Tag: Reflection

Topic/Purpose

As I look at my renewed focus on applying data analytics and human creativity to the problem of community college developmental education, it really is an Action Research problem. That is, my goal is to empower and encourage advisors to apply Action Research methodologies to their advising. Accomplishing this, however, will require some research of my own to “prime the pump.”

An essential place to start is to research how effective the changes we’ve tried in the past have been. Specifically, we made a change a few years back to our ELA prerequisite requirements to allow instructors to classify their courses as needing an ELA prerequisite, corequisite, or no requirements. Unfortunately though, the College hasn’t studied how effective it’s been. A study on this would lay the groundwork to further study changes and experiments against an existing set of success metrics.

My initial research question is,

“Have the implemented recommendations of the SVCC ELA Task Force improved student success and time to completion at Sauk Valley Community College?”

Design/Methods/Measurement

Determining how to measure student success is a crucial step in this process. A review of the literature provides an excellent starting point and benchmark. Based on my literature review, I believe that the following measures will be important to examine and compare:

• Gateway English course (ENG 101) pass rates (defined as “C” or above)
• Pass rates for the next English course (ENG 103)
• Pass rates for courses with ELA corequisite or no prerequisite requirements
• 2-year and 4-year graduation rates

In addition, Sauk looks at other metrics to gauge student success such as fall-to-fall retention, fall-to-spring retention, and persistence.While not all of these measures would necessarily be significant, I intend to include these in my study for completeness and comparison. Finally, I would like to introduce another measure called “acceleration” to measure the rate at which students are moved through their developmental sequence.

The time period for the comparison study would be Fall 2010 – Spring 2018 semesters; since the 2013-14 school year was a transition year with full implementation in Fall 2014. This allows ample time for comparison of the time period before and after the change. Some measures (for example, 4-year graduation rates) may warrant a longer study period, but this will be enough data to determine whether the changes have been successful.

Data would be collected from the College’s student information system (SIS) and (if applicable) learning management system (LMS) using anonymized exports of student records. This will allow tracking individual students’ progress through multiple courses and through their program of study. Additional comparison and benchmark data may be collected from IPEDS data and other publicly available data.

After obtaining initial results, I will need to examine additional demographic and academic data to control for other factors that may explain part or all of the results and to determine future areas of study and trials. This will likely consume the majority of the study time, and while it is difficult to predict all the factors I will need to examine, I would need to examine the following at minimum: age, gender, high school, and (to the extent possible) socioeconomic factors.

Timeline

July 2018 – Approval.

The first step is to obtain approval from the SVCC Institutional Review Board to conduct human subject research. I have filed an application and expect to receive a response by mid-July.

July-August 2018 – Initial Success Results.

After I have received approval, I will pull initial student data and begin sorting and analyzing to obtain initial results.

September – November 2018 – Follow the Data.

Once I have the initial success data compiled

November – December 2018 – Write Paper.

With the data compiled and analyzed, I will write a formal research paper. The paper can then be shared with relevant faculty, administration the College’s developmental education committee for feedback. Once the paper is finalized, I will begin to submit it for publication.

January 2018 – Share Results.

Results would be shared with faculty and staff at the College Spring Kickoff, with a copy of the study shared prior for a robust discussion of next steps and further study. I also hope for the opportunity to discuss developing a regular research cycle under the auspices of the developmental education committee.

Few things are as daunting as organizational change, both for the change agent and the person being asked to change. The change agent can easily be overwhelmed by the immense task ahead of them, while everyone else tends to feel like to proverbial “old dog” being asked to learn new tricks. This is why it is so important for me to start with a common understanding of why, how, and what for my innovation plan. This common baseline will help to start everyone on the same page and establish a common goal for organizational change.

Building on that common understanding, then, I will have a basis to be able to explore how to motivate people to change using the Influencer model’s Six Sources of Influence. By addressing the structural, social, and personal spheres of motivation and ability, I will be more likely to meaningfully influence others in my organization to want to change. When we are personally motivated to change—that is, when we have ownership in the process—the project will be more successful.

Motivation alone, though, does not guarantee a project’s success. Perhaps more detrimental to the change process than lack of motivation is the project being choked out by the daily grind, or what the Four Disciplines of Execution calls the “whirlwind.” Having established a strategy to help motivate people, we must move on to execute that strategy through five stages of change—in spite of the whirlwind. This requires singular focus, commitment, and accountability.

Ultimately, though, the biggest impact I can have on an organization—whether I am the one in charge or whether I’m at the bottom or the organizational ladder—is going to be through the individual dealings I have with others. It’s also the area over which I have the most control. Enter the concepts of self-differentiated leadership and crucial conversations.

Much like in the Influencer model, Friedman’s concept of self-differentiated leadership understands the relationship between the social and personal spheres, but refuses to blur the line and descend into groupthink. One way of doing this is what Patterson, Grenny, McMillan, and Switzler refer to as stating your path and asking for others to state theirs. They advise,

“So once you’ve shared your point of view—facts and stories alike—invite others to do the same. If your goal is to keep expanding the pool of meaning rather than to be right, to make the best decision rather than to get your way, then you’ll willingly listen to other views.” (p. 143)

Seeing myself as part of a larger whole, yet unique from it, also allows me to see others in the same way, which encourages the humility and respect necessary to successfully navigate these conversations. Treating others with this respect is a cornerstone of the Crucial Conversations methodology. Without this differentiation and respect, the techniques become mere manipulation.

Again, here, a common understanding of the “why” is important; Patterson, et. al. call it starting with heart. When change becomes confrontational, having established a common starting ground will allow us to come together for the already-agreed-upon common goal. Then, with that common goal established, we can work together to maintain a safe conversational environment where fear doesn’t dominate the exchange and both sides are able to openly yet respectfully share their ideas and concerns. Once agreement has been reached, then, we will be able to move to action together.

These very different, yet very similar, approaches to organizational change work together beautifully to minimize resistance to change and allow for maximum impact.

References