Data Webinar Summary and Slides
Overview
CCRI's data webinar summary and slide deck that covers the starting point discussion with the STP 2.0 Community of Practice to find common definitions of certain things (e.g. which students are STEM? Who qualifies as a transfer?) for the purpose of standardized reporting to CCRI and Ascendium.
Hi everyone! Thank you again for attending the data webinar, and for beginning the process that will result in our community of practice data plan for STP 2.0. The webinar slides can be found here.
Below are the combined results of the webinar polls.
Poll Question 1:
For 2-years: Which data source(s) would be most useful to define the pool of potential STEM transfer students? [select all that apply]:
2-years: STEM transfer Pool | |
Total Respondents: | 14 |
Coursetaking | 13 |
Declared Major | 2 |
Program Pathway Codes/records | 0 |
CIP codes (program, courses) | 0 |
ACAD_PLAN (State Board of Community and Technical Colleges variable) | 4 |
Guided Pathways Declaration | 4 |
Running Start status | 2 |
Type of Associates pursued | 6 |
CIP Code: Very fine-grained 6-digit code identifying the student’s current or last enrolled program Classification of Instructional Programs. Full US Dept of Ed CIP code list.
Acad_Plan: a 10-digit variable that reflects the student’s CIP acronym, program acronym, and degree type.
Poll Question 2 For 4-years: Which data source(s) would be most useful in identifying STEM transfer students from your 2-year partner? [select all that apply]:
4-years: Successful Transfers | |
Total Respondents: | 21 |
Running Start status | 11 |
National Student Clearinghouse (directly or via the State Board of Community and Technical Colleges) | 6 |
Minimum # of 2-year credits | 7 |
We also noted the following high-level takeaways from our discussions:
Teams would like if there are multiple ways a student can qualify to be counted in the STEM Transfer Pool.
Teams see many functional ways to use coursetaking data to define the STEM transfer pool, and successful transfers,which we will follow up with and explore further.
One option is, rather than use the same courses for all teams in our definition, we could use the same category of courses- those required for major-ready transfer. They would be different for each institution, but equivalent.
Running Start student data, and potentially the Running Start Student experience, looks different across institutions; it would be good to include these students, but more investigation is required with each team to assess the implications.
Teams would like for us to collect a wider net of data than needed for the consensus definitions from SBCTC for the potential transfer pool and successful transfers. This wider net can be used to assess the consensus definition throughout STP 2.0.
Next Steps
CCRI is grateful for these insights, and for the strong and open collaboration across teams in the community of practice! These thoughts will serve as a great nucleation point for further discussion and consideration. Please bring these and your own takeaways back to your teams to discuss, and potentially talk to institutional data stakeholders where necessary.
Upcoming Survey Data Collection: We will be reaching out to schedule meetings between teams and their CCRI coaches to continue to gather critical details about their methodological considerations for these institutional data, and to start the same conversation around teams’ survey data collection processes.
If you have any questions, thoughts, or anything you feel we may have missed, please don’t hesitate to reach out. We welcome your feedback and look forward to continuing the conversation together.
Thank you,
The CCRI team