Progress Report 3csn August 2010

20092010
2010 ESL/Basic Skills Professional Development Grant Progress Report
www.3csn.org Grizli777 2009-2010
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................................................... 4 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................................................ 6 OVERVIEW OF THE 2010 ESL/BASIC SKILLS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT GRANT ...................... 7 PROGRESS OF GRANT OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................................. 8 Objective I: Create the initial infrastructure for a permanent professional development network/center i.e., a statewide resource network designed to support ongoing professional development in ESL/basic skills improvement..................................................................................................... 9 Objective II: Provide local, regional, and statewide workshops which focus on the alignment of noncredit with credit curriculum; integration of instruction and student services; implementation of culturally responsive instructional and student services strategies; and implementation of strategies found to be effective for students transitioning from high school and strategies that are most effective for diverse student populations. ................................................ 21 Objective III: Assist colleges with establishing benchmarks and building capacity to demonstrate increased ESL/basic skills student success and with implementing appropriate outcomes assessment components as well as data collection procedures. .......................................... 29 Objective IV: Expand electronic resources in order to build a knowledge base for practitioners regarding effective practices that lead to increased student success...................................................... 34 Objective V: Conduct a summer Leadership Institute designed to provide training for faculty, administrators, and staff leaders involved with serving developmental education students, including student services faculty and staff and faculty across disciplines.......................................... 37 EVALUATION SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................... 47 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................................................ 52 Appendix A: Participant Comments to Trainings ................................................................................................... 57 Appendix B: Summary of LACCD Dev Math team projects, Fall 2009 .......................................................... 59 Appendix C: 3CSN Logic Model ........................................................................................................................................ 61 Appendix D: Network Descriptions.............................................................................................................................. 62 Appendix E: Wilder Collaboration Factors ............................................................................................................... 63
Progress Report 3CSN 2010
Figure 1 CCC Participation at LINKS 2010 ........................................................................................................................ 8 Figure 2 On-Campus visits by regional network coordinators ................................................................................ 9 Figure 3 How useful will the topics covered at the LINKS event be in advancing your campus efforts to improve student success .................................................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 4 How likely are you to use these to advance your campus efforts to improve student success?............................................................................................................................................................................................ 12 Figure 5 Network Growth 2009-2010 .............................................................................................................................. 15 Figure 6 Projected Growth of Network ............................................................................................................................ 15 Figure 7 Categories of information on regional sites ................................................................................................ 16 Figure 8 Theory of Change...................................................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 9 Number of Workshop Attendees ...................................................................................................................... 22 Figure 10 College Participation in Logic Model Training ........................................................................................ 23 Figure 11 3CSN Events ............................................................................................................................................................. 28 Figure 12 Data Analysis training ......................................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 13 Sample Rubric ......................................................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 14 www.3csn.org Website ....................................................................................................................................... 35 Figure 15 BSILI website ........................................................................................................................................................... 35 Figure 16 Online learning ....................................................................................................................................................... 36 Figure 17 Inquiring into pathways to student success ............................................................................................. 39 Figure 18 Campus network ratings for comparison .................................................................................................. 48 Figure 19 First ten of 20 Wilder Collaborative factors ............................................................................................. 49 Figure 20 Second ten of 20 Wilder Collaborative factors ........................................................................................ 49 Figure 21 Campus changes for comparison ................................................................................................................... 50
2010 ESL/BASIC SKILLS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT GRANT PROGRESS REPORT

INTRODUCTION
The Basic Skills Initiative (BSI) Professional Development Grant has completed a very successful second year of operation through the leadership of Deborah Harrington, formerly the project director and now the project administrator; Lynn Wright, the current project director; and the original network coordinators: Lisa Brewster, Nancy Cook, Daryl Kinney, and Anniqua Rana. During the 2009-10 academic year, the grant clarified its purpose and its identity, branding this community of practice as the California Community Colleges Success Network, or 3CSN, and focusing on student success through college completion, with completion broadly defined (a sequence of classes, a certificate, a degree, and/or transfer). The student equity-minded completion efforts that are now forming the basis for 3CSNs networking encompass all five of the grants stated objectives and complement national efforts, including President Obamas challenge to higher education to increase the number of college graduates by 20% by 20201. The grants efforts include expansionin depth, through a uniform and sustained focus on a student completion agendaand in breadth, with the addition of four new regions, corresponding new network coordinators, a series of statewide events (e.g., Learning In Networks for Knowledge Sharing [LINKS]), individual campus research projects and planning, Student Success Center development, and 3CSN.org web pages, as well as continuing the established regional and local workshops (i.e., benchmarking, evaluation, and assessment; logic modeling; effective teaching practices; etc.). Through this approach on coherency, breadth, and depth, 3CSN is laying a foundation that will assist college faculty and administrators in effectively achieving measurable student success in a timely manner. 3CSNs transformation began with Learning In Networks for Knowledge Sharing (LINKS), a series of events held at five different community colleges throughout California. The goal of the LINKS events was to engage community college faculty and administrators in investigation of and reflection upon studentswho they are and how they learnand to examine what we are doing as individuals, campus institutions, and a state system to help them identify goals relevant to the students themselves and achieve these goals effectively and efficiently. LINKS attendees created campus research projects designed to foster deeper, ongoing conversations on individual campuses.
1Meeting
the Under Secretary of Education: Martha Kanter visits Palo Alto
In addition to the LINKS events, the 3CSN network coordinators offered workshops within their regions that clearly tied to a student completion agenda, providing ongoing support to faculty and administrators who attended LINKS as well as introducing the significance of student completion to others. Changing college perceptions around professional development, the network coordinators have collaborated with colleges to open college and district specific trainings to other colleges in the regions, thereby leveraging existing opportunities and addressing professional needs for adjunct faculty. The conscious coherency of the numerous workshops offered throughout the state has helped to foster deeper and sustained conversations about student success in general through the lens of student completion for equity in particular. The years BSI Leadership Institute (BSILI) continued the equity-minded student completion theme by having participants investigate and analyze for relevancy definitions of student success and completion. Based on their findings, participants refined their campus student completion research projects, identified project participants, and developed a timeline. They also learned to use technology to share their research with others. Progress on initial efforts will be reported out at a preconference session of the 2010 Strengthening Student Success Conference (October 6, 2010). Technology plays a key role in 3CSN outreach and is central to networking. A new website infrastructure with a uniform template and defined categories allows for continuity among the interconnected campus-level web pages and regional web sites. The just-in-time web resources incorporated into the 3CSN web design make the site more interactive and adaptive, thereby encouraging use by more people more often. The site also provides a comprehensive list of student success-related professional learning events that are scheduled throughout the state. In all, 3CSN activities unite under a single (though far-reaching) focusimproving students completion of relevant and pertinent academic goalsto encourage deep and sustained studentfocused inquiry among college faculty and administrators within campuses and districts, within regions, among regions, and throughout the state. 3CSN, through its grant activities as well as through the Student Success Center currently under development, fosters and sustains inter- and intra-networks, or communities of practice, to improve services and resources to students, leading to the ultimate outcome of more students achieving significant and relevant college milestones that will in turn help them improve the condition of their own lives as well as that of their families and society-at-large.
BACKGROUND
The California Community Colleges (CCC) is the largest system of higher education in the world, serving more than 2.5 million students. Of that number, 70 to 80% are underprepared for collegelevel work. This translates into nearly two million students in need of educational support. Helping underprepared students attain the essential academic skills needed to succeed in college-level work has been a core function of community colleges throughout their history. In 2006, an unprecedented collaboration began among the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges (ASCCC), California Community Colleges Chief Instructional Officers (CCCCIO), California Community Colleges Chief Student Services Officers (CCCCSSO), California Community Colleges Chief Executive Officers (CEO), and California Community Colleges Chancellors Office (CCCCO) to seek solutions to the mounting failure of many community college students. Thus the Basic Skills Initiative (BSI) was born. Central to the development of the BSI has been an overall emphasis on strategic planning, beginning in the 2007-08 year with every community college in California conducting a comprehensive self-assessment and submitting to the CCCCO 3-5 year objectives for their ESL/basic skills programs and services, an annual Action Plan, and an Expenditure Plan for the use of ongoing categorical funding directly allocated by the state to all 112 colleges for the improvement of student success. Additionally, an ESL/Basic Skills Professional Development Grant was developed by the CCCCO largely in recognition of the fact that few of the nearly 100,000 faculty, administrators, and staff of the California community colleges have received any type of preparation or training to address the needs of basic skills students at the classroom, program, or institutional levels. During the first three years of the ESL/Basic Skills Professional Development Grant, under the fiscal agency of the Foothill/De Anza Community College District, and in close collaboration with the ASCCC, several important resources were developed, and many supporting activities took place: Basic Skills as a Foundation for Success in California Community Colleges2 (aka the Poppy Copy) Professional development events showcasing effective practices, exemplary programs, and strategies for more than 2,000 faculty, administrators, and staff, including a Summer Teaching Institute focused specifically on part-time faculty Handbook: Constructing a Framework for Success: A Holistic Approach to Basic Skills Database: Staff Development and Student Success Programs: http://bsi.cccco.edu
Center for Student Success. (2007). Basic Skills as a Foundation for Success in California Community Colleges. Sacramento, CA: California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office. Retrieved March 7, 2009, from
2
http://www.cccbsi.org/Websites/basicskills/Images/Lit_Review_Student_Success.pdf
OVERVIEW OF THE 2010 ESL/BASIC SKILLS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT GRANT

Under the umbrella of the Research and Planning Group (RP Group), the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation sponsored a long-range planning process bringing together representatives of the principal constituencies that originally formulated the BSI, including representatives of the ASCCC, the Chancellors Office, CIO, CSSO, and CEO organizations, the RP Group, and other experienced practitioners from the colleges and experts in the field. That group identified long-term needs and plans for addressing those needs that are congruent with the goals and five required activities for this ESL/Basic Skills Professional Development Grant. Building on the work performed during this year-long planning process, the Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD) submitted the award-winning proposal for the 2010ESL/Basic Skills Professional Development Grant. Simply put, the 2010 ESL/Basic Skills Professional Development Grant has five primary objectives: Objective I: Create the initial infrastructure for a permanent professional development network/center i.e., a statewide resource network designed to support ongoing professional development in ESL/basic skills improvement. Objective II: Provide local, regional, and statewide workshops that focus on the alignment of noncredit with credit curriculum; integration of instruction and student services; implementation of culturally responsive instructional and student services strategies; and implementation of strategies found to be effective for students transitioning from high school and strategies that are most effective for diverse student populations. Objective III: Assist colleges with establishing benchmarks and building capacity to demonstrate increased ESL/basic skills student success and with implementing appropriate outcomes assessment components as well as data collection procedures. Objective IV: Expand electronic resources in order to build a knowledge base for practitioners regarding effective practices that lead to increased student success. Objective V: Conduct a summer Leadership Institute designed to provide training for faculty, administrators, and staff leaders involved with serving developmental education students, including student services faculty and staff and faculty across disciplines. The following pages detail the exceptional progress that has been made completing each of the five grant objectives thus far. Additionally, this report will present an outline of the design that is emerging from the dynamic work being performed by the grant team and consortium partners of a permanent infrastructure for a self-sustaining, statewide, professional community of practicethe CCC Success Networkpromoting overall increased student success.
PROGRESS OF GRANT OBJECTIVES

The following section details the progress we have made toward fulfilling the five objectives outlined in the 2010 ESL/Basic Skills Professional Development Grant proposal. Each objective is presented first with our current progress toward completion of the goal, followed by activities completed and data derived from those activities.
FIGURE 1 CCC PARTICIPATION AT LINKS 2010
OBJECTIVE I: CREATE THE INITIAL INFRASTRUCTURE FOR A PERMANENT PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT NETWORK /CENTER I.E., A STATEWIDE RESOURCE NETWORK DESIGNED TO SUPPORT ONGOING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN ESL/BASIC SKILLS IMPROVEMENT.
Phase II of Regional Networks
For the past few decades, community colleges have largely been working in isolation to support students with basic skills needs. Even on individual campuses, it is frequently difficult for many to collaborate across disciplines and programs in an effort to increase student success. To help end this isolation, 3CSN 2010 is designed to bridge these gaps by establishing a self-sustaining, highly coordinated network of support. The Success Network is building a community of professional learners who can address the many shared questions and problems associated with basic skills instruction. Central to creating a permanent statewide professional development network is its build-out, that is, expanding the networking concept, activities, and resources to more faculty and administrators at more California community colleges. Phase II of the regional networks does just that, doubling the number of colleges served with coordinators being assigned to four new regions. Joining the Phase I network coordinators are Daniel Bahner and Jen Mendoza for the Inland Empire, Jan Connal for Orange County, Donna Cooper for the Central Valley, and Cleavon Smith for the North Bay. Network coordinators facilitate efforts in the local regions and provide connections with the greater statewide network.
Forty-six community colleges have been visited multiple times by network coordinators or participated in regional network meetings inviting them to join the network to provide professional development training (spring 2009 through spring 2010) 1. American River College 2. Berkeley City College 3. Butte College 4. Cabrillo College 5. Caada College 6. Chabot College 7. City of College of San Francisco 8. Cosumnes Community College 9. Cuyamaca College 10. DeAnza College 11. Diablo Valley College 12. East Los Angeles College 13. Feather River College 14. Folsom Lake College 15. Foothill College 16. Fresno City College 17. Grossmont College 18. Lassen College 19. Los Angeles City College 20. Los Angeles Harbor College 21. Los Angeles Mission College 22. Pierce College 23. Los Angeles Southwest College 24. Los Angeles Trade-Tech College 25. Los Angeles Valley College 26. Mendocino College 27. Merced Community College 28. Miramar College 29. Mission College 30. Modesto College 31. Monterey Peninsula College 32. Mt San Jacinto College 33. Napa Valley College 34. North Centers of the State CCCD 35. Palomar College 36. Pasadena City College 37. Reedley College 38. Sacramento City College 39. San Diego City College 40. San Diego CCD 41. San Diego Miramar College 42. Sierra College 43. Southwestern College 44. West Los Angeles College 45. West Valley College 46. Woodland College FIGURE 2 ON-CAMPUS VISITS BY REGIONAL NETWORK COORDINATORS
Networks 2010
1. Bay Area Learning Network 2. Central Valley Regional Network 3. Inland Empire Learning Network 4. Los Angeles Regional Network 5. North Bay Learning Network 6. Orange County Learning Network 7. Sacramento Area Network 8. San Diego and Imperial Valley Network Colleges are guided to submit a form directly from www.3csn.org indicating their interest in network participation.
LINKS (Learning In Networks for Knowledge Sharing) focusing on COMPLETION

Implementing the Phase II expansion of 3CSN began through five statewide Learning In Networks for Knowledge Sharing (LINKS) events organized between April and May of 2010. These day-long events, the first in a planned ongoing series focused on equity-minded student completion, were hosted by colleges in the new network regions: Berkeley City College, Merced College, Mount San Antonio College, Rio Hondo College, and Santa Ana College. Registration was free, and colleges were encouraged to send teams of people. Three hundred and thirty-one participants representing ninety California community colleges participated in these events. Location and dates of LINKS events: Mt. San Antonio College, April 9 Merced College, April 16 Berkeley City College, April 30 Santa Ana College, May 7 Rio Hondo College, May 14 Through the LINKS events, the network project director and coordinators, assisted by an educational psychology expert, introduced the relevance of doing inquiry into the factors affecting student completion and, informed by that information, then exploring appropriate interventions that can be used in classroom and student services areas. The agenda was designed to ensure that attendees were active learners in the process: Session I Student Panel Session II Presentation: Barriers and Solutions for Improving Students Academic Performance and Completion: A Focus on Self-Regulation, Myron Dembo, PhD Session III, Part A Group Work: Overcoming Obstacles to Student Success through Dembos 3-part Framework (see Session III-Part A handout, steps 1-5) Session III, Part B Individual Reflection and Planning: Overcoming Obstacles to Student Success through Dembos 3-part Framework (see Session II-Part B handout, step 6) Session IV Presentation: The California Community Colleges Success Network (3CSN) An Invitation to Join (see Session IV-on Network) Session IV Process for Building Professional Learning that Addresses Student Success Efforts: Next Steps (see Session V-Going Global, From Individual to Collective) Each LINKS event began with a student panel (students from the host college) responding to questions about what helps (and does not help) them learn. The student panel session was followed by a presentation on Barriers and Solutions for Improving Students Academic Performance and Completion: A Focus on Self-Regulation, given by Dr. Myron Dembo, USC Emeritus Professor of Educational Psychology. Participants then focused on applying the knowledge acquired through the
10
student panel and Dr. Dembos presentation; they analyzed the problems students face in completing their goals and developed a framework to investigate ways to build links for student success on the classroom and campus levels. The LINKS events concluded with a presentation about 3CSN and the support networking can provide to achieve student success. College faculty and administrators were encouraged to officially join the network and to send a representative to the BSI leadership institute (BSILI) in June. 3CSN will offer subsequent sessions and technical assistance made available by our regional network coordinators, assisting local campuses as they explore interventions that can be used in the classroom and student services areas. Part of Learning In Networks for Knowledge Sharing (LINKS) involves partnering closely with 3CSNs many sister networks, including the Faculty Inquiry Network, RP Group/BRIC Project, Hewlett Leaders, Career Ladders Project, California Leadership Alliance for Student Success, Reading Apprenticeship, Academy for College Excellence, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, and others. The LINKS completion agenda inquiry projects that individual colleges develop and will conduct throughout Fall 2010 provided a focal point for the BSI Leadership Institute 1.0 and 2.0 training and will be the topic for the preconference workshop at the 2010 Strengthening Student Success Conference. Evaluation (initial and ongoing) related to the impact of LINKS events is overseen by Dr. Christina Christie, Associate Professor of Social Research Methodology, UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information.
11
LINKS Evaluation
The evaluation team developed a post-test survey for the Learning In Networks for Knowledge Sharing (LINKS) events that were held at five locations throughout the state April-May 2010. A total of 331 people attended the events with 148 of them responding to the survey. Survey results reveal that the events were very well received. The curriculum was rated as highly useful (Figure 3 How useful will the topics covered at the LINKS event be in advancing your campus efforts to improve student success), with all elements scoring above the midpoint on a scale of 1=Not very useful to 7=Very useful.
LINKS Topic Usefullness (n~125) 1 Performance Gap Analysis Academic Self-Regulation Knowledge Strategies Motivation Strategies Organizational Culture 2 3 4 5 6 5.39 5.32 5.50 5.64 5.49 7
FIGURE 3 HOW USEFUL WILL THE TOPICS COVERED AT THE LINKS EVENT BE IN ADVANCING YOUR CAMPUS EFFORTS TO IMPROVE STUDENT SUCCESS
Participants also reported that they were likely to use what they learned at the LINKS events. All curriculum elements scored above the mid-point on the 1-7 scale, ranging from 4.86 to 5.36 (Figure 4 How likely are you to use these to advance your campus efforts to improve student success?), with motivation strategies identified as the strategy most likely to be used.
Likely Use (~118) 0 Performance Gap Analysis Academic Self-Regulation Knowledge Strategies Motivation Strategies Organizational Culture Strategies 1 2 3 4 5 6 4.94 4.86 7
5.16
5.36 5.01
FIGURE 4 HOW LIKELY ARE YOU TO USE THESE TO ADVANCE YOUR CAMPUS EFFORTS TO IMPROVE STUDENT SUCCESS?
12
Some participants have already begun applying what they learned at LINKS, taking action to advance their campus student success efforts (N=72). Many (43%) mentioned activities that could be categorized as Organizational Culture Strategies and were most often professional development activities or discussion and dissemination of the LINKS information to important people like ESL faculty. Examples of these include Two professional days in Fall 2010 will be set aside for the project and Indirect actions: Promoted LINKS with others; soon meeting with coordinator to plan logistics for next year. Other LINKS participants mentioned Gap Analysis specifically (11%) with comments such as Discussion of the need to use the gap analysis model with the campus BSI co-chairs. The plan is to move ahead and talk with administrators regarding common goals and support and We have discussed conducting studies to identify gaps. A few (7%) mentioned Knowledge Strategies such as reintroducing quiz-a-day back into their syllabi or shepherding an accelerated learning project into fruition. Fewer still (6%) mentioned Academic Self Regulation Strategies or Motivation Strategies (4%). Some (13%) said it was too soon to see results because the end of their academic year came shortly after their LINKS event. While some of the information gleaned from this survey is useful for program administrators, the relatively close proximity to the LINKS events may hinder its ability to identify activity resulting from them; a follow-up survey will be administered toward the end of the fall term or during the spring.
13
Regional Network Activities

A strong and sustainable professional development network must be focused on more than growth; it must cultivate the relationships already established by providing timely and relevant resources and support. The network coordinators in the original four regions did just that, offering a plethora of trainings, site visits, and other services to those from the early adopter colleges and actively fostering network growth by encouraging other colleges within their regions to participate. At the initial college site visits, similar to 2009, network coordinators invited colleges to participate in the network. Because many colleges are already familiar with the Networks concept, coordinators used this opportunity to provide training based on college needs. For some colleges, like De Anza, this was a detailed logic model training to facilitate basic skills-related planning. Colleges like Mt. San Jacinto and Cabrillo focused on technology training to implement in the basic skills classroom. After coordinators completed their initial site visit, they then began an ongoing series of extended professional learning activities, such as logic model training, regional network meetings, visits to colleges outside of the network who requested guidance or help, and incorporation of network activities into existing collaborative groups. For example, the Sacramento/Central Valley network coordinator organized training for faculty inquiry groups (FIGs) and assessment. The Bay Area network coordinator collaborated with the coordinator of the Faculty Inquiry Network and the basic skills coordinator at Berkeley City College to organize a workshop on scaffolding assignments. The San Diego/Imperial Valley network coordinator presented a workshop on technology in the classroom based on research that reflects how technology stimulates different areas of the brain, prompting students to get more involved and process the information differently. In this hands-on workshop, participants learned how to use technology to improve student learning. They developed a free Google site together and then looked at free web-based programs to help students review, categorize, and organize information. Colleges in the Los Angeles Regional Network invited staff development directors from member colleges to join with the BSI coordinators to collaborate on one of the long-term goals in the regional logic model: a regional training/certificate program for faculty (both full time and part time) across the region. The network coordinators also focused on leveraging professional development activities organized by colleges and districts to include colleges in the network and beyond. A key component to the growth of the network has been to collaborate with colleges in the network as well as those planning to join the network. An example of this collaboration is the event Whats Love Got to Do with It, sponsored by De Anza College, which was opened to colleges in the network. As noted by the organizers, One of the themeswas the incredible contribution that Bay Area Learning Network participants made to the conference, and their enthusiastic responses on the evaluations... To facilitate an extension of the ideas generated that day, Tom deWit, co-director of the Faculty Inquiry Network, was invited to present at a follow-up event called The Space In Between.
14
Participation in regional network activities has promoted growth of the network initiated by the colleges. The statewide network growth over 2009-10 as represented in Figure 5 shows an increase from 34 colleges to 46 colleges. By 2013, all 112 community colleges should be part of this network based on this growth pattern (Figure 6 Projected Growth of Network).
FIGURE 5 NETWORK GROWTH 2009-2010
FIGURE 6 PROJECTED GROWTH OF NETWORK
15
Regional Websites
Beginning Summer 2010, www.3CSN.org includes the new regional network site links along with the links to the pilot sites, doubling the regional sites from four to eight:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Bay Area Network Central Valley Regional Network Inland Empire Learning Network Los Angeles Regional Network North Bay Learning Network Orange County Learning Network Sacramento Area Network San Diego and Imperial Valley Network
These sites are repositories of trainings and projects related to each region. The sites include links to colleges in the networks and the basic skills committee sites. The interactive regional sites have been created to provide a repository of information and resources for colleges to access based on their campus needs. The categories (see Figure 7) were compiled based on the interests of the colleges basic skills committees as indicated through surveys, on-campus visits, regional trainings, and the BSI coordinator list-serve. The regional websites are updated consistently and regularly to ensure current information is available to colleges around the state. They include videos and training information from each of the regions as well as promotion of events organized locally by colleges and network partners. Details regarding the postings on the regional websites related to the trainings are included in Objectives II, III, and IV (pages 21, 29, and 34).
Disciplines Behavioral & Social Sciences Business & CIS CTE/Workforce Development English ESL Fine Arts & Humanities Foundational Skills Physical Ed & Health Events Campus District National Regional Statewide Integrated Technology Videos Web Tools Network Partners Private Public Professional Learning Achievements Evaluation Inquiry Leadership Networking Pedagogy Planning Program Development Reporting Research SLOs Student Support Assessment & Placement Counseling Integrated Services Learning Networks
FIGURE 7 CATEGORIES OF INFORMATION ON REGIONAL SITES
16
Network Activity Plans for Fall 2010

3CSNs agenda for Fall 2010 is to expand and enhance the equity-minded student completion focus established during the spring LINKS workshops and the summer BSI Leadership Institute (BSILI). The network coordinators for the new Phase II regions will meet regularly with campuses within their areas that already have identified Student Completion Inquiry Projects to help campus leaders launch, sustain, and even expand awareness of and participation in these inquiry projects. Phase I network coordinators will do the same, and all the coordinators will work to increase the number of campuses involved in Student Completion Inquiry Projects within their areas as well as increase the number of active participants involved in these projects on each campus. Network coordinators will also assist colleges with the development of logic models as a means of identifying and prioritizing their BSI action plan goals and activities and ensure that corresponding rubrics and evaluation plans are created so that outcomes can be measured, enabling future activity and expenditure plans to be evidence-based. A key goal for this year is to help colleges increase the depth and breadth of dialogue about, and action toward, improving student success, specifically with regard to campus-identified student completion goals. 3CSN staff will also focus on intra- and inter-regional activities. In addition the individual campus inquiry projects (including the continuous posting of findings on the 3csn.org website), the network coordinators will organize regional study groups on a theme related to the inquiry projects within his or her region and ensure that colleges within the region are kept abreast of each campuss inquiry project status and discoveries. On a larger level, 3CSN will sponsor three LINKS events throughout the state. These second in the LINKS series of events will focus on inquiry on student completion to achieve equity. Using an equity-based benchmarking model, participants will learn to analyze and evaluate their current basic skills efforts and ensure that future plans are evidencebased. They will continue an investigation of the role equity issues may play on their own campuses and consider ways to include equity-mindedness in their ongoing student completion inquiry projects. Because these LINKS events will be open to all California community college faculty and administrators, more colleges may choose to join a regional network and begin their own student completion-focused campus inquiry project.
Train the Trainer Retreats

The 3CSN network coordinators are already well-trained and highly skilled community college teachers and leaders. Ongoing collaborative teaching, learning, and mentoring, however, are hallmarks of the networking philosophy, and 3CSN staff practice what they preach/teach by meeting regularly and developing and participating in train the trainer retreats. Five such retreats were held for the network coordinators during the 2009-10 academic year in addition to regularly scheduled and impromptu meetings and discussions. The first retreat occurred on July 23-24, 2009, at Pasadena City College for further training on logic modeling. On August 5-6, 2009, the then project director, Deborah Harrington, and the four original network coordinators focused on technology training, including developing the template for the 3CSN website and online newsletter in collaboration with @ONE. The third trainer retreat was held at
17
Los Angeles Trade Technical College on November 16-17, 2009. This additional technology retreat focused on developing the tools and resources along with the overall look of the new 3CSN website. On February 2-4, 2010, the network coordinators met at Pasadena City College with Deborah Harrington and the new 3CSN project director, Lynn Wright, to plan spring activities and the implementation of the Phase II network expansion project. This productive retreat generated a Theory of Change (Figure 8 Theory of Change) logic model document for 3CSN as well as the blueprint for the Learning In Networks for Knowledge Sharing (LINKS) sustained workshop series. In addition, suggestions for network coordinators for the new expansion areas were discussed, and the new 3csn.org website, based on ideas generated at the November coordinator retreat, was introduced. A fifth trainer retreat was held in Los Angeles on May 12-13, 2010. At this retreat, 3CSN staff discussed how to advance and expand the student completion campus research projects that were developed at the LINKS workshops, making student completion and the campus inquiry projects the centerpiece of our summer leadership institute (BSILI 1.0 and 2.0) as well as our Fall 2010 work. New network coordinators received training on June 15, July 16, and July 30, and all of the network coordinators (new and continuing) convened for training with the project director on August 4-6, 2010, to finalize the Fall 2010 agenda and design specific local, regional, and statewide professional learning activities, including the curriculum for LINKS 2 events, three of which will be held throughout the state this fall.
FIGURE 8 THEORY OF CHANGE
18
3CSN Advisory Committee

The work of the 3CSN project administrator, director, and network coordinators could not occur without the counsel of its advisory committee. Upon the advice of the Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs, the large steering committee for 3CSN has been slimmed down to a distinguished group of California community college practitioner-leaders in student success and completion. The advisory committee members are Linda Collins (Career Ladders director), Tina Christie (3CSN evaluator), Deborah Harrington (3CSN project administrator), Katie Hern (Faculty Inquiry Network codirector), Rob Johnstone (RP Group executive board member), Diego Navarro (Academy for College Excellence director), Anne Price (California Tomorrow student access and equity director), Anniqua Rana (3CSN coordinator), Barry Russell (CCCCO vice chancellor), and Lynn Wright (3CSN project director). Resource members include Brock Klein, Bradley Vaden, Nancy Ybarra, and the 3CSN network coordinators. The steering committee last met on December 15, 2009, at Caada College. The next meeting of the advisory committee will be August 13, 2010.
Establishing a Permanent Center for Professional Learning (CPL)

The Center for Professional Learning (CPL), formerly identified as the Student Success Network Center, is envisioned as a dynamic, collaborative enterprise that will develop and support professional learning networks and engage partner organizations in building a vibrant community of practice for the California community colleges. The organizational structure will provide an umbrella under which diverse activities, perspectives, and projects can flourish. It will provide coordination across these activities and organizations, while building a permanent home for professional development in California. It is devised as a space that is perceived to be neutral with respect to the many governance issues and conflicts that can arise in the CCC system, able to facilitate and inspire work across multiple venues to advance the goals of the CPL. In any scenario, managing complex partnerships and cross agency and/or organizational relationships will be a key to success. In all cases, a comprehensive diversity framework will be integrated and embedded in all aspects of the CPLs work, from structure, hiring, and day-to-day processes to professional development and pedagogical approaches.
CPL Progress to Date

Successful progress has been made in completing the two outcomes outlined in the Los Angeles Community College District Foundations Proposal to Convene Key Leaders to Envision Permanent Initiative and Infrastructure in Support of Student Success in California Community Colleges. As specified by the outcomes set forth in the grant, fiscally sponsored by the three entities of the James Irvine Foundation, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund, a series of convenings and additional dialogue and planning determined the following:
19
1. A proposal/model for the creation of a permanent initiative/infrastructure for the scholarship of teaching and learning in all the California community colleges will be developed, and 2. A corresponding framework for the creation of a business plan to fund this initiative/infrastructure on a long-term basis will be submitted to Hewlett on August 1, 2010. The proposal submitted to the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation on August 1, 2010, requests funds for the Center for Professional Learning, a new organization dedicated to providing community college professionals throughout California with the means to advance their own learning and that of their colleagues and institutions in order to increase student success. The mission of the Center for Professional Learning (CPL) is to advance the scholarship and practice of teaching and learning in all of Californias community colleges through the work of an inclusive professional network of faculty, administrators, staff, and students collaborating for student success. The proposed Center represents collaboration among three interrelated initiatives (the founding partnersCareer Ladders Project, RP Group, and California Community Colleges Success Network [3CSN/BSI]) that focus on student success in the CCC system. These are leading initiatives with significant accomplishments: amplifying and diversifying student pathways to completion and career success; strengthening capacities to collaboratively analyze and act on information; and building a meaningful learning community among practitioners focused on student success. The three entities collaborating to build CPL will integrate some of their flagship programming through CPL and take advantage of the strong potential for synergies in doing so. While all of the founding partners independently bring critical experience and resources to the Center, their nascent collaboration is expected to bring needed and powerful synergies along with a sustained focus to the effort to impact student success in the CCC system. The leadership and governance of the CPL will be structured in a very intentional manner so that it builds upon collaboration and is inclusive of stakeholders and experts from throughout the CCC system and beyond. It will include an executive leadership team, an advisory group, and a national advisory circle. In the CPL proposal, the Foundation for California Community Colleges (FCCC) is identified as the fiscal sponsor, allowing the center to maintain an important element of independence while remaining closely connected to the CCC system. FCCC is the chief auxiliary to the CCC system and has well-established sponsorship services for projects of importance to the CCC. With its ties not only to the CCC system but also to all 112 community colleges and 72 districts, FCCC is uniquely situated to support this effort. In selecting the FCCC as the fiscal sponsor, we have sought to create a space to accomplish the vision, mission, and values of the envisioned Center for Professional Learning. In conclusion, it is expected that the start-up for the CPL will be realized by a Hewlett-funded grant in Fall 2010. This means that for the first time California will have an organization singularly devoted to the study of teaching and learning and the scaling up of student success best practices staffed and supported by professional community college experts.
20
OBJECTIVE II: PROVIDE LOCAL , REGIONAL, AND STATEWIDE WORKSHOPS WHICH FOCUS ON THE ALIGNMENT OF NONCREDIT WITH CREDIT CURRICULUM; INTEGRATION OF INSTRUCTION AND STUDENT SERVICES ; IMPLEMENTATION OF CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE INSTRUCTIONAL AND STUDENT SERVICES STRATEGIES ; AND IMPLEMENTATION OF STRATEGIES FOUND TO BE
EFFECTIVE FOR STUDENTS TRANSITIONING FROM HIGH SCHOOL AND STRATEGIES THAT ARE MOST EFFECTIVE FOR DIVERSE STUDENT POPULATIONS .
OVERVIEW OF NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS AND TYPES OF TRAININGS Attendance at 3CSN events in 2009-10 demonstrated the need to continue organizing opportunities for professional learning. The focus of these 3CSN professional learning opportunities in large part has been on a deeper inquiry into understanding and addressing student needs at various levels. The framework for this discussion was created during the LINKS completion events and will continue in this direction in Fall 2010. Of the 1,720 participants who attended 3CSN professional learning events during 2009-10, 35% attended trainings that were customized for their regions. These workshops included training in pedagogy, technology, planning, assessment, learning communities, and other interventions. The next largest percentage (19%) of participants at 3CSN-sponsored events was those who attended the LINKS completion events in Spring 2010. This series of events focused on interacting factors that lead to student success and introduced a gap analysis-type of inquiry to identify and then address impediments to student success, especially as it relates to completion of student goals. Other workshops on data analysis, logic model training, and CB21 coding addressed the programmatic needs to support student success. Some key professional learning events, for example, logic modeling, data analysis, and CB21 coding, were provided in all of the four pre-existing regions. Other workshops were offered to meet specific local and regional needs. These focused on a variety of areas, including organizational and administrative practices, program components, staff development, and instructional practices based on local needs.
21
The variety of training topics and number of participants for each topic are found in Figure 9 below.
Network Sponsored Events- Fall 2009-Spring 2010 Accelerated Learning and the Live Classroom BSI Tune-Up Kit CB 21 Re-Coding Data Analysis Efolio ELAC Logic Modeling Google Docs and More Integrating Language Curriculum for the Workforce Learning Communities Planning Retreat LINKS Completion Logic Model Training 2009-2010 Math FIG NSF Proposal Writing Workshop PCC Site Visit Professional development course (SDSU or UCSD ext) Reading Across the Disciplines Workshop Reading Apprenticeship Sacramento Teaching and Learning Workshop Scaffolding Assignments SLO Coordinators SSI Teaching to the Basic Skills student The Substance and Process of Writing Tools for Helping Students Understand What They Read in Your Classroom Trade Tech KMO Workshop Using Inquiry to help Improve Student Outcomes Using Universal Design in the Classroom Total
FIGURE 9 NUMBER OF WORKSHOP ATTENDEES
Participants 47 25 142 285 8 18 35 35 30 331 236 31 70 2 7 25 119 90 15 12 22 20 13 16 30 36 20 1720
22
Trainings in All Regions

Logic model training was provided in all the existing 2009-10 network regions. Logic models offer a depiction of a program showing what the program will do and what it will take to achieve it, representing if-then relationships that, if implemented as intended, lead to the desired outcomes; as such, logic models can be the core of program planning and evaluation. Participants who received early training in logic modeling identified the tool as being very effective for organizing BSI action plans. Logic model training, therefore, was included in the regional trainings on college campuses in 2009-10 as well as at the Basic Skills Initiative Leadership Institutes in 2009 and2010. 3CSN network coordinators will continue to promote the use of logic models on individual campuses as well as in the network regions to ensure that activities support the achievement of identified student success outcomes. Results will be provided in subsequent 3CSN progress reports.
Logic Model Training

Logic modeling is a process that helps basic skills committees to identify resources, activities, outputs, and outcomes for their colleges collective basic skills efforts; it allows everyones voice to be heard and valued and operates on the premise that all committee members are a learning team. Through the process of logic modeling, committee members reach consensus on outcomes and activities for their basic skills efforts.
FIGURE 10 COLLEGE PARTICIPATION IN LOGIC MODEL TRAINING
23
To ensure appropriate and ongoing evaluation and assessment of BSI Action Plans and campus logic models, all four regional network coordinators developed, in collaboration with consultant/facilitators from the RP Group, program evaluation trainings based on the needs of each region.
Program Evaluation (in collaboration with the RP Group)

These trainings provided a basic primer on program evaluation, including the kinds of data to collect and how to use those data for program improvement. The trainings took the participants step-by-step through how to move from a logic model to program evaluation. The facilitators provided a model to take back to campuses to involve others in the process. Follow up plans include additional meetings, surveys, and more training on outcomes measurement and analysis.
CB21 coding trainings were also offered in all of the existing network regions, in collaboration with the Academic Senate, to ensure appropriate coding of basic skills courses for all colleges.
CB 21 Coding (in collaboration with the Academic Senate)

The workshop outcomes for the CB21 coding was as follows: Recode all basic skills course levels using the rubrics to determine the appropriate CB 21 coding Evaluate the coding of all basic skills and non-degree-level courses for their college and its programs Analyze information from other colleges about their curriculum coding and philosophies in order to expand our collective understanding of basic skills statewide Synthesize the importance of coding, curriculum, and student pathways into a workable strategy targeting student success. CB21 coding standardized the levels of basic skills and non-credit courses throughout the state, and in 2010-11 colleges will be required by the CCCCO to submit reports using the new CS21 coding standards. These new reports should provide more accurate student success and progression data.
Customized Trainings
Apart from the trainings listed above, colleges and regions identified specific areas of professional development around learning theory, effective curricula and instructional strategies, and program alignments (entry/exit skills) supporting student diversity across campus. To address these needs, the network coordinators facilitated and coordinated customized trainings, such as technology in the classroom, benchmarking for equity and student success tools, learning communities planning,
24
inquiry to improve student learning outcomes, and embedding Reading Apprenticeship in the curriculum. The content of these trainings are summarized below.
o
Technology in the Classroom

Research shows that more and more students need to be engaged in class to help them process information. Technology stimulates different areas of the brain, motivating students to get more involved and process the information differently. In this hands-on workshop, participants learned how to use technology to improve student learning. They also developed a free Google site and reviewed free webbased programs that can be used to help students review, categorize, and organize information.
Benchmarking Equity and Student Success Tool

Presenters from USCs Center for Urban Education (CUE) demonstrated how to use their Benchmarking Equity and Student Success Tool, with cohort migration data available for all Peralta colleges. Presenters also discussed The Typology of Institutional Equity Agents and Syllabus Review for Equity and Success.
Learning Communities Planning Retreat

As a follow-up to Integrating Language Curriculum for the Workforce (January 2010), participants focused on Collaborative Teaching & Learning Assessment; Syllabus, Assignment, and Rubric Assessment; and Collaboration on Integrated Curriculum for Faculty and Staff.
Using Inquiry to Help Improve Student Outcomes

The workshop focused on how to create specific, measurable performance benchmark goals as part of a strategic planning process to improve racial-ethnic equity in student outcomes. The instructional tools for this workshop included CUE's Benchmarking Equity and Student Success Tool (BESST) and the Downtown Community College Case Study. After laying the foundation for change through benchmarking, CUE researchers facilitated an inquiry activity with classroom syllabi. As a blueprint for classroom activities and an artifact of classroom culture, the syllabus gets to the heart of instructional practices. Participants collaboratively explored how to transform classroom syllabi into robust learning tools for studentcentered teaching and learning. A toolkit was provided so that participants could bring these benchmarking and inquiry activities back to their campuses.
Reading Apprenticeship
An introductory series of Reading Apprenticeship workshops were conducted, focusing on pedagogical needs around reading across disciplines. The participants worked with other faculty who had received in-depth Reading Apprenticeship trainings to provide reading support in other college courses.
25
Other examples of these customized trainings offered are listed below:

o o o o o o o o o o
The Substance and Process of Writing: Our Writing Toolbox Intersecting Literacies Accelerated Learning and the Live Classroom Tools for Helping Students Understand What They Read in Your Classroom Sharing Practices in Basic Skills Using Technology to Enhance Learning in Your Classroom Integrating Language Curriculum for the Workforce Scaffolding Assignments Strategies for Applying for NSF grants Reading Across the Disciplines
The in-depth nature of these trainings generally elicited positive feedback. Facilitators were able to customize these trainings based on the needs of the attendees. Participant responses to some of these trainings are listed in Appendix A, 3CSN follow up will include investigation into the implementation or use of the training materials to gauge their effectiveness in achieving improved student outcomes. Results will be provided in subsequent 3CSN progress reports.
26
Additional Professional Learning Activities Done in Collaboration with Other Groups

A close collaboration with the Faculty Inquiry Network (FIN) and Faculty Collaborations for Course Transformations (FACCTS) groups has also created a deeper connection within currently existing networks that focus on pedagogical needs. Through FACCTS, departments and faculty at California community colleges are collaborating in a pilot study program to support implementation of effective instructional practices for the Basic Skills Initiative in Developmental Math courses. Teams of college faculty in the San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Francisco areas work together to adapt and apply innovative teaching and learning methods that implement effective BSI instructional practices. By sharing knowledge and resources, faculty teams increase the impact of their individual course designs for student success. Students will engage with more effective courses and learning activities, as faculty benefit from the support and expertise of colleagues in their course redesigns. Faculty will also enhance their personal capability to identify, mobilize and extend knowledge for use in teaching, and partner colleges will increase the impact of faculty time invested in the design and delivery of developmental mathematics courses. A summary of the FACCTS projects of the Los Angeles Regional Network is listed in Appendix B: Summary of LACCD Dev Math team projects, Fall 2009. These collaborations in all the regions will continue in Fall 2010 to create a deeper understanding of student needs across disciplines. Inquiry into impediments to student success and completion, as well as inquiry into activities, policies, and practices that reduce or eliminate these impediments, is a primary focus of 3CSNs professional development activities. As such, an alliance with the Faculty Inquiry Network (FIN), drawing on its rich resources and collaborating with its experienced facilitators, plays an important role in achieving and evaluating a central 3CSN professional learning activity.
27
3CSN Events 2009-2010

7% 8%
Region Specific Trainings LINKS Completion

35%
Data Analysis
14%
Logic Model Training 2009-2010 CB 21 Re-Coding

17% 19%
Reading Apprenticeship
FIGURE 11 3CSN EVENTS
28
OBJECTIVE III: ASSIST COLLEGES WITH ESTABLISHING BENCHMARKS AND BUILDING CAPACITY
TO DEMONSTRATE INCREASED ESL/BASIC SKILLS STUDENT SUCCESS AND WITH IMPLEMENTING APPROPRIATE OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT COMPONENTS AS WELL AS DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES .
Evidence-informed planning and assessment has been integral to the network activities and LINKS events. Using local, regional, and state quantitative and qualitative data, colleges have created logic models focusing on short- and long-term outcomes to ensure sustainable and scalable interventions supporting success for students with basic skills needs. Based on program theory leading to change, logic models keep the focus on the whole, ensuring formative and summative evaluations. The initial trainings around data analysis and planning in the network, therefore, have focused on data gathering, program planning, benchmarking, participatory evaluation, and disaggregation of data. In Fall 2010, colleges will focus on inquiry-based projects analyzing the gaps in completion.
Data Collection and Establishing Benchmarks

Of the data introduced in network trainings, the Accountability Reporting for the Community Colleges, or ARCC, report that is compiled by the Chancellors Office has been a key to trainings in previous years of the Basic Skills Initiative as well as this year. To ensure accuracy of the data compiled for the ARCC reports, CB 21 Coding training was held at the following colleges for teams from local colleges in the regional networks: Caada College Fresno City College Los Angeles City college Pasadena City College Orange Coast College San Diego Miramar College Sacramento City College Two Trainings for CB21 Coding (Non-credit) were also held in Northern and Southern California and included the challenges and solutions of current noncredit accountability, metrics for noncredit courses, and student pathwaysABE/ESL to ASE to credit. According to the Basic Skills Accountability Report for Community Colleges (ARCC) Data, there are some problems with the basic skills course coding (CB 21) resulting in substandard information, analysis, and conclusions about student progress and system/faculty efficacy. Some of these issues include: The Chancellors Office ARCC report uses CB 21 to measure progress between levels of basic skills; in other words, CB21 is synonymous with basic skills courses and the coding used for accountability reporting. However, some colleges have coded these courses incorrectly or inconsistently.
29
Within the CB 21 code are levels relating to basic skills courses below degree/transfer level, but coding of these levels is limited to only three levels below transfer. In other words, only three levels of math, English, and ESL below transfer level are counted in basic skills improvement. There is discussion concerning the separation of reading, writing, and English in order to examine trends and results in disaggregated data to allow intervention with specific effective practices. CB21 trainings and Disaggregation of Data trainings will continue in Fall 2010.
Program Evaluation (in collaboration with the RP Group)

3CSN efforts with regard to program evaluation can be found in the Objective II section of this 3CSN The other colleges in the region may be able to share data regarding success rates in accelerated courses, placement and registration data, and Basic Skills success rate data. Two colleges (Citrus and Chaffey) have already done some work with accelerated courses and with the gap in placement and subsequent registration. Both Chaffey and Mt. SAC will be doing demographic data about students who withdraw or do not pass Basic Skills courses, and can share that information as well. All of us plan to get student voices, both in survey form and in more qualitative ways, which would be valuable to share. (Quote from 2010 BSI Leadership Institute participant)
progress report document. In summary, the focus of this 3CSN training was a basic primer on program evaluation, including the kinds of data to collect and how to use those data for program improvement. The training took the participants step-by-step through how to move from a logic model to program evaluation. The facilitators provided a model to take back to campuses to involve others in the process. Additional trainings done in collaboration with consultants from the RP Group were based on a modified BRIC Project model. The RP Groups Bridging Research, Information, and Culture (BRIC) Initiative aims to strengthen cultures of inquiry and evidence in the California community college system via three complementary means. Through the collaboration between 3CSN and the RP Group during Spring 2010, some research and planning support via RP Group consultants was made available for a limited amount of time. Next year, 3CSN plans to expand this BRIC resource as well as promote BRICs suite of resources: a series of inquiry guides that can be used by colleges to facilitate evolution of their own practice free one-day regional professional development opportunities, including a morning general session and individual college consultations in the afternoon online tools such as webinars and narrated PowerPoint presentations. The BRIC Inquiry Guides address nine topic areas (six of which are now available - click on the hot links to access the documents).
30
1. Assessing Student Learning Outcomes 2. Using an Equity Lens to Assess Student Learning 3. Assessing Student Services Outcomes 4. A Model for Building Information Capacity and Promoting a Culture of Inquiry 5. Assessing Institutional Effectiveness 6. Assessing Basic Skills Outcomes 7. Maximizing the Program Review Process 8. Turning Data into Meaningful Action 9. Assessing Non-credit Student Learning Outcomes Figure 12 shows the number of colleges that have participated in some kind of 3CSN-sponsored data analysis training in 2009-10.
FIGURE 12 DATA ANALYSIS TRAINING
31
Program Planning
Program logic models, described in the W.K. Kellogg Foundation Evaluation Handbook as a picture of how your program worksthe theory and assumptions underlying the program . . . highlighting how it is expected to work, what activities need to come before others, and how desired outcomes are achieved (p. 35)have been integral to BSI Leadership Institute (BSILI) and regional network trainings, as reported in the Objective II section of this progress report document. Using the 3CSN logic model as an example, regional networks and colleges have created logic models representing their interventions. Logic model training was followed by rubric building using iRubric.com to help evaluate programs and interventions included in the logic models. Figure 13 shows a sample iRubric document based on creating a pathway to student success. These rubrics were created at the BSILI training to assist colleges with the implementation of their college initiatives to help students on the road to student success. One participant identified how this rubric will be used on her campus over the next few years: To achieve student success/retention in BSI courses, using the Intervention Model we have already created a schedule of which courses will be a part of the program. All of the elements are in place and have been used for two semesters, so we are on the unmarked dirt road. In order to get to the Paved Road we will need to continue to do longitudinal research to learn more about what is causing success and why some parts of the initiative are not creating more success. If we want to extend this model (once we determine what is most successful), the next step would be to expand it to all BSI courses this would get us to the two-lane road. In order to get to the Superhighway we would need to extend this model out to content-area courses in addition to the BSI courses. The itinerary to arrive at certain destinations listed in the rubric are described by the participants: 2010-11 Longitudinal research and student input to see that this model works effectively first. That will get us to the Paved Road. 2011-12 Once we have learned what is most successful, we will extend the model to additional BSI courses this will get us to the two-lane road. 2012-13 Funding and support will need to be in place in order to extend this program to the Superhighway.
32
Collaborative Effort
Professional & Organ. Learning
Unmarked Dirt Trail Individual silos; led by one individual or department with no input from other stakeholders lack of organized training relative to initiative; No needs assessment occurs. Workshops given but no one attends; designated person sent as a trainee without follow-up No involvement; faculty are unconcerned or uninterested in student involvement; students are disengaged Prohibitively expensive or staff- or facility-intensive
Student Success Initiative Paved Road Two-lane Road Involves a few outside stakeholders Multiple constituencies involved, but is not broad-reaching. Limited communication occurs somewhat regularly communication occurs on campus Siloed or one shot deals with no follow up participation, attendance limited; no campus-wide involvement. Needs assessment occurs at an individual level. Departments and division involvement; some training beginning; student involvement; incentives; point people; prof. development assists beyond just providing a space; collaboration between student services and academic affairs. Need assessment occurs on an organizational level. Student input is solicited, valued and used in decision-making; large numbers participate in the program; peer mentoring occurs both informally and formally Supports success of large numbers of students.
Super Highway Continual structured process of ongoing engagement and communication among all stakeholders. Everybodys on board, highly coordinated, follow-up and reporting back; on-going ; training trainers to sustain; evaluation recursivity. Initiative becomes part of the institution and prof. development takes ownership of ongoing training. Comprehensive, sustainable, demonstrated application of new learning.
Student Involvement/Eng agement
Ask for but don't know how to use student opinions about programs; some evidence of student engagement Potential to grow to a certain extent (boutique program)
Students intentionally involved in the creation of ideas and improvements; students are partners in change
Scalable/Sustaina ble
Goals (alignment)
alignment between initiative and institutional goals have not been considered
lip service paid to alignment or as an afterthought (stretch). Goals are clearly articulated, but not clearly communicated and shared. Core group of change agents (with someone of power in it) leading the charge. Clear message with realistic goals and expectations (consistent, sustained, and focused). First followers buy into the need to change. Sense of community thats being built in the critical mass Evidence available but analysis not completed or not distributed or used for improvement. Appropriate measurements are agreed upon at the start. Qualitative and quantitative data are both used.
Managing Change
The realization that something needs to change. Things are disconnected and are not working. There are potholes in the road and they are growing so we have a sense of urgency Anecdotal evidence or indirect evidence used for transformation or appropriate evidence ignored. Nonalignment of research with goals.
Connects with some portions of the institutional goals; aligned but lack of awareness. Beginning efforts to integrate it with planning and budgeting processes. Goals are clearly articulated and shared. Some institutional changes occur. Institutional support. Tipping point where the uncommitted support the initiative. Guiding coalition with a shared vision, shared message- that is mutually agreed upon. Persistence and sustainability felt within the group. Ongoing evaluation process established
Leads to a restructuring of current instructional and/or student support services practices. The institution engages in continued dialogue and transformation of services and/or instruction that actively connects and empowers students and communities fully aligned, widely recognized, and fully integrated with college strategic plan and budgeting process (institutionalized) no dependence on outside funding
Mechanism exists for dealing with hesitations, concerns and fears. Intervention techniques in place to continue on with this project (even when chaos occurs). Evidence that change is beneficial is building. Mechanisms to alter path is embedded and utilized. Scaled and sustain
Evaluation (measurements)
Institutions systematically collect data about students along identify milestones, dialogue amongst all stakeholders on campus, create plans, implement and revise as new data is collected.
Dialogue Student Diversity/Equity
FIGURE 13 SAMPLE RUBRIC
OBJECTIVE IV: EXPAND ELECTRONIC RESOURCES IN ORDER TO BUILD A KNOWLEDGE BASE FOR
PRACTITIONERS REGARDING EFFECTIVE PRACTICES THAT LEAD TO INCREASED STUDENT SUCCESS .
The 3CSN website serves as a rich resource portal for educators statewide to turn to learn what is happening regionally and statewide, as well as how the culmination of statewide efforts are impacting our educational system. It also serves to brand the professional development portion of the ESL/Basic Skills Initiative. In addition to the regional network sites, the new 3CSN portal integrates all basic skills online resources, including www.bsi.org, the site maintained by the Academic Senate as well as the BSIrelated webpages maintained by the CCCCO that provide information on juried effective practices, statewide goals and objectives, and information regarding BSI funding, reporting, and evaluation. The portal calendar promotes events sponsored by 3CSN, the regions, and other events organized by the colleges and the partners in this initiative. Examples of these events include the annual California Association for Developmental Education (CalADE) conference, the Contextualizing Basic Skills into Career Technical Education event hosted by the Faculty Inquiry Network (FIN), and activities offered by the Career Ladders Project (CLP), as well as the Online Teaching Conference hosted by San Diego City College. Each of the regional network coordinators has been documenting evidence-based effective practices that are shared within the regions on their regional websites. For example, the San Diego/Imperial Valley Network has brief descriptions of each of the effective practices workshops that will be offered in the region during the Spring 2011 semester. The Bay Area Learning Network also has summaries of workshops to be held within its region. In addition, the 3CSN website houses effective practices shared in previous workshops and colloquia offered for the entire state. Summaries, PowerPoint presentations, and videos for Learning In Networks for Knowledge Sharing (LINKS) and the BSI Leadership Institute (BSILI) can be found on the home page of 3csn.org.
34
FIGURE 14 WWW.3CSN.ORG WEBSITE
Online Learning
The 3CSN portal and the regional websites have been set up to promote interaction with site visitors. A comment section allows visitors to respond to site information and interact with others online. Network coordinators use these websites during campus visits, workshops, and conferences to provide relevant information to attendees. Additionally, BSILI participants use Facebook to collaborate, share resources, and contribute to the ongoing building of the network.
FIGURE 15 BSILI WEBSITE
35
Videos have been instrumental in building the network. Collaboration on the portal and on the various sites creates community and documents resources for participant review and for those who are interested but did not attend the trainings.
FIGURE 16 ONLINE LEARNING
Training materials used for BSILI and regional events are posted online and are available for anyone accessing the site. For example, videos, Powerpoint presentations, and other documents on faculty inquiry training are available at the San Diego/Imperial Valley network website: http://sdivn.3csn.org/2010/01/26/taking-figs-to-a-new-level/. These materials can be used to compile online training modules based on regional and local college needs.
36
OBJECTIVE V: CONDUCT A SUMMER LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE DESIGNED TO PROVIDE TRAINING FOR FACULTY , ADMINISTRATORS , AND STAFF LEADERS INVOLVED WITH SERVING DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION STUDENTS , INCLUDING STUDENT SERVICES FACULTY AND STAFF AND FACULTY ACROSS DISCIPLINES .
BASIC SKILLS LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE MISSION STATEMENT
The purpose of the Basic Skills Leadership Institute (BSILI) is to develop leaders among the faculty, administration, and support staff who will initiate and direct activities on their campuses that lead to greater success of students who are underprepared. These leaders will promote professional learning to advance research, curriculum development, and integration of student support services and instruction, and, as appropriate, effect institutional change.
INSTITUTE LEARNING OUTCOMES http://bsili.3csn.org/

As a result of attending the Basic Skills Leadership Institute, participants will work within their inter- and intra-learning networks in order to 1. Develop and implement initiatives that address the motivation and success of underprepared and underrepresented students. 2. Recognize and address gaps, needs, opportunities, and strengths related to teaching and learning in a range of educational settings. 3. Engage their campus community in professional learning inquiry. 4. Design, implement, and evaluate effective learning environments for diverse groups based on relevant research. 5. Be effective leaders in a wide variety of situations related to the improvement of student outcomes. This year, two versions of BSILI were offered. BSILI 1.0 ran from June 16-22, 2010, and BSILI 2.0 occurred from June 20-24, 2010, overlapping BSILI 1.0 for two days. The institute was held at the My definition for student success has now expanded beyond the achievement of goals into a larger realization that success is interdependent and systemic. It doesnt begin and end with the individual or even two individuals. It is a comprehensive, holistic effort involving every facet of an institution. It requires a shared understanding and a mutual commitment among all stakeholders. Further, success is not a static achievement; it is a dynamic organism that must be fed and maintained. In short, it not only takes a village, but it takes a village who is aware of itself and what its trying to accomplish. (2010 BSILI participant) UCLA Conference Center at Lake Arrowhead, California.
37
Twenty-one participants (including three new network coordinators) representing 19 different California community colleges attended BSILI 1.0. This 1.0 version of the institute was designed primarily for faculty and administrators from colleges new to 3CSN, those indentified as a part of the Phase II expansion areas for the BSI Professional Development grant. Participants worked as a whole, in regional groups, and individually to define student success, identify a student completion agenda for sustained inquiry projects on individual campuses, determine a related topic for regional study, and learn the value of social networking. Participants became adept at using various web components as the use of web resources was embedded into the curriculum. In fact, the webbased training began even before the institute; the pre-institute homework assignment asked participants to bring a laptop computer with wireless capability, join the BSILI Facebook group, and install on their laptops Firefox browser, Acrobat reader, and Flash player. Other pre-institute homework required participants to gather information about their own campuss student success/basic skills completion efforts as well as the research project plans developed at a 3CSNsponsored Learning In Networks for Knowledge Sharing (LINKS) event, if anyone from their campus attended one. Each day of BSILI 1.0 had a specific focus and built upon the prior days work. The first evening began with a community-building ice breaker, followed by some technology training and set up needed for the web work that would occur throughout the institute. Day 1 (the first full day, Thursday, June 17) involved framing the issues around student completion. On day 2, BSILI 1.0 participants learned about the interacting factors that determine student success and discussed ways to apply them. Day 3 focused on building campus and regional networks of support, with guest speaker Rose Asera from the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching discussing how to build strong leadership teams. Evaluation specialists Dr. Christina Christie and Mr. Michael Harnar led days 4 and 5, demonstrating the value of logic modeling, outcomes assessment, and evaluation. Day 5, which included the newly arrived BSILI 2.0 participants, was capped by special guest speaker Dr. Kay Mc Clenney, director and founder of the Center for Community College Student Engagement, which publishes the Community Colleges Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) as well as the Survey of Entering New Student Engagement (SENSE). BSILI 1.0 participants completed their experience on day 6, focusing on technology and their next steps as campus inquiry project leaders and as members of a new 3CSN regional network. BSILI 2.0 followed a similar agenda, but was more accelerated and advanced because it was designed primarily for those who had attended last years inaugural BSILI. It, too, had 21 faculty and administrator participants (including three existing network coordinators) representing 21 different community colleges. All together, BSILI 1.0 and 2.0 had 42 faculty and administrator participants plus five facilitators from 37 different California community colleges: American River, Antelope Valley, Barstow, Berkeley City, Butte, Caada, Cerritos, Chaffey, Citrus, Coastline, College of Alameda, Cosumnes River, Crafton Hills, Cuyamaca, Feather River, Fresno, Glendale, LA Harbor, LA Southwest, LA Trade Technical, LA Valley, Los Medanos, Merced, Mira Costa, Miramar, Modesto, Monterey Peninsula, Mt. San Antonio, Mt. San Jacinto, North Orange CCD Noncredit, Palomar, Pasadena, Pierce, Santa Ana, Santa Rosa, Siskiyous, and Southwestern.
38
In addition to the institute learning outcomes noted earlier, both BSILI 1.0 and 2.0 were guided by the following institute inquiry questions: 1. How can I help my college establish, advance, and sustain a campus network that supports the success of our students, especially those who are underprepared for learning in college courses? 2. How can I collaborate with other BSI coordinators in my region to create a learning network to develop and sustain leadership capacity and support student success? 3. How can we work together to establish such networks among community colleges in California to support student success throughout the state? Ultimately, the goal for both BSILI 1.0 and 2.0 was for participants to leave the institute with an articulated student completion goal for his/her campus an inquiry plan that includes organizing a team to identify gaps (using the Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational interacting factors model) that impede achievement of the goal a regional inquiry theme that is tied to campus projects evaluation skills and tools to guide and transform (as necessary) the campus-wide inquiry process technology skills and tools to develop campus and regional networks to help him/her complete campus student completion goals.
FIGURE 17 INQUIRING INTO PATHWAYS TO STUDENT SUCCESS
BSILI inquiry questions, curriculum, and outcomes were developed by the institutes facilitators, each an experienced community college instructor and professional development leader: Deborah Harrington, Brock Klein, Bradley Vaden, Lynn Wright, and Nancy Ybarra.
39
The 2010 Leadership Institute provided the opportunity for participants to join a unique professional inquiry and learning experience with registration and room and board costs largely subsidized by the 2010 BSI professional development grant. A record of the work achieved at BSILI 1.0 and 2.0 can be found at http://bsili.3csn.org/. Next year, BSILI facilitators will add to the curriculum a focus on long-term planning, budgeting and cost-effectiveness, and the development and evaluation of integrated models for campuswide student success.
40
Basic Skills Initiative Leadership Institute Evaluation

This years BSI Leadership Institute was more complex than last years. Essentially two institutes occurred back-to-back, with an overlap of a few days where the two groups of participants worked together. The first institute (BSILI 1.0) was most similar to the activities and intent of last year as its participants were generally first-time attendees and new members of the 3CSN network. The second institute (BSILI 2.0) brought back together last years institute attendees to strengthen the network and extend the work started last year. A post-test design was used to answer one summative and one formative question: 1) Was the institute successful at preparing the attendees to build their campus and regional networks, and 2) How could the institute be improved for follow-on years.
BSILI 1.0
The BSILI 1.0 survey asked participants to identify their goals for the institute, selecting from a list that included networking, obtain strategies and best practices, learn specific skills, get plans/models/tools, and gain a general understanding of student success efforts. Attendees most often selected Networking, then Obtaining strategies and best practices, followed by Get plans/models/tools. On a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much), BSILI 1.0 attendees reported that their goals were met to a high degree (Goal 1: Mean=5.94, Median=6, Goal 2: Mean=6.35, Median=6; Goal 3: Mean=6.12, Median=6). This appears to be a slight improvement over what last years BSILI attendees reported on a scale of 1 (not achieved) to 7 (exceeded goals) regarding how well the institute met their goals (Mean=5.52, Median=6) . On the 7-point scale, the institute topics were seen as very useful, especially Evaluation and Logic Models and Inquiry Plan/Campus Project. Technology Tools (M=5.82, S.D.=1.47) was rated lowest.
It is difficult to be confident about direct comparisons because (1) slightly different scales were used, and (2) this years attendees rated achievement on each goal separately rather than achievement of goals overall. While an apparently similar measure could be derived averaging the reported goal achievement of this years three goals, it is difficult to know what effect reporting the achievements separately had on this measure. Christie, C.A. & Harnar, M.A. (2009). Basic Skills Initiative Leadership Institute Evaluation Report.
41
Table 1.
BSILI 1.0 Topic usefulness for campus networks N Mean 6.06 6.35 5.82 6.47 6.12 Median 7.0 7.0 6.0 7.0 6.0 Mode 7 7 7 7 7 S.D. 1.249 .931 1.468 .717 .857
Student Success Rubric Inquiry Plan/Campus Project Technology Tools Evaluation and Logic Models Regional Logic Models
17 17 17 17 17
As one would anticipate, attendees were familiar with student success efforts on their own campus but increasingly less familiar with student success efforts as the network widened to the regional and state levels, as Table 2 below reveals.
Table 2.
BSILI 1.0 Student success effort familiarity N Campus Regional State 17 17 17 Mean 6.12 4.65 4.53 Median 7.0 5.0 5.0 Mode 7 5 5 S.D. 1.219 1.320 1.505
Attendees reported feeling prepared to advance student success work, especially at the campus level (Table 3, below).
Table 3.
BSILI 1.0 Prepared to advance student success work N Campus Regional 16 16 Mean 6.06 5.81 Median 6.0 6.0 Mode 6 7 S.D. .929 1.167
42
BSILI 2.0
Like the 1.0 attendees, the top three institute goals reported by BSILI 2.0 participants were networking, obtaining strategies and best practices, and getting plans/models/tools. While slightly less positive about goal achievement than their BSILI 1.0 counterparts, using the same scale as BSILI 1.0 attendees, from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much), BSILI 2.0 attendees still reported that their goals were met to a fairly high degree (Goal 1: Mean=5.20, Median=6; Goal 2: Mean=5.33, Median=6; Goal 3: Mean=4.80, Median=6). Taken together, the BSILI 2.0 data appears to reflect a slight decrease from last years BSILI attendee reports (Mean=5.52, Median=6). The BSILI 2.0 attendees rated Technology Tools as the most useful topic for campus networks presented at the institute (M=5.93, S.D.=.917), and Evaluation and Logic Models and Regional Logic Models were tied for lowest (M=5.29, S.D.=1.490, 1.684), although response ratings for this question were all fairly strong.
Table 4.
BSILI 2.0 Topic usefulness for campus networks N Mean 5.36 5.50 5.93 5.29 5.29 Median 6.0 5.5 6.0 5.5 5.5 Mode 6 7 6 5 7 S.D. 1.598 1.401 .917 1.490 1.684
Student Success Rubric Inquiry Plan/Campus Project Technology Tools Evaluation and Logic Models Regional Logic Models
14 14 14 14 14
BSILI 2.0 attendees self-rated themselves higher than their BSILI 1.0 colleagues on all three levels related to their familiarity with student success efforts. As shown in the table below, these ratings were very near the upward limit (1=not at all familiar, 7=very familiar) at the campus and regional levels (see Table 5).
See prior footnote 3. Christie, C.A. & Harnar, M.A. (2009).
43
Table 5.
BSILI 2.0 Student success effort familiarity N Campus Regional State 15 15 15 Mean 6.87 6.33 5.80 Median 7.0 7.0 5.0 Mode 7 7 7 S.D. .516 1.113 1.207
Attendees rated themselves moderately prepared to advance student success work, indicating slightly more confidence in preparedness for the regional level (see Table 6).
Table 6.
BSILI 2.0 Prepared to advance student success work N Campus Regional 15 15 Mean 5.13 5.40 Median 5.0 6.0 Mode 5 6 S.D. 1.767 1.549
Responses from attendees from both institutes are positive, though attendees of BSILI 2.0 are slightly less positive about their experience. Those who attended last years institute found almost all of its topics quite useful. When asked how much each of these topics was used, Inquiry stood above the others, and Case Study and Program Webs were particularly unused. Lack of time and competing priorities were the main barriers to application. Those who did put some to use focused on developing their programs and faculty development around basic skills. Contrary to what one might expect, there is no significant difference between the reported preparedness to advance student success efforts of attendees in BSILI 1.0 and BSILI 2.0. In fact, further contrary to expectations, for preparedness to advance student success efforts on campus, attendees of BSILI 1.0 report the higher mean, falling just short of significance at the .05 level (F=3.420, df=1, p<.08). Networking continues to stand out as a valuable aspect of the BSILI experience. This year, it emerged as both the most common important goal and as the aspect of the BSILI experience most commonly reported as valuable for both institutes. Thus BSILI leaders and participants should continue whatever efforts put forth to facilitate networking and possibly consider additional means of facilitation.
44
2009 Basic Skills Initiative Leadership Institute Curriculum Use In addition to surveying returning BSILI participants about this years BSILI 2.0 experience, these veterans of last years (2009) inaugural leadership institute were asked to respond to a follow-up survey. On the survey given before attendees arrived at BSILI 2.0, attendees of last years institute (n=10) were asked to rate the usefulness of last years curriculum elements and how much they put these elements to use. On a scale from 1 (not useful) to 7 (very useful), all items were rated above the scale midpoint (4) for their usefulness. Inquiry was most useful (M=5.8), followed by Rubrics and Case Study in degree of utility, and Program Webs were reported to be least useful (M=4.3).
Table 7.
2009 BSILI topic usefulness for developing campus networks N Mean 5.30 5.20 4.30 5.00 5.80 4.90 Median 5.50 5.00 4.50 5.00 6.00 5.00 Mode 7 4 5 5 7 7 S.D. 1.57 1.32 2.06 1.25 1.40 1.85
Rubric Case Study Program Webs Logic Models Inquiry New Technologies
10 10 10 10 10 10
In addition to asking how useful participants thought a topic was, they also were asked to report on how much each topic was actually used or applied (see Table 8). On a scale of 1 (None) to 7 (Very much) of how much they had used each topic to advance their campus basic skills network, predictably, Inquiry was used most (M=5.0). However, while Case Study and Program Webs were rated as quite useful (see Table 7, above), they were the least used (M=2.80).
45
Table 8.
2009 BSILI topic used for developing campus networks N Mean 4.20 2.80 2.80 4.30 5.00 3.80 Median 4.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 3.50 Mode 3 3 1 4 5 3 S.D. 1.55 1.40 1.55 0.95 1.41 2.10
Rubric Case Study Program Webs Logic Models Inquiry New Technologies
10 10 10 10 10 10
The barriers the 2009 BSILI attendees experienced were mostly (50%) related to a lack of time to deal with so many competing priorities and faculty reluctance to engage in more commitments. The activities they undertook were most often (80%) focused on developing their programs, such as setting a basic skills agenda, producing logic models, or developing program and proposal evaluation rubrics. The next most mentioned activity was staff development related (40%), such as Faculty Inquiry Groups, or reading groups. 3CSN next steps include measuring the outcome of its BSILI activities and providing follow-up support within the regional networks to ensure that effective polices and practices introduced through 3CSN trainings and leadership institutes are implemented. Evaluation will also be conducted to determine effectiveness with regard to improving student success and college completion goals. Results will be provided in subsequent 3CSN progress reports.
46
EVALUATION SUMMARY
The external evaluation team provides various evaluation-related services to clarify grant outcomes and improve achievement of them. The team oversees formative activities (e.g., decision-related data collection, capacity-building opportunities, and workshops) and addresses a key summative question: How will the network change and grow during the course of this program? Another question raised is, what impacts are the LINKS workshops creating for the campus participants? A post-test survey of those participants shows some important change. Finally, a Basic Skills Leadership Institute (BSILI) post-test provided some important formative and summative information for the institute designers. During the February 2-3, 2010, 3CSN trainer retreat, the evaluation team, Dr. Christina Christie and Michael Harnar, facilitated the development of an Initiative-level Theory of Change (Figure 8 Theory of Change), a valuable tool which, when combined with the 3CSN Logic Model Appendix C: 3CSN Logic Model, serves as a snapshot as well as a shared understanding of 3CSNs goals and objectives and guides development and evaluation efforts. The evaluation team also created a potential state-level Basic Skills Theory of Change (Figure 8 Theory of Change).
Longitudinal Initiative Survey

In 2009, the evaluation team began administering a survey to gather some baseline data from three levels of network participation (campus faculty, campus coordinators, and regional coordinators) to provide a snapshot of different components of collaboration in an attempt to identify where the network is at any given time and to provide formative information for how, in what ways, and with whom the network is having an impact. Respondents were provided five different descriptions of collaborations and asked to rank how much the description reflected their campus network on a scale of None-1 to Extensive-4. Though participants were not shown these labels, the descriptions corresponded to these five increasing levels: Networking, Cooperation, Coordination/Partnership, Coalition, and Collaboration (see Appendix D for definitions). While there is some disparity among the different groups on exact ranking, in general, both Cooperation and Coordination/Partnership are ranked slightly higher than the other three forms of collaboration. As would be expected, because this is an escalating scale of collaboration, Networking was only slightly lower ranked than Cooperation and Coordination/Partnership. It is interesting to note the campus network collaboration differences between the Spring 2010 Basic Skills Leadership Institute (BSILI) 1.0 and the Spring 2010 BSILI 2.0 groups. The 2.0 participants (those who were to attend the BSILI 2.0) ranked Collaboration and Coalition higher than their 1.0 counterparts. This is especially interesting because these rankings are also higher than on their Spring 2009 survey; in this group of 2.0 attendees, there are about nine who also attended the 2009 leadership institute.
Community Based Collaborations Wellness Multiplied, Hogue, T. (1994). Oregon Center for Community Leadership. http://crs.uvm.edu/nnco/collab/wellness.html
47
Campus Network Ratings

0 1 2 3 4
Networking
Cooperation
Coordination/ Partnership Spring 2009 (n=26) Fall 2009 (n=106) Spring 2010 1.0 (n=15) Collaboration Spring 2010 2.0 (n=14) Average
Coalition
FIGURE 18 CAMPUS NETWORK RATINGS FOR COMPARISON
Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory

The 20 dimensions of the Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory provide a snapshot of collaboration at the time of the survey (see Appendix EWilder Collaboration Factors). Because of its length, this set of questions was given only to the 2009 and 2010 BSILI attendees. The numerical responses to these items are valuable, but not as valuable as the visual treatment. The details are best articulated in Figures 19 and 20. It was not practical to put all 20 factors into one figure, so below, two figures show the factors 10 per figure. While the BSILI attendees do not see their campus networks as having much of a history of collaboration in either year, they do see the networks having more skilled leadership, more concrete goals, a greater ability to compromise, and valuing their efforts (self-interest) more in 2010 over 2009. Of course, funds, materials, and time are always at a premium.
Collaboration: What Makes It Work 2nd Edition (2001). Saint Paul, MN: Fieldstone Alliance.
48
Wilder Factors 1-10 0 History Collaborative Leader Favorable Climate Mutual Respect Cross Section Self Interest Ability To Compromise Share Stake Multiple Layers Flexibility
FIGURE 19 FIRST TEN OF 20 WILDER COLLABORATIVE FACTORS
2009 (n=26) 2010 1.0 (n=16) 2010 2.0 (n=14)
Wilder Factors 11-20 0 Clear Roles Adaptability Appropriate Pace Open Comms Informal Relationships Concrete Goals Shared Vision Unique Purpose Sufficient Funds Skilled Leadership
FIGURE 20 SECOND TEN OF 20 WILDER COLLABORATIVE FACTORS
2009 (n=26) 2010 1.0 (n=16) 2010 2.0 (n=14)
49
Change
In looking for a direct outcome measurement, this years participants were asked to what extent their participation in student success-related programs on their campus contributed to changes in how their campus approaches its student success work. This question was asked differently last year so this serves as baseline data for the BSILI 1.0 attendees (n=16) and time 2 data for the BSILI 2.0 returnees (n=10). Leveraging Funds and New Funding are both rated lower than any other element. The returning attendees report more activity on almost every item.
Campus Changes
0
New programs, strategies, or practices New resource and referral connections New partnerships from diff disciplines New partnerships outside existing Leveraging of funding Administrative policy changes Changes in staffing or staff roles New Funding
2010 2.0 Returners (n=10) 2010 1.0 (n=16)
FIGURE 21 CAMPUS CHANGES FOR COMPARISON
Findings
The LINKS post-test survey showed that the participants are active and engaged in that almost half of them responded to our request for information. The survey also provided formative information in that the events should probably be organized to occur at the beginning of the year to give participants adequate time to implement activities before the school year ends. Also, the survey came only a few weeks after some of them completed the event, so more time should occur between the event and the post-test in the future. A fall or winter follow-up survey will occur to get a fuller picture of activity spurred by the events. The network participants generally describe their campus networks as cooperation/alliance and coordination/partnerships. This information describes where the networks are at this moment and gives managers the opportunity to consider whether they want to move them into more collaborative space. The descriptions offer ways of thinking about the next steps in collaborations and a picture of what they might look like should they move forward. There is also enough information in the data sets so that if the program managers would like to see if there are differences in networks around the state, that question might be answerable with these data.
50
The Wilder collaborative inventory provides much the same insight as the network descriptions, but breaks the collaboration out into 20 dimensions. Again, this information provides network managers a snapshot of where the network is at any given moment on these dimensions and which dimension might seem to be a trouble spot. Like the network descriptions, this information might be useful if one asks questions like Is one region of the state having problems in a particular dimension and is that different from the whole state? The data in this report provides valuable information for program managers to make programming decisions. The data are offered as benchmarks of how well the BSI Professional Development grant initiative is doing at promoting the specific and the broad goals. In particular, the campus activity change data and the BSILI data provide formative value for future work on building the network capacity, and the network descriptions provide a snapshot of the current state of the network and the opportunity to ask questions of the data to inform future programming.
The expert ability to welcome, orient, inform, plan, facilitate, and follow-up with incoming first year students so that first semester success (a, b, c, credit) and study skill mastery becomes the foundation for a students college experience. Being intentional, culturally competent, patient, and flexible are essential characteristics for Community College faculty/staff to possess. This goal is paramount in order for students to establish and sustain a healthy college identity that is strengthened by engagement with peers, faculty, staff, and community. (2010 BSILI participant)
51
CONCLUSION
This report has summarized a range of activities taking place in support of the five objectives specified in the 2010 ESL/Basic Skills Professional Development Grant awarded to the Los Angeles Community College District. In the case of each objective, significant progress has been achieved. Further, an overall vision of systemic, institutional, faculty, and student transformation has been articulated through the connections reported between the grants objectives and the development of the California Community Colleges Success Network Logic Model.
52
CONTRIBUTORS AND PARTICIPANTS

The following individuals, organizations, and institutions have contributed toward and/or participate in the advancement of the 2009-2010 ESL/BSI Professional Development Grant.
2010 ESL/BASIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS Tina Christie, 3CSN Evaluator, Associate Professor of Evaluation, UCLA Dept. of Education Linda Collins, Director, Career Ladders Deborah Harrington, 3CSN Project Administrator, Los Angeles Community College District Katie Hern, Co-director, Faculty Inquiry Network Rob Johnstone, Executive Board, RP Group Anne Price, Student Access and Equity Director, California Tomorrow Anniqua Rana, 3CSN Network Coordinator Barry Russell, Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs, CCCCO Lynn Wright, 3CSN Project Director 2009 ESL/BASIC SKILLS STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Deborah Harrington, Los Angeles Community College District, Committee Chair, 2009-10 ESL/BSI Project Director, 2010 BSI Leadership Institute Instructor Gary Colombo, Los Angeles Community College District, 2009 ESL/BSI Project Administrator Nancy Cook, Sierra College, Sacramento/Central Valley Regional network coordinator Anniqua Rana, Caada College, Bay Area Regional network coordinator Daryl Kinney, Los Angeles City College, Los Angeles Regional network coordinator Lisa Brewster, San Diego Miramar College, San Diego/Imperial Valley Regional network coordinator From the California Community Colleges Chancellors Office: Morgan Lynn, Executive Vice Chancellor of Programs LeBaron Woodyard, Dean, Academic Affairs Juan G. Cruz, Specialist, Academic Affairs, BSI Monitor Carole Bogue-Feinour, Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs, Emeritus Barbara Illowsky, DeAnza College, 2007-2008 BSI Project Director Mark Wade Lieu, (Ohlone College), Liaison to ASCCC Executive Board Rita Cepeda, San Diego Mesa College John Nixon, Mt. San Antonio College Pam Deegan, Mira Costa College Norman Fujimoto, Santa Ana College Robin Richards, College of the Siskiyous Diego Navarro, Cabrillo College, Digital Bridge Academy Peter White, San Diego City College Jane Patton, Mission College, President ASCCC Kathy Molloy, Santa Barbara City College, 2009 ASCCC Workshop Coordinator Bob Gabriner, San Francisco State University Rob Johnstone, Skyline College Laura Hope, Chaffey College Tom deWit, Chabot College, Faculty Inquiry Network Lynn Wright, Pasadena City College Linda Collins, Career Ladders Project Rose Asera, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching Christina Christie, Claremont Graduate University, External Evaluator
STEERING COMMITTEE RESOURCE MEMBERS
Julie Adams, Executive Director ASCCC
53
W. Norton Grubb, University of California, Berkeley Tina Christie, Claremont Graduate University, External Evaluator Pat James, Mt. San Jacinto College, @One, Technology Infrastructure Support John Whitmer, California Virtual Campus
INDIVIDUALS
Joan Cordova, Orange Coast College, ASCCC Workshop Team Member Evelyn Escatiola, East Los Angeles College, ASCCC Workshop Team Member Herminio Hernando, DeAnza College, ASCCC Workshop Team Member Jerry Pike, Santa Barbara City College, ASCCC Workshop Team Member Jenny Simon, El Camino College, ASCCC Workshop Team Member Maggie Taylor, Riverside Community College, ASCCC Workshop Team Member Erin Denney, City College of San Francisco, 2009 BSI Leadership Institute Resources Brock Klein, Pasadena City College, 2009 BSI Leadership Institute Instructor Nancy Ybarra, Los Medanos College, 2009 BSI Leadership Institute Instructor Michael Harnar, Claremont Graduate University, Assistant External Evaluator Bradley Vaden, Los Angeles Trade Technical College, Technology Support Micah Orloff, Mt. San Jacinto College, @One, Technology Infrastructure Support
COMMUNITY COLLEGES
Chabot College Chaffey College College of Marin Mt. San Antonio College Mt. San Jacinto College College of the Siskiyous
Regional Network Colleges:

COLLEGES IN THE SACRAMENTO/CENTRAL VALLEY REGIONAL NETWORK
Butte College American River College Sacramento City College Cosumnes River College Merced College Fresno City College Reedley College North Centers of the State Center Community College District
COLLEGES IN THE BAY AREA REGIONAL NETWORK
Berkley City College Caada College Los Medanos College City College of San Francisco Foothill College Mission College
54
COLLEGES IN THE LOS ANGELES REGIONAL NETWORK
College of the Canyons LA City College East LA College LA Harbor College LA Mission College Pasadena City College Pierce College LA Southwest College LA Trade Technical College LA Valley College West LA College
COLLEGES IN THE SAN DIEGO/IMPERIAL VALLEY REGIONAL NETWORK
MiraCosta College Palomar College San Diego Miramar College San Diego Mesa College Grossmont College Cuyamaca College San Diego Continuing Education Center San Diego City College Southwestern College Imperial Valley College Mt. San Jacinto College
ORGANIZATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS
@One California Virtual Campus Center for Urban Education at USC Career Ladders Project Digital Bridge Academy Faculty Inquiry Network FACCTS Faculty Collaborations for Course Transformations The Research and Planning Group San Francisco State University Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching James Irvine Foundation William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund
COLLABORATIONS
California Community Colleges Chancellors Office Academic Senate for California Community Colleges Chief Instructional Officers of California Community Colleges Chief Student Services Officers of California Community Colleges Chief Executive Officers of California Community Colleges
55
For any questions you may have or to request further information about any of the contents of this report, please contact the Project Director or Project Administrator, as listed below: Project Director: Lynn Wright 2010 3CSN Project Director (BSI Professional Development Grant) Pasadena City College 1570 E. Colorado Blvd., V-102 Pasadena, CA 91106 626-585-3047 lmwright@pasadena.edu Project Administrator: Deborah L. Harrington 2010 3CSN Project Administrator (BSI Professional Development Grant) Los Angeles Community College District Los Angeles Trade Technical College Vice President of Academic Affairs 400 West Washington Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90015 213-763-7000
harrindl@lattc.edu
56
APPENDIX A: PARTICIPANT COMMENTS TO TRAININGS

I didn't expect to receive so much great information and insight on my class and what's happening with instructors in classes I hope my students will see when they finish their pre-reqs. I will need to review the materials about the collaboration with the reading and history instructor because I am a little unclear about how to implement this. I thought the 3 presentations were well balanced: one focused on the basic skills classroom, one on a supplemental instruction in reading for a transfer class, and one on scaffolding of complex assignments in a transfer class. Really excellent. I was very inspired by the issues discussed and by the intelligence and wisdom of the participants. I feel that my teaching will be improved by what I learned today and that this workshop will stimulate me to seek more information about scaffolding as a method to nurture the beginners in my classes. All three presentations were engaging and useful. I really liked the intimate, focused format of the workshop. Not too short and not too long. Would like to have more information on how to incorporate this into transfer level courses. What a superb workshop! Every presentation was engaging, insightful, and motivating. I've been thinking and talking about it all week. Thank you for the time and care you put into this workshop. You make a difference. There is so much to discuss that it felt rushed at times, but considering our timeline things went well. This was a great intro because it provided the framework, time to practice, and then time to apply. We had good discussions as a result that brought out our main outcomes and some of our assumptions. It was really interesting to hear about the various models that are being implemented and the problems folks are encountering. I believe that I am getting some ideas about "baby steps" which will move me forward. The funding issues are significant, but collaboration with colleagues (at least on a limited scale) is possible. This was productive and a follow-up would be interesting. With a different group of participants the training would be different. I would certainly enjoy participating with others from my discipline and exploring ways to connect with ESL, counseling, library, and learning center in ways that make sense for adjunct faculty...mini-collaborations??? This was nicely paced and very informative! Thanks Hearing what other instructors are doing, or are planning to do, in their courses, and having the time to brainstorm possibilities.
57
Best practices in learning communities and case studies, where teams have 30 minutes to share with us a lesson, how they plan or grade assignments or anything else they think we'd benefit hearing about. I'd also still like time to work on my own learning community. I love the website and the documents posted here. Perhaps you can have one learning community site with links to research and then link to websites for individual events. Maybe this exists already and I just need to look through the site....
58
APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF LACCD DEV MATH TEAM PROJECTS, FALL 2009

EAST Ruben and Regis are focused on improving students problem solving abilities related to application problems. Using responses to student surveys as a guide they are creating application problems that resonate with students. Math topics include: rational equations, quadratic equations, factoring and polynomials. CITY Kevin has created a set of SkillBuilders and ModelBuilders. These are Powerpoint and html pages that can be used to help students master key topics in algebra. Hector has created a Latino student persona and developed tools that help students reflect on their attitude toward math, their performance in math, and their efforts to improve. VALLEY Steven and Teresa are creating Skill Building Activities 15-minute activities that will be incorporated into each 70-minute class. Teresa is focusing on activities related to specific elementary and intermediate algebra math topics, and Steve is focusing on activities related to math anxiety and test taking skills. WEST Henri is exploring multiple avenues for improving student performance of math skills. These approaches include internet-based learning, in-class PowerPoint presentations, frequent examinations, and more. Matt is exploring what motivates students to learn, how students approach learning and studying, and what techniques instructors can use to increase commitment to and effectiveness in studying. His work so far includes an assessment of students attitudes toward mathematics, an examination of student reflections on relationship between performance and commitment, and a review of the literature surrounding motivation and investment in learning. PIERCE Bruce and Kathy have developed an approach to teaching elementary and intermediate algebra with the following key aspects: 1) Lessons have both reading and writing components 2) Classroom lessons are activity based 3) Mathematical concepts and skills are developed in context. Environmental sustainability is a common theme.
59
4) Study skills are incorporated into each lesson 5) Professional development is a key component for instructors to share materials, pedagogy and experiences. They have developed reading materials, classroom activities and homework assignments that are available online. They are testing this approach in classes this semester and using the results to refine their materials and processes. SANTA ANA Caren is working to help students master application problems in elementary algebra in several ways, by: 1) developing modules of activities and tools for each classic type of application problem. Part of the focus of the modules is on general problem solving strategy and estimation. 2) developing a WordProbTutor modeled after OLIs StatLabTutor, which will guide students in setting up equations, solving equations, and provide feedback about their work. 3) working with other departments to identify and then develop discipline-specific application problems
60
APPENDIX C: 3CSN LOGIC MODEL
61
APPENDIX D: NETWORK DESCRIPTIONS

Networking A non-hierarchical, loose/flexible link with loosely defined roles, low key leadership, minimal decision making, and informal communication. The purpose is to dialog, create common understanding, a base of support, and a clearinghouse of information. Cooperation or Alliance A central body of people as a communication hub with semi-formal, advisory links and somewhat defined roles, facilitative leaders, complex decision making and formal communications within the central group. The purpose is to match needs and provide coordination, limit duplication of services, and ensure tasks are done. Coordination or Partnership A central body of decision makers with defined roles, formal links and group-developed resources and budget. There is autonomous leadership focused on issue, group decision-making, and frequent and clear communication. The purpose of this group is to share resources to address common issues and to merge resource base to create something new. Coalition A group where all members are involved in formal decision making with defined roles, timelines, formal links with written agreements, shared leadership, and prioritized communication. This group shares ideas, pulls resources from existing systems and makes commitments for a minimum of three years. Collaboration Consensus is used in shared decision-making; formalized roles, time, and evaluation. Links are formal and written. Leadership, trust and productivity are all high. Ideas and decisions are equally shared through highly developed communication. The purpose of this group is to accomplish shared vision and impact benchmarks through an interdependent system.
62
APPENDIX E: WILDER COLLABORATION FACTORS

Factor History Collaborative Leader Favorable Climate Mutual Respect Cross Section Self Interest Ability to Compromise Share Stake Multiple Layers Flexibility Clear Roles Adaptability Appropriate Pace Open Comms Informal Relationships Concrete Goals Shared Vision Unique Purpose Sufficient Funds Skilled Leadership Description History of collaboration or cooperation in the community Collaborative group seen as a legitimate leader in the community Favorable political and social climate Mutual respect, understanding, and trust Appropriate cross section of members Members see collaboration as in their self-interest Ability to compromise Members share a stake in both process and outcome Multiple layers of participation Flexibility Development of clear roles and policy guidelines Adaptability Appropriate pace of development Open and frequent communication Established informal relationships and communication links Concrete, attainable goals and objectives Shared vision Unique Purpose Sufficient funds, staff, materials, and time Skilled Leadership
63

Progress Report 3csn August 2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Progress Report 3csn August 2010

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Progress Report 3csn August 2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

20092010

2010 ESL/Basic Skills Professional Development Grant Progress Report

www.3csn.org Grizli777 2009-2010

Progress Report 3CSN 2010

Progress Report 3CSN 2010

2010 ESL/BASIC SKILLS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT GRANT PROGRESS REPORT

the Under Secretary of Education: Martha Kanter visits Palo Alto

Progress Report 3CSN 2010

Progress Report 3CSN 2010

Progress Report 3CSN 2010

OVERVIEW OF THE 2010 ESL/BASIC SKILLS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT GRANT

Progress Report 3CSN 2010

PROGRESS OF GRANT OBJECTIVES

FIGURE 1 CCC PARTICIPATION AT LINKS 2010

Progress Report 3CSN 2010

Progress Report 3CSN 2010

LINKS (Learning In Networks for Knowledge Sharing) focusing on COMPLETION

Progress Report 3CSN 2010

Progress Report 3CSN 2010

Progress Report 3CSN 2010

Progress Report 3CSN 2010

Regional Network Activities

Progress Report 3CSN 2010

FIGURE 5 NETWORK GROWTH 2009-2010

FIGURE 6 PROJECTED GROWTH OF NETWORK

Progress Report 3CSN 2010

FIGURE 7 CATEGORIES OF INFORMATION ON REGIONAL SITES

Progress Report 3CSN 2010

Network Activity Plans for Fall 2010

Train the Trainer Retreats

Progress Report 3CSN 2010

FIGURE 8 THEORY OF CHANGE

Progress Report 3CSN 2010

3CSN Advisory Committee

Establishing a Permanent Center for Professional Learning (CPL)

CPL Progress to Date

Progress Report 3CSN 2010

Progress Report 3CSN 2010

Progress Report 3CSN 2010

Participants 47 25 142 285 8 18 35 35 30 331 236 31 70 2 7 25 119 90 15 12 22 20 13 16 30 36 20 1720

Progress Report 3CSN 2010

Trainings in All Regions

Logic Model Training

FIGURE 10 COLLEGE PARTICIPATION IN LOGIC MODEL TRAINING

Progress Report 3CSN 2010

Program Evaluation (in collaboration with the RP Group)

CB 21 Coding (in collaboration with the Academic Senate)

Progress Report 3CSN 2010

Technology in the Classroom

Benchmarking Equity and Student Success Tool

Learning Communities Planning Retreat

Using Inquiry to Help Improve Student Outcomes

Progress Report 3CSN 2010

Other examples of these customized trainings offered are listed below:

Progress Report 3CSN 2010

Additional Professional Learning Activities Done in Collaboration with Other Groups

Progress Report 3CSN 2010

3CSN Events 2009-2010