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 Reading

Printer Friendly

PDF PDF

Program did not provide date of the last comprehensive review.

Program Description

Program Mission Statement: Windward CC provides quality education and support for students to develop fundamental academic and life skills.

Description: A formal 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 Academic Affairs. 

 In language arts, the reading courses are as follows:

ENG18 Reading Essentials

ENG21 Intermediate Reading

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 108 98 70 Cautionary
2 Semester Hours Taught 21 21 15
3 * Student Semester Hours (SSH) Taught 339 312 216
4 Full Time Students (Fall) Enrolled 36 36 23
5 Full Time Students (Spring) Enrolled 18 15 9
6 Number of Classes Taught 7 7 5
Achieving the Dream AtD Fall Cohort
2008 2009 2010
7 Percent AtD Cohort with Placement 70% 73% 70%
8 AtD Cohort Placing Remdial/Developmental 27% 27% 30%
9 Cohort Enrolling Remedial/Developmental 37 41 52
9a Percent Cohort Enrolling Remedial/Developmental 25% 25% 26%
10 * Increase Percent Enrolling 1% 0% 1%

Efficiency Indicators Program Year Efficiency Health Call
09-10 10-11 11-12
11 Average Class Size 16.1 14.9 14.4 Cautionary
12 * Fill Rate 69% 66% 68%
13 Number of Low-Enrolled (<10) Classes 1 3 0
14 * BOR Appointed Faculty (FTE) 0.5 0.6 0
15 Non-BOR Appointed Faculty Teaching Classes 2 1 2
16 Percentage Classes Taught by Regular Discipline Faculty 71% 86% 0%
17 Percentage Classes Taught by non Regular Discipline Faculty 29% 14% 100%
18 Program Budget Allocation Not Reported $17,623 Not Reported
18b Tution and Fees Not Reported $0 Not Reported
19 Cost per SSH Not Reported $56 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 90% 82% 100%
21 2 Levels Below College Level 88% 86% 92%
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 50% 41% 74%
23a 1 Level Below College Level 53 37 35
24 Withdrawals (Grade = W) 10 16 0
25 2 Levels Below College Level 50% 50% 60%
25a 2 Levels Below College Level 4 7 15
26 Withdrawals (Grade = W) 1 2 2
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 37 41 52  
30 Cohort Successful Completion at Least One Remedial/Developmental Course within First Academic Year 7 21 24
31 Percent Cohort Successful Completion 19% 51% 46%
Remedial/Developmental Pipeline
32 AtD Cohort Size 532 597 648
33 Percent AtD Students Placing Into Remedial/ Developmental Level 27% 27% 30%
34 Percent AtD Cohort Enrolled in Remedial/ Developmental Course 7% 7% 8%
35 Percent AtD Cohort Successfully Completing Any Remedial/ Developmental Course Within First Academic Year 5% 13% 12%
36 Percent AtD Cohort Successfully Completing College Level Course Within First Academic Year 18% 5% 4%

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 0 0
38 Percent From 2 Levels Below College Level, To 1 Level Below     13%
38a From 2 Levels Below College Level, To 1 Level Below 0 2 1
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 0 0
40a * Percent College Level From 1 Level Below     N/A
41 1 Level Below From 2 Levels Below College Level 0 1 1
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

ANALYSIS

Demand

The number of students enrolled in any remedial/developmental reading course dropped from 98 in AY 2010-11 to 70 in AY 2011-12, a decrease of 28.5%. Overall, the past three years show a steady decline in enrollment. Data do not show if this decrease in enrollment accompanied a similar decrease in placement, which might provide a more accurate picture of how well we are meeting the demand.

The latest 2010 AtD data show that only 26% of the AtD cohort who placed into remedial/developmental reading enrolled. Why are students placing but not enrolling into these courses right away? Ideally, students would enroll in reading courses during their first semester, developing skills that would help them with other courses. The data suggest that we must do more to encourage or require students to enroll in these courses that would help them develop the basic skills that they need.

Efficiency

The average class size reduced slightly from 14.9 in AY 2010-11 to 14.4 in AY 2011-2012, and the fill rate rose from 66% to 68%. While there were three low-enrolled courses in AY 2010-2011, there were zero low enrolled courses in AY 2011-2012. The program goal is to maintain an average class fill rate of 89%. When the fill rate was 100% in AY 2008-09, four classes were taught. During AY 2011-2012, five classes were taught. Offering fewer sections may help meet the program goal. However, the AtD data suggest that many more students are placing into remedial and developmental reading courses than taking them, so reducing the number of course offerings may not be the best solution. A possible solution to this problem might be offering more learning communities with remedial and developmental reading courses.

The program goal is to have lecturers teach no more than 30% of program classes; the College has not met this goal. The percentage of classes taught by regular discipline faculty decreased to 0% in AY 2011-2012 from 86% in AY 2010-11. Our primary reading teacher moved into an administrative position, resulting in an over-reliance on lecturers. However, two junior faculty members have recently completed nine credits each in reading courses at UHM, and beginning Fall 2012, they have started teaching reading and writing co-requisite courses.

Effectiveness

The program goal is to maintain an average retention rate of 80%. The college has met this program goal. The average retention rate for all remedial and developmental reading courses in AY 2011-2012 was 96%, an increase from an average of 84% in AY 2010-2011.

The program goal is to maintain an average successful completion rate of 70%.  The College is very close to meeting this program goal. The average successful completion rate for all reading courses in AY 2011-12 was 67%, a significant increase from an average of 45.5% in AY 2010-2011. The successful completion rate for ENG 21 was 74%. The ENG 21 instructor employs activities from Skip Downing’s On Course, provides students choice in reading material, and focuses on creating a comfortable learning environment for students who have been scarred by negative learning experiences in the past. Her focus on student choice, personal responsibility, and affective issues may be significant factors in improved student learning.

Significant Program Actions

Integrated and Accelerated ENG 18/19 and 21/22

In Spring 2012, two instructors received reassigned time to develop curriculum for two sections of integrated and accelerated reading and writing ENG 18/19 and ENG 21/22. Reassigned time was funded by a UHCC Developmental Education Initiative grant.

The instructors researched best practices in reading and writing instruction, including research by Katie Hearn and Jeanne Henry. Key features of new curriculum are critical and extensive reading practices integrated with writing, study skills, and self-monitoring and metacognitive strategies. Faculty also met regularly, visited reading classes, and reviewed material from reading classes previously taken at UHM.

Instructors met with counselors to advertise the accelerated and integrated classes, created posters, and visited classes at the level below ENG 22 to make personal contact with prospective students.

Instructors also worked with IR to devise an assessment plan that will determine the success of the accelerated and integrated classes compared with the traditional sequence. IR will take into consideration Compass scores, completion of ENG 21, and previous failure in the targeted course. IR will also collect data on success in the next level. Data will be available starting Spring 2013.

Reviewing Prerequisites

An error was found regarding the prerequisites for ENG 19 during Spring 2012. The prerequisite for ENG 19 should have been listed as ENG 18; however, due to an input error, it was listed as ENG 8. In essence, students were skipping ENG 18 and taking ENG 19 directly after ENG 8. This error may have resulted in students being less prepared for ENG 19. The prerequisite is now listed correctly, and beginning Fall 2012, students are following the sequence ENG 8, ENG 18, and ENG 19.

Inter-Campus Alignment

Representatives from Windward CC, Leeward CC, and Honolulu CC met during Spring Term 2012 to work on alignment issues. Representatives reviewed SLOs to ensure that remedial and developmental courses shared at least three SLOs in common. As a result, Windward CC added one SLO to ENG 8 to align with Leeward CC and Honolulu CC. Windward CC also made minor changes to Compass placement scores.

Regular Meetings

Instructors met at the end of Spring 2012 and decided to meet regularly every semester for a more formal sharing of “Best Practices,” beyond what already happens. Regular meetings to share and brainstorm ideas will start happening in the Fall 2012. Instructors also reviewed the Developmental Education Report for AY 2010-2011 and revised the Action Plan.

Part III. Action Plan

REVISED ACTION PLAN

1.     Increase the successful completion rate by 5% for remedial and developmental courses.

2.     Continue to support the development of the Writing Center.

3.     Continue to pursue an official policy change to require incoming students to enroll in remedial and developmental courses within the first year.

4.     Increase the number of learning communities with college success courses and college-level content courses.

5.     Continue experimentation with paired reading and writing courses, and move toward integrating reading and writing courses if data support improved student success.

6.     Develop more effective methods to meet the needs of students with learning disabilities and different cognitive processing.

7.     Research a mandatory attendance policy for remedial and developmental courses and a procedure to drop students who do not show up. Other campuses report success with mandatory attendance and drop policies and procedures.

Part IV. Resource Implications

RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

1.     In order to meet the program goal of lecturers teaching no more than 30% of courses, another full-time instructor may need to be hired.

2.     The success of ENG 21, with its use of Skip Downing’s On Course, suggests that this is a strategy that should be implemented by other instructors. Financial assistance for instructors to attend an On Course workshop or organizing an On Course workshop in Hawaii for the remedial and developmental educators in the system may be a worthwhile investment.