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: Honolulu Community College
Program: Tutoring Services

Printer Friendly

PDF PDF

Program did not provide date of the last comprehensive review.

Program Description

The College Skills Center (Testing and Tutoring)

The College Skills Center provides access to the skills necessary for students to become responsible, self-directed learners.

Outcomes and Goals

  1. Students and faculty will receive quality testing services to meet their academic support needs.
  1. Students and faculty will receive quality in-person and online tutoring services that meet their academic support needs.
  1. Students enrolled in the Brush-Up courses will develop the necessary skills to place higher than the levels in Essentials English and/or math.
  1. Students and faculty will receive quality service learning support to meet their academic support needs.

History

The College Skills Center (CSC), was originally called the Learning Assistance Center (LAC), began with city funds, and in 1981 was primarily funded by Title III federal funds. Academic support services included drop-in tutoring in various subjects and testing. The Center has since converted personnel positions to general-funded positions and expanded to provide; distance education/placement testing support, and non-UH testing; and the delivery of entry-level math and English non-credit classes and college study skills courses.

In August 16, 2010, a memo from Chancellor Mike Rota informed the CSC that the math and English faculty members will be moved to the Mathematics and Language Arts departments, respectively. Remedial courses were also transferred to these departments.

A subsequent e-mail from Vice-Chancellor of Academic Affairs Erika Lacro was sent out on March 16, 2011, to inform CSC that the Math and Language Arts departments are to cover mathematics and English tutoring services with their own budgets. The College Skills Center was then told to focus on tutoring at the higher levels.

On August 16, 2012, the College’s reorganization chart was approved. In this new structure, CSC is in the Testing and Tutoring component of Student Success within the Academic Support Division.

An Assessment Workshop (April 17-19, 2013) was followed by a meeting with Russell Uyeno, Interim Vice-Chancellor of Academic Affairs and Chair Jerry Saviano, of Student Success. CSC’s current SLO’s were approved with goals to be established. According to the Accreditation Report (p. 45), the other newly separated units (i.e., Essentials English, Essentials Math) “need to go through their own program review process.”

 

Staff

As a result of the above changes, CSC staff members have been transferred to different departments resulting in the following CSC staffing:

1 Coordinator

1 Math faculty (relocated back to Math Department effective August 2013)

3 T & F and 1 Perkins-funded educational specialists (testing, tutoring, service learning)

1 VISTA member (high school outreach and service learning)

1 clerical staff

LSK 30/30A lecturer

1 .50 IT specialist (selection, maintenance, installation of computer hardware/software programs to service students and staff)

Student assistants (testing/tutoring)

 

Other Services

Smarthinking (on line tutoring service) UH Community colleges as a system purchased Smarthinking, an online tutorial for student use. The CSC was trained, promoted the tutorial system, and trained faculty and students interested in utilizing the system. Instructors utilizing Smarthinking attest to the value of the service.

Student Wrap-Around Concept - The current combination of tutors, faculty, and staff in the CSC supports student learning with a scope that goes well beyond just tutoring. Students are able to express their concerns, and the CSC personnel work with the students to discuss their strategies and how to resolve their issues. Student assistant training sessions in the fall of 2012 addressed this concept, and tutors, faculty, and staff practiced the concept during the academic year.

 

 

 

 

 

Part I. Quantitative Indicators

Overall Program Health: Not Yet Applied

Student and Faculty Information Program Year  
10-11 11-12 12-13
1 Annual Unduplicated Student Headcount   6,039 5,878  
2 Annual FTE Faculty   151 159
2a Annual FTE Staff   184 179
3 Annual FTE Student   2,512 2,469

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   0 538 Not Yet Applied
5 Unduplicated students enrolled in Dev/Ed classes who were tutored per number of students enrolled in Dev/Ed classes     0

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   0 0 Not Yet Applied
7 Duplicated number of students tutored in groups per tutor paid hours     0
8 Tutoring Budget per student contact hours   $0 $0

Effectiveness Indicators Program Year Effectiveness Health Call
10-11 11-12 12-13
9 Students who receive tutoring should pass their tutored course   0 0  
Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) Survey Year
2008 2010 2012
10 4.h. Tutored or taught other students
  Mean 1.42 1.48 1.54
  Very Often 3.5% 3.4% 6.1%
  Often 3.6% 5.7% 7.0%
  Sometimes 24.5% 25.9% 21.3%
  Never 68.4% 64.9% 65.6%
11 13.1.d. Frequency of using peer or other tutoring
  Mean 1.49 1.42 0.00
  Often 6.8% 7.8% 0.0%
  Sometimes 19.9% 15.6% 0.0%
  Rarely/Never 41.5% 50.1% 0.0%
  N/A 31.8% 26.5% 0.0%
12 13.2.d. Satisfaction with peer or other tutoring
  Mean 2.12 2.09 0.00
  Very 16.8% 14.5% 0.0%
  Somewhat 23.2% 25.5% 0.0%
  Not At All 10.6% 10.1% 0.0%
  N/A 49.5% 50.0% 0.0%
13 13.3.d. Importance of peer or other tutoring
  Mean 2.14 2.13 0.00
  Very 41.2% 41.5% 0.0%
  Somewhat 31.1% 30.2% 0.0%
  Not At All 27.7% 28.2% 0.0%
14 13.1.e. Frequency of using skill labs - writing, math, etc.
  Mean 1.73 1.62 0.00
  Often 15.1% 12.8% 0.0%
  Sometimes 22.6% 20.8% 0.0%
  Rarely/Never 35.0% 40.8% 0.0%
  N/A 27.3% 25.6% 0.0%
15 13.2.e. Satisfaction with skill labs - writing, math, etc.
  Mean 2.26 2.12 0.00
  Very 22.6% 15.4% 0.0%
  Somewhat 24.4% 30.9% 0.0%
  Not At All 8.1% 9.0% 0.0%
  N/A 44.8% 44.8% 0.0%
16 13.3.e. Importance of skill labs - writing, math, etc.
  Mean 2.21 2.18 0.00
  Very 44.1% 42.9% 0.0%
  Somewhat 32.9% 32.0% 0.0%
  Not At All 22.9% 25.1% 0.0%
Last Updated: November 8, 2013

Glossary

Part II. Analysis of the Program

Tutoring Services

Goals:

Students receiving tutoring will succeed in the courses tutored at 70% or higher.

70% of students receiving tutoring successfully completed the courses they were tutored in with a C grade or higher which meets the stated goal. Based on overall data collected for AY 2013 (1,645 sessions or contacts, 538 unduplicated students), students who received tutoring sessions did significantly better than those who received less, both in terms of number of sessions and in the time spent in the sessions. Students who had three or more sessions did better than their counterparts with two or fewer sessions, 76% success compared to 63%. Also, students with 400 minutes or more of tutoring time did far better than thos with less, 79% to 59% success rates. These success rates of 76% and 79%, respectively, exceed the goal of 70%, if time and sessions are increased. In sum, more tutoring time and sessions both significantly improved student performance, but more computer work only slightly improved

Student satisfaction surveys will average 4.0 or higher on a 1 – 5 (highly satisfied) rating scale.

Of 27 students surveyed, 7 satisfaction questions received responses averaging scores between 4.6 and 4.9 on a scale of 1-5 (highest satisfaction)  This meets the stated goal of 4.0 or higher. This high level of satisfaction indicates that students have been very satisfied with the level of service and competency provided by the tutors.

Smarthinking

Below are FY 11-12 and FY 12-13 total number of sessions and total usage hours.

FY

#sessions

Hours

2012-13

571

370

2011-12

365

234

 

Non-Credit Brushup Courses

Goal

Students who meet the exit requirements of the Math Brushup course will place into a higher level of math at 70% or higher.

77% of students who retook the placement test placed into a higher level of math which meets the stated goal. Since the creation of the course a total of 173 students have enrolled in the program.  16 students were enrolled mainly for enrichment purposes to prepare for their initial placement test, to prepare for their next math class, or to prepare for another test such as the ASVAB and PHNSY test.  52 students were allowed to retake the placement test with 40 of these students, or 77%, placing into a higher math level.  12 of the 40 students have actually placed at least 2 levels higher than their initial placement.  Students who have taken the next level math course have done as well or better than other students in the courses. 

The Compass Math Brush-Up program was started in the summer of 2011 as a non-credit course designed to help students review their basic math skills and retake the Compass Placement Test.  The course utilizes the ALEKS online learning system and was initially offered free to students with the assistance of ARRA monies distributed by the UHCC System.  Currently the course costs $40 for 6 weeks of access to the ALEKS program.  Students are expected to spend at least 2 hours per day, Monday through Friday, working on the ALEKS system.  Upon completion of 100% of the Pre-Algebra curriculum, students are allowed to retake the placement test with the $25 retake fee waived. 

An online English Brushup program was pilot tested but did not yield positive results. Of 8 students that started the program, one completed and exited the program, retook the placement test but did not place into English 22. Further research is needed to determine a more suitable program which may increase student success of students.

Tutoring services were also directly involved in Smarthinking - an on line tutorial services.  In FY 12-13 a total of 571 sessions were used with for at total of 370 hours of usage.

 

 

 

Part III. Action Plan

1.         More accurate tracking of the classes for which students come in. The institutional analyst was unable to link up all students to their classes for the year.

2.         Devising a better measure of student success. Perhaps students can be surveyed when they complete a session and combine this information with the grades for a more comprehensive assessment.

3.         Work with other tutoring services at HCC to develop a systematic and consistent form of data collection (currently exploring software options).

 

Part IV. Resource Implications

None at this time

Program Student Learning Outcomes

For the 2012-2013 program year, some or all of the following P-SLOs were reviewed by the program:

Assessed
this year?
Program Student Learning Outcomes

1

Yes
Students receiving tutoring will succeed in the courses tutored at 70% or higher.

2

Yes
Student satisfaction surveys will average 4.0 or higher on a 1 – 5 (highly satisfied) rating scale.

A) Expected Level Achievement

No content.

B) Courses Assessed

No content.

C) Assessment Strategy/Instrument

Student Survey

D) Results of Program Assessment

Students receiving tutoring will succeed in the courses tutored at 70% or higher.

70% of students receiving tutoring successfully completed the courses they were tutored in with a C grade or higher which meets the stated goal. Based on overall data collected for AY 2013 (1,645 sessions or contacts, 538 unduplicated students), students who received tutoring sessions did significantly better than those who received less, both in terms of number of sessions and in the time spent in the sessions. Students who had three or more sessions did better than their counterparts with two or fewer sessions, 76% success compared to 63%. Also, students with 400 minutes or more of tutoring time did far better than thos with less, 79% to 59% success rates. These success rates of 76% and 79%, respectively, exceed the goal of 70%, if time and sessions are increased. In sum, more tutoring time and sessions both significantly improved student performance, but more computer work only slightly improved

 

           Student satisfaction surveys will average 4.0 or higher on a 1 – 5 (highly satisfied) rating scale.

Of 27 students surveyed, 7 satisfaction questions received responses averaging scores between 4.6 and 4.9 on a scale of 1-5 (highest satisfaction)  This meets the stated goal of 4.0 or higher. This high level of satisfaction indicates that students have been very satisfied with the level of service and competency provided by the tutors.

E) Other Comments

No content.

F) Next Steps

Continue to evaluate, assess, and make program improvements based on data