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: Hawaii Community College
Program: Tutoring Services

Printer Friendly

PDF PDF

Program did not provide date of the last comprehensive review.

Program Description

Unit Mission:

The mission of The Learning Center (TLC) and Hale Kea Advancement and Testing Center (HKATC) as an academic support program for the college needs to be a responsive one which supports the college’s mission and its academic programs.  TLC and HKATC seek to provide services that support and enhance academic development for the college community.  These services focus on academic support for an “open door” institution, providing initial student assessment, access to technology, support for successful learning, and testing services.   
 

Unit Description:

The Learning Center (TLC) is an academic support program of Hawai‘i Community College which is a shared service with University of Hawai‘i at Hilo.  Over the years, TLC has maintained its strong ties to instruction, providing faculty with an extension to their classroom and providing academic support college-wide.  Its basic role of supporting faculty and students in reading, writing, math, and ESL continues to be the focus which provides a firm academic foundation for all students. TLC is open Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.  The staff includes: one full time Faculty Center Coordinator, one full time Clerk Steno II (Office Manager), one full time Educational Specialist A, four Faculty Lab Instructors (reading, writing, ESL, and math who are assigned three credits each to coordinate their area), and 41 clerks/tutors.

 

      TLC services include:

Part I. Quantitative Indicators

Overall Program Health: Healthy

Student and Faculty Information Program Year  
10-11 11-12 12-13
1 Annual Unduplicated Student Headcount   4,754 4,424  
2 Annual FTE Faculty   126 131
2a Annual FTE Staff   125 135
3 Annual FTE Student   2,281 2,114

Demand Indicators Program Year Demand Health Call
10-11 11-12 12-13
4 Unduplicated number of students tutored in one-on-one sessions per student FTE   2,062 0.4 Healthy
5 Unduplicated students enrolled in Dev/Ed classes who were tutored per number of students enrolled in Dev/Ed classes     0.4

Efficiency Indicators Program Year Efficiency Health Call
10-11 11-12 12-13
6 Tutor contact hours per tutor paid hours in one-on-one sessions   2.7 2.0 Healthy
7 Duplicated number of students tutored in groups per tutor paid hours     0
8 Tutoring Budget per student contact hours   $12 $15

Effectiveness Indicators Program Year Effectiveness Health Call
10-11 11-12 12-13
9 Students who receive tutoring should pass their tutored course   1 1  
Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) Survey Year
2008 2010 2012
10 4.h. Tutored or taught other students
  Mean 1.53 1.44 1.44
  Very Often 4.6% 2.6% 3.4%
  Often 8.3% 7.5% 6.9%
  Sometimes 22.4% 20.9% 20.2%
  Never 64.8% 68.9% 69.5%
11 13.1.d. Frequency of using peer or other tutoring
  Mean 1.49 1.47 1.55
  Often 6.3% 7.4% 10.9%
  Sometimes 23.8% 21.1% 20.5%
  Rarely/Never 44.7% 47.7% 46.1%
  N/A 25.2% 23.7% 22.6%
12 13.2.d. Satisfaction with peer or other tutoring
  Mean 2.07 2.09 2.17
  Very 19.2% 17.2% 21.9%
  Somewhat 27.1% 27.4% 29.8%
  Not At All 14.7% 12.3% 11.0%
  N/A 39.0% 43.1% 37.3%
13 13.3.d. Importance of peer or other tutoring
  Mean 2.28 2.24 2.34
  Very 47.3% 44.7% 51.0%
  Somewhat 33.4% 34.5% 31.6%
  Not At All 19.3% 20.8% 17.4%
14 13.1.e. Frequency of using skill labs - writing, math, etc.
  Mean 1.75 1.74 1.72
  Often 17.0% 15.1% 15.6%
  Sometimes 26.7% 26.1% 24.8%
  Rarely/Never 37.0% 34.9% 37.6%
  N/A 19.3% 23.9% 22.0%
15 13.2.e. Satisfaction with skill labs - writing, math, etc.
  Mean 2.22 2.22 2.23
  Very 24.9% 21.2% 21.9%
  Somewhat 32.6% 32.5% 29.8%
  Not At All 9.9% 7.7% 11.0%
  N/A 32.7% 38.7% 37.3%
16 13.3.e. Importance of skill labs - writing, math, etc.
  Mean 2.33 2.35 2.35
  Very 52.6% 53.0% 52.2%
  Somewhat 28.2% 28.7% 30.9%
  Not At All 19.2% 18.3% 16.9%
Last Updated: November 26, 2013

Glossary

Part II. Analysis of the Program

Area Benchmark Scoring

1)  Demand:  Unduplicated number of students tutored in one-on-one sessions per student FTE

Source:  #4

Unduplicated number of students enrolled in Dev/Ed classes who were tutored

Source:  #5

40% - 50%              Healthy

30% - 39%              Cautionary

20% - 29%              Unhealthy

 

40% - 50%              Healthy

30% - 39%              Cautionary

20% - 29%              Unhealthy

 

 

2 = Healthy

1 = Cautionary

0 = Unhealthy

 

2 = Healthy

1 = Cautionary

0 = Unhealthy

Average the two scores together and use the scoring rubric to determine the final "Demand" Helath call score:

1.5 - 2.0             Healthy

0.5 - 1.0             Cautionary

0.0 - 0.4             Unhealthy

2)  Efficiency:  Tutor contact hours per tutor paid hours in one-on-one sessions.

Source:  #6

Tutoring Budget per student contact hours

Source:  #8

1.5 - 2                       Healthy

0.5 - 1.4                    Cautionary

0.0 - 0.4                    Unhealthy

 

$15 - 25                    Healthy

  26 - 35                    Cautionary

  36 - 45                    Unhealthy

  2 = Healthy

  1 = Cautionary

  0 = Unhealthy

 

  2 = Healthy

  1 = Cautionary

  0 = Unhealthy

Average the two scores together and use the scoring rubric to determine the final "Efficiency" Health call score:

  1.5 - 2.0 Healthy

  0.5 - 1.0 Cautionary

  0.0 - 0.4 Unhealthy

 

3)  Effectiveness:  Students who receive tutoring should pass their tutored course

Source:  #9  CCSSE survey results

Source (Average):  #10, 11, 12

Persistence (fall to spring)

  70% - 80%          Healthy

  60% - 69%          Cautionary

  50% - 59%          Unhealthy

 

  2.0 - 3                 Healthy

  1.0 - 1.9              Cautionary

  0.0 - 0.9              Unhealthy

 

Healthy:                70% or higher

Cautionary:           50% - 69%

Unhealthy:             < 50%

  2 = Healthy

  1 = Cautionary

  0 = Unhealthy

 

  2 = Healthy

  1 = Catutionary

  0 = Unhealthy

 

  2 = Healthy

  1 = Cautionary

  0 = Unhealthy

 

Average the 3 scores for "Effectiveness" Health call score:

  1.5 - 2.0 = Healthy

  0.5 - 1.0 = Cautionary

  0.0 - 0.4 = Unhealthy

4)  Overall Health Average health call score from Demand, Efficiency, and Effectiveness

  1.5 - 2.0           Healthy

  0.5 - 1.0           Cautionary

  0.0 - 0.4           Unhealthy

Small group tutoring sessions, and social support environment, students may take advantage of and benefit from the support services.  Although not the only reason for students’ persistence, these factors may contribute and influence their decisions to reenroll the following Spring semester.


 

UNIT LEARNING OUTCOME:  Students who receive tutoring will pass their tutored course. (System-wide common SLO)

Based on the system-wide common learning outcomes, the average pass rate for students who received tutoring was 66%.  This number may seem low, but when compared to the 47% pass rate for students who didn’t receive tutoring, it is a 19% improvement.  Furthermore, students who received tutoring 5 times or more passed their classes at a significantly higher rate of 72%.

                              Non-Tutored vs. Tutored for Fall - Spring Semesters

  2010 -2011 2011 - 2012 2012 - 2013 2010 - 2012
Non-tutored students who passed their classes 45% 46% 49% 47%
*Students who receive tutoring (At least once or more) will pass their tutored courses 64% 65% 68% 66%
Students who received tutoring (5 or more times) will pass their tutored course 72% 76% 72% 73%

* Common Student Learing Outcome

Data results indicate that students who were tutored at least once or more had a higher course success rate than non-tutored students.  The percent increase in the pass rate of tutored versus non-tutored students (average for 2010-2012 AY) was 19%.   In addition, the percent increase in the rate of students who were tutored five times or more versus non-tutored students (average for 2010-2012 AY) was 26%.  The high correlation between tutoring and course pass rates is powerful evidence that TLC has a great impact on providing academic support for student success at HawCC.

 

The following chart provides data on students who were non-tutored, tutored at least one-four times, and tutored five times or more by subject area.

Non-Tutored vs. Tutored Students by Subject Area

Subject Non-Tutored Ave. % passing Tutored (At least one or more times) Ave. % passing Tutored (five times or more) Ave. % passing

Reading F2010 Spr 2011

34% 68% 50%

F2010
 Spr2012

27% 65% 78%

F2012 
 Spr 2013

37% 69% 76%
       
Writing F2010 Spr  2011 43% 55% 59%

F2011   Spr2012

41% 63% 68%

F2012   Spr2013
 

47% 65% 68%
       
MATH F2010   Spr 2011 49% 67% 77%
F2011      Spr2012 53% 69% 90%
F2012         Spr2013 54% 68% 66%

Averaging 2010-2012 AY percentages, students in reading (34%), writing (17%), and math (16%) passed their courses at a higher rate than non-tutored students.  Moreover, the results indicated that students passed their courses at an even higher success rate  in reading (35%), writing (21%), and math (25%) when tutored five or more times.   Data for ESL students was not available because their curriculum required them to receive tutoring.  

 

Part III. Action Plan

No content.

Part IV. Resource Implications

None indicated

Program Student Learning Outcomes

No Program Student Learning Outcomes were entered by the program.