University of Hawaii Community Colleges
Academic Support Annual Report of Program Data (ARPD)

Select the desired review year, college, and program from the drop down menus. Once a program has been selected, the results will be displayed.

Review Year: College: Program:

College: Leeward Community College
Program: Academic Support Services

Printer Friendly

PDF PDF

Program did not provide date of the last comprehensive review.

Program Description

Academic Services incorporates many essential services vital to the academic success of our students. These services include the Library, Educational Media Center, the Learning Resource Center, the Writing Center, the Testing Center, the Innovation Center for Teaching and Learning, KI (Students With Disabilities Services) and the Theater.

Part I. Quantitative Indicators

Overall Academic Support Services Program Health:
Not Yet Applied
Student and Faculty Information Program Year  
09-10 10-11 11-12
1 Annual Unduplicated Student Headcount     10,050  
2 Annual FTE Faculty     186
2a Annual FTE Staff     187
3 Annual FTE Student     4,289

Library Overall Health Call: Not Yet Applied
Demand Indicators Program Year Demand Health Call
09-10 10-11 11-12
4 Number of informational and reference questions per student and faculty FTE     0.9 Not Yet Applied
5 Number of students attending presentations sessions per student FTE     0.7
6 Number of circulations, electronic books used, full-text journal articles downloaded per student and faculty FTE     26.4
7 Number of web accessible computers per student FTE     0.0
Efficiency Indicators Program Year Efficiency Health Call
09-10 10-11 11-12
8 Number of informational and reference questions answered per FTE librarian     780.4 Not Yet Applied
9 Number of book volumes per student FTE     16.6
10 Total materials expenditures per student FTE     $15
11 Total library expenditures per student and faculty FTE     $175
Effectiveness Indicators Program Year Effectiveness Health Call
09-10 10-11 11-12
12 Common Student Learning Outcome: The student will evaluate information and its sources critically     97.6 Not Yet Applied
13 Student and faculty satisfaction measurements using common survey questions     0

Tutoring Services Overall Health Call: Not Yet Applied
Demand Indicators Program Year Demand Health Call
09-10 10-11 11-12
14 Number of students tutored per student FTE     0.3 Not Yet Applied
15 Number of students who placed in Dev/Ed through COMPASS per student FTE     1.6
Efficiency Indicators Program Year Efficiency Health Call
09-10 10-11 11-12
16 Tutor contact hours per tutor paid hours     1.05 Not Yet Applied
17 Student contact hours per tutor paid hours     .672
18 Number of sessions per tutor paid hours     .666
19 Tutoring Budget per student contact hours     $57
Effectiveness Indicators Program Year Effectiveness Health Call
09-10 10-11 11-12
20 Common Student Learning Outcome: Students who receive tutoring will pass their tutored course.     1 Not Yet Applied
Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) Survey Year
  2010 2012
21 4.h. Tutored or taught other students (paid or voluntary)
  Very Often     3.70
  Often     5.30
  Sometimes     18.60
  Never     72.50
22 13.d. Peer or other tutoring (frequency, satisfaction, importance)
  Frequencey     1.62
  Satisfaction     2.36
  Importance     2.36
23 13.e. Skill labs (writing, math, etc.) (frequency, satisfaction, importance)
  Frequencey     1.70
  Satisfaction     2.36
  Importance     2.38

Testing Services Overall Health Call: Not Yet Applied
Demand Indicators Program Year Demand Health Call
09-10 10-11 11-12
24 Number of placement tests administered per year per student FTE     1 Not Yet Applied
25 Number of Distance Learning tests administered per year per student FTE     0.5
26 Local campus tests proctored per year per student FTE     1.6
Efficiency Indicators Program Year Efficiency Health Call
09-10 10-11 11-12
27 Testing seats per student FTE     0.0 Not Yet Applied
28 Testing seats per total number of tests     0.1
29 Total number of tests per Testing Budget     $4
Effectiveness Indicators Program Year Effectiveness Health Call
09-10 10-11 11-12
30 Satisfaction measurements using common survey questions     4 Not Yet Applied

Technology Resources Overall Health Call: Not Yet Applied
Demand Indicators Program Year Demand Health Call
09-10 10-11 11-12
31 Number of online courses per year per total number of courses (live and online)     24% Not Yet Applied
32 Number of student, faculty and staff computers per IT desktop support staff     175
33 Number of technology workshops for faculty per faculty FTE     0.2
34 Number of technology workshops for staff per staff FTE     0.2
35 Number of technology workshops for students per student FTE     0
Efficiency Indicators Program Year Efficiency Health Call
09-10 10-11 11-12
36 Average response time for Help Desk calls     1 Not Yet Applied
37 Average processing time for work orders     1
38 Total number of computers per Computer Services Budget     $0
Effectiveness Indicators Program Year Effectiveness Health Call
09-10 10-11 11-12
Common survey questions Not Yet Applied
39 1) I am satisfied with the customer service of the Help Desk/computer services staff.     4
40 2) I am satisfied with the response time of the Help Desk/computer services staff.     5
41 3) The computers on campus meet my needs.     5
42 4) I am satisfied with the quality of work of the instructional design faculty and staff.     0
Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) Survey Year
  2010 2012
43 4.j. Used the Internet or instant messaging to work on an assignment
  Very Often     52.00
  Often     22.50
  Sometimes     20.70
  Never     4.90
44 9.g. Using computers in academic work
  Very Much     52.10
  Quite a Bit     30.70
  Some     13.10
  Very Little     4.10
45 12.g. Using computing and information technology
  Very Much     32.50
  Quite a Bit     34.90
  Some     27.50
  Very Little     5.10
46 13.h. Computer lab
  Frequency     1.85
  Satisfaction     2.43
  Importance     2.44

Last Updated: December 4, 2012
Glossary

Part II. Analysis of the Program

 

 

Part II.  Analysis of Program/Library

 

Demand:  the Library responded to 3902 reference questions and 3056 students attending library orientation and information literacy sessions in FY12.  Reference questions are tallied at the 3rd floor reference desk and do not include an accurate count of the many similar queries received at the circulation desk and throughout the building, so the ratio in reality is much closer to 1.  As more students enter the building to utilize the college’s only open computer lab and the other amenities of the Learning Commons, more questions are reasonably anticipated.  The output for instruction services continues to grow as well (early returns see the number of sessions offered nearly doubled in Fall 2012) and thereby will serve more students and instructors.  Circulation figures will likely rise as a result of increased turnstile counts plus increased awareness of library resources shared in instructional sessions.

 

Efficiency:  librarians will only exceed this year’s level of reference answers as more students take advantage of online formats such as live chat and texting, going along with the traditional methods of phone, email, and in-person questions.  The monograph collection will continue to meet the demands of growing enrollment as shelf space.  Finances will be challenged to exceed the current level of funding per patron, however, as the book budget has not had been increased in at least four years.

 

Effectiveness:  with the cooperation of the Language Arts faculty and the superlative efforts of the Instructional Services Librarian, the Library is achieving strong pass rates for the information literacy exams in both English 22 and English 100.  Given the rising demand for more classes, however, the Information Services Librarian cannot continue to meet the pace of teaching without substantive support, and that will almost certainly cut into the exams’ pass rates.

 

 

 

 

Part II.  Analysis of Program/Learning Resource Center

Demand:

Given that 29% of student FTEs met with tutors in the LRC in AY2011-12, demand for tutoring services seems to be high.  Demand is stimulated by publicity of various kinds.  Years of survey data have shown that one of the main ways students learn about LRC tutoring is from their instructors; faculty are informed about our services in weekly emails to the campus. Signs about writing consultant services are posted in all classrooms where writing and reading classes are held and on campus bulletin boards, and signs with photos of content tutors are posted in classrooms where the specific courses are taught.  In Fall 2011, many instructors brought their classes to the LRC for orientation tours in which tutoring services were introduced; in Spring 2012, the LRC’s small temporary location could not accommodate full classes. In addition to tours, many tutors visited classes to announce and promote their services and distribute LRC information.

 

The 29% figure cited above does not include students who met with tutors outside the LRC. In the past year, well over 2000 students participated in in-class workshops (ICWs) in which writing consultants assisted them with writing assignments in their classes.  (This number of students is not unduplicated, as some students probably were enrolled in more than one class that participated in ICWs.)

 

 

IN-CLASS WORKSHOPS

Fall 2011

Spring 2012

Summer 2012

Total

# of students

530

555

15

1100

# of sessions

74

64

2

140

Total contacts (est.)

1480

1280

30

2790

 

Science tutors “embedded” in science study areas also provided support for students outside the LRC. In Spring 2012, these tutors had more than 214 contacts with students in science study areas for chemistry and zoology. Many -- perhaps a majority -- of the students who attended ICWs or used on-site science tutoring did not come to the LRC for tutoring (although the ICWs may well have encouraged some students to seek additional help in the LRC); thus, when these students are added to the 29%, the actual percentage of the total student population that made use of tutoring services would be considerably higher.

 

Since 2009-10, the LRC has received additional funds to support services for students enrolled in developmental writing and reading classes. These funds have enabled the tutoring program to better meet the demand for services, and by increasing the supply of writing consultants, may have served to stimulate demand as well.  In 2011-12 and 2012-13, the need for continued support for the increase in LRC tutoring in the past several years was recognized when the LRC received increases in the base budget for tutoring.

At busy times of the day and semester, demand for writing help has often exceeded the supply of available writing consultants; this is particularly true when several writing consultants are out of the facility at an ICW.

 

Increasing demand:  This report covers Fall 2011 through Summer 2012, including spring and summer when the LRC was located in two less than ideal locations (spring and early summer in a small classroom, late summer in a remote corner of campus). In recent years, as enrollment has increased, demand for LRC tutoring services has grown annually. Now that tutoring is relocated in the LRC and Writing Center’s two attractive, newly furnished spaces in the campus’ new, optimally located Learning Commons, this trend is continuing, as this comparison of services (including both individual and group sessions) from the same period in Fall 2011 and Fall 2012 shows:

 

 

 

visits (sessions)

students

Fall 2011(8/22/11 - 11/16/11)

1832

611

Fall 2012 (8/20/12 - 11/14/12)

2047

668

%age change

12%

9%

 

 

Thus, the number of students using tutoring services is increasing, and the frequency of visits is increasing at a slightly higher rate.  

 

Demand from instructors:While student demand certainly accounts for much of the increase in tutoring services, instructor demand plays a significant role as well. In-class workshops (ICWs) are scheduled by instructor request, with instructors across the curriculum, (those who teach writing-intensive courses and others who assign writing) as well as writing instructors asking for the sessions.  For content tutoring, instructors from a growing range of subjects are now requesting support for their courses and are recommending prospective tutors for the LRC to hire. Assuming this trend continues, increased instructor demand is likely to contribute to a further rise in student use of both writing and content tutoring services.

 

Efficiency:

Tutoring services are delivered efficiently. The metric for tutor contact hours per tutor paid hours is greater than 100% since the weekly language conversation groups make substantial use of volunteers.  Whether measured by student contact hours or sessions per paid hour, tutors spend a large proportion of their paid time working with students.

In general, content tutors work by appointment, so they are only paid for the times they actually spend tutoring students, making efficient use of resources. The exception to this is the science tutors who provide drop-in tutoring services in science study areas. While they do have some down times when no students use their help, these are more than made up for by the times when they are assisting several students at once. The language conversation groups are, by definition, efficient and cost-effective since 2-5 students are receiving help from a single tutor (or, in some cases, volunteer).

Writing consultants (WCs) work set hours that include appointments and walk-ins. In recent years, the proportion of walk-ins has markedly decreased and as already stated, at busy times, many students are turned away because all of the WCs are busy, an indication of the increased demand. When WCs are waiting for walk-ins, they are generally preparing for in-class workshops, updating materials for the new Writing Center website, or expanding their grammar and writing knowledge through self-study. All of these activities meet the definition of tutor contact hours as “hours students are paid to be on call.”

Effectiveness:
For the purposes of this program review, effectiveness of tutoring is measured quantitatively, by pass rate in the courses in which students were tutored.  By this standard, tutoring services are definitely effective. In AY2011-2012, of 1286 students who were tutored, 1096, or 85.23%, passed their courses. In comparison, 77.2% of students who took the same courses but did not use tutoring passed.  Note that these figures include many duplicate students, since many students used tutoring for more than one course.

 

Student feedback on writing and content services provides a qualitative measure of the effectiveness of tutoring.

Writing support feedback (individual sessions): Students who meet with writing consultants fill out an evaluation form at the end of each session. These evaluations are almost always positive; from Fall 2011 through Summer 2012, a total of 2,022 sessions were evaluated, and for all nine statements, responses averaged 4.9 or 5.0 on a 5-point Likert scale. Statements included Working with the writing consultant helped me improve my writing and/or understand of the work we discussed, Today's session was a positive and helpful experience, and I would recommend the Writing Center to other students. Typical comments include:


 

 

Writing support feedback (in-class workshops): Feedback on in-class workshops was also positive, as the following results indicate (ratings are on a 5-point scale):

 

 

Fall
2011

Spring 2012

Summer 2012

The in-class workshops helped me improve my paper and/or my understanding of the work we discussed.

4.5

4.6

4.7

Participating in the in-class workshops helped me plan what I could do to continue working on my paper and/or the work we discussed.

4.6

4.7

4.7

 

Content support feedback (in LRC):  Students also fill out an evaluation form at the end of each individual content tutoring session. Like the writing evaluations, these are typically positive.  From Fall 2011 through Summer 2012, a total of 830 sessions were evaluated, and on all seven statements, responses averaged 4.9 or 5.0 on a 5-point Likert scale. Statements included The tutor improved my understanding of the subject, The tutor explained ideas clearly, and I'm satisfied with what the tutor and I accomplished during the time we spent.  Typical comments include:

 

Science tutoring feedback (outside LRC): In Fall 2011 and Spring 2012, students who met with tutors in science study rooms for help with General Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, and Anatomy & Physiology were surveyed about their experience with the tutoring service. In Fall, surveys were given twice, at mid-semester (44 responses) and near the end of semester (50 responses); in spring, surveys were given after mid-semester (31 responses). In both semesters, responses to the four rating questions were positive, with average responses of 3.9 or 4.0 on a 4-point Likert scale for all questions, which included The tutor helped me to improve my understanding of the course material andI would recommend this service to other students. Students’ most frequent comment was to request more tutors or more hours of tutoring.

 

Language conversation group feedback:  The conversation group program (which won the UHCC Wo Innovation of the Year Award for 2011) is very popular with student participants, as these results from the feedback forms distributed at each session (total of 1054 responses for AY 2011-2012) show (ratings are on a 5-point scale):


 

 

 

 

Fall 2011

Spring 2012

I learned something new about the language (vocabulary, structure, pronunciation, polite usage, etc.) or the culture at this session.

4.9

4.8

The tutor was friendly and encouraging to me.

4.9

4.9

I felt comfortable in the group.

4.9

4.9

 

 


 

 

Part II.  Analysis of Program/Testing Services and Technology Resources

 

The Test Center provides testing service tests to students enrolled in Distance Learning courses, from the University of Hawaii system as well as non-UH affiliated campuses.  We offer paper-based and online computer-based tests, including make-up exams, placement testing, and Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) exams for the Office of Continuing Education and Workforce Development. The Test Center strives to maintain the highest quality of testing technology and delivers services with equal standards of confidentiality and integrity.  Exam records are stored in secured file cabinets which are only accessible by Test Center personnel.

 

In reviewing the data, there is an indication of an upward trend in proctoring services.  With the continued growth of Distance Learning courses, increasing student enrollment, Developmental Educational courses, hybrid courses, High School early admit programs, Youth Challenge and students enrolled in non-UH affiliated campuses, the need for a larger testing facility increases as well.  The table below displays the number of users who utilized the Test Center.

 

 

 

July 1 - June 30

2008-2009

9,018

2009-2010

12,319

2010-2011

12,261

2011-2012

23,525

 

The Test Center is open 40 hours per week and staffing is provided by one full time staff position and two student assistants at 20 hours per student.  There are only 20 computer seats for students to take online computer-based exams but no dedicated desks for paper-based written exams.  Currently, only online computer-based exams are offered in our open lab after the Test Center closes for the day.

 

The data from the satisfaction survey indicates a high level of satisfaction with our services.  Comments from surveys list a high satisfaction in directions given during placement tests, and the overall friendliness of the staff.   

 

 

 

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

The Testing Center staff is friendly and helpful

32

6

38

678

1711

The hours at the Testing center meet my needs

39

68

122

711

1526

The atmosphere at the Testing Center is conducive to testing

24

19

72

671

1680

The services at the Testing Center are satisfactory

25

6

46

680

1708

My test was administered in a timely and efficient manner

24

6

49

664

1721

 

The Effectiveness Indicators in the ARPD is flawed because it does not allow for the values of the survey results to be inputted.   There are 5 satisfaction measures but only one entry is allowed.  In order to enter one number, a mean average of all 5 questions was calculated.

 

Test Center survey comments and suggestions:

Part III. Action Plan

Part III.  Action Plan/Library

 

The Library must consolidate its gains in public service and prepare for not only more traffic in the vital areas of circulation and reference but also the increasing number of visitors to the building for semi-related and unrelated offerings (including especially the opportunity cost of managing the computer lab).  The new audiences may also put demands upon library resources heretofore unseen, and so collection development will be pressed to anticipate these new needs while balancing the needs of traditional library constituents.

 

As with the other Academic Support units, the Library awaits the full report of the WASC site visit team to identify any college deficiencies to which it can improve.  Following the college’s mission, the Library has already drafted plans to expand its service to native Hawaiian students and the leeward Oahu community.

 

 

Part III.  Action Plan/Learning Resource Center

 

Expand content tutor services for groups.The LRC continues to expand our group services. In recent years, content tutors have developed and offered interactive workshops early in the semester designed to help students develop success strategies for accounting and science courses. Attendance at these workshops has continued to increase, and evaluation of the workshops has been generally positive. In Spring 2012, a couple of review sessions were offered for psychology. In Fall 2012, tutors are offering review sessions for PSY100, PHYS151, and GEOG101. Sessions held to date have been well attended. This may be a good way of supporting students who have not sought out individual tutoring, as well as being a cost-effective way to support student learning. In Spring 2013, we plan to contact instructors early in order to find out exam schedules and set up more such sessions throughout the semester.

 

Continue and expand training for peer tutors and mentors. Both Writing Center and LRC already partner with the Math Lab to train math lab tutors, and the Writing Specialist also trains STEM tutors in the Halau (Native Hawaiian center) and peer mentors in Student Services.  In Spring 2013, the LRC Coordinator will provide training for STEM tutors and mentors funded under an NSF grant.

 

Improve LRC publicity. While the LRC and Writing Center do a good job of keeping faculty informed about our services through email, and post signs in classrooms to inform students, some more large-format signs around campus would serve to inform even more students of what is offered. The LRC website will also be redesigned to incorporate our change of focus with the Learning Commons, and additional publicity materials (fliers or bookmarks) will be created and distributed.

 

 

Part III.  Action Plan/Test Center and Technology Resources

 

The proposed Learning Commons,an active, student-centered learning space offering a variety of support services in a comfortable, technology-rich setting that encourages collaboration will enable the campus to efficiently combine resources.  Computer services currently provided in the College Computer Labs, Library and Learning Resource Center will be moved to the Learning Commons which will combine the core services of the academic support units. 

Until the Learning Commons is established in the Fall of 2012, the Test Center staff will try to address the limited space in the Test Center.

 

Having the testing services in one building will be beneficial for students as the hours of operation will be extended, written and online testing will be in one location, an increased number of computer stations available, and tables for paper-based written exams

Part IV. Resource Implications

 

 

 

Part IV.  Resource Implications/Library

 

The fitness assessment of current Library staff to execute these new and growing duties began in earnest last year, with two civil service positions in circulation successfully upgraded to APT, but that is only the beginning.  Solicitation for an additional library faculty position, who can address Hawaiian studies as well as share the burden of the increasing instruction load, is underway.  All job descriptions are being reviewed in anticipation of a shift away from 20th century library responsibilities, heavy in processing and other technical services, and toward providing optimal public service so as to ingratiate the Library to a generation unfamiliar with past traditions. 

 

It remains to be seen where the Library fits into any formal governance structure of the Learning Commons.  It is reasonable to presume that its roster size, compared to the other LC units, will be sufficient evidence to continue shifting all aspects of public service to the Library’s staff.  That may include additional building hours and new responsibilities, which will necessitate additional personnel.

 

The Library must also undergo a careful evaluation of the current array of resources and how viable the format (print v online) ratio is for meeting the demands of a patron audience that, as the college continues to add DE curriculum, may never set foot in the building.  Examining service implications necessarily follows a resource review of that nature. 

 

In short, the Library will certainly face more challenges in the new Learning Commons setting and would be preparing for additional service demands, even if there had never been a renovation.  It is vital to measure usage of resources (including personnel) during this first year of LC service but to calibrate future demands accurately.  Will in-person demand increase exponentially or will the availability of new physical settings on campus wick away the turnstile count? 

 

As this data is collected and analyzed, the most important objective for the Library in this fiscal year is its continued ability to replace and upgrade positions.  Past practices of reallocating jobs to other units must cease if the Library’s role within the Learning Commons and the college at large is to be successful. 

 

 

Part IV.  Resource Implications/Learning Resource Center

 

As previously stated, usage of tutoring services has increased since the LRC has moved to the Learning Commons and divided into two subunits. This, along with our increasingly diversified services, definitely has resource implications; at this point, It’s difficult to know whether our current budget, even with recent increases, will be sufficient to meet the increased demand.  Since the new spaces in the Learning Commons have been well equipped with computers and furniture, we require few additions to these resources. 

 

 

Part IV.  Resource Implications/Testing Services and Technology Resources

 

As the Test Center services are more widely utilized by DL classes, placement testing, etc., additional funding will need to be provided to hire additional permanent staff and student assistants as proctoring services will significantly increase the workload for the Test Center staff.

 

Supplementary funding for office furniture should also be provided for the new location of the Test Center in the Learning Commons.

 

Equipment in the Test Center should be refreshed every 3 or 4 years in order to provide the highest quality testing technology to patrons of the Test Center.

Program Student Learning Outcomes

No Program Student Learning Outcomes were entered by the program.