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 Writing

Printer Friendly


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 Windward CC 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 writing courses are as follows:

ENG 08 Reading & Writing Fundamentals

ENG 19 Writing Essentials

ENG 22 Introduction to Composition

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 270 294 377 Unhealthy
2 Semester Hours Taught 39 45 81
3 * Student Semester Hours (SSH) Taught 855 945 1,343
4 Full Time Students (Fall) Enrolled 110 118 145
5 Full Time Students (Spring) Enrolled 62 69 72
6 Number of Classes Taught 13 15 26
Achieving the Dream AtD Fall Cohort
2008 2009 2010
7 Percent AtD Cohort with Placement 69% 69% 70%
8 AtD Cohort Placing Remdial/Developmental 29% 33% 38%
9 Cohort Enrolling Remedial/Developmental 85 113 130
9a Percent Cohort Enrolling Remedial/Developmental 55% 57% 53%
10 * Increase Percent Enrolling -7% 2% -4%

Efficiency Indicators Program Year Efficiency Health Call
09-10 10-11 11-12
11 Average Class Size 21.9 21 16.5 Healthy
12 * Fill Rate 100% 100% 91%
13 Number of Low-Enrolled (<10) Classes 0 0 4
14 * BOR Appointed Faculty (FTE) 0.8 0.8 0.8
15 Non-BOR Appointed Faculty Teaching Classes 2 4 8
16 Percentage Classes Taught by Regular Discipline Faculty 62% 53% 31%
17 Percentage Classes Taught by non Regular Discipline Faculty 38% 47% 69%
18 Program Budget Allocation Not Reported $77,544 Not Reported
18b Tution and Fees Not Reported $0 Not Reported
19 Cost per SSH Not Reported $82 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 89% 91% 94%
21 2 Levels Below College Level 91% 94% 87%
22 3 or More Levels Below College Level N/A N/A 100%
Successful completion (Equivalent C or Higher)
23 1 Level Below College Level 54% 50% 55%
23a 1 Level Below College Level 128 124 157
24 Withdrawals (Grade = W) 26 23 18
25 2 Levels Below College Level 57% 52% 45%
25a 2 Levels Below College Level 26 34 39
26 Withdrawals (Grade = W) 4 4 11
27 3 or More Levels Below College Level N/A N/A 77%
27a 3 or More Levels Below College Level 0 0 43
28 Withdrawals (Grade = W) N/A N/A 0

Achieving the Dream AtD Fall Cohort  
2008 2009 2010
29 Cohort Enrolled in Remedial Developmental Course 85 113 130  
30 Cohort Successful Completion at Least One Remedial/Developmental Course within First Academic Year 38 68 71
31 Percent Cohort Successful Completion 45% 60% 55%
Remedial/Developmental Pipeline
32 AtD Cohort Size 532 597 648
33 Percent AtD Students Placing Into Remedial/ Developmental Level 29% 33% 38%
34 Percent AtD Cohort Enrolled in Remedial/ Developmental Course 16% 19% 20%
35 Percent AtD Cohort Successfully Completing Any Remedial/ Developmental Course Within First Academic Year 25% 35% 29%
36 Percent AtD Cohort Successfully Completing College Level Course Within First Academic Year 95% 66% 65%

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     81%
37a From 1 Level Below College Level, To College level 66 53 77
38 Percent From 2 Levels Below College Level, To 1 Level Below     44%
38a From 2 Levels Below College Level, To 1 Level Below 5 10 8
39 Percent From 3 or More Levels Below College Level, To 2 Levels Below     33%
39a From 3 or More Levels Below College Level, To 2 Levels Below N/A N/A 10
Success in Subsequent Course (Equivalent C or Higher)
40 College Level From 1 Level Below 31 30 57
40a * Percent College Level From 1 Level Below     74%
41 1 Level Below From 2 Levels Below College Level 1 5 7
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 demand for remedial and developmental writing courses continues to be high as indicated by the program data. The number of students enrolled in any remedial/developmental writing course increased by 28.2%: from 294 students in AY 2010-11 to 377 students in AY 2011-12. This is a significant increase from AY 2009-10 to AY 2010-11, when enrollment increased by 8.9%. Data do not show if this increase in enrollment accompanied a similar increase in placement, which might provide a more accurate picture of how well we met the demand.

The latest 2010 AtD data, however, suggest that we are not meeting the demand for the AtD cohort. It is likely, then, that we are also not meeting the demand for the general population. In 2010 only 53% of the AtD cohort who placed into remedial/developmental writing enrolled. Why are students placing but not enrolling into these courses right away? According to anecdotal evidence from counselors and teachers, every semester many students ask for, and sometimes obtain, capacity overrides, suggesting that we are not offering enough writing courses to meet the demand. Language arts faculty may also need to find ways to make remedial and developmental writing courses more attractive to students, such as learning communities that pair writing courses with high-interest courses.


The number of courses that were split into more than one section for accelerated courses and reserved freshmen course offerings may have affected the data. Average class size went from 21 students to 16.5 students, a 21.4% decrease from AY 2010-11 to AY 2011-12. The fill rate went from 100% to 91%. The number of low enrolled courses increased from 0 to 4. These changes appear to be the result of innovations that require smaller and multiple sections for single courses.

The program goal is to have lecturers teach no more than 30% of program classes. The percentage of classes taught by regular discipline faculty decreased from 53% in AY 2010-11 to 31% in AY 2011-12. The percentage of classes taught by non-regular discipline faculty increased from 47% in AY 2010-11 to 69% in AY 2011-12. These percentages may reflect the increased demand for and enrollment in remedial and developmental writing courses. Data for three years show an alarming trend and suggest the need for more tenure-track discipline faculty.


The program goal is to maintain an average retention rate of 80%. The average retention rate for all remedial and developmental writing courses in AY 2011-2012 was 93.6%, a very slight increase from an average of 92.5% in AY 2010-2011. However, while students are staying enrolled in courses, they are not successfully completing.

The AtD standard for successful completion is 70%, a standard that the College has not met. The average successful completion rate for all remedial and developmental writing courses in AY 2011-2012 was 59%, an increase from an average of 51% in AY 2010-2011. This increase is due in large part to the 77% successful completion rate of ENG 8, which appears to be an anomaly. Program data are not given for ENG 8 for the previous years to confirm that this was unusual; however, unofficial data from Windward CC’s IR office show that the success rate for ENG 8 was 62% in AY 2010-2011. Leeward CC, the only other campus with the same sequence, reported an average success rate of 53% for ENG 8 over the past three years. Successful strategies used in Windward CC’s ENG 8 have not been identified at this point.

Why are students not successfully completing? According to anecdotal evidence from teachers and counselors, students have claimed many reasons, including the following: family and work obligations, medical emergencies, abusive situations, poor time management skills, underestimating the rigor of required coursework, lack of motivation, and inability to purchase books and supplies. Many recent high school graduates report that they have not read a single book or received teacher feedback on writing. Students who place into the remedial and developmental levels need more academic and personal support as they adjust to the rigors of learning in college.

Data show that students who do complete ENG 22 and enroll in ENG 100 generally do very well: 74% of students who completed ENG 22 and enrolled in ENG 100 earned a C or higher in ENG 100. Developmental instructors are preparing most students well for the college level. Persistence for this group was also high from Fall to Spring: 81%. This number is due to the Fall ALP 22/100: the ALP automatically improves persistence. After the numbers were adjusted to show these students as persisting from Fall to Spring, the percentage improved drastically from 43% persistence to 81% persistence. This discrepancy shows that we still have many students who manage to pass ENG 22, but they wait more than one semester to enroll in ENG 100 or decide not to move forward for other reasons.

Significant Program Actions

Campus Initiatives

The campus has made several attempts to increase the overall success of students, including learning communities, supplemental instruction, and mandatory orientation for incoming freshman. During AY 2011-2012, one section of ENG 22 was paired with IS 103 Introduction to College, and according to the AtD Annual Report 2012, the results were “inconclusive.” Two sections of ENG 19 employed supplemental instruction; however, the AtD Annual Report 2012 states that SI has not been successful in English courses. Currently, four full-time faculty and two lecturers have participated in Learn to Learn, a campus-wide initiative designed to help faculty integrate study skills in classes. The number of participating instructors increased by one from the previous year.

Accelerated Learning Program ALP ENG 22/100 and Accelerated and Integrated Reading and Writing ENG 18/19 and ENG 21/22

In Spring 2012, three instructors received reassigned time to develop curriculum for one ALP ENG 22/100 and two sections of accelerated and integrated reading and writing ENG 18/19 and ENG 21/22. Reassigned time was funded by a UHCC Developmental Education Initiative grant.

Two 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.

One instructor researched the methods used at Baltimore Community College; new curriculum will focus on small group and individualized work, discussion of affective issues, and assignments based on life issues.

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.

Instructors who taught ALP ENG 22/100 in Spring 2012 have concerns regarding the ALP model at this point. Both instructors noted that one key feature of Peter Adams’s model is that the ENG 100 students positively influence the ENG 22 students; however, there was little discernible difference between the two groups. Both instructors may have had particularly weak ENG 100 sections, so this benefit was lost. Instructors also expressed concern that students are not prepared for taking on two writing classes, given their limited academic preparation and family and work obligations. ENG 22 functioned more like a lab than a separate course with its own assignments and outcomes. The first ALP ENG 22/100 was offered in Fall 2011 with “mixed results,” according to the AtD Annual Report 2012. WCC Language Arts teachers look forward to reviewing data from other campuses that have more experience with the ALP model.

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 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 informally. 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.

Improved Instructor Practices

Instructors reported several improvements they made during AY 2011-2012. Among them were integration of study skills, integrated reading and writing, simplified and improved rubrics, fun grammar activities, journaling, more conferencing, and self-reflection activities for students.

2010-2011 Action Plan Report

1.     Continue monitoring the effectiveness of supplemental instruction.

Students did not make as much use of supplemental instruction as expected in the two ENG 19 sections. Some students had a class scheduled during the SI period, and even though the tutor offered to meet with students at their convenience, only a few students regularly took advantage of this service. It is not clear why SI seems to work better for math courses than English courses.

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

The Writing Center is still under development. Instructors need to do more to encourage students to take advantage of services provided. There is currently no data showing a correlation between Writing Center use and improved course success. This is an area that still needs improvement.

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

This action item cannot be accomplished unless we can guarantee enough course offerings for students who place into the remedial/developmental level. According to the AtD Annual Report 2012, starting Fall 2012, students who wish to take both math and English in their first semester will be enrolled in a “highly integrated Learning Community.” This policy may increase demand for remedial and developmental courses and encourage students to enroll in English courses right away.

4.     Pursue a method of better analyzing the student demand for remedial and developmental courses.

In Fall 2012, the Language arts representative asked administrators to save the “Waitlist” information for remedial and developmental courses. Currently, that information disappears when classes begin; that information might be used to support the need for more course offerings.

5.     Research remedial and developmental course acceleration to increase student success.

As previously discussed in the Significant Program Actions, instructors have accomplished this item and will continue to research other “Best Practices.”

6.     Research the use of assistive technologies, including the use of My Writing Lab, a computer program that has been used successfully at other system campuses.

Many instructors used My Writing Lab, and they reported mixed results. Some instructors reported that students were able to complete the grammar exercises but were unable to apply that knowledge to the practice of writing. My Writing Lab worked well for other students to practice concepts previously covered in class.

7.     Increase the successful completion rate by 5%, an action item from last year that was not met.

The average successful completion rate did improve from 51% to 59%, but it was mainly the result of a high success rate for one course, ENG 8. The College still needs to work on improving learning in all remedial and developmental courses.

Part III. 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


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.     Currently, computer-lab classrooms are in high demand on campus. In order to fully implement successful models using My Writing Lab and other computer programs, a computer classroom or cart of laptops would be beneficial.

3.     Release time for instructors to research best practices in remedial and developmental reading and writing acceleration may improve student learning and success rates.