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: Kauai Community College
Program: Tutoring Services

Printer Friendly

PDF PDF

The last comprehensive review for this program was on 2012, and can be viewed at:
http://www.hawaii.edu/offices/cc/arpd/academicsupport.php?action=analysis&college=KAU&year=2012&program=161

Program Description

Tutoring

Tutoring services is located in the new Learning Commons. Its primary function is to provide tutoring to KCC students on an appointment and a walk-in basis. Tutoring in mainly done by peer tutors. Tutoring has a collection of reference materials, mostly books, for student and tutor reference to be used in house. There is also a study room which is used for both group tutoring and quiet study. There are four computers and one printer for student use. In addition to tutoring, Tutoring provides study skills workshops, computer workshops, and the Brush-up program for writing and math.

Program Mission Statement: To help empower students to become efficient, confident, and independent learners and develop requisite skills they need to succeed in obtaining their academic, career, and personal goals, thus enabling them to lead self-directed and productive lives now and in the 21st century.

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   1,718 1,801  
2 Annual FTE Faculty   71 72
2a Annual FTE Staff   85 93
3 Annual FTE Student   780 802

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   0.4 0.5 Not Yet Applied
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   0.31 .63 Not Yet Applied
7 Duplicated number of students tutored in groups per tutor paid hours     14
8 Tutoring Budget per student contact hours   $31 $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 1  
Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) Survey Year
2008 2010 2012
10 4.h. Tutored or taught other students
  Mean 1.40 1.36 1.53
  Very Often 3.3% 2.1% 2.9%
  Often 5.8% 3.9% 11.0%
  Sometimes 18.6% 22.4% 22.0%
  Never 72.3% 71.6% 63.9%
11 13.1.d. Frequency of using peer or other tutoring
  Mean 1.50 1.47 1.61
  Often 6.5% 6.4% 12.1%
  Sometimes 23.8% 22.2% 27.3%
  Rarely/Never 43.6% 45.1% 45.2%
  N/A 26.1% 26.3% 15.4%
12 13.2.d. Satisfaction with peer or other tutoring
  Mean 2.05 2.27 2.30
  Very 12.5% 20.8% 27.6%
  Somewhat 37.2% 26.3% 32.1%
  Not At All 9.7% 6.4% 7.4%
  N/A 40.7% 46.5% 32.9%
13 13.3.d. Importance of peer or other tutoring
  Mean 2.19 2.21 2.39
  Very 42.2% 45.3% 54.1%
  Somewhat 35.1% 30.6% 30.5%
  Not At All 22.8% 24.1% 15.4%
14 13.1.e. Frequency of using skill labs - writing, math, etc.
  Mean 1.78 1.72 1.78
  Often 13.9% 16.3% 16.6%
  Sometimes 33.4% 21.8% 29.3%
  Rarely/Never 31.0% 37.9% 34.0%
  N/A 21.7% 24.0% 20.1%
15 13.2.e. Satisfaction with skill labs - writing, math, etc.
  Mean 2.14 2.26 2.30
  Very 19.2% 21.2% 25.5%
  Somewhat 33.9% 30.5% 33.7%
  Not At All 10.2% 6.3% 6.2%
  N/A 36.7% 42.0% 34.7%
16 13.3.e. Importance of skill labs - writing, math, etc.
  Mean 2.26 2.27 2.40
  Very 47.6% 49.6% 56.4%
  Somewhat 30.7% 28.2% 27.7%
  Not At All 21.8% 22.2% 15.9%
Last Updated: November 4, 2013

Glossary

Part II. Analysis of the Program

Tutoring

The number of students tutored per FTE is 49% which is a increase of 9% from last year. This increase is due, in large part, to a STEM grant which allowed for embedded tutors in any Math class. Another factor is the method delivery of tutoring services. The appointment and walk-in  system was fully employed instead of the floating tutor model used for a portion of the previous year. Tutoring Services continues to attempt to increase the student use rate and will continue to incorporate specific measures to improve use and efficiencyincluding: 1) more vigorous outreach to classes, especially for classes that show good results for student tutored but may not show a high rate of use of the oveall number of students enrolled; 2) demand based scheduling which will take into account class class schedules and traffic flow; 3) responsive reduction in hours of underutilized tutors; and 4) increased tutor workplace training to improve return rate of tutored students. The tutoring center continues to operate 54.5 hours per week.

The pass rate was 17.4% for all students who were tutored in at least one KCC course. The success rate of tutored students vs. non-tutored students was examined and special attention is paid to English and Math. The Success rate for tutored students in English 100, which is the first college level English class and a requirement for a two-year degree, was  66% compared to 62% for non-tutored students in this course. In Math 103, the pass rate was 70% for tutored vs. 65% for non-tutored students. The highest number of students were tutored in Math 21, 22,25, 26, English 22 and English 100. In these courses pass rate were hight in every instances, with the difference ranging from 2% for Math 26 to 16% for English 100. Evaluations were conducted during a two week period each semester and again were overwhelmingly positive. The evaluation consists of eight questions and students are asked to rate their tutoring experience on ascale of 1-3. Of the 91 evaluations submitted respondents answered 98% of the questions as “Yes” or the highest rating with only .25% as “No” or the lowest rating. Since the tutor evaluations by students were again excessively high, alternative methods of evaluation will be explored with our IR with the goal of obtaining a more objective results. There were 359 Smarthinking sessions in the 2012-2013 school year with 237 sessions in writing (all subjects). The remaining sessions consisted of mainly math and science.

The tutoring center provided a series of workshops at the beginning of each semester. There were four topics covered, each offerd on two days, for a total of eight workshops offer each semester. While attendace is low the workshops are well recieved with evaluations very high. Total attendance for all eight  workshops was 17 students.

At instructors request, the tutoring center coordinator provides class visits consisting of a short presentation on the services offered in the tutoring center.

Math Brush-Up program - The Brush-up program served 9 students in the Fall of 2012. The Brush up program was administered by iCAN in the spring and fall semesters with tutoring services providing only support for students who might be served more effectively with ALEKS.

The most recent Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) was administered in 2012. It shows that 36% of students participate in tutoring. This is up by 12% the previous school year. Thirty-three percent of the students report using tutoring services sometimes or often (up from 26%). Frequency has increased from a mean average of 1.47 to 1.61. Increases were also seen in satisfaction and importance with increases 2.27 to 2.3 and from 2.21 to 2.39 respectively. The skills lab frequency has increased slightly (0.06) from 1.72 to 1.78. Students also rated satisfaction slightly higher from 2.26 to 2.3. The notion of importance had the biggest increase, from 2.21 to 2.4. The faculty and staff survey (Appendix 3) has shown improvement in all categories. There has been an increase of more than .4 in the ratings for customer service and satisfaction with the hours of service. The decrease in student contact hours is partly the result of the experiment in the delivery system for math tutoring. We also continue to utilize tutors as receptionists as necessary, especially during peak hours of the day. This adds to the number of students being paid and subtracts from student contact hours.

Part III. Action Plan

Tutoring

ACTION ITEM

RESOURCES

NEEDED

PERSON(S)

RESPONSIBLE

TIMELINE

GOAL

INDICATOR OF

IMPROVEMENT

PLO IMPACTED

STATUS

3. Expand, and report on the success of, the COMPASS Brush-up program and increase success of students in the program.

1.  Time of LC Coordinator

2.  Time of Counselors

3.  Time of IR or Dean of Student Services to provide rough data for report

4.  Lab area for COMPASS Brush-up classes

Tutoring Center Coordinator, Student Services counselors, IR/Dean of Student Services.

Target: Fall 2013

Access:To increase students’ access to the Tutoring Center facilities and services to improve learning and student engagement.

Learning and Teaching:To provide learning assistance and resources for students of all ability levels and class rank to improve class performance, engage with the campus community, and succeed in attaining their academic, personal, and career goals.

Strategic Priority:

Goal 1:  Educational Effectiveness and Student Success – a) Student Retention and Success of All Students; b) increased completion of degrees, certificates, and licensure; and c) completion of Program Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs).

1)      Additional 5% increase in number of Brush-up participants during F09/S10.

2)      Report documenting success (persistence, success in classes) of Brush-up students

3)      5% increase in success rate of students taking the Brush-up class.

Students who receive tutoring will pass their tutored course.

Outcome #1:

2011-12: Not met.  Number of participants decreased by 8.8% from 68 in ‘10-‘11 to 62 in ‘11-‘12 (i.e. 8.8%)

2011-12: 62 students

Outcome #2:

2011-12: Awaiting data on success/persistence

Outcome #3: TBD

The Compass Brush-up program is not being administered by  iCAN.

4.  Improve access to tutoring by making Smarthinking (online tutoring service) available to all students 24x7

$5000/yr subscription fee

Tutoring Center Coordinator

Annually beginning Fall 2012

Access:To increase students’ access to the Tutoring Center facilities and services to improve learning and student engagement.

Learning and Teaching:To provide learning assistance and resources for students of all ability levels and class rank to improve class performance, engage with the campus community, and succeed in attaining their academic, personal, and career goals.

Improvement in CCSSE indicators.

Students who receive tutoring will pass their tutored course.

Part IV. Resource Implications

Tutoring

No additional resources needed 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 who receive tutoring should pass their tutored course.

A) Expected Level Achievement

Students who recieved tutoring should pass their tutored course with grade of C or better.

B) Courses Assessed

Overall-the courses reported on are an aggregate of all courses that students recieved tutoring for.

C) Assessment Strategy/Instrument

Data collected and provided by the college IR.

 

D) Results of Program Assessment

Of the students tutored, seventy-eight percent passed their course with a grade of C or better.

E) Other Comments

No content.

F) Next Steps

No content.