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 Sets Only 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 Reading Sentence Skills → Comprehension ↓ Write ↓ 0-5758-8283+ 20-61 1-2 ENGL 050 * 3-4 ENGL 050 *ENGL 060 * 5 ENGL 050 *ENGL 060 *ENGL 111 w/ ENGL 070 * 6+ ENGL 111 w/ ENGL 070 * 62-82 1-2 ENGL 050 *ENGL 060 * 3-4 ENGL 060 * 5 ENGL 111 w /ENGL 070 * 6+ ENGL 111 w/ ENGL 070 * ENGL 111 Recommend ENGL 070 * ENGL 111 83+ 1-2 ENGL 060 * ENGL 111 w/ ENGL 070 * 3-4 ENGL 060 * ENGL 111 w/ ENGL 070 * 5 ENGL 111 Recommend ENGL 070 * 6+ ENGL 111 w/ ENGL 070 * ENGL 111 Recommend ENGL 070 * ENGL 111

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

12. Remedial English Course 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 2008 Write down % success rate grade of C or better Fall 2008-Grades earned in Gen Ed Courses A B+ B C+ C D F W I 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 A B+ B C+ C D F W I 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 A B+ B C+ C D F W I 2 10 3Total 15 N % Engl 111 Successful 2 13.3% 63.6% Unsuccessful 13 86.7% 36.4%

17. The results English 050 Fall 2009 Fall 2009-Grades Earned in Gen Ed Courses A B+ B C+ C D F W I 2 2 1 10 1Total 16 N %Engl 111 Successful 425.0% 64.8% Unsuccessful 12 75.0% 35.2%

18. English 050 Fall 2010 Fall 2010—Grades earned in Gen Ed Courses A B+ B C+ C D F W I 11 1 10 4 16 4Total 37 N % Successful13 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 2008 Write down % success rate grade of C or better Fall 2008-Grades Earned in Gen Ed Courses A B+ B C+ C D F W I 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 A B+ B C+ C D F W I 7 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 A B+ B C+ C D F W I 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 2010 Write down % success rate grade of C or better Fall 2010—Grades earned in Gen Ed Courses A B+ B C+ C D F W I 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 Comparison English Grade distribution English 111 – Reference points for comparison – Different rubrics for developmental courses?

26. English 111 Academic Performance Fall 2008 A B+ B C+ C D F W I 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 A B+ B C+ C D F W I 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 College Requires Completion of or English 1 Ready 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 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

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 Successful1028.6%Data N/A Unsuccessful25 71.4%

44. Food for thought – A – B – C – D