1 / 44

Academic Success

Academic Success. First-time/Full-time Students Fall 2008, 2009 and 2010 Concurrently Enrolled in English and Select Courses . Background to the Study. College History Late 1970s Restrictions upon enrollment Dependent upon type and number of developmental courses

min
Download Presentation

Academic Success

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Academic Success First-time/Full-time Students Fall 2008, 2009 and 2010 Concurrently Enrolled in English and Select Courses

  2. Background to the Study • College History • Late 1970s • Restrictions upon enrollment • Dependent upon type and number of developmental courses • Reading and writing developmental placement • Restrictions to largely performing arts courses • 1990s • Change in state funding criteria • Open enrollment • Regardless of developmental placement • Especially in Humanities and Social Sciences

  3. The Study • Appreciate the support provided by the Faculty Research Program to allow for the study • Appreciate the support of Institutional Research for providing the data • Appreciate the support of numerous colleagues with whom I have spoken

  4. The Study • Assess the success rates of students • Concurrently enrolled in English and • Select General Education Courses • Judged as Reading Intensive through their outlines • Anthropology • History • Philosophy • Political Science • Psychology • Sociology

  5. The Data • Student anonymity assured • Faculty anonymity • All course data comingled by discipline

  6. The data sets • Three cohorts • 2008, 2009 and 2010 • First-time fulltime • Represents some duplicate head counts • Some students may be enrolled in more than one Gen Ed course

  7. The data SetsOnly those students co-registered in select credit courses • Fall 2008 • N=904 • 15 students in English 050 • 74 students in English 060 • 815 students in English 111 • Fall 2009 • N=940 • 14 students in English 050 • 108 students in English 060 • 26 students in English 070 • 792 students in English 111

  8. The Data Sets • Fall 2010 • N= • 39 students in English 050 • 236 students in English 060 • 195 students in English 070 • students in English 111 • Ambiguous

  9. The data sets • English 050 • N is small for all years • Statistically unreliable • English 070 • N is small for 2009 • Statistically unreliable • Solid sample sizes • English 060 • English 111

  10. Accuplacer Placement

  11. Percentage of FT/FT StudentsDevelopmental Courses • English 41% N=533 • Math Computation 10.3% N=134 • Elementary Algebra 52% N=676

  12. Remedial EnglishCourse Enrollment Data • Fall 2011 • English 050 • 98 students • English 060 • 362 students • English 070 • 329 students • Spring 2012 • English 050 • 28 students • English 060 • 229 students • English 070 • 257 students

  13. The Reference Points • Using English 111 and Success Rates in Gen Ed courses as base reference points • Contrast student success rates • Placed in English 050 • Placed in English 060 • Grade determinants • Successful • Grade of C or higher • Unsuccessful • Any grade below or C including course withdrawal

  14. English 111/Fall 2008Write down % success rate grade of C or better Fall 2008-Grades earned in Gen Ed Courses AB+BC+CDFWI 115 66 107 78 152 83 158 39 17 Total 815 N % • Successful 518 63.6% • Unsuccessful 297 36.4%

  15. English 111/ Fall 2009 Fall 2009-Grades Earned in Gen Ed Courses AB+BC+CDFWI 136 53 127 61 136 73 142 51 13 Total 792 N % • Successful 513 64.8% • Unsuccessful 279 35.2%

  16. English 050 Fall 2008 Write down % success rate grade of C or better Fall 2008—Grades earned in Gen Ed Courses AB+BC+CDFWI 2 10 3Total 15 N % Engl 111 • Successful 2 13.3% 63.6% • Unsuccessful 13 86.7% 36.4%

  17. The resultsEnglish 050 Fall 2009 Fall 2009-Grades Earned in Gen Ed Courses AB+BC+CDFWI 2 2 1 10 1 Total 16 N % Engl 111 • Successful 4 25.0% 64.8% • Unsuccessful 12 75.0% 35.2%

  18. English 050 Fall 2010 Fall 2010—Grades earned in Gen Ed Courses AB+BC+CDFWI • 1 1 10 4 16 4 Total 37 N % • Successful 13 35% • Unsuccessful 24 65%

  19. Observations/English 050 • Despite the small N • Very low success rate • Few grades above C+ • Very high failure rate • Notable trend in Success Rate 25% to 35% • Conclusion • Students concurrently enrolled in English 050 are not likely to succeed • Consequences • Demoralizing • Questionable use of College resources

  20. English 060 Fall 2008Write down % success rate grade of C or better Fall 2008-Grades Earned in Gen Ed Courses AB+BC+CDFWI 2 4 4 4 13 9 29 8 1 Total 74 N % Engl 111 • Successful 27 36.5% 63.6% • Unsuccessful 47 63.5% 36.4%

  21. English 060 Fall 2009 Fall 2009 Grades Earned in Gen Ed Courses AB+BC+CDFWI • 6 10 15 17 15 31 6 1 Total 108 N % English 111 • Successful 55 50.9% 64.8% • Unsuccessful 53 49.1% 32.2%

  22. English 060 Fall 2010 Fall 2010-Grades Earned in Gen Ed Courses AB+BC+CDFWI 14 5 25 11 34 29 68 24 N % Engl 111 • Successful 89 42.4% N/A • Unsuccessful 121 57.6% N/A

  23. English 070 Fall 2010Write down % success rate grade of C or better Fall 2010—Grades earned in Gen Ed Courses AB+BC+CDFWI 15 6 18 16 34 31 53 25 N % Engl 111 • Successful 99 47.6% 63.6% • Unsuccessful 109 52.4% 36.4%

  24. Observations/English 060 • Dramatically different results • 2007, 2008 and 2010 vs 2009 • Large increase in the success rate for 2009 • Unclear about causes • Better First year experience • New institutional support programs • Margin of error, etc • Hope that is 1 or 2 above • Success rate still too low

  25. Interesting Point of ComparisonEnglish Grade distribution • English 111 • Reference points for comparison • Different rubrics for developmental courses?

  26. English 111 Academic Performance Fall 2008 AB+BC+CDFWI 122 102 181 84 79 24 116 55 18 Total 796 N % • Successful 573 72.0% • Unsuccessful 223 28.0%

  27. English 111 Academic Performance Fall 2009 AB+BC+CDFWI 136 53 127 61 136 73 142 51 13 Total 791 N % • Successful 568 72.7% • Unsuccessful 213 27.3%

  28. Summary

  29. Data from RVCC Fall 2003-05

  30. Not all Academic Courses Alike • Success Rates for English 1 students • Varies according to discipline • Criminology 73% Successful • Psychology 59% Sucessful • Success rates for lowest English proficiency • Varies according to the discipline • Sociology 45% • Psychology 33%

  31. Developmental English Academic Performance Fall 2008 • Successful 66 74.2%(36 “A”s and 30 “B”s) • Unsuccessful 23 25.8% Fall 2009 • Successful 121 74.2%(58 “A”s and 63 “B”s) • Unsuccessful 42 25.8%

  32. Observations • Students enrolled in Developmental Courses • Very high success rate • Much higher than success rate in Gen Ed courses • Possible artificial grade inflation • No C grade in 060 • Grade assigned has bearing on next year placement • Need to track academic performance in Gen Ed courses

  33. Conclusions • Final grade in Developmental Course • Reflects status towards end of semester • Final Grade in Gen Course • Reflects more summative grade averages • Students enrolled in Gen Ed courses • By midterm have likely dug a deep hole • Comments offered by students • “I don’t understand my grades in your course” • Receiving high grades in my other classes, possibly English

  34. Conclusions • Departmental Perspective • Far too many unsuccessful students in our classes • Need the Spring grades for each cohort • Those that took 050 and 060 in the preceding Fall semester • Without taking a Gen Ed course listed above • Took a Gen Ed course in the preceding semester

  35. Where do We Go From Here? • Suggestions • Each department should have their grades analyzed • Online courses • Many are nearly entirely dependent upon reading and writing • Follow students in second semester to determine better the benefits of the developmental courses and institutional support • Figure what the heck happened in 2009 for 060 students • Hopefully spot some institutional changes • Analyze Fall 2010 cohort

  36. Food for Thought • The Accuplacer Score • Composite Measure of 3 different criteria • Reading Comprehension • Writing • Sentence skills • Is anyone of these a better predictor of student success?

  37. Institutional Questions • Given the enormity of our institutional commitment • Are our policies supportive of student success and retention? • Are our policies making best use of our resources?

  38. Institutional Questions • What are our ethical obligations to students who arrive with English language deficits? • Should we continue our open course environment in our Reading Intensive courses—that is no prerequisites? • Should we institute prerequisites? • How do we inform students about the difficulty of certain courses relative to their English proficiency? Do we inform them?

  39. Institutional Questions • Why is the College more restrictive when it comes to Math proficiency and Science courses? • Why is the College more restrictive about English Literature courses and English proficiency? • In most cases, don’t college texts require the same if not more reading proficiency? • What about online courses • Nearly exclusively dependent upon reading • Little or no auditory reinforcement

  40. Restricted Courses at Collin County Community CollegeRequires Completion of or English 1 Ready ENGL -2343 GOVT-2301 GOVT-2302 HIST-1301 HIST-1302 PHIL-1301 PHIL-1304 PHIL-2303 PHIL-2306 PHIL-2307 PHIL-2321 PHIL-2371 PSYC-2301 SOCI-1301 • BCIS-1305 • BIOL-1406 • BIOL-1407 • CHEM-1411 • COSC-1300 • ECON-2301 • ECON-2302 • ENGL-2311 • ENGL-2322 • ENGL-2323 • ENGL-2327 • ENGL-2328 • ENGL-2332 • ENGL-2333 • ENGL-2342

  41. Still more Food for Thought • How do we provide students who enter with serious deficiencies a College-like environment that encourages them to continue? • Enrollment in select courses? • What is the impact on the overall classroom by the presence of inadequately prepared students? • There are many more questions but this is a starting point.

  42. Data for 2007 Cohort • Given the “mixed” results • Check the 2007 cohort for 060 N % Engl 111 Successful 10 28.6% Data N/A Unsuccessful 25 71.4%

  43. Food for thought • A • B • C • D

More Related