Running head: TRANSFER PROGRAMS LITERATURE REVIEW

Transfer Programs Literature Review Simone Senn Seattle University SDAD 559 Yamamura

ON-SITE VISITATION: HIGHLINE COMMUNTIY COLLEGE The transfer function is a unique and historical pillar of the community college system. There has been a longstanding commitment to preparing students to enter four year colleges by providing the first two years of liberal studies (Townsend, 2006; Cohen, 2008). The community college system has been dedicated to open access to higher education and the transfer function serves to provide an alternative path for students who are underrepresented or lack the resources and types of capital to initially succeed in the university system (Laanan, 2007). Transfer students are defined in multiple capacities because these students enter higher education in a diversity of ways. Simply understood these are students who start in the community college system and then transfer to the four-year college. Adelman (2005) outlines a requirement of engagement defining the transfer student as earning ten credits in the community college and ten credits in the four-year system. According to Philippe and Sullivan (2005) about

49% of community college degrees awarded are in liberal arts. Yet, over the last four decades the transfer rate has fluctuated between 20%-30% (Laanan, 2006; Townsend, 2009; Wood et al, 2011; Zamani, 2001). These statistics are often viewed unsatisfactory especially considering 30%-40% of community college students indicate an intention to transfer (Wood, et al., 2011). The access and success of students are the two main concerns of the transfer function. With an ethical responsibility to college access and a historical commitment to the transfer function, community colleges should be continually improving the transfer process. The purpose of this review is to explore the diversity and best practices of student services facilitating the transfer process. Both research and practitioner based articles were utilized when searching for best practices. Research was balanced in the student, staff and administration perspective. A Transfer Model The literature calls for colleges to establish a transfer model to serve the movement of students (Wood, et al., 2011). Research and practitioners have outlined a variety of strategies that

ON-SITE VISITATION: HIGHLINE COMMUNTIY COLLEGE could serve transferring students. This design would include programs, events and resources which would be utilized by students intending to transfer. The first of these is an established transfer center to serve students intending to transfer. Transfer centers would include degree requirements, academic advising, information on local universities programs and admissions and would have professional staff to serve student questions as they develop their educational paths (Arnold, 2001; Wood, et al., 2011; Zamani, 2001). There have also been successes in variations of the transfer center including transfer clubs (Helm and Cohen, 2001), transfer counseling and academic advising services (Laanan,

2007), transfer fairs (Wood, et al., 2011; Zamani, 2001) and transfer workshops (Zamani, 2001). Wood, et al. (2011) and Laanan (2007) take the conversation a step further by outlining the need for faculty involvement in the entire transfer process as well as staff trainings for all practitioners on the transfer model so that all professionals serving students can direct students. The emphasis in these services outlines a commitment of student service professionals providing resources for students intending to transfer. Measuring the Student Experience These resources can make information on the transfer process more readily available for students but the successful transfer models have focused on elements of intervention and prevention for students who may be struggling with barriers to transfer. This means colleges must give adequate attention to the student demographics and needs. There has been a lot of research into the experience of transfer shock in which students experience a drop in GPA from community college into the university system (Laanan, 2007; Johnson-Benson, et. al., 2001; Townsend and Wilson, 2006). Many colleges have started to realize that transfer shock is not the only experience of the transfer student that must be researched but that the student experience and demographics must be taken into account.

ON-SITE VISITATION: HIGHLINE COMMUNTIY COLLEGE It must be recognized that community colleges serve their local communities and that

transfer programs function likewise. As best practices in the literature are collected, the diversity of these practices will not be applicable for adoption. Clearly institutions differ in their size, selectivity, and location students who transfer will likely have different experience. (Laanan, 2007, p. 45) The field calls for all college systems to assess within their community. Best practices for serving students should emerge from within, not outside, these assessments. Attrition rates and identifying variables affecting underrepresented students can help colleges recognize pieces of the transfer process that need to be improved (Arnold, 2001; Wood, et al., 2011). Oregon Community Colleges and the Oregon University System through state law HB 2387 have begun to communicate about student demographics, transfer rates, student performance, persistence and graduation in order to get a holistic view of the student transfer process within their system (Arnold, 2001). Santa Monica College has also worked with the California University system to provide similar communication on student demographics and experiences (Johnson-Benson, et. al., 2001). Laanan (2007) calls for all colleges to assess the student demographics as a piece of their transfer model design. Other best practices include assessing elements of the academic, social and cognitive experiences of students. Colleges should value direct student stories (Helm and Cohen, 2001; Laanan, 2007), transition experiences, measure student involvement on a campus and experiences of culture shock between institutions (Johnson-Benson, et. al., 2001; Laanan, 2007). Across the field there is an emphasis that data tracking is essential, including student demographics and experiences, so that systems can address barriers and engage with student populations in manners that best serve their identities, community and needs. (Arnold, 2001; Johnson-Benson, et. al., 2001; Helm and Cohen, 2001)

ON-SITE VISITATION: HIGHLINE COMMUNTIY COLLEGE Articulation agreements In order to have successful models to facilitate the transfer of students, the design must include articulation agreements with the institutions that are involved. The best practices within articulation agreements work with more than matriculation design. The field calls for policies,

programs and procedures that are tightly coupled between institutions (Johnson-Benson, et. al., 2001; Townsend and Wilson, 2006; Wood, et al., 2011; Zamani, 2001). California and Oregon community colleges and universities systems through state law have opened up communication channels about student transfer agreements and processes which have led to stronger transfer process models between institutions (Johnson-Benson, et. al., 2001; Zamani, 2001). Within these inter-institutional communications include practices of cohesion of administration, staff, faculty and students (Wood, et al. 2011) summer start programs (Zamani, 2001) and orientation programs (Laanan, 2007). More radically, Helm and Cohen (2001) have called for communities to create a culture of transfer through the entire education pipeline and not just between community colleges and universities. Partnerships with local high schools and promoting the transfer function will increase the student motivation and perceptions of the transfer function (Helm and Cohen, 2001; Zamani, 2001). These agreements are more than paperwork but actual systems of communication between institutions to foster a culture that helps students to succeed in the transfer process. Changing Landscapes These best practices of transfer primarily serve the traditional transfer process. It is important to recognize that there is an evolving dynamic of the transfer process. The lines between the 2-year and 4-year degree and the transfer function between them have begun to the blur. Students may be dual-enrolled at a community college and university, community colleges are beginning to provide 4-year degrees and that applied baccalaureate degrees are also more widely available (Helm and Cohen, 2001; Townsend, 2009; Townsend and Wilson, 2006). The

ON-SITE VISITATION: HIGHLINE COMMUNTIY COLLEGE expanding education system in Florida through Bill 1716 in which community colleges can award 4-year degrees is one such example (Townsend, 2009). Oklahoma, Hawaii, and Texas have well-developed applied B.A. partnerships from community colleges to universities (Townsend, 2009). These new developments ultimately serve the transfer mission because they are increasing access and the diversity of paths through higher education systems. Still this changing landscape will require communities to have even more communication between institutions to define these systems and facilitate students through their education. Conclusion Community colleges serve the transfer process of facilitating the movement of students into the four-year system. The culture of the four-year degree is changing, but across the

literature there is agreement that the transfer process is an integral part of the community college system (Cohen, 2008; Townsend, 2009). The low transfer rate of students has been a critique of the transfer function and the barriers to transfer have been examined by research, case studies and student service administrators (Cohen, 2008; Laanan, 2007; Arnold, 2001; Zamani, 2001). Across the field there is a consensus that the transfer function is essential to the mission of community college system (Townsend and Wilson, 2006) and that cultures of transfer must be fostered to promote student success in transferring to four-year institutions (Wood, et al., 2011) Viability of the transfer function includes a visible culture that will aggressively support transfer (Helm and Cohen, 2001). With transfer rates of 20-30% of students nationally, community college systems have looked to best practices to increase student success (Townsend and Wilson, 2006; Zamani, 2001). The parallels of successful practices value the local community. The transfer process must be assessed within the local community, challenge barriers pertaining to student populations and maintain a community based culture. Improvement and development of a transfer college must involve all stakeholders in the community including the education pipeline from k-12 schools, through the community college and into the university.

ON-SITE VISITATION: HIGHLINE COMMUNTIY COLLEGE There needs to be collaboration and partnership throughout all of these systems to increase the

viability of the transfer process. The literature overwhelmingly outlines that the transfer function, aligned with the mission of community colleges, should serve the community.

ON-SITE VISITATION: HIGHLINE COMMUNTIY COLLEGE References Adelman, C. 2005. Moving Into Townand Moving On: The Community College in the Lives of Traditionalage Students. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Arnold, J. C. (2001). Student Transfer Between Oregon Community Colleges and Oregon University System Institutions. New Directions For Community Colleges, (114), 45. Bahr, P. (2009). College Hopping: Exploring the Occurrence, Frequency, and Consequences of Lateral Transfer. Community College Review, 36(4), 271-298. Berger, J. (2007). Honors as a Transformative Experience: The Role of Liberal Arts Honors Programs in Community Colleges. Journal Of College Admission, (194), 28-32. Cejda, B. D. Reducing Transfer Shock Through Faculty Collaboration: A Case Study. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 1994, 18, 189199. Eggleston, L. E., & Laanan, F. (2001). Making the Transition to the Senior Institution. New Directions For Community Colleges, (114), 87. Gard, D. R., Paton, V., & Gosselin, K. (2012). Student Perceptions of Factors Contributing to Community-College-to-University Transfer Success. Community College Journal Of Research & Practice, 36(11), 833-848. Helm, P. K., & Cohen, A. M. (2001). Leadership Perspectives on Preparing Transfer Students.New Directions For Community Colleges, (114), 99. Johnson-Benson, B., Geltner, P. B., & Steinberg, S. K. (2001). Transfer Readiness: A Case Study of Former Santa Monica College Students. New Directions For Community Colleges, (114), 77. Kisker, C. B. (2007). Creating and Sustaining Community College--University Transfer Partnerships. Community College Review, 34(4), 282-301. Mayhew, M., Vanderlinden, K., & Kim, E. (2010). A Multi-Level Assessment of the Impact of

ON-SITE VISITATION: HIGHLINE COMMUNTIY COLLEGE Orientation Programs on Student Learning. Research In Higher Education, 51(4), 320345. McCook, A. (2011). Two-Year Colleges Are Jumping Into the U.S. Research Pool. Science, 333(6049), 1572-1573. Townsend, B. K. (2009). The outlook for transfer programs and the direction of the community college. New Directions For Community Colleges, (146), 103-110. Wood, J., Nevarez, C., & Hilton, A. A. (2011). Creating a Culture of Transfer. Making Connections: Interdisciplinary Approaches To Cultural Diversity, 13(1), 54-61. Zamani, E. M. (2001). Institutional Responses to Barriers to the Transfer Process. New Directions For Community Colleges, (114), 15.