for a broad array of clients, from first-generation college students to working adults and senior citizens. They are the major point of entry into higher education for many of America’s low-income youth, underrepresented ethnic minorities, and new immigrants. They serve students of all ages who want to earn academic degrees, as well as nontraditional students seeking specific skills in nondegree programs. More than any other postsecondary sector, they have strong links to their communities responding to local needs and interests in a manner and to an extent not seen in local public or private 4-year colleges, proprietary schools, or research universities (Levine, 1993).

Tillety and Deegan (1985) summarized by describing four generations of development of community colleges in the United States. In the early period, 1910-1930, the colleges were organized primarily as extensions of high schools. In the second era, 1930-1950, the colleges were more likely to be formed within separate local districts and were known as junior colleges. State-level coordination marked the third generation of development, 1950 through 1970, where the community college evolved. Since 1970, institutional consolidation with a shift toward increased state control and funding, has been dominant and has brought about the comprehensive community college. The fifth generation of community colleges eventually may be known as the generation of the entrepreneurial college, as the entrepreneurial spirit has also spilled over into the public service sector and is reflected in a growing number of proposals and calls for the use of more entrepreneurial activities as a supplement to other processes. Drucker (1985) stated, “The need for innovation and entrepreneurship is clear. Public service institutions now have to learn how to build those qualities into their own systems” (p. 186). Transfer The successful progression of students from the lower-division level to completion of the baccalaureate degree and on to advanced degree programs is a basic tenet of California higher education. Transfer of coursework offers California students an effective and affordable avenue to continue their education beyond the first two years of college, and is especially valuable for Californians who either do not initially qualify for, or choose not to attend, the state’s public or independent universities. Community colleges provide an important option for students who might have work or family obligations and who might face financial limitations. Transfer of coursework into an institution of higher education serves

12 many students who are not in the traditional college-age range and many who enroll part-time rather than full-time. In a report by a commission appointed by Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings in 2006, it was summarized that over the past 20 years, California has passed several key pieces of legislation and invested significant resources to both upgrade existing services and create new programs designed to improve the ability of students enrolled in the California Community Colleges to transfer to public and independent baccalaureate degree granting institutions. Several new California State University (CSU) campuses have been built in the last 20 years to address the enrollment demands on that system. The Education Writers Association (2009) in its reform brief on community colleges stated that during this time, overall community college funded enrollment has grown by nearly half a million students and the numbers of students expressing the goal of transfer has also increased. Nearly all transfer and articulation efforts in California focus on students transferring from the California Community Colleges system to a California State University (CSU), University of California (UC), or independent (nonpublic) institution in the state. While few formal transfers occur between individual community colleges, most community college students who transfer to a baccalaureate degree-granting institution have attended more than one community college. In addition, many CSU and some UC students also attend more than one campus in those systems during their undergraduate studies. Articulation Articulation is a process and relationship involving the vertical and lateral movement of students through a formal education system. Articulation is an agreement between two or more educational systems, and it is based upon guidelines, policies, and accreditation principles. These agreements are intended to

13 represent more than a marketing effort; they expand and create access for students. Curriculum articulation between community colleges and universities is a long- time issue that has grown in importance and now presses for more speedy solutions than normal evolution would bring (Wheat, 1948). An in depth understanding and improvement of the process will likely result in permanent modifications, not only in curriculum, but also in the organizational structure of the California education system. Students who seek to transfer from one institution to another need to know which institutions will accept their coursework, which credits will transfer, and what financial aid limitations exist. The National Collaborative for Postsecondary Education Policy (2006) contends that the answer is imbedded in statewide transfer and articulation policies, and statewide agreements among institutions to accept the transfer of credits, in line with this thinking, policymakers are devoting more attention to transfer and articulation issues as students become more mobile or begin their college careers outside of the traditional 4-year public institutions such as community colleges or via distance education. According to the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (2003) and the Institute for Higher Education Policy (2002), nationwide, roughly a third of all first-time, degree- seeking students transfer at least once within four years after initial enrollment, about 1 in 4 students who begin at 4-year institutions and 43% of students who begin at 2-year institutions. The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (2003) and the Institute for Higher Education Policy (2002) estimated that approximately one-half of the transfer students who initially enrolled at 2-year institutions go on to 4-year institutions, and that nationwide, about 70% of students who transfer from a 2-year to 4-year colleges after taking at least a semester’s worth of credits graduate with a baccalaureate degree. Education of the

14 workforce has been defined as one solution to improving the quality of life that students can obtain (Van Noy, Jacobs, Korey, Bailey, and Hughes 2008). However, the issue of articulation of curriculums for credit between 2-year and 4-year degree programs in education has been a longstanding barrier to the professional development of students (Cassidy, Hestenes, Teague, and Springs, 2000). A community college education may be appealing to many students because it is both more accessible and affordable than 4-year colleges and universities. To ensure the diversity in the workforce that is consistent with the diversity of the population in California, 4-year institutions need to replicate the diversity of the 2-year schools and should pave the way for an easy transition. Higher quality articulation agreements are one mechanism to attract this diverse population. Articulation is important to provide seamless movement of students among institutions as efficiently and cost effectively as possible, while meeting high academic standards. Specifically, articulation agreements spell out how community college students can earn credit at 4-year institutions. The development of these agreements followed years of complaints from community colleges and their students that those with two years of credits at community colleges would find themselves unable to transfer some of their credits. 4-year universities would sometimes respond that the transfer students seemed unaware of degree requirements, although many advocates for 2-year colleges have long believed that snobbery, especially of faculty who are teaching classes which should be articulated, played a role in these decisions, with 4-year universities assuming unfairly that community colleges lacked sufficient rigor (Jaschik, 2009). The result of these mismatches in expectations was a situation in which many community college students hoping to finish a bachelor’s degree in two

15 years at a 4-year institution found themselves taking longer and paying more. Under articulation agreements, the theory goes, 4-year institutions commit to awarding credit if transfer students take certain courses and fulfill certain requirements pre-transfer (Jaschik, 2009). Underlying all of these educational and political factors are significant changes in the way people are going to school. A majority of students now attend two or more institutions to complete their degree and programs (Adelman, 1999). Transfer Students Cassidy et al. (2000) indicated several misconceptions about the capabilities of transfer students and presented a number of recommendations to these misconceptions. Many barriers and issues are present in developing high- quality articulation agreements and historically, institutions have struggled with the issue of developing high-quality articulation agreements. Many of the arguments against the acceptance of community college credit at 4-year institutions are longstanding and based on little data-based research (Cassidy et al.). These issues include those related to the student body as well as institutional- level issues. Recent Legislation on Student Transfer Senate Bill 121 (Chapter 1188, Statutes of 1991) implemented recommendations of the 1988 report of the Legislature’s Joint Committee on the Review of the Master Plan regarding desirable improvements in the operation of the transfer function in California public higher education. Among its major provisions, the legislation: 1. Calls upon the California Community Colleges, the California State University, and the University of California to develop a common core of general education courses to enhance transfer prospects from the

community colleges to the universities – the Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC) initiative was a direct result of this legislation; 2. Requires that the governing boards of the three public systems develop and implement formal system wide articulation and transfer agreement programs and directs campuses in both university systems to sign articulation agreements with community colleges for each of their undergraduate programs that have lower-division prerequisites; community colleges are directed to sign discipline specific transfer agreements with as many university campuses and majors as possible. The results of this directive can be seen in the ever increasing amount of course articulation available in Articulation System Stimulating Interinsitutional Student Transfer (ASSIST); 3. Mandates that the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, community college districts, and individual campuses provide sufficient services (transfer centers, special counseling, and program and administrative coordination) in order to “affirmatively seek out, counsel, advise, and monitor the progress of potential and identified community college transfer students”; and 4. Reiterates the Original Master Plan for Higher education mandate that the State University maintain a ratio of 60% upper-division students to 40% lower-division students and requests that the University of California meet this enrollment target. The State Universities have historically met, if not exceeded, this ratio. (Legislature’s Joint Committee on Review of the Master Plan, Senate Bill 121, 1991)

This statute does not mandate transfer as the single most important function of the public higher education systems. The Commission noted that the community colleges have other, equally important missions of local economic development and vocational education. However, the statutory changes adopted by the Legislature in SB 121 emphasize: (1) “A viable and effective student transfer system is one of the fundamental underpinnings of public postsecondary education in California;” (2) “It is a community college’s primary role to prepare students for upper division access to the California State University and the University of California;” and (3) community college students transferring to the universities should receive “high priority for admission,” and have “high priority access to majors of choice” (Amendment to the California State Education Code: Chapter 1188 Section 66743, 1991). S.B. 1785 (Chapter 743, Statutes of 2004) required that each high demand major in the CSU have a system wide lower division transfer pattern for curriculum. Students completing this transfer pattern will be guaranteed admission to the campus major identified in that agreement and guaranteed the transfer of 60 semester units, or the quarter unit equivalent, creditable to the baccalaureate degree. The CSU has developed the Lower Division Transfer Pattern (LDTP) project to address a specific transfer pattern for each of its highest demand majors. S.B. 1415 (Chapter 673, Statutes of 2004) required that not later than June 1, 2006, the California Community Colleges and the California State University adopt a common course numbering system for the 20 highest-demand majors in the respective segments. This common course numbering system will also be integrated into campus course catalogs.

What are the determining factors that influence choices that secondary school students make between enrolling in community college or university, and in particular, whether or not those choices are affected by the degree of articulation within a system of post-secondary education? Some states, like Illinois, Florida and Washington have concrete programs in place that mandate associate and baccalaureate degree-granting institutions are equal partners in providing the first two years of baccalaureate degree programs. Others, like Arkansas, Indiana, and Maryland, have only created committees or commissions to “establish procedures for transfer of students between the public segments of postsecondary education” (United States Government Accountability Office, 2005, n.p.). It is the challenge of state policy and education leaders to develop articulation programs that will increase students’ access to 4-year colleges or universities. For many students, the most economical and effective way to begin higher education is to start at a community college (Wilbur, 2009). As part of the State’s Master Plan for Higher Education, a university in California gives admissions priority to transfer students from California community colleges. Such a transfer option not only benefits California students, but also contributes to the quality of any university. The community college transfer applicants are typically very well prepared. Once enrolled, their persistence rate is very high, and they graduate in a timely manner. These students are excellent students, and they contribute in many ways to the breadth and diversity of a student body (Wilbur). Quality of Instruction and Curriculum One of the institutional-level issues in regards to articulation is quality of instructions at all levels of involved institution. In every educational institution, it

19 is of upmost importance that faculty has a commitment to continual improvement in teaching and the increase of quality of instruction and graduating student’s preparedness, which can be summarized in quality education students have the right to receive from any institution they attend. The expression quality education is simply the current version of the cant terminology, which traditionally masked the functions of the educational system as a whole. Quality education can be defined as the maximization of a school systems’ performance (Goldberg, 1967). Faculties from both sides of the spectrum often complain that students are not properly prepared. Rigor, ability, content, and quality of instruction are some of the areas of complaint. Rapid increases in technology-based or distance education raise new issues of quality and confound standard methods of academic courses and credits. Especially noticeable and problematic is the increasing overlap between high school and college illustrated by remedial courses in college, advanced placement courses in high school, and dual enrollment courses in both (Clark, 2001). Because these new enrollment patterns are educationally nontraditional, students resist courses that rely on traditional time-based course credits. Further, since students are also attractively economical, they increase budget managers’ attention to certified outcomes and end-product assessment. Articulation is thus moving from friendly agreements among neighboring departments who wish to ensure transfer of credits to a hot button state-wide issue that leads to some kind of legislatively

enforced outcomes-based accountability solution. Financing Articulation The Associated Press (2009) reported that budget cuts have devastated California higher education and when California college students returned to campus in the fall of 2009, they found crowded classrooms, less access to faculty

20 and counselors, fewer campus services, and more difficulty getting classes they need to graduate all while paying higher fees. Faced with steep declines in tax revenue, states, including California are reducing funding to public colleges and universities across the United States. No state is cutting more deeply than California, which has more than 3 million students attending college (Associated Press). To close this massive budget deficit, California has dramatically cut funding to its 110-community colleges, the 23-campus California State University and the 10-campus University of California. Current restrictions on enrollments, combined with an increasing demand for education, are likely to place additional pressure on all programs to increase student throughput. One way to better serve students is by ensuring that they receive appropriate transfer credit for lower- division courses that they complete at other institutions. There has been a great deal of interest among students, administrators, researchers, and lawmakers in the concept of articulation as related to student’s graduation success as a result of better articulation and communication between institutions. Despite growing interest, there is a dearth of research on the benefit of articulation between colleges and universities. Context of the Study Given the growing financial crises in California and the increase in student fees, this study aims to illuminate concretely that articulation agreements and relationship among articulation officers and administrators and students are imperative for the timely success of each and every student completing a degree from an institution of higher education. Rather than thinking about articulation as an isolated phenomenon, it builds the base for understanding the opportunities and

21 difficulties associated with completing at least a bachelor degree in contrast to dropping out of school. The participants in this study were California State University, Fresno; California State University, San Diego; Fresno City College; Grossmont College; University of California, Los Angeles; University of California, Davis; Santa Monica College; and Diablo Valley College and students in these systems who were enrolled in one or more transfer-level courses. Administrators and articulation officers who voluntarily chose to respond to face-to-face interviews and survey questions comprised the study sample. Figure 1 depicts the relationship between the institutions participating in this study. According to UCLA Articulation Office Undergraduate Admissions (personal communication August 30, 2009), Santa Monica College is the largest community college feeder school for transfer admission into UCLA. According to the office of Institutional Research, Assessment and Planning, California State University, Fresno (personal communication August 31, 2009), Fresno City College is the largest community college feeder school for transfer to California State University, Fresno.

Figure 1. Four-year universities and their major feeder 2-year community college.

According to the Department of Undergraduate Admission, University of California, Davis (personal communication September 15, 2009), Diablo Valley

College is the largest community college feeder school for transfer to UC Davis. According to the Office of Advising and Evaluation, San Diego State University (personal communication October 13, 2009), Grossmont College is the largest community college feeder school for transfer to California State University, San Diego. The postsecondary education sector, including public, private, for-profit, and not-for-profit institutions, represents the nation’s principal resource for the education of all American adults who are able and motivated to benefit from education and training beyond high school. In California there are 4 postsecondary educational segments:  Ten campuses of the University of California providing undergraduate and graduate programs through the doctorate, as well as professional schools;  Twenty-three campuses of the California State University providing undergraduate and graduate programs through the master’s degree and recently several newly established doctorate degree programs;  One-hundred ten California Community Colleges whose multiple missions include provision of vocational education and the lower division preparation for transfer to 4-year colleges and universities; and  Approximately 90 degree-granting independent colleges and universities accredited by a United States regional accrediting agency such as the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC).

The size, complexity, and diversity of postsecondary education in California required the development of articulation policies and procedures to enable students to transfer between and among these segments. The California Articulation Policies and Procedures Handbook (2009) pointed out that: “There has been a long tradition of articulation efforts in California, dating back to 1919 when representatives from the University of California and state high schools met to discuss areas of concern. Participation in these meetings, known as articulation conferences, was expanded to include junior college representatives in 1932 and state college representatives in 1944. In 1969, Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities (AICCU) representatives were invited to join the other segments. In 1984, The Articulation Council of California was formed. In the late 1980s, the Intersegmental Coordinating Committee (ICC) of the California Education Round Table subsumed the activities of the Articulation Council of California”. Assembly Bill 1725 (Chapter 973, Statutes of 1988) directed the governing boards of the University of California, the California State University, and the California Community Colleges, with appropriate consultation with the Academic Senates of the respective segments, to jointly “develop, maintain, and disseminate a common core curriculum in general education for the purpose of transfer” (p. 2), and to adopt that curriculum. The full text of that directive is incorporated in the Education Code; a summary reads as follows: The Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, the Regents of the University of California, and the Trustees of the California State University, with appropriate consultation with the Academic Senates

of the respective segments, shall jointly develop, maintain, and disseminate a common core curriculum in general education courses for the purposes of transfer. Any person, who has successfully completed the transfer core curriculum, shall be deemed to have thereby completed all lower division general education requirements for the University of California and the California State University (Education Code 66720, 1988, n.p.). Upon development of the transfer core curriculum pursuant to Section 66720, and upon any subsequent joint revision of that curriculum, the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, the Regents of the University of California, and the Trustees of the California State University shall jointly cause the curriculum to be published and distributed to each public school in this state that provides instruction in any of the grades 7 to 12, inclusive, and to each community college in this state, with an emphasis on the communication of that information to each school or college having a high proportion of students who are members of 1 or more ethnic minorities. In addition, the Board of Governors shall distribute that transfer core curriculum to the State Board of Education, which shall apply that information to ensure, through its curriculum development activities, that public school pupils enrolled in any of the grades 9 to 12, inclusive are aware of the academic requirements for preparation for higher education and may receive any necessary academic remediation in a timely manner (Education Code 66721, 1988, n.p.). No provision of this chapter shall apply to the University of California except to the extent that the Regents of the University of California, by appropriate resolution, makes that provision applicable (Education Code 66723, 1988, n.p.).

These policies embed the framework for any articulation agreements. These articulation agreements enable admission to and/or credit in institutions for any student cohort which has undertaken the same specified studies at a specified partner institution. These policies sets out guidelines for developing and implementing an articulation agreement and the respective responsibilities of those institutions involved in this process. The Education Transfer Curriculum, Board of Governors, California Community Colleges (2001) addressed this action of the legislature followed from recommendations in reports of the Commission to review the Master Plan for Higher Education and the Joint Legislative Committee to review the Master Plan. Both reports decried the confusing multiplicity of general education course requirements of the California State University system and the individual campuses, colleges, and programs of the University of California as a barrier to students who wished to transfer. The solution, all agreed, was the creation of a common set of lower-division, general education requirements that could serve as a basis for transfer to all campuses of both segments. Significance of the Study Transfer from a 2-year community college to a 4-year university is just one dimension of student transfer, but it deserves priority attention from state policymakers for many reasons. The baccalaureate degree is becoming the entry point to the workforce for the majority of students; making it increasingly important that transfer from a 2-year institution to a 4-year institution works well. Several forces are converging to push more students to community colleges as their initial point of access to postsecondary education: growth in the number of high school graduates; demographic changes that are increasing the proportion of poor and minority students; more stringent admissions requirements in many 4-

26 year institutions; and rising college tuitions, which is of upmost importance during current economic tough times and falling tax revenues as well as imposed enrollment caps (National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, 2003). Although progress has been made nationwide in closing performance gaps among racial groups in the transition from high school to college, the gaps widen again in baccalaureate completion (The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (2003) and the Institute for Higher Education Policy, 2002). While the baccalaureate degree may not be the best or only goal for all students, there is no public policy rationale for why it should be a lesser goal for students of color than for Caucasian students. Improving the effectiveness of a transfer from a 2-year institution to a 4-year institution will be the key to national progress in closing the gap among racial groups in degree attainment and it will affect far more students than affirmative action policy. Some important tools are currently in place to ease and standardize articulation procedures and the transfer of course credits: 1. California Articulation Number System (CAN) was designed as cross reference course identification for a common core of lower-division, transferable, and major preparation courses commonly provided on CCC and CSU campuses. The system is intended to eliminate the need for every campus in the state to separately articulate their lower division preparation curriculum with every other campus in order to prepare students for transfer. Even with this system, students need to understand the structure of their intended major’s requirements and discern the course pattern they must complete to fulfill those requirements. CAN was funded by the state through the community college system; it is being phased out in favor of other approaches.

2. Articulation System Stimulating Interinstitutional Student Transfer (ASSIST) is the official intersegmental repository for all articulation in California. Available at http://www.assist.org, ASSIST is a computerized student-transfer information system that displays reports of how course credits earned at one California College or university can be applied when transferred to another. It provides the most accurate and up-to-date information available to facilitate student transfer. ASSIST is funded by the state through the three public systems. Additional transfer-focused programs include the following: 3. Disabled Students Programs and Services (DSPS, 1980s) and Extended Opportunity Programs and Services (EOPS, 1980s): These two multi- purpose programs provide community college students who have special challenges and disadvantages additional assistance when needed. 4. California Colleges: Under the auspices of the Intersegmental Coordinating Council, the State has supported a statewide website http://www.Californiacolleges.edu that provides information to students considering higher education opportunities in California. The site offers links to University sites offering information about admission, financial aid, career planning, and campus-specific characteristics. Community college students can also track their completion of general education requirements for transfer via this site. 5. CSUMentor: This program is the online outreach, pre-admission, admission, and financial aid website for the CSU. It links to http://www.californiacolleges.edu and allows freshman and transfer students to plan and apply for admission online. CSU Mentor also

allows students to track their progress in meeting admission and lower division general education requirements. 6. Online Services for Curriculum and Articulation Review (OSCAR), (2003): This intersegmental project is facilitated within ASSIST and allows for the submission, review, posting, and storing of proposed California Community Colleges Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC) and CSU General Education (GE) Breadth courses. All community colleges are now required to submit their IGETC and GE requests via OSCAR. 7. Lower Division Transfer Patterns (LDTP) 2004: The CSU has initiated the Lower Division Transfer Patterns project to provide a prescribed 60- unit pattern for the community colleges in each high demand major in the CSU. This program provides priority admission to those students completing the LDTP requirements. CSUMentor, OSCAR, and ASSIST are being expanded to facilitate the implementation of LDTP. 8. The PUENTE Project (1986): This is a UC program designed to increase the number of Latino students transferring from community colleges. The project trains English teachers and Latino counselors as teams to conduct 1-year writing, counseling, and mentoring programs on community college campuses. 9. The Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC, 1992): This program – often referred to as the core transfer curriculum, is a standardized general education program that community college students may use to fulfill their lower-division general education requirements for either the CSU or UC, while enrolled at the community

college. Information on all college courses applicable for IGETC is available via ASSIST. 10. CSU GE-Breadth (1981): Students graduating from a CSU campus must meet general education requirements. The lower division portion of general education can be met at a CCC campus prior to transfer via 1 of 2 patterns: GE-Breadth or IGETC. Since 1981, the CSU has allowed the community colleges to certify when transfer students meet CSU lower division general education requirements prior to transfer. Information on all college courses applicable to CSU GE-Breadth is available via ASSIST. Theoretical Framework Transfer rates, equity, access, policies influencing articulation are the most important aspects of this study. Transfer rates are established by tracking students who are new-to-higher education, full or part-time students who complete 12 or more credit hours. A transfer is measured as taking one or more credit hours at an in-state, public 4-year college within four years of starting at the community college. Equitable and accessible are among the terms most frequently used to describe American higher education. The great expansion of American higher education that occurred in the two decades following the end of World War II opened educational opportunities to many Americans who previously would not have been able to attend college. This expansion of places in the system was also accompanied by massive increases in financial aid, most notably the introduction of need-based aid in many states, the major increases in federal aid that accompanied the Higher Education Act of 1965, and the amendments to that act passed in 1972. In addition to these system-level efforts, most undergraduate

30 institutions also embarked on major outreach programs to encourage members of heretofore underrepresented groups, especially African Americans and Latinas/os, to attend college. As a result of all these changes, the accessibility and equity of American higher education was substantially enhanced during the 1960s and 1970s (Astin and Oseguera, 2004). While members of underrepresented groups and low-income people in general have more access to higher education today than was the case 40 years ago, policy makers have paid little attention to a relatively hidden aspect of the equity question: the hierarchical arrangement of American higher educational institutions and the distribution of students within that institutional system. Most academics and many college-bound students and their parents are well aware of the fact that there are only a handful of baccalaureate-granting colleges and universities, perhaps 1 in 10, that are regarded as excellent or the best. Such beliefs are regularly reinforced by the considerable attention given to prestige rankings such as those published annually by U. S. News and World Report. The aim of articulation is to facilitate the progress of students between and among the segments of postsecondary education in California. Articulation provides channels of communication among the postsecondary segments, and promotes the role, functions and support of articulation by working with students, articulation officers, faculty and institutions to ensure that a student complete their desired degree in the shortest possible timeframe. If this framework is not provided, then a student will have several barriers to overcome before he/she will be able to obtain the desired degree. Challenges to a Successful Transfer Process The transfer function involves the integration of an extensive and sometimes complex array of programs, services, and institutional relationships that

31 are not solely the responsibility of a community college nor that of the receiving institution. Admissions requirements and practices, academic major and general education requirements, course articulation, information dissemination, faculty interaction, program availability, and actual institutional behaviors all affect the success of the transfer function. Shortcomings in any one of these components lessen the successful functioning of the whole transfer system. The varied missions of the State’s public higher education systems complicate the intersegmental coordination of student transfer efforts. Many CSU and UC campuses have highly sought-after, oversubscribed programs in which enrollment is limited, which may make successful transfer a challenge for students pursuing baccalaureate degrees in certain fields. Knowledge About Transfer Requirements Because the California State University, University of California and independent institutions have such varied transfer requirements, it is essential that clear and comprehensive information is provided to all potential transfer students. The University of California system has implemented a plan of action as when entering a community college, students who plan to transfer to a University of California campus must decide early about which campus and major they will tailor their lower-division coursework to in order to successfully transfer. These students need to understand the expected rigor of different majors, as measured by average Grade Point Average (GPA) of entering transfers. Should prospective transfers focus their efforts on being accepted at a campus in a certain major only to find that, while meeting the minimum GPA requirement, they still fall below the average, they could be denied acceptance to the program for which they have prepared.

Definitions 1. The Advanced Placement program: often abbreviated AP, it offers college level courses at high schools across the United States. According to The Good Schools Guide International (2008), it is usually much more rigorous than the general course offerings. 2. Articulation: The California Intersegmental Articulation Council (CIAC) (2006) stated that when the word articulation is used in education, it often has different meanings and connotations, depending on the setting. Articulation in education refers specifically to course articulation: the process of developing a formal, written agreement that identifies courses (or sequences of courses) on a sending campus that are comparable to, or acceptable in lieu of, specific course requirements at a receiving campus. 3. Articulation Agreement: official agreement in which one collegiate institution agrees to accept specific courses or groups of courses from another collegiate institution in place of its own courses. 4. Catalog Rights: policy that allows, in certain circumstances, a college student to follow and complete a set of requirements to qualify for university graduation. 5. Course Articulation, Systemwide: Agreements by faculty that a set of courses offered by community colleges are equivalent to similar courses offered at CSU and UC. Credits earned by students in these courses are accepted by every campus within CSU or UC and are applied toward degree requirements. Generally, these courses are lower-division, general education courses.

6. First Generation: Hodges (1999) noted that the term first generation was originally coined by Adachi as early as 1982. Since that time, the definition has continued to evolve as more research has been done on the first-generation population. Today’s common definition of the first- generation student is still derived from the coined definition and refers to a student who is the first in his/her family (mother, father, or siblings) to complete a college education. 7. Higher Education: also called tertiary, third stage, or post secondary education, is the non-compulsory educational level that follows the completion of a school providing a secondary education, such as a high school, secondary school (Forest and Kinser, 2002). 8. Impacted Programs: Refers to those CSU majors that receive more applications during the initial application-filing period than there are spaces available. A major may be impacted on 1 campus, several campuses, or all campuses where it is offered. 9. Junior Status: Refers to students who have entered the third year of study for a bachelor’s degree. Students who have completed 60-89 semester units are considered juniors. 10. Low-income: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services notes that the term low-income individual means an individual whose family’s taxable income for the preceding year did not exceed 150% of the poverty level amount. The figures represent amounts equal to 150% of the family income levels established by the Census Bureau for determining poverty status. 11. Lower Division: Courses designed for the first two years or within the first 59 semester units of study toward a baccalaureate degree, often

taken at community college and transferred to a university. Also refers to freshman and sophomore students. 12. Major Preparation: This phrase refers to academic coursework taken by prospective transfer students while they are still enrolled at a community college that satisfies some of the lower-division requirements of a specific degree major at a receiving institution. 13. Native Student: a student whose initial college enrollment was at a given institution of higher education and who has not transferred to another institution of higher education since that initial enrollment. 14. Qualitative Research: a generic term for investigative methodologies described as ethnographic, naturalistic, anthropological, field, or participant observer research (Key, 2003). 15. Special Admits: a student admitted through exceptions to the normal entrance requirements for reasons including a special talent, including freshman athletes and football players. 16. Transfer Admission Guarantee (TAG): This University of California program encourages students to begin their college career at a California community college and then transfer to the University of California to complete the bachelor’s degree. TAG participants enter into a contract with the receiving University of California campus that specifies the requirements that these students must satisfy for admission while at the community college. The program provides students guaranteed admission to the University of California campus and academic term of choice, but does not necessarily guarantee admission to impacted majors.

17. Transfer Admits: A count of the actual number of transfer-eligible community college students who apply for and are accepted for enrollment in a baccalaureate institution in a given year. This term is the second in the transfer sequence of Applicant, Admit and Enrolled. Transfer admissibility is one measure of how effective community colleges are in helping students achieve transfer eligibility. 18. Transfer Agreement: These are specific agreements that a community college student enters into with a California State University or University of California campus, stipulating that admission as an upper division student is assured providing the student satisfies the specific requirements delineated in the agreement. These agreements typically list the courses the student will complete at community college, with emphasis on courses required for admission, major prerequisites, and breadth requirements. 19. Transfer Agreement Program: This term refers to the combination of programs, policies and practices that California State University and University of California campuses use to facilitate the transfer of community college student. These are usually established between California State University or University of California campuses and local area selected community colleges. 20. Transfer Alliance Program (TAP): This University of California program (initiated at UCLA) gives students at participating community colleges an opportunity to transfer to participating University of California campuses as juniors. Students in this program complete an honors/scholars program at the community college. Faculty and counselors at the community colleges help students plan academic

programs that meet major and general education requirements and honors/scholars certification. Students who complete the program are given priority consideration for admission to the College of Letters and Science at the University of California campus. 21. Transfer Applicants: A count of the number of community college students who apply for transfer to a baccalaureate institution in a given year. 22. Transfer Eligible: A description of the number of community college students who have met or exceeded transfer requirements published by the California State University, the University of California, and independent institutions. Transfer eligibility is essentially determined by requirements established by the “receiving” (baccalaureate) institutions. 23. Transfer Enrolled: A count of the actual number of community college students who enroll in a baccalaureate institution as transfer students. 24. Transfer Student: A student who previously earned credits at another institution. 25. Transfer Units: Credit earned in courses that are transferable to the California State University or another college or university that a student plans to attend. All community colleges have a course numbering system for identifying transferable courses. 26. Upper Division: Courses designed for the third and fourth (junior and senior) years of study toward a bachelor’s degree. These courses are not offered by community colleges and they often require completion of prerequisite courses.

Summary Articulation benefits students, participating institutions, society and enables collaboration between educational institutions in California. Articulation agreements create pathways for students, opportunities for lifelong learning and helps institutions respond to changing needs for knowledge and skills. For students, articulation removes the need to repeat studies, and so provides alternative paths to complete their education. When well-implemented, articulation simplifies decision-making within colleges and universities, enables speedy response to student applications, reduces workload for decision-makers, and helps to achieve consistent decisions. Articulation can help colleges and universities achieve its strategic objectives by increasing student recruitment, and enhancing student retention. Articulation enables providers of education to define and delineate roles, responsibilities and relationships between each segment of public education and the broader educational community. Individual courses, programs of study and student support services may be articulated. Course articulation develops agreements between two institutions to accept courses completed at the sending institution as meeting specific course requirements at the receiving institution. Program articulation identifies the courses and the sequence of courses that enable students to achieve their educational goals. Cohesive and clear articulation agreements are the basis for successful transition between segments and are vital to the realization of students’ educational goals, as well as the integrity of public education in California. Recent statistics have shown that over one half of the students participating in postsecondary education in the United States are enrolled in a community college (Krueger, 2001). Successful transfer from a community college to a 4-year institution is often the only opportunity these individuals have to achieve a

38 bachelor’s degree, particularly in the case of low-income students. If articulation programs are not in place, these high-risk students often fall through the cracks and never complete their education. While an increasing amount of attention is being paid to transfer and articulation most states still do not have streamlined programs written into legislation. Administrators and policy makers need to make sure those articulation agreements are aligned with their colleges or universities enrollment strategies, to facilitate and maintain good relationships with any partner institution, and that articulation officers and faculty review the arrangement regularly. These individuals also need to ensure that articulation does result in consistent and speedy decisions for students, reduced workload for staff and administrators involved, and improved information for marketing and retention. The next chapter is a review of literature focusing on the history of articulation in education and the established policies influencing articulation and the politics associated with articulation agreement, renewal and continuation. The review will summarize the importance of policies of articulation in California, which controls procedures that influence the process of student completion rate.

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

In the new global economy, prosperity for nations and states requires significantly more workers with higher levels of knowledge and skills. In May 2002, Business Week warned employers of an impending “wrenching manpower and skills shortage,” (n.p.) especially of college-educated workers, as labor force growth slows and baby boomers retire, even assuming the current high pace of immigration of recent years (Bernstein, 2002). Large proportions of the young Americans available to enter the workforce will come from the low-income and demographic groups that are least well served by American education at all levels, those who have the lowest rates of completing high school and enrolling and persisting in college, including students of color, first generation college students, and English language learners. A recent analysis of U.S. Census data administrated by the Hudson Institute projects a net increase of people with less than a high school education through 2020 (Toft, 2002). Although Toft projects modest increases in the numbers of those who are college-educated, his major finding predicts a severe mismatch between educational attainment of young workers and the escalating knowledge and skill requirements of the new economy. According to the 2000 census data, of the 34.6 million 16 to 24 year olds in the labor force, 47% were enrolled in neither high school nor college (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2001). Clearly, these young people represent a reservoir of workforce knowledge and skills, but only if states and educational institutions see it as their mission to ensure no child or adult is left behind. Throughout the world, the pressure to develop human talent by raising educational levels extends to higher education, that is, to education and training

40 beyond high school. The most successful nations in developing human talent through the postsecondary levels will have enormous competitive advantages over those that do not. For the half century that followed World War II, the United States was the leader in extending educational opportunity beyond high school and in raising educational achievement levels. However, despite modest improvements in the 1990s, America’s leadership in higher education has eroded; several Western European nations have emulated, pursued, and surpassed the United States in college access and college attainment (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], 2001). According to Roberts T. Jones, president of the National Alliance of Business, between 1980 and 1997 American postsecondary enrollment grew by an average annual rate of 1.1%, while average annual enrollment in China grew by 15.6% and in Indonesia by 19.1%. If these and other countries sustain such rates, it will take only a few decades for their higher education enrollment rates to surpass those of the United States (Jones, 2002). As the world has entered the 21st century, it may be difficult to imagine that transfer and articulation are still key policy issues in higher education. After all, the literature on higher education has been occupied with these issues since at least 1956 when Bird’s chapter in The Public Junior College discussed the concept of transfer shock (although he did not call it that) and provided evidence that the grades of transfer students were approximately the same as those of native students and of students transferring from other 4-year institutions. So why are transfer and articulation still major policy issues in most states including California? Why is it that all states do not have articulation agreements? Are 2- year colleges and 4-year universities fundamentally incapable of developing strong transfer policies and articulation agreements unless they are pushed to do so

41 by legislative mandate or governing board action? (Ignash and Townsend, 2000). This literature review will examine historical and current issues facing the United States and especially California to assess how strong these transfer agreements and articulation agreements are. What is Articulation? Articulation is the process of evaluating courses to determine whether a particular course offered at college is comparable to, or acceptable in lieu of, a corresponding course at a particular California State University (CSU), University of California (UC) or private university campus. Articulation refers to the process of comparing the content of courses that are transferred between postsecondary institutions such as colleges or universities. In other words, articulation is the process by which 1 institution matches its courses or requirements to course work completed at another institution. The articulation of courses ensures that the courses students complete will not have to be repeated at the institution to which they are transferring (http://www.palomar.edu/counseling/transfercenter/Pages/ Articulation.html). Articulation is a process where two or more educational institutions work together to establish the conditions and terms that allow successful transition of students from high school to college/postsecondary education. Articulation agreements are the bridge that authenticates and connects curriculum components of college-to-university programs. Seamless means that the curriculum of college programs, at the post-secondary level, associate degree, is linked with the curriculum of a related University program, at the post-secondary level, bachelor’s degree, in such a way that duplication and overlap of instruction is virtually eliminated (Kemple and Willner, 2008). In other words, college graduates who qualify to use a college/university articulation agreement should ideally not need

42 to repeat or pay for learning experiences in their related college program that they have already mastered during their tenure at a College program. Formal, written articulation agreements are a requirement of all classes articulated within two organizations. What is an Articulation Agreement? Articulation is a term used to describe the process that facilitates the transition of a student from 1 educational institution to another, or from 1 level of education to the next with minimum duplication of coursework. An Articulation Agreement is a formal contract between two colleges or universities specifying how the courses taken at 1 college will be used to meet major, general education or elective credit at the receiving institution. Most colleges in the California maintain articulation agreements with a variety of institutions of higher education. They include, University of California (UC) campuses, California State University (CSU) campuses, private and out-of-state universities/colleges. Articulation agreements are formal, written documents agreed upon by two or more institutions that provide a value-added component to a traditional transfer program by allowing additional transfer credits, enhancing the number and quality of learning options or by providing unique student-centered options (e.g., preferred admission, student support, and financial assistance). How do articulation agreements benefit students? When successful articulation agreements are developed and used, students can step directly into the seamless curriculum offered by articulated college and university programs. Students save money on tuition, fees, and books and can accelerate in the academic progress. Articulation agreements also reduce duplication of course work and course credits, while providing additional educational enhancements. Other benefits are:

 Reduce duplication of instruction and boredom on non-challenging classes;

 Create opportunities for higher level learning and advanced training;

 Improve career readiness focus and skills building;

 Improve or increase job placement opportunities and activities; and

 Become motivated and confident to continue post-secondary education (Columbus State Community College, 2009).

The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (2003) described the transfer function as 1 of the area’s most critical to student success, but for this function to be successful the collaboration between educational institutions is important. The smooth transfer of students is the glue that holds the California Master Plan together, and is the key to maintaining higher education opportunity. The egalitarian aspects of California higher education, the open door, second chances, public credibility, and political viability, depends on effective course transfer. More important, effective transfer will be crucial in educating the next generations of Californians who are now moving in unprecedented numbers through the elementary and secondary schools. Greater in number and increasingly ethnically diverse, these generations will reflect the demographic shifts that have characterized not only California, but also other Western and Southwestern states. Both the Master Plan’s differentiation of admissions pools and the physical capacities of the segments dictate that most of these students will begin their college careers in a community college (The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education). During the decade leading to the onset of the tidal wave of new students, California has underperformed in student achievement of baccalaureate degrees, a

44 crucial indicator of educational attainment and opportunity. Over the past 20 years, a number of reviews of higher education in the state, both internal and external, have called attention to this problem. In fact, the state’s decline in baccalaureate degree activity in the 1990s came in the wake of a series of policy reviews and legislated community college reform initiatives in the late 1980s Commission for the Review of the Master Plan 1987; Joint Committee for the Review 1989; and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 1990. None of the many public policy experts and higher education leaders has ever taken the position that California’s record in transfers and baccalaureate production is adequate, either for the present or the future. It is widely acknowledged that the purpose of the California Master Plan was to increase opportunity, and that its heavy reliance on transfer was intended to broaden, not constrain, access to the baccalaureate degree. Another important part of articulation is the Intersegmental Major Preparation Articulated Curriculum (IMPAC) project, a statewide, intersegmental effort where faculty in selected disciplines discuss prerequisite and lower-division courses students must complete prior to transfer to either CSU or UC. Its goal is improving student transfer through increased awareness and involvement of faculty. One aspect of IMPAC is that each discipline develops a grid of all university campus lower division major requirements. These IMPAC Discipline Grids identify specific university requirements and courses and provide a comparison of requirements across campuses including notations of campus- specific variances (Postsecondary Education Commission, 2010). Additionally the Articulation System Stimulating Interinstitutional Student Transfer (ASSIST), a Web-based student transfer planning system providing information on how courses taken at California public colleges and universities

45 can be applied when transferring to another institution. ASSIST operates as California’s official on-line source for course articulation information and includes participation from all California Community College, California State University, and University of California campuses. Articulation information is entered into ASSIST by university campuses after the respective college and university faculty establish comparability via the tradition articulation process. The ASSIST database includes detailed course-to-course and major preparation articulation data that can be queried as a standard relational database. The Intersegmental Committee of Academic Senates maintains a customized database where queries can be written to perform a wide range of specialized analysis. Kintzer (1983) maintained that while precise definitions and counting procedures vary considerably among institutions and states, several categories of transfer students can be roughly identified. These diverse student types and the special problems they pose are discussed below. Articulated Vertical Transfers, those who move in regular sequence from high school to community college to the university, are the most visible community college transfer students. Indeed, both interinstitutional and statewide articulation agreements are geared to these traditionally-aged regulars. With the acceptance of associate degrees as transfer currency, attention now needs to be turned to the other two types of regulars: fully-enrolled students who transfer prior to associate degree completion and those seeking to transfer occasional courses. Policies regarding these types of transfer students are not consistent or uniform. The reverse transfers, those who move from a four- to a 2- year college, became increasingly visible in the 1970s. In California, for example, Kintzer (1983) found that 10,000 students entered the California Community Colleges from the university system in fall 1979.

Despite the recognition of their numbers, however, there has been a critical lack of attention given the drop-downs once they are enrolled. Few colleges provide re-orientation, personal counseling, and special career advising. In addition, advanced standing credit is rarely provided for the baccalaureate degree holder who turns to a community college for training in a more salable career area. Clearly, more research is needed to determine the characteristics and aspirations of reverse transfers. The study by Slark (1982), which examined the educational interests and matriculation patterns of these students at Santa Ana College (CA), is a step in the right direction. Strom (1977) conducted a study to ascertain the nature and extent to which articulation practices are used in selected industrial education programs of California public secondary schools and community colleges. Several hypotheses were tested for significance of difference in the mean scores between secondary and community colleges on three articulation dimensions of information, communication, and interaction. Strom implemented the study by having administrators, counselors, and teachers at 50 community colleges and 50% of the secondary schools within the boundaries of these community colleges complete an articulation information form that had been pilot tested at both educational levels. After analysis of the data, the following conclusions were drawn: Little coordination now exists between administrative levels for purposes of vertical articulation; a lack of vertical articulation exists between counselors at community colleges and public secondary schools; vertical articulation was not apparent between industrial education teachers at the two educational levels studied; professionals who are not directly involved in the delivery of industrial education instruction in the classroom have different perceptions of vertical articulation than

47 do teachers, and industrial education faculty at both educational levels do not agree that program interaction exists between the two levels. A study by Lang (2007) was undertaken to determine factors that influence choices that secondary school students make between enrolling in community college or university, and in particular whether or not those choices are affected by the degree of articulation within a public system of postsecondary education. Over the last decade, several studies emerged in the United States and Canada that examined factors that influenced the choice of university and 4-year college, but there were only a few studies that examined the choice of community and 2-year college. Further, Lang’s study sought to examine college choice comparatively among students who apply to baccalaureate and (4-year colleges and universities) and sub-baccalaureate (community colleges) programs. His study examined college choice on the basis of two series of longitudinal surveys conducted in the province of Ontario since the late 1980s, and on a series of surveys and interviews of students, parents and guidance counselors in 6 secondary schools, each with a different student population, since 2004. His third study called the college choice project tracked secondary school students as they made decisions about attending college or university, and as they finally selected the institutions that they would attend. This study concluded that greater conventional articulation will not significantly affect rates of transfer, that for most students, plans to transfer develop after they enter college and are not a major factor in their initial choice, that the rate of transfer is highly dependent on the corresponding arrays of programs at colleges and universities, and that articulation might better be thought of as a subset of other basic forms of inter-institutional cooperation.

In a study by Anderson, Sun, and Alfonso (2006) the following research question was posed: Does the existence of statewide articulation agreements increase the probability of vertical transfers from 2-year to 4-year colleges? Stated differently, is there a difference in transfer rates between those states with statewide mandates versus those without such policies? Anderson et al. used data from postsecondary institutions on individual characteristics to identify other factors impacting the probability of transferring. Several policy considerations were suggested that will likely increase student transfers from 2-year to 4-year institutions. Richardson (1997) conducted a study that was part of the State Structures for the Governance of Higher Education study, focused on governance and related issues in California’s higher education system. The study’s overall purpose was to examine differences among states in their governance structures, and to determine if differences in performance were related to governing structures and whether structure affects strategies of state policymakers, including how it impacts articulation. The study was based on analysis of documents and interviews conducted in 1996 with state officials, education administrators, faculty, and staff. The study was divided into 5 sections: 1) to review the state’s economic situation, political context, and higher education issues; 2) to examine the system’s characteristics and history, including current perspectives, the California Postsecondary Education Commission, the California Education Roundtable, and the Student Aid Commission; 3) to look at the Board of Governors and local districts within the California Community College system; 4) to examine the University of California including studying subsections that has the Board of Regents, the Office of the President, faculty influences and the Academic Senate, the budget process, academic programs, information systems, and performance

49 evaluation; and finally 5) to look at California State University, including the Board of Trustees, the Office of the Chancellor, faculty influences, budgeting, program planning and review, articulation, information systems, and performance. California’s Master Plan Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 88, adopted in the 1959 session, provides that “ the State Board of Education and The Regents of the University of California are requested to report on the subject of this resolution to the Legislature at its 1960 regular session within three days of the convening thereof. Pursuant to this resolution, we now transmit the study requested, which is entitled A Master Plan for Higher Education in California, 1960- 1975 (California State Department of Education, Sacramento, 1960). For the past four decades, California public higher education has operated under the state’s Master Plan for Higher Education, which includes the proviso that students can take the first two years of a baccalaureate program at a Community College (CC) and, if they perform adequately, transfer smoothly to any University of California (UC) or California State University (CSU) campus. By law, these 4-year colleges must have more upper-division than lower-division students. These mandates call for a system to ensure the smooth, steady flow of students to 4-year institutions as they complete their lower-division coursework at the 2-year institutions.” Since the Master Plan was established, various actions and plans have been developed to ensure that Community College students were completing their lower division preparations and ready to proceed to upper-division work at 4-year institutions. Starting in 1968, for example, community colleges were given the power to certify that students had completed the general education requirements

50 that would allow them to move forward (Academic Council, 1998). In 1981, new arrangements were made whereby the community colleges could approve lower- division courses for what was now called the CSU General Education (GE) Breadth requirement. In 1993, the Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC) was added, which allowed students to meet general education standards for both CSU and UC institutions. Currently, the General Education (GE) Breadth program only applies to students transferring to CSU campuses. Students who know they want to attain degrees in high unit majors, such as engineering or physics, or who are sure which CSU or UC campus they want to attend, can also follow individual articulation paths that are particularly well suited to their goals (A Workshop Presented By Intersegmental Committee of Academic Senates, Independent Colleges and Universities, California Virtual University and Corporate Partners, Final Report, Workshop Planning Committee, 1998). Articulation Between Community Colleges and Universities: Examples from Other States In 1995, the North Carolina State Legislature enacted a comprehensive statewide articulation policy that had been developed by the Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina (UNC) and the State Board of the Community Colleges. To strengthen the community college baccalaureate transfer function while ensuring the quality of academic completion for college-level work, the legislation established a general education transfer core curriculum that applied to all associate degree programs in all of the State’s public institutions; each 4-year campus was also permitted to required additional courses for certain majors. Students who enter community college in North Carolina without having completed the high school courses required for admission to the University of

North Carolina must complete at least two courses in a foreign language in their Associate of Arts (A.A.) or Associate of Science (A.S.) program in addition to the general education transfer core. Transfer students who have completed the core curriculum must still compete for admission to a 4-year university and for acceptance into a major, but they are not required to complete work beyond that required of all continuing students or transfer students from 4-year institutions. North Carolina also maintains comprehensive student tracking systems as well as a system-wide accountability structure, and reports on both the sending and receiving ends of the transfer from a 2-year institution to a 4-year institution. North Carolina also monitors the academic performance of 2-year students after they transfer to UNC and reports the performance data to the sending institutions. Colleges and faculty use this information and it also serves as a statewide accountability measure (Wellman, 2002). For many years, Florida has maintained a two-plus-two policy for postsecondary education; students can begin their college education in a community college before transferring to a 4-year institution. The legislation that created the community college system in 1957 also mandated that there be strong articulation between the two- and 4-year institutions. Many of the 4-year institutions began as upper-division campuses; all now offer 4-year programs. The state maintains an explicit unit requirement for degrees: 120 units for the baccalaureate and 60 for the associate degree, 36 of which must be in a general education core. California Senate Bill 1440 sponsored by Democratic Senator Alex Padilla, says the Senate Education Committee would guarantee an associate’s degree and admission to a CSU campus to any student who successfully completes a standard

52 number of general education credits and courses in the student’s major. This is monumental, because the transfer requirements to 4-year universities differ from school to school. The framework for the general education core is common to the 4-year and 2-year institutions and is stated in the statute as well as in the regulation. This common core has also been voluntarily adopted by the majority of private colleges. The core courses differ from institution to institution, within the statewide agreement about the basic 5 core areas. There is a common prerequisite list for each degree program, which includes courses that count toward the degree as well as any prerequisites for admission into the program. These courses are listed in a statewide electronic catalogue, Florida Academic Counseling and Tracking for Students (FACTS) (http://phcc.edu/ecampus/ facts.php). Florida law specifies that any student who earns an associate degree will be guaranteed admission into a public university degree program, and the units from core courses transfer as a block to any public institution. Thus, students need not negotiate individual course-level transfers with the receiving institutions. They are not guaranteed admission into high-demand programs or into programs with special requirements, but the law require that transfer students be treated the same way as native students with respect to admission to these programs. Students who believe they have been treated unfairly can bring their complaints before the Articulation Committee (Wellman, 2002). Florida was one of the first states to mandate college placement and achievement testing, accompanied by a law on remedial instruction for students who fail to qualify for college-level placement. Students entering college without American College Testing (ACT) or Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT)

Reasoning Test, formerly Scholastic Aptitude Test and Scholastic Assessment Test scores are required to take the Common Placement Examination in English/writing and math. Eight percent of the students in 4-year institutions require remediation; most of these are students who were admitted by applying special consideration. Florida law requires all remediation to take place at a community college (Wellman, 2002). The Illinois Articulation Initiative (IAI) facilitates student transfer from one participating Illinois college/university to another in order to complete a degree. The iTransfer website highlights the IAI General Education Core Curriculum (GECC) and Major recommendations. This Web site from the Illinois Articulation Initiative (IAI) assists students, parents and educators in transferring between Illinois institutions. The website provides information on the general education curriculum, the specific curricula for baccalaureate majors and transfer information for faculty, advisors and counselors in the state (http://www. itransfer.org/IAI/). The Wisconsin Transfer Information System (TIS), maintained by the University of Wisconsin System (UW), offers UW and Wisconsin Technical College System (WTCS) students the ability to see how their credits will transfer to any UW campus (http://www.uwsa.edu/tis). Minnesota Transfer is a Web-based service that enables students and advisors to access official, consistent and accurate transfer information. Information about the following topics can be found on the site: articulation and transfer agreements; course equivalencies tables; transfer guidelines and procedures; the Minnesota General Education Transfer Curriculum; a listing of transfer specialists from MnSCU institutions, the University of Minnesota and private colleges; access to all campus Web sites; financial aid and scholarship

54 information; an extensive glossary; frequently asked questions about transfer; a list of online courses; and other links to colleges and transfer sites (http:// www.mntransfer.org). California Articulation When the word articulation is used in education, it often has different meanings and connotations, depending on the setting. Articulation, for purposes of this study and by the definition from the California Intersegmental Articulation Council (CIAC) Handbook (2006), however, refers specifically to course articulation; that is, the process of developing a formal, bilateral, written agreement that identifies courses, or sequences of courses, on a sending campus that are comparable to, or acceptable in lieu of, specific course requirements at a receiving campus. Successful completion of an articulated course assures the student and the faculty that the student has taken the appropriate courses, received the necessary instruction and preparation, and that similar outcomes can be assured, enabling progression to the next level of instruction at the receiving institution. According to the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, the American Council on Education, and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (2001), transfer of credit from 1 institution to another involves at least three considerations: 1. The educational quality of the learning experience which the student transfers; 2. The comparability of the nature, content, and level of the learning experience to that offered by the receiving institution; and

3. The appropriateness and applicability of the learning experience to the programs offered by the receiving institution, in light of the student’s educational goals. Transfer and award of credit is a concept that increasingly involves transfer between dissimilar institutions and curricula and recognition of extra-institutional learning, as well as transfer between institutions and curricula with similar characteristics (Commission on Higher Education, Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, 1994). It is important for reasons of social equity and educational effectiveness for all institutions to develop reasonable and definitive policies and procedures for acceptance of such learning experiences, as well as for the transfer of credits earned at another institution (American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, the American Council on Education, and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, 2001). Such policies and procedures should provide maximum consideration for the individual student who has changed institutions or objectives. It is the receiving institution’s responsibility to provide reasonable and definitive policies and procedures for determining a student’s knowledge in required subject areas. All sending institutions have a responsibility to furnish transcripts and other documents necessary for a receiving institution to judge the quality and quantity of the student’s work (Accredited Institutions of Postsecondary Education, 2001). Institutions also have a responsibility to advise the student that the work reflected on the transcript may or may not be accepted by a receiving institution as bearing the same or any credits as those awarded by the provider institution, or that the credits awarded will be applicable to the academic credential the student is pursuing.

The U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2005) noted that preparing students to transfer to a 4-year institution is vital to the community college mission. One-quarter of students who started at a public 2-year institution in 1995-96 intended to transfer to a 4-year institution and earn a bachelor’s degree; by 2001, 51 % of these students had transferred (NCES 2003– 067, indicator 19). Some students whose original goal was less than a bachelor’s degree had also transferred by 2001. The overall transfer rate including both those who had originally intended to transfer and those who had not was 29% (Condition of Education, NCES, 2003). A majority of states have instituted policies to facilitate transfers; 30 states have written transfer and articulation policy into legislation, and 40 states have established statewide cooperative agreements among institutions or departments (National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), (2009).To help prospective transfer students, 26 states have developed statewide articulation guides to describe transfer requirements and procedures (Intersegmental Committee of Academic Senates, Independent Colleges and Universities, California Virtual University and Corporate Partners, 1998). The size, complexity, and diversity of postsecondary education in California have required the development of articulation policies and procedures to enable students to transfer between and among these segments. Bennett (2009) noted that community college students are unlikely to be aware of the articulation agreement, and hence unlikely to use it to their benefit, unless their professors or someone/thing at the school is presenting this information to them. A similar problem has been occurring with respect to federal financial aid; many first- generation, low-income students are not aware that articulation is available.

Procedures for developing and maintaining system-specific articulation procedures for Community Colleges in California, California State University campuses and University of California campuses are outlined in the graphs, included in Appendices A, B, and C (Model of the Articulation Process, General Model of CSU Articulation Process and the General Model of UC Articulation Process) and are discussed later in this literature review. Legislation followed from recommendations in reports of the Commission to Review the Master Plan for Higher Education and the Joint Legislative Committee to Review the Master Plan. Both reports decried the confusing multiplicity of general education course requirements of the State University system and the individual campuses, colleges, and programs of the University of California as a barrier to students who wished to transfer. The solution, all agreed, was the creation of a common set of lower-division, general education requirements that could serve as a basis for transfer to all campuses of both segments (Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum, Board of Governors, California Community Colleges, 1991). In California, this process occurs mainly between the 2-year community colleges and the three segments of higher education that grant the baccalaureate degree: the California State University (CSU), the University of California (UC), and the independent colleges and universities. In addition, a significant number of intra-segmental transfers occur; therefore, articulation may be established between 2-year institutions as well as between 4-year institutions. Articulation between the California community colleges, CSU, and UC campuses and a limited number of independent institutions is recorded at http://www.ASSIST.org, the official repository for articulation information. The ASSIST acronym stands for Articulation System Stimulating Interinstitutional Student Transfer.

In some regions within the United States and at some independent institutions in California, the term articulation agreement may refer to either a transfer admission agreement or a memorandum of understanding between institutions. It is important to distinguish these intentions from the California Intersegmental Articulation Council (CIAC) definition. Articulation agreements as described in this study refer to bilateral course transferability between regionally accredited institutions. Unless otherwise noted, the bilateral nature of articulation agreements means that both parties of the agreement agree to accept the courses identified as being comparable to or acceptable in lieu of their course. In California, regional accreditation refers to accreditation by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC). In some instances, institutions have established one-way transferable course agreements with a non-accredited institution that guarantees transfer of credit from the accredited institution to the non-accredited institution; however, the courses from the non-accredited institution typically may not be transferred to the accredited institution. Course articulation agreements are classified into four discrete types discussed below: 1. Courses Accepted For Baccalaureate Credit; 2. General Education-Breadth Agreements; 3. Course-to-Course (By Department) Agreements; and 4. Lower-Division Major Preparation Agreements (Gambescia and Dagavarian, 2007). Courses Transferable to the California State University is abetted in CSU Executive Order 167, which authorizes California Community Colleges to identify courses that are baccalaureate level and appropriate for transfer to the CSU. This articulation agreement is commonly known as the Baccalaureate List or the Bacc List. Community college articulation officers (AOs), in consultation with

59 appropriate discipline faculty on their campus, and in adherence to local curriculum guidelines, determine which courses are appropriate for inclusion on the baccalaureate list. The CSU Academic Senate document, Considerations Involved in Determining What Constitutes a Baccalaureate Level Course (November 7, 1986) may help serve as a guideline in making this determination. The community college articulation officer (AO), who is responsible for maintaining the Bacc List in the ASSIST database, updates this list four times each year, or as appropriate when courses are added to and deleted from the curriculum. Detailed information regarding course transferability to the California State University is also in this database. The current CSU General Education-Breadth framework was adopted in 1981. Policies and procedures for development and implementation of the program are detailed in CSU Executive Order 595. Each CSU campus develops its campus program within that established framework. Executive Order 595 allows other regionally accredited colleges and universities, primarily community colleges, to certify completion of General Education-Breadth requirements, using courses that have been accepted for inclusion on the college’s CSU General Education-Breadth list. Another helpful document compiled by members of CIAC is entitled CSU GE-Breadth Certification Guidelines. This document addresses various questions relating to the CSU GE-B certification process. There may be occasional reviews of CSU GE-B or United States History, Constitution, and American Ideals (AI) courses, even after they have been initially approved. For example, the CSU recently reviewed all courses intended to fulfill CSU GE-B Area A2. The CSU Chancellor’s General Education Advisory Committee, which includes

60 representatives of the CCC as well as the CSU, may request that an area be reviewed to ensure that all approved courses remain in compliance with the established requirements and promote student achievement of the program objectives. Many courses were grand-parented in to CSU GE-B certification lists without ever having been reviewed beyond the college. Transfer students who are fully certified are not subject to CSU-campus-specific lower-division General Education-Breadth requirements, so certification is particularly advantageous for students who cannot be sure to which CSU campus they will transfer. If students are not fully certified, they may be held to the campus-specific lower-division General Education-Breadth requirements of the CSU campus to which they ultimately transfer. Of the minimum total of 48 semester units required for General Education-Breadth, no more than 39 semester units may be certified for a student. Community college courses that are transferable to all campuses of the University of California are identified on the UC Transferable Course List (also known as the UC TCA). In the UC System, the Office of the President (UCOP) initiates this agreement by extending an annual invitation for community colleges to submit courses for review and possible inclusion on the TCA. The University of California has established criteria for course transferability in specific discipline areas. The criterion includes types of courses appropriate for UC transferability and minimum required prerequisites, as well as other factors influencing transferability. The criteria may be revised by the UCOP as appropriate. Community college AOs should distribute the criteria to faculty who seek UC transferability for their courses.

The independent segment does not currently maintain a system-wide transferable course agreement or baccalaureate list. Some independent institutions accept community college courses identified either on the CSU Bacc List or the UCOP TCA list for transfer credit, while others maintain comprehensive course- to-course lists. A few independent institutions have developed Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with the California Community The University of California (UC) and the California Community Colleges (CCC) work together to establish course articulation agreements that enable transfer students to maintain continuity in their academic programs. All agreements between the UC and the CCCs are available on ASSIST. Transfer education is a priority within the multiple missions of the California Community Colleges. This priority has been reaffirmed through individual campus commitment, and through the reality of more than 75,000 students transferring annually from the community colleges to baccalaureate degree-granting institutions each year (California Intersegmental Articulation Council, 2009). The success of the community college transfer mission is directly related to the quality and quantity of formal articulation that exists between the community colleges and their 4-year partners. The complexity seen in the Matrix illustrates the enormity of the articulation process faced by postsecondary education in California; that process is addressed, whenever possible, by common policies and practices. These common policies and practices combine with unique local approaches to form the framework within which students are served. Role of Faculty in the Articulation Process The actual process of developing and reviewing curriculum and coursework to determine course comparability between institutions rests with the faculty at the

62 respective institutions. Faculty in each discipline is responsible for the actual review of course content, the identification of comparable courses, and the authorization of acceptance of specific courses for transferring students. Once this bilateral review, identification, and formal written acceptance process has occurred, a course or courses is said to have been articulated (The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges, 1998). Implicit in the articulation process is involvement, communication, and cooperation between the respective faculties who mutually develop curriculum and establish requirements and standards for articulated courses. It is important to note that articulated courses are not to be construed as equivalent but rather as comparable, or acceptable in lieu of each other. The content of the courses on the respective campuses is such that successful completion of the course on 1 campus assures the necessary background, instruction, and preparation to enable the student to progress to the next level of instruction at another campus. The role of campus articulation officers is to help their faculty understand this crucial distinction. This process of course articulation between and among campuses is the foundation of the vital transfer function in California. Course articulation is the roadmap by which students navigate the transfer process. It creates an academic pathway that eases students’ transition between the segments of higher education in California. Summary Articulation has many benefits for students, participating institutions and society. Moreover, when well-implemented within a university, articulation simplifies decision-making, enables speedy response to student applications, reduces workload for decision-makers, and helps to achieve consistent decisions.

Articulation can help any institution achieve its strategic objectives by increasing student recruitment, and retention. As a people business, any institution must pay close attention to understanding, serving and accommodating its student body exceptionally well, by ensuring that students ultimately graduate in the shortest time possible. Clearly, transfer and articulation are complex phenomena involving a variety of students moving between traditional and nontraditional segments of postsecondary education: Valid articulation/transfer agreements will depend on further research into the development of uniform identification and counting systems that can be used by all institutions in identifying and tracking various types of transfer students. In addition, those in education must clarify the role of nontraditional postsecondary education, and then establish viable relationships between traditional institutions and the noncollegiate organizations now serving large numbers of adult students. Transfer, the movement of students and of their academic credits from one school to another, and articulation, services for the transfer student, are multidimensional community college phenomena. While problems related to standard course and credit transfer are minimal, and the adaptability of lower division work toward upper division requirements is much improved, community colleges must now give concerted effort to solving problems related to extra-institutional or experiential learning, external or distance education, international education, and transfer relations with area vocational schools and postsecondary proprietary institutions. Indeed, transfer and articulation can no longer be thought of solely in terms of the linear progression of community college students to 4-year institutions. The following chapter explains in detail the research methodology used for this study. Chapters 4 and 5 discuss the findings and recommendations.

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

Purpose of the Study This study was designed to research the use of well established articulation agreements traditional within higher education institutions in California and their impact on student’s transfer and completion times and rates. The purpose of this study was to explore how long it takes a transfer student to complete a bachelor’s degree. In addition, graduation rates for native students were examined and compared to those of transfer students. The study examined four California 4-year universities and their major feeder community colleges. In addition, perception of the administration of those 2-year colleges and 4-year universities related to the policies and procedures of articulation agreements were gathered to explore what barriers or assistance these policies and procedures created for students. This outline may provide an improved framework for developing wide- range of articulation agreements and procedures for the benefit of students, academic articulation officers and administrators. The intention of this study was also to contribute to the field of educational leadership related to student transfer from a 2-year college into a 4-year university by examining the factors contributing to student completion rates. The overall aim, therefore, was to reach an understanding of the impact of articulation agreements, policies, and procedures on students who desire to transfer articulate coursework within the higher education environments. This study provides data and findings to administrators interested in continuous improvement, allowing them to plan their implementations to avoid pitfalls, break down any existing barriers and enhance the benefits of any student who desires to complete a bachelor degree in these systems in a timely and acceptable manner.

Research Design This study utilized a mixed-method design, and three data collection methods were used: data mining, Web-based survey, and face-to-face interview. Data Mining Data mining is the extraction of information of extracting patterns from large databases. With the amount of data available, doubling every three years (Lyman and Varian, 2003), data mining has become an increasingly important tool to transform these data into information. Subject-based data mining is a data mining technique involving the search for associations between individuals in data (National Research Council, 2008). Some people believe that data mining itself is ethically neutral (Seltzer, 1999). However, the ways in which data mining can be used can raise questions regarding privacy, legality, and ethics (Pitts, 2007). Web-based Survey According to Kehoe and Pitkow (1996), using e-mail as a survey data collection method comparable to postal mail may ameliorate some of the issues inherent in Web-based data collection. Web-based polls have been noted for their ability to generate a high number of responses. This high volume of responses can be collected very quickly (McCullough, 1998; Smith, 1997). For example, studies have shown that several hundred responses can be generated over the course of a single weekend (McCullough). This time factor alone suggests huge benefits over traditional surveying techniques in terms of being able to collect and analyze data quickly, and implement decisions based on the findings. The costs of both data collection and analysis can be minimized by the use of Web-based surveys (McCullough). Outside of high start-up costs for equipment and web page design which already exist, the actual implementation of a survey can be almost free, with no

66 costs for paper or postage. Data analysis can be simplified by a direct transfer from the form to the analysis software, where limited data cleaning would be necessary (McCullough, 1998). Web-based surveys allow for anonymity in responses, since the respondent can choose whether to provide his or her name or not. Previous research (Kiesler and Sproull, 1986) has indicated that anonymity may affect response rates positively, as respondents may be more willing to respond without fear that their answers may be identifiable to them. Since respondents type in their answers directly to a form on a web page, there is no need for an interviewer to have contact with the respondents (Schillewaert, Langerak, and Duhamel 1998). Therefore, survey responses will be free from errors caused by interviewers, resulting in cleaner data (McCullough, 1998). The self-select nature of Web page- based surveys also may affect their general ability (Schillewaert et al.; Langerak et al.; Pitkow & Recker; Zikmund, 1991). As with Web-based surveys, there appears to be some cost savings inherent in using new technology. Parker (1992) indicated that cost savings from e-mail compared to traditional mail and telephone surveys are based on low transmission costs and elimination or reduction of paper costs. Current research has also identified two key limitations unique to e-mail that must be considered when planning an e-mail survey. First, researchers must recognize that unsolicited surveys may be considered aggressive by respondents, and not in keeping with Internet culture (Mehta and Sivadas, 1995). Minimizing a perception of intrusiveness should help to address this problem (Schillewaert et al., 1998). Second, the changing nature of the Internet suggests that it is possible that e-mail addresses may become out-of-date fairly quickly (Smith, 1997). Addressing the above described issue early on can prepare the researcher for dealing with delivery

67 failures. More recent research into electronic mail (Sheehan and Hoy, 1997) has indicated that a reminder message increased response by 25%. A Web-based survey format was chosen for several reasons. The survey sample was taken from administrators and academic articulation personnel working in California’s public 2-year colleges and 4-year universities. These schools are very likely to have some form of high-speed Internet access; therefore line speed to access a Web-based survey was not an issue. Web-based surveys have the benefits of reduced time to completion, directed branching, and reduced overall survey practice of continuous costs if no significant programming is required (Schonlau, Fricker, & Elliott, 2002). With regard to directed branching, this survey automatically directed the respondents to the next appropriate question based upon their previous answer, which resulted in less confusion for the respondents (Fowler, 2002). Creating Web-based Surveys Using Survey Monkey Survey Monkey is a Web-based tool that facilitates creating online surveys, without complicated programming or coding. Working within predefined templates, several different types of questions, including text, multiple checkboxes, single-select radio buttons, Likert-scales and free-text responses can be used. Single-select radio based questions allow users only to choose 1 and only 1 option for any given question, which is used when the intent of the question is select 1. Once the survey is completed, data can be downloaded into a format that can be used with Excel, SPSS, or other analysis programs. The users create their survey with the tool’s survey editor where they can select from over a dozen types of questions; single choice, multiple choice, rating scales, dropdown menus, and more. It is possible to require answers to any question, control the flow with custom skip logic, or randomize answer choices to eliminate bias. Each survey has

68 its own link, which can be e-mailed to respondents. The tool also has an invitation generator, and an automated email notification and list management feature to track your respondents. It is possible to view results as they are collected, view graphs and charts, and dig down to get to individual responses. Survey results can be securely share with others. Face-to-Face Interviews The main task in interviewing is to understand the meaning of what the interviewees say (Kvale, 1996). A qualitative research interview seeks to cover both a factual and a meaning level, though it is usually more difficult to interview on a meaning level (Kvale). Interviews are particularly useful for getting the story behind a participant’s experiences. The interviewer can pursue in-depth information around the topic. Interviews may be useful as follow-up to certain respondents to questionnaires (e.g., to further investigate their responses) (McNamara, 1999). Research Questions Research Question 1: What is the degree completion rate of students with transfer course credits from selected 2-year community colleges who transferred to a 4-year university in California (transfer students)? Research Question 2: What is the degree completion rate of students who wanted to obtain a bachelors degree and started as well as completed their degree at a 4-year university in California (native students)? Research Question 3: Is there a difference in completion rates between transfer and native students in California? Research Question 4: What are the perceptions of administrators about how their policies and procedures facilitate or place barriers before transfer students wanting to obtain a bachelor degree in California?

Research Question 5: What are the perceptions of articulation officers about how their policies and procedures facilitate or place barriers before transfer students wanting to obtain a bachelor degree in California? Participants Data Mining: The target participants of this study included students who started their education between 1992 and 2004 at either a 2-year college or 4-year university. Graduation years are collected between 1994 and 2008 at selected University of California or California State University campuses, particularly those students obtaining their bachelor degree. The participants in this study attended California State University, Fresno; California State University, San Diego; Diablo Valley College; Fresno City College; Grossmont College; Santa Monica College; University of California, Davis; and University of California Los Angeles; and students in these systems who were enrolled in 1 or more transfer- level courses. The collected data will be used to analyze if there is a difference in completion rates between transfer and native students in California. Web-based Survey: Administrators and academic articulation officers from California State University, Fresno; California State University, San Diego; Diablo Valley College; Fresno City College; Grossmont College; Santa Monica College; University of California, Davis; and University of California Los Angeles; who voluntarily answered 30 Likert-scale questions and four open ended questions to determine what their perceptions are about how their policies and procedures facilitate or place barriers before transfer students wanting to obtain a bachelor degree. Face-to face Interview: Administrators and academic articulation officers from the participating 2-year colleges and 4-year universities voluntarily chose to respond to interview questions comprised the study sample. Twenty-five questions

70 were administrated during a face-to-face interview, conducted before the end of March 2010. Information provided in this dissertation educated a larger audience of higher education administrators about the unique needs to establishing, correct or review and renew curriculum articulation. Instrumentation Data Mining: Using reported data from the California Postsecondary Education Commission and the California Community College Transfer Counselor Website (TCW) degree completion rates are calculates by dividing the number of students who graduated from a 4-year university by the total number of students who have entered either a 2-year college or 4-year university to obtain a bachelor degree. Web-based Survey: A survey was constructed to gather data respective to the research. Questions were built primarily upon the conclusions and theories presented in the literature review. The survey consisted of 30 main questions within 6 overall areas: demographics, use of continuous articulation improvement, drivers to continuous articulation improvement, support for continuous articulation improvement, obstacles to continuous articulation improvement and results. Within the demographic section, there were 5 questions. Within the category determining the use of continuous articulation improvement, there are four questions comprised of 5 Likert-scaled responses. For those respondents who had never implemented continuous articulation improvement, they were asked 1 additional question on barriers, which then concluded the survey. That question consisted of 5 Likert-scaled responses and 1 open ended question. All other respondents continued the survey as described.

In the section on drivers to continuous improvement, there was 1 question practice of continuous with 5 Likert-scaled variables and 1open ended question. The section on support and challenges included two questions; 1 with 5 Likert- scaled responses and 1 open-ended probe, and 1 with 5 Likert-scaled responses and 1open ended probe. The results section included two questions each with 5 Likert-scaled responses and 1 open-ended question. The survey concluded with four open-ended questions. All Likert-scaled responses were on a scale of “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” The survey questions are included in Appendix D. Face-to-face Interview: The face-to-face interviews were used as a personal form of gathering data. The interviewer worked directly with administrators and lead academic articulation officers, which gave the opportunity to probe or ask follow-up questions. Additionally, these face-to-face interviews are easier for the respondent, especially because options and impressions are thought. These interviews were time consuming and resource intensive as the interviewer is considered a part of the measurement instrument and has to be well trained in interviewing techniques and how to respond to any contingency. Face Validity Face validity is concerned with how a measure or procedure appears. The researcher tested face validity by answering the following questions: Does it seem like a reasonable way to gain the information the researchers are attempting to obtain? Does it seem well designed? Does it seem as though it will work reliable? Unlike content validity, face validity does not depend on established theories for support (Fink, 1995).

Pilot Study A pilot study, also called a pilot experiment, is a small scale preliminary study conducted before the main research in order to check the feasibility or to improve the design of the research. A pilot studies is carried out before large-scale quantitative research in an attempt to avoid time and money being wasted on an inadequately designed project. A pilot study is usually carried out on members of the relevant population, but not on those who will form part of the final sample, as it may influence the later behavior of the research subjects if they have already been involved in the research (Haralambos and Holborn, 2000). Data Mining: No pilot study was needed to ensure that data relevant to this study can be retrieved and is available from the California Postsecondary Education Commission and the California Community College Transfer Counselor Website (TCW). Web-based Survey: A pilot survey was conducted with a senior administrator at California State University, Fresno designed to test and gather information prior to the larger study, in order to improve the quality and efficiency of posted questions. Face-to-face Interview : A pilot interview was conducted with the Associate Vice President and Dean of Undergraduate Studies who works with faculty on academic planning and policy issues including curriculum development, designed to test and gather information prior to the larger study, in order to improve the quality and efficiency. This pilot interview was used to possibly reveal any deficiencies in the design of the proposed data collection methods and procedure and will warrant changes that can then be addressed before time and resources are expended on the actual study. A good research strategy requires careful planning and this pilot interview was a part of such strategy.

To ensure the content is valid the researcher used a panel of experts to review the test specifications and to improve the study. These experts were able to review the study and comment on whether the methods chosen are appropriate for the research questions. Survey Procedures It is generally considered that providing prospective survey participants with an advance letter informing them that they have been selected for an upcoming study and letting them know when they can expect to receive the actual survey invitation has a positive impact on response rates irrespective of the data collection mode employed (e.g., in-person, telephone, or self administered paper- and-pencil) (Fowler, 2002; Linsky, 1975; Slocum, Empey, and Swanson, 1956). An advanced letter is also recommended particularly when 1 expects a low overall response rate (<50%) because any additional contact with potential participants is likely to increase participation (Wright, 1995). Participants were selected as well as data collection instruments. A pilot study, procedures, and data analysis tool were developed, while keeping in mind that this proposed study may have limitation. The SPSS statistical package, originally known as Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, was used to analyze the data received. For data submitted via the Web, the survey software package converted the data to an SPSS dataset. A visual review of a sampling of the surveys was made to ensure the conversion was accurate by checking the range of all survey items for all research questions. Open-ended responses were coded as themes and included in the resulting data analysis.

Data Mining: The data were collected using reported data from the California Postsecondary Education Commission and the California Community College Transfer Counselor Website (TCW). Student entering the education system between 1992 and 2008 were recorded by 4-year universities and their major feeder 2-year colleges. Web-based Survey: A survey was developed and questions were built primarily upon the conclusions and theories presented in the literature review. A survey was created using Survey Monkey working within predefined templates using 5 Likert-scales. Once the survey was completed, data were downloaded into SPSS. The survey had its own unique web link, which was e-mailed to respondents. An add-on tool which has an invitation generator, and an automated email notification and list management feature was used to track the respondents. There were no reported problems with navigation or use of the Web-based survey and all data transferred over accurately into the statistical package SPSS. Because the majority of questions were developed specifically for this research, there was no pre-established reliability or validity data. Face-to-face Interview: Interview questions were developed and built primarily upon the conclusions and theories presented in the literature review. The interviewer worked directly with administrators and lead articulation officers. Appointments were set-up ahead of each visit and confirmed by telephone a day ahead of time. The researcher traveled to each site, arriving 60 minutes ahead of time to familiarize himself with the facility and set-up a tape recorder and video camera. As a back-up the interview was taped and recorded, permission was granted by all interviewees. A prenotification letter (see Appendix E) was designed and sent approximately 2 weeks before the start of the data collection process, beginning

75 with during the second week of November, 2009. This letter included an abstract and the purpose of the study. Through publicly available membership lists from the California Intersegmental Articulation Council (CIAC) and the researcher’s personal contacts at some institution, the administrators and leading articulation officers of each institution were identified and their names and email addresses entered into a database for use in distributing the survey and in subsequent follow-up for survey completion. After all names and email addresses were entered into the database, an email letter was sent to all administrators and articulation officers from participating institution requesting their participation. This e-mail notification included a link to the Web-based survey and a request for the participants to complete the survey. At least two additional rounds of follow-up emails were sent: four business days after the previous email submission, a follow-up email with another link to the Web-based survey will be sent to those who have not completed the questionnaire, with another follow up 4 days after the second attempt. If the overall response rate is low for this study, a phone call will be made to any participants who have not responded with three email attempts. There continues to be discussion in the literature about the response rates of email and Web-based surveys. Schonlau et al. (2002) reviewed the response rates of previously implemented surveys. Their analysis revealed mixed results when determining response rates of mailed surveys versus internet-based surveys. However, the latest data in their comparisons were from 1999. Researchers had a higher overall response rate when surveyed via Web-based surveys. In addition, they found that when the researcher used pre-selected recipients for a Web-based survey, the response rate was higher (68%-89%). In a more recent study,

Anderson and Kanuka (2003) reported that rates of return are higher for internet based surveys than for paper surveys. Data Analysis Data Mining: a chi square test of independent proportions was used to compare the sets of quantitative data to answer the following research question: Is there a difference in completion rates between those who began their education at a 2-year community college and those who began their degree program at a 4-year university in California? Web-based Survey: Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the means, standard deviations, and ranges for the various dependent and independent variables. Independent samples were used in this case (e.g., Community Colleges, California State Universities and University of California). In addition, the dependent variable data collected on the Likert-scale were measured on an interval scale. For all tests an alpha of .05 was used. This level of significance is frequently used in the social sciences (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001). Statistics were used to summarize the collection of data in a clear and understandable way and helped to answer the following three research questions. Research Question 1: What is the degree completion rate of students with transfer course credits from selected 2-year community colleges who transferred to a 4-year university in California (transfer students)? Research Question 2: What is the degree completion rate of students who wanted to obtain a bachelors degree and started as well as completed their degree at a 4-year university in California (native students)? Research Question 3: Is there a difference in completion rates between transfer and native students in California?

Interviews: After the completion of all interviews, a content analysis was applied as a research tool to determine the presence of certain words or concepts within texts or sets of texts and to answer the following research question: What are the perceptions of administrators about how their policies and procedures facilitate or place barriers before transfer students wanting to obtain a bachelor degree by transferring from a 2-year college to a 4-year university in California? The researcher quantified and analyzed the presence, meanings and relationships of such words and concepts, then made inferences about the messages within the texts, the writer, the audience, and even the culture and time of which these were a part. Findings were checked with select faculty member at California State University to ensue validity and reliability. Table 1 shows the data collection method and data analysis used to explore each research question. Limitations There are several limitations that need to be acknowledged and addressed regarding the present study. The first limitation concerns the interview process. The researcher is not experienced in the interview process, but has had several discussions with scholars specializing in interviewing techniques and analysis. During the preparation phase 1 of the 8 institutions and their administration refused to participate in this study at any level within their institution. This refusal to participate may be due to lack of interested in the study topic or the experiences with researchers from a previous study and the conclusions thereof. This study is limited because analysis of interview questions involves a degree of subjectivity. In addition, despite the personalization of the interviews, participants may not have answered all of the questions honestly. This study is also limited since the participants come from a small sample size in the California, predominantly lead articulation officers and administrators

78 Table 1 Display of Research Questions, Data Collection Methods, and Types of Analysis

Research Question Data Collection Methods Analysis What is the degree completion rate of students Data mining - gather quantitative Descriptive with transfer course credits from selected 2-year data. Collect existing data related Statistics community colleges who transferred to a 4-year to the targeted student group university in California (transfer students)? (degree completion rates and period it took to complete a bachelor degree) at degree granting institution. What is the degree completion rate of students Data mining - gather quantitative Descriptive who wanted to obtain a bachelors degree and data. Collect existing data related Statistics started as well as completed their degree at a 4- to the targeted student group year university in California (native students)? (degree completion rates and period it took to complete a bachelor degree) at degree granting institution. Is there a difference in completion rates Data mining - gather quantitative chi-square test for between transfer and native students in data. Collect existing data related independence California? to the targeted student group (degree completion rates and period it took to complete a bachelor degree) at degree granting institution. What are the perceptions of administrators Interviews with follow-up Content Analysis about how their policies and procedures facilitate or place barriers before transfer students wanting to obtain a bachelor degree in California?

What are the perceptions of articulation officers Online survey with follow-up Content Analysis about how their policies and procedures facilitate or place barriers before transfer students wanting to obtain a bachelor degree in California?

79 of 2-year community colleges and 4-year universities where students have had opportunities to complete their education leading to the completion of a 4-year bachelor’s degree. Results may not be generalizable to state or nation 2-year community colleges and 4-year universities. The next limitation has to do with the extent to which the findings can be generalized beyond this study. The sample size was too limited for broad generalizations. However, the 7 participating administrators represent rather different aspects of the articulation and transfer processes. Two administrators from the California State University system, 1 administrator from the University of California system and four college administrators were interview, all located in different geographic areas of California. Therefore, all articulation officers and administrators can benefit from the findings. Further empirical evaluations, however, are needed to extend the findings in the same contexts and surroundings. The researcher had no control over the source of the available data; some of the data is self reported, therefore, the research results are only an indicator and must be viewed carefully. It is difficult to generalize findings from either a case study or results of a focus group. Even if participants in a focus group are selected randomly from some population, the size of the sample is usually too small to warrant generalization. Jefferys (1961) writes that one limitation, which could also be argued strength of qualitative research is, that is defines the reality it purports to measure. Terms such as strength, power, endurance, honesty, personality, and integrity only exist according to a definition.

Summary The purpose of this study was to explore how long it takes a student to complete a bachelor degree who has transferred from a 2-year college to a 4-year university in comparison to students who started their college education at a 4-year institution. The study used select California 4-year universities and their major feeder 2-year community colleges. In addition, the perceptions of the administration of those 4-year universities and major 2-year community colleges related to the policies and procedures of articulation agreements were gathered to explore what barriers or assistance these policies and procedures created for students. The study proposed a conceptual framework for understanding articulation trajectory, the way in which a process or event develops over a period of time, in the evolving educational framework. This structure may provide an improved framework for developing a wide range of articulation agreements and procedures for the benefit of students, academic articulation officers and administrators. The intention of this study was also to contribute to the field of educational leadership related to student transfer from a 2-year college into a 4-year university by examining the factors contributing to student completion rates. The overall aim, therefore, is to reach an understanding of the impact of articulation agreements, policies, and procedures on students who desire to transfer articulate coursework within the higher education environments. This process included examining traditional articulation models, those based on historical practices, and the evolution of those models and the examination of current articulation practices and policies. This study explored the following 5 research questions:

Research Question 1: What is the degree completion rate of students with transfer course credits from selected 2-year community colleges who transferred to a 4-year university in California (transfer students)? Research Question 2: What is the degree completion rate of students who wanted to obtain a bachelors degree and started as well as completed their degree at a 4-year university in California (native students)? Research Question 3: Is there a difference in completion rates between transfer and native students in California? Research Question 4: What are the perceptions of administrators about how their policies and procedures facilitate or place barriers before transfer students wanting to obtain a bachelor degree in California? Research Question 5: What are the perceptions of articulation officers about how their policies and procedures facilitate or place barriers before transfer students wanting to obtain a bachelor degree in California? Three data collection methods were used: data mining, electronic e-mail survey and face-to-face interviews. The participants in this study were California State University, Fresno; California State University, San Diego; Diablo Valley College; Fresno City College; Grossmont College; Santa Monica College; University of California, Davis; and University of California Los Angeles; and students in these systems who were enrolled in 1 or more transfer-level courses. Administrators and articulation officers who voluntarily chose to respond to interview and survey questions comprised the study sample.

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS/OUTCOMES

Transfer and articulation policies have grown more complicated as higher education must comply with more rules and regulations of federal and state agencies, as well as accrediting bodies, while meeting the needs of administrators, faculty, staff and students. Articulation refers to the services provided for students transferring throughout higher education, including formulas developed to exchange credits, courses, and curriculums. This study was designed to explore the use of well established articulation agreements traditional within higher education institutions in California and their impact on student’s transfer and completion times and rates. The purpose of this study was to explore how long it takes a student who has transferred from a 2-year college to a 4-year university to complete a bachelor’s degree and compare these graduation rates to native students’ completion rates. The study examined four California 4-year universities and their major feeder community colleges and the perception of both articulation officers working in 2-year colleges and 4-year universities and selected administrators. Review of Methodology This study utilized a mixed-method design; three data collection methods were used: data mining, Web-based survey using Survey Monkey and face-to-face interviews with selected administrators. This research provides data and findings to administrators and articulation officers interested in continuous improvement, allowing them to plan their articulation agreement implementations to avoid pitfalls, break down any existing barriers and enhance the benefits of any student who desires to complete a bachelor degree in these educational systems in a timely and acceptable manner.

The following research questions were addressed in this study: Research Question 1: What is the degree completion rate of students with transfer course credits from selected 2-year community colleges who transferred to a 4-year university in California (transfer students)? Research Question 2: What is the degree completion rate of students who wanted to obtain a bachelors degree and started as well as completed their degree at a 4-year university in California (native students)? Research Question 3: Is there a difference in completion rates between transfer and native students in California? Research Question 4: What are the perceptions of administrators about how their policies and procedures facilitate or place barriers before transfer students wanting to obtain a bachelor degree in California? Research Question 5: What are the perceptions of articulation officers about how their policies and procedures facilitate or place barriers before transfer students wanting to obtain a bachelor degree in California? This chapter includes findings delineated by research question, including demographics, survey results, data analyses of both quantitative and qualitative data, and limitations. Demographic Survey Data for Web-based Responses There were 103 survey respondents to the Web-based survey using Survey Monkey. Areas of expertise indicated by the respondents were as follows: 30 responses (31.1%); Articulation/Counseling Dual Function, 47 responses (45.6%); Articulation, 9 responses (8.7%); Counseling and “Other,” 17 responses (16.5%) (see Table 2).

84 Table 2 Areas of Expertise Indicated by the Respondents Area of Expertise N Percentage of Total Articulation/Counseling 30 31.1 Dual Function Articulation 47 45.6 Counseling 9 8.7 “Other” 17 16.5 Total 103 100.0 % Respondents’ roles in regards to counseling and articulation at the institution were indicated as articulation officer, 79 responses (76.7%); Administrator Responsible for Articulation, 8 responses (7.8%); and “Other,” 16 responses (15.5%). Gender was indicated as Male, 30 responses (29.9%); and Female, 73 responses (70.9%). Respondents’ ethnicity was reported as follows: African American, 3 respondents (2.9%); Hispanic (Latino/Latina), 15 respondents (14.6%); Caucasians (Non Hispanic Origin), 66 respondents (64.1%); Asian, 7 respondents (6.8%); Pacific Islanders, 2 respondents (1.9%); Native Americans, 4 respondents (3.9%); “Other,” 6 respondents (5.8%). Specific positions held by the respondents were Articulation Officers, 66 responses (64.1%); Faculty, 5 responses (4.6%); Administrators, 18 responses (17.5%); and “Other,” 14 responses (13.6%). Fourteen of the respondents (13.6%) indicated their highest degree earned was a Bachelor’s Degree, 71 respondents (68.9%) have a Master’s Degree, and 18 respondents have obtained a Doctoral Degree (17.5%). The respondents reported they worked in the following educational systems as indicated in Table 3.

85 Table 3 Educational Systems in Which Respondents’ Work Educational System N Percentage of Total Community Colleges 65 61.3 California State University 13 12.6 Private 4-year College / University 9 8.7 University of California 8 7.8

Private 2-year College / University 6 5.8

Other 2 1.9 Total 103 100.0 %

Survey Results These survey results are based on 103 usable responses from articulation officers and administrator responsible for articulation throughout California. Surveys were sent in November, 2009, to 144 individuals, with an e-mail invitation to complete the Web-based survey using Survey Monkey. Four reminders were sent in November and December, 2009; and January and February, 2010. The survey was closed on Survey Monkey in February, 2010. The overall response rate was 72%. Articulation officers accounted for 76.9% (80) of the respondents, administrators responsible for articulation accounted for 7.7% (8) of the respondents and “other” accounted for 15.4% (16) of the respondents. The respondents indicated how long they had been working in their current positions as indicated in Table 4.

86 Table 4 Number of Years Respondents Worked in Current Position Number of Years N Percentage of Total Less than 1 6 5.8 1 2 1.9 2 6 5.8 3 10 9.7 4 8 7.8 5 4 3.9 6 6 5.8 7 6 5.8 8 2 1.9 9 5 4.9 10 6 5.8 More than 10 42 40.8 Total 103 100.0 %

Forty-one respondents (39.8%) indicated their institutions have fewer than 10,000 students FTE; 34 respondents (33.0%) had between 10,000-19,000 students FTE; 13 respondents (12.6%) had between 20,000-29,999 students FTE; and 10 respondents (4.8%) had over 30,000 students FTE. Five respondents (4.8%) did not know how many students FTE attended their institutions. Twenty-five respondents (24.3%) indicated that they served less than 100 students per month in regards to articulation, whereas 12 respondents (11.7%) indicated that they served more than 100 students per month in regards to articulation. Thirty-six respondents (35.0%) did not know how many students they served per month in regards to articulation, while 17 respondents (16.5%) had no

87 direct contact with students in regards to articulation and 13 respondents (12.6%) indicated “other” as their response. Thirty respondents (29.1%) indicated that they served less than 100 students per month in regards to transfer requests or issues, whereas 20 respondents (19.4%) indicated that they served more than 100 students per month in regards to transfer requests or issues. Thirty-three respondents (32.0%) did not know how many students they served per month in regards to transfer requests or issues, while 16 respondents (15.5%) had no direct contact with students in regards to transfer requests or issues and 4 respondents (3.9%) indicated “Other” as their response. Table 5 indicates what percentage of each work day is spent on issues related to articulation. It should be noted that 20 respondents (19.4%) spent between 20-30% of their workday on articulation issues, Table 5 Percentage of Work Day Spent on Articulation Issues Percentage Weekly N Percentage of Total Less than 20% 15 14.6 20 - 30% 20 19.4 30 - 40% 10 9.7 40 - 50% 8 7.8 50 - 60% 11 10.7 60 - 70% 4 3.9 70 - 80% 13 12.6 80 - 90% 8 7.8 90 - 100% 14 13.6 Total 103 100.0 %

Table 6 displays which percentage of the workday of the respondents is spend on transfer issues. Thirty-two respondents (31.1%) indicated that they spent less than 10% of their workday on transfer issues.

Table 6 Percentage of Work Day Spent on Transfer Issues Percentage Weekly N Percentage of Total Less than 10% 32 31.1 10 - 20% 13 12.6 20 - 30% 13 12.6 30 - 40% 10 9.7 40 - 50% 8 7.8 50 - 60% 5 4.9 60 - 70% 5 4.9 70 - 80% 7 6.8 80 - 90% 4 3.9 90 - 100% 6 5.8 Total 103 100.0 %

The articulation office is housed in Students Affairs at 56 (54.4%) of the respondents’ institutions, Academic Affairs at 30 (29.1%) institutions, Administration at 6 (5.8%) institutions and respondents indicated “Other” at 11 (10.7%) institutions. Of the 11 institutions that selected “other” as an answer the articulation function was housed in the Counseling Department at 6 institutions, Admissions at 3 institutions, in the Registrar’s Office at 1 institution, at the Transfer Center at 1 institution.

Demographics of Interviewees Interviewees were asked what position they hold at their respective institution. The positions held by the respondents are all in different areas of administration (see Table 7).

Table 7 Administrator Positions at their Respective Institutions Position held by Respondents N Percentage of Total Dean of Student Services 1 14.29 % Counseling and Guidance Assistant Vice President of 1 14.29 % Academic Affairs Dean of Counseling and Student 1 14.29 % Support Services Associated Director of 1 14.29 % Undergraduate Admissions Dean of Counseling and 1 14.29 % Retention Vice President of Student 1 14.29 % Services Dean of Undergraduate 1 14.29 % Students Total 7 100.00 %

Table 8 shows the highest degree earned by the interviewed administrators. Four administrators hold a doctoral degree while two administrators hold a bachelor’s degree. Administrators were asked in what educational system they are primarily working. Community colleges followed by California State University represent the largest sample size (see Table 9).

90 Table 8 Highest Degree Earned by Administrators Highest Degree Held N Percentage of Total Doctoral Degree 4 57.14 %

Bachelor Degree 2 28.57 %

Master’s Degree 1 14.29 %

Total 7 100.00 %

Table 9 Educational System in which Administrators´ Work Educational System N Percentage of Total Community College 4 57.14 %

California State University 2 28.57 %

University of California 1 14.29 %

Total 7 100.00 %

Administrators were asked to indicate their ethnicity. All the administrators indicated their ethnicity as Caucasian (Non-Hispanic origin). Administrators were asked what role they have in regards to articulation. Most administrators indicated they have an overseeing role in regards to articulation (see Table 10). Interviewees were asked to describe where their articulation office was housed. Most administrators stated that the articulation office is housed in Student Affairs, followed by Academic Affairs (see Table 11).

Table 10 Role Held by Respondents in Regards to Articulation. Role in Articulation N Percentage of Total Oversee 4 57.14 % Administrator 1 14.29 % Liaison 1 14.29 % No Role 1 14.29 % Total 7 100.00 %

Table 11 Area in Which the Articulation Office is Housed Office Housed In N Percentage of Total Student Affairs 4 57.14 % Academic Affairs 2 28.57 % Student Services 1 14.29 % Administration 0 0.00 % Total 7 100.00 %

Interviewees were asked to approximate on average, how many hours per week they devote to work related to articulation. Four administrators spent on average 1 hour per week, while two administrators spent zero hours per week devoted to work related to articulation (see Table 12).

Results of Research Questions The following section outlines the findings of the study pertaining to each research questions. Data include results from the Web-based survey and interviews with campus administrators.

92 Table 12 Hours Spent per Week Related to Articulation Hours Spend N Percentage of Total 1 4 57.14 % 0 2 28.57 % 5 1 14.29 % Total 7 100.00 %

Research Question 1: What is the completion time and rate of students with transfer course credits from selected 2-year community colleges who transferred to a 4-year university in California to complete their degree (transfer students)? Data were calculated for the years 1999 to 2005 for 5-year, 6-year and more than 6-year graduation rates for transfer students. The graduation rates for students over 5-year period were between 48.8% and 53.2%. Graduation rates for the 6- year time frames were between 10.2% and 19.1%. For more than 6-years, graduation rates were between .6% and 9.6%. Tables 13, 14, and 15 show the number of students and percentage of transfer students who graduated for a 5-year time span, a 6-year time span, and more than 6-year time span. Research Question 2: What is the degree completion time and rate of students who wanted to obtain a bachelors degree and started as well as completed their degree at a 4-year university in California (native students)? Data were calculated for the years 1999 to 2005 for 5-year graduation information of native students in California. The graduation rates for the 5-year span for these native students were between 4.9% and 22.7%. The graduation rates for the 6-year span were between 10.9% and 11.6% and the graduation rates for more than 6-years were between 9.2% and 11.5%. Tables 16, 17, and 18 show the number of native students and percentage of students who graduated, for a 5-year time span, a 6-year time span and more than 6-year time span.

Table 13 Five-Year Span: Frequencies and Percentages of Transfer Students Entering, Graduating, and Not Graduating for the Years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Number of Number of Percentage Number of Percentage of Year Students Students of Students Students Not Students Not Entered Entered Graduated by Graduated Graduated Graduated Fall Spring by Spring by Spring

1999 1233 656 53.2% 577 46.8%

2000 1163 596 51.2% 567 48.8%

2001 1286 678 52.7% 608 47.3%

2002 1462 731 50.0% 731 50.0%

2003 1483 426 49.0% 1057 51.0%

2004 1367 686 50.2% 681 49.8%

2005 1384 676 48.8% 708 51.2%

Total 9378 4449 47.4 % 4929 52.6 %

Table 14 Six-Year Span: Frequencies and Percentages of Transfer Students Graduating, and Not Graduating for the Years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Number of Number of Percentage of Number of Percentage Year Students Students Students Students Not of Students Entered Entered Graduated by Graduated by Graduated Not Fall Spring Spring by Spring Graduated 1999 1233 126 10.2% 451 36.6% 2000 1163 135 11.6% 432 37.1% 2001 1286 245 19.1% 363 28.2% 2002 1462 205 14.0% 526 36.0% 2003 1483 476 11.9% 581 39.2% 2004 1367 186 13.6% 495 36.2% 2005 1384 204 14.7% 504 36.4% Total 9378 1577 16.8 % 3352 35.7%

Table 15 More than 6-Years Span: Frequencies and Percentages of Transfer Students Graduating, and Not Graduating for the Years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Number of Number of Percentage Number of Percentage Year Students Students of Students Students Not of Students Entered Entered Graduated Graduated Graduated Not Fall by Spring by Spring by Spring Graduated

1999 1233 100 8.1% 351 28.5%

2000 1163 112 9.6% 320 27.5%

2001 1286 8 0.6% 355 27.6%

2002 1462 136 9.3% 390 26.7%

2003 1483 141 9.5% 440 29.7%

2004 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

2005 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Total 6627 497 7.5% 1856 28.0%

Table 16

Five-Year Span: Frequencies and Percentages of 5-Year Graduation Information for Native Students from 1999-2005

Number of Number of Percentage Number of Percentage Year Students Students of Students Students not of Students Entered Entered Graduated Graduated Graduated not Fall by Spring by Spring by Spring Graduated 1999 1703 324 19.0% 1154 67.8% 2000 1885 92 4.9% 1236 65.6% 2001 1948 433 22.2% 1242 63.8% 2002 2191 453 20.7% 1392 63.5% 2003 2486 565 22.7% 1568 63.1% 2004 2243 508 22.6% 1357 60.5% 2005 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Total 12456 2375 19.1% 7949 63.8%

Table 17 Six-Year Span: Frequencies and Percentages of 6-Year Graduation Information for Native Students from 1999-2005

Number of Number of Percentage Number of Percentage of Year Students Students of Students Students Not Students Not Entered Entered Graduated Graduated Graduated Graduate Fall by Spring by Spring by Spring 1999 1703 188 11.0% 966 56.7% 2000 1885 206 10.9% 1030 54.6% 2001 1948 226 11.6% 1016 52.2% 2002 2191 252 11.5% 1140 52.0% 2003 2486 270 10.9% 1298 52.2% 2004 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 2005 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Total 10213 1142 11.2% 5450 53.4%

Table 18 More than 6-Year Span: Frequencies and Percentages of More than 6-Year Graduation Information for Native Students from 1999-2005

Number of Number of Percentage of Number of Percentage Year Students Students Students Students Not of Students Entered Entered Graduated by Graduated by Graduated Not Fall Spring Spring by Spring Graduated 1999 1703 196 11.5% 770 45.2% 2000 1885 174 9.2% 856 45.4% 2001 1948 184 9.4% 832 42.7% 2002 2191 231 10.5% 909 41.5% 2003 2486 244 9.8% 1054 42.4% 2004 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 2005 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Total 10213 1029 10.1% 4421 43.4%

Research Question 3: Is there a difference in completion rates between transfer and native students in California? The number of students who entered 2-year and 4-year institutions and a comparison of percentages of graduation rates between transfer students and native students were examined. Data was calculated for a 5-year span, a 6-year span and more than a 6-year span for the years 1999-2005. From the data, it appears transfer students had a much higher graduation rate (47.4% vs. 19.1%) than native students for each of the 5 year from 1999-2005 (see Table 19). Graduation rates for transfer and native students were compared for a 6- year span for the years 1999-2005. This data also indicates graduation rates are higher (16.8% vs. 11.2%) for transfer students (see Table 20). Graduation data were compared for the students who entered student population (transfer or native) for a 4-year time span between 1999 and 2003. In this analysis, graduation rates were higher for those with no transfer credits (7.5% vs. 10.1%) (see Table 21). There was a significant difference (p<.001) for 5-year graduation rates between 2-year and 4-year institutions for all years 1999-2004 (see Table 22), with transfer students rates higher than for native students. Table 22 presents the frequencies and percentages of students by graduation status (graduated and not graduated) by student population (transfer or native) for each of the years 1999-2004. The chi-square values, degrees of freedom and probability values are also given in this table. Within each year, the chi-square is significant indicating that graduation patterns are different between the two types of students. For each year, the transfer student rates of graduation are higher than for the native student rates. It is also noted that graduation rates for native

100 students increased over time from 32.2% to 39.5%, while the rates for transfer students dropped slightly from 52.7% to 48.8%.

Table 19 Five-Year Span: Comparison of Graduation Percentages between Transfer Students and Native Students from 1999-2005. Year Entered Transfer / Total Students Total Students Percentage of Native Entered Graduated Students Students Graduated 1999 Transfer 1233 656 53.20% Native 1703 324 19.00% 2000 Transfer 1163 596 51.20% Native 1885 92 4.90% 2001 Transfer 1286 678 52.70% Native 1948 433 22.20% 2002 Transfer 1462 731 50.00% Native 2191 453 20.70% 2003 Transfer 1483 426 49.00% Native 2486 565 22.70% 2004 Transfer 1367 686 50.20% Native 2243 508 22.60% 2005 Transfer 1384 676 48.80% Native n/a n/a n/a Total Transfer 9378 4449 47.40% Native 12456 2375 19.10%

101 Table 20 Six-Year Span: Comparison of Graduation Percentages between Transfer Students and Native Students from 1999-2005. Year Entered Student Total Students Total Students Percentage of Population Entered Graduated Students Graduated 1999 Transfer 1233 126 10.20% Native 1703 188 11.00% 2000 Transfer 1163 135 11.60% Native 1885 206 10.90% 2001 Transfer 1286 245 19.10% Native 1948 226 11.60% 2002 Transfer 1462 205 14.00% Native 2191 252 11.50% 2003 Transfer 1483 476 11.90% Native 2486 270 10.90% 2004 Transfer 1367 186 13.60% Native n/a n/a n/a 2005 Transfer 1384 204 14.70% Native n/a n/a n/a Total Transfer 9378 1577 16.80% Native 10213 1142 11.20%

102

Table 21 More than 6-Year Span: Comparison of Graduation Percentages between Transfer Students and Native Students from 1999-2005. Year Entered Student Total Students Total Students Percentage of Population Entered Graduated Students Graduated 1999 Transfer 1233 100 8.10% Native 1703 196 11.50% 2000 Transfer 1163 112 9.60% Native 1885 174 9.20% 2001 Transfer 1286 8 0.60% Native 1948 184 9.40% 2002 Transfer 1462 136 9.30% Native 2191 231 10.50% 2003 Transfer 1483 141 9.50% Native 2486 244 9.80% 2004 Transfer n/a n/a n/a

Native n/a n/a n/a 2005 Transfer n/a n/a n/a Native n/a n/a n/a Total Transfer 6627 497 7.50% Native 10213 1029 10.10%

103 Table 22 Five-Year Span: Frequencies, Percentages and Chi Square Results for 5-Year Graduation Rates from 1999-2004 Student Graduated Not Graduated Population N % N % x² df p 1999 Native 549 32.2% 1154 67.8% 127.05 1 <.0001 Transfer 678 52.7% 608 47.3% 2000 Native 649 34.4% 1236 65.6% 82.38 1 <.0001 Transfer 731 50.0% 731 50.0% 2001 Native 706 36.2% 1242 63.8% 55.96 1 <.0001 Transfer 726 49.0% 757 51.0% 2002 Native 799 36.5% 1392 63.5% 65.12 1 <.0001 Transfer 686 50.2% 681 49.8% 2003 Native 918 36.9% 1568 63.1% 52.12 1 <.0001 Transfer 676 48.8% 708 51.2% 2004 Native 886 39.5% 1357 60.5% 32.00 1 <.0001 Transfer 694 49.0% 722 51.0%

There was also a significant difference (p<.001) for 6-year graduation rates between transfer and native students for all years 1999-2004 (see Table 23), with 2-year institutions be higher than 4-year institutions. Table 23 presents the frequencies and percentages of students (transfer and native) by graduation status (graduated and not graduated) for each of the years 1999-2003. The chi-square values, degrees of freedom and probability values are also given in this table. Within each year, the chi-square is significant indicating that graduation patterns are different between the two types of students. For each year, the transfer student rates of graduation are higher than for the native student

104 rates. It is also noted that graduation rates for native students increased over time from 43.3% to 48%, while the rates for transfer students dropped from 71.8% to 60.8%.

Table 23 Six-Year Span: Frequencies, Percentages and Chi Square Results for 6-Year Graduation Rates from 1999-2003.

Student Population Graduated Not Graduated N % N % x² df p 1999 Native 737 43.3% 966 56.7% 240.95 1 <.0001 Transfer 92371.8% 363 28.2% 2000 Native 855 45.4% 1030 54.6% 115.29 1 <.0001 Transfer 93664.0% 526 36.0% 2001 Native 932 47.8% 1016 52.2% 57.00 1 <.0001 Transfer 90260.8% 581 39.2% 2002 Native 1051 48.0% 1140 52.0% 84.83 1 <.0001 Transfer 87263.8% 495 36.2% 2003 Native 1188 47.8% 1298 52.2% 89.16 1 <.0001 Transfer 880 63.6% 504 36.4%

When comparing students who graduated in 5 years versus those who did not combined over 5 years at 2-year and 4-year institutions there was a significant difference (p<.001) (see Table 24 and Figure 2). This table presents the total of students by graduation status (graduated and not graduated) by student population (transfer and native) combined over the years 1999-2004 and who graduated after 5 years.

105

The figure below graphically represents the graduation rates for native and transfer students between the years 1999-2004 and who graduated in 5 years. The rates of graduation are increasing for native students, but for transfer students, the pattern slightly decreases.

Table 24 Five-Year Graduation Status by Student Population Combined from 1999-2004

Student Population Graduated Not graduated x² df p 4-year 4507 7949 245.9 1 <.0001 Two- year 4191 4207

Figure 2. Graphical Display of Percentages for 5-Year Graduation Information for Transfer Students and Native Students from 1999-2004.

When comparing students who graduated in 6 years versus those who did not combined over 6 years for transfer and native students, there was a significant difference (p<.001) (see Table 25 and Figure 3).

106

Table 25 presents the total of students by graduation status (graduated and not graduated) by student population (transfer and native) combined over the years 1999-2003 and who graduated after 6 years. Figure 3 below graphically represents the graduation rates for native students and transfer students for 1999-2003 who graduated after 6 years. The rates of graduation are increasing for native students, but for transfer students, the pattern slightly decreases.

Table 25 Six Year Graduation Status by Student Population Combined from 1999-2004

Student Population Graduated Not graduated x² Df p 4-year 5649 6807 557.25 1 <.0001 2-year 5207 3191

Figure 3. Graphical Display of Percentages for 6-Year Graduation Information for Transfer Students and Native Students from 1999-2003.

107

Table 26 presents the combined results for 5 and 6 year graduation rates of students by graduation status (graduated and not graduated) by student population (native and transfer) combined over the years 1999-2004. Figure 4 graphically represents the combined graduation rates for 4-year universities and 2-year colleges 1999-2004 graduated after 5 and 6 years. The rates of graduation are increasing slightly for students graduating from 4-year institutions, but for 2-year students, the pattern clearly decreases.

Table 26 Combined Results for 5 and 6 Year Graduation Status by Student Population from 1999-2004.

Student Population Graduated Not Graduated x² df p Native 10156 14756 929.07 1 <.0001 Transfer 9398 7398

Figure 4. Graphical Display of Percentages for 5 and 6 Year Graduation Information for Transfer Students and Native Students from 1999-2004.

108

Research Question 4: What are the perceptions of administrators about how their policies and procedures facilitate or place barriers before transfer students wanting to obtain a bachelor degree in California? Administrators were asked about their perception of what is most important about the articulation agreements. All administrators agree that a seamless transition is most important about articulation agreements (see Table 27). Specific comments for this interview included, “it gives students more clarity in the transfer process,” “ …it is an important advising and admission tool also.” Administrators were asked what they believed were particular strengths of articulation agreements. Three administrators believe that articulation of courses in all majors is their strength (see Table 28). One participant responded, “…they provide a seamless guaranteed method for students to transfer.” Administrators were asked what they believed were particular weaknesses of articulation agreements. Three administrators stated that non-alignment of institutions and two administrators stated that not enough time and resources is a weakness of articulation agreements (see Table 29). “One of the weakness is the difficulty in keeping them up to date with campuses on both sides of the spectrum as curriculums are constantly changing, which makes it very difficult to keep an articulation agreement up to date.” Administrators were asked if they have an articulation officer on campus. Every participating campus has an articulation officer on campus, with 5 campuses having a full-time articulation officer and two campuses having a part-time articulation officer (see Table 30). One participant emphatically stated, “Yes we do and I can tell you that she is responsible for maintaining all of our current articulation agreements and then developing new possibilities with accredited universities.”

109 Table 27 Most Important Part of Articulation Agreements Importance of Articulation N Percentage of Total Agreements Seamless Transition 7 46.67 % Power to Help 1 6.67 % Credits to be Applicable 1 6.67 % Promise and Hope 1 6.67 % Directions 1 6.67 % Security 1 6.67 % Good Face 1 6.67 % Advising and Admission Tool 1 6.67 % Kept Up to Date 1 6.67 % Total 15 100.00 %

Table 28 Strengths of Articulation Agreements Opinion n Percentage of Total Articulation of Courses in all Majors 3 27.27 % Educational Planning 1 9.09 % Ability to Tie Two Institutions Together 1 9.09 % Articulate with 13 Campuses Only 1 9.09 % State Organized with Articulation Agreements 1 9.09 % Accessibility 1 9.09 % Provide a Seamless Guaranteed Method 1 9.09 % Ensure that Students have Full Knowledge of how the Courses will Apply to a Degree 1 9.09 % As More Articulation Agreements and Place as Better for Students 1 9.09 %

Total 11 100.00 %

110 Table 29 Weaknesses of Articulation Agreements Opinion n Percentage of Total None Alignment of Institutions 3 33.3 % Not Enough Time and Resources 2 22.2 % Keeping Them up to Date 1 11.1 % Process Can be Cumbersome 1 11.1 % Time Consuming 1 11.1 % Not Follow 1 Blueprint 1 11.1 % Total 9 100.00 %

Table 30 Articulation Officer on Campus Full-Time/Part-Time N Percentage of Total Articulation Officer Full-Time Articulation Officer 5 71.4 % Part-Time Articulation Officer 2 28.6 % Total 7 100.0 %

Administrators were asked if articulation is a function of Academic Affairs or Student Affairs at their institution. Articulation is housed in Student Affairs at 5 institutions and Academic Affairs at two institutions. In either way it is a collaborative effort with the “other” department (see Table 31). One participant stated, “…Predominantly a student affair function….” “It is in Student Affairs so it is a collaborative effort with Academic Affairs, which means we have cross- boundaries.”

111 Table 31 Function of Articulation Student Affairs/Academic Affairs n Percentage of Total Student Affairs 5 71.4 % Academic Affairs 2 28.6 % Total 7 100.0 %

Administrators were asked if they have articulation agreements beyond their primary feeder/receiver campuses. Six institutions have articulation agreements beyond their primary feeder/receiver campuses (see Table 32). Several participants stated, “We have articulation again with all California community college….” “…we have articulation agreements beyond our primary feeders….” Administrators were asked what their involvement is in regards to articulation politics. Administrators at 5 institutions have only very minimal involvement in regards to articulation politics (see Table 33). One participant stated, “… I would have to say is very minimal cause there isn’t a problem.” “…the only involvement would be working with the articulation office to be sure that the agreements are logical and are available on the ASSIST website…”

Table 32 Articulation Agreements Beyond/Not Beyond Primary Feeder/Receiver Campuses Beyond/Not Beyond N Percentage of Total Beyond Primary 6 85.7 % Feeder/Receiver Campus Not Beyond Primary 1 14.3 % Feeder/Receiver Campus Total 7 100.0 %

112 Table 33 Degree of Involvement in Regards to Articulation Politics Degree of Involvement N Percentage of Total Very Minimal 5 71.42 % Collaborated Effort 1 14.29 % Policy Aspect 1 14.29 % Total 7 100.00 %

Administrators were asked what their role is in helping students through the articulation process. Most administrators have no role in helping students through the articulation process (see Table 34). Administrators were asked what kind of contact they have with students in need of advice in regards to credit transfer. Five administrators have no contact with students in regards to credit transfer with two administrators having an arbitrary function (see Table 35). These two participants noted, “I only have contact with students when there is a problem .”“…contact that I have with students is very minimal.”

Table 34 Role of Administrators Helping Students through the Articulation Process Role N Percentage of Total None 5 71.42 % Very Minimal 1 14.29 % Part of my Role 1 14.29 % Total 7 100.00 %

113 Table 35 Contact Administrators have with Students in Need of Advice in Regards to Credit Transfer Type of Contact N Percentage of Total None 5 71.42 % Arbitrary Function 2 28.58 % Total 7 100.00 %

Administrators were asked what they think about the current state of articulation. The current state of articulation seen by 5 administrators was “good” and by two as “not good” (see Table 36). One participant stated, “…not as good as it could be…,” and another noted, “ …articulation process that is in place right now is a good one.” Administrators were asked if they think students are aware of articulation agreements between their institution and others. Of the administrators interviewed, 42.86% think that their students are aware of articulation agreements between institutions (see Table 37). One participant stated, “…very comprehensive articulation website…,” and another noted, “…don’t think that they know what an articulation agreement is.”

Table 36 Current State of Articulation

State of Articulation N Percentage of Total Good 5 71.42 % Not Good 2 28.58 % Total 7 100.00 %

114 Table 37 Students’ Degree of Awareness of Articulation Agreements between Their Institution and Others Degree of Awareness N Percentage of Total Yes 3 42.86 % I Don’t Know/They Don’t 2 28.58 % Know Some Students Know 2 28.58 % Total 7 100.00 %

Administrators were asked what they think is the most important information that needs to be given in helping students to understand articulation. Knowledge is seen by three respondents as the most important information that needs to be given in helping students understand articulation (see Table 38). One participant stated, “The first thing they need to understand is that it exists,” and another stated, “…most students don’t know what the word means.”

Table 38 Most Important Information Given to Students to Understand Articulation Information Needed N Percentage of Total Knowledge 3 37.5 % Existence of Agreement 1 12.5 % How to Access 1 12.5 % Accessibility 1 12.5 % Transferability 1 12.5 % Meaning of Articulation 1 12.5 % Total 8 100.00 %

115

Administrators were asked how students use the Articulation System Stimulating Interinstitutional Student Transfer (ASSIST) tools. The respondents indicated ASSIST tool is used by students and exposed to them through guidance and teaching as stated by two responses to each category (see Table 39). One participant stated, “They are guided towards ASSIST with all the links being provided on the articulation website,” another stated, “The students use it as sort of their Bible to determine what and how courses to take….”

Table 39 Students Use of the ASSIST tool Degree of Use N Percentage of Total Don’t Know 2 28.57 % Through Guidance and 2 28.57 % Teaching Students Use it 2 28.57 % Teach How to Use 1 14.29 % Total 7 100.00 %

Administrators were asked if they think students are using ASSIST to determine what courses are articulated. All respondents agreed that students are using ASSIST to determine what courses are articulated. One participant noted, “I think in hindsight they do.” Administrators were asked if they have an overall institutional strategy in place to strengthen articulation with other institutions. Six of the 7 institutions have an overall institutional strategy in place to strengthen articulation with “other” institutions (see Table 40). “…to strengthen our relationship and our articulation with our faculty and the curriculum they are developing….”

116 Table 40 Overall Institutional Strategy with Other Institutions Yes/No N Percentage of Total Yes 6 85.71 % No 1 14.29 % Total 7 100.00 %

Administrators were asked if they had to redesign the existing articulation procedures, what would be their recommendations. To make the articulation procedures more users friendly is the top priority of two administrators (see Table 41). One participant suggested, “…ideally we would have a common numbering system with community colleges and California State University and in the University of California,” another participant recommended, “…would like to relocate articulation to a more accessible and workable place.” Administrators were asked how they measure the success of their current articulation efforts. Articulation efforts are not measured at four institutions while two institutions measure this success of their current articulation efforts by the number of the students transferred (see Table 42). One participant stated, “We do that by identifying the increase in the number of applications….” Administrators were asked what is different today about articulation agreements and procedures than 5 years ago. The use of technology and the numbers of articulation of agreements in place is different today than it was in the past (see Table 43). One participant noted, “…that we are focused on a small set of campuses,” and another stated, “more things being done electronically….”

117 Table 41 Recommendations of Administrators in Regards to Redesign the Existing Articulation Procedures Recommendations N Percentage of Total More User Friendly 2 20 % Common Numbering System 1 10 % Decreased Feedback Time 1 10 % Relocation to a More 1 10 % Accessible Place Technology 1 10 % Evaluate Current Concepts 1 10 % Tracking System 1 10 % Awareness 1 10 % More System Wide 1 10 % Total 10 100.00 %

Table 42 Tools Administrators Use to Measure the Success of Their Current Articulation Efforts Tools Used n Percentage of Total Do Not Measure 4 57.14 % Student Transfer Numbers 2 28.57 % Number of Articulation Agreements 1 14.29 %

Total 7 100.00 %

118 Table 43 Difference of Articulation Agreements between Today and 5 Years Ago Degree of Differences N Percentage of Total Use of Technology 4 50.0 % More Articulation Agreements 3 37.5 % in Place Smaller Number of Articulation 1 12.5 % Agreements Total 8 100.0 %

Administrators were asked what are they changing related to articulation (policies, procedures and framework) in the next 12 months. No changes related to articulation are expected in the next 12 months at 6 out of 7 institutions (see Table 44). One participant stated, “…don’t think we have any plans right now for the next 12 months…,” another stated, “We will be changing our general education course articulation….”

Table 44 Changes related to Articulation in the Next 12 Months Changes N Percentage of Total No changes 6 85.71 % Changing General Education Course Articulation 1 14.29 % Total 7 100.00 %

119

Articulation officers were asked a variety of questions about their transfer articulation processes at their institution. These questions were aimed at exploring the state of articulation today, including the surveyed strengths and weaknesses. Responses between 2-year and 4-year institution articulation officers were composed to see if there were significant differences in perceptions. Summary The following research questions were addressed in this study and the findings to each research questions are listed below: Research question 1: What is the degree completion rate of students with transfer course credits from selected 2-year community colleges who transferred to a 4-year university in California (transfer students)? Finding: The selected 2-year colleges enrolled a total of 6,627 students between 1999 and 2003 and graduated 3,087 students with a degree completion rate of 46.6%. Table 45 lists the issues that were significant. Table 46 includes the issues of significance as responded by 2-year and 4-year institution articulation officers, where the significant is at .01. Table 47 includes the issues of significance as responded by 2-year and 4-year institution articulation officers, where the significant is at .05. Areas of Agreement for 2-year and 4-year Articulation Officers Survey results that were not significantly different point out when there is agreement between two and 4-year articulation officers. These views are included in Table 48.

120 Table 45 Issues of Significance as Responded by 2-year and 4-year Institution Articulation Officers (Significant at .001) 2-year 4-year Articulation Articulation t df p ES Officers Officers Question: M SD M SD Starting at a community 4.49 .630 3.80 .997 4.211 99 <.001 .152 college may be appealing, because it is more accessible than a 4-year college or university. It is important that 4.73 .477 4.20 .664 4.540 99 <.001 .172 articulation agreements provide a seamless transition between institutions. The issue of articulation is 3.59 1.129 2.67 1.373 3.524 99 .001 .111 shifting from agreements between institutions to state-wide issue. The Articulation System 4.91 .371 4.28 1.556 3.239 97 .002 .098 Stimulating Interinstitutional Student Transfer (ASSIST) is valuable to the articulation process.

121

Table 45 (cont.) 2-year 4-year Articulation Articulation t df P ES Officers Officers Question: M SD M SD Our institution has very 4.26 .557 3.76 1.023 3.123 97 .002 .091 successful articulation processes in place. Our articulation officer 4.57 .554 4.14 .915 2.895 97 .005 .080 regularly collaborates with articulation officers at other institutions. It is important that the 4.64 .566 3.90 1.113 4.418 97 <.001 .168 articulation process be supported by Student Affairs officials. Students who seek to 4.30 .692 3.72 1.192 3.019 96 .003 .087 transfer to another institution should be provided with clear guidelines by the “sending” institution about which courses will count towards their major requirements for graduation.

122

Table 46 Issues of Significance as Responded by 2-year and 4-year Institution Articulation Officers (Significant at .01) 2-year 4-year Articulation Articulation t df P ES Officers Officers Question: M SD M SD Courses at 2-year institutions that appear in articulation agreements indicate these courses 4.39 .927 4.24 .636 .795 96 .429 .007 are comparable or acceptable in lieu of the same course at the receiving institution.

123

Table 47 Issues of Significance as Responded by 2-year and 4-year Institution Articulation Officers (Significant at .05) 2-year 4-year Articulation Articulation T df P ES Officers Officers Question: M SD M SD Using technology is an 4.87 .335 4.57 1.040 2.237 99 .028 .048 important aspect of the articulation process. Articulation agreements are 4.65 .812 4.23 .679 2.454 99 .016 .057 important even beyond primary feeder/receiver campuses. Attending a community 4.63 .528 4.37 .669 2.479 99 .015 .058 college may be appealing, because it is more affordable than a 4-year college or university. It is likely that some type of 3.04 1.247 2.30 1.601 2.506 99 .014 .060 legislatively enforced outcomes-based accountability will be imposed on articulation between institutions.

124

Table 47 (cont.) 2-year 4-year T df P ES Articulation Articulation Officers Officers Question: M SD M SD Articulation of coursework 4.74 .472 4.38 .979 2.496 97 .014 .060 is highly important to a 2- year college because it helps students complete a bachelor’s degree at a 4- year university. It is important that the 4.79 .413 4.55 .736 2.010 97 .047 .040 articulation process be supported by Academic Affairs officials. The different transfer 3.46 1.163 2.79 1.424 2.417 97 .018 .057 requirements used among institutions such as the California State University system or the University of California system creates barriers for students to complete a bachelor degree within a 4-year time frame.

125

Table 47 (cont.) 2-year 4-year Articulation Articulation T df P ES Officers Officers Question: M SD M SD The location of our 3.51 1.126 2.97 1.085 2.230 97 .028 .049 articulation office is convenient for our student body. Students who are the most 3.72 1.371 2.86 1.642 2.679 96 .009 .070 successful in transferring from a 2-year college to a 4-year university and completing their degree within a total of 5 years did so as a result of established articulation agreements.

126

Table 48 Issues of Non Significance as Responded by 2-year and 4-year Institution Articulation Officers 2-year 4-year Articulation Articulation t df P ES Officers Officers Question: M SD M SD Personal contact with students is necessary to 2.86 1.334 2.43 1.406 1.442 99 .152 .021 determine what classes can be transferred. A student should be advised about courses that could 4.01 .870 3.93 .691 .451 99 .653 .002 be transferred during their orientation. Advising students about course transferability 4.20 .839 4.03 1.033 .836 99 .405 .007 should be mandatory. It is important for the articulation officer at our campus to collaborate 4.71 .515 4.52 .574 1.675 97 .097 .028 with content area faculty related to articulation. Students have shown a 3.37 1.218 3.31 1.228 .227 97 .821 .001 great deal of interest in the articulation process.

127

Table 48 (cont.) 2-year 4-year Articulation Articulation t df P ES Officers Officers Question: M SD M SD During the last two year administrators have shown a greater level of interest in articulation agreements between 2- 3.21 1.350 3.21 1.346 .025 97 .980 <.001 year colleges and 4-year universities to ensure students’ graduation success. There is a great deal of interest among California law makers about 3.61 1.183 3.34 1.421 .971 97 .334 .010 articulation related to students’ graduation success. The transfer process at our institution works well for 3.96 .908 3.83 .759 .676 97 .501 .005 transfer students. The articulation agreements at our institution work 4.11 .578 3.90 1.081 1.300 97 .197 .017 well for our students.

128

Table 48 (cont.) 2-year 4-year Articulation Articulation t df P ES Officers Officers Question: M SD M SD The articulation process at 3.19 1.107 3.28 1.279 -.352 97 .726 .001 our campus needs to be improved in the near future. One of the institutional- level issues related to articulation is the quality 2.96 1.245 2.93 1.387 .092 97 .927 <.001 of the articulation agreements currently in place at our institution. The Master Plan for Higher Education needs to be revised to either change or eliminate the confusing general education course 2.44 1.072 2.62 1.635 -.639 97 .524 .004 requirements at California State Universities or the Universities of California.

129

Table 48 (cont.) 2-year 4-year Articulation Articulation t df P ES Officers Officers Question: M SD M SD The Master Plan for Higher Education needs to be revised to either change or eliminate the confusing general education course requirements at 2.44 1.099 2.21 1.544 .859 97 .392 .008 California State Universities or Universities of California because they present barriers to students who wish to transfer into these systems. The existence of statewide articulation agreements increases the probability of vertical transfers from 3.80 1.301 3.52 1.595 .908 96 .366 .009 2-year to 4-year colleges.

130

Table 48 (cont.) 2-year 4-year Articulation Articulation t df P ES Officers Officers Question: M SD M SD Students who seek to transfer from 1 institution to another through the articulation process should be 3.13 1.327 3.00 1.488 .428 96 .669 .002 informed by the sending institution of any financial aid limitations incurred by the transfer. Students who are the most successful in transferring from a 2-year college to a 4-year university and completing their degree 3.35 1.433 3.03 1.802 .914 96 .363 .009 within a total of 5 years are those students who had rigorous academic preparation in high school.

131

Research question 2: What is the degree completion rate of students who wanted to obtain a bachelors degree and started as well as completed their degree at a 4-year university in California (native students)? Finding: The selected 4-year colleges enrolled 10,213 students between 1999 and 2003 and graduated 1867 students with a degree completion rate of 18.3 %. Research question 3: Is there a difference in completion rates between transfer and native students in California? Finding: The degree completion rate for transfer students is 28.3 % higher than for native students from selected 2-year community colleges and transferred those credits to a 4-year university in California. Research question 4: What are the perceptions of administrators about how their policies and procedures facilitate or place barriers before transfer students wanting to obtain a bachelor degree in California? Findings: While it is very clear that there is a disconnect between the selected administrators and their articulation officers/offices and student needs in regards to transferring course credits, the majority of administrators agreed that a seamless transition is the most important aspect of any articulation agreement between a 2-year college and 4-year university. Additionally, the use of ASSIT to determine what courses are articulated is highly regarded by not only the administrators, but by articulation officers and students alike. No changes are expected to be made to the current articulation procedures driven by the vast majority of the selected administrators. Research question 5: What are the perceptions of articulation officers about how their policies and procedures facilitate or place barriers before transfer students wanting to obtain a bachelor degree in California?

132

Findings: Starting at a community college may be appealing to students, because it is more accessible than a 4-year college or university. It is also important that articulation agreements provide a seamless transition between institutions. Articulation officers see the Articulation System Stimulating Interinstitutional Student Transfer (ASSIST) as a valuable tool to the articulation process. Most articulation officers regularly collaborate with articulation officers from other institutions. It is believed by the articulation officers that the articulation process should be supported by Student Affairs officials.

133

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION/SUMMARY/CONCLUSION

This study indicates that proper articulation between 2-year and 4-year institution possesses some fundamental uniqueness. It is apparent through this study that not all university campuses provide articulation with every college in California or beyond or for all of their majors or departments. Many university campuses concentrate on their primary feeder colleges and their most popular transfer majors. This study explored answers for the following research questions: Research Question 1: What is the degree completion rate of students with transfer course credits from selected 2-year community colleges who transferred to a 4-year university in California (transfer students)? Research Question 2: What is the degree completion rate of students who wanted to obtain a bachelors degree and started as well as completed their degree at a 4-year university in California (native students)? Research Question 3: Is there a difference in completion rates between transfer and native students in California? Research Question 4: What are the perceptions of administrators about how their policies and procedures facilitate or place barriers before transfer students wanting to obtain a bachelor degree in California? Research Question 5: What are the perceptions of articulation officers about how their policies and procedures facilitate or place barriers before transfer students wanting to obtain a bachelor degree in California? Summary of Results Research Question 1: What is the degree completion rate of students with transfer course credits from selected 2-year community colleges who transferred to a 4-year university in California (transfer students)?

134

The literature reviewed stated that the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (2003) described the transfer function as 1 of the area’s most critical to student success, but for this function to be successful the collaboration between educational institutions is important. The smooth transfer of students is the glue that holds the California Master Plan together, and is the key to maintaining higher education opportunity. Another important part of articulation is the Intersegmental Major Preparation Articulated Curriculum (IMPAC) project, a statewide, intersegmental effort where faculty in selected disciplines discuss prerequisite and lower-division courses students must complete prior to transfer to either California State University or University of California. The data that was calculated for the years 1999 to 2005 for 5-year, 6-year and more than 6-year graduation rates for transfer students, shows that the graduation rates for students over 5-year period were between 48.8% and 53.2%. Graduation rates for the 6- year time frames were between 10.2% and 19.1%. For more than 6-years, graduation rates were between .6% and 9.6%. The selected 2-year college enrolled a total of 6,627 students between 1999 and 2003 and graduated 3,087 students with a degree completion rate of 46.6%. Research Question 2: What is the degree completion rate of students who wanted to obtain a bachelors degree and started as well as completed their degree at a 4-year university in California (native students)? Over the last decade, several studies emerged in the United States and Canada that examined factors that influenced the choice of university and 4-year college, but there were only a few studies that examined the choice of community and 2-year college. A study by Lang (2007) concluded that greater conventional articulation will not significantly affect rates of transfer, that for most students, plans to transfer develop after they enter college and are not a major factor in their

135 initial choice, that the rate of transfer is highly dependent on the corresponding arrays of programs at colleges and universities, and that articulation might better be thought of as a subset of other basic forms of inter-institutional cooperation. In a study by Anderson, Sun and Alfonso (2006), the following research question was posed: Does the existence of statewide articulation agreements increase the probability of vertical transfers from 2-year to 4-year colleges? In this study, data was calculated for the years 1999 to 2005 for 5-year graduation information of students who started as well as completed the degree at a 4-year university (native students) in California. The graduation rates for the 5- year span for these students were between 4.9% and 22.7%. The graduation rates for the 6-year span were between 10.9% and 11.6% and the graduation rates for more than 6-years were between 9.2% and 11.5%. Tables 15, 16 and 17 show the number of students and percentage of students who graduated from a 4-year university, for a 5-year time span, a 6-year time span and more than 6-year time span. The selected 4-year college enrolled 10,213 students between 1999 and 2003 and graduated 1867 students with a degree completion rate of 18.3 %. Research Question 3: Is there a difference in completion rates between transfer and native students in California? The number of students who entered 2-year and 4-year institutions and percentages of graduation rates between transfer students and native students were compared. Data was calculated for a 5-year span, a 6-year span and more than a 6- year span for the years 1999-2005. From the data, it appears transfer students had a much greater percent of students (47.4% vs. 19.1%) graduating for each of the 5 years from 1999-2005 (see Table 18). The degree completion rate for transfer students is 28.3 % higher than for native students in California. With these higher degree completion rates by

136 transfer students, California needs to look at the existing Florida law that specifies that any student who earns an associate degree will be guaranteed admission into a public university degree program, and the units from core courses transfer as a block to any public institution. Thus, students need not negotiate individual course-level transfers with the receiving institutions. The U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2005) noted that preparing students to transfer to a 4-year institution is vital to the community college mission. One-quarter of students who started at a public 2-year institution in 1995- 96 intended to transfer to a 4-year institution and earn a bachelor’s degree; by 2001, 51 % of these students had transferred (NCES 2003–067, indicator 19). Some students whose original goal was less than a bachelor’s degree had also transferred by 2001. The overall transfer rate including both those who had originally intended to transfer and those who had not was 29 % (Condition of Education, NCES, 2003). Research Question 4: What are the perceptions of administrators about how their policies and procedures facilitate or place barriers before transfer students wanting to obtain a bachelor degree in California? While it is very clear that there is a disconnect between the selected administrators and their articulation officers/offices and student needs in regards to transferring course credits, the majority of administrators agreed that a seamless transition is the most important aspect of any articulation agreement between a 2- year college and 4-year university. Additionally the use of Articulation System Stimulating Interinstitutional Student Transfer (ASSIST) to determine what courses are articulated is highly regarded by not only the administrators, but by articulation officers and students alike. No changes are expected to be made to the current articulation procedures driven by the vast majority of the selected

137 administrators. The permission to voice record (appendix F) and the complete interview transcripts (appendix G) are included in the Appendix and are analyzed throughout this section. Research Question 5: What are the perceptions of articulation officers about how their policies and procedures facilitate or place barriers before transfer students wanting to obtain a bachelor degree in California? Starting at a community college may be appealing to students, because it is more accessible than a 4-year college or university as well as less expensive. It is also important that articulation agreements provide a seamless transition between institutions. Articulation officers see the Articulation System Stimulating Interinstitutional Student Transfer (ASSIST) as a valuable tool to the articulation process. Most articulation officers regularly collaborate with articulation officers from other institutions. It is believed by the articulation officers that the articulation process should be supported by Student Affairs officials. All administrators are disconnected from the articulation process at the 2- year colleges, 4-year universities and private institutions as these administrators have only oversight function of the articulation office and officers. All work and communication related to any articulation process is maintained by the respective articulation officer as the articulation process and policies requires a specialized skills set. Establishing, reviewing, maintaining, and updating any articulation agreement is very time consuming and requires a full-time articulation officer, especially at 2-year colleges. As the articulation of courses offered by a 2-year college with a 4-year university is of upmost importance to any student wanting to transfer any course credit obtained at a 2-year college non articulation results in frustration, waste of financial resources and loss of valuable time by any student wanting to obtain a bachelor degree in an acceptable time-frame.

138

Discussion and Recommendations Transfer admission guarantees and articulation agreements that had been developed in recent years to improve the transfer of community college students, should be thoroughly examined with an eye toward expanding these guarantees if they are proven to be successful. Further, an evaluation of any policies currently in force for both public and independent institutions is needed to determine which policies should continue and which should be consolidated or eliminated. The California State University system, University of California system, and independent institutions should each regularly report on transfer numbers at their respective institutions and make these finding publicly available to all interested administrators and articulation officers in California via the existing Articulation System Stimulating Interinstitutional Student Transfer (ASSIST) tool. It should be determine what content these reports should have so they can also facilitate State planning for successful transfer. Clear and detailed guidelines on how to measure successful articulation and degree completion rates should be developed by law makers in collaboration by the California State University system, University of California system and independent institutions to assist in the planning of prospective transfer students’ academic success. Related to the above recommended guidelines, the California State University system and University of California system should examine whether their respective campuses should fully align their lower division course taking requirements for like majors across their respective campuses. Mandated by law, included in the next revised Master Plan for Higher Education in California, an actively engaged elected leadership committee that includes all educational organizations should be established. This committee should review and revise articulation practices, interact regularly with students on

139 challenging issues in regards to articulation and transfer, and provide students, articulation officers, and administrators with opportunities for ideas for improvement, and funding which should be secure from a varies of sources, including internal funding to sustain and improve articulation practices. All institution should be accountable for meeting or not meeting goals and objectives by requiring regular reports, which should be available publically. Additional recommendations are to perform statewide transfer policy audits, to ensure that policies are consistent and that performance measures do not inadvertently discourage transfer; make sure that articulation and credit transfer agreements are in place; focus state policy change on low-performing institutions; use financial aid as a tool to promote two to 4-year transfer; and include private institutions in transfer planning and performance accountability. Develop and implement a statewide student record system in order to be able to precisely track students across all sectors; 2-year, 4-year, public and private. The unanticipated outcome of this study was evidence that articulation officers’ participation and interaction with each other is a variable predictor of student success in the completion of at least a bachelor degree at an institution of higher education at either a campus of the California State University system or a University of California campus in the shortest time possible. The statistical evaluation of the collected survey data showed a higher mean of all answers by articulation officers from 2-year colleges versus the same answers by articulation officers from 4-year universities. This observation was very consistent throughout the entire survey. It may be the result of articulation officers from 2-year colleges have more contact with students who want to transfer to a 4-year universities versus their 4-year counterparts. The higher means may be result of the amount of time the articulation officers at a 2-year college spend with

140 each student who wants to transfer. The availability of resources may be another factor of influence. This study also recognizes a mutual commitment that working together as faculty, staff, articulation officers, students and administrators in ways that better serve the educational needs of our students and will promote the educational success of the students who transfer from a 2-year institution in California. Suggestions for Future Research The details about articulation and transfer in general, can be very confusing, which is why it is absolutely critical that future research should be conducted to ensure that students who transfer from a 2-year college to a 4-year university graduate in the shortest timeframe possible without repeating any coursework. A point that can be confusing is that articulation is not necessarily reciprocal, when a student is transferring course credit from one university campus to another. If one university accepts a course from another in place of one of their own, the receiving university does not automatically use the course from the sending university in the same way. Future research should be conducted as of how these non reciprocal articulation agreements delay the graduation of a transferring student. Currently, faculty, articulation officers, or student advisors cannot tell if courses are articulated by looking at course numbers, titles, or even descriptions in a course catalogs. The only way anyone can tell if and how a course is articulated is by looking at an articulation agreement. It would be critical to understand if a more uniform state-wide system would make it easier for students and articulation personal to maximize the accessibility of such agreements to the benefit of earlier graduation timeframes. How well the statewide agreement governs the transfer of credits between community colleges and public universities should be subject to

141 future research and the benefit it has on the smooth transfer of students between institutions. Research should be conducted to strengthen this study and the need to raise awareness of the difficulties associated with transferring knowledge articulation, and credits within and between institutions. Technologies like the Internet and World Wide Web offer the potential to facilitate these transitions for students and institution officials and may become especially important as new approaches are being suggested and implemented. Follow-up research should be conducted by breaking down the completion and graduation rates of students’ particular background, to determine if there is a significant graduation gap among groups of students based on income level, ethnicity, and gender. Lastly, research should be expanded to explore why it takes a student more than 6 years to graduate with a bachelor degree. According to the New America Foundation in Washington D.C. (2010), community college transfer students are graduating from California State Universities with more than a full year of classes beyond what’s required for a bachelor degree. They have been taking half of these 40 extra semester credits at community colleges trying to anticipate different California State Universities requirements; they have been taking the other half at the California State Universities, at an average cost of $20,000 to families and $160 million to the California State Universities, when they discover some of their credits will not match requirements for a major.

142

REFERENCES

Academic Council. (1998, April). Enhancing Student Transfer: A Memorandum of Understanding Between the California Community Colleges and the University of California. (1998). Accredited Institutions of Postsecondary Education (AIPE). (2001). Joint statement on transfer and award of academic credit. Retrieved on October 13, 2009 from: https://aipeonline.acenet.edu/faqs/Credit_Transfer.pdf. Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the tool box: academic intensity, attendance patterns and bachelor’s degree attainment. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Adversity.Net, Inc. (2002). Uniform guidelines on employee selection procedures. Retrieved on October 16, 2009 from: http://www.adversity.net/UniformGuidelines/default.htm. Alasuutari, P. (1998). An Invitation to social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Southern Illinois University @ Carbondale. American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, the American Council on Education, and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2001). Joint Statement on the Transfer and Award of Credit. Washington DC. American Association of State Colleges and Universities (2005). Developing Transfer and Articulation Policies That Make a Difference. 2(7). Retrieved on October 9, 2009 from: http://www.congressweb.com/aascu/docfiles/v2n7.pdf. American Psychological Association. (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author.

143

Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological testing. New York, NY: Macmillan. Anderson, T., Kanuka, H. (2003). E-research: methods, strategies and issues (1st ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Anderson, G.M., Sun, J.C., Alfonso, M. (2006). Effectiveness of statewide articulation agreements on the probability of transfer: a preliminary policy analysis. The Review of Higher Education, 29(3), 261-291. Articulation System Stimulating Interinstitutional Student Transfer. Articulation between the California community colleges, CSU and UC campuses. Retrieved on August 3, 2009 from: http://www.ASSIST.org. Associated Press (2009). Budget cuts devastate California colleges - students will find crowded classrooms, fewer services - and higher fees. Retrieved on August 5, 2009 from: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32303042/ns/us_news- education//. Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities. (2002). Fall Admissions Survey. AICCU’s guide 1990 – 2002. Sacramento, CA: Author. Astin, A.W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass. Astin, A.W., Oseguera, L. (2004). The declining “equity” of American higher education. The Review of Higher Education, 27(3), 321-341. Astin, A.W., Oseguera, L., Sax, L.J., and Korn, W.S. (2002). The American freshman: Thirty-five year trends. Higher Education Research Institute Graduate School of Education and Studies, UCLA. Bennett, D., Administrative Director at The Center for College Affordability and Productivity. (2009). Problem of Asymmetrical Information. Retrieved September 19, 2009 from: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/01/26.

144

Bergquist, W. H. (1992). The four cultures of the academy. San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass. Bernstein, A. (2002). Too many workers? Not for long. Business Week. Retrieved on December 11, 2009 from: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_20/b3783099.htm. Bogue, J. P. (1950). The community college. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Brokow, T. (1998). The greatest generation. New York, NY: Random House. Busha, C., Harter, S.P. (1980). Research methods in librarianship: Techniques and interpretations. New York, NY: Academic Press. California Education Roundtable. (2004). Transfer: An intersegmental analysis with recommendations for improvement. Intersegmental Coordinating Council (ICC). California Intersegmental Articulation Council Handbook (2006) Definition of the word “articulation”, page 3. California Intersegmental Articulation Council (CIAC). (2009). California Articulation Policies and Procedures Handbook 2009. Sacramento, CA. Retrieved on September 13, 2009 from: http://ciac.csusb.edu/ciac/images/CIAC_Handbook_7-22-09.pdf. California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC). (1996). Progress report on the community college transfer function, 96(4). Sacramento, CA: Author. California Postsecondary Education Commission. (2002). Survey on source of CCC transfer students to AICCU institutions. Commission online database report, staff analysis. Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved on September 6, 2009 from: http://www.cpec.ca.gov/CompleteReports/2006Reports/06- 14.pdf.

145

California State Department of Education, Sacramento. (1960). A Master Plan for Higher Education in California. (1960). The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. Sacramento, CA: Author. California State University, CSUMentor™ internet homepage, California State University Office of the Chancellor. Long Beach, CA: Author. Retrieved on September 13, 2009 from: http://www.csumentor.edu/. Callan, P.M., Finney, E.F. (2003). Multiple Pathways and State Policy: Toward Education and Training Beyond High School. The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. Washington, DC. Campbell, D.T., Stanley, J.C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Carmines, E.G., Zeller, R.A. (1991). Reliability and validity assessment. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Cassidy, D.J., Hestenes, L.L., Teague, P.S., Springs, J.A. (2000). North Carolina early childhood education articulation manual: The facilitation of the transfer of credit between early childhood education/child development departments in two- and four- year institutions of higher education. North Carolina Institute for Early Childhood Professional Development. Chapel Hill, NC. Christensen, L.B. (2001). Experimental methodology (8th Ed). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Clark, R.W. (2001). Dual credit: A report of programs and policies that offer high school students college credit. Pew Charitable Trusts. Philadelphia, PA. Cohen, A.M., Brawer, F.B. (1989). The American community college (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

146

Cohen, A.M., Brawer, F.B. (2008). The American community college (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Cohen, A.M., Brawer, F.B. (1987). The collegiate function of community colleges. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. College Entrance Examination Board (2003). Advanced placement program, College Board. New York, NY. Columbus State Community College (2009). Articulation agreements. Columbus, OH: Author. Retrieved on October 3, 2009 from: http://www.cscc.edu/Techprep/ARTICULATION.htm. Community Colleges. (2009). Alphabetical, regional and dormitory college listings. Sacramento, CA. Retrieved on September 30, 2009 from: http://www.cccco.edu/CommunityColleges/tabid/830/Default.aspx. Diener, T. (1994). Growth of an American invention: From junior to community college. In Ratcliff, J., Schwarts, S., Ebbers, L.H. (Eds.). Community colleges, ASHE reader series 2nd Ed. 7. Needham Heights, MA: Simon and Schuster. Donaldson, J., Graham, S. (1999). A model of college outcomes for adults. Adult Education Quarterly. 50(1), 24-40. Drucker, P. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship. New York, NY: Harper and Row. Education Writers Association. (2009). Big Picture, Community colleges: the universal school. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved on November 3, 2009 from: http://www.ewa.org/site/PageServer?pagename=resources_ highered_community

147

Fensterwald, J. (2010). Cutting Through the Transfer Maze. Community Colleges. Retrieved on September 23, 2009 from: http://educatedguess.org/2010/04/20/cutting-through-the-transfer-maze. Fink, A. (Eds.). (1995). How to measure survey reliability and validity, vol. 7. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Forest, J., Kinser, K. (2002). Higher education in the United States: An encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. Fowler Jr., F.J. (1995). Improving survey questions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Fowler Jr., F.J. (2002). Survey research methods (3rd ed. Vol. 1).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Galston, W.A. (2001). Can patriotism be turned into civic engagement? The Chronicle of Higher Education 38(12). Gambescia, S.F., Dagavarian, D. (2007). Review of prior learning assessment options for adult continuing education degree programs. Journal of Continuing Higher Education. 55 (3), 35-48. Gleazer Jr., E.J. (1968). This is the community college. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Goldberg, I. (1967). Quality education: A definition. The Urban Review. Springer, Netherlands. 2(1). Goldstein, I.L., Zedeck, S., Schneider, B. (1993). An exploration of the job analysis-content validity process. Schmitt, N., Borman, W.C. (Eds.). Personnel selection in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Haralambos, M., Holborn, M. (2000). Sociology: Themes and perspectives. Hammersmith, London: Harper Collins. Hillway, T. (1958). The American 2-year college. New York, NY: Harper-Collins.

148

Hodges, J.L. (1999). The effects of first-generation status upon the first-year college success patterns of students attending an urban multi-campus community college. Washington DC: ERIC Digest. Howe, N., Strauss, W. (2003). Millennials go to college. New York, NY: LifeCourse. Howe, N., Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising. New York, NY: Vintage. Howe, N., Strauss, B. (1993). 13th Gen: Abort, Retry, Ignore, Fail? New York, NY: Vintage. Huitt, W.G. (1998). Internal and external validity. Retrieved on October 3, 2009 from: http://www.valdosta.peachnet.edu/~whuitt/psy702/intro/valdgn.html. Ignash, J.M., Townsend, B.K. (2000). Evaluating state-level articulation agreements according to good practice. Community College Review. 28, 1- 21. Institute for Higher Education Policy. (2002). The Growing Importance of 2/4 Transfer, San Jose, California: Author. Intersegmental Committee of Academic Senates. Independent Colleges and Universities. (1998). Issues of Articulation and Transfer. California: California Virtual University Corporate Partners. Retrieved on October 3, 2009 from: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/reports/articulate.pdf. Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC). California Community Colleges, Board of Governors. (1991). Guidelines, Board of Governors Item, Transfer Curriculum, Guidelines for Review of Proposed 1991-92 IGETC Courses. Adoption of the Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum. California: Author. Retrieved on November 1, 2009 from: http://www.ccccurriculum.info/curriculum/regulationsguidelines/ IGETC_Standards.htm.

149

Jaschik, S. (2009). Articulation isn’t enough, inside higher education. Retrieved on August 13, 2009 from: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/ 2009/01/26/articulation?no_mobile_redirect=true. Jeffreys, H. (1961). Theory of Probability (3rd Ed.). Oxford University Press. New York, NY. Jones, R.T. (2002). Facing new challenges: The higher education community must take the lead in addressing the dramatic pace of external change. National CrossTalk. 10 (3). Washington DC: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. Kanuk, L., Berenson, C. (1975). Mail surveys and response rates: A literature review. Journal of Marketing Research. 12, 440-453. Kehoe, C., Pitkow, J. (1996). Surveying the territory: GVU’s five WWW user surveys. The World Wide Web Journal 1 (3). Retrieved on September 19, 2009 from: http://www.cc.gatech.edu/gvu/user_surveys/papers/w3j.html. Kemple, J.J., Willner, C.J. (2008). Career Academies: Long-term impacts on labor market outcomes, educational attainment, and transitions to adulthood. New York, NY: MDRC. Retrieved on September 9, 2009 from: http://www.mdrc.org/publications/482/full.pdf. Key, J. P. (2003). Research design in occupational education. Qualitative Research. Oklahoma State University. Retrieved on September 3, 2009 from: . Kiesler, S., Sproull, L.S. (1986). Response effects in the electronic survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50, 402-13. Kintzer, F.C. (1980). Short cycle higher education: A search for identity community. College Review. 8, 8-14.

150

Kintzer, F.C. (1983). The multidimensional problem of articulation and transfer. ERIC Clearinghouse for Junior Colleges Los Angeles, CA. Krueger, C. (2001). Transfer and Articulation Policies. Education Commission of the States. Denver, CO. Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews an introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lang, D.W. (2007). The Effects of Articulation on College Choice, Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology. College Quarterly. 10 (4), 1-22. Toronto, Ontario. Levine, A. (1993). Higher learning in America 1980-2000. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Linsky, A.S. (1975). Stimulating responses to mailed questionnaires: A review. Public Opinion Quarterly, 39, 82-101. Lyman, P., Varian, H.R. (2003). How Much Information. Retrieved on October 7, 2009 from: http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/how-much-info-2003. McCullough, D. (1998). Web-based market research, the dawning of a new era. Direct Marketing. 61, (8), 36-9. McMillan, J.H., Schumacher, S. (2001). Research in education: A conceptual introduction (5th Ed.). New York: Longman. McNamara, C. (1999). General guidelines for conducting interviews. St. Paul, MN. Mehta, R., Sivadas, E. (1995). Comparing response rates and response content in mail versus electronic mail surveys. Journal of the Market Research Society. 17 (4), 429-440.

151

Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools. Commission on Higher Education. (1994). Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education, standards for accreditation. Philadelphia, PA: Author. Morrissette, P. (2001). Reducing incivility in the university/college classroom. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning. 5(4),1-12. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2009). The nations report card: Reading 2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences. National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). The condition of education. Washington, DC: NCES. No. 2003 - 067. National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. (2003). State Policy and Community College - Baccalaureate Transfer. San Jose, California. National Research Council. (2008). Protecting individual privacy in the struggle against terrorists: A framework for program assessment. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. O’Banion, T. (1989). The renaissance of innovation: Innovation in the Community College. New York, NY: Macmillan. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2001). Education at a glance: OECD indicators. Paris, France: Centre for Educational Research and Innovation. Palinchak, R.S. (1973). The evolution of the community college. Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. Palmquist, M.E. (1990). The lexicon of the classroom: Language and learning in writing classrooms. (Doctoral Dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, 1990). Pittsburgh, PA.

152

Parker, L. (1992). Collecting data the e-mail way. Training and Development, 52- 54. Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd Ed.). London: Sage Publications. Pitkow, J., Recker, M.M. (1994). Using the Web as a survey tool: Results from the second WWW user survey. Journal of Computer Networks and ISDN Systems. 27 (6). Retrieved on August 18, 2009 from: http://www.cc.gatech.edu/gvu/user_surveys/papers/survey_2_paper.html. Pitts, C. (2007). The End of Illegal Domestic Spying? Don’t Count on It. Washington Spectator. Retrieved November 6, 2009 from: http://www.washingtonspectator.com/articles/20070315surveillance_1.cfm. Postsecondary Education Commission. (2010). Glossary of terms (2nd Ed.). Retrieved January 13, 2010 from: http://www.cpec.ca.gov/SecondPages/Glossary.asp. Ravid, R. (2000). Practical statistics for educators. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America. Reeves B.K., Callan P.M. (2002). Competition and Collaboration in California Higher Education. San Jose, CA: The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. Richardson, R.C. (1997). State structures for the governance of higher education: California case study summary. San Jose, CA: California Higher Education Policy Center, Report No. 97-13. Rubin, H., Rubin, I. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sacks, P. (1996). Generation goes X to college. Chicago, IL: Open Court.

153

Sax, L.J., Lindholm, A., Astin, A.W., Korn, W.S., Mahoney, K.M. (2002). The American freshman: National norms. University of California, Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute. Cooperative Institutional Research Program. American Council on Education. Schillewaert, N., Langerak, F., Duhamel, T. (1998). Non probability sampling for WWW surveys: A comparison of methods. Journal of the Market Research Society, 4, (40), 307-313. Schonlau, M., Fricker, R.D.J., Elliott, M.N. (2002). Conducting research surveys via e-mail and the web. Santa Monica, CA: Rand. Seltzer, W. (1999). The Promise and Pitfalls of Data Mining: Ethical Issues. Fordham University. New York, NY. Retrieved on October 11, 2009 from: http://www.amstat.org/committees/ethics/linksdir/Jsm2005Seltzer.pdf. Sheehan, K.B., Hoy, M.G. (1997). E-mail surveys: Patterns, process and potential. Paper presented at the Academy of American Advertising Conference. (April 6, 1997). St. Louis, MO. Slark, J. (1982). Reverse Transfer Student Study. Rios Community College District. Santa Ana, CA. Slocum, W., Empey, L., Swanson, H. (1956). Increasing response to questionnaires and structured interviews." American Sociological Review 21:221-225. Smith, C. (1997). Casting the net: Surveying an internet population. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication. 3(1). Retrieved on September 1, 2009 from: http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue1/smith.html. Schmitt, N. Landy, F.J., Borman, W.C. (1993). The concept of validity. Personnel selection in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

154

Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Inc. (1987). Principles for the validation and use of personnel selection procedures. (3rd Ed.). College Park, MD: Author. Strauss, W., Howe, N. (1991). Generations. New York, NY: Quill. Strom, L.H. (1977). A study of articulation practices in selected industrial education programs between public secondary schools and community colleges in California. Washington, DC: Bureau of Occupational and Adult Education (DHEW/OE), Final Report. The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges. (1998). The California Articulation Number (CAN) System: Toward Increased Faculty Participation The California Articulation Policies and Procedures Handbook 2009. Retrieved on April 11, 2010 from: http://ciac.csusb.edu/ciac/images/ CIAC_Handbook_7-22-09.pdf. The Good Schools Guide - Special Education Needs. (2008). The Good Schools Guide International, 11+ English: A Parent's Toolkit, A Parents' Guide to Primary School and University in the USA, London, UK. The Good Schools Guide International (GSGI). (2008). Advanced Placement (AP). London, UK. Retrieved on November 14, 2009 from: http://gsgi.co.uk/articles/curricula-and-exams/curricula/advanced-placement- ap. The National Collaborative for Postsecondary Education Policy. (2006). Getting Better Now, San Jose, California: Center News.

155

The New America Foundation. (2010). Statement and Background Information on SB 1440, a Measure to Ease Transition from Community College to CSU. Retrieved on April 19, 2010 from: http://www.newamerica.net/pressroom/2010/statement_and_background_inf ormation_on_sb_1440_a_measure_to_ease_transition_from_com. The University of California - Quick Reference For Counselors. Planning to Transfer., University of California. Office of the President. Retrieved on October 16, 2009 from: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/educators/counselors/resources/materi als/QR.pdf. Tillety, D., Deegan, W.L. (1985). The evolution of 2-year colleges through four generations. Renewing the American Community College: Priorities and Strategies for Effective Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Toft, G.S. (2002) . Youth Tuitionship: An alternative funding arrangement to improve markets and respect individual learning differences. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education. Office of Vocational and Adult Education. Jobs for the Future - Multiple pathways and State Policy 18. Townsend, B.K. (2001). Redefining the Community College Transfer Mission. Community College Review. 29-42. United States Government Accountability Office. (2005). Postsecondary Institutions Could Promote More Consistent Consideration of Coursework by Not Basing Determinations on Accreditation. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2001). College enrollment and work activity of year 2000 high school graduates. Washington, DC: BLS.

156

U.S. Chamber of Commerce – Institute for a Competitive Workforce. (2003). Connecting Education to Economic Development through Career Pathways. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Department of Education. (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the future of U.S. higher education. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). The condition of education 2005. NCES 2005 - 094, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2009). Federal Register ,74 (14), Low-income, 4,199-4,201, Washington DC: Author. Van Noy, M., Jacobs, J., Korey, S., Bailey, T., Hughes, K.L. (2008). Noncredit enrollment in workforce education: State policies and community college practices. American Association of Community Colleges and Community College Research Center. Washington DC. Van Ommeren, A. (2009). Trends in transfer: The increase to private for-profit institutions. Research and Planning Unit, Chancellor’s Office of the California Community Colleges. Sacramento, CA. Wellman, J.V. (2002). State Policy and Community College-Baccalaureate Transfer. National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. San Jose, CA. Wheat, L.B. (1948). Curriculum Articulation for Secondary and Higher Education. The School Review. The University of Chicago Press. 56 (3) 146-155. Wilbur, S. (2009). UC doors open wider for transfer students. Oakland, CA: Office of the President.

157

Wright, M. (1995). The Effect of pre-notification on mail survey response rates: an experimental result. Palmerston North, New Zealand : Marketing Bulletin, 6(59-64). Zikmund, W.G. (1991). Exploring marketing research, 4th edition. Chicago, IL: Dryden Press.

158

APPENDIX A: MODEL OF THE ARTICULATION PROCESS

Community College Community College Community College Counselors/ Students Articulation Officer Faculty Academic Policies and formalizes request Procedures Committee

Request for additional 4-year Articulation Officer information or formalizes request negotiation

Appropriate 4-year faculty for Distribution of Final Agreements review and decision

To Community College To 4-year Academic Articulation Officer Department, Counseling / Advising Offices

To Faculty, Deans, Chairs, Counseling, Advising Offices, Students

159

APPENDIX B: GENERAL MODEL OF CSU ARTICULATION PROCESS

CSU General Education- Major Preparation Baccalaureate Breadth Agreements Agreements List

Final agreement to sending CSU Chancellor’s ASSIST updates and campus Articulation Officer. Office displays G.E. Breadth list Copies to appropriate advisors, counselors, and major departments on both campuses updated and displayed on ASSIST

Community College CCC faculty panel Faculty decisions returned to identifies baccalaureate reviews and accepts Articulation Officer at level courses courses for G.E. Breadth receiving campus (questions, negotiations, additional information, assembly and preparation of agreement)

CSU Exec. Order 167 Community College To faculty at receiving outlines criteria for proposes courses for campus for baccalaureate level inclusion on their CSU review/decisions course G.E. Breadth or IGETC List

To Articulation Officer at CSU Exec. Orders 595 receiving campus with and 405 outline criteria supporting documentation

Initiated by any campus

160

APPENDIX C: GENERAL MODEL OF UC ARTICULATION PROCESS

UC Transferable Course Agreement form Office of the President (UCOP)

Community College I G E T C

UC Campuses UCOP

UC CCC’s Campuses

Major or Course-to-Course General Education Breadth Articulation Articulation Agreements:

Community College Campus Articulation Campus Articulation Officer/Community Initiates Officer initiates College initiate articulation

Community College for College Provost, Dean, or proposal/ supporting designee for review documentation

Campus Articulation Campus Articulation Decision to Campus Officer Officer Articulation Officer

Appropriate departmental faculty or Official agreements made public on designee for review/decisions web-ASSIST

Decision to Articulation Officer (questions, negotiations, regarding courses; additional information if needed)

Official agreements made public on web-ASSIST

161

APPENDIX D: SURVEY QUESTIONS

This survey has been designed to learn more about your employment activities in the field of articulation, student transfer and degree completion. All responses will remain confidential and will not be associated with any identifying information. Section 1: Demographics 1. Position you hold: 2. Gender: a. Female b. Male 3. Ethnicity (select one): a. African American, not of Hispanic Origin b. American Indian, Alaskan Native c. Asian d. Filipino e. Hispanic or Latino f. Pacific Islander g. White, Not of Hispanic Origin h. Others 4. Highest degree obtained (select one): a) Doctorate b) Professional Degree c) Masters d) Bachelors

162

e) Associate Degree f) Some College g) High School Degree 5. Telephone number (_ _ _) _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ (for follow-up with interview, optional). 6. Where is your articulation office housed? a. Academic Affairs b. Student Affairs c. Others ______7. In what educational systems are you primarily working (select one): a. California State University b. University of California c. California Community College d. Degree-granting independent college or university accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC). 8. What is your role in regards to articulation? a. Administrator b. Articulation Officer c. Others (specify):______9. On average, how many hours do you work each week in your position related to articulation? _____ Hours each week.

Using the scale below, please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements by filling in the option that corresponds to your opinion in the space provided.

163

Don’t Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Agree Strongly

Know Disagree or Disagree Agree

0 1 2 3 4 5

Section 2: Use of Continuous Articulation Improvement 1. Using technology is an important aspect of the articulation process. 2. Personal contact with students is necessary to determine what classes can be transfer. 3. Our system of tracking transfer students is current and appropriate.

Section 3: Drivers to Continuous Articulation Improvement 1. Advising students in regards to their transfer needs should be mandatory. 2. A student should be advised about courses that could be transferred during their orientation by an articulation officer to set them up in the correct transfer pathway. 3. Articulation agreements are important even beyond our primary feeder/receiver campuses? 4. We are doing a great job advising our student body to minimize the time spent to obtain a bachelor’s degree. 5. A community college education may be appealing to many students because it is both more accessible and affordable than 4-year colleges and universities.

164

6. Articulation is important to provide seamless movement of students among institutions as efficiently and cost effectively as possible, while meeting high academic standards. 7. Articulation is moving from friendly agreements among neighboring departments who wish to ensure transfer of credits to a hot button statewide issue that leads to some kind of legislatively enforced outcomes-based accountability solution.

Section 4: Support for Continuous Articulation Improvement 1. Articulation of coursework is highly important to a 2-year college and its transfer students to complete a bachelor’s degree at a 4-year university. 2. Tools like Articulation System Stimulating Interinstitutional Student Transfer (ASSIST) are valuable to how course credits earned at 1 California College or University can be applied when transferred to another. 3. My institution has a highly developed articulation strategy. 4. My institution collaborates with articulation officers from other campuses. 5. It is important for the articulation officer at our campus to be supported by faculty? 6. There has been a great deal of interest among students in the concept of articulation as related to student’s graduation success as a result of better articulation and communication between institutions.

165

7. There has been a great deal of interest among administrators in the concept of articulation as related to student’s graduation success as a result of better articulation and communication between institutions. 8. There has been a great deal of interest among researchers and law makers in the concept of articulation as related to student’s graduation success as a result of better articulation and communication between institutions. 9. Because the California State University, University of California and independent institutions have such varied transfer requirements, it is essential that clear and comprehensive information we provided to all potential transfer students.

Section 5: Obstacles to Continuous Articulation Improvement 1. It is important for our articulation office to be supported by Academic Affairs. 2. It is important for our articulation office to be supported by Student Affairs. 3. The location of our articulation office is convenient for our student body. 4. Articulation and transfer process at our institution needs to be improved in the next few years. 5. For many students, the most economical and effective way to begin higher education is to start at a community college. 6. One of the institutional-level issues in regards to articulation is quality of instructions at all levels of involved institution. 7. The Master Plan for Higher Education needs to be reviewed to eliminate the confusing multiplicity of general education course requirements of the California State University system and the individual campuses, colleges,

166

and programs of the University of California as a barrier to students who wish to transfer.

Section 6: Results 1. Students who seek to transfer from 1 institution to another need to know which institutions will accept their coursework. 2. Students who seek to transfer from 1 institution to another need to know what financial aid limitations exist. 3. Students who seek to transfer from 1 institution to another need to know which credits will transfer. 4. Students who are most successful in transferring from a two- to 4-year institutions have similar attributes to those who are successful in starting and finishing in 4-year institutions (i.e. they have rigorous academic preparation in high school, they enroll full-time, and they do not take time off en route to the degree). 5. The existence of statewide articulation agreements increases the probability of vertical transfers from 2-year to 4-year colleges. 6. It is important to understand that articulated courses are not to be construed as equivalent but rather as comparable, or acceptable in lieu of each other.

Section 7: Impact on Transfer Ability (Open-ended Questions) 1. How is articulation at your institution different today than it was 5 years ago? 2. How do you measure success of your current articulation and transfer efforts? 3. If you had to redesign the existing articulation and transfer design, what would be your recommendations?

167

4. What will be changing in the next twelve month that will effect articulations and transfers? 5. What do you consider to be the greatest benefit of having implemented continuous articulation improvement methods? 6. What do you believe are the determining factors that influence choices that secondary school students make between enrolling at a community college or university? 7. How do you think student choices or selection of a 2-year Community College or 4-year University are affected by the degree of articulation within a system of post-secondary education? 8. What do you consider to be the greatest obstacle to effectively implementing articulation agreements? 9. What other comments would you like to provide about the continuous improvement efforts related to articulation agreements in your institutions.

168

APPENDIX E: PRE-NOTIFICATION LETTER

November 2009 Dear Administrator As a doctoral student in educational leadership at California State University, Fresno, I’m conducting research on graduation times and rates of students transferring from a 2-year college to a 4-year university and how articulation agreements influence the degree completion of students wanting to obtain a baccalaureate degree. The study is designed to explore the use of well established articulation agreements traditional within higher education institutions in California and their impact on student’s transfer and completion times and rates, with the intention to contribute to the field of educational leadership. This research will provide data and findings to administrators interested in continuous improvement, allowing them to plan their implementations to avoid pitfalls, break down any existing barriers and enhance the benefits to any student who desires to complete a bachelor degree in these systems in a timely and acceptable manner. I am requesting permission to conduct a face-to-face interview with you. You have been selected to participate as part of a small group of 8 administrators having oversight of the academic articulation office or personal. Participation in this survey is completely voluntary. However, for this study to have meaning, it is very important that I talk to every selected administrator to participate. Your answers to the questions will be kept in the strictest confidence and any resulting data will be reported in aggregate. Your answers will however, help to better understand completion times and rates and may improve articulation policies and processes.

169

I will be in contact with you during the next two weeks to schedule a time and place, which is mutually convenient to you, to conduct this face-to-face interview. This interview should take no more than 60 minutes. Included are the questions of interest for your review and consideration. In the meanwhile, if you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Klaus Tenbergen California State University, Fresno 5300 N. Campus Drive, M/S FF17 Fresno, CA 93740-8019 Cell: 559.994.6434

Enclosed: Interview questions

170

APPENDIX F: PERMISSION TO VOICE RECORDING INTERVIEW

Dear Participant: I am conducting this telephone interview as part of obtaining my doctorate in Education. The primary focus of the tape recording is to ensure that the information you will provide is correctly recorded. I am requesting your permission to allow voice recording our interview. All voice recording will be kept confidential. Your identity will be kept anonymous. Sincerely, ______(Klaus Tenbergen) Permission (Participant) Name______Address______Institution______I am the participant of the interview. I have received and read your letter regarding the voice recording request.

I give permission to include my voice recordings during the telephone interview.

I do not give permission to voice recording.

Signature of participant______Date______

171

APPENDIX G: INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT

Background

1.1 What is your role in regards to articulation?

Respondent 1: Articulation officers of student affairs, she works directly with the department and academic affairs and I am a liaison to make sure she gets the information she needs. Respondent 2: My role is primarily the administrator where the articulation office reports to. I have little to do with articulation, other than providing the articulation’s office with any information or supplies, time, etc. that she needs to do her job. Respondent 3: Well, it’s under student services and currently I’m both the Vice President and the dean of counseling. Because due to the budget cuts we had to eliminate some positions. And so we have an articulation officer and that officer, reports up to me. Respondent 4: The function of articulation reports in enrollment services which I oversee, so it in the office, reports to me. Respondent 5: I don’t have a role. Respondent 6: It is the area that I oversee, 1 of the many areas. Respondent 7: My role, I oversee the articulation process. So I have lots of contact, daily conversations with the articulation officer. I oversee the process. Again because I have someone so competent in the role whose been doing it for 10 years. I don’t need to get involved. But I guess if I had to describe my role it´s advisory. But again I have complete trust in my articulation officer. So my role is really minimal.

172

1.2 What do you think is most important about articulation agreements?

Respondent 1: It’s their power in helping a student have a seamless transition from 1 institution to another. Respondent 2: To me articulation agreements allow students and councilors working in higher education institutions to basically have a more seamless way of students transferring form 1 institution to another and knowing where their credits are going to be applicable or not. Respondent 3: Well I think that they are good for students. They give students promise and hope and direction about the future when in regards to transferring to other institutions whether they are private or public. I think it just gives them some security and also it lets an institution, in this case Grossmont College, lets us know that we in good faith have entered into a relationship with another institution whether it’s the receiving institution or the sending institution. Respondent 4: I think its gives students more clarity in the transfer process. So they’ll know exactly what course will count for what other course. I think it is an important advising and admission tool also. I mean you want transfer students to come in as well prepared as possible so they can tell if they’re taking all the right courses. So that’s important. Respondent 5: That, course to course between community college and our 4- year partners, both private and state sponsor schools and even out of state schools. That their course to course agreement or overall general education agreements, for example out of state schools and privates, we are encouraging the idea of IGETS series as a way to articulate the transfer readiness with those institutions.

173

Respondent 6: It is the foundation that fosters, strong academically well prepared transfer students as well as in this day and age it allows freshman students or high school students to take college courses that are being transferable, that can be used for a high honor point in their HGE as well as receive college credits which is transferable and it allows continuous students to progress towards their degree in a more timely way as they can take courses at community colleges that would be transferable and articulated to specific courses; that means their major preparation and their general requirements. Respondent 7: The most important about articulation agreements is that we have them, that they’re accurate, that they’re kept up to date and they make sense for students. You know that they facilitate the transfer process and I guess that the information is put in the hands of students. 1.3 What do you think is least important about articulation?

Respondent 1: I don’t know Respondent 2: I don’t know that there is anything unimportant about articulation; I can’t imagine a system of higher education where articulation does not exist. Respondent 3: I don’t think that there is anything that is really least important about articulation; I think that it is very important. Respondent 4: I don’t think there is anything least important about articulation. I couldn’t think of anything that was least important. Respondent 5: I think it’s really important I don’t think there is anything least important about it. Respondent 6: I don´t think there´s anything least, I think it´s critical.

174

Respondent 7: I can´t think of anything that’s unimportant about them. They’re very important they’re vital. That’s probably a copout but I can’t think of anything. 1.4 What are the particular strengths and weaknesses of articulation agreements?

Respondent 1: One of the weakness is the difficulty in keeping them up to date campuses on both sides are constantly changing curriculum, very difficult to keep an articulation up to date. The strength of articulation is the ability to tie two institutions together. We are no longer articulating with all the community colleges of the state, we made a conscience decision some years ago to just articulate with 13 campuses. It really cements the relationship between us and the 13 campuses. The difficulty to keep it up makes it impossible to do everything for everybody. Respondent 2: I think that it depends on what kind of articulation agreements you are referring to. Because there are articulation agreements that are state articulation agreements. Like the articulation through the UC-CSU which is like a state organized articulation agreement and that is evident by assist.org. There are other articulation type agreements and sometimes they are not even called articulation, they are just called guidelines that are course agreements between two schools and they are only between those two schools. So I think the strength of the articulation agreements that are statewide is exactly that. That it’s a statewide articulation process that is fairly standardized and that the end results of that is public information on assist.org. I think weakness is that state mandate that state articulation process is just the time that is takes to sometimes have that articulation occur. When a course is sent to a community

175 college for instance to a 4-year school sometimes there is quite a lengthy period of time that it takes for it to have any kind of results for that. So that would be a weakness. Respondent 3: The strengths are that they provide a seamless guaranteed method for students to transfer. In a secondary role for students applying to Grossmont College it ensures that they have full knowledge of how the courses will apply to our degrees in also other colleges and universities that we have agreements with. As far as weaknesses, you know things change, sometimes administration changes to different institutions. You know what was wanted at 1 institution may not be the wishes of the current administration. Respondent 4: I think the strength is when these are published; it allows students a very efficient transfer process to a 4-year institution. I think its weakness is that the process can be cumbersome. Respondent 5: We have a lot of them and that’s really good for students who want to transfer and it’s really good for students in terms of their educational planning and in terms of their lower division major coursework that they need to complete. Respondent 6: Well for us, that we have articulations with all California Community Colleges, we articulate courses in all majors, we have a high degree or high percentage of courses that are articulated but we are not at a hundred percent, and that would be my weakness. My weakness would be that we do not have a hundred percent of courses articulated, that we do not have enough time, that time to be able to articulate a wide spread coordinated effort not only between our staff, but with the faculty of community colleges and University of California.

176

Respondent 7: They’re done individual campus to individual campus that is definitely a weakness. Well maybe it’s both a strength and weakness. At schools like Santa Monica College where transfer articulation definitely plays a prominent role on our campus we have a lot of articulation agreements so I feel consequently our students benefit from that. But many of major colleges out there don’t transfer articulation. And we don’t have the allocation of resources, so I think it is also a weakness, these articulation agreements are done individual campus to individual campus. And as a replacement we need a system-wide agreement so that when a student at West City College, or Fresno City College, or Santa Monica College, follow 1 blueprint. And that doesn’t change from school to school. But of course in order for that to happen, you’ve got to have more system-wide agreements in terms of curricular issues – lower-division, major, preparation, and that kind of thing. You know I was involved in the process before there was an IGETC when every single UC campus had its own GE pattern. The Cal State had their CSU GE pattern, but the UCs had their own individual ones. And the system took a giant leap forward by creating IGETC, which was 1 general education pattern for both the UC and the CSU. So I think that to the extent that we can do more of the system-wide cooperation efforts related to articulation that that’s going to move us forward as a system. So you know our articulation officer is very sweet and friendly, but she’s assertive and she goes out, she hunts articulation agreements and she takes her job very seriously. And again, I think our students beRespondent 1it from that. And not all colleges have someone basically in a full time roll devoting themselves to articulation and students at those colleges suffer. So if a more

177 system-wide thing is in place then you wouldn’t have inequities from 1 campus to the next. 1.5 Do you have an articulation officer/office on campus? If yes, what is the role of the articulation officer?

Respondent 1: We used to until about 6 years ago, we had an articulation officer and that was her entire responsibility. That is no longer the case, the person who has articulation officer now has multiple assignments, and articulation is just 1 of her assignments. Her assignment is now receive requests from schools and pass them on to departments on campus for their action to see if a particular course should be articulated. Respondent 2: Fresno City College has an articulation officer but not an office, the articulation officer here is a part time adjunct councilor and her role is basically to work with faculty here as well as other schools to determine the articulation of courses so that students know what courses they are taking here will articulate either into a UC or CSU, although we do also have course to course articulation agreements with schools. So it’s only between our school and another school. Respondent 3: Yes, we do and I can tell you that she is responsible for maintaining all of our current articulation agreements and then developing new possibilities with accredited universities. Respondent 4: We do have an articulation office and that person is pretty much in charge of the whole articulation process. She puts the process through all parts. Respondent 5: Yes, the role is facilitating the transferability of the curriculum during the curriculum process to make sure that they are meeting articulation

178 standards at the university level, then inviting more agreements and more course to course articulations, with the universities in terms of a lower division major. Respondent 6: We have an articulation officer in our office her name is Cindy Bev and she is in charge of facilitating and coordinating the articulation between community colleges, our Davis faculty and the University of California, she oversees any special initiative such as streamlining projects which was with University of California if we implement the new CID project, she also represents UC Davis in all of the articulation meetings for the State of California in region, she has a quiet active role and she oversees the assist program, putting in ours making sure that we have our data correct as compared to our catalog and to all major into the assist tool. Respondent 7: So we have an articulation officer, she has her own office; it is right next door to our transfer center director. They are both full time counselors and Estella, her name is Estella Mary. She does a lot of different things. Either she works on individual articulation agreements, but she could not do that role if she didn’t have strong relationship with our instructional and counseling faculty. So aside from actually making the agreements, she maintains a very strong relationship with faculty, so she is seen as kind of the go to person for any kind of curricular question that relates to the transferability of a course. She also sits on our curriculum committee, as do I, and she’s a very active member of our curriculum committee. She consults with faculty when they create new courses so for example, if she had someone in a particular department, let’s say biology, they’re thinking of creating a new course. Typically the first person that wants to meet is our articulation office to talk about transferability to make sure they’re going to like the course so

179 that it will transfer to UC system and transfer Cal State system and that it will fulfill lower division major requirements. So she consults with faculty and curriculum development process, she also works very closely with our counseling faculty in terms of letting them know changes regarding transfer requirements, updating them about articulation matters. She’s also the person when new courses does get passed through our curriculum process, then she does submit the course to the UC office president of UC if transferability is wanted. She has lots of interaction with the ASSIST personnel and submitting courses in OSCAR to make sure they are represented on ASSIST. Trying to think what else she does and then she does counsel 20% of her time and the reason we do that is that we want her to stay current with what the students’ issues are and what the transfer issues are. She also when we have students from other institutions have transferred from other institutions and the counselor doesn’t know whether or not the course is transferable, whether or not it would be applied on our IGETC pattern. Then they submit. We have a process; they submit that information to Estella. Estella is the person who determines whether o not the course transfers, if it will count for an AA degree. She wears a lot of different hats, she’s extremely detail-oriented, she’s extremely approachable, she’s extremely knowledgeable about curricular issues, transfer issues, and she’s really the go to person for counseling and instructional faculty. 1.6 Is articulation an Academic Affairs or Student Affairs function at your institution? Why is articulation accommodated in that department? Is there a particular reason for such a decision?

180

Respondent 1: Predominantly student affairs function in terms in receiving the request and an academic affair function in terms of responding to it. So the point person is housed in student affairs but the actual work of the articulation is done in the department of academic affairs and they send the information back to our articulation officer in student affairs, probably historical more than anything but also they have a better understanding of the relationship of Fresno State and other institutions. That’s where our outreach services offices are housed, the registrar has a lot to do with enrollment functions, they are very similar to the people they work with. The records obviously come to that office anyway. Respondent 2: Here it is the articulation officer, he reports to student affairs. That is probably embedded in historical memory of this institution. It would seem to me that it could be either place. I would guess that possible may have been because of the transfer reports are also from student affairs and articulation is very important to the transfer process so if there was a reason historically at Fresno City College for the articulation office to report to student affairs it probably would have been the transfer center is a student affairs office and reports of student affairs. Respondent 3: Well it´s student services so Student Affairs, we call it Student Services which is all the enrollment management, admissions, records, financial aid, evaluation, athletics, all that falls under Student Services. Students Affairs is a branch under Student Services. We staff in articulation officer to our counseling department so what happens is that person is a councilor and uses that time to do articulation work so counseling is always under student services.

181

Respondent 4: Academic Affairs. Eleven years ago an office called Admissions and Records instead of Enrollment Services reported in student affairs where it was deliberately moved over to academic affairs because articulation itself is an academic, faculty driven activity. I think the campus thought that was the more appropriate place for it to be. They also moved admissions over too. Respondent 5: Right now it is in academic affairs. I think because of the close association with curriculum. Well it used to actually be under me in student services but it was recently moved to academic affairs because of the perception of the college president that it needed to be much more closely connected to instruction. Respondent 6: Well it is in Student Affairs so it is a collaborative effort with Academic Affairs it means we cross-boundaries here. I think that the reason it is in the Admissions office is that we are in charge of determining transfer credits that is used towards the degree it probably could be seen as a recruitment as well as an admission tool. We have the authority to determine transfer credits based on academic senate based policy and basically it also starts with the TCA to transfer courses on articulation in each community college starts with the University of California officer the president admissions office who is also in the umbrella of Student Affairs. So I think that´s the reason it is with us. Respondent 7: It’s Student Affairs, but she has a very strong relationship with Academic Affairs. She meets on a weekly basis with our Dean of Academic Affairs and the chair of our curriculum committee then she serves on our curricular committee. So it’s held under Student Affairs, but she has a very close relationship with Academic Affairs. And I’ll tell you why she is under

182

Student Affairs: years ago, and again, I’ve been at SMC for 26 years, and years ago our articulation officer wasn’t in student affairs as it was a disaster because the person who was doing articulation did not have the technical skills that Estella does and was not keeping the articulation information accurate and it’s counselors who ultimately report the information to students and so we were counselors. I say we were being held hostage to someone who reported to a different division who didn’t understand the importance to students of articulation information. So counselors basically said you know we want ownership of articulation because we are the people who then disseminate that information to students. So even though the articulation office is a member of the counseling faculty and is housed in Student Affairs and we will take proper ownership of that information, the process and as soon as we moved it to student affairs we hired Estella. I mean our process is 1 of, it works very well, it’s a well oiled machine at Santa Monica College. So a very long answer, but it’s in student affairs side of the house and that was done very deliberately and very intentionally. 1.7 The analysis, evaluation, and data entry of all campus-to-campus articulation is done on the individual university campuses. Not all university campuses provide articulation with every college or for all of their majors or departments. Many university campuses concentrate on their primary feeder colleges and their most popular transfer majors. Do you have articulation agreements beyond your primary feeder/receiver campuses? If not, why not? If you do, are these agreements beneficial and why?

183

Respondent 1: We do not we just have those 13 campuses as I was indicating a decision was made about 4 year ago that we didn’t have sufficient resources in student affairs and academic affairs was not interested in supplementing the resources that they were willing to put into it. And we felt we could probably cover a large majority of our students by just focusing on those 13 campuses. We do articulate with other institutions but not as a matter of course we don’t articulate every course with anybody besides those 13. Respondent 2: Well Fresno City College has articulated an agreement beyond our primary feeder campus which is Fresno State. And I believe that these agreements are beneficial because it gives our students a greater breadth of higher education to consider they can consider UCs as well CSU’s as well as Private school and without this broader articulation with a variety of different schools our students would be shackled Respondent 3: Yes thank you we have many different articulation agreements and we feel it is very beneficial to all of our students to have as many options as possible. Just as an aside Grossmont college has the highest transfer rate in the region, in the San Diego county region. For community colleges we have the highest transfer rate, and we are 1 of the highest in the state which verifies the need and use of a widespread articulation agreement. Respondent 4: Yes we have articulation agreements beyond our primary feeders. We have them with our top 50 feeder colleges in California. We don’t have all 110 but we have the top 50 feeder schools for San Diego State. And I think the agreements are beneficial because they give students the tools they need to identify the course work they need to be taking at a community college that will definitely transfer to a 4-year school. So I think that they are

184 definitely beneficial. I would love to have articulation with more than the top 50 feeder schools. It would be a resource in place of issue at that point though. Respondent 5: Yes, they are very beneficial because they help students get connected to the university in addition were working on transfer articulation agreement more transfer admission agreements with out of country schools in Europe and the Middle East. So that they can send their students here basically get our general education and then transfer back to their university to study or our students and American students can take our and transfer to those schools if they wanted to study in the middle east or Europe. We think every college is worth articulating with. Respondent 6: We have articulation again with all California community college, so it’s not just our primary feeders and the reason we do this is because we think that it is that we get transfer students that are academically better prepared. We are a selective campus because the majority of our majors are in the college of engineering, biology science, three majors in LNS, Comchewa and College of Agriclture. So the transfer students prepare for the activity they have in certain courses completed, as well as it allows students to complete their degree in a timely way because they come with courses already taken that meet and agree with their major program and college graduation requirements and I think it’s extremely beneficial. Respondent 7: The answer is absolutely we have articulation agreements that expand beyond our primary feeder campuses and the bottom line is our students, even though let’s say a majority transfer to UCLA, Cal State Northridge, Cal State Longbeach, Cal State La and UCLA; our students go everywhere. They go to NYU, University of Texas and Austin. They go to Oregon. I mean they go all over. And years and years ago when we attempted

185 a study to try to get a better handle on where our students were transferring to, so we made a concentrated effort way back when. I would say 15-20 years ago that we did want to pursue articulation agreements outside of even the state of California. Like we have articulation agreements with Smith College, with Rensclear Polytechnic Institute in New York, with NYU, both the University of Texas and Austin, colleges in Hawaii, and we realized our students are transferring there and it only opens up opportunities for students, maybe they will consider another opportunity if we have an articulation agreement. So it’s in the best interest of students, I think, to not only concentrate on your feeder schools but broaden our horizons and broaden theirs as well. I don’t have a count, but it is well over 100 articulation agreements with colleges across the map and we may even have international colleges wanting to articulate with them. And we say bring it on. We never turn down an opportunity to articulation with someone unless they’re not accredited. So the short answer is yes. 1.8 What is your involvement in regards to articulation politics? For example policies that aims to sharpen the focus of articulation activity and the processes for establishing and maintaining an articulation agreement.

Respondent 1: Since the articulation office is in student affairs she reports to an associate vice president over there she does not report to me. We have really good working relationships so when a question arises as to whether or not we should pursue a certain course of action we meet with the associate vice president and we talk and identify what we should be doing. My role is to work on the policy aspect and to make sure processes are working. If there is a

186 department on our campus that is reluctant to respond then I articulation officer uses my office as leverage to get a response. But most of the time, I don’t have to worry too much about that departments have been very accommodating and responsive. Respondent 2: Well my in involvement right now is in articulation politics, I would have to say is very minimal cause there isn’t a problem. If for instance there was a rise on our campus for instance to eliminate articulation let’s just say we should be an island into ourselves and not worry about our courses articulating out to other places then I become involved because there is a problem. So I’m not sure if I’m answering the question the way you would like it to be answered, but right now the faculty and the instructional areas on our campus are very interested in articulation as many of our courses as possible to other schools and I’m in support of that. So I guess my involvement is to support the process that is already in place and if something should happen to change that where I thought it would be detrimental to our students then I would get involved. Respondent 3: I can tell you that we have full involvement as a college. My involvement is pretty much what the other vice presidents at the 9 other region consortium, not just at community colleges but also at UCSD and the SDSU and imperial valley community college so I guess at that level we meet and we’re looking at transfer issues and that’s pretty much my involvement with it as far as policies. We do have a selected a task force and we try to hone in on what frankly SDSU changes are also UCSV and UC San Marco and we try to formulate a policy or direction of practices for our students so they better understand SDSU supplemental education and the courses they need to be taking for both the UC and the SDSU.

187

Respondent 4: I was curious about that question. I had to ask my articulation officer what you meant by articulation politics. I am probably pretty much removed from articulation politics if you’re talking about the articulation officer meetings and trying to get people on board for different ways of doing things. I’m not really involved in any of that. Respondent 5: Well the only involvement would be working with the articulation office to be sure that the agreements are logical and are available on the ASSIST website for example or on our internal internet for the councilors, because it is the councilors that have to be in the loop. Connect the students with the articulation agreements. Respondent 6: Well, as indicated I’m very lucky, I have a wonderful articulation officer, so I work with Cindy the faculty, to ensure that we have current articulation, that its accurate, We look to expand articulation, when we have new requirements that are seeded, sort of a conduit between our academic affairs, our colleges, departments, and the undergraduate admissions office. Respondent 7: In terms of politics, I guess, because we do have such a competent articulation officer. I don’t get too involved, but honestly there was a time when we didn’t have the well oiled machine that we do have. So I was absolutely out there advocating why articulation. Well, A, the importance of articulation and B why I needed to be housed in student affairs and C why that person needed to have a seat on our curriculum committee. When I was transfer center director, I was very active statewide; I even address the UC board of regents about articulation and encouraged them to devote more personnel in their admissions office to the articulation process. I’m really dating myself and this goes back years ago. I don’t’ know what it is now but it

188 used to be that UCLA did not have a full time articulation person. They had somebody who devoted 30-40% of their time to articulation when they had this huge influx of transfer students, UCLA was not the only UC campus that was true for. So I got myself on the UC advisory committee then I got myself invited to a UC board of regents where I trust the issue of articulation and the importance and societal implications. You know I count my role as if I need to be political, I can be and I will be and if I don’t need to be, then I don’t. Right now, things at least at Santa Monica are working well and I guess it’s probably because we do have such a strong and active articulation officer. I leave most of it to her. Honestly and partly that’s a function of my job, I oversee 8-9 programs and so I’m on lots of committees. I don’t have a lot of time, so I let my articulation officer carry the flag and I think she does an outstanding job and when I need to get involved I do and when I don’t, I don’t. 1.9 What is your role in helping students through the articulation process?

Respondent 1: I don’t really do anything with the students Respondent 2: My role is basically to make sure that the articulation officer and the transfer center as well as councilors working individually with students has the materials and access to information that they need to do their job. Respondent 3: I would not say directly this work is also part of the full time work of the articulation officer. We have a transfer center where we have another person who staffs that full time as well and they work in concert with the articulation officer and the transfer center as well as other councilors if they work together and the articulations officer serves as a resource for all

189 other councilors, and faculty on campus. My job is to make sure that that resource is there and that connection is happening. Respondent 4: I think that the website assist is a wonderful tool so we try to keep all that up to date for students to have access to the information and the comfort as well. But what we’ve also done is we have a degree evaluation system called DARS and all the courses that aren’t articulated or from institutions that we don’t have articulation could be out of state could be private. We identify what those courses are going to count for. We put them in that degree evaluation system and then what we’ve done is develop another website from it. That we call the transfer admissions Planners call TAP. That students and councilors can go in and say ok this student is transferring a course from central Texas University and it’s this course you can go into our TAP site and you can see how we’ve identified that course on our degree evaluation system. So it extends articulation the unofficial information outside of California. Respondent 5: I oversee counseling so that’s my role. It’s to have needs with the rules of articulation and we need to get those addressed. Respondent 6: Well again, I actually work with students but through the articulations officer. We also insure the assist is accurate on websites on publications we send information out to our councilors through our newsletter, we have our transfer guarantee admissions criteria that we determine, and I oversee evaluations so we work with identifying courses, and helping students plan which courses should be taken that would meet certain course requirements. Respondent 7: Again I would say my role is probably minimal because we also have a really strong counseling commitment here at SMC we have 110

190 counselors. Fifty are full time the rest are part time. And they’re really the ones who help students navigate through articulation process. So my role is really minimal. I do get involved when students get misinformation or have a concern or something isn’t working the way it should be. Then I’m the go to person for the students and I get involved in the actual kind of nuts and bolts, but that doesn’t happen all that often so I say my role is definitely minimal. 1.10 What kind of contact do you have with students in need of advice in regards to credit transfer?

Respondent 1: To the extent that I am involved there it is in my role as the academic petitions committee. If we have a student who is transferring from an institution with which we don’t have an agreement the evaluations office has difficulty then the student files a petition and I sit on the committee that makes decisions on whether those courses will travel or not. Respondent 2: I only have contact with students when there is a problem. As a dean basically generally only come to me when there is a problem when they are being blocked from something. And then my role is to basically find out, collect information and problem solve and see if there is a legitimate reason for the block or if there is something I can do to facilitate the students being able to do what they want to do. Respondent 3: In regards to me personally the contact that I have with students is very minimal. I have met with a very few of them in my office. We tried most of that directly to our transfer center and articulation serves as a resource to the transfer student. Respondent 4: Well I used to be an advisor, I used to more of that but I personally don’t have the contact but it is my organization students who need

191 advise in regards to credit transfer our evaluators used to take calls and questions from the community college transfer centers or councilors who are unable to identify how a course would count. And we used to do this quite a bit. I have lost 7 evaluators in the last year through budget cuts and retirement without replacing them were probably do less of that unfortunately. We’re relying on community colleges to help students figure that out. Respondent 5: Limited contact with students in my rolling. Respondent 6: Well I’m sort of a hands-on person. I deal a lot with students but I get more students that maybe are appealing I also work with certain colleges on the transfer guarantee program, I give presentations I visit. I help with any kind of situation where there is a need to have management intervention to make sure that we have smooth information sharing and the fact that students know what they need to do and how to overcome certain challenges. I also work with the registrar’s office too. Trying to assure that the credit is transferred and posted correctly on the record card. Respondent 7: I would answer that question the same way I answered the previous one. Because we have such a competent transfer center director and articulation officer, and a great counseling staff, I rarely have to get involved with individual students though, don’t get me wrong, I love students and I would like to have more contact with students. I just don’t have time, but I do get involved with sticky situations when something didn’t work the way that it should for whatever reason, whether mis-counseling, wrong information on ASSIST or something was interpreted incorrectly. Then I’m the person students or staff even will come to and I’ll advocate on behalf of the students. And make sure they are able to navigate the articulation or transfer process. Students Demographics and Involvement

192

2.1 What do you think about the current state of articulation? How does it affect student transfer rates?

Respondent 1: It’s not as good as it could be when I first started this position 7 years ago I had hoped so we might be able to approach I think San Jose has the best articulation agreement in the CSU The time that I last looked at them they were articulating with all 110 community colleges they had a very well oiled machine they were doing a good job of it. Whether it affected their student transfer rates or not I don’t know But I think any time you got everyone of your courses is in assist for all community colleges you are going to have a lot larger audience that you can pull from whether or not they take advantage of your campus I don’t know, but I think it has to help. Respondent 2: I think that the articulation process that is in place right now is a good one. I think that it’s smooth the transfer of students to other colleges. I would guess it would affect the transfer rate by increasing them because of the ease of students being able to transfer but I don’t have data to support that belief. Respondent 3: I think the current state is very poor because were in the situation where we are about to see 1 of the largest high school graduating class in the fall come of age as it were and be college ready but I don’t think there is going to be door open as you know many of the UC are under extreme constraints as far as the budget and they’re basically having to put enrollment caps they’re trying to constrict enrollment severely of course at the community college level our funding has been cut 100’s of millions of dollars. So were having, I think just about every community college, is educating students that were being paid for with state apportionment so I know at Grossmont we are

193 education about 2000 students more than we are being paid for so what you’re seeing is course offerings being slashed in half and our summer is going to be cut is half and were pulling about 150 sections out of our inventory every semester. We’re laying off adjunct faculty fortunately we’ve been able to keep all our full time faculty and staff were trying and we hope we can continue to do that. But I think you’re going to see that up and down the state. Respondent 4: I think it’s good and I think it helps transfer rates. I think that a lot of areas students could probably have a clearer understanding is the difference between certification of a course, a general education course, and articulation, a course to course equivalency. I think sometimes they confuse the two and are looking for an exact equivalent of a GE course when that doesn’t necessarily have to be the case. So I think the current state is good and it does positively affect the transfer rate. But I think having those two systems can be confusing. Respondent 5: I think it’s more and more critical because the CSU’s and UC’s have more limited slots they’re going to be looking at the most prepared students. For having one of those factors could be completion of the lower division major course work at the community college. Respondent 6: I think the current state of articulation is good. I think it could be better. And I think we’re working towards that with maybe the new generation system. It is quite timely and time consuming because you’re working with so many areas like community college, the faculty, and our staff. It has to go through a check and balance system. So it does take longer than we would like at times. I think it is why we have an increase in our transfer rates. We had a 25.5% increase in our transfer rates working with students to

194 direct them to the articulation tools to ensure that they meet their requirements to gain admission at our campus or the campus at their choice. Respondent 7: I’ll go back to what I said in the beginning. I think articulation is absolutely the cornerstone of a puzzle before and in a lot of ways I guess I think they’re very equal pieces. And articulation is certainly an equal player. You’ve got to have good counseling, you’ve got to have good information and you’ve got to have the articulation agreements so students know what courses they need to take and not only know what courses they need to take but then once they do transfer; they’re viewed in the same way. And now I’m thinking back 20 years ago when we didn’t have all those articulation agreements, when the whole profession was a lot more nebulas and we would tell students , we being counselors, to take certain classes that would fulfill certain requirements only to find out that once they did transfer, their units weren’t transferring the way we told them and it wasn’t good for counseling, wasn’t good for students and so I actually thing articulation has come a long way in the last, again this is my 26th year at SMC, so it’s come a long way and I still think it has a long way to go to. I think we do need more articulation agreements. There needs to be more system-wide agreements and basically I think I already made my point by answering other questions. Articulation has come a long way, it has a long way to go and it absolutely impacts transfer rates. I would be willing to bet that those schools and I’m sure you’ve heard this, don’t really talk transfer rates we talk transfer numbers because nobody can decide how to calculate a transfer rate because we don’t know what’s on the denominator but in terms of transfer numbers, I would be willing to bet that those schools that transfer more students have more articulation agreements. I don’t know that for a fact, but I would be willing to bet that

195 there is some kind of correlation between high transfer numbers and high numbers of articulation agreements. 2.2 Do you think students are aware of articulation agreements between your institution and others? Respondent 1: I don’t know how aquatinted they are or not. I know we that have assist agreement or assist process we have out there that we can log in to but I have no real understanding of how well known or how widely used it is. Respondent 2: Well that’s a rather broad question. I think that some students are aware. The students who come in to the transfer center or student who come to meet with a councilor and express an interest in transferring to another campus are aware because our councilors and our transfer center show the student assist and how to use it and why it’s important. Students who utilize the services who are just kind of independent and haven’t come in to use the counseling available and the transfer center programs that are available don’t know about articulation. Respondent 3: Yes, Grossmont has a very comprehensive articulation website and we try to direct students to that. The articulation officer meets weekly with all the councilors. She has a permanent agenda item on the counseling department meetings with academic department and serves on the academic committee voting member. Our articulation officer regularly updates deans and department chairs of advised articulation agreements she also available to students. They have a direct contact via the website they also call and make appointment either with the articulations officer or a referral to other councilors. Respondent 4: Well I don’t think that they know what an articulation agreement is. They know they can go to assist and see what course

196 equivalencies exist, but as far as the process or even using the word articulation that kind of foreign to them. Respondent 5: Maybe not all students but we provide in our orientation which is highly recommended but not mandatory. We provide them with the basic understanding that there are these agreements and they need to see councilors to give them the details that they need and what institutions they need to look at for transfer given their interests and majors. Respondent 6: I think they are. I think that it’s pretty prevalent when we’re giving our presentations or we’re talking to councilors, or sending our councilors newsletters. We are pointing them in the direction of the assist tool. All our websites lead to ones to the assist tool. Respondent 7: Absolutely, we make it very prominent and not to digress too far, but we have student success seminars. I know other colleges have a similar course, ours is called Counseling 20. And Counseling 20 is a 3 unit, UC transferable course and it has become the second most popular class at SMC and only English 1 is more popular than Counseling 20. So we’re putting between 3-4 thousand students through Counseling 20 every year. We offer more than 100 sections every year and in Counseling 20, we talk about transfer, we talk about articulation, we talk about articulation agreements. So no matter where students turn in the classroom, in counseling appointment, on our counseling website, they know about articulation and they know about our articulation agreements. 2.3 What do you think is the most important information that needs to be given in helping students understand articulation?

197

Respondent 1: The first thing they need to understand is that it exists. They can take a course at one institution and be guaranteed that it will count at another. So just being aware of the process is probably helpful. Then once they know that there is a process they need to know if it applies to them. They need to be able to say ok I’m planning on taking this course at this institution and I think I’m going to transfer to 1 of these other 3 I´m going to look and take advantage of this process. Once they know it’s there then learning how to use it would be the next piece of information. Respondent 2: I would think that the most important information is how to access the articulation information. Either through teaching students how to independently use assist on their own and or make them aware of specific course to course articulation that we might have with specific campuses. That they can come in and work with a councilor to find if a course does articulate. Respondent 3: The constant update that is given to those who advise students and the information being readily available for the web and the advisor to have access. After that it is just a matter of getting students and councilors in the mode of going to the website and seeing what’s current because our office keeps that website current with all our articulation agreements. Respondent 4: I think I jumped the gun on my answer earlier. I think the most important difference is having them understand the difference between general education certification categories and articulation and when you need to have a course articulated and when you don’t. You know if you want to take a course for social behavior science general education you have a world of choice. It doesn’t mean that you have to take at the community college a course that is articulated to a course here in that same GE category. I just think

198 that gets confusing for students. I think they understand articulation as course equivalency they just think everything has to be equivalent. Respondent 5: I think course to course equivalency and the value that completing as much of the lower division course work as possible will have on their transfer applications. Respondent 6: I think to have them work with either their high school or community college councilor to direct them to the assist tool and how there is the difference between matching up straight articulation to what course is transferable and what articulates too as well as what the difference is in the tool and the pathway their using, major preparation courses. I think there is multiple the ASSIST tool has many facets. It talks about General Ed, major preparation and straight course to course transferability through articulation. Respondent 7: Articulation most students don’t know what the word means. So students need to understand that it means that well there is a certain guarantee attached. That is, they take a course at a community college that means it will transfer, and may, depending on how it is articulated; it may fulfill a lower division major requirement or lower division GE requirement. So I think initially I think we’re obligated to help students understand what the concept is and then understand the importance of articulation and maybe state-wide we’re not doing a really good job of that. I don’t know, I think actually that we do a pretty good job of that at SMC, but I think from the very beginning helping new students understanding what the concept is, what it means and why it is so important and maybe if they had a greater understanding of articulation they could help us lobby the 4 year institutions to get an even greater articulation agreement because it is in their best interest.

199

2.4 How do students use the Articulation System Stimulating Interinstitutional Student Transfer (ASSIST) tools?

Respondent 1: I really don’t know. I don’t know what they’re doing. Respondent 2: Well our students who come in to see our councilors or who come in to see someone form the transfer center are all basically shown the website and how to use it. We do occasionally have workshop were we teach students how to know about transfer to other colleges and again demonstrate the assist website. So I don’t know except anecdotally how students use this. I’m hoping that they go on to assist and utilize it for their educational planning but again I have no data or student interviews to support that belief. Respondent 3: They are guided towards ASSIST with all the links being provided on the articulation website. ASSIST major preparation siege for our highest transfer university that’s CSU and UCSD They’re available in the counseling center or distribution racks. Respondent 4: I think they are very familiar with it. Certainly they are on our campus. ASSIST is a wonderful powerful great tool and I hope someday they will re-architect it to make it easier for the information to be loaded in there instead of having to go there 16 thousand times. But I think it’s a great tool. Respondent 5: We do teach students how to use that. Respondent 6: The students use it as sort of their bible to determine what and how courses to take and how the, what courses they need to take for major preparation as well as to meet the 60 unit 90 core units transfer requirements. Satisfying courses needs are English, there are math requirements as well as the four courses, and campus GE, and also having their university working with their councilors. I even think that parents, comparing it back to high

200 school councilors, and high school students are using it to take courses that would be given honors credit, and allow courses to be transferable. So they start their first year with college credit under their belt. Respondent 7: I was in the system before we had ASSIST and I think ASSIST is wonderful and ASSIST is a tool that is promoted everywhere. And I think they go online so ASSIST allows students to gain some independence so they don’t have to come to counselors for every question at every turn along the way, but I think that’s 1 of the things counselors try to do with students is give them tools like ASSIST so that they can do their own research and empower themselves with information know-how to access information so students use ASSIST. So how do they use it they learn to how to go online and to learn what courses transfer to different institutions and what the comparable equivalents are. 2.5 Do you think students are using ASSIST to determine what courses are articulated?

Respondent 1: I think in hindsight they do. If they have a problem they look to see if it was articulated. Do they do it proactively I really don’t know. When they’re starting to make a decision on whether to take a course at a community college are they really looking to see if it will transfer to another institution I don’t know. Respondent 2: I hope so. Respondent 3: You know absolutely. ASSIST you know we believe assist is a vital tool for articulation in the collection of current and past agreements and working in. Our articulations officer verified this that they debate is valuable. Respondent 4: Yes, absolutely.

201

Respondent 5: I think many students are, I can’t give you a number because we can’t track that. I think many, many students’ are aware and utilize it. Respondent 6: Definitely, definitely we had an increase of about 32% in our transfer admission guarantee this year. Students and that’s what they use. Respondent 7: Yes I do, absolutely, absolutely.

Future of Articulation

3.1 Do you have an overall institutional strategy in place to strengthen articulation with other institutions and how do you think these strategies influence the transfer of students?

Respondent 1: I think our strategy is to work with these 13 institutions relatively closely I don’t know that were really doing any outreach to them though I think what we do is respond to requests. So I would say that our strategy is to respond to the request from these 13 feeder schools and others as needed, and I think that is very definitely sends a message that students look that if you’re not from 1 of these 13 institutions it’s going to be a lot more difficult to transfer here. Respondent 2: I would have to say that Fresno City College does have an overall institutional strategy in place. I don’t know that it is written down anywhere. It is more a belief that if we as an institution need to collaborate with other campuses, and with the UCs and the CSUs as well as private colleges and independent colleges to do as much as we can to smooth the transfer process and definitely those strategies influence students because we have been able to form agreements with UCs CSUs as well as independent colleges on course to course articulation that certainly has benefitted students.

202

Respondent 3: We can say affirmative, yes. Articulation is included in our future planning. And it’s also included in Grossmonts future plan and so we factor that in as probably here as we conduct interviews with other college’s personal. You know because of what I shared earlier with the severe budget constraints that transfer and basic skills and continuing our CPU workforce partnership. There are the three areas that all community colleges are focusing on and transfer being right up there at the top. I would imagine that articulation is going to be extremely important. Respondent 4: I don’t think we currently have an overall institutional strategy I think we have strong articulation currently, but I don’t see us staff wise or budget wise able to increase that in any way at the present. Respondent 5: I think the strategy now is, as I alluded to before is to strengthen our relationship or our articulation with our faculty and the curriculum they are developing, and helping them with an understanding of implications of them writing the curriculum in a certain way, in order to meet these course to course articulation agreements and I think that strategy can be very effective in increasing the number of UC and CSU applicable courses for lower division majors. Respondent 6: We have strategies to strengthen articulation through greater use of technology, through websites. And I think that the students that are out in the world right now are self-driven, they like to go out on the computer and have the self-search, and assist provides that. The other thing we do is that we work with our major’s departments to see if there are courses that need to be articulated. We work with them as they change their own requirements on campus, and we work with the conduit to the community college to help streamline and allow students to transition into the new courses that are

203 required, allowing time to grandfather in and see the new courses that they need to take. Respondent 7: I think we have a strategy. So once upon a time I actually took over the transfer center in 1988. We were not the number one transfer institution in the UC system and the college president came to me back then and said I want us to be the number one transfer institution and you tell me what we need. So that’s when kind of a group of us talked and we said you know we need more counselors, we need and articulation office that focused in counseling and we need the freedom and license to develop articulation agreements and basically your trust. I think that over the 20-25 years we now have the program we do because there was a vision many years ago. But I think it’s still in place now. That is you can never have too many articulation agreements, you can never have too many transfer students, you can never have too many counselors who are talking to students about transfer opportunities and the meaning of articulation so I think we do have an overall institutional strategy. It’s been in place a long time but I think those strategies absolutely have influenced both the transfer process and it’s we’re, why we’re as successful as we are. That’s not to say we can’t be more successful, because we can. I think that we continue to try to push the envelope. There’s a lot of institutional support at SMC for transfer and articulation. We’re going through horrible budget cuts, just like everybody else but honestly, nobody is talking about cutting student services or counseling services except in the categorical program and those are different issues, but I know that in a lot of institutions, the first thing to go on the chopping block are student services and at Santa Monica, I think people understand the relationship to transfer and they’re not

204 going to cut counseling, they’re not going to cut articulation, but that’s an institutional strategy. 3.2 If you had to redesign the existing articulation procedures, what would be your recommendations?

Respondent 1: Well ideally we would have a common numbering system with community colleges and CSU and in the UC. I understand that such a thing exists in the University of Florida and the Florida system. So I don’t know if there is any hope of ever getting that, but that would be the dream in the sky the pipe dream if you will. If we had a common course number, a common title, and learning outcomes then we would really be set but that will never happen. Respondent 2: That’s a difficult one, it’s very broad. I would guess you will different answers on this. But I think that one of the things that in talking with my articulation officer, one of the challenges is feedback time. Getting information back from the, for instance Fresno State, which is our main feeder campus, when articulation officers send out information to Fresno State sometimes it takes quite a while to get any kind of answer and that’s no shame or blame on Fresno State I think that it’s just a process of not enough people not enough hours being devoted to articulation. Having a campus, like Fresno State, probably gets lots of requests from other community colleges and other colleges or articulation information just a manner of more demand than there is staffing or time being allowed for that particular process. I think that if I were going to redesign something I might suggest something like curriculunet. I’m not sure if you’re familiar with curriculunet. That curriculunet is a software program that allows schools to more quickly develop an approved

205 curriculum. And something like that, I think would be good for the articulation process, maybe it can be called articulationnet or something like that. That would be a web based process for reviewing and approving the articulation of courses. Respondent 3: Well here at Grossmont I know we would like to relocate articulation to a more accessible and workable place. Right now a lot of that work is done in isolation so it’s a little bit difficult for students to find that office. The office is available. But hope is on the horizon as we’re building a new student center and new student services complex and within the next 18 months were are going to have a building to move into. So articulation is going to be housed in that area. Eventually we will see a need for clerical support within the articulation office and obliviously we would like to share more resources with more individuals with more of an open office and I think that as a college we need to address an electronic system for curriculum and that is where we would like to go with this. Respondent 4: I think it would be best if we could have the articulation process just sort of be electronic, have it be more efficient but other than that I think its fine. Respondent 5: I think the design is fine right now, now we just need to really evaluate the new concept. Respondent 6: One of the things that we would do is having it be a little bit more user friendly. Develop a tracking system allow students to maybe have the courses they are taking and have it lay out, and what they’ve completed and patterns. I would like to see that more faculty are aware and utilizing this process and that the students can maybe have a search mechanism that makes it easier to find their courses. It’s friendlier in the search pattern.

206

Respondent 7: Just too kind of repeat myself; it would be to have more system- wide efforts. For example, we have, and I know it’s not unique to Santa Monica, but a lot of students who have gone to other institutions and students want to know how my course does from the university of Arizona transfer to UCLA. We worked with our MIS – our information technology staff and we created something called our transcript evaluation log and our transfer evaluation requirement isn’t where it’s a huge log of when our articulation registry evaluates a course and determines applicability toward IGETC, or the CSU GE pattern or an AA degree but how it transfers and we were saying that really she’s been doing this for 10 years this log is huge, but now it’s a huge database where counselors can go to look at the transferability of really, hundreds of thousands of classes. Well, in an ideal world this log wouldn’t be specific to Santa Monica College, in an ideal world this log would be universal to all California Community colleges and UCs and CSUs. So I think we need to get away from the individual campus specific articulation endeavors and we need to do things more system-wide. For example, on Friday I got a call from someone at Pierce College in the Los Angeles Unified School District – Los Angeles Community College District, they’re very interesting in seeing our transcript evaluation registry so they can replicate something like that. And I just think we need more collaborative efforts, and more financial resources going towards more system-wide efforts that will ultimately benefit students, which will ultimately benefit society and on and on. 3.3 How do you measure the success of your current articulation efforts?

207

Respondent 1: I think our current articulation if we respond in a timely fashion to the campus making the request we think we successful. We’re not looking at the quality as so much as being able to check off the box and say yeah we got it done. That’s not probably a real good way to measure the success of our articulation efforts, but I think that’s how we do it. Respondent 2: I think Fresno City College is blessed with a very gifted articulations officer. She works very hard even though she is part time and is very knowledgeable in a wide variety of processes needed to smooth out articulation. I think that in terms of Fresno City College, that if we had a fulltime articulations officer it would be better but this is not a really good budget time to be thinking about increasing a halftime position to a fulltime position. Respondent 3: We think that we are very successful. Given what you stated earlier we are the largest feeder to college into San Diego State. So we think that we are very successful in what we do in regards to articulation. I can tell you that we have a number of private, independent, out of state institutions that we have articulation agreements with. So I think we’re broad and comprehensive. Respondent 4: San Diego state is kind a in a particular position, particularly for the upcoming falls admission cycle, were giving highest priority to the students that have met the transfer admission guarantee and that requires student have all their general education done, all their preps for the major done, have the GPA for the major all already met. So students who don’t have all that done and done correctly aren’t going to have the highest admission priority and we aren’t going to have many spaces for anyone else. I think that the success of it is that we fill our enrollment completely with people who are

208 done with the lower division and are ready for the major and they need to get that information somewhere they get it through the articulation and GE certification so I think that is successful. Respondent 5: Well there are raw numbers, We can calculate the numbers of agreements we have established with institutions, and we’re looking at trying to establish articulation agreement with colleges and universities that have been historically difficult, you know, out of country, traditional historical black colleges so we’re I think if we can make some headway in those areas and I think we are. Then I think that that is one way to measure, in terms of numbers and getting out into institutions that have traditionally not been supportive of articulation efforts with community colleges. Respondent 6: We do that by identifying the increase in the number of applications not only generally through our gross applicant pool transfer applicant pool. Through the increase in our transfer guarantee as well as a number of courses that are being taken by our first time freshmen that are articulated with college credit, as well as the number of continuing students that come to us seeking credit revisions, by adding and poaching credits that they have taken maybe during the summer. To complete certain requirements so they can complete their degree in a timelier basis. So just all those increases we can see, we can see also that the students are better prepared. The academic indicators are going up. Respondent 7: Yea, I would say the success is measured by the numbers of agreements you have and the numbers you’re transferring. 3.4 What is different today about articulation agreements and procedures than 5 years ago?

209

Respondent 1: On our campus the difference is that we are focused on a small set of campuses. We have fewer man hours being devoted. We’re not spending nearly as much time anywhere in the system working on articulation. Respondent 2: Technology. I think that articulation now is moving more towards doing things via email, internet, electronic attachments, that kind of thing. This is why I think we’re really on the cusp of maybe having something like the curriculunet software for articulation. Respondent 3: There is a great need to offer our student’s alternatives the closest of the popular universities SDSU are gone like I said into full- impaction. So every major is impacted therefore large numbers of students have been denied admission and it’s become even more imperative to have a fully developed articulation with every possible accredited university. And that’s what we’re trying to do for our students, more options, as regional universities are being impacted. Respondent 4: I think that there are more things being done electronically, and I think that it is a more efficient process now that it has. I think that technology has helped that a lot. Respondent 5: I think it is more critical of students to fulfill those requirements because of the limited slots in post- in education at the university level Respondent 6: First of all the number of community colleges has increased via agreements that we’ve made. We’ve expanded the number of majors and the number of courses that are articulated within each major. Here at Davis we’ve also developed a tracking system where we can monitor the number of electronic request received verses paper. And we can see that we’ve got a 95% of our request come in via electronic verses paper.

210

Respondent 7: You know, I think there’s more automation than there used to be, you know, ASSIST has gotten better and there’s more things on the website, but I think we need to continue to push the envelope there, and get even more information in the hands of the students. But I think we’ve made a lot of progress in this direction in the last 5 years. 3.5 What are you changing related to articulation (policies, procedures and framework) in the next 12 month?

Respondent 1: I don’t think we have any plans right now for the next 12 months. With the demise of the lower division transfer program at the system level though there is probably going to be some kind of process coming out of the system that we are going to have to be responsive to so I think we will respond to that and not go out on our own any time soon, Because we don’t know what’s coming down the system. There is no sense charging out in front when they are going to change the ground rules. A respondent 2: 12 month isn’t a very long period of time in higher education, too much bureaucracy. I can’t say that anything is probably going to change in the next 12 months. However, I think that what is going to be worked on and is in many ways being worked on, would be more articulation major to major, rather than in general education. So I think that there would be more concentration and effort placed in the future on specific major programs rather than just general education, but I don’t see that happening in 12 months. Respondent 3: Well we really don’t have any changes planned Articulation working well and we expand our agreements every semester. As far as localization we’re trying to help students understand and readily complete a San Diego State supplemental application process because that school is in

211 high demand. I think this year, this fall they had 60,000 applicants for fewer than 6,000 seats that’s both transfer and freshmen. So about 1 in 10 get in to San Diego State so what we’re trying to do is fully understand their process, work with them trying to get them to understand what students are facing and that’s what on the horizon here for articulation at Grossmont. Respondent 4: I don’t think anything. I think we’re on status quo for a while. Respondent 5: No because I think we have significantly in the last 12 months so I think we’re are going to look at it and reassess it at a later time. Respondent 6: We will be changing our general education course articulation because the campus is doing that, we’re enhancing our tracking system to better respond to the student’s needs. We’re looking at posting our AP and IB on assist, because I lot of students are taking advanced placement and having baccalaureate courses where they scored high enough to receive college credit and have that articulate to courses on campus. And lastly, I’m sure your aware of we are in discussion now with the new assist generation plan and providing new information on how we can see improvement they made with Mister Grosse. I don’t know if you talked to him. He’s a consultant that’s been contracted. And he’s going to campuses and asking what we see as improvements. No but I think that overall articulation is critical to facilitate not only transfers I just really think that we need to be aware that it is not only for transfers it is First-time freshmen and it is definitely for continuing students So it comes to full circle and it has global impact. Respondent 7: You know, if I talk to our articulation officer she might be able to remind me of some things, but at the moment my mind is kind of a blank, you know I really put her in the driver’s seat cause I just have implicit trust in that, you know, honestly at this point, she’s the one who’s telling me what we

212 need and then I just listen to her and support her. So if I had more time I’d go and talk to her, but honestly I can’t think of anything.

California State University, Fresno

Non-Exclusive Distribution License (to make your thesis available electronically via the library’s eCollections database)

By submitting this license, you (the author or copyright holder) grant to CSU, Fresno Digital Scholar the non-exclusive right to reproduce, translate (as defined in the next paragraph), and/or distribute your submission (including the abstract) worldwide in print and electronic format and in any medium, including but not limited to audio or video.

You agree that CSU, Fresno may, without changing the content, translate the submission to any medium or format for the purpose of preservation.

You also agree that the submission is your original work, and that you have the right to grant the rights contained in this license. You also represent that your submission does not, to the best of your knowledge, infringe upon anyone’s copyright.

If the submission reproduces material for which you do not hold copyright and that would not be considered fair use outside the copyright law, you represent that you have obtained the unrestricted permission of the copyright owner to grant CSU, Fresno the rights required by this license, and that such third-party material is clearly identified and acknowledged within the text or content of the submission.

If the submission is based upon work that has been sponsored or supported by an agency or organization other than California State University, Fresno, you represent that you have fulfilled any right of review or other obligations required by such contract or agreement.

California State University, Fresno will clearly identify your name as the author or owner of the submission and will not make any alteration, other than as allowed by this license, to your submission. By typing your name and date in the fields below, you indicate your agreement to the terms of this distribution license.

Klaus-Georg Tenbergen

Type full name as it appears on submission

July 1, 2010

Date