Program Evaluation of Community College Learning Assistance Centers

Abstract

Objective: This study seeks to determine the nature of current program evaluation practices for learning assistance centers (LACs), the practices being used for program evaluation, and whether LAC directors believe their practices are appropriate for evaluating program effectiveness. Method: We conducted a survey (n = 61) of community college LAC directors to determine the pervasiveness of program evaluation and use of evaluation practices. In addition to rating the level of use of these practices, we asked directors to rate their agreement as to whether these practices were currently being used and whether these should be used at their institutions. We provide both a descriptive analysis of the responses and an analysis using the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test (WSRT). Results: The study yielded several findings. Evaluation of LACs is common at 70.5%. LACs are often small with limited capacity to carry out program evaluation. LACs rely on many part-time and student employees to provide services. Centers lack data on special populations served such as developmental and underrepresented students. LAC directors would appreciate greater faculty involvement in program evaluation. LAC directors have limited control over program evaluation and the measures used in evaluation. Many evaluation best practices are being employed, although LAC directors believed improvements could be made. Survey results include a list of commonly employed data collection measures. Contributions: Despite crucial services provided by LACs at community colleges, little is known about how these centers are evaluated. To address this gap, this study surveys LAC directors about their program evaluation practices and needs.

Student Challenges with the University Access Program in South Africa

“…Contrast to Franklin and Blankenberger's (2016) view as to what constitutes a learning support centre, for co-researchers a learning support centre meant the availability and accessibility of support. From co-researchers remarks, it seems as if they did not attach support centres to a physical building.…”

“…According to Franklin and Blankenberger (2016), there is a need to improve academic support for UAP students. One mechanism that can direct the improvement of academic support is the availability of learning assistance support centres.…”

“…One mechanism that can direct the improvement of academic support is the availability of learning assistance support centres. Franklin and Blankenberger (2016) classify a learning assistance support centre as "a designated physical location on campus that provides an organised, multifaceted approach to offering comprehensive academic enhancement activities outside of the traditional classroom setting to the entire college community" (p. 4), and the availability of such centre is viewed as one of the best practice and critical resources that an institution can make available.…”

“…Another issue is that CTL is located on the mainstream campus, quite a distance from the UAP campus. Franklin and Blankenberger (2016) documented the need for Learning Assistance Centres (LACs), which seem to provide a wide range of services similar to ALSA and CTL. Gyamera (2018) suggested that the universities should encourage students to engage actively in co-curricular, including clubs, debates, and cultural group celebrations, to complement the classroom experience and build community.…”

Academic Writers as Interdisciplinary Agents in the University Access Programme

“…That is, collaborative practices will address diverse discipline-specific writing needs. Franklin and Blankenberger (2016) perceived centers such as LAC as being in a position to provide a wide range of services in support of the mission of the institution, such as tutors, study groups, support for special needs students, study skills instruction, writing assistance, and computer assistance. For Franklin and Blankenberger (2016), these designed centers need not be exclusive; that is, centers are open to all students, those who did not meet the university admission score, and the mainstream student population.…”