University of Hawaii Community Colleges
Instructional 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: Remedial/Developmental Writing

Printer Friendly

PDF PDF

The last comprehensive review for this program was on Remedial developmental courses are not part of a program and do not submit a comprehensive program review.

Program Description

The remedial/developmental writing effort at HawCC consists of three writing courses offered by the English Department: English 19, English

20W, and English 22. The courses are designed to prepare students to write effectively for college courses and programs, including

certificates and degrees. A significant number of students in the CTE and Liberal Arts divisions depend on remedial/developmental writing

courses to support their success. To assist student success, the English Department depends on the interdependence of its reading, writing,

and ESL faculty, as well a close working relationship with other departments. Its primary goal is meet student needs and the needs of the

community.

Part I. Quantitative Indicators

Overall Program Health: Healthy
Demand Indicators Program Year Demand Health Call
10-11 11-12 12-13
1 Enrolled in any Remedial/Developmental 719 740 650 Healthy
2 Semester Hours Taught 135 138 135
3 * Student Semester Hours (SSH) Taught 2586 2670 2325
4 Full Time Students (Fall) Enrolled 309 344 284
5 Full Time Students (Spring) Enrolled 222 198 161
6 Number of Classes Taught 45 46 45
Achieving the Dream AtD Fall Cohort
2009 2010 2011
7 Percent AtD Cohort with Placement 87% 92% 90%
8 AtD Cohort Placing Remdial/Developmental 56% 60% 60%
9 Cohort Enrolling Remedial/Developmental 260 350 371
9a Percent Cohort Enrolling Remedial/Developmental 49% 52% 56%
10 * Increase Percent Enrolling -6% 3% 4%

Efficiency Indicators Program Year Efficiency Health Call
10-11 11-12 12-13
11 Average Class Size 19.2 19.3 17.2 Healthy
12 * Fill Rate 95.7% 96.7% 89.6%
13 Number of Low-Enrolled (<10) Classes 0 1 5
14 * BOR Appointed Faculty (FTE) 1.7 1.1 1.6
15 Non-BOR Appointed Faculty Teaching Classes 9 12 12
16 Percentage Classes Taught by Regular Discipline Faculty 38% 24% 36%
17 Percentage Classes Taught by non Regular Discipline Faculty 62% 76% 64%
18 Program Budget Allocation $254,349 $326,487 $330,117
18b Tution and Fees $0 $36,310 $75,714
19 Cost per SSH $98 $122 $142
*Data element used in health call calculation Last Updated: August 13, 2013

Effectiveness Indicators Program Year Effectiveness Health Call
10-11 11-12 12-13
Retention (Course Completion) Cautionary
20 1 Level Below College Level 92% 94% 93%
21 2 Levels Below College Level 95% 97% 96%
22 3 or More Levels Below College Level 97% 94% 96%
Successful completion (Equivalent C or Higher)
23 1 Level Below College Level 48% 50% 54%
23a 1 Level Below College Level 251 259 236
24 Withdrawals (Grade = W) 41 30 31
25 2 Levels Below College Level 53% 55% 65%
25a 2 Levels Below College Level 126 127 138
26 Withdrawals (Grade = W) 11 8 9
27 3 or More Levels Below College Level 51% 56% 63%
27a 3 or More Levels Below College Level 53 79 80
28 Withdrawals (Grade = W) 3 8 5

Achieving the Dream AtD Fall Cohort  
2009 2010 2011
29 Cohort Enrolled in Remedial Developmental Course 260 350 371  
30 Cohort Successful Completion at Least One Remedial/Developmental Course within First Academic Year 146 182 213
31 Percent Cohort Successful Completion 56% 52% 57%
Remedial/Developmental Pipeline
32 AtD Cohort Size 927 1,101 1,102
33 Percent AtD Students Placing Into Remedial/ Developmental Level 56% 60% 60%
34 Percent AtD Cohort Enrolled in Remedial/ Developmental Course 28% 32% 34%
35 Percent AtD Cohort Successfully Completing Any Remedial/ Developmental Course Within First Academic Year 28% 27% 32%
36 Percent AtD Cohort Successfully Completing College Level Course Within First Academic Year 32% 27% 29%

Successful Next Level Program Year  
10-11 11-12 12-13
Persistence (Fall to Spring)  
37 * Percent From 1 Level Below College Level, To College Level   51.8% 52.3%
37a From 1 Level Below College Level, To College level 90 83 66
38 Percent From 2 Levels Below College Level, To 1 Level Below   70% 63%
38a From 2 Levels Below College Level, To 1 Level Below 55 58 52
39 Percent From 3 or More Levels Below College Level, To 2 Levels Below   68% 58%
39a From 3 or More Levels Below College Level, To 2 Levels Below 13 32 30
Success in Subsequent Level (Equivalent C or Higher)
40 College Level From 1 Level Below 60 63 46
40a * Percent College Level From 1 Level Below   75.9% 69.6%
41 1 Level Below From 2 Levels Below College Level 21 34 32
42 2 Levels Below From 3 or More Levels Below College Level 8 15 21
*Data element used in health call calculation Last Updated: August 13, 2013
Glossary | Health Call Scoring Rubric

Part II. Analysis of the Program

Overall:  Healthy

 Demand:  Healthy

Strengths:

Demand for remedial and developmental writing classes remains healthy as evidenced by the following data:

•  650 students enrolled in remedial/development writing courses;

•  135 semester hours taught

•  284 full-time students enrolled in the fall;

•  2,325 student semester hours were taught; and

•  the percentage of ATD students who placed into remedial developmental classes and then enrolled in remedial classes, increased by 4%, matching the healthy benchmark set by the UHCC data scoring rubric.

Weaknesses:

Demand for remedial classes remained healthy,

•  but enrollment in remedial/developmental dropped from 740 to 650, while semester hours taught dropped only from 138 to 135; and

•  student semester hours taught dropped from 2670 to 2325

Efficiency:  Healthy

Strengths:

Efficiency is healthy as evidenced by the following data:

•  Average class size of 17.2 out of class capacity of  20 indicates efficiency of class size;

•  the fill rate for remedial/developmental writing classes is 89.6%, which falls well within the healthy benchmark set by the UHCC data scoring rubric;

•  only 5 low enrolled courses were offered;

•  percentage of classes taught by regular discipline faculty increased from 24% to 36%;

•  percentage taught by non regular discipline faculty decreased from 76% to 64%; and

•  program budget allocation increased by 1.1% from the previous year.

Weakness:

•  Although fill rates remained healthy, 89.6%, they dropped from 96.7%;

•  although the percentage of courses taught by regular discipline faculty rose from 24% to 36%,  64% of faculty were taught by non regular faculty;

•  there was a $20 increase in cost per SSH.

 Effectiveness:  Cautionary

Strengths:

•  The retention rate increased from 94% to 96% for three levels below college level;

•  the successful completion rate increased from 50% to 54% for one level below college level; from 55% to 65% for two levels below college level; and from 56% to 63% for three levels below college level; and

•  withdrawals dropped from 8 to 5 for three levels below college level, while increasing by only one per level for the two other levels below college level.

Weakness:

•  Although the persistence level from one level below college level to a college-level course increased slightly, from 51.8% to 52.3%, this remained well below the healthy level of at least 70%;

•  success at the subsequent level for one step below college level to college level dropped from 75.9% to 69.6%.

 

Part III. Action Plan

1. Increase faculty for remedial developmental writing courses

2. Seek funding  to supply three English classrooms with tablets or laptops and storage for 25 students each.

3. Obtain funds to allow one faculty member teaching developmental writing to attend a national level conference

 

Part IV. Resource Implications

1. New  faculty positon; $55,000

2. Equip three classrooms with tablets/laptops and storage, $175,000

3. Attend Conference(s), $5,000