Presentation on theme: "How is a “training partnership” defined? Why so many monikers used to describe noncredit workforce training units? Do we brand ourselves as providers."— Presentation transcript:
How is a “training partnership” defined? Why so many monikers used to describe noncredit workforce training units? Do we brand ourselves as providers of noncredit workforce training? How are these partnerships developed and sustained?
The purpose of this study is to identify how and in what ways Illinois single-campus community colleges develop and sustain effective noncredit workforce training partnerships.
Entrepreneurial partnerships are increasingly critical sources of community college revenue Partnership revenues can sustain budgets; support missions; underwrite otherwise unaffordable projects Partnership revenues can creatively and flexibly fund auxiliary and remedial services
Accreditation: Increased focus on noncredit workforce training outcomes as part of CQI Completion: Build effective bridges to credit- bearing coursework Workforce Development: Better-positioned to serve industry training needs Gap in Literature: Little exists on entrepreneurial orientation of community colleges and their business partners
1.How do noncredit workforce training units support the community college’s mission? 2.What characteristics define effective community college noncredit workforce training partnerships? 3.How does the community college initiate outreach to develop noncredit workforce training partnerships? 4.What characteristics or elements contribute to successfully maintaining noncredit workforce training partnerships?
Amey, Eddy, and Ozaki’s (2007) Partnership Development Model Stage 1: Partnership Development Antecedents, Motivation, Context, Partnership Itself Stage 2: Partnership Sustainability/Maintenance Overlying Themes Feedback Champion
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (1993) Four Levels of Training Evaluation Level 1: Reaction to Training Level 2: Learning Occurring Due to Training Level 3: Behavioral Change Due to Training Level 4: Results Occurring Due to Training
Qualitative Paradigm Ontology (Knowledge is socially constructed) Focus (Study is inductive in nature) Observation (Participants are examined in natural settings) Collection/analysis (Common patterns/themes and multiple perspectives are sought)
Characteristic of Case StudyApplicability to This Study Seeks to understand human action (Stake, 1995) Little is known about partnerships or contribution to community college context Are empirical, particularistic, heuristic (Merriam, 2009; Yin, 2009) Relationships are a phenomenon to be investigated in-depth Employ evidentiary sources/triangulation (Creswell, 2007; Merriam, 2009; Yin, 2009) Surveys, in-person interviews, document review, field notes were utilized Utilize conceptual framework (Merriam, 2009; Yin, 2009) One construct and two models were employed to build framework Bound the setting or context (Creswell, 2007; Merriam, 2009) Study was limited to Illinois single-campus community colleges Yield descriptive findings (Merriam, 2009) Study findings apply to other community colleges and their business partners
Sequential, multi-method approach Community colleges Related business and industry training partners Purposeful sampling with maximum variation Location of noncredit unit within the hierarchy Variety of businesses and industries contracting with colleges for noncredit workforce training Carnegie Size and Setting Classifications Carnegie Basic Classifications
Phase 1: Survey Distribution Each Illinois single-campus community college Included request for names of two noncredit workforce training partners willing to participate Included request for an in-person interview Phase 2: In-person Interview Five community colleges Five noncredit workforce training partners
Size and SettingDefinitionNumber of IL Single- campus Community Colleges Small Two-Year500-1,999 FTE7 Medium Two-Year2,000-4,999 FTE16 Large or Very Large Two- Year 5,000 FTE or greater14 Adapted from “Size and Setting Classifications,” by Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2012, http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/ descriptions/size_setting.php
Basic ClassificationNumber of IL Single- campus Community Colleges Associate’s: Public Rural-Serving Large15 Associate’s: Public Rural-Serving Medium6 Associate’s: Public Suburban-Serving Multicampus14 Associate’s: Public Suburban-Serving Single Campus12 Adapted from “Basic Classification Descriptions,” by Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2012, http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/ descriptions/basic.php
29 community colleges (80.5%) participated in web-based survey 21 of 29 community colleges (72.4%) disclosed college names 5 of 21 college administrators (23%) interviewed along with one business and industry partner per college
InstitutionCarnegie Size and Setting Carnegie Basic Setting Geographic Region Evergreen Community College Medium Two-yearPublic Suburban- Serving Single Campus Northern Gerard Community College Small Two-yearPublic Rural-Serving Medium Campus Southern Hamilton Community College Very Large or Large Two-year Public Suburban- Serving Single Campus Northern Pierce Community College Medium Two-yearPublic Rural-Serving Large Campus Central Richard Community College Medium Two-YearPublic Rural-Serving Large Campus Central
Noncredit Workforce Training Partner Name Nature of Business or Industry Greening PartnersDislocated worker training in industrial, manufacturing, healthcare, and green careers Kappa ConstructionMetal fabrication and distribution Miller ManufacturingTransportation technologies Otis MechanicalIndustrial, maintenance, and warehouse logistics and technologies Quickspeed TransportationMass transit and transport services for the disabled
Community College Partners Noncredit workforce training directors, deans, or vice presidents accountable for unit’s daily operation Two years in the position Business and Industry Partners Direct working relationship with the community college Plant managers, HR directors, or mid- to upper- level administrators
Web-based survey Received ICCET/WeTRaIN assistance in distribution Vetted community colleges using Carnegie criteria Confirmed contact information for two noncredit workforce training partners provided by vetted colleges In-person interviews Five community colleges Five related noncredit workforce training partners
Survey results General demographic data collection Questions mapped to components of conceptual framework using Likert scale Interviews Documents, web content, and related artifacts Field notes Observational Reflective
All interview transcripts, documents, and other information uploaded into NVivo10® database Creswell’s (2007) Data Analysis Spiral Used Creswell’s Data Analysis Spiral (2007). Adapted from Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.), by J.W. Creswell. Copyright 2007 by Sage Publications.
Innovativeness: Community frequently does not understand noncredit workforce training’s function Innovative role of noncredit workforce training should be in mission statements, institutional identities, and strategic plans Colleges believed ICCB guidelines hampered innovativeness Participants did not fully understand ICCB rules that presumably hampered this innovativeness
Innovativeness and EO demonstrated by: Community colleges’ public visibility Responding rapidly and efficiently to training needs Staying current with business and industry trends Using grants to spur new training partnerships Involvement in local EDAs, chambers, WIBs Articulating noncredit to credit-bearing coursework Bringing noncredit training partners to campus Flexibility in training times, start/stop dates Integrating training into clients’ strategic plans
Risk taking is not present Failure to take measures of calculated risk Failure to position the cc as a regional training provider Risk averse Competing with external and internal training initiatives
Proactiveness is complementary to innovativeness Involvement with WIBs, EDAs Assessing training needs & researching industry Keeping communication lines open
Competitive aggressiveness rarely, if ever, displayed No willingness to be unconventional No “head to head” confrontation Cited statutory and ICCB guidelines as rationale
Autonomy frequently illustrated Role of the president in initiating connections Role of the noncredit workforce training unit in sustaining connections
Antecedents often prompt a partnership Strategic plans and resource sharing Validating training needs Understanding relationships and roles
Motivation often prompts a partnership Partnership funding Grants often are the impetus for the training relationship As long as one partner does not disproportionately benefit, motivation usually pays off Emphasis on skill-building Role of the EDA, regional partner, or WIB
Context for development and sustainability Rationale for involvement in the partnership Cost-sharing opportunities Community needs
Communication critical to sustainable partnerships Academic politics cited as internal impediments to sustainability Lack of planning, business logistics, economic impacts, employee turnover, community college credibility cited as external impediments to sustainability
Feedback requires regular meetings to get input and to inform future program design Champion must come from the community college and is usually the president Role of champion is often tied to visibility, not capital or ability to bring people to the table Other community college staff who self- identified as champions are actually closers
Level 1 reaction: Used for marketing purposes, not for improving training Not used to close the loop on a training cycle Not used to plan for Level 2 learning evaluation Level 2 learning: Pre- and post-testing conducted inconsistently, rendering findings less useful Use of standardized tests (TABE) to measure Level 2 learning are not pre-tests
Level 3 behavior: Infrequently conducted because of difficulty in measurement Lack of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards for behavioral change Concern about inapplicability to certain kinds of training Level 4 results: No one could provide an example Does not meet ROE (Kirkpatrick, 2009)
Unified definition of a community college champion Champion must come from the college Both sides must view this person as the champion Significance of a closer Some self-identified champions are closers Brings partnership to fruition
Importance of databases to partnership development CRM allows centralized recordkeeping Use of noncredit advisory committees Not required by ICCB guidelines Consider extending credit-level membership to noncredit councils
Condon’s Noncredit Workforce Training Partnership Model Combining best practices of Entrepreneurial orientation Partnership development and sustenance Training evaluation tools
College Mission Statement College Strategic Plan College EO and Context Closer Success Initiating Outreach Maintaining Outreach Training Design & Development Training Delivery Training Evaluation Follow-up Evaluation Strategic Plan for Training COLLEGE CHAMPION Needs Assessment Feedback Loop
Amey, M. J., Eddy, P. L., & Ozaki, C. C. (2007). Demands for partnership and collaboration in higher education: A model. New Directions for Community Colleges, 139, 5-14. doi: 10.1002/cc.288 Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2012). Basic classification description. Retrieved from Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching website: http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/ descriptions/basic.php Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2012). Size and setting classification description. Retrieved from Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching website: http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/descriptions/size_setting.php Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135-172. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. (4 th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.