INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. White the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)” . If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted you will find a target note listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­ graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginn j below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy. University Microfilms International 30 0 N ?EEB RD . A N N ARBO R, Ml 4 8 10 6 8212363 Blandtag, Bruce J. A POST HOC ANALYSIS OF THE MICHIGAN STUDENT INFORMATION SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS Michigan State University University Microfilms International PH.D. 1981 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann A lter, M I 48106 PLEASE NOTE: In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark V 1. Glossy photographs or pages______ 2. Colored illustrations, paper or print_____ 3. Photographs with dark background______ 4. Illustrations are poor copy______ 5. Pages with black marks, not original 6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page______ 7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages 8. Print exceeds margin requirements______ 9. . copy_ y' Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine_____ 10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print______ 11. Page(s)____________ lacking when material received, and not available from school or author. 12. Page(s)____________ seem to be missing in numbering onty as text follows. 13. Two pages numbered____________ . Text follows. 14. Curling and wrinkled pages______ 15. Other__________________________________________________________ ___________ University Microfilms International A POST HOC ANALYSIS OF THE MICHIGAN STUDENT INFORMATION SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS By Bruce Blanding A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in p a rtia l fu lfillm e n t of the requirements fo r the degree o f DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department o f Administration and Higher Education 1981 ABSTRACT A POST HOC ANALYSIS OF THE MICHIGAN STUDENT INFORMATION SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS By Bruce Blanding The Michigan Department o f Education makes s ig n ific a n t commitments of federal and state funds to develop and disseminate various a c tiv itie s designed to benefit Michigan community colleges. All too frequently, the processes or products resulting from these projects e ith e r are never fu lly implemented by the community colleges or never gain the level of acceptance and use o rig ­ in a lly envisioned. While most fe d e ra lly and state funded projects include a provision to measure th e ir impact, the impact usually is focused upon outcome measures with l i t t l e consideration given to the actual use and acceptance o f the process/product Involved in the pro ject. The central focus o f th is study was on evaluating the implementation o f the Michigan Student Information System. S p e c ific a lly , th is study 1s a post hoc analysis o f the Michigan Student Information System Implementation E ffo rts u tiliz e d by the Michigan Department o f Education. Bruce Blanding The Michigan Student Information System is a statewide system designed jo in tly by the Michigan Department o f Education and Michigan community colleges to c o lle c t standardized e n ro ll­ ment and follow-up information thereby enabling each community college to conduct q u a lita tiv e and q u an titative evaluation. The procedures used to design th is study began with the establishment of an advisory committee o f community college personnel fa m ilia r with the implementation and use o f the Michigan Student Information System. The role of the advisory committee was to p a rtic ip a te in the development o f the evaluative model used in th is study. A modified Delphi technique was used to determine the sp ecific information required in the study, the appropriate information sources, methodology fo r co llectin g inform ation, and the format fo r presentation of the findings. The basic design of th is study was a multi-grouped, descriptive survey u t iliz in g four populations: (1) Mi SIS Imple­ mentors, (2) MiSIS Users, (3) Presidents, and (4) Data Processing Coordinators. The major findings o f th is study were: 1. The support o f key individuals was obtained. 2. Local liaiso n s were id e n tifie d , selected, and 3. Timely technical assistance was provided to imple­ train ed. mentors and users through the workshops fo r tra in in g MiSIS Bruce Blanding Liaison, coupled with a promulgation o f Procedures Manuals, a c tiv itie s manuals, and other system documentation. 4. Appropriate data processing support was provided fo r processing and analyzing data from the Michigan Student Informa­ tion System. 5. While the findings indicated th at community colleges were aided in using data resulting from the Michigan Student Information System, two major areas o f concern emerged. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES................................................................................. v LIST OF APPENDICES.......................................................................... v i i i Chapter I. THE PROBLEM Background ..................................................................... The Study......................................................................... Purpose o f Study ..................................................... Research Questions ................................................. Procedures ................................................................. Delim itations o f the Study ................................. D efin itio ns of Terms ............................................. Community College................................................. MiSIS......................................................................... MiSIS Implementor................................................. MiSIS U s e r ............................................................. President................................................................. Data Processing Coordinator............................. II. 2 5 5 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE L eg is latio n ................................................................................ 9 Q u a lita tiv e Evaluation ......................................... 9 Elements o f Evaluation ..................................... 9 Use o f Evaluation Results................................. 10 Special Completer and Leaver Data................. 10 Q u a lita tiv e Evaluation ......................................... 11 D iffu s io n ......................................................................... 13 Classical Diffusion Model..................................... 13 In n o v a tio n ............................................................. 13 Communication Channels ..................................... 14 Communication Over Time..................................... 14 Social System Members......................................... 14 14 Havelock's Linkage Model ..................................... Problem Solving O rien tatio n ............................. 15 ii Page Research, Development, and Diffusion O rien tatio n ......................................................... Social Interaction O rientation ..................... Barriers to Adoption ............................................. III. METHODOLOGY Diffusion Flow C h a r t ................................................. Development................................................................. Organizational Climate ..................................... Key In d ivid u als..................................................... Local Needs............................................................. Develop Innovation ............................................. Barriers to Adoption ......................................... Implementation ......................................................... Support o f Key In d iv id u a ls ............................. Local L ia is o n s ..................................................... Technical Assistance ......................................... Data Processing Support..................................... Aid to Use o f D a t a ............................................. E v a lu a tio n ................................................................. Evaluation Model ................................................. Develop M odifications......................................... Feedback................................................................. Encourage Self-Renewal ..................................... The Study......................................................................... Process and D e s ig n ................................................. Populations................................................................. Instrumentation......................................................... Data Collection Procedures ................................. IV. 16 17 18 23 23 23 23 25 25 25 25 25 26 26 26 26 26 27 27 27 27 27 27 30 31 32 ANALYSES AND RESULTS Development..................................................................... Organizational Climate ......................................... Key In d iv id u a ls ......................................................... Local Needs................................................................. Develop Innovation ................................................. B arriers to Adoption ............................................. Implementation ............................................................. Support of Key In d iv id u a ls ................................. Presidential Awareness ..................................... Subsystem Analysis ............................................. Local L ia is o n s ......................................................... S ta ff R esponsibilities ..................................... Technical Assistance ............................................. Desirable Types..................................................... Preferred M ethod................................................. iii 34 34 35 35 35 35 36 37 37 37 ^ J' 5)1 Page Data Processing Support.......................................... R esearch .................................................................. Data Processing C ap a b ility .............................. Data Processing Capacity .................................. Data Processing A ltern atives .......................... Aid in Use o f D a t a ................................................. U s e fu ln e s s .............................................................. C lien t Groups.......................................................... Current and Planned U s e s ................................. Data Output A n a ly s is .............................................. V. 57 57 58 61 66 68 68 71 71 75 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary o f Findings...................................................... Support o f Key In d iv id u a ls ................................. Presidential Awareness ..................................... Subsystem Analysis .................................................. Local L ia is o n s .......................................................... S ta ff R esp on sib ilities ...................................... Technical Assistance .............................................. Data Processing Support.......................................... R esearch.................................................................. Aid in Use o f D a t a .................................................. U s e fu ln e s s .............................................................. C lie n t Groups.......................................................... Data Output A n a ly s is ......................................... Conclusions...................................................................... Recommendations.............................................................. 81 81 81 82 82 82 83 84 84 86 96 86 87 87 90 REFERENCES........................................................................................... 92 APPENDIX A........................................................................................... 95 APPENDIX B........................................................................................... 121 iv LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Use o f MiSIS Subsystems.............................................. 39 2 Frequency o f MiSIS Subsystems Data Usage. . . . 40 3 Importance o f Student Data Production by MiSIS Subsystems......................................................... 41 4 Frequency o f Data C o llectio n ...................................... 42 5 Job Position o f Implementors...................................... 43 6 Job Position o f Users ............................. . . . . . 44 7 Implementors' Role in M iS IS ...................................... 45 8 Users' In te rp re ta tio n o f MiSIS Data ...................... 46 9 Implementors' Position of Individuals Assisting in the Data Collection P ro cess......................................................................... 48 10 Implementors' Areas o f Technical Assis­ tance Id e n tifie d as B en eficial. ........................... 49 11 Users' Technical Assistance Areas Id e n tifie d as U seful................................................. 50 President's Types o f Technical Assistance Perceived to B etter Enable the Community College to Use MiSIS................................................. 51 Implementors' Preferred Method o f Technical Assistance..................................................................... 52 Users' Preferred Methods o f Providing Technical Assistance................................................. 53 Implementors' Rating of MiSIS Forms ...................... 53 12 13 14 15 v Page Implementation D if f ic u lt ie s Encountered by MiSIS Implementors.......................................... 54 MiSIS Implementors' D iffic u lty o f Instrument Adm inistration by Mail ...................................... 55 MiSIS Implementors' D if f ic u lt y in Preparing Data fo r Processing.............................................. 56 MiSIS Implementors' D iffic u lt y in Determining the Best Way to U t iliz e Data ......................... 56 MiSIS Implementors' D iff ic u lty in Obtaining a t Least a 50% Response Rate ......................... 57 Implementors' Assistance Provided by Research Person R elative to MiSIS................. 58 Data Processing Coordinators' Data Processing . . . . Arrangements ...................................... 59 Primary Purpose o f Computer/Data Processing System ....................................................................... 60 Data Processing Coordinators' Computer Systems A vailable a t Community Colleges .................................................................. 62 Data Processing Coordinators' CPU (Ram) S i z e ........................................................................... 62 Data Processing Coordinators' Type o f Data Storage .......................................................... 63 Data Processing Coordinators' Amount o f Storage Space.......................................................... 63 Data Processing Coordinators' Type of Programming Languages Used ............................. 65 Data Processing Coordinators' Individuals Performing Programming Task............................. 65 Data Processing Coordinators' Micro-Computer Types........................................................................... 66 vi Table 31 Page President's Perceived E fficien cy o f Various Data Processing Schemes fo r MiSIS Data................................................................................... 67 32 Users' U t i l i t y o f Own Computer System .................. 67 33 Implementors' Feature o f MiSIS Most .................................................................. U seful 69 Implementors' Feature o f MiSIS Least U sefu l............................................................................... 70 35 Users' Dissemination o f MiSIS Information . . . 72 36 Users' Uses o f MiSIS....................................................... 73 37 MiSIS Users' Rating o f MiSIS Data Received in Computer Printouts .............................................. 76 MiSIS Users' Use o f MiSIS Data Analysis Techniques...................................................................... 77 President's Usefulness o f Various Types o f Data Analysis fo r Decision-Making N eed s............................................................................... 78 President's U t i l i t y o f Information Pro­ vided by MiSIS.............................................................. 80 34 38 39 40 vi 1 LIST OF APPENDICES Page Appendix A Surveys and Questionnaire............................................. 95 B MiSIS Developmental A c tiv itie s ................................. 121 viii CHAPTER 1 THE PROBLEM The Michigan Department o f Education has made s ig n ific a n t commitments o f federal and sta te funds to develop and disseminate various a c t iv itie s designed to b e n e fit Michigan community colleges. A ll too fre q u en tly, the processes or products re su ltin g from these projects are e ith e r never f u lly implemented by the community co l* leges or never gain the level o f acceptance and use o r ig in a lly envisioned. A National study on educational change conducted by the Rand Corporation found th a t successful projects have d if f ic u lt y sustaining th e ir success over several years (Berman & McLaughlin, 1978). The study noted th a t dissemination e ffo rts were d i f f i c u l t and re p lic a tio n in new site s usually f a lls short o f the performance in the o rig in a l s ite s . While most fe d e ra lly and state funded projects include a provision to measure th e ir impact, the impact usually is focused upon outcome measures with l i t t l e consideration given to the actual use and acceptance o f the process/product involved in the p ro je c t. In order to b e tte r understand the impact made by an educational innovation i t is necessary to conceptualize, o p e ra tio n a lize , and measure the implementation process (Fullan & Pomfret, 1977; Hall & Louckes, 1977). Through an examination o f the process o f 2 implementation, an understanding of the reasons why many educational change e ffo rts do not succeed thereby enabling implementors o f change to have a b e tte r opportunity to successfully introduce change (Fullan & Pomfret, 1977; Hall & Louckes, 1977). The central focus o f th is study was evaluating the implementation o f the Michigan Student Information System. S p e c ific a lly , th is study was a post hoc analysis of the Michigan Student Information System Implementa­ tion process u tiliz e d by the Michigan Department o f Education. Background The Michigan Student Information System is a statewide system designed jo in tly by the Michigan Department o f Education and Michigan community colleges to c o lle c t standardized enrollment and follow-up information thereby enabling each community college to conduct q u a lita tiv e and q u a n titative evaluation. The Michigan Student Information System was designed based upon the philoso­ phical premise o f lo c a lly autonomous community colleges having the option o f choosing the level o f implementation coupled with a systematic standardization of data to allow in tr a -in s titu tio n a l comparisons and/or statewide aggregations i f desired by the colleges. Perhaps the single most s ig n ific a n t c h a ra c te ris tic o f the Michigan Student Information System is th at i t can provide data both fo r local analyses and fo r external reporting purposes. This dual function o f enabling both formative and summative evaluation enhances the community co lleg e's a b ilit y to id e n tify strengths and 3 weakness o f the programs in te rn a lly and to develop an appropriate data base fo r meeting state and federal reporting requirements. Formative evaluation provides continuous feedback which can be used to make appropriate modifications in a program as the program develops and is s im ila r to in s titu tio n a l research (Michael Scriven, 1973; Robert Stake, 1967). Summative evaluation is concerned with overall program effectiveness and provides answers to educators about the merits and shortcomings o f programs (Michael Scriven, 1973; Robert Stake, 1967). O gilvie and Raines (1971) have drawn the conclusion th at the basic community college philosophy encompasses a commitment to change. A community's educational needs tomorrow w ill d if f e r in many ways from those o f today and therefore rig id commitments w ill thwart an in s titu tio n 's e ffo rts to meet the educational needs o f the community i t is dedicated to serve. In s titu tio n a l renewal, which is essential fo r community colleges to survive, is dependent upon information as the basis fo r planning, managing, and evaluating e ffo rts to accomplish the renewal (Richard Spencer, 1980). C lea rly , i t is advantageous fo r community colleges to have the c a p a b ility to conduct programmatic evaluation. However, the real impetus fo r developing a community college occupational eval­ uation system in Michigan arose from a le g is la tiv e mandate. The Vocational Education Amendments o f 1976, Public Law 94-482, expanded the re s p o n s ib ilitie s o f state and local agencies o ffe rin g fe d e ra lly 4 funded vocational education programs fo r q u a lita tiv e and q u an tita­ tiv e evaluation o f those programs. Malcolm Provus (1971) reminds us th a t a clause in the 1965 Elementary-Secondary Education Act established evaluation as a necessary building block in the design o f American educational reform. Provus makes the point th a t the evaluation requirements o f th a t act may eventually have greater impact on education than the program i t s e l f . Michigan community colleges were faced with a s ig n ific a n t re s p o n s ib ility to perform q u a lita tiv e and q u a n tita tiv e evaluation o f t h e ir vocational education programs with no evaluation system in place. In 1978, a steering committee consisting o f community college personnel and Michigan Department o f Education s t a f f iden­ t i f i e d the essential components fo r a comprehensive local evalua­ tio n system fo r occupational education. The components to be included in a comprehensive evaluation system included student flow , program evalu ation , fin a n c ia l analy­ s is , and a management plan. The Michigan Student Information System was developed from the conceptual paradigm o f the student flow component envisioned by the steering committee. Development o f the Michigan Student Information System occurred during the 1978-1979 academic year. A d e ta il description o f the developmental a c t iv it ie s is presented in Appendix B. Implementation o f the Michigan Student Information System began in 1979-1980 and is also described in Appendix B- 5 The Study I t appeared, a t le a s t a t a cursory le v e l, th at the d i f ­ fusion e ffo rts were succeeding. However, in order to ensure the continuing success of the Michigan Student Information System, to ensure th a t the information was being used fo r formative evalua­ tion as well as summative evaluation, and to attempt to provide fo r the maximum u t iliz a t io n of resources in support of the system; i t was desirable to develop methods fo r measuring the effectiveness of the d iffu sion process, conducting the assessment, and using the results to make system modifications designed to improve the process. Purpose o f Study This study was concerned with examining the effectiveness o f the d iffu sion process used in the implementation of the Michigan Student Information System in Michigan community colleges. I t does not look at the resulting q u a n tifia b le data from the system. This study was p rim arily designed to evaluate the status of the imple­ mentation/acceptance o f the Michigan Student Information System and the extent to which Michigan community colleges were using the system to ensure th at the system was being accepted and used by Michigan community colleges, and th at the system was meeting th e ir needs. A d d itio n a lly , a s ig n ific a n t byproduct o f th is study was the development o f an evaluative model, and resu ltin g baseline data, fo r future use in measuring the continuing effectiveness of the Student Information System and other d iffu sion processes, and 6 the concomitant development of the c a p a b ility fo r longitudinal analyses o f the effectiveness of the Michigan Student Information System. Research Questions Accordingly, th is study s p e c ific a lly addressed the following research questions: 1. Was the support o f key individuals in each community college obtained? 2. Were local liaisons id e n tifie d , selected, and trained? 3. Was tim ely technical assistance provided to imple­ mentors and users? 4. Was appropriate data processing support provided fo r processing and analyzing data from the Michigan Student Information System? 5. Were community colleges aided in using data resu ltin g from the Michigan Student Information System? Procedures The procedures used to design th is study began with the establishment o f an advisory committee o f community college person­ nel fa m ilia r with the implementation and use o f the Michigan Student Information System. The ro le o f the advisory committee was to p a rtic ip a te in the development o f the evaluative model used in th is study. A modified Delphi technique was used to determine the speci­ f ic information required in the study, the appropriate information 7 sources, methodology fo r c o lle c tin g inform ation, and the format fo r presentation o f the find in g s. The basic design o f th is study was a m ulti-grouped, d escrip tive survey u t iliz in g four populations: (1) MiSIS Imple­ mentors, (2 ) MiSIS Users, (3) Presidents, and (4) Data Processing Coordinators. D elim itations o f the Study This study was delim ited to Michigan's 29 public community colleges and more s p e c ific a lly to the four in te re s t groups surveyed. The four in te re s t groups, lis te d above, provided data used in the development o f in s titu tio n a l and statewide p ro file s ind icatin g strengths and weaknesses o f the Michigan Student Information System, constituencies reported to , decision-maker usage o f data, and the d e s ir a b ility o f a lte rn a tiv e support services. These p ro file s can be used as a basis fo r planning m odifications to the system and to the d iffu s io n process to ensure the effectiveness o f the Michigan Student Information System. The findings o f th is study are generalizable only as they apply to the use o f the Michigan Student Information System in Michigan community colleges. D e fin itio n o f Terms For the purpose o f th is study, the follow ing d e fin itio n s are used: Community College is an in s titu tio n th a t is established under the provisions o f Act 331, o f the Public Acts o f 1966 of the Michigan L eg islatu re. There are cu rren tly 29, p u b lic , two 8 year, postsecondary in s titu tio n s that are w ithin th is d e fin itio n in Michigan. MiSIS is the Michigan Student Information System, a volun­ ta ry system fo r gathering student enrollment and follow-up informa­ tion through the use o f th irte e n questionnaires in six subsystems. MiSIS Implementor is an individual in a community college who is c h ie fly responsible fo r coordinating the co lleg e's data co lle ctio n a c tiv itie s using the Michigan Student Information System. MiSIS User is an individual in a community college who is c h ie fly responsible fo r in te rp re tin g the results o f the Michigan Student Information System surveys. President is the c h ief executive o ffic e r a t each community col lege. Data Processing Coordinator is an individual id e n tifie d by the MiSIS Implementor as being c h ie fly responsible fo r the computerized data processing a t each college. CHAPTER I I REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE This chapter presents a review o f lit e r a t u r e having a bearing on the successful d iffu s io n o f the Michigan Student In fo r­ mation System. The chapter is divided in to two main sections: (1 ) L eg islation and (2 ) D iffu sio n . L egislation The Vocational Education Amendments o f 1976, Public Law 94-482, expanded the re s p o n s ib ilitie s o f sta te and local agencies o ffe rin g fe d e ra lly funded vocational education programs fo r qual­ i t a t iv e ly and q u a n tita tiv e ly evaluating those programs. Q u a lita tiv e Evaluation The Vocational Education Amendments o f 1976 very s p e c ifi­ c a lly delineated the aspects to be considered in q u a lita tiv e ly evaluating each program. Elements o f E valuation. The elements o f an evaluation pro­ cess as id e n tifie d in Section 104.401 o f the Act include planning and operational processes; re su lts o f student achievement; resu lts o f student employment success; and resu lts o f additional services provided. Planning and operational processes include measurement o f the q u a lity and a v a ila b ilit y o f in s tru ctio n al o ffe rin g s ; guidance, 9 10 counseling, and placement and follow-up services; capacity and con­ d itio n o f f a c i li t i e s and equipment; employer p a rtic ip a tio n in co­ operative programs; the ra tio o f teachers to pupils; and q u a lific a ­ tions o f teachers. Examples o f measurement o f the results could include standard occupational proficiency measures, c rite rio n referenced te s ts , and other measures o f students* s k ills , knowledge, a ttitu d e s , and readiness fo r successfully entering employment. Results o f student employment success may be measured by such things as rates o f employment and unemployment; wage rates fo r program leavers and completers; duration of employment; and employer sa tisfac tio n with the performance o f vocationally trained workers. The la s t element o f an evaluation plan as delineated in the Act is th at the results o f additional services to special populations shall be measured. Special populations include women, members o f m inority groups, handicapped persons, disadvantaged persons, and persons with lim ited a b ilit y to speak English. Use o f Evaluation Results. Section 104.402 o f the Act id e n tifie s two primary uses o f the results o f evaluation of vocational education. One use o f the evaluation results is as a basis to revise and improve the vocational education program. Another use o f the evaluation results is to publish those results and make them availab le to state level advisory councils fo r review and reaction. Special Completer and Leaver Data. Section 104.404 o f the Act requires the co lle ctio n o f sp ecific data fo r completers and leavers o f vocational education programs. I t is necessary to 11 evaluate the effectiveness of each vocational education program. The evaluation determines the extent to which both those students who complete a program and those who leave before completion find employment in occupations which are related to th e ir tra in in g and are considered by th e ir employer to be appropriately prepared fo r employment. In discussing completers and leavers, the le g is la tio n provides the following d e fin itio n s : Program Leaver means a student who has been enrolled in and has attended a program o f vocational education (which is part o f a planned sequence o f courses, services, or a c tiv itie s designed to meet an occupational objective and which purports to teach e n try -le v e l job s k ills ) and has l e f t the pro­ gram without completing i t , except th a t no student shall be counted as a program leaver who is s t i l l enrolled in another program o f vocational education. Program Completer means a student who finishes a planned sequence of courses, services, or a c tiv itie s designed to meet an occupational objective and which purports to teach en try -le ve l job s k ills . Q uantitative Evaluation The le g is la tiv e foundation fo r the development and operation o f a National Vocational Education Data Reporting and Accounting System is set fo rth in T it le I I , Section 161(a) o f the Public Law 94-482, Education Amendments o f 1976. The Act states th at the Commissioner o f Education and the Administrator o f the National Center fo r Education S ta tis tic s shall jo in t ly develop information elements and uniform d e fin itio n s fo r a national vocational educa­ tio n data reporting system. The system shall include information resu ltin g from required evaluation and s p e c ific a lly on vocational 12 students, programs, program completers and leavers, s t a f f , f a c i l ­ i t i e s , and expenditures. The resu ltin g Vocational Education Data System developed by the National Center For Education S ta tis tic s c o lle cts the above data through the following reports: Program Enrollment and Completion Report; reporting data on programs, students, special needs, completions, head counts by le g is la tiv e purpose, and cooperative enrollments. Teacher-Staff Report; reporting s ta ff by ra c ia l/e th n ic designation. Financial Status Report; reporting expendi­ tures fo r vocational education a t the two d ig it USOE le v e l. Computer/Leaver Follow-up Report; reporting the outcomes o f vocational education. Employer Follow-up Report; reporting em­ ployers' evaluation o f tra in in g . For the 1979-1980 academic year there were minor changes made to the Vocational Education Data System based upon issues raised by the postsecondary community. The postsecondary policy task force recommended separate forms fo r the secondary and post­ secondary instru ction al settin g s. This d iffe re n tia tio n allowed fo r a v a rie ty o f modifications to the data elements in order to be more re fle c tiv e o f postsecondary e ffo rts . The Michigan Student Information System was developed in response to the le g is la tiv e mandate previously described and to meet Michigan community colleges' needs to perform q u a lita tiv e and q u a n tita tiv e evaluation on occupational education programs. The d iffu sio n process fo r the Michigan Student Information System was begun in 1979-1980. 13 Diffusion In order to adequately discuss the process o f d iffu s io n , i t 1s important to f i r s t review some o f the more common models. Classical D iffusion Model The th eo retic al framework th a t has guided most d iffu s io n e ffo rts is often re ferre d to as the classical d iffu s io n model (Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971). sis ts o f: The cla ss ic al d iffu sio n model con­ (1) the innovation, (2) communication through ce rta in channels, (3 ) over tim e, and (4) through members o f a social system. Innovation. Innovation has become one o f the most popular and fashionable areas o f social science (Downs & Mohr, 1976). Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) defined innovation as being an idea, p ra c tic e , or object perceived as new by an in d iv id u a l. According to the classical model, an innovation's charac­ t e r is t ic s as perceived by the p o ten tial users w ill a ffe c t its rate o f adoption. Five factors which a ffe c t adoption are (1) re la tiv e advantage (the perception o f the adopters th at the innovation is superior to the e x is tin g p ra c tic e ), (2) c o m p a tib ility (the percep­ tio n o f the adopters th a t the innovation is consistent with existin g values and experience), (3 ) complexity (the perception o f the adopters regarding the re la tiv e d if f i c u l t y o f adoption), (4) t r i a l a b i li t y (the degree to which an innovation may be experimented with on a lim ite d b a s is ), and (5) o b s e rv a b ility (the degree to which the resu lts o f an innovation are v is ib le to o th e rs). 14 Communication Channels. A communication channel is the means by which the message gets from the source to the receiver (Rogers & Agarwala-Rogers, 1976). A key element of the diffu sion process is the interactio n o f one person communicating a new idea to another person. The communication channel through which the new idea reaches the receiver affe c ts the adoption decision. Communication Over Time. Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) indicate that the time dimension is involved in the decision pro­ cess, the in d iv id u a l's acceptance to innovation, and to the innova­ tio n 's rate o f adoption. The classical model describes four steps in the innovation-decision process: (1) knowledge, (2) a ttitu d e formation, (3) decision to adopt or r e je c t, and (4) confirmation. Social System Members. A d iffu sion process is also con­ cerned with the members o f social system(s) a ffe c tin g the adoption o f the innovation. The social system affe c ts the rate o f adoption through such individuals as change agents, opinion leaders, and 1inkage agents. The classical d iffu sion model has been followed by several equally s ig n ific a n t d iffu sio n models including: Havelock's (1973) Linkage Model, Clark and Guba's (1974) Configuration Model, and Rand's Innovative Process Model (Berman & McLaughlin, 1978). Havelock's Linkage Model The conceptual universe w ithin d iffu sio n models appears to be la rg e ly dominated by the Linkage Model developed by Ronald Havelock (1971 & 1973). The three major strategies o f innovation 15 which Havelock synthesized in his linkage model were: (1) the problem solving o rie n ta tio n ; (2) the social interaction o rien ta­ tio n ; and (3) the research, development, and d iffu sio n o rie n ta tio n . Piele (1975) concisely summarized Havelock's major proposi­ tions as follows: To be tru ly e ffe c tiv e , resource persons must be able to stim ulate the user's problem solving process. To get help from resources persons or systems, the user must be able to simulate resource system processes—fo r example, to appreciate re ­ search knowledge he must understand how i t is generated and valid ated. E ffec tiv e u tiliz a t io n requires reciprocal feedback between user and re ­ search systems. Resource systems need to develop reciprocal and co llab orative relatio n sh ip s, not only with a v a rie ty o f potential users, but also with a large diverse group o f other resource sys­ tems. Users need to develop reciprocal and c o lla ­ borative re latio n s with a v a rie ty o f resource systems (cosmopoliteness). A w illingness to lis te n to new ideas (openness) is an important prerequisite to change. This applies to resource persons and to users. Problem Solving O rien tatio n . This strategy is based upon the assumption th at innovation results from problem-solving pro­ cess occurring inside the user. I t is user oriented in the sense th at i t begins with a c lie n t need which is then translated into a diagnosed problem. Search and re trie v a l of information occur, followed by selectio n , adoption, try -o u t, and evaluation o f the innovation. Support fo r the processes hypothesized as part of the strategy can be found 1n the lite r a tu r e on information seeking behaviors and in the group dynamics human relatio n s lite r a tu r e from social psychology. Rand's (1978) Innovative Process Model, 16 with it s emphasis on local problem solving f i t s , gen erally, into the problem solving o rie n ta tio n . Three major phases of the innovation process are hypothesized in the Rand model: (1) in it ia t io n , (2) implementation, and (3) incorporation. Implemen­ tatio n is defined as the adoption o f an innovation to local conditions. The most important factors a ffe c tin g implementation success are the ch aracteristics o f the local in s titu tio n a l setting such as the organizational clim ate, the motivation of p a rtic ip a n ts , and the local implementation strategy. Input from outside the local in s titu tio n , such as ch aracteristics o f the innovation and the linkage, are seen as r e la tiv e ly unimportant to the success o f the implementation. The problem solving o rien tatio n model argues th at innovations o rig in atin g outside the local in s titu tio n should be l e f t in a highly unfinished state to allow fo r local adoption and development. Research, Development, and Diffusion O rien tatio n . This model is sim ilar to the Clark and Guba (1974) Configuration Model. Where the problem solving o rien tatio n sees change as centered on the user system, with r e la tiv e ly l i t t l e emphasis on research and development, th is o rien tatio n focuses on an active research and development establishment designing innovations fo r consumption by a passive c lie n t population. The research, development, and d iffu sion o rien tatio n is es s e n tia lly bureaucratic in th a t the impetus fo r innovation is u ltim a tely external to the implementor. Information is communi­ cated from the top adm inistrative levels down to the user. Thus, 17 not only does th is approach overload the need fo r exp lo itin g psychological and social incentives fo r change (the strong point of the problem solving model), but i t underestimates the organiza­ tio n al constraints th at prevent the implementation of new ideas and practices. Social Interaction O rien tatio n .--T h is model re fle c ts much o f Roger's (1971) work and places emphasis on patterns by which innovations d iffu se through a social system. The social in te r ­ action o rien tatio n expresses fiv e generalizations about the pro­ cesses of innovation and d iffu sio n : 1. The individual user or adopter belongs to a network o f social relatio n s which la rg e ly influences his adoption behavior. 2. His place in the network (c e n tr a lity , p e rip h e ra lity , is o la tio n ) is a good predictor o f his rate o f accept­ ance o f new ideas. 3. Informal personal contact is a v ita l part o f the influence and adoption process. 4. Group membership and reference group id e n tific a tio n are major predictors of individual adoption. 5. The rate o f d iffu sion through a social system follows a predictable S-curve pattern (very slow beginning followed by a period o f very rapid d iffu s io n , followed in turn by a lo n g -la te adopter or "laggard" perio d). The key to the social interactio n o rien tatio n is to spread the innovation through the natural communications media th a t ex is t w ithin the educational system. Another model of the change process is the Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM) proposed by H a ll, e t. a l. (1973). Like Havelock's linkage model, the concerns based adoption model 18 assumes the inadequacy o f the standard d iffu sion models. The con­ cerns based adoption model assumes th at a sp ecific innovation w ill be adopted and th at the key to f a c ilit a t in g adoption o f the change is guiding the c lie n t through the levels o f concern about the innovation, since those levels determine the extent o f use. While the temptation a t th is juncture is to continue the lis tin g o f various models fo r d iffu s io n , i t is valuable to note Sieber's (1974) plea to avoid the confusion resulting from favoring one model over another by leaving th is behind us and getting out into the f ie ld , because only then w ill we be able to develop a conceptual framework th at w ill both illu m inate and r e fle c t r e a lity . Whatever d iffu sio n model or hybrid thereof is used to d iffu se an innovation, there are in evitab le b arriers to successful diffu sion which must be overcome. B arriers to Adoption Barriers to adoption may be categorized in a v a rie ty of ways; but fo r the purposes of th is study, b arriers to adoption resulting from organizational environment factors w ill be the central focus fo r discussion. The Rand study (Berman & McLaughlin, 1975) included an extensive analysis o f policy and system practice re la tiv e to the implementation of federal change agents projects and id e n tifie d a concept important to understanding implementation as a change va ria b le. The authors defined the concept o f mutual adaptation as, "an organizational process in which an innovative plan is 19 developed and modified in lig h t o f the r e a litie s of the in s tru c­ tion al s e ttin g , and in which the organization changes to meet the requirements o f the innovative p ro je c t," {Berman & McLaughlin, 1975, p. 31). Prior to implementation, the selected users o f the innovation w ill go through a process whereby they w ill incorporate or adopt the innovation into th e ir existing organizational environ­ ment. The organizational environment's importance to successful adoption was also examined by Hage & Aiken (1970). Their research found th a t, "structural properties were much more highly associated with the rate o f program change than a ttitu d e s toward change." This implies th at the structure o f an organization may be more crucial fo r the successful implementation o f change than the p a rtic u la r blend o f personality types in an organization. The systems view o f educational innovation appears to recognize innovations as being conditioned by the organizational environment o f the local community college. The community college adoption process would include adaptation o f the innovation to conform with the in s titu tio n a l environment. House (1974) takes exception to the assumption th a t a given innovation has a universal and unchanging a p p lic a b ility . He states th a t, "there is no single innovation what w ill work 1n a ll local se ttin g s, fo r those settings are not only d iffe re n t and unpredictable, in sp e c ific s , but they are constantly changing." (House, 1974, p. 245.) Way!and (1964) indicates th at i t is often d if f i c u l t to introduce innovation into a school unless th at change is introduced 20 simultaneously into many schools. The contention is th at schools are so enmeshed one with another th at there is great peer pressure to conform to a common le v e l. Carlson (1965) goes even fu rth e r by stating th at schools are domesticated organizations whose supply o f c lie n ts and economic survival are insured by society. Unlike w ild organizations, which must compete fo r fin ancial and c lie n t support, th e ir motivation to innovate is low. Sieber (1968) has also noted that schools might be vulnerable to pressures and control from local groups and in s titu tio n s to a greater extent than most organizations. Since organizations normally seek to protect themselves against external intrusions in order to maintain s t a b ilit y , schools have an additional in te re s t in keeping a low p ro file and in avoiding controversy. In addition to local pressures and controls, schools are faced with external influences from the federal and state level of the educational system. While Michigan community colleges are based upon the premise o f local autonomy, federal and state funding o f education presents an external influence th at impinges upon that local autonomy. While the power potential o f the federal and state level bureaucracy is very great due to legal and fin an cial impact, interviews of local school and u niversity administrators by Barbe & Hall (1966) indicated an intolerance of federal or state in te r ­ vention in local school a c t iv itie s . This could explain, to some exten t, the myriad o f unsuccessful d iffu sion e ffo rts attempted by federal and state education agencies. 21 Although there is l i t t l e lite r a tu r e s p e c ific a lly aimed a t state education agencies in th e ir d iffu sio n e ffo r ts , Clark & Guba (1974, p. 2) describe the federal level in a b ility to successfully effectu ate d iffu sio n e ffo rts as: "A cycle o f fa ilu r e in educational KPU pro du ctivity by: (1) establishing unachieveable aspiration s; (2) ignoring the goals o f individual KPU practioners and individual KPU agencies in the to ta l educational KPU community; (3) changing signals p ers iste n tly (and f r e ­ quently) in attempts to overcome evaluative fa ilu re s ; and f in a lly (4) overcontrolling and overcentralizing programs which have been disappointing." The abbreviation KPU in the above discussion was used by the authors to re fe r to knowledge production and u t iliz a t io n . The perspective o f Clark & Guba is re ite ra te d in a Report on an In te rs ta te Project on Dissemination (1976) sponsored by the National In s titu te o f Education which stated th at while many a lte rn a tiv e solutions to educational problems have been developed, few of these solutions have been implemented in schools across the nation. The previous discussion is endemic to the successful d i f ­ fusion e f fo r t o f the Michigan Department o f Education involving the implementation o f the Michigan Student Information System. The process developed and used to measure the effectiveness o f these d iffu sio n e ffo rts is a v ita l lin k in providing appropriate feedback to these d iffu sio n e ffo rts . CHAPTER I I I METHODOLOGY This chapter describes the methodology which was used in th is study. This study is p rim arily designed to examine the e ffic a c y o f the Michigan Department of Education's e ffo rts in the d iffu sio n of the Michigan Student Information System to community colleges. This study provided useful information fo r decision-makers in determining future directions of the Michigan Student Informa­ tion System. A s ig n ific a n t by-product o f th is study was the development o f a model fo r measuring the effectiveness o f the d iffu sio n stra te g ie s , and resulting baseline data, fo r future use in measuring the continuing effectiveness o f the Michigan Student Information System. In order to ensure the effectiveness o f the d iffu sion strategies fo r the Michigan Student Information System ( i . e . , that the development and implementation met the needs o f the community c o lle g es), i t was necessary to have, as an integral part o f the d iffu sio n process, a methodology fo r measuring both process and outcome facto rs. The evaluation process discussed in th is chapter served as the basis fo r id e n tify in g and co lle ctin g Information appropriate fo r improving the Michigan Student Information System from both a process and an outcome perspective. 22 23 The Michigan Student Information System Diffusion Flow Chart delineates the conceptual paradigm envisioned in the d i f ­ fusion process u tiliz e d . The sp ecific steps taken are discussed in d e ta il in Appendix B. The development of the Diffusion Flow Chart was a culmination of a synthesis o f Havelock's (1973) six stages o f planned change (building a re la tio n s h ip , diagnosis, acquiring relevant resources, choosing the solution, gaining acceptance, and s ta b iliz in g the innovation and generating s e lf-re n e w a l), coupled with an experimental post hoc perspective o f Michigan community colleges' receptiveness to change. Diffusion Flow Chart Development The development o f an innovation should include a number o f considerations. The Michigan Student Information System D if­ fusion Flow Chart id e n tifie s fiv e key steps to be accomplished in the development o f an innovation. Organizational Climate. Organizational re c e p tiv ity to change is conditioned, to a large exten t, on the organizational clim ate. An analysis o f the organizational clim ate in Michigan community colleges in terms o f external requirements represents the f i r s t step in the developmental process. Key In d ivid u als. The next step in the developmental pro­ cess is the id e n tific a tio n and involvement of key individuals from the community colleges to p a rtic ip a te in the design o f the MICHIGAN STUDENT INFORMATION SYSTEM DIFFUSION FLOW CHART Development Identify organizational climate in terms of external require­ ments Implementation Evaluation Obtain support of key in d iv i­ duals in each community college Develop and implement model to evaluate process and outcome factors + Identify and involve key individuals Identify, select, and train local liaisons Develop system and process modi­ fications using evaluation results + Determine local needs Provide timely technical assis­ tance to implementors & users Feedback into system * Develop innovations to meet identified externals needs Provide appropriate data pro­ cessing support for processing and analyzing Mi SIS data _____________ J.i -------------------------- Develop methods for reducing potential barriers to adoption Aid community colleges in using Mi SIS data Encourage self-renewal 25 innovation. These in d ivid u als would serve as linkage agents, thereby ensuring c r e d ib ilit y . Local Needs. An innovation must be perceived to meet a local need in order to be adapted by a community co lle g e. The key in d ivid u als id e n tifie d in the previous step would provide the primary input fo r determining local needs as they should be incor­ porated in to the innovation. Develop Innovation. Once the previous steps have been successfully taken, the actual development o f the innovation can occur. During th is development stage, p o tential b a rrie rs to adoption should be id e n tifie d . B arriers to Adoption. A fte r the innovation has been developed and p o ten tial b a rrie rs to adoption have been id e n tifie d , methods should be developed to reduce or elim in ate the potential b a rrie rs to adoption. At th is point the innovation is ready fo r the implementation stage. Implementation The central focus o f th is study is on evaluating the implementation o f the Michigan Student Information System. Suc­ cessful implementation usually includes several important steps. Support o f Key In d iv id u a ls . Obtaining the support o f key in d ivid u als in each community college is essential to gaining in s titu tio n a l acceptance o f an innovation. Since the Michigan Stu­ dent Information System was designed to be used by decision-makers, support from those in d ivid u als is p a rtic u la r ly important. 26 Local Liaisons. The key individuals are u tiliz e d to id e n tify and select a local lia is o n to f a c i li t a t e the es tab lis h ­ ment o f a communication network, both in te rn a lly and e x te rn a lly , needed fo r d iffu sio n o f the innovation. The local liaiso ns then receive tra in in g sp ecific to u t iliz a tio n o f the innovation. Technical Assistance. As the local liaiso n s effe ctu ate the implementation o f the innovation a t the local in s titu tio n , tim ely technical assistance should be provided to individuals responsible fo r p a rtic u la r operational aspects o f the innovation. Data Processing Support. A key step in ensuring success­ ful implementation, especially with the Michigan Student Informa­ tion System, is the provision o f appropriate data processing sup­ port enabling processing and analyzing of appropriate data. The local in s titu tio n needs access to the resources necessary to accomplish the a c tiv ity in a tim ely , accurate fashion in keeping with in s titu tio n a l needs. Aid in Use of Data. The fin a l step in ensuring successful implementation is the provision o f assistance in using the data resulting from the innovation. Evaluation The th ird phase of a d iffu sio n process should be the application o f an evaluative model designed to measure the effectiveness o f the d iffu sio n e ffo rts . 27 Evaluation Model. An evaluative model should be developed and implemented which measures both outcome and process and process facto rs. Develop M odifications. The information resulting from the evaluation process should be u tiliz e d to develop both system and process m odifications. Feedback. The m odifications should be the basis fo r providing feedback into the system to make appropriate revisions as needed. Encourage Self-Renewal. The evaluative process should be designed in a fashion which encourages self-renewal o f the innovation. The Study Process and Design The process used to design th is study began with the establishment o f an advisory committee consisting o f community college personnel fa m ilia r with the Michigan Student Information System. The membership of the advisory committee included: Fanny Caranikas, Mi SIS Project D irector Samuel Mazman, Dean of Students Westshore Community College W illiam O'Mahoney, Dean, Applied Services and Arts Oakland Community College George Paulson, Registrar Henry Ford Community College 28 Robert S teely, D irector o f Occupational Programs Kellogg Community College Carol Wolenberg, Consultant, Community College Services Michigan Department o f Education The primary role o f the advisory committee was to develop a basic model fo r evaluating the Michigan Student Information System which guided the development o f th is study. The following general research questions were presented to the advisory committee a t th e ir i n i t i a l meeting o f February 18 and 19, 1981: 1. Was the support of key individuals in each community college obtained? 2. Were local liaiso ns id e n tifie d , selected, and trained? 3. Was tim ely technical assistance provided to imple­ mentors and users? 4. Was appropriate data processing support provided fo r processing and analyzing data from the Michigan Student Information System? 5. Were community colleges aided in using data resulting from the Michigan Student Information System? At the i n i t i a l meeting, the advisory committee developed three broad objectives: 1. To ascertain the current level o f u tiliz a tio n and recommended changes regarding the Michigan Student Information System. 2. To assess the awareness o f the Michigan Student Information System from the president’ s perspective. 3. To id e n tify and recommend alte rn a tiv e s fo r maximizing resources to meet Michigan community college student information needs. The committee then began development o f the types o f information which would be sought. A modified Delphi technique 29 was used to determine the sp ecific information required, the appropriate information sources, methodology fo r co lle ctin g inform ation, and the format fo r presentation o f the findings. The committee generated lis tin g s o f useful information required and then p rio ritiz e d those lis tin g s . The l i s t o f p rio r itiz e d areas was: A. B. Information required to ascertain the current level o f u tiliz a tio n and recommended changes fo r the Michigan Student Information System. 1. How is data collected? 2. What types o f data are collected? 3. How is the data used? 4. How is the data disseminated? 5. Who uses the data? 6. How are MiSIS processes u tiliz e d ? 7. How does MiSIS in te rfac e with each conmunity c o l­ lege's management information system? 8. What changes are recommended fo r MiSIS instrumenta­ tio n , adm inistration o f surveys, and processing? 9. What additional uses o f fo r the future? the data are recommended Information required to assess the awareness o f the Michigan Student Information System from the president's perspective. 1. For what purposes do community college presidents need MiSIS information? 2. What kind o f information needs do presidents have? 3. What presidential information needs are met by MiSIS? 30 C. Information required to id e n tify and recommend a l t e r ­ natives fo r maximizing resources to meet Michigan Community College student information needs. 1. Analysis o f information from the f i r s t two objectives. 2. What are the possible methods o f service delivery? 3. What are the comnunity college c a p a b ilitie s fo r data processing? 4. What are the alte rn a tiv e s fo r data processing and data display? A fte r developing the lis tin g o f necessary inform ation, the committee id e n tifie d appropriate data sources. In ad d itio n , various methodologies fo r co lle ctin g the information were discussed and the coimiittee recommended th a t telephone surveys be conducted. The use o f telephone surveys is discussed fu rth e r in the data c o lle c ­ tion process portion o f th is chapter. The basic design for th is study was a multi-grouped, descriptive survey u t iliz in g four populations. Since each popula­ tion w ill be providing d iffe re n t types of inform ation, cross group analyses were unnecessary. Further, since the study focused on f u ll population, rather than samples, the analysis techniques were descriptive and included means, percentages, and frequencies. Populations This study gathered p a rtic ip a n ts ' ratings from four groups of in te re s ts . Individual respondents were id e n tifie d a t each of Michigan's 29 public community colleges in the following four functional or position categories: (1) MiSIS Implementors, (2) MiSIS Users, (3) Presidents, and (4) Data Processing 31 coordinators. To develop sp ecific lis t s o f implementors and users, the advisory committee suggested contacting the person a t each college id e n tifie d as the MiSIS Liaison and asked th at individual to id e n tify the person at th at college c h ie fly responsible fo r implementation and/or use o f the Michigan Student Information System. To id e n tify the Data Processing Coordinator, the MiSIS Implementor was asked to name the individual c h ie fly responsible fo r the processing o f MiSIS data. Instrumentation The advisory committee agreed to serve and as sis t in the development o f the instruments from a content perspective. The f i r s t step was to generate the basic survey questions fo r each o f the four in te re s t groups. Most items were close-ended to allow fo r q u a n tific atio n o f responses, with several open-ended questions to allow fo r probing. Questions were w ritte n with assistance from an item w rite r well versed in survey design to ensure th at they were unbiased and c le a r. The resu ltin g d ra ft surveys were then presented to the advisory committee which reviewed fo r content and suggested appro­ p ria te m odifications. Based upon the results of the m odifications, a second d ra ft o f instruments was prepared. The second d ra ft preparation included the structuring o f the survey, and in stru c­ tion s. A dual p ilo tin g program to p ilo t te s t the instruments was then conducted. The f i r s t p ilo t was an in-house p ilo t wherein the 32 researcher telephoned the item w rite r and conducted the survey. This enabled an id e n tific a tio n o f unclear questions and the development o f a time frame. The f i r s t p ilo t te s t resulted in minor m odifications to the instruments and to the structure which were incorporated p rio r to conducting the second p ilo t . The second p ilo t was conducted with three community c o l­ leges selected on the basis o f s ig n ific a n t lev el o f involvement with the Michigan Student Information System and d iv e rs ity in size and geographical lo c atio n . Each o f the four populations o f in te re s t were id e n tifie d and surveyed. Based upon the resu lts o f the second p ilo t t e s t, fin a l m odifications were made to the questionnaires. Data C ollection Procedures Once the questionnaires were in th e ir fin a l form, the data c o lle c tio n phase was begun. I t was necessary to id e n tify telephone survey personnel with a strong expertise in telephone survey tech­ niques. The telephone survey personnel selected were subjected to a thorough tra in in g session which included: (a) an explanation o f the instruments, { b) background o f the d iffe r e n t populations to be surveyed, (c ) a review o f telephone interview techniques, (d) a b r ie f o rie n ta tio n to the p a rtic u la r pedagogy to be expected, (e) a b r ie f review o f the Michigan Student Information System, and ( f ) p ractice c a lls sessions with each in d ividu al playing the ro le o f the in terview er and then the interview ee. 33 The telephone interview ers were then supplied w ith lis t s o f community college personnel, as previously described, and pro­ ceeded w ith conducting the telephone interview s. CHAPTER IV ANALYSES AND RESULTS The purpose o f th is study was to conduct a post hoc analysis to determine the e ffic ie n c y o f the Michigan Department o f Educa­ tio n 's e ffo rts in the d iffu sion o f the Michigan Student Information System to community colleges. This chapter delineates the results o f interviews conducted with MiSIS Implementors, MiSIS Users, Presidents, and Data Processing Coordinators a t Michigan community colleges as those results re la te to the implementation o f the Michigan Student Information System. Development Analysis o f the effectiveness of the developmental phase provided insight into the likelih o o d th at adoption of the Michigan Student Information System would be perceived by the Michigan community colleges as b e n e fic ia l. Organizational Climate The Michigan Student Information System was designed based upon the philosophical premise o f lo c a lly autonomous community colleges having the option o f choosing the level o f p a rtic ip a tio n in a system th at would provide both data fo r local analyses and data fo r external reporting purposes. 34 35 Key Individuals A developmental subcommittee was formed during the 1978-1979 academic year to develop the student flow component o f the evalua­ tio n system into a complete system. Members o f the subcommittee in the developmental phase included representatives from seven com­ munity colleges and from the Michigan Department o f Education. Local Needs Members o f the Michigan Student Information System develop­ mental subcommittee a rtic u la te d the perceived needs o f local com­ munity colleges and these needs were incorporated into the system. Develop Innovation The Michigan Student Information System was developed during the 1978-1979 academic year with and by community college personnel to meet lo c a lly focused needs and state and federal reporting re­ quirements. The system consisted o f six subsystems which gathered information on student enrollment and follow-up issues. B arriers to Adoption Major issues re la tin g to potential barriers to adoption included the need fo r technical assistance, the need fo r data processing support, and control o f the system and the resulting data. Strategies were developed to provide appropriate technical assistance when needed, to support cen tralized data processing, and to establish a statewide committee o f users o f the system to control changes to the system and any data which resulted. 36 Imp!erne nt a t ion The central focus o f th is study is on evaluating the effectiveness o f the implementation o f the Michigan Student Informa­ tio n System. Responses to survey questions were presented dealing with both process and outcome issues. The process responses pro­ vided a data base fo r evaluating the effectiveness o f the d iffu s io n process fo r the Michigan Student Information System. Outcome responses provided a data base fo r improving the Michigan Student Information System. Three types o f a n a ly tic a l techniques were used to analyze the data obtained during the interview s. The f i r s t technique was a frequency analysis o f the responses to the close-ended survey items. Secondly, responses provided to open-ended items were categorized and n a rra tiv e summarizations o f these responses were developed. F in a lly , several survey items asked respondents to rate various aspects o f the Michigan Student Information System. Means fo r each o f these items were calcu lated . Percentage computations have been rounded to the nearest whole percent to f a c i l i t a t e the reading o f th is inform ation. Of Michigan's 29 public community colleges, only one did not respond to the survey. The non-responding community college has consistently chosen not to p a rtic ip a te in the Michigan Student Information System. Of the four groups o f in te re s t surveyed, there were 27 respondents to the MiSIS Implementor Survey, 26 respondents to the MiSIS Users Survey, 26 respondents to the President's Survey, and 37 26 respondents to the Data Processing Coordinator Survey. All computations were based upon N=27 fo r Mi SIS Implementor Surveys and N=26 fo r the rest o f the respondent groups, unless otherwise noted. Support o f Key Individuals Presidential Awareness. The survey o f community college presidents included a to ta l of nine items. The f i r s t area of concern focused upon whether the president was aware o f the Michigan Student Information System. All 26 o f the respondent presidents indicated they were aware o f the Michigan Student Information System. The presidents were then asked how committed they f e l t th e ir community college was to using various types o f student follow-up data and to in s titu tio n a liz in g the Michigan Student Information System as a student follow-up system. Using a four point scale where 1 = to ta lly committed and 4 = not a t a ll committed, respondents gave a mean ratin g o f 1.4 to using student follow-up data and 1.8 to in s titu tio n a liz in g the Michigan Student Information System as a student follow-up system. Although both responses are on the committed side of the continuum, using student follow-up data does appear to be more o f a commitment. Subsystem Analysis. The f i r s t area o f investigation referred to the six subsystems in the Michigan Student Information System. The f i r s t question asked o f the Mi SIS Implementors determined the number of community colleges using each subsystem. As Table 1 reveals, the three most commonly used subsystems were: 38 Student Educational In te n t, Graduate Follow-up, and Employer Follow-up. The subsystem reported le a s t used by the MiSIS Imple­ mentors was the Continuing Education Follow-up. The second question o f in te re s t related to the existence o f other student data c o lle c ­ tion systems used by the community colleges to c o lle c t s im ila r information to th at collected in the Michigan Student Information System. These responses are also displayed in Table 1. As the data in d ica te , the areas in which the larg e st number o f respondents indicated other data co llectio n processes existed were in the Student Educational In te n t, followed by the Graduate Follow-up area, and then the Withdrawal Follow-up area. MiSIS users were asked to id e n tify the frequency o f data usage from each o f the six subsystems in the Michigan Student Information System. Table 2 presents a summary of the findings. As Table 2 indicates, the subsystem most commonly used was the Student Educational In te n t, followed by the Graduate Follow-up. In addition to determining frequency o f data usage, respondents were asked to id e n tify the position o f the person who uses each subsystem. In a ll subsystems, deans were id e n tifie d as the in d i­ viduals most often using resulting data. MiSIS Users were also asked to indicate other types o f information used in decision-making processes. The most common responses given were: fin a n c ia l data, program enrollm ent, and leavers (using a system other than the Michigan Student Information System), employer inform ation, economic facto rs, program evaluation, advisory committee input, community service, and fa c u lty and student surveys. TABLE 1 .—Use of MiSIS Subsystems Subsystem Respondent Indicating Use of Subsystem Number Percent* Respondents Indicating Same Data Collected Through A Similar System Number Percent* Student's Educational Intent ( I ) 24 92 9 36 Withdrawal Follow-Up ( I I ) 13 59 4 25 Non-Returning Student Follow-Up ( I I I ) 16 73 2 12 Graduate Follow-Up (IV ) 21 88 6 27 Employer Follow-Up (V) 18 78 3 16 3 19 0 0 Continuing Education Follow-Up (V I) •Percentage adjusted for non-respondents. Respondent Group: MiSIS Implementor 40 TABLE 2 . --Frequency o f MiSIS Subsystem Data Usage Total Number Responding Mean* Student's educational in te n t 26 1.8 Student withdrawal follow-up 26 2.8 Non-returning student follow-up 26 2.9 Graduate follow-up 25 2.4 Employer follow-up 25 2.8 Continuing education follow-up 25 3.8 Subsystem ♦Based on a 4 point scale where 1 = very often and 4 = not a t a l l . Respondent Group: MiSIS User The next area of concern d ealt with the perceived importance o f the data provided by each o f the Michigan Student Information Systems' six subsystems. The six subsystems were id e n tifie d and the presidents were requested, using a four point scale, to in d i­ cate how important i t was fo r th e ir community college to have the data provided by each o f the subsystems. Table 3 contains a sum­ mary o f the mean responses fo r each o f the subsystems. I t should be noted that a ll averages were on the positive side of the continuum. The most important areas indicated were Graduate Follow-up data and Student Withdrawal data. The le a s t important area was Continuing Education Follow-up data. The next question w ithin th is area d ealt with the frequency o f data co llectio n fo r each o f the subsystems as id e n tifie d by 41 MiSIS Implementors. As Table 4 in d ic a te s , the subsystem fo r which the data were co llected most often was the Student Educational In te n t. Conversely, the subsystem fo r which data were co llected le a s t often was the Employer Follow-up. I t should be noted, however, th a t fo r a ll subsystems MiSIS Implementors indicated data were frequently co llected (mean less than 2 .5 ). TABLE 3 . --Importance o f Student Data Produced by MiSIS Subsystems Type o f Data Number Mean* Student's educational in te n t 25 1.4 Student withdrawal 25 1.3 Non-returning students 25 1.4 Graduate follow-up 25 1.3 Employer follow-up 25 1.4 Continuing education follow-up 25 2.1 ♦Based on a 4 point scale where 1 = very important and 4 = not a t a ll important. Respondent Group: President Local Liaisons S ta ff R e s p o n s ib ilitie s . The f i r s t series o f questions asked o f the MiSIS Implementors and Users Interviewed was designed to obtain a description o f the respondent and the in d iv id u a l's ro le in the Michigan Student Information System. The f i r s t question asked i f the respondent was both an implementor and a user. 42 Twenty-three o f the respondents (92%) indicated they were both the implementor and the user. Secondly* the respondents were asked to id e n tify th e ir position in the community college. present these re s u lts . Tables 5 and 6 As Table 5 in d icates, the largest number o f respondents to the MiSIS Implementor Survey indicated th at they were e ith e r the Dean o f Student Services or a Placement S p e c ia lis t. Fourteen (52%) o f the respondents id e n tifie d a position other than those lis te d on the survey. These positions included: R egistrar, Records O ffic e r, D irector of Student Development, and Dean o f Student A ffa irs . TABLE 4 . — Frequency o f Data Collection Subsystem Number o f Respondents Mean* Student's Educational In ten t ( I ) 24 1.0 Withdrawal Follow-Up ( I I ) 13 1.3 Non-Returning Student Follow-Up (III) 15 2.1 Graduate Follow-Up (IV ) 21 1.9 Employer Follow-Up (V) 17 2.2 3 1.7 Continuing Education Follow-Up (V I) ♦Based on a 4 point scale where 1 = very often and 4 « hardly ever. Respondent Group: MiSIS Implementor A to ta l o f 26 individuals were contacted who were id e n ti­ fie d as MiSIS Users. These individuals held a va rie ty o f positions 43 as summarized in Table 6. The most commonly reported position was Dean o f Student Services followed by Guidance Counselor, and Dean o f Occupational Education. In a d d itio n , 14 in d ivid u als indicated they had a position not id e n tifie d on the survey. positions included: Some o f these Associate Dean o f Students, D irecto r o f Student Development, Vice President fo r Student A ffa ir s , R eg istrar, D irecto r o f Admissions, and D irector o f In s titu tio n a l Research. TABLE 5 . --Job Position o f Implementors Position Respondents Ind icatin g Position N u m b e r P e r c e n t * Guidance Counselor 2 7 Dean o f Occupational Education 0 0 Dean o f Student Services 5 18 Placement S p e c ia lis t 4 15 Faculty 0 0 Data C ollection S p e c ia lis t 0 0 In s titu tio n a l Researcher 2 7 14 52 Other a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. Admissions Coordinator Dean o f Academic Services Dean o f Student A ffa irs D irecto r o f In s titu tio n a l Management Studies D irecto r o f Occupational Planning D irecto r o f Student Development Records O ffic e r Regional Assistant Dean R egistrar ♦Based on N=27 respondents. 44 TABLE 6 . --Job Position o f Users Respondents Selecting Position Number Percent* Position Guidance Counselor 2 8 Dean o f Occupational Education 2 8 Dean of Student Services 7 27 Placement S p ecialist 1 4 Faculty 0 0 Department Chairperson 0 0 14 54 Other a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. 1. Associate Dean of Students D irector o f Student Development Vice President fo r Student A ffa irs Dean of Student and Community Services Records O ffic e r Registrar Dean o f Business D irector o f Admissions and Registrar Dean of Instruction D irector o f In s titu tio n a l Research Dean o f Academic Services Assistant Dean fo r Vocational Education ♦Based on N=26 respondents. Another demographic question asked the MiSIS Implementors and Users to id e n tify th e ir re s p o n s ib ilitie s in the Michigan Student Information System. Tables 7 and 8. A summary o f th e ir responses are presented in As Table 7 ind icates, large percentages o f the MiSIS Implementors indicated th e ir re s p o n s ib ilitie s included data c o lle c tio n , data organization, data analysis, and overall 45 adm inistration o f the Michigan Student Information System process in the co lleg e. Another area o f concern re la te d to the local MiSIS Users committee. Approximately one-half o f the implementors indicated they were on the local MiSIS Users committee; and 85% o f these in d ivid u als indicated the local user's committee was func­ tio n a l. Sixteen o f the 26 MiSIS User respondents (62%) indicated there was a local MiSIS Users committee. A ll 16 o f the users th at indicated there was a local MiSIS Users committee indicated they were on the committee. TABLE 7 . --Implementors' Role in MiSIS Respondents Having This Role* Number Percent Role Data c o lle c to r 23 85 Data organizer 23 85 Data analyzer 23 85 Overall adm inistration o f MiSIS process 25 96 7 26 13 48 Member o f the statewide MiSIS users commi tte e Member o f the local MiSIS users committee ♦Based on N=27 respondents. MiSIS Users were asked to id e n tify the ways in which the Michigan Student Information System data were in terp reted fo r use in decision-making processes. Four responses were possible; in te rp re ta tio n by the MiSIS User, in te rp re ta tio n w ith the aid of 46 a research department, in te rp re ta tio n with the aid o f the local users committee, or in te rp re ta tio n by an outside party. The most commonly selected option (N=12, 46%) was in te rp re ta tio n by the MiSIS User, as indicated in Table 8. Several respondents id e n ti­ fie d a lte rn a tiv e ways in which they interpreted the data and were recorded in the "other" category. These responses included: by the Users committee only, a t general meetings, by the president and cabinet, and by the d ire c to r o f the curriculum o ffic e . TABLE 8 . —Users' In te rp re ta tio n o f MiSIS Data Response Options Respondents Selecting Option* Number Percent In te rp re t the information by yourself 12 46 In te rp re t the information with the aide o f a research department 5 19 In te rp re t the information with the aide o f the local user's committee 6 23 Someone else in te rp re ts the data and provides me with the results 0 0 Other 8 a. In te rp re t with aide o f Director o f Placement, Job Developer, and Vice-President o f Student Services b. In te rp re t with the aide of D irector o f In s titu tio n a l Research, fa c u lty , and adm inistration c. In te rp re t with Dean o f Instruction and d ivisio n chairperson d. In te rp re t with D irector o f Curriculum e. Interpreted by persons using data 31 47 TABLE 8 . — Continued Respondents Selecting Option* Number Percent Response Options f. g. h. Interpreted a t general meetings Interp reted by User's Committee only Subject to in te rp re ta tio n by President and cabinet *Based on N=26 respondents. MiSIS Implementors were next asked to ind icate i f anyone assisted them in the data c o lle c tio n process. Eighteen o f the respondents (67%) indicated someone did as sis t them in the data c o lle c tio n process. in d iv id u a ls . Table 9 id e n tifie s the positions o f these As Table 9 in d ic a te s , the m ajority o f respondents selected the "other" option and id e n tifie d positions assistin g in the data c o lle c tio n process as: records o ffic e , re g is tra r 's o f fic e , and s t a f f . Technical Assistance Desirable Types. technical assistance. Another area o f concern centered around MiSIS Implementors, Users, and Presidents were asked to id e n tify those areas in which technical assistance would be d esirab le. Table 10 provides a summary o f the responses co llected from the MiSIS Implementors. The four areas o f tech­ nical assistance which over h a lf o f the implementors indicated would be b en eficial were: using data from the Michigan Student Information System to complete the Vocational Education Data 48 System reporting requirements (N=14, 52%), information on state and federal student information reporting requirements (N=15, 56%), using input from the User committee (N=14, 52%), and inservice in report w ritin g based on data from the Michigan Student Information System (N=16, 59%). TABLE 9 . --Implementors' Position o f Individuals Assisting in the Data Collection Process. Respondents Indicating Position Number Percent* Position Guidance Counselor 2 7 In s titu tio n a l Researcher 0 0 Placement S p ec ia lis t 3 11 Other Data Collection Specialists 2 7 18 67 Other a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. Dean o f Students and S ta ff Records O ffice R egistrar's O ffice Registrar plus instructors Registrar plus D irector of Career Planning Research and development u n it S ta ff Anyone who comes in contact with students ♦Based on N=27 respondents. Table 11 presents a summary o f types o f technical a s s is t­ ance desired by MiSIS Users. As Table 11 indicates, the two areas o f technical assistance which the largest number o f users in d i­ cated would be desirable were: ways to use the information and 49 the use o f the Michigan Student Information System in conjunction with the Program Review in Occupational Education. In a d d itio n , several respondents indicated a need fo r technical assistance in areas not lis te d including: ad d itio nal s t a f f fo r coding d ata, in - service fo r transm ittin g data by computer tape, and the a b i li t y to ta lk to a l l technical persons. TABLE 1 0 .--Implementors' Areas o f Technical Assistance Id e n tifie d as B e n e fic ia l. Technical Assistance Areas Respondents Selecting Areas Number Percent* Adm inistration o f MiSIS instruments 13 48 Organization o f MiSIS d a ta /re s u lts 12 44 Inservice in the use o f MiSIS data c o lle c tio n forms 11 41 Inservice in the uses o f each o f the six MiSIS subsystems 12 44 Using MiSIS inform ation to complete VEDS reporting requirements 14 52 Inservice in general survey methodology 12 44 Inservice in state and federal student information reporting requirements 15 56 Using input from the Users Committee 14 52 Inservice in repo rt w ritin g based upon MiSIS data 16 59 ♦Based on N=27 respondents. 50 TABLE 11 .--Users' Technical Assistance Areas Id e n tifie d as Useful. Respondents Wanting Technical Assistance* Number Percent Area In te rp re ta tio n o f data 16 62 Ways to use information 19 73 Program planning based on MiSIS data 16 62 Presentation/form at o f data 17 65 Use of MiSIS in conjunction with PROE 19 73 Inservice in one or more of the subsystems 10 38 Overseeing the implementation o f MiSIS 10 38 Developing presentations based on MiSIS 14 54 Other a. A b ility to ta lk to a ll technical persons b. Combine workshops th at MiSIS has had c. For transm itting data (computer tape) d. "Robust" treatment o f the data e. Send a coder fo r the cards 5 21 ★Based on N=26 respondents. Table 12 presents a summary o f the Presidents' responses id e n tify in g potential technical assistance o fferings to' b etter enable community colleges to use the Michigan Student Information System. As Table 12 indicates, six o f seven types o f technical assistance were considered useful by more than h a lf o f the p res i­ dents. were: The most commonly selected types o f technical assistance in te rp re ta tio n o f data, use o f data from the Michigan 51 Student Information System in conjunction with data from the Program Review in Occupational Education, and ways to use the information provided by the system. TABLE 1 2 .— Presidents' Types o f Technical Assistance Perceived to B etter Enable the Conmunity College to Use MiSIS. Total Responding Technical Assistance Responding Yes Number Percent Developing presentations based on MiSIS data 25 15 60 In te rp re ta tio n o f data 25 17 68 Overseeing implementation o f MiSIS 25 12 48 Presentation/form at o f data 25 13 52 Program planning based on MiSIS data 25 14 56 Use o f MiSIS in conjunction with PROE 24 16 67 Ways to use inform ation provided by MiSIS 25 16 64 21 5 24 Other a. Comprehensive view o f what other colleges are doing b. Overall information presenta­ tio n to college-wide audience c. Need fo r statewide data Preferred Method. Respondents were also asked to ind icate the preferred method fo r receiving the technical assistance. 13 provides a summary o f MiSIS Implementor responses. Table As Table 13 in d ica te s, the two methods preferred by the la rg e s t number o f 52 implementors were o n -s ite v is ita tio n s and a regional conference. Table 14 provides a summary o f MiSIS User responses regarding the preferred method o f providing the technical assistance. As Table 14 in d ic a te s , the method preferred by the la rg e s t number of users was an o n -s ite technical assistance v i s i t . One respondent provided a method not lis te d as a survey option: providing a user's manual to each community college. TABLE 1 3 .--Implementors' Preferred Method o f Technical Assistance Respondents Selectinq Method Number Percent* Method Phone contact 5 18 O n-site v i s it 17 63 Regional conference 15 56 5 18 11 41 Information pamphlets S e lf-in s tru c tio n a l guides ♦Based on N=27 respondents. Another area o f concern re lated to the ease o f under­ standing and completing the Michigan Student Information System forms from the perspective o f the MiSIS Implementors (respondents). As Table 15 in d ic a te s , the respondents did not id e n tify any problems in understanding or completing the forms. The MiSIS Implementors were then asked several questions concerning d if f ic u lt ie s encountered in implementing the Michigan 53 TABLE 14 .--U sers' Preferred Methods o f Providing Technical Assistance. Respondents Selecting Method Number Percent* Method S ta ff inservice 5 19 Telephone consultation 4 15 16 62 Statewide conference o f MiSIS users 3 12 Regional workshops 7 27 Other 1 4 On-site technical assistance v is it ♦Based on N=26 respondents. TABLE 15 .--Implementors' Rating o f MiSIS Forms Number o f Respondents Topic o f Rating Mean Response* Ease o f understanding MiSIS forms 27 1.4 Ease o f completing MiSIS forms 27 1.7 Ease o f respondent's under­ standing MiSIS forms 26 2.1 Ease o f respondent's complet­ ing MiSIS forms 27 2.2 ♦Based on a 4 point scale where 1 « very easy and 4 = very d i f ­ f ic u lt . Student Information System. The f i r s t question o f in te re s t con­ cerned the d if f ic u lt y o f co llectin g information fo r each o f the 54 subsystems. While none o f the subsystems were given a mean rating o f 3.0 (hard) by the MiSIS Implementors, two subsystems, Non-Return­ ing Student Follow-Up and Employer Follow-Up, were given mean ratings o f 2.6 which is approaching d i f f i c u l t . sented in Table 16. These data are pre­ The MiSIS Implementors also indicated the two easiest subsystems to c o lle c t information fo r were Student Educa­ tio n al In ten t and Continuing Education Follow-Up. TABLE 1 6 .--Implementation D iffic u ltie s Encountered by MiSIS Implementors. Subsystem Number o f Respondents Mean Response* Student's Educational In ten t ( I ) 24 1.7 Withdrawal Follow-Up ( I I ) 13 1.9 Non-Returning Student Follow-Up (III) 15 2.6 Graduate Follow-Up (IV ) 21 2.1 Employer Follow-Up (V) 17 2.6 3 1.7 Continuing Education Follow-Up (V I) ♦Based on a 4 point scale where 1 * very easy and 4 = very hard. The second question related to the d if f ic u lt y o f in s tru ­ ment adm inistration by m ail. This question was not applicable to the Student Educational In ten t subsystem. As Table 17 indicates, none o f the MiSIS Implementors perceived th is to be a p a rtic u la rly d i f f i c u l t task fo r the fiv e subsystems fo r which th is was applicable as a ll means were 2.5 or less (on the easy side o f the continuum). 55 TABLE 1 7 .--MiSIS Implementors' D iffic u lty o f Instrument Administra­ tion by M a il. Subsystem Number o f Respondents Mean* Student's Educational Intent Not Applicable Withdrawal Follow-Up 11 2.2 Non-Returning Student Follow-Up 15 2.1 Graduate Follow-Up 19 1.7 Employer Follow-Up 16 2.1 3 1.7 Continuing Education Follow-Up ♦Based on a 4 point scale where 1 = very easy and 4 = very hard. The th ird question o f in te re s t related to the d if f ic u lt y in preparing data for processing. In three o f the subsystems, MiSIS Implementors indicated there was some d if f ic u lt y in preparing data fo r processing. These subsystems were Student Educational In te n t, Non-Returning Student Follow-Up, and Graduate Follow-Up. These data are provided in Table 18. The fourth question asked related to the d if f ic u lt y in determining the best way to u t il i z e data. As Table 19 in d icates, MiSIS Implementors indicated th is was a problem fo r only two of the subsystems; Non-Returning Student Follow-Up and Continuing Education Follow-Up both had means on the "hard" side o f the continuum. The f i f t h and fin a l question asked related to the d i f f i ­ cu lty in obtaining a 50 percent response rate to mail surveys. As 56 Table 20 in d ica te s, th is was d i f f i c u l t in two subsystems (Graduate Follow-Up and Employer Follow-Up) and very d i f f i c u l t in one sub­ system (Non-Returning Student Follow-Up). TABLE 1 8 .--Implementors' D iffic u lty in Preparing Data fo r Processing. Subsystem Number o f Respondents Mean Response* Student's Educational In te n t 24 2.8 Withdrawal Follow-Up 11 2 .0 Non-Returning Student Follow-Up 12 2.8 Graduate Follow-Up 19 2.6 Employer Follow-Up 16 2.2 3 2.3 Continuing Education Follow-Up *Based on a 4 point scale where 1 = very easy and 4 - very d i f f i c u l t . TABLE 1 9 .--Im plem entors' D iffic u lt y in Determining the Best Way to U t iliz e Data. Subsystem Number o f Respondents Mean Response* Student's Educational In te n t 19 2.3 Withdrawal Follow-Up 10 2.1 Non-Returning Student Follow-Up 10 2.7 Graduate Follow-Up 16 2.3 Employer Follow-Up 13 2.3 3 3.0 Continuing Education Follow-Up *Based on a 4 point scale where 1 = very easy and 4 = very hard. 57 TABLE 20. — Implementors' D iffic u lty in Obtaining a t Least a 50 Per­ cent Response Rate. Subsystem Number o f Respondents Mean Response* Student's Educational Intent Not Applicable Withdrawal Follow-Up 12 2.4 Non-Returning Student Follow-Up 14 3.5 Graduate Follow-Up 19 2.7 Employer Follow-Up 16 2.6 3 2.3 Continuing Education Follow-Up ♦Based on a 4 point scale where 1 = very easy and 4 = very hard. Data Processing Support Research. The next area o f concern is examining community colleges' data processing o rien tatio n related to research capa­ b ilitie s . Ten MiSIS Implementors (37%) indicated th e ir community college had an individual who performed a research function. Nine o f these implementors (90%) indicated th is person provided a s s is t­ ance in Michigan Student Information System a c t iv it ie s . As Table 21 indicates, the two areas o f assistance which were most commonly provided were data co lle ctio n and in te rp re ta tio n o f re s u lts . MiSIS Users were also questioned as to whether or not the cornnunity college performed a research function. Fourteen of the respondents (54%) indicated th e ir community college did perform a research function. Research a t the local level was the only cate­ gory where more than ten percent o f the users indicated the 58 community college conducted research. Twelve users (46%) indicated they conducted research on the local le v e l. Data processing u t i ­ liz e d fo r the community college research function included: the community co lleg e's own data processing equipment (N = ll, 42%), an agreement with an external service bureau (N+2, 8%), a u niversity (N=4, 15%), or by hand tabulation (N =l, 4%). TABLE 2 1 .--Implementors' Assistance Provided by Research Person Relative to MiSIS. Assistance Respondents Indicating Assistance Provided Number Percent* Designing analysis plans 5 56 Data co llectio n 7 78 Data coding/editing 5 56 In te rp re ta tio n o f results 6 67 Running the computer 5 56 Report w ritin g 5 56 Other 1 11 ♦Based on N=9 respondents. Data Processing C apability. The next area of concern related to computerized data processing c a p a b ilitie s a t the community colleges. A to ta l o f 26 data processing coordinators were contacted during the survey process to provide information about the data 59 processing c a p a b ilitie s o f th e ir systems. Table 22 summarizes the various data processing arrangements o f the community colleges interviewed. A ll of the Data Processing Coordinators indicated th at th e ir community college used computers as opposed to some form o f hand tab u latio n . As Table 22 indicates, the m ajority o f the community colleges (N=19, 73%) have th e ir own central computer. The remaining schools have contracted fo r these services e ith e r through external service bureau (N=5, 19%) or a K-12 d is t r ic t (N=3, 12%). The data processing coordinator also indicated th at most of the community colleges u t iliz e computers fo r both admin­ is tr a tiv e and instru ction al purposes (N=16, 64%), while some u t il i z e computers only fo r adm inistrative purposes (N=7, 28%), and only a few u t iliz e computers fo r instructional purposes only (N=2, 8%). TABLE 2 2 .--Data Processing Coordinators’ Data Processing Arrangements Arrangement Through an agreement with K-12 system Respondents Seeking Arrangement Number Percent* 3 12 19 73 Through an agreement with an external service bureau 5 19 Computers are not used 0 0 Individual department or programs do th e ir own data processing on micro computers 2 8 Other 3 12 Through our own central computer ♦Based on N=26 respondents. 60 Table 23 summarizes the MiSIS User's response to the use of computers fo r ad m in istrative and/or in s tru ctio n al purposes. As Table 23 In d ic a te s , h a lf o f the MiSIS Users indicated the computers were used fo r both ad m in istrative and in s tru ctio n al purposes. In a d d itio n , 11 users (44%) indicated they bad p r io r it y access fo r data processing w hile 12 users (48%) indicated they did not have p r io r it y access fo r data processing. F in a lly , MiSIS Users were asked i f the computer system a t th e ir community college was ade­ quate fo r th e ir needs. Only nine users (38%) indicated th e ir computer system was adequate fo r th e ir needs. TABLE 2 3 .--Prim ary Purpose o f Computer/Data Processing System Respondents Id e n tify in g as Primary _____________ Purpose______________ Number Percent* Purpose Adm inistrative 9 35 In s tru ctio n al 4 15 13 50 Both *Based on N=26 respondents. In terms o f the a v a ila b ilit y o f computerized data proces­ sing a t the coumunity co lle g e, 10 o f the Presidents (39%) indicated th a t the primary use o f computers was a d m in is tra tiv e , three o f the Presidents (12%) indicated i t was in s tru c tio n a l, w hile another 10 Presidents (39%) indicated i t was both. Three o f the Presidents (12%) indicated they did not have a computer. 61 The next area o f concern d ea lt with the type o f computer f a c i l i t i e s the community colleges had. For the most p a rt, P resi­ dents indicated the community college had a v a ila b le a large main­ frame computer, with sm aller proportions in d ica tin g mini (42%) and micro (27%) computer f a c i l i t i e s a v a ila b le . Data Processing Capacity. Data processing coordinators were asked to id e n tify the type o f computer, the level o f pro­ cessing cap acity, and the storage c a p a b ility . Table 24 summarizes the type o f computer systems a v a ila b le a t the community colleges. As Table 24 in d ic a te s , 21 data processing coordinators (81%) indicated th a t th e ir college u t iliz e s a large main-frame computer. Thirteen respondents (50%) also indicated th a t mini and/or micro computers were a v a ila b le . Table 25 provides a summary o f the com­ puter core storage w ith in the community co lle g e 's data processing systems. As Table 25 in d ic a te s , most o f the community colleges have a la rg e , over 128k, storage (N=21, 80%). The remaining fiv e colleges responding to the survey have a core memory storage ranging from 16k up to 128k. marized in Table 26. The type o f data storage is sum­ As Table 26 in d ica te s, the most often u t iliz e d storage media appears to be the hard disk (N=20, 77%), followed by the magnetic tape (N=14, 54%). The next question asked i f the data processing coordinator sought to id e n tify the storage c a p a b ility o f the computer systems. Table 27 summarizes the re ­ sponses to the storage c a p a b ility concern. As Table 27 in d ic a te s , the m ajority o f data processing coordinators (N=19, 79%) were un­ aware o f the storage c a p a b ility o f th e ir computer systems. 62 TABLE 2 4 .— Data Processing Coordinators' Computer Systems Available a t Community Colleges. Type o f System Conmunity Colleges Having System Number Percent* Large mainframe 21 81 Micro/mini computer 13 50 Other 2 8 No system 1 4 ♦Based on N=26 respondents. TABLE 2 5 .--D ata Processing Coordinators' CPU (Ram) Size. K Respondents Indicating Cageqory Number Percent* 16-32k 1 4 33-48k 1 4 49-64k 2 8 65-l28k 1 4 21 81 Above 128k ♦Based on N=26 respondents. 63 TABLE 2 6 .--D ata Processing Coordinators' Type o f Data Storage Type Respondents Indicating Type Number Percent* cassette tape 1 4 5 V floppy disk 0 0 8" floppy disk 5 19 hard disk 20 77 magnetic tape 14 54 1 4 Other ♦Based on N=26 respondents. TABLE 2 7 .--Data Processing Coordinators' Amount o f Storage Space. Storage C apability Respondents Having C apability Number Percent* below 1 megabyte 1 4 1-2 megabytes 2 8 3-10 megabytes 0 0 11-15 megabytes 0 0 26-20 megabytes 0 0 20-30 megabytes 0 0 above 30 megabytes 2 8 19 79 unknown ♦Based on N=24 respondents. 64 The next area of concern d ealt with the programming and software c a p a b ility of comnunity colleges. The question asked o f the data processing coordinator which id e n tifie d the types o f pro­ gramming languages used in community colleges resulted in m ultiple responses because most systems use more than one programming language. Table 28 summarizes responses to th is question. As Table 28 in d icates, most o f the data processing coordinators (N=23, 88%) u t iliz e COBOL as a programming language, 15 data pro­ cessing coordinators (58%) use FORTRAN, and 12 data processing coordinators (46%) use a BASIC language. Table 29 summarizes the s ta ff c a p a b ility to develop software as id e n tifie d by the data processing coordinators. As Table 29 indicates, 19 colleges (73%) u t iliz e th e ir own s ta f f to w rite specialized programs and seven colleges (27%) use an outside consultant. F ifteen of the respond­ ents (58%) also indicated having "canned" software on th e ir system, generally in the areas of adm inistration and management. Another area o f concern was u tiliz a tio n o f micro computers. The community colleges interviewed indicated a m ajority u tiliz e d micro computers in classroom in stru ction (N=21, 81%). Table 30 sumnarizes the brand o f micro computers cu rren tly in use. As Table 30 in d icates, 13 o f the respondents (50%) have Radio Shack computers, 11 respondents (42%) have Apple computers, and six respondents (23%) have PET computers. 65 TABLE 2 8 .--D ata Processing Coordinators' Type o f Programming Language Used. Language Respondents Ind icatin g Use o f Language Number Percent* BASIC 12 46 COBOL 23 88 FORTRAN 15 58 PL/1 2 11 Others a. RPG b. PPQ-2 9 35 ♦Based on N=26 respondents. TABLE 2 9 .--D ata Processing Coordinators' Individuals Performing Programming Task. Individual Community college s t a f f Respondents Selecting Individual Number Percent* 19 73 External Consultant 7 27 Other 1 4 ♦Based on N=26 respondents. 66 TABLE 3 0 .--Data Processing Coordinators' Micro-Computer Types. Community Colleges Having Type Number Percent* Type Radio Shack 13 50 Apple 11 42 PET 6 23 A tari 1 4 Commodore 1 4 Other 3 11 ♦Based on N=26 respondents. Data Processing A ltern atives. The fin a l area o f concern regarding data processing was id e n tify in g the best a lte rn a tiv e fo r meeting the community colleges' needs fo r processing data from the Michigan Student Information System. The Presidents were given three data processing analysis schemes and asked to rate how e f f ic ie n t each would be in meeting th e ir data processing needs fo r data from the Michigan Student Information System. sents a summary o f the responses. Table 31 pre­ As Table 31 in d icates, designing a system fo r data processing and analysis o f Michigan Student Information System data on the co lleg e's central computer was noted as most e f fic ie n t by the Presidents. M1SIS Users were asked whether i t would be useful to have th e ir own computer system fo r analysis o f data resu ltin g from the Michigan Student Information System. Table 32 summarizes the 67 responses to th is question. As Table 32 indicates, 20 MiSIS Users (80%) indicated they would find i t useful to have th e ir own com­ puter system fo r analyzing data from the Michigan Student Informa­ tio n System. TABLE 3 1 .--P re sid en ts1 Perceived E fficien cy of Various Data Processing Schemes fo r MiSIS Data. Scheme Number Mean^ Designing a system fo r MiSIS data pro­ cessing/analysis which could be used on your co lleg e's central computer 21 1.6 Having an independent hardware/software system designed exclusively fo r use with the MiSIS system 22 2.2 Using a service bureau external to your community college 24 2.2 ♦Based on a 4 point scale where 1 = very e f f ic ie n t and 4 = very in e ffic ie n t. TABLE 3 2 .--Users' U t i l i t y o f Own Computer System Response Yes MiSIS Users Selecting Response Number Percent^ 20 80 No 3 12 Unsure 2 8 ♦Based on N=25 respondents. 68 The data processing coordinators were then asked i f , given th e ir current resources, they could process an additional 10,000 forms, three times a year, fo r the Michigan Student Information System data. Sixteen of the data processing coordinators (61%) indicated i t was possible on th e ir current systems. The remaining 10 data processing coordinators (39%) indicated they would not be able to complete additional processing. Those who could not pro­ cess the additional data were asked under what conditions they would be able to accomplish the processing. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Responses included: Cannot say--not fa m ilia r with MiSIS Need to work with an intermediate school d is t r ic t Need additional s ta ff and/or new computer Need a fa s t p rin te r Need a completely d iffe re n t system Aid in Use o f Data Usefulness. Tables 33 and 34 id e n tify the most useful and le a s t useful features of the Michigan Student Information System from the MiSIS Implementors' perspective. As Table 33 in d icates, "getting information needed to comply with the Vocational Educa­ tion al Data System reporting requirements" and "establishing a data base o f enrollment follow-up fo r internal use" were the two factors most commonly id e n tifie d by implementors. Some o f the other features id e n tifie d by respondents as useful were information fo r recruitment and providing a standardized format fo r longitudinal studies. Table 34 indicates th at the feature id e n tifie d as lea st useful by the largest number o f respondents was "too much work in 69 form preparation fo r processing." Additional features id e n tifie d as le a s t useful by implementors included demographic data and the la s t item o f the Student Education Intent Card which gathers data on special assistance needs o f students. TABLE 3 3 .--Implementors' Feature o f MiSIS Most Useful. Respondents Selecting _______ Feature_______ Number Percent* Feature Getting information needed to comply with VEDS reporting requirements 7 26 Establishing a data base o f enrollment and follow-up fo r intern al use 9 33 Provides a standardized format fo r data allowing community colleges to share th is information 1 4 The technical assistance av ailab le 0 0 15 56 Other a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. Graduate feedback from follow-up SEI form VEDS Providing a standardized format for longitudinal studies Cost assumed by outside source Good information fo r recruitment Compiled information availab le General information provided ♦Based on N=27 respondents. The MiSIS Users were asked three questions related to the use o f the Michigan Student Information System in completing Vocational Education Data System reporting requirements. Twenty-two 70 TABLE 3 4 .— Implementors' Feature o f MiSIS Least Useful. Respondents Selecting Feature Number Percent* Feature Dependency on central processing 0 0 Lack o f a b ilit y to in d iv id u a lize type of data collected 1 4 Too much work in form preparation fo r processing 3 11 The format o f the data returned is not useful to our in s titu tio n 1 4 19 70 Other a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. Student withdrawal Continuing education Demographic data Non-returning continuing education Community services Coding responses #7 o f SEI Employer information ♦Based on N=27 respondents. o f the 25 respondents (88%) indicated they did use the Michigan Student Information System to complete Vocational Education Data System reporting requirements. The three respondents indicating they did not use the Michigan Student Information System fo r the Vocational Education Data System reporting requirements were aware o f the fa c t th a t the system could be used in th at way. In response to the question o f whether or not i t was easy to use the Michigan Student Information System fo r Vocational Education Data System reporting requirements 16 of 19 respondents (84%) indicated that 71 the Michigan Student Information System was easy to use in th is way. C lien t Groups. The next area o f concern dealt with the dissemination of information from the Michigan Student Information System. Table 35 summarizes the groups to which data was pre­ sented as id e n tifie d by the MiSIS Users. A review o f Table 35 reveals th at the largest number of users indicated th a t the p res i­ dent was a re cip ie n t of the inform ation, followed by fac u lty members, Boards of Trustees, advisory committees, and the Michigan Department of Education. The receivers were most commonly pre­ sented the data fo r information purposes only (N=21, 81%), to provide feedback (N=13, 50%), and fo r decision-making purposes (N=15, 58%). Groups id e n tifie d by the users as having the greatest impact on the decision-making process were the Board o f Trustees, the president, administration and fa c u lty . Current and Planned Uses. The next area of concern d ealt with ways in which the Michigan Student Information System was cu rren tly being used and ways in which i t was planned to be used in the fu tu re. Table 36 summarizes the MiSIS User responses obtained fo r these two questions. As Table 36 ind icates, the three current uses o f the Michigan Student Information System most com­ monly id e n tifie d by the users were promoting communications among adm inistration and fa c u lty , in s titu tio n a l research, and id e n tify in g special needs of students. The three uses currently used by the le a s t number o f users were cost effectiveness studies, determination 72 TABLE 3 5 .--U s e rs ' Dissemination o f MiSIS Inform ation. Respondents Id e n tifyin g Group/Individual Number Percent* Group/Individual Faculty 23 88 Students 14 53 Board o f Trustees 21 81 Advisory Committee 21 81 Community 18 69 Michigan Department of Education 21 81 Other community colleges 13 50 President o f the college 24 92 5 19 Other a. b. c. d. Administrative s ta ff External agencies Legislative/Departm ent o f Commerce Research firms doing sub-contract work ♦Based on N=26 respondents. o f employment success o f students in n o n -traditio n al occupations and labor market inform ation. One difference between the responses obtained to the current use versus the planned use of the Michigan Student Information System was th a t MiSIS Users indicated a greater planned use o f the system than current use. This may be due to an increased fa m ilia r ity with the system coupled with the re la tiv e newness o f the system. The four most commonly id e n tifie d planned uses o f Michigan Student Information System data were career TABLE 36.—Users' Uses of MiSIS. Uses Currently Using Number Responding Number Percent Plan to Use Number Responding Number Percent Career counseling with students 25 13 52 23 22 96 Identifying needed student services and instructional enhancement ac tiv itie s 24 13 54 25 24 96 Institutional planning and program evaluations 24 14 58 26 23 89 Student recruitment 25 9 36 26 21 81 Institutional research 25 16 64 26 25 96 Conmunity public relations 24 13 54 26 23 89 Labor market information 24 7 29 25 17 68 College promotion ac tivitie s 24 14 58 26 22 85 Communications with local occupational advisory committees 25 13 52 26 24 92 Communications with accreditation v is it teams 24 11 46 26 23 89 Producing information for students as educational consumers 25 9 36 26 22 85 TABLE 36.—Continued. - ——i— i-- ■■ ---- ■ -------- ■ — ---i 1 i i i -- Uses Currently Using Number Responding Number Percent Plan to Use Number Responding Number Percent Development of curricula 25 12 48 25 22 88 Promoting communications among administration and faculty 25 19 76 25 24 96 Identifying special needs of students 25 15 60 26 24 92 Determination of employment success of students in non-traditional occupa­ tions 25 7 28 26 22 85 Cost effectiveness studies 24 4 17 25 16 64 Formulating college policies and guidelines 26 11 46 25 22 89 Communication and sharing of data among colleges 25 9 36 26 23 89 75 counseling w ith students, id e n tify in g needed student services and in s tru c tio n a l enhancement a c t iv it ie s , in s titu tio n a l research, and promoting communications among adm inistration and fa c u lty . The two uses o f the Michigan Student Information System data which the le a s t number o f MiSIS Users id e n tifie d as planned uses were cost effectiveness studies and labor market inform ation. Several users provided responses not on the survey in terms o f ways in which the system was c u rre n tly used. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Some o f these included: Board o f Trustees reports Legislature discussions Feedback to local high schools Placement brochures Public re la tio n s Data Output Analysis MiSIS Users were also asked to ra te the u t i l i t y o f the data, completeness o f the data, and ease o f understanding the data r e la ­ tiv e to the computer printouts received. Table 37 presents a summary o f the responses to these questions. As Table 37 in d ica te s, the MiSIS Users f e l t th a t the data was complete, easy to under­ stand, and useful. MiSIS Users were also asked, however, i f the data would be more useful i f i t was provided in another form. Of the 22 respondents to th is question, 10 (45%) indicated the data would be more useful i f i t was provided in another form. Related to th is concern, MiSIS Users were also asked i f the turn-around time between submission o f the data and return o f re su lts was adequate. Twenty o f the 26 respondents (77%) indicated the turn-around time was adequate. However, when asked i f the users 76 would be able to make more use o f the data i f the turn-around time was shorter, 15 o f the 25 respondents (60%) indicated they would be able to make more use o f the Michigan Student Information data i f the turn-around time was shorter. Optimal turn-around time was id e n tifie d as between two and four weeks. TABLE 3 7 .--M iSIS Users' Rating o f MiSIS Data Received in Computer Printouts. Category Number o f Respondents Mean Rating Completeness o f data* 23 1.7 Ease o f understanding d ata** 23 2.0 U t i l i t y o f the data+ 24 2.0 *Based on a 4 point scale where 1 = very complete and 4 = incom­ p le te . **Based on a 4 point scale where 1 = very easy and 4 = very hard. +Based on a 4 point scale where 1 = very useful and 4 = useless. Several analysis techniques were presented to MiSIS Users and they were asked to indicate i f each analysis would be benefic­ ia l. Table 38 provides a summary o f the analysis techniques iden­ t i f ie d and the number o f MiSIS Users indicating usefulness o f each. As Table 38 in d icates, the two analysis techniques id e n tifie d by the largest number o f respondents as useful were cross-tabulations o f data and a longitudinal analysis comparing results from one term or semester to a previous one. I t should be noted th at a ll analysis techniques were id e n tifie d as useful by a t le a s t h a lf of the MiSIS Users. 77 TABLE 3 8 .—MiSIS Users' Use o f MiSIS Data Analysis Techniques. Analysis Technique Respondents Ind icatin g Technique _________ Would Be Useful________ Number Percent* Frequency analysis o f data 22 85 Cross-tabulation o f data 25 96 Typewritten copies o f tables as opposed to computer printouts 15 58 Special data runs fo r: a. targeted impact groups b. targeted reading audiences 23 13 85 50 Longitudinal analyses comparing results from one term or semester to a previous one 24 92 *Based on N=26 respondents. The Presidents were asked how useful each type o f data analysis would be fo r decision-making needs. were id e n tifie d . Six types o f analyses Table 39 contains a summary o f the responses. A ll o f the types o f analyses were rated as being on the useful side o f the continuum {mean response less than 2 .5 ) with fiv e o f the six having averages between 1.4 and 1 .8 . As Table 39 in d ic a te s , the most useful type o f analysis was special data runs fo r ta rg e t impact groups followed by longitudinal analyses comparing resu lts from one term or semester to a previous one. I t should be noted th a t these two types o f analysis are not cu rren tly provided in the Michigan Student Information System. 78 TABLE 3 9 .--P resid en ts' Usefulness o f Various Types of Data Analysis fo r Decision-Making Needs. Type o f Analysis Number Mean* Comparing answers to sim ilar questions from d iffe re n t surveys 25 2.1 Cross tabulations 25 1.6 Frequency analyses 24 1.6 Longitudinal analyses comparing results from one term or semester to a previous one 25 1.6 Special data runs fo r: a. targ e t impact groups b. targeted reading groups/audiences 25 25 1.4 1.8 ♦Based on a 4 point scale where 1 = very useful and 4 = not a t a ll useful. The Presidents were also asked which ways they thought i t would be most useful to receive data from the Michigan Student Information System. The three options provided were computer printouts only, prepared tables with n a rra tiv e , and a short sum­ mary h ighlighting the findings. The Presidents overwhelmingly indicated th at short summaries highlighting key findings and pre­ pared tables with n arrative were most useful. Only one President indicated th at the computer printouts only would be useful. Two o f the presidents did not provide any in d ica tio n . A lis tin g o f ways in which the information could be used was also provided to the presidents who were asked to Indicate i f the information was useful and, i f so, with whom they would use the information. A summary o f the responses is provided in 79 Table 40. In reviewing th is ta b le , i t is in te re stin g to note that fo r each type o f inform ation, the m ajority o f the presidents found i t would be useful. As Table 40 indicates, the most useful types o f information were determination o f employment success o f students in n o n -trad itio n al occupations (N=23, 96%), communication with accreditation v i s it teams (N=22, 92%), and community public re ­ latio n s such as mi 11 age requests (N=22, 92%). Table 40 also in d i­ cates th at the information would be used with a wide range of d iffe re n t constituencies. TABLE 40.—Presidents' U t i l it y of Information Provided by H1SIS. Type o f Information Respon.Indicated Info, is Useful N % Legislative N X Groups With Whom Respondents Use Information Bd. of Bus./Indus. Trustees MDE Community N X N X N X N X N Other X Conmuni cation with accredi­ tation v is it teams 22 92 10 39 9 35 16 62 8 31 10 39 20 77 Communication with local occupational advisory committee 16 67 4 15 6 23 8 31 6 23 13 50 9 35 Commmicatlon and sharing of data among conmunity colleges 21 88 6 23 11 42 12 46 6 23 7 27 18 69 Community public relations such as mi11age requests 22 92 5 19 9 35 11 42 5 19 6 23 11 42 Cost effectiveness studies to be used for aiding the internal budgeting process 20 83 5 19 5 19 9 35 3 12 4 15 9 35 Determination o f employment success o f students in nontrad itio n al occupations 23 96 4 15 5 19 9 35 5 19 5 19 21 81 Formulating college policies and guidelines fo r future directions of the college ' 18 75 6 23 9 35 10 39 4 15 7 27 14 54 For use 1n presentations to the legislature for appro­ priation requests 19 83 4 15 2 8 12 46 2 8 4 15 17 65 Identifying needed student services and instructional enhancement a c tiv itie s with documented student data 20 83 4 15 4 15 19 73 4 15 6 23 18 69 Identifying special needs of students 21 88 4 15 2 8 8 31 4 15 4 15 14 54 Labor market information 20 83 15 58 3 12 8 31 4 15 4 15 4 15 Chapter V SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS The purpose o f th is study was to conduct a post hoc analy­ sis o f the Michigan Student Information System implementation pro­ cess u t iliz e d by the Michigan Department o f Education. This post hoc analysis was accomplished through the development o f an evalua­ tio n plan which focused on id e n tify in g process factors in addition to the more tra d itio n a l outcome fa c to rs . This chapter is divided in to three sections: Summary of Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations. Summary o f Findings The findings o f th is study are summarized according to the steps delineated in the implementation phase o f the D iffusion Flow Chart. Support o f Key Individuals Presidential Awareness. One concern in determining the effectiveness o f the d iffu s io n strateg ies d ea lt with whether or not the Michigan Student Information System was receiving the support o f key ind ividu als 1n each community co lleg e. A ll 26 responding presidents indicated th a t they were aware o f the Michigan Student Information System and indicated a high level o f commitment to 81 82 in s titu tio n a liz in g the system {a mean ratin g o f 1.8 , using a four point scale where 1 = to ta lly committed and 4 = not at a ll com­ m itte d ). Support o f key individuals was fu rth e r demonstrated by the fa c t th a t a ll 29 community colleges had appointed an in d iv i­ dual to act as a MiSIS Liaison. Subsystem Analysis. An important indicator o f the sup­ port o f key individuals was the level o f use o f each subsystem and the concomitant usage of resulting data. The MiSIS Implementors indicated the most commonly used subsystems were: Student Educa­ tion In te n t (N=24, 92%), Graduate Follow-up (N=21, 88%), and Employer Follow-up (N=18, 78%), while the lea st used subsystem was the Continuing Education Follow-up. MiSIS Users indicated th at resulting data was most frequently used from the Student Educa­ tio n al In te re s t, followed by the Graduate Follow-up, with deans being id e n tifie d as the individuals most often using the resulting data. The perceived importance o f the data provided by each of the Michigan Student Information System's six subsystems was rated by the Presidents with Graduate Follow-up and Student With­ drawal indicated as most important and Continuing Education Follow-up data indicated as lea st important. Local Liaisons S ta ff R esp o n sib ilities. The second concern in determining the effectiveness o f implementation strategies d ealt with id e n ti­ fying the position o f individuals assigned re s p o n s ib ilitie s fo r the Michigan Student Information System, th e ir role re s p o n s ib ilitie s 83 related to the system, and which other in s titu tio n a l personnel were involved. Twenty three o f the respondents (92%) indicated they were both the implementor and user. This finding indicates that the community colleges have generally vested the complete in s titu ­ tio n al re s p o n s ib ility fo r the Michigan Student Information System in one in d iv id u a l. The position held by the m ajority o f in d iv i­ duals was in the generic area of student personnel services. The respondent id e n tific a tio n o f a plethora o f job title s --D e a n of Students, Placement S p e c ia lis t, D irector o f Student Development, Dean o f Student A ffa ir s , e t.a l.--re p re s e n ts the d iffe re n t adminis­ tr a tiv e structures prevalent in Michigan community colleges, but not necessarily d iffe re n t job functions. MiSIS Implementors indicated th e ir re s p o n s ib ilitie s included data c o lle c tio n , data organization, data analysis, and o verall adm inistration o f the system. MiSIS Users indicated they were most often (N=12, 46%) independently responsible fo r the in te rp re ta tio n o f data from the Michigan Student Information System. Approximately one-half o f the MiSIS Implementors and 16 of the MiSIS Users (62%) indicated there was a local MiSIS Users committee. Eighteen o f the MiSIS Implementors (67%) also indicated th a t some­ one assisted them in the data co lle ctio n process. Technical Assistance The th ird concern centered upon the adequacy o f technical assistance and whether i t was meeting community colleges' needs. The four areas o f technical assistance th at over h a lf the MiSIS 84 Implementors indicated would be desirable were: using data from the Michigan Student Information System to complete Vocational Education Data System reporting requirements information on state and federal student information reporting requirements using in ­ put from the MiSIS User committee and inservice in report w ritin g based on data from the Michigan Students Information System. The two areas o f technical assistance th at the larg e st number o f MiSIS Users indicated would be desirable were: ways to use the informa­ tio n and the use o f the information in conjunction w ith the Pro­ gram Review in Occupational Education. The most conmonly selected types o f d esirable technical assistance id e n tifie d by the P resi­ dents were: in te rp re ta tio n o f data, use o f data in conjunction with data from the Program Review in Occupational Education, and ways to use the information provided by the system. Regarding the preferred method fo r receiving the tech­ nical assistance, MiSIS Implementors, MiSIS Users, and Presidents a ll ranked o n -s ite v is ita tio n s f i r s t and regional conferences second. Data Processing Support Research. The fourth concern in analyzing implementation strategy effectiveness d e a lt with community college c a p a b ility to conduct research and process data. Just over h a lf o f the MiSIS Users indicated th a t th e ir community college performed a research fu nctio n, with research most commonly being conducted on the local le v e l. 85 A ll of the data processing coordinators indicated th at th e ir community college u tiliz e d some form of computerized data processing. The m ajority o f the community colleges {N=29, 73%) have th e ir own central computer, while the remaining colleges have contracted fo r these services. The m ajority of both the Data Processing Coordinators and the Presidents indicated th at the primary use o f the computer was adm inistrative or a combination a d m in is tra tiv e /in s titu tio n a l. However, 12 MiSIS Users (48%) indicated they did not have p r io r ity access fo r data processing and only nine MiSIS Users (38%) indicated th e ir computer system was adequate fo r th e ir needs. The m ajority o f Presidents and Data Processing Coordinators indicated th e ir community college had av ailab le a larg e , mainframe computer, p rim a rily over 128k, storage, u t iliz in g hard disks. The most common programming language u tiliz e d was COBOL, followed by FORTRAN and a BASIC language. The m ajority o f community colleges u t iliz e th e ir own s ta ff to w rite specialized programs, although i t is not uncommon to u t iliz e "canned" software in some areas. In examining data processing schemes, the Presidents rated designing a system fo r data processing and analysis of Michigan Student Information System data u t iliz in g the co lleg e's own central computer as the most e ff ic ie n t . Twenty MiSIS Users (80%) indicated they would find i t useful to have th e ir own computer system fo r processing and analyzing data from the Michigan Student Information System. The m ajority o f Data Processing Coordinators indicated th at i t was possible to process the Michigan Student Information 86 System data on th e ir current systems, but a s ig n ific a n t number (N=10, 39%) indicated they would not be able to complete the pro­ cessing o f Michigan Student Information System data. Aid in Use o f Data Usefulness. The f i f t h concern in analyzing implementation strategy effectiveness d ealt with the use o f data resu ltin g from the Michigan Student Information System. MiSIS Implementors iden­ t i f ie d getting information needed to comply with the Vocational Education Data System reporting requirements and establishing a data base o f enrollment and follow-up for internal use as the two most useful features o f the system. The feature id e n tifie d as le a s t useful by the MiSIS Implementors was too much work in forms preparation fo r processing. C lien t Groups. Another aspect of data usage d ealt with id e n tify in g c lie n t groups who received the inform ation. MiSIS Users id e n tifie d the following c lie n t groups, in rank order: President, fa c u lty members, Board of Trustees, Advisory Commit­ tees, and the Michigan Department o f Education. MiSIS Users also indicated th at the data was most commonly presented fo r informa­ tion purposes only (N=21, 81%), but was also presented fo r decision-making purposes and/or to provide feedback a t le a s t h a lf the time. The la s t aspect o f data usage to be examined was current and planned uses o f the data from the Michigan Student Information System. The three current uses most commonly id e n tifie d by the 87 MiSIS Users were promoting communications among adm inistration and fa c u lty , in s titu tio n a l research, and id e n tify in g special needs o f students. The four most commonly id e n tifie d planned uses of data from the system id e n tifie d by MiSIS Users were: career counseling with students, id e n tify in g needed student services and in s titu ­ tional enhancement a c t iv it ie s , in s titu tio n a l research, and pro­ moting communications among adm inistration and fa c u lty . Presidents id e n tifie d the most useful types o f data from the Michigan Student Information System as: determination of employment success fo r students in n o n -trad itio n al occupations, communications with accreditation v i s it teams, and community public re latio n s such as mi 11 age requests. Data Output Analysis. Outcome findings also examined data analysis techniques availab le and desirable. While MiSIS Imple­ mentors f e l t th at data output was complete, easy to understand, and useful, MiSIS Users indicated additional analysis techniques, p a rtic u la rly cross-tabulations o f data and longitudinal analyses, would be desirable. The Presidents indicated the most useful types o f analyses would be special data runs fo r ta rg e t impact groups followed by longitudinal analyses. Neither o f these analyses are cu rren tly a v a ila b le . Conclusions The major conclusions o f th is study are presented as they re la te to the fiv e basic questions postulated in Chapter I . 88 1. Mas the support o f key ind ividu als in each community college obtained? The support o f key in d ivid u als in each community college was obtained. This support was demonstrated by the finding th at a l l 26 o f the responding presidents indicated a high level o f commitment to in s titu tio n a liz in g the system. 2. Were local lia is o n s id e n tifie d , selected, and trained? Local lia iso n s were id e n tifie d , selected, and tra in e d . A ll 29 community colleges had appointed an individual to act as MiSIS Liaison. Statewide, re g io n a l, and local tra in in g workshops fo r MiSIS Liaisons were conducted during 1979-1980. 3. Was tim ely technical assistance provided to implemen­ tors and users? Timely technical assistance was provided to implementors and users through the workshops fo r tra in in g MiSIS Liaisons, coupled with the promulgation o f Procedures Manuals, a c t iv it ie s manuals, and other system documentation. The major problem areas id e n tifie d by respondents were: analysis o f the data, in te rp re ta tio n and use o f the data, and in s titu tio n a liz in g data processing fo r the Michigan Student Informa­ tio n System. Analysis o f the data responses id e n tifie d several highly desirable techniques including cro ss-tab u latio n s, lo n g i­ tudinal analyses, and special data runs fo r ta rg e t impact groups. In te rp re ta tio n and use o f the data was a problem in th a t planned use fa r exceeded actual use and MiSIS Users indicated a technical 89 assistance need in the area o f report w ritin g based on data from the Michigan Student Information System. In s titu tin a liz in g data processing fo r the Michigan Student Information System emerged as a problem through several findings including: presidents rated the design o f a system u t iliz in g the co lleg e's own computer as most e f f ic ie n t method fo r data processing and MiSIS Users responded th at they would find i t most useful to have th e ir own computer system fo r processing and analyzing data from the Michigan Student Information System. 4. Was appropriate data processing support provided fo r processing and analyzing data from the Michigan Student Information Service? Appropriate data processing support was provided fo r pro­ cessing and analyzing data from the Michigan Student Information System. In 1979-1980, 69,275 Student Educational Intent cards and over 3,000 follow-up surveys were c e n tra lly processed. However, the findings also indicated th at presidents preferred to have the c a p a b ility to process Michigan Student Information System data a t th e ir own community college as indicated previously. 5. Were community colleges aided in using data resulting from the Michigan Student Information System? While the findings indicated th at community colleges were aided in using data resu ltin g from the Michigan Student Informa­ tio n System, two major areas o f concern emerged. The f i r s t con­ cern highlighted by the findings was th at the m ajority of uses of the data were categorized by respondents as "planned" uses rather 90 than cu rren t, possibly indicating d if f ic u ltie s in data analysis. The second concern emerging from the findings related s p e c ific a lly to analysis techniques. The two most useful analysis techniques id e n tifie d by the presidents were not a v a ila b le . Recommendations The recommendations o f th is study are based upon a review o f the MiSIS Diffusion Flow Chart, the general research question posed in Chapter I , and an extensive analysis o f the findings o f the study. 1. The following are recommendations: In order to ensure that community college technical assistance needs are being met, a periodic feedback mechanism should be developed to provide the change agent with formal input. 2. The current centralized data processing support should be replaced by an in s titu tio n a liz e d data processing concept designed to enable the community colleges to process and analyze th e ir own data from the Michigan Student Information System. 3. Examples of report format should be developed fo r the topics and audiences the presidents id e n tifie d regarding planned use o f Michigan Student Information System data. 4. The MiSIS Diffusion Flow Chart, or a standard d iffu s ­ ion model, should be u tiliz e d by the Michigan 91 Department of Education p rio r to the development and implementation o f any innovation. 5. A method fo r evaluating the e ffic ie n c y o f a d iffu sio n process should be an integral part o f the d iffu sio n process i t s e l f . REFERENCES REFERENCES Barbe, R. & H a ll, R ., The e ffe c t o f planned change on m aterial agencies. Theory into P ra ctic e, 1966. Berman, P. & McLaughlin, M., Federal Programs Supporting Educational Change, Vol. V I I I : ImplementTng and Sustaining Innovation. Prepared fo r the U.S. O ffice o f Education, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Rand Corp., Santa Monica, May 1978. Berman, P. & McLaughlin, M ., Federal Programs Supporting Educational Change, Vol. IV: The Findings in Review. Santa Monica: Rand, 1975. Carlson, R. Adoption o f Educational Innovations, Eugene, Oregon: U niversity o f Oregon Press, 1965. Clark, D.L. & Cuba, E.G ., The Configuration Perspective: A New View o f Educational Knowledge Production and U ti1iz a tfo n . Paper presented a t the annual meeting of the Council fo r Educational Development and Research, In c ., Washington,D.C., November 1974. Douns, G. & Mohr, L. Conceptual issues in the study o f innovation. Administrative Science Q uarterly, 21, pp. 700-714, 1976. Fullan, M. & Pumfret, A ., Research on curriculum and instruction implementation. Review on Educational Research, 47, pp. 335-397, 1977. Haige, J. & Aiken, M ., Social Change in Complex Organizations. New York: Random House, 1970. H a ll, G. & Loukes, S ., Innovation Configuration: Analyzing the Adaptation o f Innovation. A paper presented a t the American Educational Research Association meeting, Toronto, Spring 1977. H a ll, G .E ., e t. a l . A Developmental Conceptualization o f the Adoption Process W ithin Educational In stitu tio n s^ A ustin: R & D Center fo r Teacher Education, U niversity o f Texas, 1973. 92 93 Havelock, R.G., The Change Agents Guide to Innovation in Education, 1973. Havelock, R.G., Planning fo r Innovation. Center fo r Research on U tiliz a tio n o f S c ie n tific Knowledge. In s titu te o f Social Research, The U niversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1971. House, E .R ., The P o litic s o f Educational Innovation. McCutchan Press, 1974. Berkley: O g ilv ie , W. & Raines, M., Perspective on the Community Junior College, New York: Appleton-Century-Crafts, p. 1, 1971. P ie le , P. Principal In vestig ato r. Review and Analysis of the Role, A c tiv itie s , and Training o f Educational Limcing Agents. Eugene, Oregon: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, U niversity o f Oregon, November 1975. Provus, M., Discrepancy Evaluation fo r Educational Program Improve­ ment and Assessment, Berkley, McCutchen Press, 1971. ____________________ , Report and Recommendations, In te rs ta te Project on dissemination, National In s titu te fo r Education, Depart­ ment of Health and W elfare, Washington, D.C., 1976. Rogers, E.M. Agarcuala - Robers, R ., Communication in Organizations, New York: Free Press, 1976. Rogers, E.M. & Shoemaker, F. Communication of Innovations: Cultural Approach, New York: Free Press, 1971. A Cross Scriven, M., "Goal Free Evaluation," School Evaluation, E. Horse, E d ito r, Berkley: McCutchen Press, 1973. Sieber, S .D ., Trends in Diffusion Research: Viewpoints, 50, p. 3, 1974. Knowledge U tiliz a tio n , Sieber, S .D ., Organizational influences on innovative ro les. Innovation in Education. Eugene Oregon: Center fo r the Advanced Study o f Educational Adm inistration, U niversity o f Oregon, 1968. Spencer, R ., Information fo r in s titu tio n a l renewal. New Pi rection fo r Community Colleges: Managing in a New Era 25T J o s se y-B a ss ,In c., San Francisco, pp. 65-71, 1979. Stake, R .E ., "The Countenance of Educational Evaluation," Teacher College Record, 68, pp. 523-540, 1967. 94 Wayland, S ., Structural features o f American education as basic features in its innovation. Innovation in Education, New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia U n ive rsity , pp. 587-613, 1964. APPENDIX A APPENDIX A SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRE Location: Contact: MiSIS Implementor Survey H ello , my name is ________________ from Instru ction al Development and Evaluation Associates, Inc. We are conducting a survey o f MiSIS and PROE Implementors, Users, and Presidents o f the Community College fo r the MiSIS/PROE project a t Westshore Community College. The purpose o f the survey is to determine the state o f the a r t and extent and manner o f data usage so th at we may provide recommenda­ tions fo r change re la tiv e to MiSIS and PROE. The survey w ill take approximately 20-30 minutes. Do you have the time now to complete the survey? Yes - Go to Item 1 No - When could we c a ll back? Day 1. Are you responsible fo r use and implementation? Yes No 2. What is your job position? Guidance counselor Dean o f occupational education Dean o f student services Placement s p e c ia lis t Faculty Data co lle ctio n s p e c ia lis t In s titu tio n a l researcher Other (please specify)____________________ 95 Time 96 Section I : 3. MiSIS (Michigan Student Inform ation System) How would you c la s s ify your ro le in MiSIS? apply) (Check a ll th a t Data c o lle c to r Data organizer Data analyzer Overall adm inistration o f MiSIS process Member o f the statewide MiSIS users committee Member o f the local MiSIS users committee I f yes, is th is a functional committee? Yes No In terview er: The next section w ill ask you a series o f questions about each o f the six MiSIS subsystems. (See page 9 7 .) In terview er: Thus f a r , we have focussed on the subsystems. For the next series o f questions, I 'd lik e you to con­ sider M1SIS in general. 10. Would you b r ie f ly describe the data c o lle c tio n process you fo llo w . (In te rv ie w e r: Break down in to 4-5 major steps) 11. How could the process o f data c o lle c tio n be improved? (In te rv ie w e r: Say "For example, responses to th is question might be:) Fewer data form atting concerns Pre-programmed tab le formals Continuous updates on form changes 0n-s1te Inservice in c o lle c tin g the data A v a ila b ility o f technical assistance by telephone Other (What?) _________________________________________ 12. Does anyone as s is t you in the data c o lle c tio n process? Yes No SHEET A.—MISIS Subsystem Questions Question 1: Subsystem Question 2: Are the same idata collected through any other a c tiv itie s a t your comnunlty college? Do youuse the Subsystem? Question 3: Using a 4 pt. scale where 1 * very often A 4 = hardly ever, how often do you collect this Information? Question 4: Using a 4 p t. scale where 1 = very easy and 4 - very hard, how d if f ic u lt or troublesome is I t to collect this Information? Student's Educational Intent Yes No Yes No 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Withdrawal Follow-Up Yes No Yes No 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Non-Returning Student Follow-Up Yes No Yes No 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 IV. Graduate Follow-Up Yes NO Yes No 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 V. Employer Follow-Up Yes No Yes No 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Continuing Education Follow-Up Yes No Yes No 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 I. II. III. V I. SHEET B.—MISIS Subsystem Questions Stem: Using a 4 p t. scale where 1 = very easy and 4 = very hard, how d if f ic u lt or troublesome Is i t to: Subsystem I. II. Student's Educational Intent Question 5: Administer In­ strumentation to appropriate group in person 1 2 3 4 Question 6: Administer the Instrumentation to the appropriate group by mail Don't Ask Very easy Very hard Question 7: Prepare the data for processing (code the data) Question 8: Determine the best way to analyze the data 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Question 9: Set a high re­ sponse rate (over 50%) to surveys Don't Ask Very easy Very hard Withdrawal Follow-Up Don't Ask Non-Returning Student Follow-Up Don't Ask 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 IV. Graduate Follow-Up Don't Ask 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 V. Employer Follow-Up Don't Ask 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Continuing Education Follow-Up Don't Ask 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 III. V I. 98 12. (Continued) I f yes, what are th e ir positions? Guidance counselor In s titu tio n a l researcher Placement s p e c ia lis t Other data co lle ctio n sp ecialists Other (please specify)_________________________________ 13. I ’m going to read a l i s t o f potential areas o f technical a s s is t­ ance. Please indicate with a yes or no i f technical assistance in each area would be beneficial to you. Administration o f MiSIS instruments Organization of MiSIS d ata/resu lts Inservice in the use o f MiSIS rata co lle ctio n forms Inservice in the uses o f each j t the six MiSIS subsystems Using MiSIS information to complete VEDS reporting requirements Inservice in general survey methodology Inservice in state and federal student information reporting requirements Using input from the User Committee Inservice in report w ritin g based upon MiSIS data. Are there any other areas in which you would find technical assistance helpful?__________________________________________ 14. I f you were to be provided technical assistance in these areas, how would you p refer to receive the technical assistance? Check a ll th at apply. Phone contact On-site v is it Regional conference on a sp ecific technical assistance topic Information pamphlets S e lf-in s tru c tio n a l guides Other (sp ecify) ________________________________________ 15. Using a 4 point scale where 1 = very easy and 4 = very d i f f i ­ c u lt, please rate the following items 1 2 1 2 3 3 4 Ease o f understanding MiSIS forms 4 Ease o f completing MiSIS forms 99 1 2 1 2 16. 3 3 4 4 Ease o f respondent's understanding MiSIS forms Ease of respondent's completing MiSIS forms What part o f the MiSIS system is most useful? (In terview er: Present the following as prompts--do not present as options) Getting information needed to comply with VED's reporting requirements Establishing a data base of enrollment and follow-up for internal use Provides a standardized format fo r data allowing com­ munity colleges to share th is information The technical assistance availab le Other 17. What part of the MiSIS system is le a s t useful? Dependency on central processing Lack o f a b ilit y to in d iv id u a lize type o f data collected Too much work in form preparation fo r processing The format o f the data returned is not useful to our in s titu tio n Other 18. Is there anything else you wish to add about the MiSIS system? Section I I Interview er: 19. The fin a l section o f th is survey asks some general information questions. Does your community college have an individual who performs a research function? Yes No I f yes, does th is person assist in MiSIS studies? 100 19. Continued In what capacity? Designing analysis plans Data co llectio n Data coding/editing In te rp re ta tio n of results Running the computer Report w ritin g Other (sp ecify) _________ 20. Has your community college developed computer programs to be used with Yes No I f yes, what do they do? What language are they w ritten in? Would you be w illin g to share th is program with other com­ munity colleges? Yes No Can you id e n tify a person knowledgeable about th is program? Yes No 21. Who? Name ____________________________ Phone_____________________________ Can you id e n tify a person in your community college knowledge­ able about the data processing c a p a b ilitie s you have? Yes No Who? Name ____________________________ Phone __________ That completes the survey. As we indicated, we w ill also be in te r ­ viewing the President o f your community college. Is there any information in terms o f MiSIS on what you are doing with them which you feel would be beneficial fo r the President to be aware of? Thank you fo r your time. 102 Location: Contact: MiSIS User Survey Hellow, my name is from Instructional Develop­ ment and Evaluation Associates, Inc. We are conducting a survey o f MiSIS and PROE Users, Implementors, and community college Presidents fo r the MiSIS/PROE Project a t Westshore Community College. The purpose o f the survey is to determine the state o f the a r t and extent and manner o f data usage so we may provide recommendations fo r change re la tiv e to MiSIS and PROE. The survey w ill take approximately 20 minutes. Do you have the time now to complete the survey? Yes - Go to Item 1 No - When could we c a ll you back? Date 1. Time What is your position? Guidance counselor Dean o f occupational education Dean o f student services Placement s p e c ia lis t Faculty Department chairperson Other (please specify)_________________________________ 2. Using a four point scale where 1 = very often and 4 = not at a l l , how often do you use information from each o f the six MiSIS subsystems in decision making? In a d d itio n , indicate who uses each subsystem (what p o s itio n ). Position Student's educational in te n t Student withdrawal follow-up Non-returning student follow-up Graduate follow-up Employer follow-up Continuing education follow-up _______________________ _______________________ _______________________ _______________________ _______________________ _______________________ 3. What other types o f information do you use in decision-making processes? a. b. c. d. e. 4. Do you use MiSIS to complete the VED's (Vocational Education Data System) reporting fo r enrollment and follow-up data? Yes No Were you aware MiSIS could be used th is way? Yes No Is there a p a rtic u la r rea­ son i t has not been used th is way? 5. Which VED's surveys? a. b. _____________________________ c. d. _____________________________ Is i t easy to use MiSIS fo r th is way? Yes No How could i t be improved? There are several ways in which MiSIS could be used. I'd lik e you to indicate with a yes or no whether you use MiSIS fo r these purposes now and i f you w ill use MiSIS th is way in the future? In the Future Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes No Career counseling with students Id e n tifyin g needed student services and instru ction al enhancement a c tiv itie s In s titu tio n a l planning and program evaluations Student recruitment In s titu tio n a l research Community public relatio n s Labor market information College promotion a c tiv itie s Communications with local occupational advisory committees Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes No 104 In the Future Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No Communications with accred itation v is it teams Producing information fo r students as educational consumers Development o f cu rricu la Promoting communications among adminis­ tra tio n and fa c u lty Id e n tifyin g special needs o f students Determination o f employment success o f students in n o n -traditio n al occupations Cost effectiveness studies Formulating college p o licies andguidelines Communication and sharing o f data among colleges Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No 6. Are there any ways I haven't mentioned th a t you use MiSIS? 7. Does your college have a local MiSIS User's committee? Yes No ■1 What are the positions of the people on it? a * _______________________________________________________ b. ________________________________________ c. ________________________________________ d. Are you on th is committee? Yes No 8. How do you most commonly in te rp re t the data provided by MiSIS fo r use in your decision-making? Do you: In te rp re t the information by yourself In te rp re t the information with the aide o f a research department In te rp re t the information with the aide o f the local User's committee Someone else in te rp re ts the data and provides me with the results Other (s p e c ify )__________________________________________ 105 9. Considering the MiSIS data, how would you ra te the data you receive according to: a. U t i l i t y o f the data b. Completeness o f the data c. Ease o f understanding the data Very Useful 1 2 Very Complete 1 2 Very Easy 1 2 3 3 3 Useless 4 Incomplete 4 Very Hard 4 10. Consider the MiSIS printouts you receive. Do the printouts provide you with the complete information you need? Yes No Are the printouts understandable? Yes No Would the data be more useful to you i f i t was provided in another form? Yes No 11. Approximately how long does i t take fo r you to receive the compiled MiSIS resu lts a f te r you submit the data? months weeks days Is th is "turn-around time" adequate? Yes No Would you be able to make more use o f the MiSIS data i f the "turn-around time" was shorter? Yes - - What would be the optimal "turn-around time"? NO months weeks days 12. There are many areas in which technical assistance could be provided fo r the MiSIS system. Indicate with a yes or no i f I t would be useful to you to receive technical assistance or information in the areas. 106 12. Continued. Response 13. In te rp re ta tio n o f data Ways to use information Program planning based on MiSIS data Presentation/form at of data Use o f MiSIS in conjunction with PROE Inservice in one or more o f the subsystems Which ones? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No Overseeing the implementation o f MiSIS Developing presentations based on MiSIS Other (specifyj___________________________ Yes Yes No No What would be the best way to provide the technical assistance (ask only i f respondent said yes to one or more options from #12 ). S ta ff inservice Telephone consultation On-site technical assistance v is it Statewide conference o f MiSIS Users Regional workshops Other (specifyj_________________________________________ 14. Consider the various ways which you use, or would lik e to use, the MiSIS data. I'm going to l i s t some tabulation or tabula­ tion related p o s s ib ilitie s . I would lik e you to indicate i f these would be useful to you or not. Frequency analysis o f data Cross tabulation o f data (explain) Typewritten copies o f tables as opposed to computer printouts Special data runs fo r: targeted impact groups targeted reading audiences Longitudinal analyses comparing results from one term or semester to a previous one 15. Are you responsible fo r w ritin g reports based on data? Yes No Who is?_____________________________ 107 15. Continued I f yes, who are the reports prepared for? a. b. ______________________________________ c. I f yes, have you had any problems w ritin g the reports? Describe. 16. Are there individuals and/or departments w ithin your community college not cu rren tly using MiSIS results whom you believe would b en efit from its use? Your answer should not be lim ite d to Occupational Education. Yes — Who? No — Why? _____________________________________________ Section I I : Interview er: 17. General Questions The fin a l section o f th is survey w ill be questions of a general nature. Is the primary purpose o f the computer/data processing system a t your community college? Administrative Instructional Both 18. Do you have p r io r ity access fo r data processing and computer analysis? Yes No, secondary access 19. Is the computer system a t your community college adequate fo r your use? Yes No No computer 20. Do you give any results or information regarding MiSIS to: Faculty Students 108 20. Continued Board o f Trustees Advisory Committee Community Michigan Department o f Education Other community colleges President o f the college Other (Who?) ___________________ I f yes, what information? Why? Information only To get feedback For decision-making purposes Other (s p e c ify ) _________________________________ Which o f these groups has the greatest impact on your decision-making processes? 21. Is the inform ation produced by MiSIS and PROE in te r-re la te d fo r use in decision-making? Yes No - - 22. Have you ever trie d ? Yes ____ No Does your community college perform aresearch function? Yes No I f yes, is i t on: A local level Regional level C e n tra l/s ta te level Other (please specify) ___________________________________ I f lo c a l, what re la te d resources do you have fo r research/data processing? Our community college does it s owndata processing/research An agreement with a K-12 system An agreement with a service bureau 109 22. Continued Our own computer system fo r Mi SIS/PROE No process--hand tab u latio n 23. Would i t be useful to have your own computer system fo r MiSIS/PROE data analysis? Yes No 24. Can you id e n tify a person in your community college knowledge­ able about the data processing c a p a b ilitie s you have? Yes No Who? __________________________________ Phone __________________________________ Is there anything we have not asked you th a t you would lik e to add about MiSIS or PROE? That completes the survey. As we in d ica te d , we w ill also be in t e r ­ viewing the President o f your community co lleg e. Is there any inform ation in terms o f MiSIS or PROE or what you are doing with them which you feel would be b en eficial fo r the President to be aware of? Thank you fo r your time. 110 Location: Contact: MiSIS and PROE Project Community College President Survey H ello, my name is from Instructional Develop­ ment and Evaluation Associates, Inc. We are conducting a survey o f community colleges to determine the state o f the a r t and extent and manner o f data usage so we may provide recommendation fo r change re la tiv e to MiSIS and PROE. The survey w ill take approximately 15 minutes. Do you have the time now to complete the survey? Yes - Go to Item 1 No - when could we c a ll youback? Time Date 1. Are you aware of what the Michigan Student Information System (MiSIS) is? Yes - Go to Item 2 No - I f no, read the following then go to Item 2. The Michigan Student Information System is a system fo r co llectin g information from or about a. b. c. d. e. f. 2. A student's education in te n t Students who have withdrawn from a course or program Students who complete courses but do not return fo r additional work Graduate follow-up data Employers follow-up data Continuing education follow-up data Using a 4 point scale where 1 = very important and 4 = not at a ll important, how important is i t to your community college to have data concerning: Very Important a. A student's education in te n t 1 b. Students who have withdrawn from courses or programs 1 Not a t a ll Important 2 2 3 4 3 4 m 2. Continued. Very Important 3. c. Non-returning students 1 2 3 4 d. Graduate follow -up 1 2 3 4 e. Employer follow -up 1 2 3 4 f. Continuing education follow -up 1 2 3 4 Using a 4 point scale where 1 = t o t a lly conmitted and 4 * not a t a ll committed, how committed is your community college to: T o ta lly Commi tted 4. Not a t a ll Important Not a t a ll Commi tted a. Using student follow-up data 1 2 3 4 b. In s titu tio n a liz in g MiSIS as a student follow -up system 1 2 3 4 What type o f computer f a c i l i t i e s does your community college have? Large main-frame computer Mini-computers Micro-computers Other (s p e c ify )__________ I d on 't know 5. IJsinga4 point scale where 1 = very e f f ic ie n t and 4 = very in e f f ic ie n t please in d icate how e f f ic ie n t each o f the follow ing data processing/analysis schemes would be. Very E ffic ie n t a. Designing a system fo r MiSIS data processing/analysis which could be used on your c o lle g e 's central computer b. Having an independent hard­ ware/software system designed exclu sively fo r use with the MiSIS system c. Using a service bureau external to your community college Very In e ffic ie n t 112 6. I'm going to l i s t some p o te n tial types o f data analysis which could be provided based on MiSIS data. Using a 4 point scale where 1 = very useful and 4 = not a t a l l u s e fu l, please in d i­ cate how b en eficial each type o f data analysis would be re la tiv e to your decision-making needs. Very Useful a. Frequency analysis o f data 1 2 3 4 b. Cross-tabulation o f data (ex p la in ) 1 2 3 4 c. Special data runs fo r - ta rg e t impact groups - targeted reading audiences 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 Longitudinal analysis comparing re su lts from one term or semester to a previous one 1 2 3 4 Comparing answers to s im ila r questions from d iffe r e n t surveys 1 2 3 4 d. e. 6a. Not a t A ll Useful There are several ways in which the MiSIS resu lts could be presented. From the three options lis te d below, please id e n tify the format which you would fin d most useful. Computer p rintouts only Prepared tables w ith n a rra tiv e Short summary h ig h lig h tin g key findings 7. There are many areas in which technical assistance could be provided to MiSIS Users. For the l i s t I am about to read, please in d icate w ith a yes o r no i f you believe o ffe rin g technical assistance in each area would b e tte r enable your community college to use MiSIS. Area Response In te rp re ta tio n o f data Yes No Ways to use information Yes No Program planning based on MiSIS data Yes No Presentation/form at o f data Yes No Use o f MiSIS in conjunction w ith PROE Yes No Overseeing the implementation o f MiSIS Yes No Area Response Developing presentations based on MiSIS Yes No Other (sp ecify)_________________________ Yes No What would be the best way to provide the technical assistance (ask only i f respondent said yes to one or more options from #7). S ta ff inservice Telephone consultation On-site technical assistance v is it Statewide conference of MiSIS Users Regional workshops Other (sp ec ify)_________________________________________ 9. I ' * going to read a l i s t of ways In which the Information provided by the MISTS system could be used. For each Item on the l i s t , I would lik e you to t e ll me with a yes or no, I f 1t would be useful to use the Information In this way. I f your answer Is yes, I would lik e you to Indicate who you would use the Information with. Type of Information_________________________ Information Useful? Identifying needed students services and Instructional enhancement a c tiv itie s Yes No b. Community public relations Yes No c. Labor market Information Yes No d. Covaunlcatlons with local occupational advisory coanlttees Yes No Comnunlcatlons with accreditation v is it terms Yes No f. Identifying special needs of students Yes No g. Determination of employment success of students 1n non-tradltional occupations Yes No h. Cost effectiveness studies Yes No 1. Formulating college policies (guidelines Yes No j. Coamunlcation and sharing of data among colleges Yes No Yes No e. k. For use In presentations to the leg is­ lature fo r appropriation requests Comnunlty Other Who? 114 a. With who? {check I f yes) Appropriation Board of Hearing Legislation Trustees HOE 115 10. Are you aware of what the Program Review in Occupational Education (PROE) is? Yes - Go to Item 11. No - Read below and then go to Item 11. Program Review in Occupational Education (PROE) is part o f an evaluation system designed fo r community colleges. PROE asks the people involved with occupational education a t a college how they feel about th e ir program. Faculty, students, and advisory committee members are asked to provide th e ir percep­ tions about an occupational program on a questionnaire. Compilations o f these perceptions become a PROFILE o f the occupational program a t the college. 11. Using a 4 point scale where 1 = very valuable and 4 = useless, how valuable do you believe a program such as PROE is? 1 12. 13. 2 3 4 I'm going to read a l i s t o f possible ways to use the informa­ tion from PROE. I would lik e you to indicate with a yes or no i f you would fin d using information from PROE fo r these pur­ poses b eneficial fo r you in your role as c h ie f adm inistrator of the community college. a. Changes fo r program improvement Yes No b. Determine resource requirements andallocatio ns c. Future directions fo r occupational education Yes No d. S ta ff re s p o n s ib ility reorganization Yes No Yes No I'm going to l i s t some potential areas of technical assistance which might enhance a community co lleg e's a b ilit y to use PROE. I would lik e you to indicate with a yes or no i f you believe technical assistance in these areas would enhance your communit y co lleg e's a b ilit y to use PROE. a. In te rp re ta tio n o f PROE results fo r your campus Yes No b. Inservice in setting up a PROE evaluation Yes No c. How to plan using PROE results Yes No d. Developing presentations based on PROE results Yes No e. Using PROE in conjunction with MiSIS Yes No f. Other (sp ecify) Yes No 116 14. What would be the best way to provide the technical assistance? (Ask only i f respondent said yes to one or more options from #14). Regional workshops S ta ff inservice Telephone conversation On-site technical assistance v is it Statewide conference o f M1SIS Users Other (sp ec ify)_________________________________________ 15. Does your community college have an evaluation system sim ilar to PROE? I f no, would one be b eneficial a. 16. The general education/ tra n s fe r area Yes No Yes No b. Continuing education Yes No Yes No c. Community service area Yes No Yes No Is the primary purpose o f the computer data processing system a t your community college Administrative Instructional Both 17. Is there anything else you would lik e to add about MiSIS or PROE? Other general comments? That concludes our survey. Thank you fo r your time. 117 Location: Contact: Data Processing Questionnaire H ello , my name is ____________ _ _ from Instructional Development and Evaluation Associates, Inc. We were given your name by at your community college as an individual knowledgeable about the data processing c a p a b ilitie s o f your community college. The in fo r­ mation you provide w ill assist us in a f e a s ib ility study we are conducting fo r Westshore Community College re la tiv e to MiSIS and PROE. Do you have a few minutes to answer our questions? Yes No - When would be a good time to c a ll back? To Item 1 Diy 1. Time How is the data processing function a t your community college performed? Through an agreement with a K-12 system Through our own central computer Through an agreement with an external service bureau Computers are not used;all data are hand-tabulated Individual departments or programs do th e ir own data processing on micro-computers Other (please specify)___________________________________ 2. I f your community college does not have a data processing c a p a b ility would i t be beneficial? Yes No 3. Are the computers a t your community college used p rim arily fo r: Administrative purposes Instructional purposes Both 4. What types o f data processing a c tiv itie s occur a t your com­ munity college? What are the results used for? 5. What type o f computer system does your community college have fo r data processing? Large main-frame computer - What type? __________________ Mini-computer - What type? ______________________________ 118 5. Continued Micro-computer - What type? ___________________________ _ Other (please specify) _________________________________ 6. How much CPU (RAM - Random Access Memory) does the computer have? Below 16K 16-32K 33-48K 49-64K 65-128K Above 118K - How much? ________________ 7. What type o f data storage system does your computer u tiliz e ? Cassette tape 5 V floppy disk 8" floppy disk Hard disk Magneti.c tape Other (please specify) __________________________________ 8. How much data storage space (user bytes) do you have? Below 1 megabyte 1-2 megabytes 3-10 megabytes 11-15 megabytes 16-20 megabytes 20-30 megabytes Above 30 megabytes 9. What type o f programming language is u tiliz e d by your computer? BASIC COBOL FORTRAN PYI CBM Others (sp ecify) ________________________________________ 10. Is your computer Asynchronous Bisynchronous Both 119 11. Who does your programming when sp ecialized software is needed? Community college s t a f f External consultant Other (s p e c ify ) ________________________________________ 12. Does your community college haveany "canned" programs? SPSS - S ta tis tic a l Package fo r Social Sciences) (Ex: Yes No Don't Know I f yes, what is the name and function? 13. Are micro-computers (Radio Shack, Apple, PET) used in cla ss­ room instruction? Yes No I f yes, what type? Radio Shack Apple PET A tari Commodore Other (s p e c ify ) ____________________________ 14. Does your community college have a s ta tis tic ia n on s t a f f to a s s is t in data a n a ly s is /in te rp re ta tio n ? Yes No Is there any other information re la tiv e to Data Processing you feel would be b e n e fic ia l fo r us to know? Yes No What? 120 15. Given your current hardware, software, and resources a v a ila b le , would you be able to process an additional 10,000 forms 3 times a year fo r the MiSIS Project? Yes No — What would i t take to be able to do this? 16. Do you have any other comments re la tiv e to data processing, computer hardware, computer software, or the MiSIS/PROE Project? That concludes the survey. Thank you fo r your time. APPENDIX B APPENDIX B MiSIS DEVELOPMENTAL ACTIVITIES Development o f the Evaluation System Michigan conmunity colleges were faced with a s ig n ific a n t re s p o n s ib ility to perform q u a lita tiv e and q u a n tita tiv e evaluation of th e ir vocational education programs with no evaluation system in place. In the spring o f 1978, a steering committee was formed comprised o f three community college presidents and six occupa­ tional deans to work cooperatively with Michigan Department o f Education s ta ff to develop an evaluation process th at would meet the federal requirements, but maintain the local autonomy enjoyed by Michigan's public community colleges. The steering committee members were: Community College Personnel Dr. Charles Corrigan D irector o f Vocational Education Mid Michigan Community College Dr. R. Ernest Dear President Gogebic Community College Mr. Clovis Ferguson, Dean Occupational Education Northwestern Michigan College Dr. Andrew Mazzara Dean o f Career Development Henry Ford Community College Mr. Arnold Metz, Dean Vocational-Technical Education St. C la ir Community College Mr. Thaddeus Diebel Dean o f Applied Sciences Schoolcraft College 121 122 Dr. Gunder Myran President Washtenaw Community College Dr. W illiam Yankee President Northwestern Michigan Col lege Dr. Robert S teely, Dean Applied Arts & Sciences Kellogg Community College Michigan Department o f Education S ta ff Mr. Bruce Blanding Dr. Charles K iefer Mr. James Folkening Dr. John Shanahan The steering committee met and reviewed av ailab le informa­ tio n regarding evaluation processes being used in other states with well developed community college systems. Community college evalua­ tio n processes which appeared to be most developed and comparable were in C a lifo rn ia , Colorado, F lo rid a , I l l i n o i s , and Texas. The steering committee divided into s ite v is ita tio n teams of three or four in d ivid u als. Advance arrangements were made with local and state personnel in each state to ensure comprehensive representa­ tio n . The meetings were designed to provide opportunities fo r discussion and questions, observations of certain f a c i li t i e s and p ractices, and a f u ll and open assessment o f the strengths and weaknesses o f each approach. The fiv e states were v is ite d in the summer o f 1978 and were cooperative in supplying forms, manuals, handbooks, samples o f studies, and samples o f the outcomes o f th e ir processes. In August o f 1978, a fte r the v is ita tio n s were completed, the steering com­ m ittee reconvened and reviewed the results of th e ir v is ita tio n s 123 and id e n tifie d perceived strengths and weaknesses of each system. Among the strengths observed in the v is its were: voluntary components with mandated parts se lf-e va lu a tio n using s e lf-te s te d forms single curriculum seen as part o f whole vocational program q u a lita tiv e data held w ithin each p a rtic ip a tin g college compliance with federal requirements provides ca taly st fo r change provides data fo r other agencies clear expectations and well organized f le x ib il it y provides both state and college q u a n titative data comprehensive fo r community college use Among the weaknesses observed in the v is its were: in s u ffic ie n t provision fo r continuing policy level decisions use o f perceptions instead o f data based requires data processing equipment processes too paper oriented data comparative with other community colleges on a rated base cumbersome domination by state agency While no single state provided a model which could be adopted, the committee agreed th at s u ffic ie n t research and develop­ ment had been done in many cases to provide adaptation of many components. The experiences gained by the state v is its c la r ifie d the nature of the evaluation process in action , id e n tifie d certain strengths, and provided a philosophical and practical base fo r Michigan's system development. From its experience, research, and perspective, the steering committee formulated a set of princip les to guide the development and implementation o f a se lf-e va lu a tio n system fo r community college 124 occupational education programs in Michigan. The guiding Principles were delineated as follows: Local Focus local in it ia t io n o f the process local adm inistration o f the a c tiv ity q u a n tita tiv e and q u a lita tiv e data gathering and study self-stud y with voluntary valid atio n individual program oriented outcomes av ailab le as a tool fo r a management plan fo r action State Focus q u a n titative data aggregated fo r reporting purposes on state level coordination o f data gathering to avoid duplication provision fo r a continuing committee a t the policy level made up o f users o f the system Evaluation System Components Four components were id e n tifie d by the steering committee as being necessary fo r a comprehensive local evaluation system fo r occupational education programs in Michigan community colleges. Student flow would deal with the chronological path of the student through an in s titu tio n . The information should include: (1) student in te n t (academic goals, career goals, and recruitment d a ta ); (2) market analysis (community inform ation, i . e . , job needs, employment o p p o rtu n ities); (3) enrollment information ( a t t r it i o n , leavers, drop-outs, c re d it hour information-course-program); and (4) follow-up inform ation. in at le a s t two categories: The outcome should include information day/n1ght by enrollment period and student demographic data ( i . e . , age, race, sex, handicap, economic status, in te n t), and follow-up information which would include 125 student follow -up by program, enrollment period, student in te n t achievement (educational/occupational) , and follow -up on employer. The student flow system would incorporate the data elements mandated by the Vocational Education Data System and would probably be s im ila r to the TEX SIS model or C a lifo rn ia 's SAM model. The Texas Student Information System (TEX SIS) is a survey based student information system designed fo r community colleges to use in gathering student enrollment inform ation. C a lifo rn ia 's Student A ccountability Model (SAM) is a computerized enrollm ent system u t iliz in g the concept o f student enrollment in an id e n tifie d c r i t i c a l course as an indice to determine th a t in d iv id u a l's educa­ tio n al goal being id e n tifia b le in a s p e c ific educational program. Program Evaluation should be accomplished by designing a system, along with supporting documentation, to measure the ade­ quacy o f curriculum content and methods, personnel, f a c i l i t i e s , equipment, supplies, ad m in istratio n , and any other areas normally reviewed in program evaluation systems. This system should be geared to in s titu tio n a l s e lf-s tu d y s im ila r in nature to a North-Central A ccreditation study, COPES, or other se lf-s tu d y systems. The Community College Occupational Program Evaluation System (COPES) developed in C a lifo rn ia fo r use by the community colleges is a perception based process fo r evaluating the e ffe c tiv e ­ ness o f occupational education programs. Financial analysis should be accomplished by designing a system fo r id e n tify in g program /credit/course/student costs and co rrelated resource requirements. Major considerations would 126 include: (1) cost/revenue and sources, (2) program c a p a b ility , (3) a lte rn a tiv e instru ction al processes, and (4) f a c i l i t y u t i l i ­ zation subsystems and should include: (a) am ortization o f equip­ ment, ( b} cost b en efit analysis, and (c) cost e ffic ie n c y . Management plan would be an analysis planning management system incorporating the results o f student flow , program evalua­ tio n , and fin a n c ia l analysis into a policy analysis mode. Existing management plans would be reviewed and stretegies fo r change would be selected to achieve appropriate new p o lic ie s . Development of an analysis, planning, and development system should include: (1) policy analysis, (2) planning (including goal settin g to pro­ gram le v e l), (3) management (implementation), and (4) evaluation (measuring success o f the management plan). The Michigan Community College Occupational Education Evaluation System (MCCOEES) which evolved from the preceding con­ sists of the following subsystems: Michigan Student Information System is a series of data co lle ctio n instruments (with technical and computer support) s p e c ific a lly designed to f u l f i l l many informational needs o f student enrollment and follow-up in Michigan community colleges. Program Review in Occupational Education is a consistent, f le x ib le , self-stu d y model based on perceptive data from fa c u lty , students, and ad­ visory committee members to be used as a tool in evaluating occupational programs. A c tiv ity C las sifica tio n Structure is designed to aid in the co lle ctio n o f uniform and comparable fin a n c ia l data in Michigan community colleges. This system enables the community colleges to c o lle c t and report fin a n c ia l data and to use comparison methods fo r decision-making purposes. 127 Manager includes (1 ) development o f c r it e r ia fo r evaluating occupational education programs from an in s titu tio n a l perspective, (2) creating a process fo r synthesizing, summarizing, analyzing, and in te rp re tin g inform ation obtained from the previous three systems and other appropriate sources to be used as a basis fo r evalu ation , (3) establishing guidelines fo r local decision-making which would a s s is t in processing inform ation, ex­ amining in s titu tio n a l and individual values, iden­ t if ic a t io n o f a lte rn a tiv e s tra te g ie s , selecting a s p e c ific stra te g y , and implementing the selected s trate g y , and (4) id e n tify in g p o tential strateg ies which may be selected and recommending methods fo r support services to make these strategies a v a ila b le . Development o f MiSIS The Michigan Student Information System was developed as a part o f the o verall Michigan Community College Occupational Educa­ tio n Evaluation System. The Michigan Student Information System conforms to the student flow component o f the evaluation system. A Student Flow subcommittee was formed during the 1978-1979 academic year to develop the student flow component in to a complete system. Members o f the student flow subcommittee during the development o f the Michigan Student Information System were: Bruce Blanding S a lly Goodwin Toni Hall Nancy Jobe Charles K iefer Mark Marciniak Frank Marczak Sam Mazman Arnold Metz Arthur Oettmeier Gene Packwood Jim Reed Daniel Sauter W illiam Yankee Michigan Department o f Education Henry Ford Community College TEX SIS Support Services Michigan Department o f Education Michigan Department o f Education Delta College Muskegon Community College Westshore Community College St. C la ir Community College Delta College Delta College TEX SIS Support Services Southeastern Michigan League o f Community Colleges Northwestern Michigan College 128 MiSIS Components The resu ltin g Michigan Student Information System incor­ porates 13 survey instruments into six d is tin c t subsystems. The Michigan Student Information System is complete with manuals, brochures, and other supporting documentation. Technical a s s is t­ ance and cen tralized data processing are av ailab le and most of the colleges use both. The six subsystems incorporated in the Michigan Student Information System are the (1) Student Educational In te n t, (2) Withdrawal Follow-up, (3) Non-Returning Student Follow-up, (4) Graduate Follow-up, (5) Employer Follow-up, and (6) Continuing Education Follow-up. Student Educational In te n t is a subsystem consisting o f a card designed to gather information about the student's educational goal. The card is designed to be used during the co lleg e's reg is­ tra tio n process; the intended population being a ll registerin g students. Information collected includes: (a) student id e n t i f i ­ catio n , (b) sex and ethnic data, (c) reason(s) fo r attending, (d) educational goal, (e) program major, and ( f ) special a s s is t­ ance items. Information collected on the Student Enrollment Intent card can be processed to produce student p ro file s o f enrollment and serve as baseline data fo r la te r id e n tify in g leaver populations. Withdrawal Follow-up 1s a subsystem consisting o f three separate surveys: (a) course withdrawal, (b) college withdrawal, and (c) w a lk -o ff. The withdrawal follow-up subsystem co lle cts information about a t t r it io n a t the time the student leaves. The course withdrawal survey is a card designed to be completed as the 129 student form ally drops a course; i t gathers data id e n tify in g the reasons fo r the student's withdrawal from th at course. Also in card form, the college withdrawal survey is designed to be com­ pleted by a student who is form ally dropping a ll courses a t the college. The in te n t is to gather data id e n tifyin g the reasons fo r the student's withdrawal from the college. F in a lly , the w alk-o ff survey is a card, designed to be mailed, to gather withdrawal data from students who stop attending a course but who do not form ally withdraw. While the course and college withdrawal surveys can be conducted by a single person usually located in the re g is tra r's o ffic e , the w a lk -o ff survey requires individual fa c u lty id e n t i f i ­ cation of the student. In colleges which do not maintain attend­ ance records, th is la s t survey cannot be conducted. Non-Returning Student Follow-up is a subsystem consisting o f two surveys: (1) non-returning student survey and (b) occupa­ tio n a l/te c h n ic a l non-returning student survey. Both surveys are printed on 8% x 11 paper and may be e ith e r folded and mailed or placed in envelopes fo r m ailing. The surveys are designed to c o lle c t data from students who enroll fo r a sp ecific period and then do not return in subsequent enrollment periods. The non-re­ turning student survey may be used with a ll program majors and the occupational/technical non-returning student survey is speci­ f i c a ll y designed to c o lle c t information from students who were occupational/technical majors. The non-returning student follow-up subsystem gathers information about student's reasons fo r not 130 returning, what a c tiv itie s those students may be cu rren tly engaged in , and employment data when applicable. Graduate Follow-up is a subsystem consisting o f three separate surveys: graduate—5. (a) g ra d u a te --l, (b) graduate— 3, and (c) The graduate follow-up subsystem c o lle c ts information from students who have completed community college programs. All three surveys are printed on 8*a x 11 paper and are designed fo r m ailing. The graduate— 1 survey is designed to be mailed to stu­ dents the year a fte r they graduate; the graduate—3 is designed to be mailed to students three years a fte r they have graduated; the graduate—5 is designed to be mailed to students fiv e years a fte r they have graduated. The surveys gather information on the employment success o f graduates and allow fo r longitudinal com­ parisons of selected populations. Employer Follow-up is a subsystem consisting o f h a lf sheets designed to c o lle c t information from employers of students who were enrolled in or completed a program offered by the college. The survey instrument is designed to be mailed to employers as id e n ti­ fie d by student responses on e ith e r the non-returning student follow-up surveys or the graduate follow-up surveys. The employer follow-up survey id e n tifie s the employer's rating o f the employee's work a ttitu d e and technical knowledge, and also measures the em­ ployer's opinion o f the tra in in g received by the employee. Continuing Education Follow-up is a subsystem consisting of three separate surveys: (a) continuing education— preparatory, 131 (b) continuing education— supplemental, and (c) continuing educa­ t io n - o t h e r . All three o f the surveys are printed on cards and may e ith e r be mailed or administered in class. The continuing education--preparatory-survey is designed to gather information fo r federal reporting o f the vocational education; the continuing education-supplemental-survey is designed to gather information about the effectiveness o f selected continuing education courses; the continuing education—other-survey is designed to gather in ­ formation on non-occupationally oriented continuing education courses. Implementation o f MiSIS The Michigan Student Information System USERS Committee was developed from the student flow subcommittee. Additional membership was added to broaden community college representation and type and level o f college adm inistration involved. The 1979-1980 membership o f the Michigan Student Information System USERS Committee consisted o f: R. Ernest Dear John Eaton W illiam Iagleton Lornie Kerr Carol Larson Frank Marczak Sam Mazman Arnold Metz David Munger Gunder Myran Arthur Oettmeier W illiam Rude Mack Seney Harold Sheffer Gogebic Community College West Shore Community College Kirtland Community College Northwestern Michigan College Jackson Community College Muskegon Community College West Shore Community College St. C la ir Community College North Central Community College Washtenaw Community College Delta College State Advisory Council fo r Vocational Education Michigan Department o f Education Jackson Community College 132 Dezo Silagyi Donald Sims Macomb Community College Washtenaw Community College E x-O fficio Bruce Blanding Jim Folkening Nancy Jobe Charles K iefer Jim Reed Toni Hall Betty Finkbeiner Michigan Department o f Education Michigan Department o f Education Michigan Department o f Education Michigan Department o f Education MiSIS Support Services MiSIS Support Services MiSIS Project Director-Washtenaw Community College The role o f the Michigan Student Information System Users Committee was to : (1) provide overall coordination o f MiSIS; (2) guide support services a c t iv it ie s ; (3) assist in the MiSIS pro­ je c t coordination; (4) develop MiSIS policy agreements including those regarding data release issues, system changes, and publica­ tio n s; and (5) assist in the promotion o f the Michigan Student Information System on a statewide basis. The primary objective o f the 1979-1980 Michigan Student Information System implementation e ffo r t was to ensure successful d iffu sio n o f the system thereby providing a c c e s s ib ility to va lid local and state student information fo r state planning and coordi­ nation, le g is la tiv e purposes, improvement o f Michigan community colleges' programs, and other uses. The d iffu sio n e f f o r t was enabled by a grant from the Michigan Department o f Education to Washtenaw Community College which assumed re s p o n s ib ility fo r coordination o f the implementation of the system. The organizational relationships involved in the d iffu sion process included: (1) Michigan Department o f Education who provided 133 leadership in c la r ific a tio n of funding arrangements and federal reporting requirements, (2) Washtenaw Community College which had the re s p o n s ib ility fo r coordination o f the overall implementation o f the system, (3) the MiSIS Support Services which provided data processing and consulting services, and (4) a MiSIS Liaison person at each Michigan community college serving as a lin k between the external functions and the local community college s ta ff who had the re s p o n s ib ility fo r implementing and using the Michigan Student Information System. Each Michigan community college was encouraged through correspondence, presentations, meetings, and college v is its to develop implementation plans at th e ir college and to form alize those plans through the use of an in s titu tio n a l users committee. Diffusion A c tiv itie s E ffo rts to assist Michigan community colleges in the adop­ tio n and use o f the Michigan Student Information System included: (1) regional and statewide meetings, (2) presentations, (3) docu­ ment development, (4) committee meetings, and (5) communications. Regional and statewide meetings. The Michigan Student Information System implementation e ffo rts were served by two levels o f state and regional meetings. A statewide meeting was held at Jackson Community College on November 13, 1979 to introduce the Michigan Student Information System to the designated MiSIS Liaisons from the community colleges. The agenda fo r the meeting included an extensive discussion o f the Michigan Student Information System, 134 it s development, and plans fo r implementation. Four regional meetings were held during the month of A pril 1980 a t four Michigan community colleges. These meetings included discussion o f survey methodology, coding o f questionnaires, the Vocational Education Data System in te rfa c e , and sp ecific concerns of the p artic ip an ts. Presentations. Throughout 1979-1980, presentations were made to organizations and community colleges to raise the awareness level or to s p e c ific a lly tra in s ta f f in the use o f the system. The Michigan Department o f Education s t a ff member assigned to the p ro je c t, Bruce Blanding, made the follow ing presentations: Kalamazoo Valley Community College Southeastern Michigan League o f Community Colleges Michigan Community College Assn. Washtenaw Community College Jackson Community College State Board fo r Public Junior & Community Colleges West Shore Community College Washtenaw Community College Michigan Occupational Deans Adm inistrative Council Northwestern Michigan College North Central Michigan College Alpena Community College Lansing Community College Washtenaw Community College Consortium 8, Plus 2 Macomb Community College Montcalm Community College Delta College St. C la ir Community College September 5, 1979 September 21, 1979 September 28, 1979 October 17, 1979 November 9, 1979 November 20, 1979 November 26, 1979 November 28, 1979 December 13, 1979 December 19, 1979 December 19, 1979 December 20, 1979 January 10, 1980 January 23, 1980 January 24, 1980 February 7, 1980 March 25, 1980 A pril 8 , 1980 A pril 29, 1980 In the spring o f 1980, requests fo r additional information on the Michigan Student Information System increased. Michigan community colleges had become aware o f the system and had begun campus discussions on th e ir respective levels o f p a rtic ip a tio n in 135 the Michigan Student Information System. During th is time and fo r the remainder o f the 1979-1980 academic year, MiSIS Support Services S ta ff, Jim Reed and Toni H a ll, in cooperation with the Washtenaw project d ire c to r, Betty Finkbeiner, conducted college v is ita tio n s as a re s u lt o f requests from individual Michigan community colleges. The v is its are lis te d below: Wayne County Community College Monroe County Community Jackson Community College Bay de Noc Community College K irtland Community College Lansing Community College Delta College Jackson Community College Wayne County Community College Henry Ford Community College Oakland Community College Macomb County Community College Southwestern Michigan College Glen Oaks Community College Northwestern Michigan College Gogebic Community College Alpena Community College Muskegon Community College Grand Rapids Community College West Shore Community College Kalamazoo Valley Community College Jackson Community College Highland Park Community College Schoolcraft College Henry Ford Community College , June 10 , 1980 June 1 1 1980 June 12 , 1980 June 13, 1980 June 16, 1980 June 17, 1980 June 18, 1980 July 9, 1980 July 23, 1980 July 24, 1980 July 25, 1980 August 11 , 1980 August 12 1980 August 13 1980 August 15 1980 August 18 1980 August 20 1980 September 22, 1980 September 2 2 , 1980 September 23, 1980 September 24, 1980 September 24, 1980 September 25, 1980 September 25, 1980 September 26, 1980 The discussions a t the community colleges lis te d above were p rim a rily dependent upon the extent o f the co lleg e's involvement in the system. The v is its were used to (1) introduce college personnel to the system, (2) tra in s ta ff fo r implementation, (3) present in fo r­ mation on data usage, (4) seek solutions to sp ecific implementation problems, and (5) discuss the in te rfac e o f the system with the Vocational Education Data System reporting requirements. 136 Document Development. Documentation o f the Michigan Student Information System included development o f: (a) a brochure, (b) a c tiv itie s manual, (c) procedures manual, (d) data processing manual, (e) enrollment and follow-up reporting guidelines, ( f ) questionnaire packet, and (g) computer programs. The general documentation philosophy presented the Michigan Student Information System a t three d iffe re n t le v e ls . The f i r s t level (the brochure) gives a general overview o f the system with appropriate information included fo r the college adm inistrator to make decisions regarding the depth o f system involvement desired. The second level (the a c tiv itie s manual) presents the actual ques­ tionnaires u tiliz e d by the system fo r college s ta f f to make decisions regarding the usefulness o f the questionnaires in a p a rtic u la r college environment. The th ird level (the procedures manual and the data processing manual) present the system in a more comprehensive manner and can be used as a guide to a c tu a lly implementing the various surveys. Committee Meetings. The MiSIS Users Committee met on two separate occasions during the 1979-1980 academic year. The i n i t i a l meeting was held March 11, 1980 and hosted by Dr. Gunder Myran, President, Washtenaw Community College. The second meeting was held July 10, 1980 and hosted by Mr. Harold Sheffer, President, Jackson Community College. The f i r s t meeting included discussion o f the follow ing: H isto rical review o f MiSIS Current status of MiSIS 137 Role o f the MiSIS Users Committee Establishment o f Subcommittees Statewide uniform coding schemes Future MiSIS funding MiSIS/VEDS guidelines Development o f continuing education questionnaire Data release policy The July 10, 1980 meeting included the follow ing discus­ sions : Subcommittee reports Data Release Policy Agreement P ublication "The Next Step" MiSIS questionnaire changes Report from the Michigan Department o f Education Communications. During the 1979-1980 academic year, active communication w ith local community college personnel was accom­ plished through telephone conversations, le t t e r s , and statewide memoranda. Subjects included in the communications included: I n i t i a l MiSIS implementation a c t iv itie s MiSIS Liaison l i s t development Users committee coordination Survey sp ecificatio n s MiSIS/VEDS in te rfa c e guidelines College v is ita tio n s D iffusion Results The re s u lt o f the d iffu s io n e ffo rts during the 1979-1980 academic year are delineated in the tab le on the follow ing page. A to ta l o f 78 d iffe r e n t surveys were conducted and processed using the Michigan Student Inform ation System. The m ajo rity o f the surveys (44) were student educational in te n t surveys, which may have indicated the i n i t i a l conmitment to using the system. The d iffu s io n process fo r the Michigan Student Information System continued in to the 1980-1981 academic year with the Michigan Continuing Educa­ tion (Other) Continuing Education (Supplemental) Continuing Educa­ tio n (Preparatory) Enployer F ifth Tear Graduate MICHIGAN STUDENT INFORMATION SYSTEM Third Year Graduate F irs t Year Graduate £ OccTech Non-re* turning Student 8 Non-returning Student $ s Halkoff 3 g s College Ulthdraual h M UJ Course Ulthdraual Student's Educational Intent 05 SS 8 - s ss •* o 8 SS| 3 ss i s * > W- p ,o (A iV ' |ID " 88- 3^ I* 13 ^ o S« 3 D iO i: *ia *5 p «a u • *- 3 Si 'V * V 32 5 o oe it 139 Department of Education awarding a grant to West Shore Community College, the successful bidder, to continue the implementation a c t iv it ie s and support services fo r the system. In February o f 1981, West Shore conducted a b r ie f telephone survey o f the 29 Michigan community colleges to determine the level o f current and anticipated usage o f the Michigan Student Informa­ tion System. The survey indicated th at the 13 questionnaires in the system were used by the community colleges to conduct 124 d iffe re n t surveys, with an additional 35 surveys anticipated by the end o f the 1980-1981 academic year. The table on the following page delineates the p a rtic u la r surveys used by each college with the level o f usage indicated. 140 MICHIGAN STUDENT INFORMATION SYSTEM (MISIS) MISIS QUESTIONNAIRE eer*t i / l MICHIGAN COWUNITY COLLEGES K n i ? f f * **■ 9 F I 5? f i f i 5 fir i * 2S’ it 3 * 2 r II 3? t 1 i * Vt B i I I I n o f Kalamazoo Valley Connunity Colleu* K lrtle n d Comnunltv Callepe Lake Mlchloan Col ene Lanilna Comnunltv Colleoe Macomb County Comnunltv College Mid Michigan Comnunltv Colleoe Monroe Countv Community Colleoe Montcalm Comnunltv Colleoe Muskegon Comnunltv Colleoe North Central Michigan Colleoe Northwestern Michigan Colleoe • * 4 4 * * 4 * * 4" 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 * * m If * i a •* 14 1 4 4 * * * • • • 4 4 4 4 4 4 * 4 4 4 4 4 4 + • 4 .4 . 1 4 . ♦ t 4 _ * 4 t 4 4 • * 4 4 4 4 * 4 4 4 4 * 4 4 * 4 4 * • 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 f 4 4 [ ’ 4 4 4 • • 4 4 4 * 4 4 4 4 r 4 4 4 4 ' 4 4 4 4 * ---------------- 4 4 4 4 ___ * 4 4 4 . .4 4 4 4 4 4 4 ♦ . 4 --------------- _ ± — — 4 , "■ — 1— 1 ---------------- ------ TOTALS: Questionnaires c u rre n tly In use Questionnaires to be used •C u rre n tly In us* ♦To b* used 1n near fu tu r* 24 0 12 12 6 3 2 4 13 6 **• 4 * 4 4 4 Schoolcraft Colleoe southwestern Michigan college i t . C la ir County Community Colleae » U £T | f» * » f l r* Alpena Community Col 1*0* Bey d* Moc Conmunity College C. Mott Conmunity College D e lteC p llege Glen oeks conmunity College Gogebic Conmunity College Grend Rapids Junior College Henry Ford Community college Highland Park connunity College I f 1n 7 20 4 3 17 2 i 2 1 2 3 3 4 4 1 i 1 1