1. Richard Turner Assessment and Certification Center Manager Florida State College at Jacksonville Kent Campus 1

2. Background Numerous studies indicating students who are fully college ready are much more likely to persist term-to- term and to degree completion when compared to students who start in Developmental Education courses. Last year I began researching zero resource options to remediate and retest students on the PERT with the goal of getting them college ready. 2

3. The Program After reviewing a few different options, I approached my Academic Leadership Team with the recommendation to launch a PERT Diagnostic, Remediation, and Retest pilot using A+ Advancer. In June 2012, Kent Campus President approved and funded a pilot program using A+ Advancer. The purpose of the pilot was to identify students who were “nearly fully college ready” and attempt to get them college ready through commercial off-the shelf diagnostic and remediation software. We targeted students who placed in UL Dev. Ed. only, (2) or fewer UL areas only. We set goal for pilot at 100 students. 3

4. Initial Questions Through computer-based remediation could we improve college readiness? Would the students who were able to retest college ready be successful in the follow-on courses? For students who participated in the pilot, would they be more likely to register and start classes? For students who participated in the pilot, would they be more likely to persist term-to-term and to degree completion? 4

5. The Process If the student qualifies based on PERT scores, we contact them and discuss the program. The students comes in, signs up for program, pays the PERT retake fee, and takes the diagnostic (in appropriate area or areas) which determines learning outcomes they need remediation. They go home, complete program online, and come back in and retest. 5

6. The Students Mean score of entering students in reading 95.8 Mean score of entering students in mathematics: 104.4 Mean time spent in remediation, for those who retested: 837.5 mins (Almost 14 hours) 6

7. 7 Current Results In mathematics, 12 of the 51 students who have retested, tested college ready (23.5%) with an average increase in score of 4.1 points. In reading, 9 of the 13 students who have retested, tested college ready (69.2%) with an average increase in score of over 14.5 points. In writing, 1 of the 3 students who retested, tested college ready (33.3%) with an average increase in score by 6.7 points. Overall 22 of the 67 retests, retested college ready (32.8%). Currently, 74 students have signed up for pilot.

8. 8 Current Results (Students who started in Fall 2013) Of the 60 enrolled, 48 completed retesting in time to start the 20131 term (80.0%). Of the 60 enrolled, 40 registered for classes in the 20131 term (66.7%). Of the 48 who retested, 40 registered for classes in the 20131 term (81.3%) Of the 48 who retested, 15 advanced a level in at least one area (31.3%).

9. 9 Current Results (MAT0028 Students in the Fall 2013) 41 Students retook the PERT in mathematics, 8 scored a 113 or better and placed into MAT1033. Of the 33 who did not accelerate out of MAT0028, 25 took the class in the 20131 Term. Of those 25, 20 were successful (A-C) in the class (80.0%). Kent Campus MAT0028 success rate for 20131 term overall was (73.3%) Of the 8 who accelerated into MAT1033, 6 were successful in the course (75%). Kent Campus MAT1033 success rate for 20131 term overall was (67.5%).

10. Discussion Roughly 1/3 are retesting college ready. We are seeing slightly better success rates for those who do not accelerate out of the class when compared with on campus students taking that course. We are seeing slightly better success rates for those students who make it to college ready when compared with on-campus students taking the same course. 10

11. The Future (My Three Concerns) Before going any further, I wanted to know if cut- scores are a predicting factor in courses success. Requested a study of PERT UL cut-scores and their ability to predict success in the related course. A+ Advancer did not meet my expectations in mathematics. The program lacked tutorial support. 11

12. The Study Do PERT UL mathematics, reading, and writing placement scores predict likelihood of success in the related course? Intuitively, one would think so. You would surmise that a lower score means you are less prepared and thus less likely to be successful, while a high score would indicate the student is more prepared and thus more likely to be successful in the related course. Fall Term analysis comparing PERT score against success in UL class in each area. 12

13. The Study Reading 13

14. The Study Writing 14

15. The Study Mathematics 15

16. The Next Step I am working with Pearson, to use their MyFoundationsLab for a college-wide pilot. This would included online tutorial support. Based on the PERT study I recommended the following requirements for program participation: UL placement only, up to all three areas Reading (96 – 103) Writing (90 – 98) Mathematics (104 – 112) 16

17. Concluding Thoughts This is a zero or near zero resource option. The program would be ran out of the assessment centers. This program is only targeting students who placed into UL. Students with any LL placement would not be contacted. I am hopeful that we can raise the bar in mathematics and overall college readiness. 17