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: Leeward Community College
Program: Remedial/Developmental Reading

Printer Friendly

PDF PDF

The last comprehensive review for this program was on 2011, and can be viewed at:
http://www.hawaii.edu/offices/cc/arpd/index.php

Program Description

All but one [ENG 102, College Level Reading] of the Reading Discipline’s courses are developmental in nature.  They are primarily designed to help students become more effective readers, but they also teach the tools and knowledge students need to be successful in college.  In these courses, students use the structure of nonfiction prose as a comprehension aid; greatly expand the number of words they recognize; find and use clues in the text to guess the probable meaning of an unfamiliar word; and practice reading and study strategies that increase concentration, understanding and remembering.  In addition, English 21 teaches reading-related skills that are needed in many 100-level courses.

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 862 785 787 Unhealthy
2 Semester Hours Taught 156 138 141
3 * Student Semester Hours (SSH) Taught 2,844 2,613 2,541
4 Full Time Students (Fall) Enrolled 359 338 337
5 Full Time Students (Spring) Enrolled 203 173 159
6 Number of Classes Taught 52 46 47
Achieving the Dream AtD Fall Cohort
2008 2009 2010
7 Percent AtD Cohort with Placement 83% 77% 82%
8 AtD Cohort Placing Remdial/Developmental 39% 34% 35%
9 Cohort Enrolling Remedial/Developmental 495 426 411
9a Percent Cohort Enrolling Remedial/Developmental 77% 73% 70%
10 * Increase Percent Enrolling 4% -4% -3%

Efficiency Indicators Program Year Efficiency Health Call
09-10 10-11 11-12
11 Average Class Size 18.2 18.9 18.0 Healthy
12 * Fill Rate 91% 95% 90%
13 Number of Low-Enrolled (<10) Classes 2 1 2
14 * BOR Appointed Faculty (FTE) 4.9 4 3.9
15 Non-BOR Appointed Faculty Teaching Classes 2 2 4
16 Percentage Classes Taught by Regular Discipline Faculty 94% 87% 83%
17 Percentage Classes Taught by non Regular Discipline Faculty 6% 13% 17%
18 Program Budget Allocation $466,893 $276,703 Not Reported
18b Tution and Fees $0 $0 Not Reported
19 Cost per SSH $164 $106 Not Reported

Effectiveness Indicators Program Year Effectiveness Health Call
09-10 10-11 11-12
Retention (Course Completion) Cautionary
20 1 Level Below College Level 95% 95% 96%
21 2 Levels Below College Level 93% 95% 95%
22 3 or More Levels Below College Level N/A N/A N/A
Successful completion (Equivalent C or Higher)
23 1 Level Below College Level 64% 65% 72%
23a 1 Level Below College Level 515 471 513
24 Withdrawals (Grade = W) 37 33 26
25 2 Levels Below College Level 63% 59% 53%
25a 2 Levels Below College Level 87 86 70
26 Withdrawals (Grade = W) 10 8 6
27 3 or More Levels Below College Level N/A N/A N/A
27a 3 or More Levels Below College Level 0 N/A N/A
28 Withdrawals (Grade = W) N/A N/A N/A

Achieving the Dream AtD Fall Cohort  
2008 2009 2010
29 Cohort Enrolled in Remedial Developmental Course 495 426 411  
30 Cohort Successful Completion at Least One Remedial/Developmental Course within First Academic Year 373 288 298
31 Percent Cohort Successful Completion 75% 68% 73%
Remedial/Developmental Pipeline
32 AtD Cohort Size 1,650 1,727 1,678
33 Percent AtD Students Placing Into Remedial/ Developmental Level 39% 34% 35%
34 Percent AtD Cohort Enrolled in Remedial/ Developmental Course 30% 25% 24%
35 Percent AtD Cohort Successfully Completing Any Remedial/ Developmental Course Within First Academic Year 58% 49% 51%
36 Percent AtD Cohort Successfully Completing College Level Course Within First Academic Year 5% 7% 7%

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 0 3 0
38 Percent From 2 Levels Below College Level, To 1 Level Below     64%
38a From 2 Levels Below College Level, To 1 Level Below 27 42 25
39 Percent From 3 or More Levels Below College Level, To 2 Levels Below     N/A
39a From 3 or More Levels Below College Level, To 2 Levels Below N/A N/A N/A
Success in Subsequent Course (Equivalent C or Higher)
40 College Level From 1 Level Below 0 2 0
40a * Percent College Level From 1 Level Below     N/A
41 1 Level Below From 2 Levels Below College Level 18 32 20
42 2 Levels Below From 3 or More Levels Below College Level N/A N/A N/A
Last Updated: December 7, 2012
Glossary | Health Call Scoring Rubric

Part II. Analysis of the Program

 

DEMAND INDICATORS

Enrollment, number of classes, and number of semester hours taught in AY 11-12 have stayed relatively the same.  There are still close to 800 students per semester who enroll in basic skills and developmental level reading courses to become more skilled at reading academic materials.  Current numbers continue to indicate demand for the program.

 

EFFICIENCY INDICATORS

The fill rate is still at 90%, and class size is at 18 students—currently, 20 students are the maximum allowed for these hands-on, teaching intensive courses. 

In AY 11-12, the percentage of courses taught by regular discipline faculty declined by four percentage points, from 87% in AY 10-11 to 83%.  In general, a higher percentage of regular, full-time faculty tends to encourage curriculum development and pedagogical consistency, so the decrease is a trend that needs to be monitored.

 

EFFECTIVENESS INDICATORS

The indicators for AY 10-11 and 11-12 are as follows:

The success rate for ENG 21 was 72. For ENG 18 the success rate was 53%.

 

PERSISTENCE INDICATORS

AY 11-12 was the first year percentages were figured for persistence, but data was only available for persistence of students moving from ENG 18 to ENG 21 which was a low 35%.

Several initiatives to improve persistence and success have been undertaken:

1)  DevEd Steering Committee:  A core group of six Dev Ed instructors who proposed projects during AY 11-12 related to developmental education has been meeting approximately every two weeks to analyze and evaluate directions which the DevEd courses will be taking in AY 2012-2013.  A main consideration has been the proposal and implementation for a new course, ENG 24, modeled on the Chabot College project of Professor Katie Hern, which incorporates reading, writing, and reasoning into one course.  The approximately five developmental faculty who indicated interest in piloting the course met regularly in the spring 2012 semester and during the summer of 2012 to develop curriculum for a 6-credit course which combines both the intermediate (ENG 18,19) and developmental levels (ENG 21, 22) into one. Seven sections of ENG 24 are being offered during fall 2012.  The faculty meet weekly and continue to develop curriculum and are working on assessment of the course during the pilot program period.

2)  Improving placement:  For several years, reading teachers have been giving the Nelson Denny paper/pencil reading assessment in the first week of the semester to help them determine if their students are correctly placed.  Those who score significantly above what is expected for “x” class are helped to find a more appropriate course.  Although the Riverside Publishing Technical  Report indicates that Forms G and H are compatible, the content of the reading selections in Form H is more difficult for local students, and so reading instructors are experimenting with reversing the administration sequence (there is none prescribed) by using Form G as the posttest to determine if there is any difference in results.

3)  Learning Communities are linked courses (usually two) with the same students.  At Leeward CC, learning communities have been used in ESL instruction, linking reading, writing, speaking and listening courses.  LCCW offered 6 learning communities in fall 2011 (ENG 18/ENG 19, ENG 21/ENG 22, ENG 21/BIOL 100 and three sections of ENG 200 with HUM 261).  In spring 2012, 3 learning communities were offered (ENG 18/ENG 19, ENG 21/ENG 22 and ENG 21/BIOL 100)

 LCCW has two full-time counselors who work with the developmental education students.

4)  Reading Plus (RP) is an online software program designed to increase comprehension skills, critical thinking, vocabulary recognition, concentration and reading speed while at the same time reinforcing left-to-right eye movement and reading in chunks rather than word by word.  RP activities are done as homework; in-class instruction continues as usual.  Several instructors in  reading courses ENG 8, 18, and 21 used RP during the fall 2011 and spring 2012 semesters. 

Useful components of the Team Success initiative are still being used in DevEd classrooms:  a campus exploration project, expanded time management and study skills instruction, participation in Counseling’s Early Alert procedure, regular use of planners, and self-analysis re: motivation, attitude toward college, college success skills and strategies.

[Note:  Team Success was a volunteer group of DevEd reading and writing instructors.  Organized in spring 2007 and formally meeting through 2008, those teachers proposed and implemented several practices and procedures that became integral parts of LCC’s  DevEd Program.]

Part III. Action Plan

 

1) Continue the ENG 24 Pilot.  Faculty continue to meet throughout the fall 2012 semester to develop curriculum for this new pilot which condenses two levels of reading (18 and 21) and writing (19 and 22) preparation (a 12-credit sequence) into one (a six-credit sequence) called “Reading, Writing, and Reasoning”  and based on the Katie Hern model (Chabot College CA).

2) Assess Students’ Attitude Towards College.  We need to discover the degree of motivation and awareness of useful college skills before students take begin and after they complete college success courses.   If the Skip Downey On-Course format which Counseling has been using to collect data during New Student Orientation can’t be brought to scale, other tools such as ACT’s Engage will be considered to allow developmental education faculty to gather information relative to the affective domain.

3) Continue to examine options for training reading teachers to replace those who retire.  At this point, we are only able to hire trained postsecondary reading teachers if our advertisements appeal to mainland faculty.  There is no graduate work in this area currently available in Hawaii.  Hence, we will need to do this in-house, and it will include starting some form of training and mentoring.

4) Increase the Accuracy/Efficiency of DevEd Placement.  (1) Reconsider re-test procedures which allow refresher training for students who score in the developmental level.  Practice on Pearson’s MyFoundationLab is being piloted at Leeward Community College Wai’anae and through the Learning Resource Center at the Pearl City Campus.  Students who will be encouraged to brush up on basic skills will then re-take the Compass Test and be placed according to their hopefully improved scores which may allow them to skip unnecessary preparatory levels.

Part IV. Resource Implications

 

  1. Fund an Engage affective domain pilot.  Information on student variables other than the academic domain would be useful in promoting improvement in student success levels.
  2. Fund two more Reading Summits.  Since the end of ARRA funding, if faculty members from the CC system are to continue to collaborate on reading curriculum, the UHCC system will need to come up with the funding to do so.