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: Windward Community College
Program: Remedial/Developmental Math

Printer Friendly

PDF PDF

Program did not provide date of the last comprehensive review.

Program Description

No Content.

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 765 769 804 Unhealthy
2 Semester Hours Taught 126 129 129
3 * Student Semester Hours (SSH) Taught 2,850 2,982 2,991
4 Full Time Students (Fall) Enrolled 300 335 313
5 Full Time Students (Spring) Enrolled 214 244 186
6 Number of Classes Taught 42 43 43
Achieving the Dream AtD Fall Cohort
2008 2009 2010
7 Percent AtD Cohort with Placement 68% 70% 67%
8 AtD Cohort Placing Remdial/Developmental 56% 60% 55%
9 Cohort Enrolling Remedial/Developmental 193 249 244
9a Percent Cohort Enrolling Remedial/Developmental 64% 69% 67%
10 * Increase Percent Enrolling -2% 5% -2%

Efficiency Indicators Program Year Efficiency Health Call
09-10 10-11 11-12
11 Average Class Size 22.6 23.1 23.2 Cautionary
12 * Fill Rate 91% 93% 93%
13 Number of Low-Enrolled (<10) Classes 1 2 2
14 * BOR Appointed Faculty (FTE) 2.5 2.3 1.6
15 Non-BOR Appointed Faculty Teaching Classes 7 9 6
16 Percentage Classes Taught by Regular Discipline Faculty 60% 53% 37%
17 Percentage Classes Taught by non Regular Discipline Faculty 40% 47% 63%
18 Program Budget Allocation Not Reported $226,774 Not Reported
18b Tution and Fees Not Reported $0 Not Reported
19 Cost per SSH Not Reported $76 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 88% 89% 85%
21 2 Levels Below College Level 79% 88% 86%
22 3 or More Levels Below College Level 89% 93% 94%
Successful completion (Equivalent C or Higher)
23 1 Level Below College Level 58% 58% 59%
23a 1 Level Below College Level 198 195 201
24 Withdrawals (Grade = W) 41 38 51
25 2 Levels Below College Level 43% 59% 54%
25a 2 Levels Below College Level 117 182 170
26 Withdrawals (Grade = W) 57 37 43
27 3 or More Levels Below College Level 60% 57% 61%
27a 3 or More Levels Below College Level 200 201 208
28 Withdrawals (Grade = W) 37 26 22

Achieving the Dream AtD Fall Cohort  
2008 2009 2010
29 Cohort Enrolled in Remedial Developmental Course 193 249 244  
30 Cohort Successful Completion at Least One Remedial/Developmental Course within First Academic Year 111 151 149
31 Percent Cohort Successful Completion 58% 61% 61%
Remedial/Developmental Pipeline
32 AtD Cohort Size 532 597 648
33 Percent AtD Students Placing Into Remedial/ Developmental Level 56% 60% 55%
34 Percent AtD Cohort Enrolled in Remedial/ Developmental Course 36% 42% 38%
35 Percent AtD Cohort Successfully Completing Any Remedial/ Developmental Course Within First Academic Year 37% 42% 42%
36 Percent AtD Cohort Successfully Completing College Level Course Within First Academic Year 18% 16% 19%

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     64%
37a From 1 Level Below College Level, To College level 68 60 70
38 Percent From 2 Levels Below College Level, To 1 Level Below     60%
38a From 2 Levels Below College Level, To 1 Level Below 37 64 69
39 Percent From 3 or More Levels Below College Level, To 2 Levels Below     42%
39a From 3 or More Levels Below College Level, To 2 Levels Below 48 53 54
Success in Subsequent Course (Equivalent C or Higher)
40 College Level From 1 Level Below 54 47 43
40a * Percent College Level From 1 Level Below     61%
41 1 Level Below From 2 Levels Below College Level 21 45 42
42 2 Levels Below From 3 or More Levels Below College Level 25 28 23
Last Updated: December 7, 2012
Glossary | Health Call Scoring Rubric

Part II. Analysis of the Program

Program Mission.  Windward Community College(WCC)  provides quality education and support for students to develop fundamental academic and life skills.

Description.  A formal remedial/developmental education program with a separate organizational structure or funding does not exist on this campus.  Instead, WCC has a set of sequential courses designed by the Language Arts and mathematics faculty.  Course offerings are under the purview of each department in consultation with the Vice Chancellor of Instruction.

As of Fall 2011, in mathematics, the remedial/developmental courses are:

Math 20 – Basic Mathematics (16 weeks, 3 credits)

Math 22 – Pre-Algebra Mathematics (16 weeks, 3 credits)

Math 24 – Elementary Algebra I (16 weeks, 3 credits)

Math 25 – Elementary Algebra II (16 weeks, 3 credits)

 

With the support of Title III funds made available with VC Lui Hokoano, the senior math faculty developed and redesigned it remedial/developmental courses.  The resulting Two-Track Developmental Mathematics Curriculum consists of two tracks:  Traditional, lecture-based track and the redesigned lab-style, computer-based track.  One section each of the computer-based track will be piloted in Spring 2012 with full implementation of the redesigned curriculum in Fall 2012.  Students will be able to select the instructional model that best fits their learning style, needs, and preferences.  It is hoped that this choice will result in higher persistence, retention, and success rates.  The courses of this redesigned curriculum are:

Traditional, Lecture-based Track:

Math 20 – Basic Mathematics (16 weeks, 3 credits)

Math 22 – Pre-Algebra Mathematics (16 weeks, 3 credits)

Math 24 – Elementary Algebra I (16 weeks, 3 credits)

Math 25 – Elementary Algebra II (16 weeks, 3 credits)

 

 

 

Independent, Computer-based Track:

 

Math 19 – Developmental Mathematics I  (16 weeks, 3 credits)

Math 28 – Developmental Mathematics II  (16 weeks, 3 credits)

Math 29 – Developmental Mathematics III  (16 weeks, 3 credits)

 

The Independent, Computer-based Track allows students the opportunity to accelerate and complete more than one course within a semester.  In consultation with our Office of Records and Admissions, there is an open-entry/open-exit option to change a student’s registration to the higher course if the student completes more than one course in a semester, and the flexibility allowing a student to enroll in a course after the Late Registration period but before the end of the 8th week.  Students intending to enroll in Math 100 or Math 101 may exit the remedial/developmental curriculum with a “C” grade or better in Math 28. 

 

During the Spring 2012 semester, the math discipline continued its redesign efforts of the Traditonal, Lecture-based Track.  Math 20 and Math 22 will be replaced with two 8-week, 2-credit courses, thereby reducing the 4 semesters to 3 in this track.  Implementation is being planned for Fall 2012.

 

A review of the previously stated Action Plan for 2011.

1.            Develop a two-track remedial and developmental mathematics curriculum to give students a choice of teaching/learning modality:  traditional, lecturer-based classes and independent, computer-based classes.

                Working with a Title III grant and V.C. of Student Services Lui Hokoana, three senior math faculty (prof. Jean Okumura, prof, Wei-Ling Landers, and prof. Clayton Akatsuka) developed the Two-Track Developmental Mathematics curriculum during the summer preceding the AY2011-2012. Multiple forms of the department final exams were created (Landers).  A draft of the various policies and guidelines were meticulously written out for each course (Landers).  Working with the Pearsons, a customized textbook and a workbook for each course was created (Akatsuka).  All the necessary curriculum changes including the New Course Proposals and the course Modifications for prerequisite changes were carried out in Fall 2011 (Akatsuka).  An instructor (Johnny Singh) was given a 3-credit “overload” to write the final draft of the policies and guidelines with Title III funds and teach one section each of the redesigned, computer-based courses Math 19, Math 28 and Math 29 which were piloted in Spring 2012.  These courses were taught in the Computer Classroom which was set-up using ARRA funds from a previous project that served as a frontrunner to the redesigned courses (Akatsuka).

 

2.            Develop and pilot computer-aided, modularized courses in remedial and developmental mathematics:  Math 19, Math 28 and Math 29.

 

See above.

 

3.            Develop a combined Math 20 and Math 22 courses to reduce the number of classes students need to take in the traditional, lecturer-based track.

 

Math 21A and Math 21B were “recalled” from the department’s curriculum listing and updated (Akatsuka).  Math 21A was designed as an 8-week, 2-credit course to replace Math 20 – Basic Mathematics.  Math 21B, also n 8-week, 2-credit course, was designed to replace Math 22 – Pre-Algebra Mathematics.  Once again, all the required paperwork for course modifications including prerequisite modifications were completed in Spring 2012 (Akatsuka).  Presentations of the newly designed Two-Track Developmental Mathematics Curriculum were made to the administration (Landers, Okumura, and Akatsuka), as well as to the counseling staff(Akatsuka).

 

4.            Continue to support Supplemental Instruction for the remedial and developmental math courses.

 

Planning and Budget Committee (PBC) requests for funding were submitted for Supplemental Instruction (SI).  The department continued to work with the Supplemental Instruction coordinator to secure Title III funds for SI student leaders for remedial/developmental courses.

 

5.            Plan the transition of the Math Lab to the Math Center to support the redesign computer-based classes.

 

The transition of the Math Lab in Mana 113 to the Math Center was dependent on the opening of the new Library facilities which occurred just before the start of the Spring 2012 semester.  Two years of planning preceded this opening – meetings, discussions, and more meetings (Akatsuka).  Items under discussion included facility needs of the various labs (Speech, Writing and Math), assessment of student use/demand, assessment of effectiveness, “mission” statements, and staffing concerns.  The classroom vacated by the Math Lab (drop-in student tutoring facility for all math students)was to be used for the Math Center (supporting the redesigned, computer-based courses Math 19, Math 28 and Math 29).  Since the redesigned courses needed to be taught in a computer classroom, additional computers were need for the Math Center.  Proposals for computers for the Math Center, Math Center coordinator, and student help for the Math Center were written and submitted to the UHCC DevEd Committee with no success (Akatsuka).  We were able to work with V.C. of Student Services Ardis Eichenberg and Computing Services Coordinator Mike Tom to outfit the vacated Mana 113 with Thin Clients computer system.

 

The last step was scrounging around for funding to hire a coordinator with sufficient funding for student helpers.  The coordinator primary responsibilities were to oversee test taking and the student help.  Everyone helped to cover additional hours as “open lab” time when students come in to work on the computers for their Math 19, Math 28 and Math 29 courses.  Funds were eventually “negotiated” with our TRiO program director Roy Inouye and V.C. Eichenberg (Akatsuka).  In addition, the hiring of the coordinator position was conducted (Akatsuka).  Once hired, the coordinator hired students and created the testing and “open lab” schedule.

 

A tremendous amount of work went into completing the Action plan from AY2010-2011 with the cooperation of several key faculty and administration.  More often than not, assistance came from sources other than expected.  For example, we received no assistance at all from the UHCC DevEd committee.  We were the last campus to initiate a redesign of our remedial/developmental math curriculum and were not able to compete with the other campuses for funding.  It was difficult accepting reviews by other campus representatives which received funds while we did not.  Perhaps seed money should have been made available to each campus to assist each campus with their redesign projects.  The delayed start of our redesign was due to the very limited facilities and the opening of the new Library into which the Math Lab was being moved.

Part III. Action Plan

Part III.Action plan

 

1.            Early assessment of the redesigned, computer-based courses:  Math 19, Math 28, and Math 29.  This assessment will be based on the pilot of Spring 2012 and the implementation in Fall 2012.  A discussion of courses, policies and guidelines will be take place during the Spring 2013 semester.  Appropriate changes will be made based on the assessment results.

 

2.            Explore the idea of implementing Math 82 or a Math 28-like course into the remedial/developmental math curriculum (redesign of the current math 24 and Math 25 courses).

 

3.            Replace the 16-week, 3 credit math 20 and math 22 courses with 8-week, 2-credits courses math 21A and math 21B, thereby reducing the 4-semester Traditional, Lecture-based Track to 3 semesters.  Implementation is planned for Fall 2012.

 

4.            Reduce the heavy reliance of lecturers teaching remedial/developmental math courses by working with fewer qualified lecturers with full-time teaching workloads.  Having a full-time workload will allow the instructors to remain on campus longer and therefore increase the time that they are available to the students.  This will also provide the opportunity to mentor the instructors, increase teaching effectiveness, and provide continuity and consistency from semester to semester for our students.  Having fewer and qualified lecturers also reduces the demand on the senior faculty.

 

5.            Continue to request an additional 1.0 FTE developmental math faculty with background and knowledge in remedial/developmental mathematics curriculum and documented successful teaching experience.

 

 

6.            Continue to support Supplemental Instruction (SI) for remedial/developmental math courses.  Support training for the SI student leaders as well as for the participating instructors to enhance effectiveness of SI.

 

7.            Continue to seek additional funds to hire needed student help for the Math Center.  The Math Center is a computer classroom designed to service students enrolled in the redesigned math 19, Math 28 and Math 29 courses.

 

8.            Continue to seek a full-time coordinator/instructor position for the Math Center.

Part IV. Resource Implications

Part IV.Resource Implications

1.            Hire a 1.0 FTE developmental math instructor.

 

2.            Hire a full-time coordinator/instructor for the Math Center.

 

3.            Secure funds to hire student help to work in the Math Center during “open lab” times.