how is a “training partnership” defined? why so many monikers used to describe noncredit...
Post on 16-Dec-2015
213 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE AS ENTREPRENEUR:DEVELOPING AND SUSTAINING EFFECTIVE
NONCREDIT WORKFORCE TRAINING PARTNERSHIPS
Kristine M. Condon, Doctoral CandidateCommunity College Leadership Program
National Louis University
How does your institution define “noncredit workforce training”?
Therein lies the problem.
Background and Context
How is a “training partnership” defined?Why so many monikers used to describe noncredit workforce training units?Do we brand ourselves as providers of noncredit workforce training?How are these partnerships developed and sustained?
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to identify how and in what ways Illinois single-campus community
colleges develop and sustain effective noncredit workforce training partnerships.
Significance of the Study
Entrepreneurial partnerships are increasingly critical sources of community college revenuePartnership revenues can sustain budgets; support missions; underwrite otherwise unaffordable projectsPartnership revenues can creatively and flexibly fund auxiliary and remedial services
Significance of the Study
Accreditation: Increased focus on noncredit workforce training outcomes as part of CQICompletion: Build effective bridges to credit-bearing courseworkWorkforce Development: Better-positioned to serve industry training needsGap in Literature: Little exists on entrepreneurial orientation of community colleges and their business partners
Four Guiding Questions
1. How do noncredit workforce training units support the community college’s mission?
2. What characteristics define effective community college noncredit workforce training partnerships?
3. How does the community college initiate outreach to develop noncredit workforce training partnerships?
4. What characteristics or elements contribute to successfully maintaining noncredit workforce training partnerships?
Conceptual Framework
Lumpkin and Dess’s (1996) Entrepreneurial Orientation Construct
InnovativenessRisk TakingProactivenessCompetitive AggressivenessAutonomy
Conceptual Framework
Amey, Eddy, and Ozaki’s (2007) Partnership Development Model
Stage 1: Partnership Development
Antecedents, Motivation, Context, Partnership Itself
Stage 2: Partnership Sustainability/MaintenanceOverlying Themes
FeedbackChampion
Conceptual Framework
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (1993) Four Levels of Training Evaluation
Level 1: Reaction to TrainingLevel 2: Learning Occurring Due to Training
Level 3: Behavioral Change Due to TrainingLevel 4: Results Occurring Due to Training
Methodology: Research Design
Qualitative ParadigmOntology (Knowledge is socially constructed)Focus (Study is inductive in nature)Observation (Participants are examined in natural settings)Collection/analysis (Common patterns/themes and multiple perspectives are sought)
Methodology: Case Study
Characteristic of Case Study Applicability to This Study
Seeks to understand human action (Stake, 1995)
Little is known about partnerships or contribution to community college context
Are empirical, particularistic, heuristic (Merriam, 2009; Yin, 2009)
Relationships are a phenomenon to be investigated in-depth
Employ evidentiary sources/triangulation (Creswell, 2007; Merriam, 2009; Yin, 2009)
Surveys, in-person interviews, document review, field notes were utilized
Utilize conceptual framework (Merriam, 2009; Yin, 2009)
One construct and two models were employed to build framework
Bound the setting or context (Creswell, 2007; Merriam, 2009)
Study was limited to Illinois single-campus community colleges
Yield descriptive findings (Merriam, 2009)
Study findings apply to other community colleges and their business partners
Data Collection Procedures
Sequential, multi-method approachCommunity collegesRelated business and industry training partners
Purposeful sampling with maximum variationLocation of noncredit unit within the hierarchyVariety of businesses and industries contracting with colleges for noncredit workforce training
Carnegie Size and Setting ClassificationsCarnegie Basic Classifications
Data Collection: Site Criteria
Phase 1: Survey DistributionEach Illinois single-campus community collegeIncluded request for names of two noncredit workforce training partners willing to participateIncluded request for an in-person interview
Phase 2: In-person InterviewFive community collegesFive noncredit workforce training partners
Data Collection: Site Criteria
Size and Setting Definition Number of IL Single-campus Community
CollegesSmall Two-Year 500-1,999 FTE 7
Medium Two-Year 2,000-4,999 FTE 16
Large or Very Large Two-Year
5,000 FTE or greater 14
Adapted from “Size and Setting Classifications,” by Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2012, http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/descriptions/size_setting.php
Data Collection: Site Criteria
Basic Classification Number of IL Single-campus Community
CollegesAssociate’s: Public Rural-Serving Large 15
Associate’s: Public Rural-Serving Medium 6
Associate’s: Public Suburban-Serving Multicampus 14
Associate’s: Public Suburban-Serving Single Campus 12
Adapted from “Basic Classification Descriptions,” by Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2012, http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/descriptions/basic.php
Data Collection: Site Criteria (of 36 single-campus community colleges invited to participate)
29 community colleges (80.5%) participated in web-based survey
21 of 29 community colleges (72.4%) disclosed college names
5 of 21 college administrators (23%) interviewed along with
one business and industry partner per college
Participating Community Colleges
Institution Carnegie Size and Setting
Carnegie Basic Setting
Geographic Region
Evergreen Community College
Medium Two-year Public Suburban-Serving Single Campus
Northern
Gerard Community College
Small Two-year Public Rural-Serving Medium Campus
Southern
Hamilton Community College
Very Large or Large Two-year
Public Suburban-Serving Single Campus
Northern
Pierce Community College
Medium Two-year Public Rural-Serving Large Campus
Central
Richard Community College
Medium Two-Year Public Rural-Serving Large Campus
Central
Participating Training Partners
Noncredit Workforce Training Partner Name
Nature of Business or Industry
Greening Partners Dislocated worker training in industrial, manufacturing, healthcare, and green careers
Kappa Construction Metal fabrication and distribution
Miller Manufacturing Transportation technologies
Otis Mechanical Industrial, maintenance, and warehouse logistics and technologies
Quickspeed Transportation Mass transit and transport services for the disabled
Data Collection: Participant Criteria
Community College PartnersNoncredit workforce training directors, deans, or vice presidents accountable for unit’s daily operationTwo years in the position
Business and Industry PartnersDirect working relationship with the community collegePlant managers, HR directors, or mid- to upper-level administrators
Data Collection Methods
Web-based surveyReceived ICCET/WeTRaIN assistance in distributionVetted community colleges using Carnegie criteriaConfirmed contact information for two noncredit workforce training partners provided by vetted colleges
In-person interviewsFive community collegesFive related noncredit workforce training partners
Data Collection Methods
Survey resultsGeneral demographic data collection Questions mapped to components of conceptual framework using Likert scale
InterviewsDocuments, web content, and related artifactsField notes
ObservationalReflective
Data Analysis Procedures
All interview transcripts, documents, and other information uploaded into NVivo10® databaseCreswell’s (2007) Data Analysis Spiral Used
Creswell’s Data Analysis Spiral (2007). Adapted from Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.), by J.W. Creswell. Copyright 2007 by Sage Publications.
Findings, Lumpkin and Dess (1996)
Innovativeness:Community frequently does not understand noncredit workforce training’s functionInnovative role of noncredit workforce training should be in mission statements, institutional identities, and strategic plansColleges believed ICCB guidelines hampered innovativeness
Participants did not fully understand ICCB rules that presumably hampered this innovativeness
Findings, Lumpkin and Dess (1996)
Innovativeness and EO demonstrated by:Community colleges’ public visibilityResponding rapidly and efficiently to training needsStaying current with business and industry trendsUsing grants to spur new training partnershipsInvolvement in local EDAs, chambers, WIBsArticulating noncredit to credit-bearing courseworkBringing noncredit training partners to campusFlexibility in training times, start/stop datesIntegrating training into clients’ strategic plans
Findings, Lumpkin and Dess (1996)
Risk taking is not presentFailure to take measures of calculated riskFailure to position the cc as a regional training providerRisk averseCompeting with external and internal training initiatives
Findings, Lumpkin and Dess (1996)
Proactiveness is complementary to innovativeness
Involvement with WIBs, EDAsAssessing training needs & researching industryKeeping communication lines open
Findings, Lumpkin and Dess (1996)
Competitive aggressiveness rarely, if ever, displayed
No willingness to be unconventionalNo “head to head” confrontationCited statutory and ICCB guidelines as rationale
Findings, Lumpkin and Dess (1996)
Autonomy frequently illustratedRole of the president in initiating connectionsRole of the noncredit workforce training unit in sustaining connections
Findings, Amey et al. (2007)
Antecedents often prompt a partnershipStrategic plans and resource sharingValidating training needsUnderstanding relationships and roles
Findings, Amey et al. (2007)
Motivation often prompts a partnershipPartnership fundingGrants often are the impetus for the training relationshipAs long as one partner does not disproportionately benefit, motivation usually pays offEmphasis on skill-buildingRole of the EDA, regional partner, or WIB
Findings, Amey et al. (2007)
Context for development and sustainabilityRationale for involvement in the partnershipCost-sharing opportunitiesCommunity needs
Findings, Amey et al. (2007)
Communication critical to sustainable partnershipsAcademic politics cited as internal impediments to sustainabilityLack of planning, business logistics, economic impacts, employee turnover, community college credibility cited as external impediments to sustainability
Findings, Amey et al. (2007)
Feedback requires regular meetings to get input and to inform future program designChampion must come from the community college and is usually the presidentRole of champion is often tied to visibility, not capital or ability to bring people to the tableOther community college staff who self-identified as champions are actually closers
Findings, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (1993)
Level 1 reaction:Used for marketing purposes, not for improving trainingNot used to close the loop on a training cycleNot used to plan for Level 2 learning evaluation
Level 2 learning:Pre- and post-testing conducted inconsistently, rendering findings less usefulUse of standardized tests (TABE) to measure Level 2 learning are not pre-tests
Findings, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (1993)
Level 3 behavior:Infrequently conducted because of difficulty in measurementLack of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards for behavioral changeConcern about inapplicability to certain kinds of training
Level 4 results:No one could provide an exampleDoes not meet ROE (Kirkpatrick, 2009)
Emerging Themes
Unified definition of a community college champion
Champion must come from the collegeBoth sides must view this person as the champion
Significance of a closerSome self-identified champions are closersBrings partnership to fruition
Emerging Themes
Importance of databases to partnership development
CRM allows centralized recordkeepingUse of noncredit advisory committees
Not required by ICCB guidelinesConsider extending credit-level membership to noncredit councils
The Deliverable
Condon’s Noncredit Workforce Training Partnership ModelCombining best practices of
Entrepreneurial orientationPartnership development and sustenanceTraining evaluation tools
Condon’s Noncredit Workforce Training Partnership Model (2014)
College Mission Statement
College Strategic Plan
College EO and Context
Closer
SuccessInitiating Outreach
Maintaining Outreach
Training Design & Development Training
Delivery
Training Evaluation
Follow-up Evaluation
Strategic Plan for Training
COLLEGECHAMPION
Needs Assessment
Feedback Loop
Thank you!
Your support is greatly appreciated!
ReferencesAmey, M. J., Eddy, P. L., & Ozaki, C. C. (2007). Demands for partnership and collaboration in higher education: A model. New Directions for Community Colleges, 139, 5-14. doi: 10.1002/cc.288Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2012). Basic classification description. Retrieved from Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching website: http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/ descriptions/basic.phpCarnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2012). Size and setting classification description. Retrieved from Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching website: http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/descriptions/size_setting.phpCreswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135-172. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
top related