Although the importance of facilitating transfer from community colleges to 4-year institutions is almost universally accepted, there is little consensus on how to measure transfer success or evaluate policies aimed at assisting students in making this educational transition. Despite the increasing attention on transfer in recent decades, the most fundamental types of questions, such as whether community colleges are successful at facilitating transfer and bachelor's degree attainment and whether articulation policies are effective, lack satisfactory answers.
Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study
I describe challenges associated with current endeavors to facilitate and measure transfer success, attempt to resolve some of the inconsistencies in previous research on articulation policies, and illuminate promising paths for the future.
Research Design
The manuscript begins with a synthesis of previous research, including different definitions of transfer success and articulation policies. I then analyze state-level and individual-level data to examine the effectiveness of articulation policies using these distinct definitions. Finally, I draw on descriptive information from various higher education systems to illustrate the variety of strategies adopted to facilitate transfer, and I suggest potential explanations for why statewide articulation policies may not appear effective.
Conclusions/Recommendations
The current state of knowledge and data collection efforts make it impossible to provide definitive answers regarding the effectiveness of articulation policies in higher education. I conclude with recommendations for improving future research and policy regarding this crucial transition in higher education, including collecting and sharing data (with collaboration between higher education institutions and state and federal governments), clearly defining goals of articulation policies and evaluating them accordingly, and developing a consistent set of definitions and measurements of transfer success. I suggest that these recommendations can be implemented by building on existing systems of collaboration and coordination in higher education.
The 2/4 community college-baccalaureate transfer function is one of the most important state policy issues in higher education because its success (or failure) is central to many dimensions of state higher education performance, including access, equity, affordability, cost effectiveness, degree productivity, and quality.
Wellman, 2002, p. 3
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonG. M., SunJ. C., & AlfonsoM. (2006). Effectiveness of statewide articulation agreements on the probability of transfer: A preliminary policy analysis.Review of Higher Education, 29, 261–291.
2.
BahrP. R., HomW., & PerryP. (2005). College transfer performance: A methodology for equitable measurement and comparison.Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 13, 73–87.
3.
BanksD. L. (1994). Effects of environmental conditions on student-transfer activity.Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 18, 245–259.
4.
BarkleyS. M. (1993). A synthesis of recent literature on articulation and transfer.Community College Review, 20(4), 38–50.
5.
BarryR. J., & BarryP. A. (1992). Establishing equality in the articulation process. In DziechB. W. & VilterW. R. (Eds.), Prisoners of elitism: The community college's struggle for stature (pp. 35–44). New Directions for Community Colleges, No. 78. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
6.
BenderL. W. (Ed.). (1990). Spotlight on the transfer function: A national study of state policies and practices. Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges.
7.
BenderL. W. (1991). Minority transfer: A national and state legislative perspective. In AngelD. & BarreraA. (Eds.), Rethinking minority enrollment (pp. 69–75). New Directions for Community Colleges, No. 74. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
8.
BrawerF. B. (1991). Bad news/good news: Collecting transfer data.Community College Review, 19(3), 48–53.
9.
BrintS., & KarabelJ. (1989). The diverted dream: Community colleges and the promise of educational opportunity in America, 1900–1985. New York: Oxford University Press.
10.
ClagettC. A., & HuntingtonR. B. (1992). Assessing the transfer function: Data exchanges and transfer rates.Community College Review, 19(4), 21–26.
11.
ClarkB. R. (1960). The “cooling-out” function in higher education.American Journal of Sociology, 65, 569–576.
12.
CohenA. M. (1994). Analyzing community college transfer rates. In CohenA. M. (Ed.), Relating curriculum and transfer (pp. 71–79). New Directions for Community Colleges, No. 86. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
13.
CohenA. M. (1996). Orderly thinking about a chaotic system. In RifkinT. (Ed.), Transfer and articulation: Improving policies to meet new needs (pp. 25–34). New Directions for Community Colleges, No. 96. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
14.
DoughertyK. J. (1991). The community college at the crossroads: The need for structural reform.Harvard Educational Review, 61, 311–336.
15.
DoughertyK. J., ReidM., & NienhusserH. K. (2006). State policies to Achieve the Dream in five states: An audit of state policies to aid student access to and success in community colleges in the first five Achieving the Dream states.New York: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center.
16.
EatonJ. S. (1991). The many faces of transfer education. In AngelD. & BarreraA. (Eds.), Rethinking minority enrollment (pp. 77–88). New Directions for Community Colleges, No. 74. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
17.
EatonJ. S. (1994). The fortunes of the transfer function: Community colleges and transfer 1900–1990. In BakerG. A.III, DudziakJ., & TylerP. (Eds.), A handbook on the community college in America: Its history, mission, and management (pp. 28–40). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
18.
Education Commission of the States. (1998). Improving articulation policy to increase transfer. Denver, CO: Author.
19.
Education Commission of the States. (2001). State notes: Transfer and articulation policies. Denver, CO: Author.
20.
Education Commission of the States. (2003). Models of postsecondary education coordination and governance in the states. Denver, CO: Author.
21.
Florida Community College System. (2001). AA transfers to the SUS. Tallahassee, FL: Department of Education.
22.
HebelS. (2000, May 26). States without affirmative action focus on community-college transfers.Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(38), pp. A35–A37.
23.
HigginsC. S., & KatsinasS. G. (1999). The relationship between environmental conditions and transfer rates of selected rural community colleges: A pilot study.Community College Review, 27(2), 1–23.
24.
HirshbergD. (1992). Sources and information: Community colleges and issues of articulation and quality. In DziechB. W. & VilterW. R. (Eds.), Prisoners of elitism: The community college's struggle for stature (pp. 87–97). New Directions for Community Colleges, No. 78. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
25.
HungarJ. Y., & LiebermanJ. (2001). The road to equality: Report on transfer for the Ford Foundation.New York: LaGuardia Community College.
26.
IgnashJ. M., & TownsendB. K. (2000). Evaluating state-level articulation agreements according to good practice.Community College Review, 28(3), 1-21.
27.
IgnashJ. M., & TownsendB. K. (2001). Statewide transfer and articulation policies: Current practices and emerging issues. In TownsendB. K. & TwomblyS. B. (Eds.), Community colleges: Policy in the future context (pp. 173–192). Westport, CT: Ablex.
28.
KeithB., & RoksaJ. (2008, March). Toward a conceptual definition of articulation in American higher education.Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.
29.
KintzerF. (1996). A historical and futuristic perspective of articulation and transfer in the United States. In RifkinT. (Ed.), Transfer and articulation: Improving policies to meet new needs (pp. 3–13). New Directions for Community Colleges, No 96. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
30.
KintzerF., & WattenbargerJ. (1985). The articulation/transfer phenomenon: Patterns and directions. Washington, DC: American Association of Community and Junior Colleges.
31.
KnoellD. (1990). Transfer, articulation, and collaboration: Twenty five years later. Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges.
32.
KnoellD. (1996). Moving toward collaboration in transfer and articulation. In RifkinT. (Ed.), Transfer and articulation: Improving policies to meet new Needs (pp. 55–64). New Directions for Community Colleges, No 96. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
33.
KozerackiC. A. (2001). Studying transfer students: Designs and methodological challenges. In LaananF. S. (Ed.), Transfer students: Trends and issues (pp. 61–75). New Directions for Community Colleges, No. 114. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
34.
LaananF. S., & SanchezJ. R. (1996). New ways of conceptualizing transfer rate definitions. In RifkinT. (Ed.), Transfer and articulation: Improving policies to meet new needs (pp. 35–43). New Directions for Community Colleges, No 96. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
35.
LeighD. E., & GillA. M. (2003). Do community colleges really divert students from earning bachelor's degrees?Economics of Education Review, 22, 23–30.
MelguizoT., & DowdA. C. (2006). The study of economic, informational, and cultural barriers to community college student transfer access at selective institutions. In Transfer access to elite colleges and universities in the United States: Threading the needle of the American dream (Section I). Report for the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation, Lansdowne, VA.
38.
National Center for Academic Achievement and Transfer, American Council on Education. (1991). Setting the national agenda: Academic achievement and transfer.Washington DC: American Council on Education.
39.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1997). Transfer behavior among beginning postsecondary students: 1989-1994 (NCES 1997- 266). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
40.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1998). The condition of education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
41.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). Community college transfer rates to 4-year institutions using alternative definitions of transfer (NCES 2001-197). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
42.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Digest of education statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
43.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Community college students: Goals, academic preparation and outcomes (NCES 2003-164). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
44.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2006a). Digest of education statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
45.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2006b). Profile of undergraduates in U.S. postsecondary education institutions: 2003–04 with a special analysis of community college students (NCES 2006-184). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
46.
OrfieldG., & PaulF. G. (1992). State higher education systems and college completion: Final Report to the Ford Foundation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
47.
PalmerJ., & EatonJ. S. (1991). Building the national agenda for transfer: A background paper. In National Center for Academic Achievement and Transfer, American Council on Education, Setting the national agenda: Academic achievement and transfer (pp. 16–52). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
48.
PragerC. (1993). Transfer and articulation within colleges and universities.Journal of Higher Education, 64, 539–554.
49.
PragerC. (1994). The articulation function of community college. In BakerG. A.III (Ed.), A handbook on the community college in America: Its history, mission, and management (pp. 495–507). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
50.
RichardsonR. C. & de los SantosG. E. (2001). Statewide governance structures and two-year colleges. In TownsendB. K. & TwomblyS. B. (Eds.), Community colleges: Policy in the future context (pp. 39–55). Westport, CT: Ablex.
51.
RobertsonP. F., & FrierT. (1996). The role of the state in transfer and articulation. In RifkinT. (Ed.), Transfer and articulation: Improving policies to meet new needs (pp. 15–24). New Directions for Community Colleges, No 96. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
52.
RoksaJ. (2006a). Does vocational focus of community colleges hinder students’ educational attainment?Review of Higher Education, 29, 499–526.
53.
RoksaJ. (2006b). States, schools, and students: Contextualizing community college outcomes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Sociology, New York University, New York, NY.
54.
RoksaJ., & KeithB. (2008). Credits, time, and attainment: Articulation policies and success after transfer.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30, 236–254.
55.
RomanoR. M., & WisniewskiM. (2003, April). Tracking community college transfers using National Student Clearinghouse data. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Council for the Study of Community Colleges, Dallas, TX.
56.
RouseC. E. (1995). Democratization or diversion? The effect of community colleges on educational attainment.Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 13, 217–224.
57.
RouseC. E. (1998). Do two-year colleges increase overall educational attainment? Evidence from the states.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 17, 595–620.
58.
SotelloC., & TurnerV. (1992). It takes two to transfer: Relational networks and educational outcomes.Community College Review, 19(4), 27–33.
59.
SpicerS. L., & ArmstrongW. B. (1996). Transfer: The elusive denominator. In RifkinT. (Ed.), Transfer and articulation: Improving policies to meet new needs (pp. 45–54). New Directions for Community Colleges, No. 96. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
60.
TerzianA. L. (1991). A model in community college transfer programs. In AngelD. & BarreraA. (Eds.,), Rethinking minority enrollment (pp. 87–97). New Directions for Community Colleges, No. 74. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
61.
TownsendB. K. (2001). Blurring the lines: Transforming terminal education to transfer education. In BraggD. D. (Ed.), The new vocationalism in community colleges (pp. 63–71. New Directions for Community Colleges, No. 115. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
62.
WellmanJ. V. (2002). State policy and community college-baccalaureate transfer.Washington DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy.
63.
WickendenT., & NoethR. (2006). Using state longitudinal P-16 data systems to improve post-secondary transitions. Proposal prepared for the Pathways to College Network Meeting, New York, NY.
64.
WrightL. M., & MiddlebergR. (1998). Lessons from a long-term collaboration. In McGrathD. (Ed.), Creating and benefiting from institutional collaboration: Models for success (pp. 5–12). New Directions for Community Colleges, No. 103. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
65.
ZamaniE. M. (2001). Institutional responses to barriers to transfer process. In LaananF. S. (Ed.), Transfer students: Trends and issues (pp. 15–24). New Directions for Community Colleges, No. 114. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
66.
APPENDIX REFERENCE LIST
67.
AndersonG. M., SunJ. C., & AlfonsoM. (2006). Effectiveness of statewide articulation agreements on the probability of transfer: A preliminary policy analysis.Review of Higher Education, 29, 261–291.
68.
Education Commission of the States. (2001). State notes: Transfer and articulation policies. Denver, CO: Author.
69.
IgnashJ. M., & TownsendB. K. (2000). Evaluating state-level articulation agreements according to good practice.Community College Review, 28(3), 1-21.
70.
IgnashJ. M., & TownsendB. K. (2001). Statewide transfer and articulation policies: Current practices and emerging issues. In TownsendB. K. & TwomblyS. B. (Eds.), Community colleges: Policy in the future context (pp. 173–192). Westport, CT: Ablex.
71.
KeithB., & RoksaJ. (2008, March). Toward a conceptual definition of articulation in American higher education.Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.
