Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

RP/CISOA Conference April 2009 1. Presenters Willard Hom, Dean/Director Alice van Ommeren, Research and Planning Staff LeAnn Fong-Batkin, Research and.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "RP/CISOA Conference April 2009 1. Presenters Willard Hom, Dean/Director Alice van Ommeren, Research and Planning Staff LeAnn Fong-Batkin, Research and."— Presentation transcript:

1 RP/CISOA Conference April 2009 1

2 Presenters Willard Hom, Dean/Director Alice van Ommeren, Research and Planning Staff LeAnn Fong-Batkin, Research and Planning Staff 2

3 Objectives To inform researchers and IT staff about specific future research efforts in the Chancellor’s Office To gather comments related to the research agenda Preview the research agenda prior to public release 3

4 Background Board of Governors adopted the System Strategic Plan in 2006. Research agenda addresses goal D3 of the Strategic Plan, Analytical Capacity for Measuring Success. Prior work on organizing research topics was in the 1990s. 4

5 Goal of the Research Agenda Research agenda helps prioritize projects. Research agenda promotes coverage of topics that concern the wide array of system stakeholders. Research agenda increases transparency. 5

6 Research Agendas A research agenda structures a prioritization process so that an organization can systematically weigh factors in its consideration of research projects and activities. Research agendas are used in a wide variety of disciplines 6

7 Creation of the Research Agenda Two-day meeting in October 2008 Used an external facilitator 7

8 Participants Community college representatives, including chief executive officers, chief information systems officers, and researchers Academic Senate RP Group Department of Finance Legislative Analyst’s Office Cal-PASS Community College League of California Foundation for California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office Staff 8

9 Process Discussed value of creating a research agenda Identified external opportunities and challenges Identified internal strengths and weaknesses Discussed potential research projects Developed criteria to evaluate each project Prioritized the projects 9

10 Value of Our Research Agenda Main ideas guiding our discussion 1. Focus Resources via Prioritization 2. Manage Expectations 3. Provide Leadership 10

11 External Opportunities* Culture of evidence Economy Changing role of researchers Change in technology Increased interest in CCs from external parties New leadership and new relationships Changing demographics New research opportunities *as reported by participants 11

12 External Challenges* Restrictions on access to data Data quality, data coverage, and research methods Research resources (expertise) Dynamic environment *as reported by participants 12

13 Internal Strengths* System alignment with certain entities Collaborative approach to designing agenda Availability of data elements Ability to communicate and teach how to analyze and use the data *as reported by participants 13

14 Internal Weaknesses* Leadership and staff turnover Capacity State and local “silos” Funding pressures Linking research to instruction Too many areas to research No consequences/incentives for bad data *as reported by participants 14

15 Potential Research Projects Considered: Strategy A Strategy A: College Awareness and Access Financial aid study (fees, role of fin. aid, practices) Access study (Improve SEARS, GIS, time series study) Program evaluations (EOPS, Financial Aid, EAP) Distance education delivery model analysis Classification Study Other Concurrent enrollment Noncredit to Credit Transition University of Phoenix phenomena 15

16 Potential Research Projects Considered: Strategy B Strategy B: Student Success and Readiness Transfer study (disaggregate transfer population, explore/identify transfers) Analysis of course factors (distance ed, learning communities, scheduling) Course placement recommendation collection (tie to CB 21 revision) 16

17 Potential Research Projects Considered: Strategy C Strategy C: Partnerships for Economic and Workforce Development Data integration (matching supply with demand) Employment outcomes (longitudinal study) Curriculum development (improve response time) Partnership academies CTE programs (measure costs and levels of success) 17

18 Potential Research Projects Considered: Strategy D Strategy D: System Effectiveness ARCC—integrate equity/national peering/benchmarking Student learning objectives (impact on student success) Swirl study Study of professional development (what is being done and how) 18

19 Potential Research Projects Considered: Strategy E Strategy E: Resource Development Fee Policy (revenue vs. affordability; affect on student access and success; 50% law, distribution of funds, SB 361) Cost index Program analysis (break even costs for certain programs) Develop inventory of existing and proposed studies 19

20 Potential Research Projects Considered: Others Establish common guidelines for conducting studies Performance-based funding Expand research methods and reporting tools Super model for forecasting 20

21 Selection Criteria Is the project “doable”? Do we have the data? Topic addresses multiple goals in the Strategic Plan Will the study’s output move the system forward? Will the study impact Political leadership Students Economy/workforce Can we use prior studies to leverage this study? How much new information will the study provide? 21

22 Prioritization Process We categorized the projects into: Quick wins (high impact, short-term timeframe, 0-12 months) Stars (high impact, long-term timeframe (12-24 months) Building Blocks (low impact, short term timeframe, 0-12 months) Back Burners (Low impact, long-term timeframe, 12-24 months) Then, each participant voted for their choice of projects 22

23 Voting Process Used the “facilitated decision making” method, also known as the “10-4” method. Each participant received 10 dots. The participant placed 4 dots on the project that has the highest priority for the individual; the remaining 6 dots are placed elsewhere. 23

24 Definition of Research Projects Participants divided into three groups to discuss the following for the 9 projects that received the most votes: Scope Objectives Benefits Action Steps 24

25 And the winners are… Project 1: Course Section Factors Objectives: Conduct program evaluations Create infrastructure Operationalize definitions and magnitude Project 2: Course Placement Recommendations Objectives: Collect course placement recommendations and test scores 25

26 And the winners are… Project 3: Inventory of Existing Studies Objective: Create warehouse of existing studies, including program evaluations, financial aid, internal and external studies Project 4: GIS Data Analysis Objective: Enrollment management Program and service planning Bond planning analysis 26

27 And the winners are… Project 5: Employment Outcomes Objectives: Classification of programs Expansion of outcome data (longer tracking) Project 6: Evaluate CTE Programs Objectives: Start with evaluation of Nursing programs Establish methodology for determining cost and performance indicators 27

28 And the winners are… Project 7: Integrate equity data into ARCC Objective: Make colleges more aware of equity issues Project 8: Expansion of Student Attributes (SEARS Survey) Objective: Conduct research using student attributes as related to success 28

29 And the winners are… Project 9: Fees, Financial Aid, and Affordability Objective: Evaluate other states’ fees, revenue, financial aid, and participation Information will inform state policy and budget discussions Optimize student access and success 29

30 Caveats and Concerns Agenda is system level research Need literature reviews Did not identify projects to build research capacity Need to support classroom level research Projects require technical assistance Message and marketing of studies is important Rigor and utility analysis in design 30

31 Retreat Evaluation What went well: Representation of a wide variety of CC and government organizations Process and facilitation Organization of event Changes for next time: Need small college representation Need more rigorous guidelines and input about research unit’s priorities Need a mechanism to connect with external research groups 31

32 Applications Allows us to make decisions about how the Chancellor’s Office will allocate its scarce resources Achieve additional efficiency in research-related activities Help external stakeholders identify projects to pursue Clarification of unmet research needs 32

33 Limitations of the Agenda Narrow scope Studies can be done with limited costs Omits studies that require Collection of new data Use of field experiments Large-scale studies Extensive literature review not conducted; may have missed existing studies Does not state how research capacity can be expanded 33

34 Future Action We will attempt to do studies as time/resources permit We will work with external researchers to see if they can partner with us to perform the study We will periodically revisit the agenda Specific features of research agenda need refinement 34

35 Questions? Contact Willard Hom at (916) 327-5887 or 35

Download ppt "RP/CISOA Conference April 2009 1. Presenters Willard Hom, Dean/Director Alice van Ommeren, Research and Planning Staff LeAnn Fong-Batkin, Research and."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google