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

English 21 is the final course in the developmental reading sequence. The next reading course is English 102, which is currently not offered at Windward CC.

The complete sequence of reading and writing courses is as follows: ENG 8 Reading & Writing Fundamentals, ENG 18 Reading Essentials, ENG 19 Writing Essentials, ENG 21 Intermediate Reading, and ENG 22 Introduction to Composition. Some students may enroll in ENG 19 and ENG 21 concurrently or ENG 21 and ENG 22 concurrently. A student who places in ENG 8, an integrated reading and writing course that is discussed in the writing report, will need 4-5 semesters to complete the entire sequence. A student who places in ENG 18 will need to take ENG 19, ENG 21, and ENG 22 to complete the sequence. Students who place in ENG 21 for reading may place in either ENG 19 or ENG 22 for writing. Faculty are currently working on a plan to shorten the sequence, integrate reading and writing, and eliminate exits points.

Part I. Quantitative Indicators

Overall Program Health: Cautionary
Demand Indicators Program Year Demand Health Call
10-11 11-12 12-13
1 Enrolled in any Remedial/Developmental 98 70 97 Unhealthy
2 Semester Hours Taught 21 15 21
3 * Student Semester Hours (SSH) Taught 312 216 318
4 Full Time Students (Fall) Enrolled 36 23 41
5 Full Time Students (Spring) Enrolled 15 9 17
6 Number of Classes Taught 7 5 7
Achieving the Dream AtD Fall Cohort
2009 2010 2011
7 Percent AtD Cohort with Placement 73% 70% 79%
8 AtD Cohort Placing Remdial/Developmental 27% 30% 30%
9 Cohort Enrolling Remedial/Developmental 41 52 32
9a Percent Cohort Enrolling Remedial/Developmental 25% 26% 19%
10 * Increase Percent Enrolling 0% 1% -7%

Efficiency Indicators Program Year Efficiency Health Call
10-11 11-12 12-13
11 Average Class Size 14.9 14.4 15.1 Healthy
12 * Fill Rate 66.2% 67.9% 73.1%
13 Number of Low-Enrolled (<10) Classes 3 0 1
14 * BOR Appointed Faculty (FTE) 0.6 0 0.6
15 Non-BOR Appointed Faculty Teaching Classes 1 2 1
16 Percentage Classes Taught by Regular Discipline Faculty 86% 0% 86%
17 Percentage Classes Taught by non Regular Discipline Faculty 14% 100% 14%
18 Program Budget Allocation $17,623 Not Reported Not Reported
18b Tution and Fees $0 Not Reported Not Reported
19 Cost per SSH $56 Not Reported Not Reported
*Data element used in health call calculation Last Updated: November 13, 2013

Effectiveness Indicators Program Year Effectiveness Health Call
10-11 11-12 12-13
Retention (Course Completion) Unhealthy
20 1 Level Below College Level 82% 100% 100%
21 2 Levels Below College Level 86% 92% 81%
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 41% 74% 88%
23a 1 Level Below College Level 37 35 52
24 Withdrawals (Grade = W) 16 0 0
25 2 Levels Below College Level 50% 60% 55%
25a 2 Levels Below College Level 7 15 26
26 Withdrawals (Grade = W) 2 2 9
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 41 52 32  
30 Cohort Successful Completion at Least One Remedial/Developmental Course within First Academic Year 21 24 24
31 Percent Cohort Successful Completion 51% 46% 75%
Remedial/Developmental Pipeline
32 AtD Cohort Size 597 648 555
33 Percent AtD Students Placing Into Remedial/ Developmental Level 27% 30% 30%
34 Percent AtD Cohort Enrolled in Remedial/ Developmental Course 7% 8% 6%
35 Percent AtD Cohort Successfully Completing Any Remedial/ Developmental Course Within First Academic Year 13% 12% 15%
36 Percent AtD Cohort Successfully Completing College Level Course Within First Academic Year 5% 4% 7%

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   0% 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% 26%
38a From 2 Levels Below College Level, To 1 Level Below 2 1 6
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 0 0 0
40a * Percent College Level From 1 Level Below   N/A N/A
41 1 Level Below From 2 Levels Below College Level 1 1 5
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: November 13, 2013
Glossary | Health Call Scoring Rubric

Part II. Analysis of the Program

Excecutive Summary of Data and Next Steps

The remedial and developmental reading program was rated as cautionary. The demand and effectiveness scores were unhealthy, and the efficiency score was healthy. According to the latest Achieving the Dream (AtD) data, there was a -7% increase in enrollment for the AtD cohort, significantly lower than the benchmark of an increase of 3% over the previous year. Efficiency was rated as healthy with the 73.1% fill rate and the student-to-regular faculty ratio; however, the fill rate alone was cautionary. The effectiveness score is determined by success at the college level from one level below college. Because ENG 102 is currently not offered at Windward CC, students do not move from ENG 21 to the college level.

Faculty will continue to share best practices and discuss strategies to ensure that students are prepared for college-level reading. A Laulima site will be developed to provide faculty with an online resource for sharing best practices and discussing teaching challenges. Computer lab space or a laptop cart must be provided for greater opportunities to immediately assist students with writing and reading tasks in class. Lastly, faculty will continue working with student services to better support students as they progress in the remedial and developmental sequence, possibly through mandatory counseling, dedicated counselors, or a remedial cohort.

Summary and Analysis of Demand Indicators

The demand score, which is based on the latest AtD data, is unhealthy. The number of reading courses offered, however, increased; seven courses were offered, an increase from five courses in AY 2011-2012.

Student semester hours increased from 216 in AY 2011-2012 to 318, reflecting an increase of 47.2%.

The latest 2011 AtD data, however, show that only 19% of the AtD cohort who placed in remedial/developmental reading courses actually enrolled. Data suggest that reading courses should be in higher demand: 30% of the AtD cohort placed at the remedial/developmental reading level.

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 basic literacy skills. While students are enrolling in remedial/developmental writing courses, they do not enroll in reading courses, possibly because we are not able to offer very many reading courses.

Reading faculty are in short supply at all campuses. Two full-time faculty members have recently completed nine credits each of reading coursework at UH-Manoa, and both started teaching integrated reading and writing courses in AY 2012-2013, possibly contributing to the two-course increase.

Summary and Analysis of Efficiency Indicators

Class size, fill rate, and the high percentage of regular discipline faculty teaching courses indicate healthy efficiency overall. The average class size was 15.1, an increase from 14.4 in AY 2011-2012. The average fill rate was 73%, a 7.4% increase from AY 2011 2012 when the fill rate was 68%. The fill rate, however, is still cautionary. One class was low enrolled during AY 2012-2013.

The percentage of classes taught by regular discipline faculty increased dramatically from 0% in AY 2011-2012 to 86%. Non-regular discipline faculty taught 14% of courses.

The program goal is to have lecturers teach no more than 30% of program classes; we have met this goal. One curriculum change that contributed to this increase is the dual enrollment integrated reading and writing courses that two regular faculty started teaching in AY 2012-2013.

Summary and Analysis of Effectiveness Indicators

The retention (completion) rate for courses one level below college level was 100%. The three-year average retention rate is 94%; the data reflect an increase of 22% over three years. The success rate for courses one level below college level was 88%. The three-year average success rate is 67.6%; the data reflect a dramatic increase of 114.6% over three years.

The retention rate for courses two levels below college level was 81%. The three-year average retention rate is 86.3%; the data reflect a decrease of 5.8% over three years. The success rate for courses two levels below college level was 55%. The three-year average success rate is 55%; the data reflect an increase of 10% over three years.

As previously noted, faculty began experimenting with integrated reading and writing courses in AY 2012-2013. This integration may have contributed to the improved success rate one level below college; however, there are no signs of improved success two levels below college.

One instructor who taught courses two levels below college reported an increase in the number of students with significant cognitive differences, memory impairments, behavioral issues, and non-responsiveness. This instructor worked with Ann Lemke, the disabilities counselor. Lemke’s intern worked as a supplemental instructor in one class with a high number of students with cognitive differences, but this did not result in greater student success. According to Lemke, some of these students had such severe cognitive impairments that independent success was not possible.

Summary and Analysis of Success at Next Level

From Fall to Spring semesters, 26% of students persisted from two levels below college to one level below college. In AY 2011-2012 13% of students persisted; the data reflect an increase of 100%.

Limited data was provided on success at the next level, due to the small number of students who succeeded. Five out of six students succeeded in the course one level below college after successful completion of the course two levels below college. In AY 2011-2012, only one student persisted and succeeded from two levels below to one level below.

This increase in persistence may be attributable to students experiencing some success in an integrated reading/writing course two levels below college; they are then eager to try an integrated reading/writing course one level below college. At the end of Fall semester, the English 21/22 instructor visited the English 18/19 course, possibly contributing to students’ eagerness to continue.

Some students may not understand the current reading and writing sequence and may need more support from counselors and instructors. Making the sequence more transparent for students and offering more guidance may improve persistence.

Significant Program Actions

Campus Initiatives

The campus has made several attempts to increase the overall success of students, including learning communities, supplemental instruction, intrusive counseling, and mandatory orientation for incoming freshman. Due to these initiatives, some English instructors have been working more closely with counselors to help students succeed. For example, instructors can report non-attendance, behavioral issues, or the need for tutoring to counselors from the Hulili Program. When students hear the same message from instructors and counselors, they are more likely to change their behavior in some cases.

Accelerated and Integrated Reading and Writing ENG 18/19 and ENG 21/22

The AY 2012-2013 marked the implementation of accelerated and integrated reading and writing courses.  As previously reported, in Spring 2012 instructors received reassigned time to develop curriculum. Key features of new curriculum are critical and extensive reading practices integrated with writing, study skills, and self-monitoring and metacognitive strategies. Instructors are working with WCC’s Institutional Research Office to complete an assessment plan that will determine the success of the accelerated and integrated classes compared with the traditional sequence. Anecdotally, instructors report a positive impact from meeting four days a week, which boosts rapport and allows more time for in-class reading and writing.

Core to College

Thanks to a Gear Up grant, WCC instructors collaborated with local intermediate and high school teachers during Spring 2013 to work on alignment issues. The Core to College Workshop provided teachers with the opportunity to learn more about challenges at every level and brainstorm solutions together.

2011-2012 Action Plan Report

Revised Action Plan

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

The average successful completion rate for reading courses did improve from 67% to 71.5%, reflecting a 6.7% increase.

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

Instructors need to do more to encourage students to take advantage of services provided. Some teachers mandate the use of the Writing Center; however, there is currently no data showing a correlation between Writing Center use and improved course success. This is an area that still needs improvement.

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

Incoming full-time freshman are required to take four courses, including an English course during their first semester, effective Fall 2013. This item will be removed from the list, but we need to still monitor the enrollment and demand to ensure we offer enough courses to fulfill this new requirement.

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

No progress has been made on this action item; however, incoming freshmen are now required to take a college success course in their first semester.

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

We continue to offer paired reading and writing courses and await data from IR; we plan for full implementation of reading and writing courses in Fall 2014.

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

We continue to work with WCC’s disabilities counselor and research teaching practices that will better support students. Some teachers are reporting success with more time-on-task in the classroom.

  1. 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.

No progress has been made on this item.

Part III. Action Plan

Revised Action Plan

  1. Increase the successful completion rate by 5% for remedial and developmental courses.
  2. Support the development of the Writing Center.
  3. Increase the number of learning communities with college-level content courses.
  4. Integrate reading and writing courses, using system-recommended numbers, titles, and SLOs.
  5. Develop more effective methods to meet the needs of students with learning disabilities and different cognitive processing.
  6. Research a mandatory policy for remedial and developmental students to work with a designated counselor through the entire pre-100 sequence.

Part IV. Resource Implications

Resource Implications

  1. Currently computer-lab classrooms are in high demand on campus. As previously stated, some teachers report more success with more time on task in the classroom. A computer classroom or cart of laptops would be beneficial for students to do more writing in the classroom.
  2. Currently the developmental education coordinator receives overload credit; however, the demands of teaching and committee work take up a considerable amount of time and energy, leaving little time to actually research best practices in remedial and developmental reading and writing, pursue policy changes, or coordinate new systems like common rubrics and exams, or a redesign with fewer exit points and levels. Reassigned time for the coordinator may effect the completion of more action items in the future.
  3. Mandatory counseling for students at the remedial/developmental levels may improve student success. A designated counselor assigned to particular courses may also help students as they manage coursework, personal issues, and registration questions. Assigning these duties to counselors may impact workload and necessitate a dedicated counselor position.