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
|
Printer Friendly  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 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 8 Reading & Writing Fundamentals
ENG 19 Writing Essentials
ENG 22 Introduction to Composition
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 will need 4-5 semesters to complete the entire sequence. Faculty are currently working on a plan to shorten the sequence, integrate reading and writing, and eliminate exits points.
Part I. Quantitative Indicators
| Demand Indicators | Program Year | Demand Health Call | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10-11 | 11-12 | 12-13 | |||
| 1 | Enrolled in any Remedial/Developmental | 294 | 377 | 325 | Healthy |
| 2 | Semester Hours Taught | 45 | 81 | 62 | |
| 3 | * Student Semester Hours (SSH) Taught | 945 | 1343 | 1131 | |
| 4 | Full Time Students (Fall) Enrolled | 118 | 145 | 129 | |
| 5 | Full Time Students (Spring) Enrolled | 69 | 72 | 71 | |
| 6 | Number of Classes Taught | 15 | 26 | 20 | |
| Achieving the Dream | AtD Fall Cohort | ||||
| 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | |||
| 7 | Percent AtD Cohort with Placement | 69% | 70% | 80% | |
| 8 | AtD Cohort Placing Remdial/Developmental | 33% | 38% | 42% | |
| 9 | Cohort Enrolling Remedial/Developmental | 113 | 130 | 155 | |
| 9a | Percent Cohort Enrolling Remedial/Developmental | 57% | 53% | 67% | |
| 10 | * Increase Percent Enrolling | 2% | -4% | 14% | |
| Efficiency Indicators | Program Year | Efficiency Health Call | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10-11 | 11-12 | 12-13 | |||
| 11 | Average Class Size | 21 | 16.5 | 18.4 | Healthy |
| 12 | * Fill Rate | 100% | 90.5% | 93.1% | |
| 13 | Number of Low-Enrolled (<10) Classes | 0 | 4 | 0 | |
| 14 | * BOR Appointed Faculty (FTE) | 0.8 | 0.8 | 1.5 | |
| 15 | Non-BOR Appointed Faculty Teaching Classes | 4 | 8 | 3 | |
| 16 | Percentage Classes Taught by Regular Discipline Faculty | 53% | 31% | 75% | |
| 17 | Percentage Classes Taught by non Regular Discipline Faculty | 47% | 69% | 25% | |
| 18 | Program Budget Allocation | $77,544 | Not Reported | Not Reported | |
| 18b | Tution and Fees | $0 | Not Reported | Not Reported | |
| 19 | Cost per SSH | $82 | Not Reported | Not Reported | |
| *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 | 91% | 94% | 93% | |
| 21 | 2 Levels Below College Level | 94% | 87% | 78% | |
| 22 | 3 or More Levels Below College Level | N/A | 100% | 97% | |
| Successful completion (Equivalent C or Higher) | |||||
| 23 | 1 Level Below College Level | 50% | 55% | 59% | |
| 23a | 1 Level Below College Level | 124 | 157 | 156 | |
| 24 | Withdrawals (Grade = W) | 23 | 18 | 19 | |
| 25 | 2 Levels Below College Level | 52% | 45% | 44% | |
| 25a | 2 Levels Below College Level | 34 | 39 | 32 | |
| 26 | Withdrawals (Grade = W) | 4 | 11 | 16 | |
| 27 | 3 or More Levels Below College Level | N/A | 77% | 80% | |
| 27a | 3 or More Levels Below College Level | 0 | 43 | 24 | |
| 28 | Withdrawals (Grade = W) | N/A | 0 | 1 | |
| Achieving the Dream | AtD Fall Cohort | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | |||
| 29 | Cohort Enrolled in Remedial Developmental Course | 113 | 130 | 155 | |
| 30 | Cohort Successful Completion at Least One Remedial/Developmental Course within First Academic Year | 68 | 71 | 92 | |
| 31 | Percent Cohort Successful Completion | 60% | 55% | 59% | |
| Remedial/Developmental Pipeline | |||||
| 32 | AtD Cohort Size | 597 | 648 | 555 | |
| 33 | Percent AtD Students Placing Into Remedial/ Developmental Level | 33% | 38% | 42% | |
| 34 | Percent AtD Cohort Enrolled in Remedial/ Developmental Course | 19% | 20% | 28% | |
| 35 | Percent AtD Cohort Successfully Completing Any Remedial/ Developmental Course Within First Academic Year | 35% | 29% | 40% | |
| 36 | Percent AtD Cohort Successfully Completing College Level Course Within First Academic Year | 66% | 65% | 70% | |
| 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 | 81% | 79% | ||
| 37a | From 1 Level Below College Level, To College level | 53 | 77 | 79 | |
| 38 | Percent From 2 Levels Below College Level, To 1 Level Below | 44% | 48% | ||
| 38a | From 2 Levels Below College Level, To 1 Level Below | 10 | 8 | 10 | |
| 39 | Percent From 3 or More Levels Below College Level, To 2 Levels Below | 33% | 41% | ||
| 39a | From 3 or More Levels Below College Level, To 2 Levels Below | N/A | 10 | 7 | |
| Success in Subsequent Level (Equivalent C or Higher) | |||||
| 40 | College Level From 1 Level Below | 30 | 57 | 51 | |
| 40a | * Percent College Level From 1 Level Below | 74% | 64.5% | ||
| 41 | 1 Level Below From 2 Levels Below College Level | 5 | 7 | 8 | |
| 42 | 2 Levels Below From 3 or More Levels Below College Level | N/A | 9 | 2 | |
| *Data element used in health call calculation | Last Updated: August 13, 2013 |
Part II. Analysis of the Program
Executive Summary of Data and Next Steps
The demand, efficiency, and effectiveness scores were healthy. According to the latest Achieving the Dream (AtD) data, there was a 14% increase in enrollment for the AtD cohort, significantly higher than the benchmark of an increase of 3% over the previous year. Efficiency was healthy with the 93.1% fill rate and the student-to-regular faculty ratio. Effectiveness, in terms of persistence, was healthy with 79% of students moving from one level below college to the college level from Fall to Spring; however, only 64.5% of students from one level below college were successful in the college level, which is cautionary.
Faculty will continue to share best practices and discuss strategies to ensure that students are prepared for the college level. 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
Demand for remedial/developmental courses continues to be healthy, as indicated by the data. Although the number of courses dropped from 26 in AY 2011-2012 to 20, a decrease of 23%, we are still teaching 33.3% more classes than we offered in AY 2010-2011.
Although the number of students enrolled in any remedial/developmental course dropped from 377 students in AY 2011-2012 to 325 students, a decrease of 13.8%, current enrollment still reflects an increase of 10.5% from the 294 students enrolled in AY 2010-2011.
Similarly, student semester hours dropped from 1,343 in AY 2011-2012 to 1,131, reflecting a decrease of 15.8%. Student semester hours still show an increase of 19.7% from 945 student semester hours in AY 2010-2011.
The number of courses offered and the number of students enrolled indicate a healthy demand. Students at Windward CC, 54% of whom placed at the remedial/developmental writing levels in 2012, are eager to complete coursework and advance to the transfer level as quickly as possible. Some courses in other disciplines have prerequisites of ENG 22 or ENG 100, so students may want to enroll in English courses right away to then have more course options.
More students, at least in the AtD cohort, are both placing and enrolling in remedial/developmental courses. The AtD enrollment may indicate a similar increase in the general population, although data are not provided to support this. In 2011, according to the most current AtD data available, 67% of the AtD cohort who placed in remedial/developmental writing enrolled in a remedial/developmental course, an increase of 14% from the 53% who placed and enrolled in remedial/developmental courses in 2010. This increase in enrollment may be the result of counselors encouraging students to take math, English, IS 103, and a course of special interest; it may also be the result of students feeling financial aid pressure to move as quickly as possible to the college level.
Summary and Analysis of Efficiency Indicators
The remedial and developmental writing program is healthy in efficiency. The average class size was 18.4, an increase from 16.5 in AY 2011-2012. The average fill rate was 93%, a slight increase from AY 2011-2012 when the fill rate was 91%. While four classes were low enrolled during AY 2011-2012, no classes were low enrolled during AY 2012-2013.
The percentage of classes taught by regular discipline faculty increased dramatically from 31% in AY 2011-2012 to 75%.
Class size, fill rate, and the high percentage of regular discipline faculty teaching courses indicate healthy efficiency. 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 program is healthy in effectiveness. The course retention (completion) rate for courses one level below college level was 93%. The three-year average retention rate is 92.7%; the data reflect a minimal change over three years. The success rate for courses one level below college level was 59%. The three-year average success rate is 54.7%; the data reflect an increase of 18% over the three-year period.
The retention rate for courses two levels below college level was 78%. The three-year average retention rate is 86.3%; the data reflect a decrease of 17% over three years. The success rate for courses two levels below college level was 44%. The three-year average success rate is 47%; the data reflect a decrease of 15.4% over three years.
The retention rate for courses three levels below college level was 97%. The two-year average retention rate is 98.5%; the data reflect a minimal change over three years. The success rate for courses three levels below college level was 80%. The two-year average success rate is 78.5%; the data reflect an increase of 3.9% over three years.
The effectiveness indicators are healthy; however, there are several issues to address. As reported last year, the high success rate three levels below college appears to be an anomaly. Leeward CC, the only other campus with the same sequence, had an average success rate of 61% for English 8 over the past three years. It is not clear why WCC’s English 8 has such a significantly high success rate. Moreover, the low success rate two levels below college suggests that a gap may exist in the standard and expectations between these two levels; students appear to easily pass three levels below college, but struggle two levels below college.
Why are more students not successfully completing one and two levels below? According to anecdotal evidence from teachers and counselors, there may be many reasons beyond our control, including the following: family and work obligations, medical emergencies, abuse, 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. Some students, especially at the lowest levels, struggle to spell simple words and construct basic sentences. Students who place in the remedial and developmental levels need more academic and personal support as they adjust to the rigors of learning in college.
A select group of students at these levels may also have serious cognitive differences that will prevent them from accomplishing the work independently, even if they receive additional tutoring and counseling. Disabilities Counselor Ann Lemke estimates that about 10% of students who report disabilities to her have impairments that would preclude successful completion of the course. Not all students who have disabilities disclose their condition and work with Lemke, so it is likely that a higher percentage of students take and retake courses at these levels without success.
Faculty work diligently to address some of our students’ needs in the following ways: more time-on-task in the classroom, writing conferences, and scaffolding assignments. Faculty also encourage use of the Writing Center and tutoring resources available through TRiO Student Support Services.
Summary and Analysis of Success at Next Level
From Fall to Spring semesters, 79% of students persisted from one level below college to the college level, 48% of students persisted from two levels below college to one level below college, and 41% of students persisted from three levels below college to two levels below college.
The high persistence rate for students moving from one level below college to the college level may be attributed to the implementation of Accelerated Learning Program English 22 and English 100 courses. In this program, students are automatically counted as persisting from one semester to the next. Last year’s data originally did not account for the ALP program and showed a 43% persistence rate. 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. Thus, despite the seemingly high persistence rate, we still have many students who pass ENG 22, but they wait more than one semester to enroll in ENG 100 or decide not to move forward for other reasons.
Why do students who pass their courses not enroll in the next level during the subsequent semester? Students may need more counseling to encourage them to continue with English courses. While students must meet with a counselor for their initial semester, students are allowed to register independently in subsequent semesters. It is also possible that some students do not understand the sequence of reading and writing courses, so teachers and counselors may need to offer more guidance.
Data show that students who do complete English 22 and enroll in English 100 generally do well; 64.5% of students who completed English 22 and enrolled in English 100 earned a C or higher in English 100. Developmental instructors are preparing most students well for the college level, but this number still needs improvement. English 22 and English 100 instructors need to work more closely together to ensure that a gap does not exist between the expectations and standards of English 22 and English 100.
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.
Accelerated Learning Program ALP ENG 22/100
Since Fall 2011, we have offered five sections of ALP English 22/100. Renee Arakaki, Title III Evaluation Specialist, provided data on these courses.
The first ALP English 22/100 was offered in Fall 2011 with “mixed results,” according to the AtD Annual Report 2012. According to data from Arakaki, 56% of students successfully completed English 22, and 48% of students successfully completed English 100. Compared to a control group of students taught by the same instructor, these students did not fare as well. In the control group, 70% of students taking a stand-alone English 22 with the same instructor passed, and 60% of students taking a stand-alone English 100 with the same instructor passed.
Two instructors offered sections of ALP English 22/100 in Spring 2012, and both expressed concerns regarding the Baltimore ALP model at this point. They noted that one key feature of Peter Adams’s model is that the English 100 students positively influence the English 22 students; however, there was little discernible difference between the two groups. Both instructors may have had particularly weak English 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. English 22 functioned more like a lab than a separate course with its own assignments and outcomes. The data for these two instructors show very different results.
For one instructor, 67% of ALP students successfully completed both English 22 and English 100. In the control group, 68% of students taking a stand-alone English 22 with the same instructor passed, and 61% of students taking a stand-alone English 100 with the same instructor passed.
For the second instructor, 27% of ALP students successfully completed English 22, and 18% successfully completed English 100. In the control group, 76% of students taking a stand-alone English 100 with the same instructor passed. An English 22 control group was not available for this instructor.
In Fall 2012, another instructor offered the Baltimore ALP with greater success: 82% of ALP students successfully completed both English 22 and English 100. In the control group, 91% of students taking a stand-alone English 100 with the same instructor passed.
In Spring 2013, another instructor varied the model. After identifying many strong writers in a regular English 22 course, she received permission to teach one class with two levels. Half of the students were enrolled in English 100, and the other half remained enrolled in English 22. Of those who were placed into English 100 by this instructor, 60% passed. In the control group, 73% of students taking a stand-alone English 100 with the same instructor passed.
The numbers are too varied to make any conclusions about the effectiveness of this program so far, especially considering that the 18% success rates appears to be an anomaly for that particular instructor; however, most instructors reported issues with mixing the English 22 students and the English 100 students. Generally, ALP students succeeded at a lower rate when compared to students taking stand-alone writing courses. On average, 72.2% of students in control English 100 courses succeeded, while 55% of students in ALP English 100 courses succeeded, reflecting a decrease of 23.8%.
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
- Increase the successful completion rate by 5% for remedial and developmental courses.
The average successful completion rate did improve from 59% to 61%, but it was mainly the result of a high success rate for one course, ENG 8. Instructors still need to work on improving success. Teachers, especially at the lowest levels, may need more training in helping students with disabilities.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Develop a common assignment, rubric, and final exam for ENG 22.
Instructors are still working toward an implementation date of Fall 2014 for a common assignment, rubric, and final exam.
Part III. Action Plan
Revised Action Plan
- Increase the successful completion rate by 5% for remedial and developmental courses.
- Support the development of the Writing Center.
- Increase the number of learning communities with college-level content courses.
- Integrate reading and writing courses, using system-recommended numbers, titles, and SLOs.
- Develop more effective methods to meet the needs of students with learning disabilities and different cognitive processing.
- Research a mandatory policy for remedial and developmental students to work with a designated counselor through the entire pre-100 sequence.
- Develop a common assignment, rubric, and final exam for ENG 22.
Part IV. Resource Implications
Resource Implications
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.