HOUSTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE QUALITY ENHANCEMENT PLAN

September 2021
Contents
Executive Summary	1
HCC - Meeting Students Where They Are	2
Identification of the Topic	4
HCC QEP Advisory Council	4
HCC QEP Design Team	9
Institutional Commitment To The Topic	11
Review of Literature	11
Opportunities for Change	14
Personalized Learning Pathways Infrastructure	15
Learning Outcomes	19
Personalized Learning Pathways Logic Model	20
HCC Personalized Learning Pathways Assessment and Evaluation Framework	21
Operating Budget	28
HCC Personalized Learning Pathways Implementation Timeline	30
References	35
Appendices	39
Appendix A: Strategic Plan	40
Appendix B: Student Success Framework	45
Appendix C: Data Review Guiding Questions	46
Appendix D: Personas	47
Appendix E: Change Management Plan	58
Appendix F: Application for Champion	62
Executive Summary
The purpose of the Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) at Houston Community College (HCC) is to improve student success through a Personalized Learning Pathways approach which provides holistic, individualized support for students throughout their journey from initial interest and program enrollment through award completion and future employment or continued education. This QEP will focus on implementing the Personalized Learning Pathways framework from student entry through the first
15 credits. The identification of the final topic arose from a process involving stakeholders across the College’s campuses in discussion and focus groups. The result aligns with HCC’s mission to serve its diverse communities with strategic focus on student success, and personalized learning.
Through its institutional analysis of data and deliberations among stakeholders, the College brought to light inequities in outcomes present from the start of students’ journeys. In consideration of the root cause, the College identified two problems: first, Houston Community College’s system does not proactively identify student needs/challenges and provide corresponding support; second, Houston Community College students do not get consistent and accurate information to help them make effective decisions.
To address these issues, the QEP encompasses a holistic approach to support student success that empowers all College employees to assist students by creating Personalized Learning Pathways, fostering a culture of respect and inclusion, increasing communication across faculty and staff lines, and identifying student needs and challenges to develop their strengths from an asset perspective. Activities arise from four areas of strategic focus: 1) student advising and engagement strategies, 2) a comprehensive professional development plan for faculty and staff, 3) alignment and integration of data
and information systems, and 4) implementation of coordinated interventions. The proposed plan utilizes HCC’s student persona matrix to think more systematically about student-centered design and the types of supports that may be necessary to meet specific student needs. A cornerstone of this approach is that students should be active participants; thus, a key activity for students is development of a Personalized Education Plan (PEP) in which students will create their own journey map based on personal, academic, and career interests.
Building on its work with the Guided Pathways movement, Complete College America, and Achieving the Dream, Houston Community College is well-positioned to extend its student success mission by empowering students to become active participants in their own educational and career development. Through Personalized Learning Pathways, HCC seeks to meet students where they are and support them in where they want to go.
Houston Community College Meeting Students Where They Are

Houston Community College (HCC) was created in 1971 by referendum vote. Originally established under the governance of the Houston Independent School District, it was made independent in 1989 and given its own elected Board of Trustees. In 1992, HCC was restructured into a multi-college system. Today, in its 50th year, more than 2.2 million students have improved their lives through education and training
at HCC, guided by its mission to offer “a high-quality, affordable education for academic advancement, workforce training, career development, and lifelong learning to prepare individuals in our diverse communities for life and work in a global and technological society.”
The HCC service area includes the Houston, Katy, Spring Branch, and Alief Independent School Districts, the Stafford Municipal District, and the Fort Bend portion of Missouri City. With 23 locations across
the Houston region, organized around 13 industry-focused Centers of Excellence, and more than 100 programs of study, HCC is bringing academics and skills development to area residents, embodying its vision to “equitably deliver relevant, high-quality education and training, ensuring success for all students, our community, economy and beyond.”

Leaning into its mission, HCC seeks to effectively serve students by leveraging the scope of its geographic footprint and breadth of programmatic, instructional, and support service resources to create a more tailored student experience. The HCC Strategic Plan identifies five strategic priorities—student success, personalized learning, academic rigor, community investment, and college of choice—to guide HCC’s work (see Appendix A). Indeed, several initiatives aligned to these priorities have been implemented in recent years with the aim of creating the ultimate student experience. These initiatives include an enhanced focus on student service, enhanced student supports, weekend college programs for working students, an honors college for high achievers, improved advising through increased staffing, and improved educational pathways leading to a job or transfer to a four-year institution.
While Houston Community College is necessarily focused on all five priorities, student success (Strategic Priority #1) is of paramount importance to any educational institution. Toward this end, the HCC Student Success Framework (see Appendix B) emphasizes the need to support effective practices to ensure favorable outcomes across the following four student experience stages:

Taking an expansive view of Strategic Priority # 3: Personalized Learning, HCC is moving toward a modality where support services, instructional contexts, and institutional locations are positioned to meet students where they are and give them the education they need today, while also looking forward through a process of continuous improvement to anticipate and prepare for what those needs will be tomorrow. 
Identification of the Topic
HCC QEP ADVISORY COUNCIL
The HCC QEP Advisory Council was convened in April 2020 to collect and evaluate a range of quantitative and qualitative institutional data for the purpose of identifying a topic of focus for the Quality Enhancement Plan. To ensure representative involvement of HCC stakeholders, faculty and staff from the various divisions and departmental areas of the College were invited to submit applications to serve as members of the QEP Core Advisory Council in January 2020. As part of the application process, in March 2020, faculty and staff were asked to provide written responses to the following: 1) discuss why you are interested in serving on this team and what you can contribute, and 2) briefly describe any experience or training you may have had that led you to be interested in becoming a member of this team. Application submissions were reviewed by the QEP Leads and selections were made and announced at the April Annual Student Success Conference. Table 3.1 describes the Council members and their affiliation within the HCC community.
Table 3.1. HCC Advisory Council Membership
QEP ADVISORY COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP		
Aaron Henry – Administrative Assistant, Department of English	Johnben Sutter – Faculty, Government	
Afrah Hassan – Interim Dean, Student Success, Southwest College	Karen Saenz – Department Chair, Psychology	
Alberto Flores – Department Chair, Material Science and Manufacturing	Kathleen Anzivino – College Operations Officer, Northwest College	
Andrea Burridge – Associate Vice Chancellor, Research Analytics Decision Support	Kathleen Fleming – Executive Director, Administrative Services, Central College	
Angela Anderson – Faculty, Speech	Kimberly Joyner – Advising Manager, Coleman College	
April Hall – Manager, Learning Center Lab	Laurel LaCroix – Faculty, English	
Betty Fortune – Co-Chair	Lisa Crawford – Project Manager	
Brandon Hodge – Librarian	Mayra Herrera – Senior Administrative Assistant	
Chassity Holliman-Douglas – Associate Vice Chancellor, Special Populations	Meghan Roddy – Faculty, English	
Clint Galloway – Faculty Program Director, Criminal Justice	Melissa Miller-Waters – Director, Faculty Educational Policy	
Daniel Dylla – Faculty Senate President	Mia Taylor – Faculty, Business Technology	
Darin Baskin – Director, Faculty Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion	Misha Turner – Director, Student Success & Decision Support	
Debbie Hamilton – Associate Vice Chancellor, Student Engagement and Success	Nicole Boutte-Heiniluoma – Faculty, Social Science	
Desmond Lewis – Co-Chair	Nicole Lewis – Faculty Chair, Student Success	
Dorothy Muhammad – Faculty, Developmental Math	Rima Adil – Dean Student Success	
Farrish Betton – Program Coordinator, Chemical/Petroleum Engineering	Shadi Kilani – Faculty Chair, Biology	
Grace Zoorob – Faculty Chair, Chemistry	Sukhlal Ramharack – Faculty, Developmental Math	
Herbert Jackson – Faculty, Respiratory Therapy	Tyron Vereen – Project Manager	

The engagement activities of the Council included student success data analysis and exploration, student and faculty focus groups, and district-wide reading circles. In addition, the Council invited guest speakers to spark conversations regarding possible topics.

Student Success Data Analysis and Exploration
The Associate Vice Chancellor of Research, Analytics, and Decision Support and the Director of Student Success Decision Support were invited to lead the Council in a discussion of HCC’s current student success data. Focused on the question What Do the Data Say, the discussion generated valuable feedback. The Advisory Council members were provided with disaggregated HCC Student Success data for the areas below to generate discussion about progress made and possible barriers to student progress. This review of data laid the groundwork for the Advisory Council to make data-informed decisions about the QEP topic of focus.
The Council began by assessing the Achieving the Dream Cohort data. The students in these cohorts are new-to-HCC degree-seeking students in the Fall semester or beginning in summer and continuing through Fall. Students who may be first time in college (FTIC) and transfer-in, and both full-time and part- time students, are included. See Table 3.2 for an overview of these metrics for the Fall cohorts entering Fall 2013 to Fall 2020.

Table 3.2
SUCCESS METRICS FOR ACHIEVING THE DREAM COHORTS, FALL 2013 TO FALL 2020											
Achieving the Dream Cohort (Entry Term)	

Size of Cohort	
Earned 0 SCH in first term	

Earned 15
SCH Year 1	

Retain Fall-Spring	

Retain Fall-Fall	Persist Fall-Fall (Retain + Transfer + Complete)	

100%
Completion	

150%
Completion	

200%
Completion	

200%
Transfer	
Fall 2020	9,046	15.8%	NA	74%	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	
Fall 2019	12,749	16.1%	35%	72%	46%	54%	NA	NA	NA	NA	
Fall 2018	12,571	15.8%	32%	74%	50%	58%	7%	NA	NA	NA	
Fall 2017	12,165	14.5%	32%	75%	51%	60%	7%	13%	NA	NA	
Fall 2016	11,770	15.1%	31%	74%	50%	60%	7%	14%	18%	25%	
Fall 2015	12,241	15.6%	32%	77%	50%	59%	8%	14%	19%	27%	
Fall 2014	12,910	18.0%	30%	75%	47%	57%	7%	13%	17%	26%	
Fall 2013	12,902	17.0%	27%	75%	49%	58%	5%	11%	16%	25%	
Source AtD Dataset as of 8/1/2020
NA: Indicates value is not available because the measurement period has not concluded. For example, the Fall-Fall persistence of the Fall 2020 cohort will not be available until the conclusion of Fall 2021.

It was apparent to the Council that there has been little movement on the metrics and that the College will need to address course success and retention at entry. Approximately 30% of students earn 15 semester credit hours (SCH) in their first year, implying that approximately 70% of students are not on track to complete their program within four years. Additionally, students who are not retained to their second Fall, approximately 50% of students, are also unlikely to complete.

Following the June meeting, the Advisory Council members were provided with a direct link to the HCC Tableau Visualization Student Success Data Workbook to review more detailed, disaggregated student success data in preparation for future discussions about these data. Data Review Guiding Questions (see Appendix C) were developed to assist the Advisory Council members with formulating summary responses to the data that was reviewed. Guiding Questions related to topics such as patterns and connections in the data, items of promise and concern, and how HCC policies, practices, and/or procedures can be changed to impact the student experience in and outside of the classroom.
When considering success milestones by race/ethnicity, developmental education status, gender, full- time or part-time enrollment, Pell status, FTIC or transfer, and age, the committee noted that inequities were present from the first year of study, and that these opportunity gaps present in the first year very likely compounded over the students’ educational journey. For example, Table 3.3 illustrates two metrics: percent of students earning 15 SCH in one year and percent graduating within four years by race/ethnicity. The solid bars depict the percentage of students earning 15 SCH in the first year; the hatched bars depict the percentage of students completing in four years. For HCC overall, 31% of students, or less than 1/3, earn 15 college-level credits in their first year and 18% complete within four years. Inequities are apparent in the initial metrics and generally persist through the completion metrics. When only 31% of students earn 15 credits in the first year, it is not surprising that only 18% are able to earn the 60 credits to complete within four years. This suggested that HCC must intervene at student entry and through the first year to substantially increase successful outcomes such as completion and transfer.
Table 3.3

Focus Groups
HCC conducted Focus Groups to collect feedback from faculty and students across the system related to their perceptions about how HCC can advance its efforts in becoming more student ready. An analysis was conducted by the Director of Student Success Decision Support based on the input from the Focus Groups. Common themes were identified and shared with the QEP Advisory Council as part of a discussion on the identification of a QEP topic of focus, which included the following:

Communication: Improve communication from advisors (provide detailed information about financial aid and enrollment), as well as between student services and instructional services
Student Outreach and Support: Adopt a model of care and compassion for HCC students and employees, conduct student wellness calls at least once a semester, meet students where they are, create ready-made group (e.g., student cohorts) and offer workshops and orientation sessions to build student mutual support and shared experiences.

Reading Circles
A total of 50 reading circles were assembled to delve into Becoming a Student-Ready College, which resulted in more than 150 artifacts describing their collective reactions to the Institution’s student readiness based on the concepts presented in the book. The intentional selection of Becoming a Student-Ready College launched college-wide discussions about students and HCC’s role in their lives. The book centers students—their lived experiences, their educational experiences and goals, their expectations of themselves and their colleges, their obstacles, and their strengths—and in effect models the HCC strategic plan competency of student centeredness. Organized around the key question, how do institutions cultivate welcoming and positive spaces for all students to set students up for success, Becoming a Student-Ready College addresses equity and the importance of fostering student motivation by enhancing students’ sense of belonging and by actively listening to all students. The book includes recommendations for strengthening students’ internal motivations, for addressing equity in all aspects of college life, for adopting asset-mindedness in terms of students’ abilities, and for engaging more meaningfully with students. Most critically, each chapter of the book includes a series of thoughtful and probing questions which invite readers to reflect personally and professionally about the current state of their colleges and the imagined possibilities should those colleges undertake serious equity work.
The reading circles met from June 2020 through November 2020. To provide further insight, one of the authors, Dr. Tia Brown-McNair, was invited to lead a discussion with the Council about the themes presented in the book. In addition, the Council reviewed information from several Student and Faculty Focus Group sessions. In September 2020, Diego Navarro presented to the Council on Interacting with Students to Amplify Belonging and Emotional Safety. Each activity provided an opportunity to collect meaningful input regarding student success from the college community and how to better bolster student support efforts at the college. Several common themes resulted from these activities including:
Supporting Minoritized Student Populations:
» Developmental Students: Improve success rates for developmental students of color; particularly students of color and veteran male students
» Students of Color: Race differences in the data
» Males of Color: Further investigate confounding variables we need to consider when it comes to our Black and Male student populations
» Gender: Gender differences in the data

Engaging with and Supporting Students:
» Students need more touch points to feel connected to HCC
» Empower all College employees to assist students
» Holistic Support: Need to make the connections across faculty and staff so that faculty understand the services offered in the student services departments and so that staff understand the available office hours and the course objectives

Teaching and Learning:
» Supporting students involves personalized learning; create cultures of respect in teaching methods, make sure that the content of the course is relevant and relatable to the students
» Faculty Skills and Experience: Investigate the consistency of the instructor experience (related to resources, etc.), provide support for the development of faculty skills in Conflict Resolution, Patience & Empathy, Technical/Computer
» Capstone Courses: Need true Work-Study & Capstone with Career Training Component, Capstone project that assesses the Program/Course Learning Outcomes
» Persistence: Increase overall HCC student persistence rates
Institutional/Cultural Issues:
» Natural Disasters and Emergency Response: Resources to address the impact of Hurricane Harvey and the COVID-19 pandemic
» HCC Core Values: Need to post mission, vision, values, core behaviors; need to be visible everyday
» Communication: Improve communication between faculty and staff to support HCC’s most vulnerable student populations, identify student needs and come up with a holistic plan to help students, develop and strengthen partnerships through better communication

Subsequently, a virtual activity was held that offered an opportunity for the Council members to share the overt and subtle barriers they felt were present and possibly could impact the Institution’s ability to successfully become a student-ready college. The obstacles that rose to the top from these discussions include:
Prioritization of competing HCC Student Success goals/efforts
Communication gaps between HCC divisions and departmental areas
Lack of consistent broad-scale conversations about the factors that are contributing to persistent equity gaps among student groups and the development of a plan for addressing inequities
Navigation of the College Experience/Resources
Student Financial Needs
Student Online Learning Needs
Allocation of resources to areas of the college who support/teach HCC’s most vulnerable student populations
Lack of full exploitation of HCC’s eco-system – institutional partners, strategic external/community partners, current climate, etc.

With such a substantive list of themes and barriers, the QEP Advisory Council collaborated to narrow the focus of the emerging QEP project. The guiding questions of the QEP coalesced around the issues which consistently emerged from the array of stakeholder engagement activities and events. The persistent concerns about equity, student support and engagement, effective communication, and student success resulted in the explicit identification of two problems on which the council believed the QEP should focus, as they felt that addressing these matters would affect many of the other issues diagnosed. The problems identified by this group were:
Our system does not proactively identify student needs/challenges and provide corresponding support. Student expectations need to be taken into consideration so that we can meet them where they are.
Our students do not get consistent and accurate information to help them make effective decisions.

These two concerns were then vetted with the Chancellor’s Executive Council which includes the Vice Chancellor of Instructional Services, Vice Chancellor of Student Services, Vice Chancellor of Finance, Office of General Council, Vice Chancellor of Public Information, Communication & External Affairs, and the Presidents of our six Colleges. The feedback from the Executive Council confirmed that these problems were of grave concern and that the Council would like to see the Institution confront these significant obstacles. Upon receiving this feedback, we began to move into the next phase, creating and charging the Design Team.

HCC QEP DESIGN TEAM
The QEP Design Team was identified and charged in April 2020 by the Vice Chancellor of Strategy, Planning, and Institutional Effectiveness to review the work of the Advisory Council and develop strategies for responding to the issues identified by the Advisory Council. The Design Team membership encompassed a wide range of constituents to ensure a diversity of voices and input during the process. Table 3.4 describes the QEP Design Team members and affiliation.
Table 3.4

QEP DESIGN TEAM		
Bianca Matlock – Director Financial Aid Operations	Evelyn McClain – Manager, Training Academy	
Cammy Shay – Department Chair Government	Janina Arrington – Director, Advising	
Catherine O’Brien – Associate Vice Chancellor College Readiness	Jerome Drain – Associate Vice Chancellor, Academic Instruction	
Chassity Holliman-Douglas – Associate Vice Chancellor, Special Populations	Laura Williamson – Meeting Facilitator	
Christina Robinson – Executive Director, Adult Education Program	Michael Webster – Associate Vice Chancellor Workforce Instruction	
Connie Porter – Dean, Business	Rima Adil – Dean Student Success	
Darin Baskin – Director, Faculty Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion	Sarah Ho – Pathways Advisor	
Debbie Hamilton – Associate Vice Chancellor Student Engagement and Success	Timothy Snyder – Associate Vice Chancellor, Teaching and Learning Innovation	

Guided by the findings of the Advisory Council, the Design Team identified several goals and objectives for the new QEP. These included the need for the work to:
Proactively identify student needs/challenges and provide corresponding support
Have student needs and aspirations serve as the starting point for our interaction with them as individuals
Ensure students receive consistent and accurate information to help them make effective decisions about their educational plans
Utilize student personas to inform our engagement strategies with students individually and collectively
Align Professional Development for all faculty and staff

Design Elements
In addition to the identified goals and objectives, the following design principles were created to guide the QEP process:
Houston Community College will embrace diversity, equity, and inclusion to foster a sense of belonging throughout the College.
Houston Community College will strengthen and expand its communication channel to filter all messaging through a common location/process for Institutional continuity.
Houston Community College will elevate evidence-based teaching and learning principles and practices to cultivate a community of inquiry embedded in a culture of ongoing discovery and assessment.
Houston Community College will integrate models of excellence in its practices, policies, and procedures that are student-centered and equity-minded based on the College’s Student Success Framework.
Providing a more personalized learning experience builds on current HCC student success initiatives associated with the Guided Pathways movement, Complete College America, and Achieving the Dream. On May 17, 2021, the QEP Co-Chairs presented the proposed topic to the HCC Board of Trustees, which was favorably received. Thus, the process moved forward with the development of a definition of Personalized Learning Pathways and the creation of a vision statement for the work.

Personalized Learning Pathways Defined
Connected to the HCC Student Success framework, Personalized Learning Pathways provide holistic, individualized support for students throughout their journey from initial interest and program enrollment through award completion and future employment or continued education. Built on an ever-expanding understanding of the goals and challenges of our students as represented through the HCC Personas, the Personalized Learning Pathway framework is directly tied to the HCC’s 1-year strategic priorities approved by the Board of Trustees and creates the possibility for faculty and staff engagement to personalize
the student experience. This principal outcome of the QEP is focused on implementing a Personalized Learning Pathways framework focused on entry through the first fifteen credits encompassing engagement and supports both inside and outside the classroom.

Vision Statement
The vision for Houston Community College’s Quality Enhancement Plan is to provide an individualized learning pathways plan that follows students from Entry to Progress to successful completion of 15 college-level credits. The QEP will promote comprehensive, universal access to support students, faculty, and staff in providing current, up-to-date, and accurate information through a personalized approach.
Through a Personalized Learning Pathways approach, all faculty and staff will be mobilized to provide personalized assistance and support to students both in and outside of the classroom. 
Institutional Commitment to the Topic
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
A significant body of research indicates that students’ experiences leading to and through their first semester and year are predictive of later success, including students’ likelihood for completion and transfer (Adelman 2006; Belfield, Jenkins, & Fink, 2019; Goldrick-Rab, 2010; Jenkins & Bailey, 2017; Mechur Karp, 2016; Tovar, 2015; Wang, 2015, 2017; Doyle, 20 1). Scholars have used the term “academic momentum” to refer to the student choices and behaviors that are related to the students’ progression through their degree program (Adelman, 1999, 2006; Wang 2015). Choices such as immediate enrollment after high school graduation, summer enrollment, credit load, and course sequencing are predictive
of academic success, and milestones such as completion of gateway courses, completion of courses in the student’s program, and earning 15 credit hours are predictive of later success. This body of work underscores the importance of community colleges carefully supporting students’ decision-making, academic behaviors, and choices early in their college careers.
Community college students’ early educational experiences are important because they establish three domains of momentum: curricular momentum, teaching and learning momentum, and motivational momentum (Wang, 2017). Curricular momentum is the most commonly measured and related to students’ progression through a well-aligned course sequence. Teaching and learning momentum is related
to students’ continual progression towards mastery of a subject area, as well as the development of metacognitive skills and learning strategies that let them navigate coursework successfully. Motivational momentum is related to students’ sense of agency, their growth mindset, and their ability to persevere (Farrington et al, 2012). Motivational momentum also includes aspirational momentum, which is the students’ clear and sustained commitment to their educational goals. For community college students, who typically have less pre-collegiate momentum than students entering four-year institutions, early experiences that build these types of momentum are especially important for completion (Driscoll, 2007; Fike & Fike, 2008; Nippert, 2000).

The Importance of Advising and Engagement Strategies
A wealth of research has shown that experiences and interaction with faculty inside and outside the classroom are important for building academic momentum; faculty-student interaction predicts both cognitive and behavioral aspects of academic engagement, increased student self-efficacy, learning, and academic achievement (Lundberg, 2014; Frisby and Myers, 2008; Kezr & Maxey, 2014; Parnes et al., 2020; Schneider & Preckel, 2017). Engagement is important from entry. Interactions occurring within the first few weeks related to academic and social support – faculty interactions specifically – are the best

11

predictors of students’ intent to persist, academic integration, and social integration (Hatch & Gracia, 2017). Early interactions with faculty, both in the classroom and out, lay the foundation for students’ experiences in the community college.
In addition to recognizing the importance of student-faculty interaction in the design of the QEP, interactions with support staff are also critical. Before the first day of class, incoming students navigate their entry with enrollment staff, placement and testing staff, financial aid advisors, and academic advisors who assist them in choosing their majors and their courses. Many students, particularly first-generation and post-traditional students, enter community college with unclear objectives, ephemeral goals, and little experience navigating the community college setting (Hatch & Garcia, 2017; Parnes et al., 2020; Scott- Clayton, 20 1). During the enrollment process, students apply for financial aid, choose a major, select the courses in which they will enroll, and decide whether to enroll as a full-time or part-time student. These early decisions and students’ subsequent behaviors establish academic momentum (Adelman 2004, 2006; Doyle 20 1; Wang 2015), yet many students report they do not have the information necessary to make these decisions (Jaggers & Fletcher, 2014). For these reasons, advising has been referred to as the second- most important function in the community college to help students reach their goals (O’Banion, 2020) and is regarded as crucial to student success (Barnett & Kopko, 2020; Beal & Noel, 1980; Campbell & Nutt, 2008; King, 1993; Metzner & Bean, 1987; Metzner, 1989; Swecker et al., 2013). Proactive and strengths- based advising approaches implemented in the first year are related to the development of student sense of belonging, engagement, self-efficacy, confidence, self-regulated learning in planning, and retention, all of which are critical components in establishing academic momentum (Erlich & Russ-Eft, 2013; Soria et al., 2017; Hatch & Garcia, 2017).

The Importance of Personalized Learning Plans
A Personalized Learning Plan is a plan created through an intentional process in which the student sets goals based on personal, academic, and career interests. In the development process, students identify the skills that they need to develop in order to reach their goals and the steps required to meet those goals (U.S. Department of Education, 2017). Students take an active role in developing a Personalized Learning Plan and in documenting goals, needs, supports, course selections, transitions, and learning experiences both in and out of the classroom (Fox, 2014). Thus, the student produces a thoughtful plan documenting their education pathway leading to completion, transfer, and/or employment.
Personalized Learning Plans and career advising have been shown to support student success. In research utilizing an experimental design, community college students who received a case-managed approach beginning with the development of a Personalized Learning Plan showed improved persistence and completion, particularly for females, compared to a group that received standard services and a group
that received standard services plus access to emergency financial aid (Evans et al., 2017). Incorporation of career advising is critical, as commitment to educational and career goals is strongly related to retention. Students whose majors are aligned with their goals and interests are more likely to persist to completion (Allen & Robbins, 2008, 2010; Tracey, & Robbins, 2006). Importantly, self-determination in choosing a major predicts both positive academic outcomes and emotional well-being (Yu et al., 2018); students who developed Personalized Learning Plans showed higher motivation, sense of belonging, and connectedness to their teachers, and increased career-search competence (Sohlberg et al., 2014).

Recognizing Individual Differences: The Role of Personas
Community colleges have a mission to serve a broad array of students in meeting diverse educational goals. Compared to four-year institutions, students entering community colleges are more likely to be first-generation students, from racial and ethnic minority groups, and from low-income households (CRCC, n.d.). They are more likely to enter underprepared. Moreover, community college students are more likely to be employed and have family responsibilities that result in significantly lower quality and quantity of time for academics (AACC 2021; Wladis, Hachey, & Conway, 2018). Community college students may be dual credit students, may be entering for the first time many years after high school, or may be seeking skills retraining. Because of their competing commitments, community college students are more likely to be part-time students. On a non-residential campus, such as HCC, students must also commute to campus and may not be able to spend additional time on campus. They may have limitations to the time they can engage with advisors, instructors, and schoolwork. In addition, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, students may have transitioned online but have few resources, including time and space, to study.
This suggests that a one-size-fits-all approach to instruction and advising is unlikely to be successful. For example, enrolling in 15 vs 12 credit hours in the first semester has been related to positive academic outcomes across racial/ethnic groups and across college-readiness status, except when students are working 30 or more hours per week (Attewell & Monaghan, 2016). As another example, in most cases full-time students are more likely to persist than part-time students, but Stratton (2007) found part-time students with higher opportunity costs are more likely to persist if enrolled part-time vs. full-time. Positive and supportive advising and instructional relationships depend on faculty and staff recognizing and affirming students’ identities instead of marginalizing them (August, Packard, & Keep, 2018; Ellis et al., 2019).
Individual differences are also related to students’ help-seeking behavior. Older students are less likely to seek out advising than younger students, even when child-care responsibilities and work hours are accounted for (Roessger, Eisentrout, & Hevel, 2019). Both faculty and staff must be aware that, more generally, help-seeking behaviors differ by age, gender, cultural background, personality, help-seeking experience, and perceived stigma (Bornschlegl, Meldrum, & Caltabiano, 2020). Students enter with different expectations and comfort levels for self-advocacy and seeking help from faculty (Jack, 2016; Stephens et al., 2015); this may affect whether and how students attend office hours, ask for assistance or clarification, and otherwise connect with faculty both inside and outside of the classroom.
The user-centered design literature suggests that personas can be used to heighten awareness of the differing aspirations, needs, and priorities among students (Wallach & Scholtz, 2012). Personas are representations
of aggregates of students that capture similarities in backgrounds, goals, challenges, and assets that students share; a full set of personas highlight the differences across students (Pruitt & Adlin, 2006). They are commonly incorporated in ‘user-centered design’ (Miaskiewicz & Kozar, 20 1); in education, this is student- centered design. An essential component of personas is that they build understanding and empathy for users/students and, therefore, allow faculty and staff to move beyond the ‘traditional’ student, instead considering how instructional and student support practices impact the needs and goals of each persona (Manass & Miaskiewiccz, 2008). Personas used in higher education can assist colleges in developing a better
understanding of their students (van Rooij, 2012), can aid in more effectively cultivating instructional innovation (Minichiello, Hood, & Harkness, 2018), and can be used as a reflection tool in service delivery and professional development (Zagallo et al., 2019).

OPPORTUNITIES FOR CHANGE
At each stage of the HCC learning experience, students encounter professionals whose goal is to enhance their opportunities for success, from initial entry and enrollment to instruction and then employment or transfer. A sampling of these touchpoints is illustrated by Figure 4.1.
Figure 4.1

While students at HCC do have access to a variety of resources and supports, success data, as measured by retention and completion statistics, highlight the need for an enhanced approach to student support.
Two assumptions underlie the student learning pathway depicted in Figure 4.1. First, faculty and student support services staff fulfill traditionally defined roles without a strategically aligned approach to help students. As a result, efforts to ensure student success remain siloed. The second assumption is that students are largely passive actors in the educational experience.
Toward this end, the QEP Advisory Council outlined a more holistic approach to support student success that empowers all College employees to assist students by creating Personalized Learning Pathways, fostering a culture of respect and inclusion, increasing communication across faculty and staff lines, and identifying student needs and challenges to develop their strengths from an asset perspective. Students are active participants; a key activity for students in the Personalized Learning Pathways approach is development of a Personalized Education Plan (PEP), in which the student will develop a plan based
on personal, academic, and career interests. In an iterative process, students document aspirations, challenges, needs, and goals, how they will seek support, and learning experiences both in and out of the classroom (Fox, 2014; Department of Education, 2017).
Houston Community College QEP activities are intended to systematically change the way we think about how to best support student success at HCC, leveraging the existing infrastructure while changing the nature of the interactions between students, faculty, and staff. The overarching goal is to enhance the abilities of students, faculty, and staff to work collaboratively toward creation of an engaging, supportive, and responsive educational experience.

PERSONALIZED LEARNING PATHWAYS INFRASTRUCTURE
Houston Community College’s Quality Enhancement Plan is comprised of four areas of strategic focus:
1) student advising and engagement strategies, 2) a comprehensive professional development plan for faculty and staff, 3) alignment and integration of data and information systems, and 4) implementation of coordinated interventions – that are designed to leverage the College’s student persona matrix more effectively and help us think more systematically about the types of supports that may be necessary
to meet specific student needs. Personas will enable the College to better understand and serve its students by looking at them from their perspective and by understanding their stories. HCC’s strategic priorities around student success and personalized learning provide the impetus for building the capacity of HCC to make transformational change happen, and to do so on a sustained basis. HCC’s commitment to student/constituent service and to diversity, equity, and inclusion will set the pace in regard to the attitudes and behaviors expected of faculty and staff that will be essential to an organization which acts strategically to serve students and the community.
A persona is a shorthand representation of key information about a specific student segment, built on a body of qualitative research. Specifically, the top line information that research captures relays this student segment’s goals, needs, and expectations. In turn, this information guides what a student experience needs to encompass for students to achieve their goals efficiently and successfully. Most importantly, there are multiple personas. Rather than treating the student body as an undifferentiated whole, personas recognize the true plurality of the potentially very distinct needs that different student
segments exhibit. Each one of the personas is given a short biography or backstory and is illustrated with key takeaways around goals and pain points and considers readiness factors associated with the persona. The development of robust data sets associated with the four readiness factors (Self Efficacy, Gateway Skills, Resources, and Health) is still a work in progress and will continue to enhance our understanding as they grow. We use four readiness factors to inform the work already, but it is an evolutionary process, and, as we learn more from the data, we continue to refine our approaches. We believe that personas can help answer important questions about student centeredness, both today and over time. See Appendix D for more information about HCC’s Personas.

Personalized Learning Pathways Advising and Engagement Strategies
Personalized Learning Pathways Advising and Engagement Strategies provide students with a tailored advising and engagement experience that directly aligns with program requirements, student needs, and transfer partners and/or industry demands. Efforts will focus on increasing and aligning opportunities
for engagement between students, faculty, and staff to increase sense of belonging, self-efficacy, and intentional alignment of students’ educational pathway with their educational and career aspirations. The approach that HCC will follow to construct such a framework is a multi-tiered, integrated process that uses personas and student data to direct faculty, staff, and students in engagement leading to informed pathway decision choices. As such, critical areas of development focus on opportunities for advising and engagement by both staff and faculty in the first year.
Essential advising activities include redesign of HCC’s New Student Orientation, integration of career assessment and advising, integration of advising syllabi, and checkpoint advising appointments as students progress. Increased engagement opportunities with both staff and faculty are overlaid, as both formal and informal advising and mentorship are important to students’ development. Hence, faculty engagement activities will be designed to take place in both instructional settings and outside the classroom (see professional development in next section). The persona-informed, user-centered

design process will assist all stakeholders with engagement strategies as they encourage empathy and consideration of students’ goals, needs, and assets. Personas also encourage development of innovative ways to engage, taking into account the lived experiences of both traditional and post-traditional students. Thus, integration of student purpose and learning pathways will include transitional connection points focused for the QEP on the first 15 credit hours.

Comprehensive Professional Development
Implementation of the Personalized Learning Pathways (PLP) approach will require high-quality professional development that equips faculty and staff with the necessary knowledge and skills to improve the student experience. A professional development plan has been created, identifying the specific type of faculty and staff learning experiences that will be critical to a successful QEP. These professional development experiences touch on four key areas: QEP Knowledge, Unit-Specific, QEP Leaders, and Ongoing Engagement. Professional development will focus on the QEP principles of proactively identifying student needs and challenges, of centering student needs and aspirations,
of ensuring students receive consistent and accurate information, and of using effective student engagement strategies through the various faculty/staff roles. These areas and their focus are depicted in Table 4.1. Professional development will proceed in stages, with a subset of faculty and staff participating in pilot phases and expanding to include all faculty and staff eventually.

Table 4.1. Summary of PLP-Focused Professional Development Experiences

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TYPE	
DESCRIPTION	

QEP Knowledge	General professional development for all faculty and staff that provides an overview of the QEP (process, goals, etc.). This session would build awareness and begin the attitudinal change process. Audience: All
faculty / staff	

Unit-Specific	Unit-specific professional development that addresses the QEP through the lens of various faculty/staff roles. These sessions should further cement the attitudinal change process and inform the application of
QEP principles. Audience: All faculty / staff (unit based)	

QEP Leaders	Specialized professional development for selected “leaders” or “champions” from each participating functional unit (i.e., faculty, advisors, etc.). These sessions should prepare QEP Leaders with information to support faculty/staff conducting QEP activities, drive organizational change efforts, and foster the development of
communities of practice. Audience: designated QEP Leaders	

Ongoing Engagement (Communities of Practice)	QEP Leaders would conduct monthly meetings with faculty/staff to share successes, challenges, and practice. QEP Leaders would gather each term to share successes, challenges, and practice with other QEP
Leaders from other functional units.	

Alignment and Integration of Data and Information Systems
HCC operates as a system across the Greater Houston Area that is comprised of six physical college hubs – Northeast, Southeast, Northwest, Southwest, Central, and Coleman. Each hub has multiple campuses that house different programs and/or Centers of Excellence. With such a wide array of programmatic offerings, there are also many data and information systems used throughout the HCC. In some cases, the campuses employ different software systems to accomplish a single purpose; as a simple example, several different appointment booking systems may be used. This redundancy can be confusing to students because the way in which they connect with HCC student services staff or faculty may differ depending on the location. As a second example, currently there is no single platform by which faculty and staff access clear, consistent student information. As part of the Quality Enhancement Plan, HCC aims to integrate and align systems so that students, faculty, and staff are able to consistently access information and resources to help them make effective decisions. The process by which the College intends to achieve this goal is as follows:

This process will support the Personalized Learning Pathway approach as integrated software and systems will allow faculty and staff to obtain consistent student information seamlessly, facilitating student-centered engagement across the institution. These systems should also enable students to acquire their information about their educational trajectory, empowering their decision-making.

Implementation of Coordinated Interventions and Learning Engagement Strategies
College students face multiple and simultaneous challenges that can disrupt their successful progression through their programs of study. These challenges may be academic, or they may originate outside the classroom. Disruptions can then compound if students cannot or do not have access to the appropriate resources to resolve them. Moreover, since we know students differ in their ability and willingness to approach faculty or support services, it is critical that services be embedded proactively in such a way that students are both connected and empowered. Systems should also allow faculty and student support staff to coordinate their response.
As part of its Student Success Framework, the College has implemented a number of interventions that have shown promise in promoting student success. In the focus groups and reading circles, it became apparent that the siloed nature of HCC’s divisions was limiting the effectiveness of the interventions. For instance,
a critical process designed to facilitate timely intervention—early alerts—allows faculty to notify advisors when students exhibit attendance, academic, or personal difficulties mid-semester. However, advisors are not informed of the steps that faculty have taken, nor are faculty informed of the advisor follow-up.
Coordination of support services across instruction and student services enhances Personalized Learning Pathways by engaging faculty and staff as a care team instead of as individuals. Integrating persona- based design into intervention services adheres to three key design principles:

Students differ in their aspirations and challenges that affect their comprehensive needs.
Students differ in their contexts that determine, when, whether, and how they access support services.
Students differ in their comfort and self-advocacy in seeking help; therefore, the College must proactively embed supports and develop students’ self-advocacy skills.

Thus, to achieve this end, a team consisting of instructional services, student services, and multiple departmental personnel throughout the college will work to develop and implement coordinated intervention and engagement strategies using the student personas to identify relevant and effective engagement strategies.
A four-stage approach will be employed to achieve these goals. The four stages are as follows:

This process allows interventions to be assigned and employed as preventative and iterative measures, coordinated between faculty, student support services, and the students themselves. Starting points include the early alert system, the corequisite, tutoring, and supplemental instruction.

QEP Pilot and Selection Rationale
In order to facilitate the successful implementation of Personalized Learning Pathways, HCC will begin by piloting the approach in two broad-based programs reflecting academic and workforce careers. For the initial rollout of our QEP efforts, the Associate of Arts in Business and the Business Management AAS programs have been selected. Both programs serve diverse student populations and are offered across all our Colleges. The Associate of Arts is intended primarily for students planning on transferring to a four-year college or university to receive a baccalaureate degree, whereas the Business Management program is workforce-oriented and tailored to students seeking employment opportunities upon completion of their degree. Additionally, the first 15 credits of both degree plans offer a mix of general education and program-specific courses. Table 4.2 illustrates the credit sequence for each program.

Table 4.2. Course Sequence for QEP Pilot Programs

ASSOCIATE OF ARTS IN BUSINESS	BUSINESS MANAGEMENT AAS	
EDUC 1300 Learning Framework	EDUC 1300 Learning Framework	
ENGL 1301 Composition I	ENGL 1301 Composition I	
BUSI 1301 Business Principles	BUSI 1301 Business Principles	
MATH 1324 Mathematics for Business & Social Sciences	MATH 1324 Mathematics for Business & Social Sciences OR MATH 1314 College Algebra	
BCIS 1305 Business Computer Applications	BMGT 1327 Principles of Management	

LEARNING OUTCOMES
The nature of the HCC QEP with its focus on Personalized Learning Pathways necessarily calls for a
multi-faceted learning outcome structure. Certainly, students must learn to more actively engage in their educational experience. However, faculty and student support staff must also enhance their knowledge and skills to effectively guide this personalization process. As such, learning outcomes have been identified for students, faculty, and staff.

Student Learning Outcomes
In order to maximize the impact of a personalized educational plan (PEP), all stakeholders, including students, must be active participants. For this reason, an important element of the HCC QEP is focused on learning outcomes that emphasize enhancing a student’s ability to engage in the development and implementation of a personalized learning plan. As part of this process, students will need to demonstrate the ability to:

develop a robust personalized educational plan
evaluate and use information to make informed decisions about personalized educational plans
locate and identify relevant information and apply it to support their educational progress
identify and articulate needs and challenges they face to inform personalized educational planning
identify appropriate institutional resources that support their learning goals

Faculty and Staff Learning Outcomes
An assumption of the HCC QEP is that faculty and staff will benefit from guidance and support via targeted, high-quality professional development to implement the Personalized Learning Pathways approach. Learning outcomes in the area reflect this idea by focusing on enhancement of knowledge and skills that help faculty and student support services staff personalize the HCC educational experience.
Faculty Learning Outcome Assessment
Faculty learning in the context of Personalized Learning Pathways focuses on them demonstrating the:

Ability to recognize characteristics of different student personas and apply knowledge of personas to identify student needs and challenges
Ability to identify appropriate direct and indirect student supports and guide students toward the corresponding help

Staff Learning Outcome Assessment
Support services staff professional development learning outcomes generally mirror those for faculty and are centered around developing skills and knowledge that allow them to effectively engage students in the educational planning process. These outcomes include the:
Ability to recognize characteristics of different student personas and apply knowledge of personas to identify student needs and challenges
Ability to provide appropriate and effective support based on deep understanding of student needs and challenges

The identified learning outcomes are a key component of the overall QEP assessment and evaluation strategy described later in the narrative.

PERSONALIZED LEARNING PATHWAYS LOGIC MODEL
The Houston Community College QEP Logic Model (see Figure 4.2) was developed to depict the relationships among QEP related resources, activities, and outcomes that support effective implementation of Personalized Learning Pathways (PLP).

Figure 4.2. Personalized Learning Pathways Logic Model

The logic model provides a high-level view of the PLP approach that helps identify key assessment and evaluation points by highlighting the expected mechanisms for change. For instance, moving from left to right, the development and application of robust staff professional development (resources column) enhances staffs’ ability to provide students with effective, personalized advising (activities column). This, in turn, should lead to wider adoption of best practices for activities like the use of persona-informed strategies in onboarding and periodic advising (outputs column) which is expected, in part, to help students create more useful education plans and increase their satisfaction with the process (immediate outcomes). Improved student motivation and engagement with the educational experience is expected to result in increased retention and course success (intermediate outcomes) and, ultimately, increased completion rates (long-term outcomes).
The simple example depicted does not address all dimensions of the logic model interactions. Indeed, robust, effective professional development also requires engagement and deep learning from staff and a willingness of staff to consistently apply what they have learned. However, the logic model does help to identify key points of inquiry regarding program effectiveness. In this case, there is a need to collect information about the quality of professional development itself, the degree of learning taking place in
each session, and evidence of application. In addition, there is a need to capture the students’ experience with these trained staff and determine whether there is an associated increase or improvement in their outcomes. Extending this exercise to each component of the logic model helps to inform the design of a systematic assessment and evaluation plan for the Personalized Learning Pathway approach.
HCC Personalized Learning Pathways Assessment
and Evaluation Framework
The assessment and evaluation of the HCC QEP is framed by four questions regarding the efficacy of Personalized Learning Pathways. These questions include:

Assessment data for each question will be used for summative and formative purposes. For example, lackluster student outcomes early in the program may suggest the need for revising elements of the program while positive student outcomes in the final QEP reporting year may indicate overall program effectiveness.

Implementation Assessment
Implementation measures are essential to interpreting the ultimate student outcome measures. In a broad sense, this assessment component seeks to describe whether Personalized Learning Pathways have been implemented with fidelity. In other words, is the program operating as intended to produce the expected results (e.g., improved student outcome measures)?

21

Table 5.1 describes key implementation measures that will be used to determine whether program elements are being consistently and effectively implemented. The arrow associated with each measure indicates the general direction of the measure if implementation is proceeding as planned. In most cases, the arrow is positive reflecting an increase (e.g., % of students completing career assessments) or creation of something that does not currently exist (e.g., inventory of data systems used). In only one instance, reduction in DWIF, would a decline be viewed as a positive outcome.
Table 5.1. Relationship Between PLP Strategies and Process Measures

STRATEGY	IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES	

Student Advising and Engagement Strategies	  Percent of students completing career assessments  Percent of students with support services appointments
 Percentage of appointments kept (including content of the interaction)
 Student experience data (student support and faculty experience)	

Comprehensive Professional Development Plan	 Count and percentage of staff and advisors completing professional development   Count and percentage of faculty completing professional development
  Satisfaction with professional development	

Alignment and Integration of Data and Information Systems	 Inventory of data systems used
 Use of consistent data systems across colleges
 Faculty, staff, and student satisfaction with access to information	
Development and Implementation of Embedded Coordinated Interventions	 Number of early alerts
 Student use of intervention services
 Phase II plans for students in corequisite courses
  Course success measured by reduction in DWIF grades	

Learning Outcomes Assessment
Student Learning Outcomes
Bolstered by scholarly work cited in the literature review, a critical aspect of the PLP approach is centered on enhancing student motivational momentum by boosting their sense of agency, growth mindset, and ability to persevere. As such, assessment of student learning outcomes will concentrate on gauging
a student’s ability to develop and implement an effective personalized educational plan (PEP), the development of which serves as a proximal indicator of these motivational momentum traits described by Farrington, et al (2012). As students develop their knowledge and skills, they are expected to achieve competence in the following outcomes:
develop a robust personalized educational plan
evaluate and use information to make informed decisions about personalized educational plans
locate and identify relevant information and apply it to support their educational progress
identify and articulate needs and challenges they face to inform personalized educational planning
identify appropriate institutional resources that support their learning goals

For example, personalized education plans will be assessed by advisors using a brief rubric based on dimensions of the PEP. A sample rubric is provided in Table 5.2 based on common elements of K-12 Personalized Learning Plans as defined by the US Department of Education (USDOE, 2017). Houston Community College PEP will have a similar focus albeit with dimensions more closely aligned to local student needs.

Table 5.2. PEP Evaluation Rubric

DIMENSION	RATING (1 – 5)	COMMENTS	
Identification of courses and
programs required to achieve educational goals			

Self-assessment of learning strengths and weaknesses			

Description of requirements for graduation			

Description of career and employment goals			

The purpose of the rubric tool is to provide faculty and staff with concrete evidence of a student’s ability to chart a path toward success. In this example, a rating of 1 on the dimension of Identification of courses and programs required to achieve educational goals would indicate the student requires additional guidance in this area.
Similar rubrics will be developed and applied to the other four learning outcomes, each collecting rich information about student ability to engage in the planning and construction of their learning experience at HCC. Because the Personalized Education Plan is iterative, the results of outcomes assessments such as these will be used to identify and support areas of student growth as they learn to create and refine aspects of the document guided by faculty and support services staff interactions.
Faculty and Staff Learning Outcomes
Assessment of learning outcomes for faculty and staff will provide critical information about the ability of each group to support successful implementation of PLP elements such as enhanced academic engagement and advising strategies and the knowledge and use of personas.

Faculty Learning Outcome Assessment
Assessment of faculty learning will happen in two phases. Phase 1 involves pre-post assessment of faculty

knowledge and learning during the professional development itself, framed by the following learning outcomes:

Ability to recognize characteristics of different student personas and apply knowledge of personas to identify student needs and challenges
Ability to identify appropriate direct and indirect student supports and guide students toward the corresponding help

In this phase, a pre-questionnaire is administered before the professional development session to gauge faculty knowledge of the topic (e.g., function and use of student personas, inclusive instructional
practices). A follow-up questionnaire will be administered after the session to determine pre-post learning changes, if any.
Assessment Phase 2 will involve follow-up interviews with a random sample of participating faculty, four to six months after a session, to get a sense of the longer-term application of what was learned in the professional development sessions. Together, these phase 1 and phase 2 assessment data will help provide a more complete picture of professional development efficacy.

Staff Learning Outcome Assessment
Like faculty, the assessment of staff learning outcomes will happen in two phases. The first phase encompasses assessment of staff learning immediately before and after specific professional development sessions via tailored pre-post questionnaires. These sessions will encompass knowledge and skills that reflect the identified learning outcomes including:

Ability to recognize characteristics of different student personas and apply knowledge of personas to identify student needs and challenges
Ability to provide appropriate and effective support based on deep understanding of student needs and challenges

The second assessment phase uses brief follow-up interviews with a sample of staff members to examine how concepts conveyed in professional development sessions are being applied.

Institutional Outcome Assessment
A central goal of the Personalized Learning Pathways QEP is to improve student success. Therefore, the final evaluation question for the project encompasses institutional student outcome measures. At a basic level, if the PLP strategies are effective, we would expect to see corresponding improvements across a range of measures.
A fundamental objective of the QEP is to facilitate students in acquiring 15 credit hours (SCH), thereby developing academic momentum toward award completion. For this reason, an important outcome indicator will be the percentage of students acquiring 15 SCH within 1 year and 2 years. In addition, the institution will incorporate existing institutional student success measures into the assessment process. These measures include persistence (fall to fall), course success (e.g., reduction in DWIF rates), and graduation rates.
Beyond direct measures of student success, contextual student outcome data, such as student perception data, is also useful for understanding whether and if the PLP approach is associated with the desired impacts. To assess these contextual outcomes, Houston Community College will use the following
tools: the Noel-Levitz College Student Inventory and Mid-Year Follow-up, Community College Survey of Student Engagement, and the HCC Course Evaluation Survey.

The Noel-Levitz College Student Inventory (CSI)
The Noel-Levitz College Student Inventory is a survey that is administered at entry. Items are organized into three scales:
Academic Motivation
General Coping Skills
Receptivity to Support Services
In addition, the CSI contains items reporting background characteristics such as marital status, dependents, hours working, first generation status, and commitment to college. The mid-year follow-up will be administered at the end of the first semester. It allows assessment of the following:
Change on the CSI scales
Whether a student has received information or assistance in the areas of academic, career, counseling, or financing college
Whether the student would like to receive information or assistance in the above areas
Whether the student is satisfied with the college including assistance selecting a pathway, advising, sense of belonging, and interaction with faculty
The Noel-Levitz Student Success Inventory (SSI)
The SSI will be administered biannually, alternating with the CCSSE. The SSI is a satisfaction survey that asks students to identify levels of importance and satisfaction with a variety of items including instruction, advising, registration, financial aid, campus climate, and others. Student satisfaction assessments pinpoint areas within the institution that need immediate attention.

Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE)
The CCSSE will be administered during year 1 than every other year. The CCSSE measures student engagement, with items querying how students spend their time, their relationships and interactions with faculty, staff, and peers, and how the college supports their learning on the Support for Learners and Student-Faculty Interaction scales.

HCC Course Evaluation Survey (EGLS3)
HCC’s online end-of-semester course evaluation system, the Evaluation for Greater Learning Student Survey System (EGLS3), is important to understanding HCC student perceptions about their learning experiences. The EGLS3 is an online evaluation of instruction developed by the University of North Texas and administered by our Office of Institutional Research and our partner vendor, CoursEval. The survey asks students to evaluate instruction in three areas: Learning Environment, Organization and Explanation, and Self-Regulated Learning. EGLS3 empowers faculty to gather input from their students to better understand what works in their courses. Additionally, the survey helps identify opportunities to strengthen the educational experience at HCC. The EGLS3 is one component of an integrated approach to continuously improve instruction and our student experience. Relevant items from the instrument will be used to inform the overall impact of the PLP strategy. Of particular interest are items that reference the student interactions with faculty since this helps illuminate the extent to which personalized learning approaches have taken hold in the classroom.
Collectively, direct and contextual student outcome measures, as well as faculty and staff assessments, provide a wide range of data points to evaluate student success within the framework of the Personalized Learning Pathways implementation. Table 5.3 describes the relationship of the measures to the four questions that will guide the evaluation. Like Table 5.1, arrows indicate the general expected change direction if the pathways approach is effective.

Table 5.3. Relationship of Evaluation Questions to Measures

EVALUATION QUESTIONS	
MEASURES	

Is the Personalized Learning Pathways strategy being implemented consistently and effectively?	  Percent of students completing career assessments  Percent of students with support services appointments
 Percentage of appointments kept (including content of the interaction)   Student experience data (student support and faculty experience)
 Count and percentage of staff and advisors completing professional development   Count and percentage of faculty completing professional development
 Satisfaction with professional development  Inventory of data systems used
 Use of consistent data systems across colleges
 Faculty, staff, and student satisfaction with access to information  Number of early alerts
 Student use of intervention services
Phase II plans for students in corequisite courses Course success measured by reduction in DWIF grades	

Are students developing appropriate knowledge and skills necessary to fully engage in the PLP process?	 Ability to develop a robust personalized educational plan
 Ability to evaluate and use information to make informed decisions about personalized educational plans
 Ability to locate and identify relevant information and apply it to support their educational progress
 Ability to identify and articulate needs and challenges they face to inform personalized educational planning
 Ability to identify appropriate institutional resources that support their learning goals	

Are faculty and staff developing appropriate knowledge and skills necessary to effectively implement the elements of the PLP approach?	 Ability to recognize characteristics of different student personas and apply knowledge of personas to identify student needs and challenges
 Ability to identify appropriate direct and indirect students supports and guide students toward the corresponding help
 Ability to recognize characteristics of different student personas and apply knowledge of personas to identify student needs and challenges
 Ability to provide appropriate and effective support based on deep understanding of student needs and challenges	

Is implementation of the Personalized Learning Pathways approach associated with significant improvements in student outcomes?	 Persistence (fall to fall)
 Course success (e.g., reduction in DWIF rates)  Graduation rates
 Noel-Levitz College Student Inventory (positive response on relevant perception scales)   Noel-Levitz Student Success Inventory (positive response on relevant perception scales)
 Community College Survey of Student Engagement (positive response on relevant perception scales)
  HCC Course Evaluation Survey (positive response on relevant perception scales)	

Benchmarks
Implicit in each evaluation question is the need for benchmarks that signal success, shortcomings, and needed improvements. Except for DWIF rates, the expectation is that, if the Personalized Learning Pathways are being implemented consistently and effectively, assessment measures should increase over time. The task for the HCC QEP development team is to establish clear benchmarks for each measure that align to the theoretical expectations of a successful program implementation. The benchmark setting process will be guided by a series of prompts that ask HCC personnel to consider these theoretical impacts. For example:
What is the expected minimum percentage of students completing career assessments that would indicate appropriate implementation of Personalized Learning Pathway strategies?
What are the minimum student satisfaction scores that indicate effective application of PLP professional development concepts?
What are the minimum scores that would indicate appropriate faculty and staff knowledge of PLP concepts (e.g., use and function of personas)?
What are minimum expected persistence rates if Personalized Learning Pathways are working as planned?

Formative and Summative Evaluation
As suggested earlier, QEP assessment data serve formative and summative evaluation functions. For example, faculty learning outcomes data may be used during the project to improve the content of the professional development sessions. These data may also be used to make judgments regarding the effectiveness of specific or overall professional development offerings. Figure 5.1 highlights the
interconnectedness of different assessment sources leading to informed decisions about real-time program improvements and summative judgments about program impacts (e.g., QEP Impact Report).

Figure 5.1. The Formative and Summative Role of Assessment Data

OPERATING BUDGET

Institutionalization of the QEP
The idea of the development and implementation of Personalized Learning Pathways completely changes the culture of the Institution. Its vision encompasses the idea of the creation of a College ready to receive all students. This concept moves all employees to becoming student-centered which has the potential to effectively change our interactions with students from connection to entry, to progression and lastly to completion. This revolutionary model will prepare faculty and staff to collaborate in a more intentional manner as a result of the organizing of communities of practice among the College community and will be sustained through the deliberate implementation of the tenets of HCC’s Student Success Framework.

Resources
Houston Community College has committed itself to the support of the development and implementation of this Quality Enhancement Plan. The funds will come from resources which have been re-allocated to support this work. Incentives for faculty and staff to participate in the Professional Development Academy will be funded from the reallocation of these resources as well. The College will also supply in-kind space, overhead, and administrative oversight by the Chancellor. As is made clear in the detailed budget below, the bulk of QEP funds will pay for personnel to include faculty and staff professional development training facilitators. Additional costs will be stipends for professional
development activities and curriculum development, travel to SACSCOC conferences for QEP Co-Chairs and Director, Project Manager, and faculty and staff, as well as communication and marketing materials. A sizeable amount will also be used to validate the student personas which provide the basis for the support systems to be enhanced and/or developed.
The resources necessary to carry out the implementation of the QEP have been itemized in the budget that follows.

Quality Enhancement Plan Budget
The Quality Enhancement Plan Budget reflects the anticipated expenses incurred over the five- year project span. The budget outlays expenses in the following categories: Personnel, Professional Development, Survey/Assessment, Communications and Marketing. Houston Community College commits itself to a considerable outlay of funds to implement this Quality Enhancement Plan.

	YEAR 1	YEAR 2	YEAR 3	YEAR 4	YEAR 5	TOTAL	FUNDING SOURCE	
PERSONNEL								
QEP Director	$89,491.00	91,280.82	93,106.44	94,968.57	96,867.94	465,714.77	QEP budget	
Assessment Coordinator	56,330.00	57,456.00	58,605.12	59,777.22	60,972.77	293,141.11	QEP budget	
Project Manager	73,894.80	75,372.70	76,880.15	78,417.75	79,986.11	384,551.51	QEP budget	
FT Assist. QEP Director Personalized Learning Pathways Coordinator/ Manager (P9)	
0	
66,666.06	
67,999.26	
69,359.25	
70,746.43	
274,771.00	
QEP budget	
1 Part-Time Administrative Assistant	10,725.00	10,725.00	10,725.00	10,725.00	10,725.00	53,625.00	QEP budget	
Clerical staff to support Institutionalization of model							In-kind	
Personalized Learning Pathways Champions							In-kind	
Total Personnel	$327,463.00	$333,803.16	$340,264.61	$346,855.41	$353,578.02	$1,701,964.20	QEP budget	
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT								
Dedicated professionals - Peer to Peer Professional Development trainers to design, deliver, and support professional development activities-100 faculty cumulative @ $20.00/hr @ 100 hours per year	

Twenty Faculty Total	

Sixty Faculty Total	

One Hundred Faculty Total	

One Hundred Faculty Total	

One Hundred Faculty Total	

One Hundred Faculty Total	

QEP budget	
	40,000.00	120,000.00	200,000.00	200,000.00	200,000.00	760,000.00		
Student Services dedicated peer to peer professional trainers with specific time to devote to the work, who have the correct access level to data and tools 50 Student Service Staff cumulative @ $20.00/hr @ 100 hours per year	

Twenty Student Success Staff	

Thirty Student Success Staff	

Fifty Student Success Staff	

Fifty Student Success Staff	

Fifty Student Success Staff	

Fifty Student Success Staff	

QEP budget	
Fifty Student Success staff	40,000.00	60,000.00	100,000.00	100,000.00	100,000.00	400,000.00		
Consultants	132,250.00	132,250.00	132,250.00	66,250.00	66,250.00	529,250.00	QEP budget	
Recognition	5,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	25,000.00	QEP budget	
Dedicated PD Time Fridays 9-12:00pm weekly Staff							In-kind	
Total Professional Development	217,250.00	317,250.00	437,250.00	371,250.00	371,250.00	1,714,250.00	QEP budget	
SURVEY/ASSESSMENT								
CSI–FTIC students’ needs assessment	51,500.00	51,500.00	51,500.00	51,500.00	51,500.00	257,500.00	QEP budget	
CCSSE	18,200.00	0	18,200.00	0	18,200.00	54,600.00	QEP budget	
Noel Levitz 2nd year-transfer student needs assessment	21,000.00	21,000.00	21,000.00	21,000.00	21,000.00	105,000.00	QEP budget	
SSI-Student Satisfaction Survey, Noel Levitz	0	16,000.00	0	16,000.00	0	32,000.00	QEP budget	
Total Assessment	90,700.00	88,500.00	90,700.00	88,500.00	90,700.00	449,100.00	QEP budget	
COMMUNICATION AND MARKETING								
QEP Advertisement/ Awareness campaign for faculty, staff, students and the community	
9,000.00	
9,000.00	
9,000.00	
9,000.00	
9,000.00	
45,000.00	
QEP budget	
Total	644,413.00	748,553.16	877,214.61	815,605.41	824,528.02	3,910,314.20	QEP budget	
HCC PERSONALIZED LEARNING PATHWAYS IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE

The QEP Project Timeline has been developed as an outline of chronological steps associated with the QEP activities that will support the Personalized Learning Pathways plan. The timeline includes realistic deadlines, enables monitoring progress along
the way and is anchored in two main components—Semester/Year Timeframe and Activity, which detail the overarching objectives, as well as the final deadline.
The timeframes that have been developed as part of the QEP Timeline include several phases spanning over a five-year period of time from Fall 2021 through Fall 2025.

YEAR ONE: Planning Phase
In order to launch the activities outlined in the QEP Plan, several actions have been identified to begin the work of creating processes that support Personalized Learning Pathways for our students. Change management planning and activities will start this year (see Appendix E: Change Management).
Fall 2021
As a point of departure, beginning in the Fall 2021 semester, Year One has been identified as the Planning Phase in the Timeline, which includes key activities related to the following:
Validating HCC’s Student Personas through the collection of student data, to include student feedback survey and focus groups,
The development of enhancements to and integration of student supports and career advising,
The development of professional development models (Identification of Training Champions, Peer- to-Peer Faculty and Staff Training of Trainers), and
Ecosystem alignment, which will leverage the College’s internal and external partnerships to strengthen our capacity to support students’ success.

The Timeline also includes the development of student journey maps for an Associate of Arts (AA) in Business and an Associate in Applied Sciences (AAS) in Business, which will be based on the student feedback that is collected.
Last, to ensure that all HCC faculty and staff are aware and fully informed about the QEP activities over time, expected outcomes of the project, as well as how and how often information will be distributed, the development of a communication and marketing plan is included in the timeline.
Spring/Summer 2022
As a continuation of Fall 2021 semester activities, during Spring 2022 and Summer 2022, refinement of professional development models will occur, as well as the identification of QEP Trainers and Champions. Professional development will begin for the first group of faculty and staff who will also serve as Champions.

YEAR TWO: Implementation & Learning Phase
An Implementation & Learning Phase is included in the Timeline, which involves putting the project plan into action, directing project resources to meet the objectives of the project plan, and learning what worked and what did not in order to ensure continuous improvement.
Fall 2022
The Timeline includes continuing professional development for Cohort 1- Faculty who teach first and second semester courses for the pilot programs, and Student Services Staff that provide pathways advising for the identified programs. The assessment of the efficacy of faculty and staff professional development activities, learning and application, as well as the assessment of student success outcomes for the identified courses begins in Fall 2022. As part of a post-assessment, follow-up interviews with
a random sample of participating faculty will occur four to six months after the given professional development session to get a sense of the longer-term application of what was learned in the sessions.

Additionally, pilot enhancements in Student Onboarding – New Student Orientation to include Career Advising and the development of Student Journey Maps for identified subsequent programs will occur in Fall 2022.
Spring/Summer 2023
Pilot enhancements in first semester courses with the AA and AAS Business programs
Develop plan to scale enhancements in all Business programs of study and pilot in newly-identified Phase 2 pilot programs of study
Assess the efficacy of the professional development activities (Faculty and Staff), four to six months post-activity
Assess student success outcomes in identified courses and student learning outcomes
Professional development provided to next cohort

YEAR THREE: Large Scale Implementation & Adjustment
To implement and sustain large-scale change, HCC will build ownership for the change among faculty and staff at all levels, measure intended outcomes, make determinations about needed changes/adjustments related to the implemented activities, and will identify the effective aspects of the pilot activities for
scale. The College will set the QEP project up for success by identifying barriers to change and by building system-wide capacity for change throughout the organization. Adjustments will be made to the implemented pilot activities, as needed.
Fall 2023
Include Phase 2 pilot programs in QEP programming
Assess the efficacy of the professional development activities (Faculty and Staff), four to six months post-activity
Assess student success outcomes in identified courses and student learning outcomes

Spring/Summer 2024
Communicate the data from the first two cohorts at the Annual Student Success Summit
Increase number of programs in QEP activities
Assess the efficacy of the professional development activities (Faculty and Staff), four to six months post-activity
Assess student success outcomes in identified courses and student learning outcomes
Professional development provided to next cohort

YEAR FOUR: Adjustment & Scaling
As follow up to a comprehensive assessment of activities, the effective aspects of the pilot activities will be scaled, which will involve increased numbers of pilot programs in order to impact greater numbers
of our students, as well as increased professional development activities. Adjustments will be made to the implemented pilot activities, as needed.
Fall 2024
Scale enhancements in additional new programs
Assess the efficacy of the professional development activities (Faculty and Staff), four to six months post-activity
Assess student success outcomes in identified courses and student learning outcomes
Prepare for full-scale implementation for fall 2025

Spring/Summer 2025
All data systems are aligned
All web pages are updated
Student Journey Maps for all remaining programs of study are complete
Professional development for all remaining programs is complete

YEAR FIVE: Full Scale Implementation
In the Fall 2025, all activities will be implemented at full scale and will be monitored and assessed for continuous improvement purposes.
Fall 2025
Full scale implementation
Assess the efficacy of the professional development activities (Faculty and Staff), four to six months post-activity
Assess student success outcomes in identified courses and student learning outcomes

TIMELINE		
Semester/Year	Activity	

Fall 2021
Year 1 (Planning)	Validation of student personas
Deploy CSI to incoming students
Deploy mid-year CSI
Host student focus groups
Develop enhancements to student supports
Develop enhancements to career advising
Develop professional development models (“Peer-to-Peer Faculty” Training and “Peer-to-Peer Staff” training of trainers AND champions (internal disseminators))
Assess and refine data and information systems
Process map student success interventions
Develop enhancements to New Student Orientation (NSO) activities
Develop student journey maps for an Associate of Arts (AA) in Business and an Associate in Applied Sciences (AAS) in Business
Begin ecosystems alignment (IT/SS/IS)
Develop marketing and communication plan	
Spring/Summer 2022
Year 1 (Planning)	Identify trainers and champions
Begin professional development of trainers and champions
Prioritize and begin coordination of intervention systems	

Fall 2022
Year 2 (Implementation & Learning)	Pilot enhancements in onboarding- NSO to include career advising
Pilot enhancements to early alert system
Assess the effectiveness of professional development activities
Assess student success outcomes in identified courses
Develop student journey maps for subsequent programs	

Spring/Summer 2023
Year 2 (Implementation & Learning)	Develop plan to scale enhancements in all Business programs of study and pilot Phase 2 programs of study
Assess the efficacy of the professional development activities (Faculty and Staff), four to six months post-activity
Assess student success outcomes in identified courses and student learning outcomes
Professional development provided to next cohort	
Fall 2023
Year 3 (Large Scale
Implementation
& Adjustment)	

Assess the efficacy of the professional development activities (Faculty and Staff), four to six months post-activity
Assess student success outcomes in identified courses and student learning outcomes	
Spring/Summer 2024
Year 3 (Large Scale
Implementation
& Adjustment)	Increase number of programs in pilot
Assess the efficacy of the professional development activities (Faculty and Staff), four to six months post-activity
Assess student success outcomes in identified courses and student learning outcomes
Professional development provided to next cohort	
Fall 2024
Year 4
(Adjustment & Scaling)	Assess the efficacy of the professional development activities (Faculty and Staff), four to six months post-activity
Assess student success outcomes in identified courses and student learning outcomes
Prepare for full-scale implementation for fall 2025	
Spring/Summer 2025
Year 4 (Adjustment & Scaling)	All web pages are updated
Student journey maps for all remaining programs of study are complete
Professional development for all remaining programs is complete	
Fall 2025
Year 5 (Full Scale
Implementation)	
Assess the efficacy of the professional development activities (Faculty and Staff), four to six months post-activity
Assess student success outcomes in identified courses and student learning outcomes	
*Each Activity will support the Personalized Learning Pathways Model development
References
Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the Toolbox: Academic Intensity, Attendance Patterns, and Bachelor’s Degree Attainment. U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED431363
Adelman, C. (2004) Principal Indicators of Student Academic Histories in Postsecondary Education, 1972-2000.: U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED483154.pdf
Adelman, C. (2005). Moving into town – and moving on: The community college in the lives of traditional-age students. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school through college. US Department of Education.
Allen, J., & Robbins, S. B. (2008). Prediction of college major persistence based on vocational interests, academic preparation, and first-year academic performance. Research in Higher Education, 49(1), 62-79.
Allen, J., & Robbins, S. (2010). Effects of interest–major congruence, motivation, and academic performance on timely degree attainment. Journal of counseling psychology, 57(1), 23.
American Association of Community Colleges (AACC). (2021). DataPoints: Significantly more parent students attend community college. Retrieved from https://www.aacc.nche. edu/2021/01/20/42067/.
Attewell, P. & Monaghan, D. (2016). How many credits should an undergraduate take? Research in Higher Education, 57(6), 682-713.
Auguste, E., Packard, B. W. L., & Keep, A. (2018). Nontraditional women students' experiences of identity recognition and marginalization during advising. NACADA Journal, 38(2), 45-60.
Barnett, E. A., & Kopko, E. (2020). What Really Works in Student Success? CCRC Working Paper No. 121.
Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Beal, P. E., & Noel, L. (1980). What Works in Student Retention: The Report of a Joint Project of the American College Testing Program and the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems.
Belfield, C., Jenkins, D., & Lahr, H. (2016). Momentum: The academic and economic value of a 15-credit first-semester course load for college students in Tennessee. Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University. Available at: https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/ k2/attachments/momentumsummary.pdf
Bornschlegl, M., Meldrum, K., & Caltabiano, N. J. (2020). Variables Related to Academic Help–Seeking Behaviour in Higher Education–Findings from a Multidisciplinary Perspective. Review of Education, 8(2), 486-522.
Campbell, S. M., & Nutt, C. L. (2008). Academic advising in the new global century: Supporting student engagement and learning outcomes achievement. Peer Review, 10(1), 4.

Center for Community College Research Center. (n.d.). Community college FAQs. Teachers College Columbia University. Retrieved October 22, 2020, from https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Community- College-FAQs.html.
Driscoll, A. K. (2007). Beyond Access: How the First Semester Matters for Community College Students' Aspirations and Persistence. Policy Brief 07-2. Policy Analysis for California Education, PACE (NJ1).
Doyle, W. R. (2011). Effect of increased academic momentum on transfer rates: An applicationof the generalized propensity score. Economics of Education Review, 30(1), 191-200.
Ellis, J. M., Powell, C. S., Demetriou, C. P., Huerta-Bapat, C., & Panter, A. T. (2019). Examining first- generation college student lived experiences with microaggressions and microaffirmations at a predominately White public research university. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 25(2), 266.
Erlich, R. J., & Russ-Eft, D. F. (2013). Assessing student learning in academic advising using social cognitive theory. NACADA Journal, 33(1), 16-33.
Evans, W. N., Kearney, M. S., Perry, B., & Sullivan, J. X. (2020). Increasing Community College Completion Rates Among Low–Income Students: Evidence from a Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluation of a Case–Management Intervention. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 39(4), 930-965.
Farrington, C. A., Roderick, M., Allensworth, E., Nagaoka, J., Keyes, T. S., Johnson, D. W., & Beechum,
N. O. (2012). Teaching Adolescents to Become Learners: The Role of Noncognitive Factors in Shaping School Performance--A Critical Literature Review. Consortium on Chicago School Research. 1313 East 60th Street, Chicago, IL 60637.
Fike, D. S., & Fike, R. (2008). Predictors of first-year student retention in the community college.
Community college review, 36(2), 68-88.
Frisby, B. N., & Myers, S. A. (2008). The relationships among perceived instructor rapport, studentparticipation, and student learning outcomes. Texas Speech Communication Journal, 33(1), 27–3410.
Fox, H. L. (2014). Achieving Their Goals Implementing an Individualized Learning Plan Process to Build Student Success Pathways Resource Center. Retrieved from https://education.illinois.edu/docs/ default-source/default-document-library/stem-pathways-and-programs-illinois.pdf?sfvrsn=0.
Goldrick-Rab, S. (2010). Challenges and opportunities for improving community college student success.
Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 437-469.
Hatch, D. K., & Garcia, C. E. (2017). Academic advising and the persistence intentions of community college students in their first weeks in college. The Review of Higher Education, 40(3), 353-390.
Jack, A. A. (2016). (No) harm in asking: Class, acquired cultural capital, and academic engagement at an elite university. Sociology of Education, 89(1), 1-19.
Jaggars, S. S., & Fletcher, J. (June 2014). Redesigning the student intake and information provision processes at a large comprehensive community college (CCRC Working Paper No. 72). New York, NY: Teachers College, Community College Research Center, Columbia University.
Jenkins, D., & Bailey, T. (2017). Early Momentum Metrics: Why They Matter for Higher Education Reform.
CCRC Research Brief. Number 65. Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University.

Kezar, A. J., & Maxey, D. (2014). Faculty matter: So why doesn’t everyone think so? Thought & Action,
30, 29–44.
King, M. C. (1993). Academic advising, retention, and transfer. New Directions for Community Colleges, 1993(82), 21-31.
Lundberg, C. A. (2014). Peers and faculty as predictors of learning for community college students.
Community College Review, 42(2), 79-98.
Maness, J. M., Miaskiewicz, T., & Sumner, T. (2008). Using personas to understand the needs and goals of institutional repository users. D-Lib Magazine, 14(9/10), 1082-9873.
Miaskiewicz, T., & Kozar, K. A. (2011). Personas and user-centered design: How can personas benefit product design processes?. Design studies, 32(5), 417-430.
Mechur Karp, M. (2016). A holistic conception of nonacademic support: How four mechanisms combine to encourage positive student outcomes in the community college. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2016(175), 33-44.
Metzner, B. S., & Bean, J. P. (1987). The estimation of a conceptual model of nontraditional undergraduate student attrition. Research in higher education, 27(1), 15-38.
Metzner, B. S. (1989). Perceived quality of academic advising: The effect on freshman attrition. American Educational Research Journal, 26(3), 422-442.
Minichiello, A., Hood, J. R., & Harkness, D. S. (2018). Bringing user experience design to bear on STEM education: A narrative literature review. Journal for STEM Education Research, 1(1), 7-33.
Nippert, K. A. R. E. N. (2000). Influences on the educational degree attainment of two-year college students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 2(1), 29-40.
O’Banion, T. U. (Ed.) (2020). Academic advising in the community college. Routledge.
Parnes, M. F., Suárez-Orozco, C., Osei-Twumasi, O., & Schwartz, S. E. (2020). Academic outcomes among diverse community college students: What is the role of instructor relationships?. Community College Review, 48(3), 277-302.
Pruitt, J. and Adlin, T. (2006). The persona lifecycle: keeping people in mind throughout product design.
Morgan Kaufmann: San Francisco.
Roessger, K. M., Eisentrout, K., & Hevel, M. S. (2019). Age and academic advising in community colleges: Examining the assumption of self-directed learning. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 43(6), 441-454.
Schneider, M., & Preckel, F. (2017). Variables associated with achievement in higher education: A systematic review of meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 143(6), 565–600.
Scott-Clayton, J. (2011). On money and motivation: A quasi-experimental analysis of financial incentives for college achievement. Journal of Human Resources, 46(3), 614-646.
Solberg, V.S., Wills, J., Redmond, K., and Skaff, L. (2014). Use of Individualized Learning Plans as a Promising Practice for Driving College and Career Readiness Efforts: Findings and Recommendations from a Multi-Method, Multi-Study Effort. Washington, DC: National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth, Institute for Educational Leadership.
Soria, K. M., Laumer, N. L., Morrow, D. J., & Marttinen, G. (2017). Strengths-based advising approaches: Benefits for first-year undergraduates. NACADA Journal, 37(2), 55-65.

Stephens, N. M., Brannon, T. N., Markus, H. R., & Nelson, J. E. (2015). Feeling at home in college: Fortifying school-relevant selves to reduce social class disparities in higher education. Social Issues and Policy Review, 9(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12008.
Stratton, L. S., O’Toole, D. M., & Wetzel, J. N. (2007). Are the factors affecting dropout behavior related to initial enrollment intensity for college undergraduates? Research in Higher Education, 48(4), 453-485.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2015). Reframing academic advising for student success: From advisor to cultural navigator. The Journal of National Academic Advising Association, 35(1), 56-63.
Tracey, T. J., & Robbins, S. B. (2006). The interest–major congruence and college success relation: A longitudinal study. Journal of vocational behavior, 69(1), 64-89.
Tovar, E. (2015). The role of faculty, counselors, and support programs on Latino/a community college students’ success and intent to persist. Community College Review, 43, 46-71.
US Department of Education (2017). Issue Brief: Personalized Learning Plans. Office of Planning Evaluation, and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies. US Department of Education.
Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/high-school/personalized-learning-plans.pdf
van Rooij, S. W. (2012). Research-based Personas: Teaching Empathy in Professional Education. Journal of Effective Teaching, 12(3), 77-86.
Wallach, D., & Scholz, S. C. (2012). User-centered design: why and how to put users first in software development. In Software for people (pp. 11-38). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Wang, X. (2015). Pathway to a Baccalaureate in STEM Fields. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(3), 376-393. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373714552561
Wang, X. (2017). Toward a holistic theoretical model of momentum for community college student success. In M. B. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 259- 308). New York, NY: Springer.
Wladis, C., Hachey, A. C., & Conway, K. (2018). No time for college? An investigation of time poverty and parenthood. The Journal of Higher education, 89(6), 807-831.
Yu, S., Zhang, F., Nunes, L. D., & Levesque-Bristol, C. (2018). Self-determined motivation to choose college majors, its antecedents, and outcomes: A cross-cultural investigation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 108, 132-150.
Zagallo, P., McCourt, J., Idsardi, R., Smith, M. K., Urban-Lurain, M., Andrews, T. C., & Lemons, P. P. (2019). Through the eyes of faculty: Using personas as a tool for learner-centered professional development. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 18(4), 62.
Appendicies
Appendix A: Strategic Plan

Appendix B: Student Success Framework

Appendix C: Data Review Guiding Questions

Appendix D: Personas

Appendix E: Change Management Plan

Appendix F: Application for Champion
Strategic Plan: Embracing
Houston’s Future
HCC has identified six Strategic Priorities which will form the focus of the College. Each year, the Administration will create operational plans, presented to the Board of Trustees, clearly articulating the pathways to achieving each of the priorities with measurable outcomes. The operational plans will articulate the owners, actions, timelines and metrics.
The key to this plan is our ability to achieve student success, diversity and equity, personalized learning, academic rigor, community investment, and college of choice. These are all fundamental to the college’s ultimate success and ability to achieve its mission.

 STRATEGIC PRIORITY #1:	
Student Success
THE GOAL
Achieve student success through equity, access and affordability.

WORKING DEFINITION
To build and sustain the ultimate student experience – a personalized experience that helps students discover and identify a path to achieve their goals, ensures relevant student learning through interactive and engaging instruction, and provides support along the way – where success is measured by demonstrated readiness for career placement, workforce entry, and/or college transfer.

AREAS OF FOCUS
Enhance Academic and Workforce Educational Pathways
Extend the quality and reach of community education programs (including adult and continuing education)
Develop a Quality Enhancement Plan
Support the success of HCC’s International Student Population
Enhance the quality of our Remote Learning Modalities
Actively support high quality student and employee support and safety during COVID-19

 STRATEGIC PRIORITY #2: 
Diversity & Equity
THE GOAL
Ensure diversity and equity in all institutional functions.

WORKING DEFINITION
To foster a culture of inclusion that enhances the communities we serve by embracing the inherent worth of every individual, promoting social justice, and advancing academic excellence.

AREAS OF FOCUS
Promote the growth of a Diversity and Equity-minded culture
Implement programs that distribute opportunity for all segments of the HCC communities
Address system-wide equity gaps
Support the success of HCC’s International Student Population
Integrate the use of personas to inform Diversity and Inclusion activities

 STRATEGIC PRIORITY #3: 
Personalized Learning
THE GOAL
Deliver relevant, responsive and personalized learning experiences.

WORKING DEFINITION
To provide customized instruction and assessments that support student success by understanding the students’ unique needs, preferences, concerns, and aspirations. Personalized learning is student-directed, student-paced, and designed for each learner.

AREAS OF FOCUS
Expand and refine the use of the HCC personas into institutional decision-making practices
Integrate the HCC personas into student advising and teaching and learning strategies
Develop data collection capabilities that support the integration of the “student experience” into institutional decision-making practices

 STRATEGIC PRIORITY #4: 
Academic Rigor
THE GOAL
Demonstrate institutional commitment to academic rigor and quality.

WORKING DEFINITION
To establish a set of common, high-quality curricular and instructional standards that continually challenge all students to demonstrate achievement of proficiencies throughout their academic journey with HCC.

AREAS OF FOCUS
Develop a vision for teaching and learning and student support in the new normal in a post-pandemic educational environment
Enhance the use of learning outcomes assessment data to enhance program quality
Strengthen the role and influence of workforce program industry advisory committees to ensure alignment with industry need
Develop plans to maximize the equitable utilization of instructional facilities in support of program expansion and teaching and learning excellence
Expand the use of co-requisite remediation teaching models in order to improve student preparedness to be successful in college-level work

 STRATEGIC PRIORITY #5: 
Community Investment
THE GOAL
Lessen the student burden and increase the return on the community investment.

WORKING DEFINITION
To serve as an economic engine for the Greater Houston Region by creating equitable access and opportunity that leverages the collective resources of the College to support student success by partnering with key community leaders to ensure the creation of economic development opportunities in all of our local communities.

AREAS OF FOCUS
Enhance partnership in support of K-12 educational pathway development
Partner with community leaders across greater Houston to identify community education programs (including adult and continuing education) needs and distribution gaps
Expand our collaboration with leaders of regional colleges and universities for enhanced pathways for student success
Expand our collaboration with industry for enhanced pathways for student success
Expand our collaboration with legislative leaders and civic leaders for enhanced pathways for student success
Strengthen outreach and engagement efforts to local communities across greater Houston in order to align program offerings with local community needs

 STRATEGIC PRIORITY #6: 
College of Choice
THE GOAL
Become the community college of choice in our region for students, community, business and higher educational institutions.

WORKING DEFINITION
Advancing HCC as the model for the next generation of community colleges by setting the standard for quality, value and equity in higher education; leading innovation of programs, industry partnerships and economic opportunities; and serving as a preeminent choice for students and employees.

AREAS OF FOCUS
Enhance administrative succession planning to build a sustainable workforce
Develop a sustainable budget that supports a communications and marketing strategy that ensures we are seen as the college of choice

ORGANIZATIONAL STRATEGIC COMPETENCIES
For HCC to achieve the purpose of this Comprehensive Strategy, which is that the College think and act strategically every day, specific capacities – organizational strategic competencies – will need to be incorporated within the institution. These competencies will not be ends in themselves but means to an
end. They will give HCC the ability to be a strategic organization; they will provide the foundation for HCC to serve students and the community with strategic intent.
Building the organizational strategic competency of Student Centeredness will ensure that, as the College strives to address the strategic priority of Student Success, it does so in a way that encompasses all aspects of that challenge. Focusing on developing Communal Awareness will lead the College to a deeper understanding and more expansive approach to the work of integrating with the community and embracing the role of leader on issues of higher education and workforce development. Strengthening the ability to demonstrate Collaborative Design will lead to an institution where its storehouse of assets is used to best effect because all of the right elements are brought together in the right mix, crossing organizational boundaries and combining resources in service to the student and the community.
Encouraging Entrepreneurial Capacity will promote capture of the innovation, experimentation, and prudential risk-taking required if the College is to respond to present challenges and leap forward with meaningful change that prepares HCC for whatever comes next. Requiring Technological Mindfulness will drive the College – whether the focus is the organization collectively, or faculty, staff, and students individually – to not only use technology but also to understand and respond to how technology will change the way faculty teach, students learn, and people relate to one another and their work. Each of these organizational strategic competencies, standing alone, would be insufficient. Taken together – and
in coordination with personas, the HCC Way, Integrated Planning Cycles, and Relationship Mapping – they will equip HCC to move from an organization with a strategic plan to one that is, in everything it thinks and does, an institution with strategy in its DNA.

Student Centeredness
At HCC, the starting point for every action must be the student the College has been charged to serve. Student centeredness reflects the highest level of care and concern for each student, ambition for that student’s success, and a willingness to do all that is required to ensure each student succeeds and thrives.

Communal Responsiveness
The starting point for Communal Responsiveness involves mindfulness and intentionality: a deep and constant sensitivity to the needs of the community and the people HCC has been created to serve, as well as an abiding commitment to responding to and meeting those needs. However, Communal Responsiveness requires something more than this basic commitment; it goes beyond responsiveness to leadership.

Collaborative Design
“Organizational silos” or “stovepipes” refer to the tendency for large organizations to fragment into insular structures that restrict information flow, create obstacles to coordination, and make timely adaptation to change needlessly difficult. Collaborative Design is an intentional institutional commitment to resist and eliminate such barriers in furtherance of a seamless, fully integrated organization.

Entrepreneurial Capacity
Entrepreneurs are opportunists – in the best sense of the word. They draw on creativity, drive, and vision to create economic or social value. Two questions drive them. First, “Why do we do things this way?” And second, “How can we do things better?” Organizations that want to grow, thrive, and last must constantly ask the same questions, and act on the answers. They must develop Entrepreneurial Capacity. For HCC, the challenge of Entrepreneurial Capacity is twofold: how to create it, and how to keep it.

Technological Mindfulness
It is beyond cliché that technology has become a pervasive and disruptive force in every aspect of life. Yet while we know this, we have no conclusive view as to how that pervasive and disruptive technology will shape our future: no sharp-edged assessment of how it will affect our lives. A quick survey of the technologies in common use today that did not exist twenty years ago proves the point.

HCC Student Success Framework

Connection
From interest and application to first enrollment
Entry
From enrollment to program selection
and entry
Progress/ Completion
From program entry to completion of program requirements
Advancement
Employment and/or baccalaureate
transfer

Program Organization/Information
> Program Maps
Career Information
Areas of Study
Student Onboarding
Early Career Exploration
Academic Planning
Holistic Student Supports
Ongoing Support
Progress Monitoring
Intrusive Support based on plan
Master Scheduling
Program-specific
Teaching/Learning
Filed specific learning outcomes
Active/Experiential Learning

Recruitment
Pre-Enrollment Activity
Houston Promise
P-16
Dual Credit
Project Grad
CRM
Houston GPS
ECHS
Texas Pathways

Enrollment
Initial Program Declaration
PLA
Career Advising
New Student Orientation
Co-requisite Courses
OER
EAA
ECHS
Texas Pathways

Major choice
Passing college-level math and English
Success in introductory and gateway program courses
GPA
EAA
AACU
Transfer Fairs
G2C
SLIP
Early Alert
Tutoring
SI
Experiential Learning
Master Scheduling
Texas Pathways

Persistence term-to-term and year-to-year
Persistence in major
Program course pass rate
Program credits earned
GPA
Marketable Skills
E-Portfolio
Transfer
Texas Pathways

Award receipt
Employment
Earnings gains
Transfer
Bachelor’s receipt

Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP)
Student Success/Institutional Data Guiding Questions

What connections/patterns do you see in the data?

Where do you see differences?

Are there any confounding variables we need to consider?

Where are items of promise?

Items of concern?

What else do we need to know? How can we change our policies, practice, and/or procedures to impact
the students’ experience, in and out of the classroom, to address the identified challenges?

Building on the work that is already occurring

Ensuring students are learning

Supporting student success
HO U S T ON C OM M U N I T Y C OL L E G E
Appendix D

Personas
Proactive Professional
Certified to Succeed

Fast-Track to the Field

Four-Year Focus

Striving to Get Ahead

Big Dream Lacks Steam

Language Learner

Second Act Seeker

Between and Becoming

The Unnamed Persona
PERSONA 1
PROACTIVE

AGE:
28

PROGRAM:
Associate in Arts, Business
PROFESSIONAL
The Proactive Professional is a sales specialist at a small IT company who enjoys their career but feels stalled. After ten years of working closely with customers, they feel like they could contribute more as a manager but is anxious about their credentials. The Proactive Professional sees their boss promoting coworkers with 4-year college degrees and decides to get proactive. They see the first step as enrolling at HCC to test a full-time course load given their busy schedule, with the intention of getting their AA and continuing on to the University of Houston.

Readiness Composite Factors	Persona Shape

SELF EFFICACY // Personal motivation to pursue journey	10	65+

9	60
Low	Medium	High	8	55

GATEWAY SKILLS // Readiness to start the journey

Low	Medium	High
RESOURCES // Access to help to be successful on journey

Low	Medium	High
HEALTH // Basic needs are being met

7

READINESS 6
*COMP OS ITE SCALE
5

4
PROACTIVE
3	PROFESSIONAL

2

1

0

50

AGE
40

35

30

25

20

<15

Low	Medium	High
1 Month	1 Year	2 Years	4+ Years
GOAL TIMEFRAME

PERSONA 2
CERTIFIED

AGE:
36	PROGRAM:
Construction
Management Technology, Certificate Level 1
TO SUCCEED
Certified to Succeed is an electrician with twelve years’ experience under their belt. Along with their spouse, they are raising three daughters together, and they have been slowly putting money away for their college funds. It’s becoming clear that the math just doesn’t add up across their financial needs. To help close the gap, Certified to Succeed enrolls in HCC’s Construction Management Technology certificate program. Their goal is to quickly move up to a foreman role on larger jobs, which would come with a significant pay bump and better benefits. Their spouse will take on more of the childcare responsibilities while Certified to Succeed balances work and school to finish quickly.

Readiness Composite Factors
SELF EFFICACY // Personal motivation to pursue journey
Persona Shape

10	65+

9	60
Low	Medium	High	8	55
GATEWAY SKILLS // Readiness to start the journey

7

READINESS 6
*COMP OS ITE SCALE

50

AGE
Low	Medium	High
RESOURCES // Access to help to be successful on journey
5	40

4	35
CERTIFIED
3	TO SUCCEED	30
L
1  2	o
w	Medium	High
HEALTH // Basic needs are being met	25
0
20
<15
Low	Medium	High
1 Month	1 Year	2 Years	4+ Years
GOAL TIMEFRAME
PERSONA 3
FAST-TRACK
AGE:
20	PROGRAM:
Licensed Vocational Nursing, Certificate Level 1
TO THE FIELD
Fast-Track to the Field is a recent high school grad who has found their calling in nursing. After a health scare with their mom last year, they decided to pursue a career in healthcare to make a difference in people’s lives when they need it the most. The LVN Certificate program at HCC appealed to Fast-Track to the Field since it seemed to be the fastest track to get out of the classroom and into the clinic. In their second semester, they already spend a few supervised hours a week with patients in various clinical settings at Memorial Hermann. Fast-Track to the Field knows nursing is a broad field and is hoping to find a long, secure career in an area they’re passionate about.

Readiness Composite Factors
SELF EFFICACY // Personal motivation to pursue journey
Persona Shape

10	65+

Low	Medium	High
GATEWAY SKILLS // Readiness to start the journey

Low	Medium	High
RESOURCES // Access to help to be successful on journey

Low	Medium	High
HEALTH // Basic needs are being met
<15

Low	Medium	High

1 Month	1 Year	2 Years	4+ Years
GOAL TIMEFRAME
PERSONA 4
FOUR-YEAR
AGE:
18

PROGRAM:
Associate In Science, Engineering
FOCUS
Four-Year Focus just graduated from high school and can’t wait to kickoff their college experience. They know they’d like to get their bachelor’s degree, likely in an engineering field. Four-Year Focus chose HCC to explore an engineering foundation while working part time and living at home to save up for tuition. They’re looking at UT for their next steps, still feel connected to HCC, and are investing in social circles and athletic teams. They spend as much time as they can on campus. Over the summer, they hope to get an internship to learn more about chemical engineering.

Readiness Composite Factors
SELF EFFICACY // Personal motivation to pursue journey
Persona Shape

10	65+

Low	Medium	High

GATEWAY SKILLS // Readiness to start the journey

Low	Medium	High
RESOURCES // Access to help to be successful on journey

Low	Medium	High
HEALTH // Basic needs are being met
<15

Low	Medium	High
1 Month	1 Year	2 Years	4+ Years
GOAL TIMEFRAME
PERSONA 5
STRIVING TO
AGE:
34

PROGRAM:
Consumer Arts and Science
GET AHEAD
Striving to Get Ahead works exceptionally hard and has already overcome many obstacles in their life. Despite holding down multiple jobs, they stress about living paycheck-to-paycheck, fearful the next bill will be their family’s undoing. Sick of feeling trapped by their circumstances, they enroll at HCC determined to change them. Striving to Get Ahead’s family and employers are abstractly supportive but can’t offer them any real help, from schedule flexibility to childcare. Sometimes, their family doesn’t understand why they are “wasting time and money” to go
to school. Striving to Get Ahead is nervous about their academic background, especially their limited math experience, but takes their courses very seriously – their schoolwork has to lead to a good job, and quickly.

Readiness Composite Factors
SELF EFFICACY // Personal motivation to pursue journey
Persona Shape

10	65+

9	60
Low	Medium	High	8	55
GATEWAY SKILLS //
Readiness to start the journey

High
RESOURCES //
Access to help to be successful on journey

High
HEALTH //
Basic needs are being met

READINE SS
*COMP OS ITE SCALE
5

Low
Mediu m

4
Low
3
Medium
2	7	50

1	6

0

AGE
40

35
STRIVING TO GET AHEAD
30

25

20

<15

Low	Medium	High

1 Month	1 Year	2 Years	4+ Years
GOAL TIMEFRAME
PERSONA 6
BIG DREAM
AGE:
19

PROGRAM:
Associate in Science, Biology
LACKS STEAM
Big Dream Lacks Steam loves to work with animals and dreams of becoming a veterinarian, beginning with a degree in biology. With this goal in mind, they worked reasonably diligently in high school and completed their assignments, but they didn’t have access to college-bound curriculum or many science courses. They were surprised that they tested into remedial reading and math courses at HCC and have become very concerned about their severe academic challenges. Big Dream Lacks Steam worries they won’t make it through the semester but struggles with the idea of giving up. Sometimes, they consider just leaving to “save face,” as quitting may seem better than failing. They’re unsure what their life looks like without this vision.

Readiness Composite Factors
SELF EFFICACY // Personal motivation to pursue journey
Persona Shape

10	65+

9	60
Low	Medium	High	8	55

GATEWAY SKILLS // Readiness to start the journey

Low	Medium	High
RESOURCES // Access to help to be successful on journey

Low	Medium	High
HEALTH // Basic	2
needs are being met	7
1
READINE SS	6
*COMP OS ITE SCALE
5
4
3

BIG DREAM LACKS STEAM
50

AGE
40

35

30

25

20

<15

Low	Medium	High

1 Month	1 Year	2 Years	4+ Years
GOAL TIMEFRAME
PERSONA 7
LANGUAGE

AGE:
25

PROGRAM:
Intensive English Program
LEARNER
Language Learner has always wanted to study in the United States. With sufficient money saved and a visa status finally approved, Language Learner was drawn to Houston because of interest in the energy industry and some loose family connections in the community. They have taken some English classes back home, but their language skills are not expansive enough to pass standardized tests or truly understand academic material. Language Learner is a good student in their native language and has a deep respect for education, but lacks conversation skills and is accustomed to passive styles of learning. Language Learner misses home but is motivated to make the family proud and support them one day.

Readiness Composite Factors
SELF EFFICACY // Personal motivation to pursue journey
Persona Shape

10	65+

9	60
Low	Medium	High	8	55

GATEWAY
SKILLS // Readiness to start the journey

Low

RESOUR
CES // Access to help to be successful on journey

Mediu m

High
HEALTH //
Basic needs are being met

7

READI NESS
6

*COMP OSIT E SCALE
Medium
High
5
Low	4
3	50

2

1

0	LANGUAGE LEARNER

AGE
40

35
30

25

20

<15

Low	Medium	High

1 Month	1 Year	2 Years	4+ Years
GOAL TIMEFRAME
PERSONA 8
SECOND ACT
AGE:
50

PROGRAM:
Associate in Arts, Teaching
SEEKER
Second Act Seeker has spent the last twenty-five years working as a personal accountant at a small firm. They fell into accounting because of the stable money and flexible hours, after completing most of a math degree and starting a family in their early 20s. While they’re proud of what they accomplished, they see the industry changing around them as more people choose to do their own taxes online. Second Act Seeker knows the time is now to start a new career chapter – with aging parents who will need increasing help and kids who are now independent, they’re in a bit of a sweet spot to focus on themselves.
Becoming a teacher appealed to them when they were younger, and the youthful energy and capacity to give back still feels right in many ways. They enroll at HCC to test the waters and learn how to be a student again.

Readiness Composite Factors
SELF EFFICACY // Personal motivation to pursue journey
Persona Shape

10	65+

9	60
Low	Medium	High	8	55

GATEWAY
SKILLS // Readiness to start the journey

Low Medium
,

High
RESOURC
ES // Access to help to be successful on journey

Low

Mediu m
High
HEALTH //
Basic needs are being met

7

READIN ESS 6
*COMP O SITE SCALE
5

4
50

2

1

0

SECOND ACT SEEKER

AGE
40

35

30

25

20

<15

,	Low	Medium	High

1 Month	1 Year	2 Years	4+ Years
GOAL TIMEFRAME

		

	

		

PERSONA 9
BETWEEN

AGE:
17

PROGRAM:
Undecided

GOAL
AND BECOMING
Between and Becoming is taking courses that also count for college credit to get a jump start on a college degree, saving both time and money. Between and Becoming is excited about the idea of getting an early start, but often
Get a head start on my future

SUCCESSLOOKSLIKE
Attending a 4-year college one day
has a hard time setting aside the time to study that’s required to be successful in college courses. They have aspirations to attend a 4-year college but are concerned about leaving family and about the cost, which seems prohibitive. They feel responsible to the family and worry about leaving them behind.
Between and Becoming is a first-generation college student.

Time and money saved through dual credit

PAINPOINTS
Readiness Composite Factors
SELF EFFICACY // Personal motivation to pursue journey
Persona Shape

9

10	65+

60
Time management skills	Low	Medium	High	8	55
and issues prioritizing work
GATEWAY SKILLS // Readiness to start the journey
READINESS
*COMP OS ITE SCALE
7	50
6
AGE
Confidence in abilities, compounded by fear of the unknown
Single parent household dynamics
Low	Medium	High
RESOURCES // Access to help to be successful on journey

Low	Medium	High
HEALTH // Basic needs are being met
5

4	BETWEEN
AND BECOMING
3

2

1

0
40

35

30

25

20

<15

,
Financial stress

Low	Medium	High

1 Month	1 Year	2 Years	4+ Years
GOAL TIMEFRAME
PERSONA 10
AGE:
THE UNNAMED	PROGRAM:
PERSONA
The Unnamed Persona is a direct representation of persona development as an ongoing process of inquiry. Leaving this persona deliberately open-ended recognizes that there is a “known unknown” that will continue to be iteratively explored. While the named personas are aimed to reflect and amplify both the lived concerns and aspirations of a broad base of HCC’s students, any student who has yet to see aspects of themselves in a persona created to date can be assured that the Unnamed Persona invites the creation of additional personas over time to best reflect and serve the plurality of student experiences.

Readiness Composite Factors
SELF EFFICACY // Personal motivation to pursue journey
Persona Shape

10	65+

9	60

Low	Medium	High

8	55

GATEWAY SKILLS // Readiness to start the journey

7

READINESS 6
*COMP OS ITE SCALE

50

AGE
5	40
Low	Medium	High
RESOURCES // Access to help to be successful on journey	4	35
3	30

0
2
Low	Medium	High
,	HEALTH // Basic needs are being met	1
20
25
<15

Low	Medium	High

1 Month	1 Year	2 Years	4+ Years
GOAL TIMEFRAME

,

Appendix E
HO U S T ON C OM M U N I T Y C OL L E G E

Proposed QEP Change Management Approach (with tools)
Prepared by Laura Williamson, Ph.D. /rev. August 10, 2021

This document describes a proposed approach around change management for the 2021 Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP). This approach is based on the Prosci methodology, and grounded in the ADKAR model of individual change.
Change management is an enabling framework for managing the people side of change. Organizational change requires change at the individual level, and the ultimate effectiveness of the QEP implementation will be in large part due to the collective result of individual changes in mindsets, behaviors, and utilization of new tools, systems, and processes. Change management activities move people through the five steps of individual change described in the ADKAR model by creating Awareness of the change, building Desire to change, ensuring the Knowledge and Ability to succeed at the change, and Reinforcing the change to sustain the change and retain the benefits over time. Effective change management can help us ensure that we get the results we are expecting, and will help us realize the benefits and desired outcomes of this work.

PHASE I – PREPARING FOR CHANGE
Before change management activities can begin, we need to develop an appropriate change management strategy with the necessary sponsorship and commitment. An effective strategy can be developed only after we assess the organization and ask questions to help us understand the context of the change, and develop a sponsorship coalition.

Defining Success (“What are we trying to achieve?”)
We begin by establishing a clear understanding of what success looks like, and assessing project health in critical areas.
Conduct a PCT (Project Change Triangle) assessment to evaluate and establish baseline measures of project health in 4 critical areas: Success (clarity around purpose); Leadership/sponsorship, Project management; and Change management. The PCT assessment is completed by the change management team based on interviews with key stakeholders and the project team. This assessment will be repeated periodically throughout the course of the initiative and is used to identify and address areas that need attention/focus to ensure project success. Prosci Tool: PCT Assessment
Specify the project purpose – Why are we changing? What are the project objectives? What are the organizational benefits? What are the benefits to our students? What are the risks of not changing? Prosci Tool: Define 4 P’s
Identify the particulars of what will be changing (e.g., processes, systems, tools, job roles, critical behaviors, mindset/attitude/beliefs, reporting structure, PEPs).

Defining Impact (Who has to do their jobs differently, and how?)
Identify who will be affected by the project – what roles? Positions? Departments? Locations? Prosci Tool: Define Impacted Groups
Define what adoption and usage looks like for each group. Are there any unique group considerations? How will each group be impacted, and to what degree? Prosci Tools: Define Impacted Groups; Change Impact Assessment

Defining Approach (“What will it take to achieve success?)
Conduct a risk assessment – assess both the characteristics of this project, as well as our organizational attributes. The degree of risk will have implications for how we scale and customize our change management approach. Prosci Tool: Risk Assessment
Conduct a resistance assessment and develop a response plan. Identify anticipated resistance from each group or role, and identify tactics to prevent and address. Prosci Tool: Resistance Assessment
Assess the governance model for the project. Identify advantages and implications of the model, including direct access to sponsors (which research shows is a major factor for success). Prosci Tool: Governance Model Structure
Identify all roles needed for project success, including primary sponsor(s), mid-level leaders, and people managers. Work with sponsor to develop a sponsor coalition map, including a confidential assessment of each individual’s level of support for the change. Conduct an ADKAR assessment to identify where each individual is in the change process and identify the barrier points. Prosci Tools: Role Rosters for Core Roles, Extend Roles, and Sponsor Coalition; Change Characteristics Assessment
Develop/assess budget for change management activities. Prosci Tool: Change Management Budget Evaluation
Develop a “roadmap” for the change management work, based on key project milestone dates. Prosci Tool: Roadmap
Develop and present the change management strategy to primary sponsor(s), project team and key stakeholders.

Phase 1 Deliverable
Phase 1 will conclude with preparing a change management strategy, which will be presented to the primary sponsor(s) for sign-off. Phase 1 also establishes the necessary sponsorship and commitment.

PHASE 2 – MANAGING CHANGE
In this phase, we create, implement, and adapt the detailed communications, coaching, training and other plans to that will move individuals and the organization through ADKAR transitions. These plans are based on the overall project management plan.

Planning and Acting (“What will we do to prepare, equip and support people?”)
Build an ADKAR Blueprint. This involves, for each group and role, linking each milestone element (e.g., Awareness, Desire, etc.) to a target date, based on the project schedule. We also identify gaps, activities, roles, and detailed timelines. This approach allows us to be very intentional and proactive in how we prepare and support individuals throughout the organization for the change, in order to maximize adoption and usage. Prosci Tools: ADKAR Blueprints (Overall and by Group)

Build master change management plans, based on the foundation of the ADKAR Blueprint. The plans will identify specific actions and deliverables to be performed throughout the course of the project. Because the QEP will be an extensive effort impacting every part of HCC, we anticipate that these plans will be extensive and highly detailed. All of the preparatory work in Phase 1 will also inform these plans. These plans will include the following elements:
» Who – Which group is the intended audience for the activity?
» Why – What is the intended ADKAR outcome (Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, or Reinforcement)? Which element is this activity targeting?
» What – What is the activity? What needs to be done?
» How – What method/mechanism will be used? What is the established process for completing the activity?
» Which roles are required? Who is needed to complete this action? Who is the preferred sender? What role is best positioned to take action?
» Who is responsible for this action? Who should take the lead to ensure this activity is completed?
» When should this activity start?
» When should this activity be completed?

Separate change management plans will be developed as follows:
» Sponsor Plan – for each sponsor and member of the sponsorship coalition, specify how sponsors will be engaged and supported, and what activities they will perform. The sponsor plan addresses each element of the sponsors’ progress through the ADKAR model with respect to their role in the change management process (i.e. sponsors need to be Aware of the need for change management, have the Desire to participate and support change management, have the Knowledge and Ability
to fulfill their change management roles, and have Reinforcement to support them to continue fulfilling the change management role. Prosci Tools: Sponsor Plan; Sponsor Assessment
» People Manager Plan – for each people manager role, specify how people managers will be engaged and supported, and what activities they will perform. People managers need to
be supported through the ADKAR elements just as sponsors do. This includes building an understanding of the key roles they play in change management, and preparing them with the knowledge, skills, and tools to perform their change management roles effectively. Prosci Tools: People Manager Plan; People Manager Assessment
» Communications Plan – addresses all of the various communications activities that should be performed to support the transition of all employees through the ADKAR elements, in particular building Awareness, building Desire, and Reinforcing the change over time. As summarized above, the communications plan will detail what activities (e.g., town hall meetings, video messages, emails, website development) should target each stage of ADKAR for each group of employees, along with key messages and preferred senders, responsible role, timeline, and so forth. Prosci Tool: Communications Plan
» Training Plan – specifies change management related activities for each group, with a particular focus on building Knowledge and Ability. Because much of the QEP itself involves professional development, the training plan will complement training activities developed as part of the project work. Prosci Tool: Training Plan
» Influencer and Sponsor Coalition Plans – address change management activities for identifying, engaging and supporting key influencers, members of the sponsor coalition. Prosci Tool: Extend Plans
» Other plans as needed. Prosci Tool: Extend Plans

60

These change management plans are really the “meat” of the change management aspect of the project. Building on Phase 1 assessments, change management plans prepare the organization to realize the full benefit of the project. Actions from the change management plans can be
incorporated into the project management plan as desired. The separate plans are integrated into a master change management plan that establishes a comprehensive plan for managing change.
Launch and manage activities as described in the master change management plan.

Tracking Performance (“How are we doing?”)
Research shows that monitoring and measuring progress is one of the key factors for success of change management. Throughout the project lifecycle, we will conduct periodic assessments of organizational performance (through the PCT-Project Change Triangle-assessment, individual performance (through ADKAR status checks for employee groups), and change management performance (through progress to plan assessments). Along with metrics being tracked in the project management plan, we will also assess adoption, utilization and proficiency among employees, and impact on students and relevant organizational indicators. Together, these measures will give us information on:
Whether the initiative is delivering what was expected
How effectively impacted individuals are adopting and using the change
How well we are performing change management

Prosci Tools: Tracking Calendar; PCT Assessment; ADKAR Assessment; Change Management Performance Report

(c) Adapting Actions (“What adjustments do we need to make?”)
Based on periodic tracking of metrics as described above, we will identify opportunities for adjusting the change management plans.

PHASE 3 –REINFORCING CHANGE
Sustaining change is essential to long-term project success. To realize organizational benefits, changes need to be sustained over time. The change management plan will include activities to address reinforcement among employees to make sure that the changes “stick.”
As we enter the sustainment phase of the project, we will focus on collecting and analyzing feedback, diagnosing any gaps, implementing corrective actions and managing resistance as needed, and celebrating successes. We will review outcomes, activities, and lessons learned. Finally, we will transfer ownership and perform change management closeout activities. Prosci Tools: Assessment Tools; Sustainment Plan; CM Closeout Template

Houston Community College Faculty & Staff Champions

Role: Faculty and Staff Quality Enhancement Plan Champion Closing Date:

As a Faculty and Staff Champion, you will actively promote and work to foster an equity-minded culture of student-centered practices that are designed to enhance the student experience by supporting a range of HCC Persona-informed events and activities that cultivate an institutional culture of teaching and learning using Personalized Learning Pathways.
As a part of the College’s ongoing Quality Enhance Plan efforts, Houston Community College is currently recruiting forward thinking faculty and staff to work as Faculty Champions to support and/or deliver activities, presentations, and assist with various other efforts to improve the College’s ability to better serve our students and support the professional development of our faculty and staff.
Applicants will need to be change agents, great communicators, equity-minded, and able to demonstrate high levels of professionalism and reliability. All Faculty and Staff Champions will also need to demonstrate their enthusiasm for Higher Education and for Houston Community College.
Faculty and Staff Champions can be offered a variety of roles throughout the year. The level of involvement in events will be determined by the Assistant QEP Director. Responsibilities may include:
Integrate HCC Persona-informed approach into your role at the College
Take part in on-campus events for faculty, staff, and/or students
Attend College events as a Champions spokesperson
Assist in developing resources and engagement activities
Deliver or participate in presentations to key stakeholders to promote a student-centered community of practice using HCC Personas
Support faculty, staff, and students in understanding Personalized Learning Pathways
Engage in networking events each semester
Participate in professional development activities
Promote QEP programs and resources to faculty, staff and students
All other duties, commensurate with need and availability