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 Writing

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

LCC remedial / developmental writing courses bring students from English 8, a remedial, not developmental, course, where students are unable to write a coherent paragraph and have much to learn at the sentence level, to English 22, a pre-college course that prepares students for success in English 100.  All writing courses include sentence-level instruction -- as needed -- and semester-long involvement in the writing process (from idea generating to drafting to revision and editing).  If students satisfy the English 22 SLOs, they have learned how to write short essays that are clear, coherent and relatively error-free, and practiced summary writing, paraphrasing and quoting from sources. 

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 1,347 1,370 1,409 Unhealthy
2 Semester Hours Taught 261 270 306
3 * Student Semester Hours (SSH) Taught 5,121 5,217 5,316
4 Full Time Students (Fall) Enrolled 589 591 545
5 Full Time Students (Spring) Enrolled 375 332 369
6 Number of Classes Taught 82 85 97
Achieving the Dream AtD Fall Cohort
2008 2009 2010
7 Percent AtD Cohort with Placement 83% 78% 82%
8 AtD Cohort Placing Remdial/Developmental 44% 43% 50%
9 Cohort Enrolling Remedial/Developmental 579 549 607
9a Percent Cohort Enrolling Remedial/Developmental 78% 74% 72%
10 * Increase Percent Enrolling 6% -4% -2%

Efficiency Indicators Program Year Efficiency Health Call
09-10 10-11 11-12
11 Average Class Size 19.5 19.2 17.4 Healthy
12 * Fill Rate 97% 96% 93%
13 Number of Low-Enrolled (<10) Classes 0 2 4
14 * BOR Appointed Faculty (FTE) 4.6 5.3 5.1
15 Non-BOR Appointed Faculty Teaching Classes 12 10 13
16 Percentage Classes Taught by Regular Discipline Faculty 50% 56% 47%
17 Percentage Classes Taught by non Regular Discipline Faculty 50% 44% 53%
18 Program Budget Allocation $537,169 $434,992 Not Reported
18b Tution and Fees $0 $0 Not Reported
19 Cost per SSH $105 $83 Not Reported

Effectiveness Indicators Program Year Effectiveness Health Call
09-10 10-11 11-12
Retention (Course Completion) Healthy
20 1 Level Below College Level 93% 93% 95%
21 2 Levels Below College Level 93% 97% 96%
22 3 or More Levels Below College Level 97% 97% 97%
Successful completion (Equivalent C or Higher)
23 1 Level Below College Level 60% 59% 64%
23a 1 Level Below College Level 622 649 721
24 Withdrawals (Grade = W) 76 74 56
25 2 Levels Below College Level 53% 55% 58%
25a 2 Levels Below College Level 234 239 273
26 Withdrawals (Grade = W) 31 15 20
27 3 or More Levels Below College Level 52% 55% 71%
27a 3 or More Levels Below College Level 58 58 62
28 Withdrawals (Grade = W) 3 3 3

Achieving the Dream AtD Fall Cohort  
2008 2009 2010
29 Cohort Enrolled in Remedial Developmental Course 579 549 607  
30 Cohort Successful Completion at Least One Remedial/Developmental Course within First Academic Year 384 335 426
31 Percent Cohort Successful Completion 66% 61% 70%
Remedial/Developmental Pipeline
32 AtD Cohort Size 1,650 1,727 1,678
33 Percent AtD Students Placing Into Remedial/ Developmental Level 44% 43% 50%
34 Percent AtD Cohort Enrolled in Remedial/ Developmental Course 35% 32% 36%
35 Percent AtD Cohort Successfully Completing Any Remedial/ Developmental Course Within First Academic Year 52% 46% 51%
36 Percent AtD Cohort Successfully Completing College Level Course Within First Academic Year 67% 69% 66%

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     72%
37a From 1 Level Below College Level, To College level 238 252 293
38 Percent From 2 Levels Below College Level, To 1 Level Below     80%
38a From 2 Levels Below College Level, To 1 Level Below 101 114 132
39 Percent From 3 or More Levels Below College Level, To 2 Levels Below     64%
39a From 3 or More Levels Below College Level, To 2 Levels Below 21 24 25
Success in Subsequent Course (Equivalent C or Higher)
40 College Level From 1 Level Below 155 167 212
40a * Percent College Level From 1 Level Below     72%
41 1 Level Below From 2 Levels Below College Level 86 74 100
42 2 Levels Below From 3 or More Levels Below College Level 14 10 13
Last Updated: December 7, 2012
Glossary | Health Call Scoring Rubric

Part II. Analysis of the Program

 

DEMAND INDICATORS

Enrollment in DevEd Writing increased by 3 percent, which in turn increased the number of classes from 85 to 97.  Although we would wish for fewer developmental students, numbers continue to indicate the demand for DevEd Writing courses.

The number of full-time students dropped by 8% for fall 2011; the enrollment increased by 11% for spring 2011.

 

EFFICIENCY INDICATORS

Average class size and fill rate went down, and the percentage of classes taught by regular discipline faculty decreased by 9%, so those taught by non-regular faculty increased by the same percentage in AY 11-12.  Unfortunately, a little less than half (47%) of the writing classes are taught by tenured faculty.  We need to increase the number of tenured and tenure-track teachers to support course development, instructional consistency, and program continuity.  Full-time faculty who are trained in developmental teaching strategies are particularly crucial to an acceleration model.

 

EFFECTIVENESS INDICATORS

Retention is excellent at all three levels and remained relatively the same.  However, as with reading, successful completion in writing although slightly improved is less than satisfactory, with the exception of ENG 8 which has over a 70% completion rate.  The success rates for ENG 22 was 64%.  For ENG 19 the success rates was 58%.

 

PERSISTENCE

AY 11-12 was the first year percentages were figured for persistence  The persistence rate for students moving from ENG 22 to ENG 100 were low at 38%.  The persistence rate for students moving from ENG 19 to ENG 22 was a little better at 48%, while it was lower for students moving from ENG 8 to ENG 19 at 40%.  The success rate for students who received a C or better in ENG 100 after completing ENG 22 was 68%.  Although this is not a horrible rate, it is not as good as we would like.

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 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)  The Accelerated Learning Project, an initiative developed by Peter Adams (CC Baltimore), combines an even number of developmental writing students with transfer level students, adding 3 credits of supplemental instruction for those at the ENG 22 level.  In spring 2011, ALP instruction was organized to be offered for the first time in fall 2011.  Ten sections are being offered in fall 2012 and 12 will be offered in the spring 2013.

3)  Learning Communities, Learning Communitiesare 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)   Writing tutors have been invited into English classrooms since 2006 by teachers to facilitate student groups.  The high degree of satisfaction shown by students and teachers alike has encouraged more writing instructors to follow suit.  At present, at least nine writing faculty use in-class tutors.

Many of the writing teachers are actively involved in campus and system-wide DevEd, COMPASS and writing-focused committees.

Developmental Education Counselor Nicole Keim-Fortuno is proving to be an invaluable contribution to the student success initiative.  She advises DevEd students who are struggling in various ways.  She has also given advice and support to DevEd teachers with challenging students (i.e.  disruptive students).  Counselors Jean Stav-Rue and Jason Corrales continue to work with both students and teachers in Leeward CC Wai`anae's learning communities and regularly check in with DevEd students to see how well they are doing.  Both are part of LCCW's Early Alert program.

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)  Assess the effectiveness of Tutoring.  We would compare students in writing courses that regularly use LRC writing tutors in class with those who don’t, focusing on attitude towards writing and success in subsequent writing courses.  The same foci would be examined for students who regularly work w/LRC tutors versus those who don’t.

2)  Continue to support/fund professional development.  Attendance at discipline conferences, workshops or seminars in Hawaii or elsewhere is essential to both keeping abreast of trends in writing instruction and infusing faculty members with enthusiasm for new models, methods, and materials. During fall 2011 semester, one instructor attended the Institute on First Year Student Success, and two attended the College Reading and Learning Association Conference.  In spring 2012 three faculty members attended the Innovations Conference, one attended the National Association of Developmental Education (NADE), while another went to the International First Year Experience.

 All attendees will share what they learn with the Language Arts Division.  With the interested colleagues, the attendees will explore what can be done to improve DevEd student success, retention, persistence, and the speed with which they move through DevEd courses.  Current research (Hillary Pennington, The Gates Foundation) continues to indicate that if developmental students take more than a year to complete preparatory level courses, we will lose half.

3)  Hire more full time writing faculty to replace those who will soon be retiring.  Two new writing people are due to be hired for fall 2012 and, and another is scheduled to be hired for the spring 2013 semester.

Part IV. Resource Implications

 

Professional development funds to permit faculty to continue to attend (or present at) conferences and workshops ideally should continue.  Faculty ability to visualize and develop more efficient programs to move developmental level students through to transfer level classes have come from exposure to the conferences mentioned above.   In addition, presenters from the UHCC campuses represent the system’s commitment and/or successes in working with experimental models.

Hire writing faculty to replace those who retire.  Rolling schedules of faculty retirements are anticipated to begin in earnest as the final pay increases materialize.