Presentation on theme: "Dr. Nathaniel Pugh, Jr. Vice President, Planning and Institutional Effectiveness Dr. Christopher Shults Director, Planning and Institutional Effectiveness."— Presentation transcript:
Dr. Nathaniel Pugh, Jr. Vice President, Planning and Institutional Effectiveness Dr. Christopher Shults Director, Planning and Institutional Effectiveness Assessment of Developmental Education Programs in Community Colleges: Establishing a System
Table of Contents The Status of Developmental Education Developmental Education in SUNY and at SCCC Developmental Education and the SCCC Institutional Effectiveness Model Progress in Establishing Developmental Assessment Q&A
Developmental Education Nationally Developmental Education is not new (UW in 1879) Massive expansion by the turn of the century Massification of higher education as a result of the GI Bill Granted access to higher education to groups historically left out Levin 2001 – Legal and social mandate Stigma increased based on two issues Economic conditions Student success concerns (nearly 50% nationally – higher in community colleges) State studies (TX, OH, FL) show lower success rates Differential policies on remedial course-taking Percentage taking developmental courses has nearly doubled since 2000
Developmental Education in SUNY Developmental education in SUNY limited to community colleges 2006 system-wide study 37.5% of first-time freshmen were enrolled in developmental coursework in 2004 More than ½ of the colleges saw increases Percentages have increased dramatically and reflect national averages
Developmental Education at Suffolk Nearly 27,000 students From 2,246 to 3,448 entering first-time freshman taking at least one developmental course from fall 2005-2010 An increase from 58 to 64 percent between fall 2005 and fall 2010 In fall 2008, 4,000 seats to developmental studies In academic year 2010-2011, 500 sections and more than 7,000 seats We still do not know very much about the actual success of remedial programs because colleges do not evaluate them very well. They frequently collect inappropriate or poor-quality data and use inappropriate criteria for measuring effectiveness…[the fact is] they do not know how to assess it (Roueche & Roueche, 1999, p. 27 as cited in Romano, 2006).
Inside the Numbers at SCCC Institutional effectiveness has been operationalized at Suffolk County Community College as the ability of an institution to achieve its stated mission and goals. Given that SCCC, like nearly all colleges mentions student success, to one degree or another, it was decided that we must examine what impact developmental studies is having on our institutional effectiveness efforts.
Inside the Numbers Continued New Students Testing into Developmental Courses by Subject Fall 2006-2010 WritingMathReading NPercent Full-TimeFall 2006415221.1%44.0%29.2% Fall 2007434026.1%46.0%32.6% Fall 2008505828.0%46.8%36.9% Fall 2009507431.2%56.5%39.7% Fall 2010548731.0%53.1%37.9% Part-TimeFall 2006112815.8%34.2%18.4% Fall 2007105418.5%36.8%21.6% Fall 200880630.6%54.0%34.2% Fall 2009167519.3%35.0%20.4% Fall 2010279910.6%21.4%12.3% TotalFall 2006528019.9%41.9%26.9% Fall 2007539424.6%44.2%30.5% Fall 2008586428.3%47.8%36.5% Fall 2009674928.3%51.2%34.9% Fall 2010828624.1%42.4%29.3%
Inside the Numbers Continued Developmental % of DWFs in Courses RequiredN (3,862)GraduationTransfer*PersistenceAttritionGateway Courses 01,61626.4%38.4%18.6%35.8%35.2% 158120.3%31.0%20.3%42.5%40.4% 270013.9%30.3%18.4%47.3%45.7% 339511.7%22.6%23.3%51.4%47.3% Fall 2005 Cohort of Entering Freshmen, Fall 2008 Developmental % of DWFs in Courses RequiredN (4,074)GraduationTransfer*PersistenceAttritionGateway Courses 01,66823.0%39.4%17.6%37.0%35.2% 163419.6%30.0%20.2%42.0%40.4% 271412.3%27.7%21.0%48.0%43.0% 34329.7%17.8%24.1%55.3%48.7% Fall 2006 Cohort of Entering Freshmen, Fall 2009 * Transfer rates include graduates ** DWFI Findings are significant at.05
Inside the Numbers Continued Fall 2007 Cohort of Entering Freshmen, Fall 2010 Developmental % of DWFs in Courses RequiredN (4,274)GraduationTransfer*PersistenceAttritionGateway Courses 01,64022.2%38.4%18.7%36.5%33.6% 163618.7%28.9%19.0%44.3%39.9% 277112.9%24.8%20.6%49.4%41.9% 350012.2%20.2%22.8%52.2%43.7%
Inside the Numbers Continued Semester of Enrollment FirstSecondThirdFourth NPercent Fall 2006No Developmental209579.3%64.7%57.6% Developmental252478.2%61.7%55.1% Total461978.7%63.1%56.2% Fall 2007No Developmental202481.5%65.2%58.7% Developmental279880.2%63.7%55.7% Total482280.7%64.3%57.0% Fall 2008No Developmental231582.5%69.7%63.6% Developmental347779.0%65.3%56.7% Total579280.4%67.1%59.5% Fall 2009No Developmental190182.9%69.3%64.0% Developmental390777.3%60.0%53.8% Total580879.1%63.1%57.2% Pearson Chi- Square Tests Semester SecondThirdFourth Fall 2006Chi-square0.9224.5353.006 df111 Sig.0.3370.033*0.083 Fall 2007Chi-square1.3911.2534.389 df111 Sig.0.2380.2630.036* Fall 2008Chi-square10.97912.20727.33 df111 Sig.0.001*.000* Fall 2009Chi-square24.07947.85554.253 df111 Sig..000* Persistence of New Associate Degree Students – 2 nd through 4 th Semester
Inside the Numbers Continued Transfer Rates for Students Taking at Least one Developmental Course Year Total # of transfers Transfers who took at least one developmental course Percent of transfers who took at least one developmental course 20064019130132.4% 20074204135932.3% 20084327155936.0% 20094466167237.4% 20103275117235.8% Total20291706334.8% Given that around 60% of students take at least one developmental course, those taking developmental courses are less likely to transfer
Inside the Numbers Continued Persistence Rates in STEM Programs by Developmental Course Taking: Fall 2006-2009 The persistence rates are higher for both categories with the only significant differences emerging in Fall 2009 Semester of Enrollment FirstSecondThirdFourth NPercent Fall 2006No Developmental19983.9%64.3%55.8% Developmental7684.2%71.1%65.8% Fall 2007No Developmental16885.7%68.5%64.3% Developmental10379.6%62.1%60.2% Fall 2008No Developmental18688.2%73.7%63.4% Developmental11475.4%69.3%58.8% Fall 2009No Developmental16185.1%73.3%68.3% Developmental11679.3%60.3%
Interpreting the Numbers Students taking any developmental courses are less successful Students taking between 1 and 3 developmental courses are equally successful The proportion of students taking developmental courses are increasing even as the population grows Students taking developmental courses are having a greater impact on overall measures of student success (higher proportion and greater numbers) We have the data, now what?
Deploying a Comprehensive IE System at SCCC Ahead of the 2007 reaffirmation, Suffolk Community College began fully implementing a Comprehensive Assessment Plan for Institutional Effectiveness. This plan has resulted in information that has formalized and expanded assessment efforts and laid the foundation for an extensive and integrated planning system that will further enhance assessment activities and allow for expansion of the initial assessments in developmental education. Regardless of whether developmental education is a program or sequence of courses, assessment of learning outcomes will be conducted and the information will be used as part of the decision-making process.
Planning Efforts and MSCHE Standards Strategic Planning The preeminent planning process Responsible for aligning college operations with external conditions Drives mission development/revision and creation of institutional goals (IGs) (Standard 1) Operational Planning Connected to strategic planning through the IGs Includes assessment of student learning and the environment for student learning (Standard 7,12, and 14 directly and 8,9,11, and 13 indirectly) The planning effort rooted in daily activities Budget Planning Connected to operational planning through resource allocation (Standards 2 and 3) Connects back to strategic planning through the IGs (Standards 2 and 3)
SWOT S TRATEGY B UDGET Plan Implement Evaluate Use Results Plan Implement Evaluate Use Results Plan Implement Evaluate Use Results Institutional Activities Major Planning Systems Assessment Efforts Continuous Improvement Gear Movement SCCC Institutional Effectiveness Model – Gears and Cogs Env. Scan Stake- holder input O PERATIONS P LANNING S TRATEGIC P LANNING B UDGETING I NSTITUTIONAL E FFECTIVENESS Academic Planning AES Planning State Budget County Budget Budget Requests A SSESSMENT Institutional Effectiveness System
Assessment is at the Core Assessment and strategic planning Assessment and operational planning Assessment and budgeting Assessment of the IE system Assessment within an integrated system allows the college to move from data collection and information processing to informed and integrated planning that guides the evaluation of institutional effectiveness. The key is that information is evaluated for relevance and is filtered through systematic processes that link the institutional goals with resource allocation.
Developmental Education Assessment and Operational Planning The SCCC Developmental Studies Advisory Committee Current course-based assessment in developmental math Connecting assessment in courses to the planning process (SLOs) Integration of developmental studies as part of academic planning Building up SLO assessment and program review in developmental studies
Framework for Operational Planning in Developmental Education
Whats Next at SCCC? Consensus that developmental studies needs more intensive assessment Consensus that current planning efforts need to continue evolving based on assessment of the IE system Intense discussions about the status of developmental studies – program or a sequence of courses? Assessment will be comprehensive whether as a program or sequence of courses Expansion of assessment activities in developmental English and reading Assessment of the impact of interventions (i.e. Title III, program changes) Increased focus on student success (CPT scores, placement, outcomes) Connecting developmental studies assessment into operational planning