#TxCoReqs Continuous Improvement Conference
Friday, June 7th to Saturday, June 8th
Austin Community College Highland Campus, Austin, TX
Concurrent Session 1B: Understanding the Current Evidence Base on Corequisites. (HLC 2217, Building 1000) Colleges may not need to conduct research around issues that have already been resolved, and can benefit from learning from others. The objective of this session is to provide participants with an overview of the different types of studies and materials available on corequisites, the value and limitations of different types of evidence, and what is known and what is not known. This session is appropriate for colleges engaging in quality improvement or rapid-cycle evaluation.
Concurrent Session 1C: Logic Models as a Critical Tool for Supporting Evaluation. (HLC 2218, Building 1000) To explain how educational programs and practices lead to improved student success outcomes, evaluators often use logic models. These logic models can be used to identify all of the different program components that might need to be assessed in an evaluation. The objective of this session is to teach participants how to build logic models, and for participants to develop a logic model for a corequisite at their institution, including any improvements being considered. This session is best for colleges engaging in rapid-cycle evaluation.
Concurrent Session 1D: The Value of Different Data Sources for Improving Corequisite Model. (HLC 2219, Building 1000) While course grades are useful for assessing corequisite models, it can be extremely valuable to use other types of data to inform improvement. Representatives from Austin Community College will discuss how they’ve used regular discussions (focus groups), surveys, and other data sources to provide valuable information on their corequisite models and drive improvement efforts. This session is appropriate for colleges engaging in quality improvement or rapid-cycle evaluation. Presented by Austin Community College.
Concurrent Session 2A: Identifying the Right Team for Continuous Improvement. (HLC 2216, Building 1000) Having the right continuous improvement team is essential to carrying out continuous improvement efforts successfully. Colleges must also consider how and when to pull others into the process outside of the core continuous improvement team. The objective of the session is to provide colleges with the tips on selecting a good continuous improvement team and getting people involved, and to help colleges start to draft a plan for potential roles and responsibilities that different staff may play involved in improvement activities. This session is appropriate for colleges engaging in quality improvement or rapid-cycle evaluation.
Plenary Description
Getting Through the Gateway: Emerging Evidence on the Promise of Corequisite Coursework at Community Colleges” (HLC Building 4000): Corequisite coursework, where students enroll concurrently in a college-level course and a developmental support course, are increasingly being put into policy and practice across the country. This structural reform has the potential to more quickly allow students to pass gateway courses, the first required course in a sequence. The keynote speech will review the logic and evidence for corequisite coursework, with a focus on corequisite math courses, and describe the pressing need for data-driven practices as colleges implement reforms.
Presenter: Dr. Lauren Schudde, Assistant Professor, Educational Leadership and Policy, The University of Texas at Austin
Concurrent Session 2B: Collecting the Evaluation Data Necessary for Continuous Improvement. (HLC 2217, Building 1000) While many colleges track student outcomes in corequisite courses to inform improvement, there are many other types of evaluation data that may also be useful for improvement processes. The key objectives for this session will be for colleges to learn about a range of data sources that might inform their work, and the benefits and drawbacks of each; connect elements of a logic model with potential data sources; and reflect on how their data collection plans can both provide them with useful information and support their continuous improvement efforts. This session is best for colleges engaging in rapid-cycle evaluation.
Concurrent Session 2C: The Need for “Real Time” Measures of Improvement. (HLC 2218, Building 1000) According to the experts, Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles should never take more than 90 days when they are done correctly. But 90-day PDSA cycles mean colleges must collect data within weeks, while much of the data collected and used by colleges centers around semesters. The objective of this session is to inform colleges about the important of “real time” measures, and to help them to identify and develop possible measures that can be used for improvement and fall outside of regular transcript data. This session is best for colleges engaging in quality improvement.
Concurrent Session 3A: The Value of a Good Comparison Group for Evaluating Impact. (HLC 2216, Building 1000) To really understand whether or not something aspect of a corequisite model worked, a comparison group is a valuable (if not essential) tool. This session will provide participants with an opportunity to learn about different types of comparison groups and explore the pros and cons of different comparison groups. This session is best for colleges engaging in rapid-cycle evaluation.
Concurrent Session 3B: Encouraging Stakeholder Buy-In for Continuous Improvement. (HLC 2217, Building 1000) There are myriad individuals and departments in an organization that have a role in making an initiative like corequisites work, and when everyone isn’t on board, making improvements can be a challenge. The objectives for this session are for participants to reflect upon the “cogs in the wheels” in their organization on which change depends; learn about strategies that could establish buy-in and support for the change they would like to see; and brainstorm the most useful ways to encourage buy-in within their institutions. This session is appropriate for colleges engaging in quality improvement or rapid-cycle evaluation.
