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: Kapiolani Community College
Program: Remedial/Developmental Writing

Printer Friendly

PDF PDF

The last comprehensive review for this program was on 2013, and can be viewed at:
http://ofie.kapiolani.hawaii.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/cpr2013kahikoluamea.pdf

Program Description

Program Description

Kahikoluamea offers a student success program that orients first year students to the College. Kahikoluamea assists them in identifying and pursuing educational pathways based on their interests, offers developmental courses in English (reading and writing) and math to prepare students for career or transfer courses, encourages first year student connection to learning resources, and promotes studentsÊ» sense of belonging to the College community.  Kahikoluamea faculty and staff promote completion of foundational courses in the first year and design and deliver innovative pedagogies and engagement strategies aimed at increasing student achievement, motivation, and persistence toward certificate or degree attainment.

The program includes courses in developmental writing (ENG 22). Accelerated English pathways are offered in the ALPs for Eng 22-100.  

Mission Statement 

Kahikoluamea means the lashing together of three canoes for stability and strength. The program includes developmental instruction in (English and math), the First Year Experience (FYE), and counseling support. Our mission is to facilitate students’ awareness of their personal strengths, values, and interests; explore and identify career and academic goals; use resources; and persevere along their educational pathway. Our instructional, counseling, learning support staff and peer mentors provide supportive learning environments where students can develop success strategies that will enable them to transition to college-level courses.

 

 

Part I. Quantitative Indicators

Overall Program Health: Healthy
Demand Indicators Program Year Demand Health Call
10-11 11-12 12-13
1 Enrolled in any Remedial/Developmental 782 808 725 Healthy
2 Semester Hours Taught 156 144 153
3 * Student Semester Hours (SSH) Taught 2469 2553 2316
4 Full Time Students (Fall) Enrolled 245 232 241
5 Full Time Students (Spring) Enrolled 101 113 122
6 Number of Classes Taught 52 48 51
Achieving the Dream AtD Fall Cohort
2009 2010 2011
7 Percent AtD Cohort with Placement 71% 71% 72%
8 AtD Cohort Placing Remdial/Developmental 34% 35% 35%
9 Cohort Enrolling Remedial/Developmental 426 422 411
9a Percent Cohort Enrolling Remedial/Developmental 71% 68% 76%
10 * Increase Percent Enrolling -1% -3% 8%

Efficiency Indicators Program Year Efficiency Health Call
10-11 11-12 12-13
11 Average Class Size 15.8 17.7 15.1 Healthy
12 * Fill Rate 80.6% 92.1% 86.5%
13 Number of Low-Enrolled (<10) Classes 10 0 5
14 * BOR Appointed Faculty (FTE) 2 3.4 2.5
15 Non-BOR Appointed Faculty Teaching Classes 8 6 10
16 Percentage Classes Taught by Regular Discipline Faculty 38% 71% 49%
17 Percentage Classes Taught by non Regular Discipline Faculty 62% 29% 51%
18 Program Budget Allocation $484,474 $484,474 $624,773
18b Tution and Fees $0 $0 $105,839
19 Cost per SSH $196 $190 $270
*Data element used in health call calculation Last Updated: August 13, 2013

Effectiveness Indicators Program Year Effectiveness Health Call
10-11 11-12 12-13
Retention (Course Completion) Healthy
20 1 Level Below College Level 90% 92% 90%
21 2 Levels Below College Level N/A N/A N/A
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 59% 63% 57%
23a 1 Level Below College Level 484 535 440
24 Withdrawals (Grade = W) 83 65 78
25 2 Levels Below College Level N/A N/A N/A
25a 2 Levels Below College Level N/A N/A N/A
26 Withdrawals (Grade = W) N/A N/A N/A
27 3 or More Levels Below College Level N/A N/A N/A
27a 3 or More Levels Below College Level N/A N/A N/A
28 Withdrawals (Grade = W) N/A N/A N/A

Achieving the Dream AtD Fall Cohort  
2009 2010 2011
29 Cohort Enrolled in Remedial Developmental Course 426 422 411  
30 Cohort Successful Completion at Least One Remedial/Developmental Course within First Academic Year 292 286 295
31 Percent Cohort Successful Completion 69% 68% 72%
Remedial/Developmental Pipeline
32 AtD Cohort Size 1,738 1,766 1,535
33 Percent AtD Students Placing Into Remedial/ Developmental Level 34% 35% 35%
34 Percent AtD Cohort Enrolled in Remedial/ Developmental Course 25% 24% 27%
35 Percent AtD Cohort Successfully Completing Any Remedial/ Developmental Course Within First Academic Year 49% 47% 55%
36 Percent AtD Cohort Successfully Completing College Level Course Within First Academic Year 100% 100% 100%

Successful Next Level Program Year  
10-11 11-12 12-13
Persistence (Fall to Spring)  
37 * Percent From 1 Level Below College Level, To College Level   80% 81.1%
37a From 1 Level Below College Level, To College level 211 260 241
38 Percent From 2 Levels Below College Level, To 1 Level Below   N/A N/A
38a From 2 Levels Below College Level, To 1 Level Below N/A N/A N/A
39 Percent From 3 or More Levels Below College Level, To 2 Levels Below   N/A N/A
39a From 3 or More Levels Below College Level, To 2 Levels Below N/A N/A N/A
Success in Subsequent Level (Equivalent C or Higher)
40 College Level From 1 Level Below 137 210 183
40a * Percent College Level From 1 Level Below   80.7% 75.9%
41 1 Level Below From 2 Levels Below College Level N/A N/A N/A
42 2 Levels Below From 3 or More Levels Below College Level N/A N/A N/A
*Data element used in health call calculation Last Updated: August 13, 2013
Glossary | Health Call Scoring Rubric

Part II. Analysis of the Program

Demand

Enrollment in Developmental Writing is down slightly, reflecting an overall drop in enrollment at the college; however, the percentage of students placing into Eng 22 who enroll in the course is UP (from 68% to 76%), due to targeted FYE counseling encouraging students to complete foundational English and Math in their first year.  A consistent drop between Fall (241) and Spring (122) is disruptive to programming and staffing.

Efficiency

Class size and fill rate dropped, and there were 5 under-enrolled sections in AY 12-13. During Spring 13, the department increased the Accelerated Learning Plan model from 1 section in Fall 12 to 12 sections in Spring 13.  This was to fulfill the plan for a system grant received to remodel a designated classroom for the ALP Eng 22. Because of the steep increase in sections offered, enrollment was inconsistent. We discovered that a disproportionate amount of “repeater” students were enrolling in the ALP, hoping to “make up for lost time.” In fact, an accelerated course is precisely the wrong approach for most repeating Eng 22 students, and we have since clarified the advising protocol.

Our BOR appointed FTE (#14) declined from 71% to 49%.  Filling open Writing Instructor positions in Kahikoluamea remains a top priority for the department. Dedicated, FT faculty are of particular importance because the department is constantly piloting innovations, such as the ALP, that require coordination and dialogue among the faculty.  A job description has been completed and a screening committee is ready to hire for this position.

Most Kahikoluamea faculty also teach courses in LLL; some by appointment and some by choice. Faculty assignment should not exceed 50% in LLL, and it should be prioritized for FT faculty to teach Eng 22 courses and ALP courses. The department is also piloting ways to integrate co-curricular writing lab work into the FT faculty workload, particularly in the Spring semesters. When enrollment dips, we lose competent lecturers and then have to scramble for them in Fall. It remains a top priority to stabilize full time, tenure-track and tenured faculty teaching English 22.

Effectiveness

Withdrawals (W) increased from 65 to 78 (#24). This is viewed as a positive result of counseling interventions. However, Ws are still included in the non-completion statistic.

Successful completion (C or better, #23) declined from 63% to 57%. At first, we blamed the too-fast scale up of the ALP model, with its accompanying problems in enrollment. However,  additional data indicate that successful completion in the ALP model was still higher than in the “regular” Eng 22 courses: (In the ALP, dropping from 78% in F 12 to 51% in S 13, and in the "regular" model, dropping from 60% in F 12 to 48% in S 13.)  The ALP fell further, but still out-performed the regular 22 model. 

Successful Next Level

Success in the next subsequent course must be interpreted carefully when a large number of ALP courses are taught, because the “subsequent” course (Eng 100) is taken concurrently. The successful completion of English 100 dropped from 81% to 76% (#40a) because of the misplaced (repeater) students who did not pass the Eng 100 portion of the ALP in S 13.

Additional data that would be helpful would be a more true “successful next level” indicator, such as enrollment in, and successful completion of Writing Intensive courses after the ALP, as compared to after the regular writing program sequence of Eng 22 and Eng 100.

 

Counseling

In Fall 2012, the Kahikolumea Counseling program, comprised of 3.5 counselors, partnered with the campus’ Pathways Learning Support, Malama Hawai'i, and First Year Experience programs to pilot a student success, persistence, and engagement program that utilized a traditional navigation/wayfinding metaphor.  The pilot program, entitled Holomua I Ke Ola (My Wayfinding Odyssey), was designed to address student development and success needs, as evidenced through analyzing aggregate data collected from our KCC first year students using the College Student Inventory (CSI) by Noel Levitz.  This program was also built on evidence-based student success and engagement principles, which encourage student participation in experiential activities, place and culture-based learning, self and career awareness and decision-making, and connection with campus learning support services and programs.

This program was promoted with all First Year designated courses; ultimately, the following developmental level English and Math courses/sections participated in the program through instructors encouraging/requiring student participation (i.e. integrating the program as a class assignment, granting extra credit points for participation, etc.):

Data was gathered on students who participated in the program in Fall 2012 and compared with other first year students from Fall 2012 who did not participate in the program.  Results are as follows:

Average Institutional GPA (success)

Average Re-enrollment Rate to Spring 2013 (persistence)

In Spring 2013, the Kahikolumea Counseling program implemented an early alert intervention, the College Student Inventory (CSI) with the following courses/sections of developmental English and Math (voluntary participation):

This counseling intervention involved students completing the CSI online early alert assessment/survey and then meeting individually with a Kahikoluamea Counselor for interpretation of their report and discussion of students’ learning strengths, challenges, and needs and support services and resources that can help them.  A plan was then discussed with each student and their Kahikoluamea Counselor and follow-up support was offered and provided.  

Success as measured through course pass rates (percentage of students who earned letter grades of C or better in their respective course) was analyzed of those sections whose students participated in the CSI counseling intervention in Spring 2013 and those that did not. Results are as follows:

Eng 22 and 81 sections who participated in CSI counseling intervention

Comparison group: Eng 22 and Math 81 sections who did not participate in the CSI counseling intervention

Part III. Action Plan

The action plan for developmental writing includes: 

1. Adoption of new systemwide SLOs for Eng 22. These represent a formal shift from 10 course competencies to 4 course learning outcomes, streamlining course content and following agreements of the systemwide dev ed committee. The new course outline will be approved for implementation in Fall 2014.  

2. Along with this streamlining, faculty will continue to develop innovative, collaborative curriculum and pedagogical models, including 5 sections of ALP in Spring 13 and 10-12 sections of ALP in Fall 14. Faculty will collaborate in teams to develop class projects related to: community engagement ("community mapping project"), career exploration, and college sucess strategies. 

3. Collaboration with English 100 to assess and improve the teaching of research and associated subskills of synthesis, citation, quotation, and paraphrase across the writing sequence. 

4. Collaboration with English 21 to assess and improve the teaching of reading in English 22. Participation in discussion and course revision of English 21, College Reading. 

4. Piloting of co-curriculuar writing support as part of developmental composition faculty workload. If a long-range goal for developmental writing is to phase out developmental course work in favor of co-curricular writing support, then faculty should be deployed as specialists in the area of writing support. In Spring 14, two faculty will receive TE to provide 1-1, small group, and in-class support to writing in Eng 22, 100 and WI courses. 

6. Continue subsidized pricing of summer semester Eng 22, and consider feasible alternative semester offerings to help more students complete writing coursework in their first year. 

7. Hiring of full time writing faculty in developmental composition; increase number of Eng 22 sections taught by FT faculty.

Part IV. Resource Implications

Eng 22 has been a period of piloting innovations with the ALP model, assessing the impact of acceleration both within the course and across the reading and writing sequence. Streamlining the SLOs is a further step towards system agreement in how we approach developmental composition. As we also prioritize hiring a stable, dedicated FT faculty of writing specialists, it is important that our approach to developmental writing be consistent: internally, across other writing courses on campus, across the system, and among our national colleagues. Dialogue among the faculty as well as professional development opportunities to include our faculty in the national research and trends in developmental writing are a priority. Thus, our resource needs are two-pronged: equipment to continue innovation and piloting of co-curricular writing support models, and professional development to align our evolving course delivery with national best practices.

 

Equipment: 

5-8 tablets (ipad or android) for piloting co-curricular support project:

(ipad) $499 ea plus applications and wireless keyboards 

(android) $129 ea plus applications and wireless keyboards

Professional Development:

Conference on College Composition and Communication

March 2014, Indianapolis, IN - $3000 x 2= $6,000

College Reading and Learning Association conference:

November 2014, St. Paul, MN - $3000 x 2= $6,0000