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: Honolulu Community College
Program: Remedial/Developmental Reading

Printer Friendly

PDF PDF

The last comprehensive review for this program was on N/A.

Program Description

 

As an open-door institution, Honolulu Community College understands the need to address varying degrees of preparation in the students who choose to enroll, including those who are not fully prepared for college-level instruction. To meet the needs of these unprepared or underprepared students, the College instituted a policy in 2011 requiring mandatory placement testing for incoming students, with subsequent enrollment in the first semester in remedial/developmental English and/or Math courses as needed.  From 1981 to 2010, the College Skills Center (CSC) had been responsible for offering remedial/developmental instruction in both English and Math, as well as providing tutoring services in both areas. With the adoption of new campus policy, it was felt that new curriculum would be required to best meet new objectives. Faculty previously aligned with the CSC were integrated into their respective academic division Revised curriculum in Math was first offered in Fall 2010, and comparable curriculum in English was implemented in Spring 2011.

The remedial/developmental curriculum in Reading includes ENG 8, ENG 18 and ENG 21; these courses parallel the series in Writing (ENG 9, 19 and 22.) Instruction in ENG 8, 18, and 21 is housed in a newly created Essentlals complex, which includes several classrooms, labs, tutoring areas and workrooms as well as support services.

A formal program mission does not currently exist, but one of the goals of the program is to "provide developmental instruction to build skills necessary to pursue educational objectives." For students seeking an Associate of Arts degree, the program helps to prepare students (who need at a minimum to complete ENG 100), to meet AA Program Learning Outcomes, as follows: "1) communicate effectively by means of listening, speaking, reading, and writing in varied situations..." For students seeking an Associate degree in a CTE program, current discussion regarding General Education that while students may currently fulfill a requirement for English with non-transfer level courses, they may soon be required to complete a transfer level English course (e.g. ENG 100) on a pathway comparable to the AA.

Part I. Quantitative Indicators

Overall Program Health: Cautionary
Demand Indicators Program Year Demand Health Call
09-10 10-11 11-12
1 Enrolled in any Remedial/Developmental 0 99 287 Unhealthy
2 Semester Hours Taught 0 24 69
3 * Student Semester Hours (SSH) Taught 0 294 1,032
4 Full Time Students (Fall) Enrolled 0 0 114
5 Full Time Students (Spring) Enrolled 0 37 55
6 Number of Classes Taught 0 8 23
Achieving the Dream AtD Fall Cohort
2008 2009 2010
7 Percent AtD Cohort with Placement 78% 40% 46%
8 AtD Cohort Placing Remdial/Developmental 37% 0% 0%
9 Cohort Enrolling Remedial/Developmental 0 0 0
9a Percent Cohort Enrolling Remedial/Developmental 0% 0% 0%
10 * Increase Percent Enrolling 0% 0% 0%

Efficiency Indicators Program Year Efficiency Health Call
09-10 10-11 11-12
11 Average Class Size 0 12.3 15.0 Healthy
12 * Fill Rate 0% 61% 76%
13 Number of Low-Enrolled (<10) Classes 0 4 6
14 * BOR Appointed Faculty (FTE) 0 0.6 1.2
15 Non-BOR Appointed Faculty Teaching Classes 0 2 2
16 Percentage Classes Taught by Regular Discipline Faculty 0% 75% 52%
17 Percentage Classes Taught by non Regular Discipline Faculty 0% 25% 48%
18 Program Budget Allocation Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported
18b Tution and Fees Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported
19 Cost per SSH Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported

Effectiveness Indicators Program Year Effectiveness Health Call
09-10 10-11 11-12
Retention (Course Completion) Unhealthy
20 1 Level Below College Level N/A 68% 96%
21 2 Levels Below College Level N/A 86% 91%
22 3 or More Levels Below College Level N/A 0% 93%
Successful completion (Equivalent C or Higher)
23 1 Level Below College Level N/A 47% 60%
23a 1 Level Below College Level 0 43 141
24 Withdrawals (Grade = W) N/A 29 10
25 2 Levels Below College Level N/A 57% 61%
25a 2 Levels Below College Level 0 4 41
26 Withdrawals (Grade = W) N/A 1 6
27 3 or More Levels Below College Level N/A 0% 61%
27a 3 or More Levels Below College Level 0 0 25
28 Withdrawals (Grade = W) N/A 0 3

Achieving the Dream AtD Fall Cohort  
2008 2009 2010
29 Cohort Enrolled in Remedial Developmental Course 0 0 0  
30 Cohort Successful Completion at Least One Remedial/Developmental Course within First Academic Year 0 0 0
31 Percent Cohort Successful Completion 0% 0% 0%
Remedial/Developmental Pipeline
32 AtD Cohort Size 925 1,048 984
33 Percent AtD Students Placing Into Remedial/ Developmental Level 37% 0% 0%
34 Percent AtD Cohort Enrolled in Remedial/ Developmental Course 0% 0% 0%
35 Percent AtD Cohort Successfully Completing Any Remedial/ Developmental Course Within First Academic Year 0% 0% 0%
36 Percent AtD Cohort Successfully Completing College Level Course Within First Academic Year 9% 0% 0%

Successful Next Level Program Year  
09-10 10-11 11-12
Persistence (Fall to Spring)  
37 * Percent From 1 Level Below College Level, To College Level     0%
37a From 1 Level Below College Level, To College level N/A 0 0
38 Percent From 2 Levels Below College Level, To 1 Level Below     77%
38a From 2 Levels Below College Level, To 1 Level Below N/A 0 17
39 Percent From 3 or More Levels Below College Level, To 2 Levels Below     63%
39a From 3 or More Levels Below College Level, To 2 Levels Below N/A N/A 12
Success in Subsequent Course (Equivalent C or Higher)
40 College Level From 1 Level Below N/A 0 0
40a * Percent College Level From 1 Level Below     0%
41 1 Level Below From 2 Levels Below College Level N/A 0 13
42 2 Levels Below From 3 or More Levels Below College Level N/A N/A 9
Last Updated: December 7, 2012
Glossary | Health Call Scoring Rubric

Part II. Analysis of the Program

The College's formal program in remedial/developmental Reading is very new; it did not exist before the 2010-2011 academic year, so any substantive analysis of data would to a great extent be premature. With reference to Demand, for which the Health Call is Unhealthy, this is in large part because the College did not meet the indicator of an increase in AtD cohort placement. At the same time, it should be noted that overall enrollment increased markedly from the first year to the second (99 in AY 2010-11 to 287 in AY 2011-2012.)

With reference to Efficiency, for which the Health Call is Healthy, one key indicator is the increase in Fill Rate (item 12) from 61% to 76%. In this area, a decrease in classes taught by fulltime faculty from 75% to 52%, with a parallel increase in classes taught by part-time faculty (25% to 48%) has been addressed by the recent hire of a fulltime Instructor in Reading. This new faculty member is expected to help significantly in refining curriculum, mentoring parttime faculty, and providing stability and continuity

With reference to Effectiveness, for which the Health Call is Unhealthy, the indicators of Retention (items 20, 21 and 22) show very substantial rates of retention (with increases over the two years where data were available), but rate of successful completion for one level below was under the threshold, though it did show a considerable increase over the previous year (47% to 60%), a trend that the program hopes will continue. 

Part III. Action Plan

The program did not have an Action Plan for AY 2010-2011.

Part IV. Resource Implications

The primary resource implication at this time would be the need to hire additional parttime faculty if demand continues to increase.