Factors influencing university performance of associate in arts graduates transferring to the state university system

The purpose of this study was to examine the factorsbehind the failure rates of Associate in Arts (AA)graduates from Miami-Dade Community College (M-DCC) transferring to the Florida State University System (SUS). In M-DCC's largest disciplines, the university failure rate was 13% for Business & Management, 13% for Computer Science, and 14% for Engineering. Hypotheses tested were: Hypothesis 1 (H1): The lower division (LD) overall cumulative GPA and/or the LD major field GPA for AA graduates are predictive of the SUS GPA for the Business Management, Computer Science, and Engineering disciplines. Hypothesis 2 (H2): Demographic variables (age, race, gender) are predictive of performance at the university among M-DCC AA graduates in Engineering, Business & Management, and Computer Science. Hypothesis 3 (H3): Administrative variables (CLAST -College Level Academic Skills Test subtests) are predictive of university performance (GPA) for the Business/Management, Engineering, and Computer Science disciplines. Hypothesis 4 (H4): LD curriculum variables (course credits, course quality points) are predictive of SUS performance for the Engineering, Business/Management and Computer Science disciplines. Multiple Regression was the inferential procedureselected for predictions. Descriptive statistics weregenerated on the predictors. Results for H1 identified the LD GPA as the most significant variable in accounting for the variability of the university GPA for the Business & Management, Computer Science, and Engineering disciplines. For H2, no significant results were obtained for theage and gender variables, but the ethnic subgroups indicated significance at the .0001 level. However, differentials in GPA may not have been due directly to the race factor but, rather, to curriculum choices and performance outcomes while in the LD. The CLAST computation variable (H3) was a significant predictor of the SUS GPA. This is most likely due to the mathematics structure pervasive in these disciplines. For H4, there were two curriculum variables significant in explaining the variability of the university GPA (number of required critical major credits completed and quality of the student's performance for these credits). Descriptive statistics on the predictors indicated that 78% of those failing in the State University System had a LD major GPA (calculated with the critical required university credits earned and quality points of these credits) of less than 3.0; and 83% of those failing at the university had an overall community college GPA of less than 3.0.

Influence, policy formation, and higher education in Florida: 1989--1994

This study examined the perceptions of state governmental officials and administrators from the state university system, community college system, and independent institutions concerning the ability of various groups to influence state-level higher education policy formation. The study was conducted in Florida for the period 1989-94. Florida has a history of legislative involvement in higher education, a unique system of state universities and community colleges, and a limited number of private institutions of higher education. This study was grounded in the works of Mortimer and McConnell (1978), Millett (1987), Marshall, Mitchell, and Wirt (1989) and Finitfer, Baldwin, and Thelin (1991).^ The study represented the application of an embedded, single-case design. A survey was the primary collection instrument. Respondents were asked questions concerning: (a) personal involvement in higher education, (b) perceptions of the ability of various groups to influence higher education policy, (c) the names of particular individuals considered key players in higher education policy formation, (d) important state-level documents, (e) personal knowledge of key areas of policy formation, and (f) emerging higher education issues in Florida. Quantitative and qualitative methods were used to analyze the different sections of the survey.^ The findings indicated that a power and influence hierarchy exists among the various groups that attempt to influence higher education policy and that this hierarchy is recognized by state government officials and higher education administrators. While an analysis of variance of the various groups revealed a few differences between state government officials and higher education personnel, the high overall agreement was an important finding. Leading members of the legislature, especially the Chair of the Senate Higher Education Committee, and key staff members, especially from the Senate Ways & Means Committee, were considered the most influential. Representatives from higher education institutions and research organizations were considered among the least influential. Emerging issues identified by the respondents included: (a) the political nature of state-level policy formation, (b) the role of legislative staff, (c) the competition for state moneys, (d) legislative concern for state-wide budgetary efficiency, and (e) legislative attempts to define quality and supervise academic program development for higher education. ^

Remote learning and laboratory center over Internet and ISDN

Recent advances in telecommunications technologies have transformed the modes of learning and teaching. One potentially vital component in the equation will be Remote Education or Remote Learning, the ability to compress time and space between teachers and students through the judicious application of technology. The purpose of this thesis is to develop a Remote Learning and Laboratory Center over the Internet and ISDN, which provide education and access to resources to those living in remote areas, children in hospitals and traveling families, with audio, video and data.^ Remote Learning and Laboratory Center (RLLC) is not restricted to merely traditional education processes such as universities or colleges, it can be very useful for companies to train their engineers, via networks. This capability will facilitate the best use of scarce, high quality educational resources and will bring equity of services to students as well as will be helpful to the Industries to train their engineers. The RLLC over the Internet and ISDN has been described in details and implemented successfully. For the Remote Laboratory, the experiment procedure has been demonstrated on reprogrammable CPLD design using ISR Kit. ^

Influence, policy formation, and higher education in Florida : 1989-94

This study examined the perceptions of state governmental officials and administrators from the state university system, community college system, and independent institutions concerning the ability of various groups to influence state-level higher education policy formation. The study was conducted in Florida for the period 1989-94. Florida has a history of legislative involvement in higher education, an unique system of state universities and community colleges, and a limited number of private institutions of higher education. This study was grounded in the works of Mortimer and McConnell (1978), Millett (1987), Marshall, Mitchell, and Wirt (1989) and Finitfer, Baldwin, and Thelin (1991). The study represented the application of an embedded, single-case design. A survey was the primary collection instrument. Respondents were asked questions concerning: (a) personal involvement in higher education, (b) perceptions of the ability of various groups to influence higher education policy, (c) the names of particular individuals considered key players in higher education policy formation, (d) important state-level documents, (e) personal knowledge of key areas of policy formation, and (f) emerging higher education issues in Florida. Quantitative and qualitative methods were used to analyze the different sections of the survey. The findings indicated that a power and influence hierarchy exists among the various groups that attempt to influence higher education policy and that this hierarchy is recognized by state government officials and higher education administrators. While an analysis of variance of the various groups revealed a few differences between state government officials and higher education personnel, the high overall agreement was an important finding. Leading members of the legislature, especially the Chair of the Senate Higher Education Committee, and key staff members, especially from the Senate Ways & Means Committee, were considered the most influential. Representatives from higher education institutions and research organizations were considered among the least influential. Emerging issues identified by the respondents included: (a) the political nature of state-level policy formation, (b) the role of legislative staff, (c) the competition for state moneys, (d) legislative concern for state-wide budgetary efficiency, and (e) legislative attempts to define quality and supervise academic program development for higher education.