Select the desired review year, college, and program from the drop down menus. Once a program has been selected, the results will be displayed.
College: Windward Community College
Program did not provide date of the last comprehensive review.
Windward Community College(WCC) provides quality education and support for students to develop fundamental academic and life skills.
|Demand Indicators||Program Year||Demand Health Call|
|1||Enrolled in any Remedial/Developmental||769||804||841||Healthy|
|2||Semester Hours Taught||129||129||177|
|3||* Student Semester Hours (SSH) Taught||2982||2991||3205|
|4||Full Time Students (Fall) Enrolled||335||313||271|
|5||Full Time Students (Spring) Enrolled||244||186||237|
|6||Number of Classes Taught||43||43||62|
|Achieving the Dream||AtD Fall Cohort|
|7||Percent AtD Cohort with Placement||70%||67%||79%|
|8||AtD Cohort Placing Remdial/Developmental||60%||55%||69%|
|9||Cohort Enrolling Remedial/Developmental||249||244||267|
|9a||Percent Cohort Enrolling Remedial/Developmental||69%||67%||70%|
|10||* Increase Percent Enrolling||5%||-2%||3%|
|Efficiency Indicators||Program Year||Efficiency Health Call|
|11||Average Class Size||23.1||23.2||18.1||Healthy|
|12||* Fill Rate||93.3%||92.7%||84.6%|
|13||Number of Low-Enrolled (<10) Classes||2||2||6|
|14||* BOR Appointed Faculty (FTE)||2.3||1.6||2.5|
|15||Non-BOR Appointed Faculty Teaching Classes||9||6||6|
|16||Percentage Classes Taught by Regular Discipline Faculty||53%||37%||45%|
|17||Percentage Classes Taught by non Regular Discipline Faculty||47%||63%||55%|
|18||Program Budget Allocation||$226,774||Not Reported||Not Reported|
|18b||Tution and Fees||$0||Not Reported||Not Reported|
|19||Cost per SSH||$76||Not Reported||Not Reported|
|*Data element used in health call calculation||Last Updated: August 13, 2013|
|Effectiveness Indicators||Program Year||Effectiveness Health Call|
|Retention (Course Completion)||Cautionary|
|20||1 Level Below College Level||89%||85%||93%|
|21||2 Levels Below College Level||88%||86%||90%|
|22||3 or More Levels Below College Level||93%||94%||92%|
|Successful completion (Equivalent C or Higher)|
|23||1 Level Below College Level||58%||59%||58%|
|23a||1 Level Below College Level||195||201||242|
|24||Withdrawals (Grade = W)||38||51||30|
|25||2 Levels Below College Level||59%||54%||43%|
|25a||2 Levels Below College Level||182||170||179|
|26||Withdrawals (Grade = W)||37||43||41|
|27||3 or More Levels Below College Level||57%||61%||63%|
|27a||3 or More Levels Below College Level||201||208||181|
|28||Withdrawals (Grade = W)||26||22||22|
|Achieving the Dream||AtD Fall Cohort|
|29||Cohort Enrolled in Remedial Developmental Course||249||244||267|
|30||Cohort Successful Completion at Least One Remedial/Developmental Course within First Academic Year||151||149||166|
|31||Percent Cohort Successful Completion||61%||61%||62%|
|32||AtD Cohort Size||597||648||555|
|33||Percent AtD Students Placing Into Remedial/ Developmental Level||60%||55%||69%|
|34||Percent AtD Cohort Enrolled in Remedial/ Developmental Course||42%||38%||48%|
|35||Percent AtD Cohort Successfully Completing Any Remedial/ Developmental Course Within First Academic Year||42%||42%||44%|
|36||Percent AtD Cohort Successfully Completing College Level Course Within First Academic Year||16%||19%||13%|
|Successful Next Level||Program Year|
|Persistence (Fall to Spring)|
|37||* Percent From 1 Level Below College Level, To College Level||64.2%||63.2%|
|37a||From 1 Level Below College Level, To College level||60||70||50|
|38||Percent From 2 Levels Below College Level, To 1 Level Below||60%||63%|
|38a||From 2 Levels Below College Level, To 1 Level Below||64||69||40|
|39||Percent From 3 or More Levels Below College Level, To 2 Levels Below||42%||63%|
|39a||From 3 or More Levels Below College Level, To 2 Levels Below||53||54||50|
|Success in Subsequent Level (Equivalent C or Higher)|
|40||College Level From 1 Level Below||47||43||32|
|40a||* Percent College Level From 1 Level Below||61.4%||64%|
|41||1 Level Below From 2 Levels Below College Level||45||42||27|
|42||2 Levels Below From 3 or More Levels Below College Level||28||23||24|
|*Data element used in health call calculation||Last Updated: August 13, 2013|
Demand. The demand for remedial and developmental math continues to be high as indicated by the data. Enrollment in remedial and developmental math courses was 769 in AY2010-11, 804 in AY2011-12, and 841 in AY2012-13, which reflects an increase of 4.6 % during each academic year and an overall increase of 9.3% in three year period. Over the same three year period, SSHs taught increased 7.5% and the number of classes taught increased 44.2%. One reason for the steady increase in demand is that these remedial and developmental courses are mandatory prerequisite courses for MATH 100, 101, 103, 111 or 115. MATH 100 and MATH 103 satisfy the Foundations Symbolic requirement for the Associate of Arts (AA) degree. MATH 101 is required for the Certificate of Achievement in Veterinary Assisting, and MATH 111 is a prerequisite for Elementary Education. Furthermore, completion of MATH 25, 28, or 29 with a "C" grade or better is one way to satisfy a graduation requirement for the AA degree. During AY2012-13, the Math Discipline moved its redesigned sequence of MATH 19, 28, and 29 from pilot stage to full implementation to provide students the option between self-paced learning and lecture based learning. This factor into considerable increase in the number of classes offered from AY2011-12 to AY2012-13 along with enrolment increase.
Efficiency: The average class size for remedial and developmental classes remains healthy. The average class size for remedial and developmental math classes was above 23 (approximately 93% fill rate) from AY2010-11 to AY2011-12. During AY2012-13, the class size decrease to 18.1 (84.6% fill rate). This is in part due to Math Discipline increasing the number of classes offered during AY2012-13 to accommodate multiple instructional modes. Math Discipline also increased the number of developmental math classes offered later in the day to accommodate working student population, which historically has low enrollment.
The percent of classes taught by regular discipline faculty has decreased overall all in the three year period (53% in AY2010-11, 37% in AY2011-12, and 45% in AY2012-13), while the percent of remedial and developmental math classes taught by non-regular discipline faculty (lecturers) increased (47% in AY2010-11, 63% in AY2011-12, and 55% in AY2012-13). The program goal is to have lecturers teach no more than 30% of program classes and 30% of program credits. The College has not met this program goal.
Effectiveness: The retention rate for remedial and developmental math classes at all levels below college level was 85% or higher for the three year period. There was small fluctuation but no significant trend can be found. Furthermore the retention rate was 90% or higher during the AY2012-13 for all level below college level. The program goal is to maintain an average retention rate of 80%. The College has met this program goal at each level below college level.
Successful completion rates for 3 or more levels below college level saw small increase year after year (57% in AY2010-11, 61% in AY2011-12, and 63% in AY2013). Successful completion rates for 1 level below college level remained relatively flat around 58%. Successful completion rates for 2 levels below college level decreased over the two academic years (59% in AY2010-11, 54% in AY2011-12, and 43% in AY2012-13), which is an area of concern. One reason of low success rate in AY2012-13 may be due to offering considerable number of sections of self-paced MATH 28, which contains more course content than the lecture equivalent 2 level below college level course (Math 24) to allow students to go directly to MATH 100 and 101. In addition, students in math 19, 28, and 29 must score 80% or higher on each unit exam in order to move forward compare to 70% or higher in lecture based classes. The discipline is planning to offer multiple section of lecture based MATH 28 to improve success rate. The program goal is to maintain successful completion rate of 70%. The College has not met the program goal of 70% in this area.
On average, both the fill rates and the retention rates have remained consistently high and have exceeded the program goals. However average successful completion rates continue to remain far below the program goal of 70%. One reason may be attributed to the continued heavy reliance on lecturers. The data seem to suggest an inverse relationship between the increasing use of lecturers and the decreasing successful completion rates of the remedial and developmental math courses.
It is worth noticing that retention rate is much higher than successful completion rate because retention rate data include all students who did not drop before the last date to withdraw without W. Primary reason for high retention rate and low successful completion rate is due to many students stop showing up to their developmental math class and do not drop the class before the drop date and that translate to grade such as D, N, or F.
The successful next level data reveals average persistence rates of 63% for all levels during AY2012-13 (fall to spring), which on average is higher than persistence rates from previous year. The success in percent college level from 1 level below to college level increase from 61.4% in AY2011-12 to 64% in AY2012-13.
Summary: Overall, based on the quantitative indicators, the remedial and developmental efforts in mathematics remain healthy. There has been a steady and high demand for remedial and developmental math courses with an average retention climbing above 90% and low average successful completion rate needs to be addressed.
Progress Report on Previous 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.
Current Action Plan
1. To increase class fill rate efficiency by offering all self-paced Math 19, 28, and 29 as combination classes.
2. Math Discipline will be offering lecture based math 28 to improve success rate in 2 levels below college level.
3. Continue to support Supplemental Instruction for the remedial and developmental math courses.
4. Increase Math Lab hours from 30 hours per week to 40 hours per week to provide tutoring to students enrolled in Developmental Math.
5. Continue to support Math Center to assist redesign computer-based classes and testing need.
1. Hire a FT instructor, reducing the heavy reliance on lecturers each semester.
2. Increase Math Lab funding to hire more tutors and extend operation hours to 40+ hours per week to accommodate students need in developmental math.
3. Continuous Supplemental Instruction support for Developmental Math courses to maintain success rate.