USING BRIC’S TO BUILD
A PATH
Erik Cooper
WHAT’S A BRIC?
 RP Group Research Project (2009 -2012)
 Data to Action: Building Evidence Based Change in California
Community Colleges through Bridging Research, Information, and
Culture (BRIC) Initiative
 “The initiative focused on how data could inform the development or
refinement of common and critical institutional processes such as student
learning outcomes (SLO) assessment, program review, cohort -tracking and
integrated budgeting and planning.”
GOALS OF BRIC
 Develop Actionable Data
 Interpret Data through Discussion
 Facilitate Dialogue
 Integrate Data into Institutional Processes
 Build an Inquiry -Based Practice
KEY FINDINGS
 “What do colleges need to make better use of their data?”
 In times of shrinking resources, colleges need to streamline data
collection
 Additional types of data are needed to drive improvement efforts
 Colleges need models that can be adapted to their own institutions
 Colleges need the time and space to review data, develop action
plans and test new ideas
BRIC INQUIRY GUIDES
 Assessing Student Learning Outcomes
 Assessing Basic Skills Outcomes
 Research and Assessment for Noncredit Colleges and
Programs
 Improving CTE Programs with Data and Evidence
 Assessing Strategic Intervention Points in Student Services
 Using an Equity Lens to Assess Student Outcomes
 Maximizing the Program Review Process
 Assessing and Planning for Institutional Ef fectiveness
 A Model for Building Information Capacity and Promoting a
Culture of Inquiry
 Turning Data into Meaningful Action
IDLE THOUGHTS FOR A FRIDAY
 Building Information Capacity and Promoting a Culture of
Inquiry
 Identify a group and develop a research agenda
 “A higher impact strategy would yield collaborative discussions and
inquiry that shape planning and decision -making”
 Provide a venue for benchmarking
 Assessing and Planning for Institutional Ef fectiveness
 Find Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that are meaningful
 “Through careful facilitation of discussions and coaching by data and
subject matter experts the data can be transformed into actionable
information.”
IDLE THOUGHTS FOR A FRIDAY
Data Integration Strategy Matrix
STILL IDLING
 Turning Data Into Meaningful Action
 IR as a Story Teller
 GET OUT OF YOUR OFFICE!!
SIERRA COLLEGE
Two Moments
 Student Equity Data
 Waitlists v. Fill Rates
Sierra College has a mature planning process
 Strategic Planning Metrics
STUDENT EQUIT Y DATA





Access
Course Completion
ESL/Basic Skills
Degree Certificate
Transfer
CCCCO Guidelines v Internal Data
“Final” Data Report
~112 Pages of Charts, Graphs and Analysis
STUDENT EQUIT Y DATA
 Access
 Placement
 Demographics by Location
 Application to Matriculation (Not all populations)
 Course Completion
 Course Success & Retention
 GPA (Term)
 30 Units in 2 Years*
 ESL/Basic Skills
 Degree Certificate
 Transfer
STUDENT EQUIT Y DATA
 Access
 Course Completion
 ESL/Basic Skills
 Degree Applicable Math & English Completion (with Time)
 Degree Applicable Math & English Completion by Placement (with
Time)
 ESL Progression (1 Level and 2 Levels)
 Degree Certificate
 Degrees
 Certificates
 Transfer
 Transfers (<=3 years, >3 years)
 2015 “Final” Equity Data Report
 112 Pages of charts, tables, and analysis
 Data Presentations
 Student Equity Advisory Committee (40-50 regular attendees)
 Short data presentations to highlight specific findings
 Takeaways
 Um…it’s a bit much
 Seriously? None of our students are doing as well as we thought
STUDENT EQUIT Y DATA SIMPLIFIED
Race/Ethnicity
AfricanAmerican/
Black
F
M
Fall 2016 Disparate Impact Summary
U
Access
Course Completion
Filipino
F
M
Hispanic
F
M
Pacific Islander Multi Ethnic
F
M
F
M
Other
M
F
White
M
F
Gender
N
M
Disabilities
F
M
Income
F
M
Veteran
F
M
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
7%
8%
10%
8%
10%
8%
7%
15%
9%
11%
9%
10%
4%
5%
20%
10%
10%
25%
16%
13%
13%
14%
11%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
D
D
U
U
U
D
N/A
N/A
Demographics by Location
Course Retention
GPA (Term)
30 Units in 2 Years
Fall 2013 Cohort
Engl 1A (1st Year)
Fall 2015 Cohort
5%
N/A
4%
N/A
N/A
D
D
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
16%
17%
4%
4%
7%
10%
12%
6%
4%
4%
4%
9%
22%
21%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
U
U
U
D
D
4%
7%
4%
21%
20%
U
U
U
U
4%
14%
7%
D
D
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
D
D
0.73
0.52
0.40
0.26
0.15
0.21
0.44
0.33
0.21
0.16
0.19
0.53
0.86
*
D
D
D
D
D
U
D
18%
11%
29%
14%
6%
4%
7%
D*
U
12%
7%
D
D
U*
D
D
U
D
D
U
9%
21%
5%
15%
10%
5%
9%
15%
4%
D
U
U
8%
5%
D
U
D
D
U
D
D
U
9%
21%
5%
15%
10%
5%
8%
15%
4%
D
3 Year Avg. 15%
*
U
*
D
*
*
D
U
U
D
D
10%
4%
7%
8%
14%
*
U
U
D
U
U
U
D
D
5%
5%
12%
4%
4%
7%
12%
17%
U*
D
U
D
D
U
8%
14%
4%
10%
15%
8%
D*
U
D
U
U
D
D
D
29%
5%
5%
4%
4%
5%
12%
23%
D
D
U
D*
U
D
14%
13%
6%
17%
5%
8%
*
N/A
N/A
*
N/A
D
*
N/A
9%
Fall '13,'14 & '15 Cohort
Fall '12 to Spring '14
U
13%
4%
17%
Certificate
U
U
9%
U
D
Fall '12 to Spring '14
N/A
U
5%
4%
17%
Degree
N/A
U
5%
U
D
Math D+ by Placement
4%
N/A
Foster Youth
F
M
7%
18%
Fall 2015 Cohort
N/A
D
3 Year Avg. 11%
D
Math D+ (1st Year)
Engl 1A by Placement
ESL Progression
F
U
Course Success
Completoi
n
M
22%
Application to Matriculation
Transfer
Asian
F
English 15%
Math 15%
Placement
ESL/Basic Skills Completion
Native
American/ AK
Native
F
M
D
D
2%
2%
U
D
D
D
D
1%
1%
1%
1%
U
D
U
D
D
13%
15%
N/A
N/A
*
*
N/A
D
N/A
N/A
*
N/A
10%
D
D
D
1%
6%
6%
U
D
D
D
D
D
2%
3%
3%
3%
5%
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
D
D
D
D
Transfer
D = Disparate Impact Noted
U
U = Disportionality Noted or Area of Concern
D
U
N/A = Not applicable or unable to measure
U
N/A
D
D
% - All Percentages are approximate
D
D
D
WAITLISTS
 Strategic Planning Metrics
 Fill Rate
 Waitlists (# of Students who didn’t make it)
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
District
101%
102%
Rocklin
106%
107%
Roseville Gateway
87%
90%
Nevada County Campus
86%
Tahoe Truckee
Distance Learning
Fill Rate
Waitlists
ANTH
BUS
COMM
ENGL
MATH
PSYC
SOC
Grand Total
Spring 2014
101
213
183
413
521
194
93
1718
Fall 2014
Fall 2015
96%
94%
92%
102%
100%
98%
86%
73%
70%
89%
83%
74%
76%
72%
77%
76%
78%
68%
90%
93%
77%
78%
80%
Fall 2014
68
169
152
549
512
131
28
1609
Fall 2013
Spring 2015
126
199
197
378
435
134
65
1534
Fall 2015
84
194
164
368
517
130
48
1505
WAITLISTS
 Uncomfortable Conversations
 Why are we scheduling so many
classes that aren’t for GE or required
for majors?
 Why are we scheduling low filling
classes during peak times?
 Why does a 21 unit major (English)
have 84 units to choose from?
 Why don’t the number of section
offerings match the number of
placements (math and English)?
Spring 2014
ENGL
2
11
19
20
21
32
35
37
38
40
42
60
501
510
571
0000A
0000N
0001A
0001B
0001C
0030A
0030B
0046A
0046B
0047A
Grand Total
Spring
Fall 2014 2015
413
549
1
8
9
2
4
1
2
4
1
6
2
9
3
1
3
9
4
18
20
4
2
1
91
120
2
112
325
114
29
30
14
3
3
1
2
2
413
549
Fall 2015
368
1
2
8
3
6
378
5
6
2
4
8
4
9
2
11
1
20
37
165
144
7
3
245
43
5
2
1
2
378
368
R4S
 So…we’re not as good as we thought we were, our response…
 2 Deans, 1 Classified, 15 Faculty




All members purposefully selected
2 Years to make a difference
Deans on full-release, plus 1 AA
I’m not on the team
R4S GOALS
 BIG
 Make navigating the institution user-friendly to all students
 Help students understand, explore, and choose appropriate
educational goals
 Give students clear and efficient paths to reach those goals
 Ensure those paths are available
 Provide support and resources to keep students on those paths
 Measure institutional progress toward/success at these goals and
respond accordingly
OVERWHELMED BY CHOICES
“Choose 7 or 8
classes from this
list of 547.”
R4S ARGUMENTS
HARSH REALITIES
 50% of our students leave every year
 …but some come back
 4% of students complete 30 units in their first year
 …only 35% of students eventually earn 30 units
 5% of students who are placed into Math 581 (4 levels below
transfer) eventually complete degree applicable math
 2% eventually earn a certificate
 10% of all students eventually earn a degree
 …only 15% of students who state they want a degree earn one
 25% of students eventually transfer to a 4 year college…most
without earning a degree first
JUST FOR REFERENCE
 Sierra College
 The State
BACK 2 BRIC
 Building Information Capacity and Promoting a Culture of
Inquiry
 Identify a group and develop a research agenda
 “A higher impact strategy would yield collaborative discussions and
inquiry that shape planning and decision -making”
 Provide a venue for benchmarking
 Assessing and Planning for Institutional Ef fectiveness
 Find Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that are meaningful
 “Through careful facilitation of discussions and coaching by data and
subject matter experts the data can be transformed into actionable
information.”
SOME SOLUTIONS
 Give every student a MAP
 Academic Maps – A plan for classes for all four semesters
 Based on a template for a degree or certificate, then customized
 “Default” path for students
 Built into DegreeWorks
 Faculty created full-time program templates Fall 2016
SOME SOLUTIONS
 Give every student a MAP
 Academic Maps – A plan for classes for all four semesters
 Based on a template for a degree or certificate, then customized
 “Default” path for students
 Built into DegreeWorks
 Faculty created full-time program templates Fall 2016
 Define Interest Areas (aka Meta Majors)
 Cluster related disciplines into a group
 Helpful for students who have a sense of direction, but not a specific
goal
 Plan to develop a generic Map for each interest area – allows
students to explore, but avoid excessive units
SIERRA COLLEGE INTEREST AREAS
 Winter 2017
 38 Groups created “Interest Areas”
 Students, Faculty, Staff
 How do we sift through it to make meaning?
R
 Text Analysis
library(tm)
library(ggplot2)
ta_r4s<-read.csv("C:/Location/IntAreaDataInv.csv", header = FALSE, sep=",")
corp_r4s<-Corpus(VectorSource(ta_r4s))
tdm_r4s<-TermDocumentMatrix(corp_r4s, control = list(wordLengths=c(1,Inf)))
m4<-as.matrix(tdm_r4s)
distMatrix<-dist(scale(m4))
fit<-hclust(distMatrix)
plot(fit)
FROM THIS
THROUGH THIS
TO THIS
WE’RE NOT DONE YET!
 Curriculum Development and Scheduling Business Process
Analysis
 3/8 – 3/10 (16 hours, 44 attendees: Deans, VPs, Dept. Chairs, AAs,
Senators)
 Hard look at how, why we schedule the way we do
 Goal: Yearlong, rolling registration
 Using student academic plans for predicting scheduling
 Expanding related programs
 Nursing
 100x as many nursing “majors” as nursing spots
 Strong Workforce Initiative
 Advanced Manufacturing (Interdisciplinary)
 Data Analytics (Interdisciplinary)
HOW DO I DO THIS?
 Let’s talk about power for a second…
 Position Power
 Control of Rewards
 Coercive Power
 Information and Expertise
 Reputation
 Personal Power
 Alliances and Networks
 Access and Control of Agendas
 Framing
Bolman and Deal, 2008
You are powerful if others think you are.
HOW DO I DO THIS?
 Read the Guides
 Get the conversation started!
 Tell a story
 Get out of your of fice
 Build Alliances & Make Friends
ANY (MORE) QUESTIONS?
Contact
Erik Cooper
[email protected] 916-660-7512