BSLCAC Flex Mee,ng, August 2012 It’s time to work on our 2012-13 BS •
advertisement
BSLCAC Flex Mee,ng, August 2012 • It’s time to work on our 2012-13 BS Action Plan, due Oct. 10: 4 things BSLCAC needs to do: 1. Analyze Cabrillo College success data using Basic Skills Cohort Tracker 2. Write a Reflec,ve Narra+ve Response: • “Knowing what you know now about basic skills and implemen,ng basic skills interven,ons on your campus, what would you have done differently over the last five years with regards to your basic skills ini,a,ve work?” 3. Revise/update our Long‐Term (5‐year) Goals for Basic Skills (3 max) 4. Determine Ac,vi,es for 2012‐13 BS Ac+on Plan (5 max) A few notes and about using the BS Cohort Tracker • “Success”: – – – • Focus here is mainly on English and math. Why? – – – – • Difficult and close to impossible to follow Cabrillo’s ESL 204 success rates due to discrepancies in coding of courses, & I was unable to merge ESL 204 & English 255, for example (BS Tracker is not useful for ESL). Although reading is important, with the excep,on of those who assess at the English 255 level, at Cabrillo there is no reading requirement or prerequisite to move up the basic skills to transfer‐level English courses; also, with this tool, it’s impossible to merge English 255 and Read 255/206 success data (and 206 doesn’t even appear as an op,on). Compiling the following data charts was an arduous, laborious task, and there’s not enough ,me to look up everything and/or circumvent BS Cohort Tracker issues. Although Data tracker is less than perfect, it is somewhat user‐friendly and readily accessible, so anyone can use it to look up addi,onal data! h\p://datamart.ccco.edu/Outcomes/BasicSkills_Cohort_Tracker.aspx College Comparisons: – • Passed a course with a C (or Pass) grade or higher. 1 term success is a limited indicator of “success”; longitudinal studies are be\er measures of success. Keep in mind the state’s defini,on of “long‐term success” (i.e., succeed at transfer‐level) is not always in synch with our real students’ lives and educa,onal goals. 1 or 2 or 3 levels below transfer‐level courses ogen have addi,onal courses that “count” (i.e., English 100L); we can filter these out, but not as easy to do when I looked at other colleges whose courses I am less familiar with. Conduc,ng research is exci,ng but… – I am not a researcher by training! English 255/256 Success (2008‐2011, semester‐by‐semester—not longitudinal) semest/year # of students # of a:empts success # success % change Fall 2011 297 297 213 71.7% 9.1+ Spring 2011 190 190 119 62.6% 1.2‐ Fall 2010 268 268 171 63.8% 2.8+ Spring 2010 182 182 111 61.0% 3.1‐ Fall 2009 270 270 173 64.1% 5.4+ Spring 2009 172 173 101 58.7% 9.1‐ Fall 2008 301 301 204 67.8% ‐‐‐‐‐ English 100 Success (2008‐2011, semester‐by‐semester—not longitudinal) semest/year # of students # of a:empts success # success % change Fall 2011 579 747 460 79.4% 3.9+ Spring 2011 375 525 283 75.5% 0 Fall 2010 592 784 447 75.5% 5.9+ Spring 2010 369 507 257 69.6% 9.1‐ Fall 2009 619 763 487 78.7% 12.6+ Spring 2009 330 412 218 66.1% 7.8‐ Fall 2008 644 769 476 73.9% ‐‐‐‐‐‐ Math 254 A/B/CM/SI Success (2008‐2011, semester‐by‐semester—not longitudinal) semest/year # of students # of a:empts success # success % change Fall 2011 523 523 330 63.1% 4.7+ Spring 2011 505 505 295 58.4% 6.6‐ Fall 2010 500 500 325 65.0% 5.4+ Spring 2010 446 446 266 59.6% 8.9+ Fall 2009 598 599 303 50.7% 5.0‐ Spring 2009 548 548 305 55.7% 4.3+ Fall 2008 609 609 313 51.4% ‐‐‐‐‐ Math 154 & A/B Success (2008‐2011, semester‐by‐semester—not longitudinal) semest/year # of students # of a:empts success # success % change Fall 2011 434 434 231 53.2% 2.8+ Spring 2011 244 244 123 50.4% 0.3+ Fall 2010 419 419 210 50.1% 0.5+ Spring 2010 278 278 138 49.6% 2.3+ Fall 2009 465 465 220 47.3% 4.6‐ Spring 2009 293 293 152 51.9% 4.1‐ Fall 2008 550 550 308 56.0% ‐‐‐‐‐ Math 152 & A/B Success (2008‐2011, semester‐by‐semester—not longitudinal) semest/year # of students # of a:empts success # success % change Fall 2011 452 452 213 47.1% 6.0‐ Spring 2011 213 213 113 53.1% 8.3+ Fall 2010 480 481 215 44.8% 12.4‐ Spring 2010 201 201 115 57.2% 8.9+ Fall 2009 561 561 271 48.3% 8.1‐ Spring 2009 220 220 124 56.4% 7.3+ Fall 2008 601 602 295 49.1% ‐‐‐‐‐ Cabrillo Fall 2011 Success course success Change English 255/256 71.7% 9.1+ English 100 79.4% 3.9+ Math 254 & A/B/CM 63.1% 4.7+ Math 154 & A/B 53.2% 2.8+ Math 152 & A/B 47.1% 6.0‐ 2‐Semester College Comparison: 2 levels below transfer‐level English College Sem/Year # students success % Cabrillo Fall 2011 297 213 71.7% Cabrillo Spring 2011 190 119 62.6% MPC Fall 2011 168 123 73.2% MPC Spring 2011 110 74 67.3% Skyline Fall 2011 326 213 65.3% Skyline Spring 2011 163 83 50.9% Hartnell Fall 2011 443 263 59.4% Hartnell Spring 2011 309 158 51.1% West Valley Fall 2011 78 60 76.9% West Valley Spring 2011 54 44 81.5% 2‐Semester College Comparison: 1 level below transfer‐level English College Sem/Year # students success % Cabrillo Fall 2011 612 478 78.0% Cabrillo Spring 2011 401 298 74.0% MPC Fall 2011 316 212 67.1% MPC Spring 2011 169 115 68.0% Skyline Fall 2011 407 273 67.1% Skyline Spring 2011 233 153 65.7% Hartnell Fall 2011 440 312 70.9% Hartnell Spring 2011 245 154 62.9% West Valley Fall 2011 505 334 66.1% West Valley Spring 2011 342 226 66.1% College Comparison: 3 levels below transfer‐level Math College Sem/Year # students success % Cabrillo Fall 2011 523 330 63.1% Cabrillo Spring 2011 505 295 58.4% MPC Fall 2011 121 93 76.9% MPC Spring 2011 88 52 59.1% Skyline Fall 2011 123 86 69.9% Skyline Spring 2011 89 57 64.0% Hartnell Fall 2011 383 228 59.5% Hartnell Spring 2011 311 178 57.2% West Valley Fall 2011 105 62 59.0% West Valley Spring 2011 91 65 71.4% 2‐Semester College Comparison: 2 levels below transfer‐level Math College Sem/Year # students success % Cabrillo Fall 2011 533 309 58.0% Cabrillo Spring 2011 295 166 56.3% MPC Fall 2011 201 90 44.8% MPC Spring 2011 153 75 49.0% Skyline Fall 2011 230 168 73.0% Skyline Spring 2011 172 119 69.2% Hartnell Fall 2011 351 227 67.7% Hartnell Spring 2011 138 94 68.1% West Valley Fall 2011 342 181 52.9% West Valley Spring 2011 297 166 55.9% 2‐Semester College Comparison: 1 level below transfer‐level Math College Sem/Year # students success % Cabrillo Fall 2011 482 230 47.7% Cabrillo Spring 2011 213 113 53.1% MPC Fall 2011 234 145 62.0% MPC Spring 2011 171 110 64.3% Skyline Fall 2011 212 163 76.9% Skyline Spring 2011 150 90 60.0% Hartnell Fall 2011 402 257 63.9% Hartnell Spring 2011 198 122 61.6% West Valley Fall 2011 286 163 57.0% West Valley Spring 2011 182 104 57.1% Cabrillo College, 2008‐2011 Basic Skills to Transfer Level: Persistence & Success English 255/256 & 100 Success/Transfer Level Start 2‐levels below transfer 26.6% Start 1‐level below transfer 53.4% Math 254, 154, & 152 Success/Transfer Level Start 3‐levels below transfer 7.1% Start 2‐levels below transfer 21.8% Start 1‐level below transfer 40.1% 2‐levels below transfer‐level English: Sorted by ethnicity, Cabrillo College, 2008‐2011 2‐levels below transfer‐level math: Sorted by ethnicity, Cabrillo College, 2008‐2011 Some Observa,ons of the Data • Cabrillo has seen some improvements in English and math (semester‐by‐semester, 2008‐2011) success rates. Some highlights: • • • Cabrillo is doing fairly well (or be\er) with regards to English success rates (2011) in comparison to other neighboring colleges; however, our math results are mixed, and this should be an area we pay more a\en,on to in our BS efforts & Ac,on Plan. • • • • • • • Fall 2011 saw improvements in all English & math BS courses except math 152. Math 154 & English 100 have shown steady improvements for the past 1.5 to 2 years. Could our LCs, all of which include English, be one reason our English results are stronger? Has English accelera,on made a difference? Should we focus on crea,ng more LCs with math? Or, come up with other strategies? What strategies/ac,vi,es can we come up with to try to improve our math success rates? What has been the impact of Professional Development? In English? In math? (i.e., are English faculty more likely to a\end professional development opportuni,es like On Course, and/or are these PD strategies more useful in an English course seqng? Etc.) Our more long‐term analysis (2008‐2011) shows that much needs to be done to assist students who begin at the lowest basic skills levels to succeed at the transfer levels, especially in math. We should look more closely at what STARS and/or ACE have been doing in their efforts to posi,vely impact students’ math success rates. ESL: need research assistance looking at success pa\erns. Other? STARS Title V Students Transi-oning in Academics and Reaching Success First Year Experience Learning Community: What We’ve Learned So Far… Terra Morris August 21, 2012 Progression through basic skills math sequence August 2010 – June 2012 Star,ng MATH‐254: 3‐levels below transfer‐level (TL) STARS Cohort #1 5% 7% 33% 27% Comparison Cohort #1 2% 2% 12% 79% 33% Progression through basic skills math sequence August 2010 – June 2012 Star,ng MATH‐154: 2‐levels below transfer‐level (TL) STARS Cohort #1 5% 11% 17% Comparison Cohort #1 16% 67% 28% 56% Progression through basic skills math sequence August 2010 – June 2012 Star,ng MATH‐152: 1‐level below transfer‐level (TL) STARS Cohort #1 7% 20% 20% Comparison Cohort #1 60% 24% 69% Progression through basic skills English sequence August 2010 – June 2012 Star,ng ENGL‐255: 2‐levels below transfer‐level (TL) STARS Cohort #1 23% 37% 20% 20% Comparison Cohort #1 17% 24% 10% 49% Progression through basic skills English sequence August 2010 – June 2012 Star,ng ENGL‐100: 1‐level below transfer‐level (TL) STARS Cohort #1 32% 50% 18% Comparison Cohort #1 30% 30% 40% Lessons Learned from 2010‐11 • Early Alert System • Math 254SI – more units • Anchor SI schedule to STARS student needs • Modifica,ons to CG sequence • Mid‐day gap between classes • No 8am start ,mes • 12 units, not 16 STARS H&W Pilot Fall 2010 vs. Fall 2011 Course Success Rates 120% 100% 80% STARS Cohort #1 Fall 2010 60% STARS Cohort #2 Fall 2011 40% 20% 0% MATH‐254 MATH‐154 ENGL‐255 READ‐255 How Effec,ve is the ACE Model? Columbia University Community College Research Center Funded by The James Irvine Foundation and The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Longitudinal Evalua+on Educational Outcomes of the Academy for College Excellence: Findings from a Multivariate Analysis Jenkins, D., Hayward, C. (2009) Compared educational outcomes of the first nine cohorts of ACE (DBA) students with over 11,500 students at Cabrillo who did not participate in the program. This study found significant positive effects for participation in both the accelerated and non-accelerated versions of the ACE (DBA). Academy for College Excellence (ACE) was formerly known as Digital Bridge Academy (DBA) 27 Proven Success in Developmental Educa,on ACE Cohort Students Columbia University Community College Research Center Summary of Outcomes On average, ACE students also earned an es,mated 21 more credits than those in the comparison group Cabrillo College Comparison Group Source: Jenkins, Davis, Zeidenberg, Ma\hew, and Wachen, John, “Educa,onal Outcomes of Cabrillo College’s Digital Bridge Academy: Findings from a Mul,variate Analysis,” Community College Research Center, Teacher’s College, Columbia University, 2009. 28 “While par,cipants in the non‐accelerated version of the program generally had significantly be\er outcomes on most measures than did students who did not par,cipate in ACE (DBA), the es,mated effects for the accelerated version were in most cases higher… “To the extent that colleges are seeking strategies for increasing the rate at which academically underprepared students complete “gatekeeper” courses such as college‐level English and earn college credits, the accelerated version of the ACE program seems to hold par,cular promise… “ACE students are very likely to be more at‐risk than Cabrillo students with similar levels of academic prepara,on, although comparable risk sta,s,cs are not available for non‐ par,cipa,ng Cabrillo students. To the extent that the ACE students in the sample were substan,ally more disadvantaged than other students, it may be that the es-mates produced through this analysis understate the effect of par-cipa-ng in ACE.” Funded by The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation MPR Evalua,on of ACE Program Demographics of ACE Students in Study ACE N 461 Female 38% Latino 53% GED or HS Dropout 33% Placed 2+ levels below College English 40% Placed 1 level below College English 47% Mean Age 26.2 Prior College Credits 3.7 Source: 30 Columbia University Community Spring 2010 Cohort – Longitudinal Study of Three Semesters College Research Center Cabrillo College Accelerated Non‐Accelerated Student Outcomes Funded by The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Analysis Chance of Passing English 100 1 Level Below Transfer English Comparison Group ACE Cohorts ACE Cohorts 35% 60%* 15% If enrolled in the ACE program: • Aier 3 semesters 70% more likely to successfully complete English 100 • Aier 2 semester 106% more likely to successfully complete English 100 • Aier 1 semester 118% more likely to successfully complete English 100 * Sta+s+cally Significant p<.01; two‐tailed test n=69 31 N=116 at Three Colleges Columbia University Community Fall 2010 Cohort – Longitudinal Study of Two Semesters College Research Center Cabrillo College Accelerated Non‐Accelerated Student Outcomes Funded by The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Comparison Group ACE Cohorts ACE Cohorts College Credits Earned 7.5 16** 16 Chance of Persis,ng 1 Semester 66% 75% 67% Chance of Enrolling Full‐Time in Second Semester 34% 49%* 38% Chance of Passing English 100 1 Level Below Transfer English 36% 60%* 33% Analysis If enrolled in the ACE program: • Aier 2 semester 70% more likely to successfully complete English 100 • Aier 1 semester 107% more likely to successfully complete English 100 * Sta+s+cally Significant p<.01; two‐tailed test ** Sta+s+cally Significant p<.05; two‐tailed test n=129 33 n=219 at Three Colleges Columbia University Community Spring 2011 Cohort ‐ Study First Semester College Research Center Cabrillo College Accelerated Non‐Accelerated Student Outcomes Funded by The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Comparison Group ACE Cohorts College Credits Earned 4.3 12.4** Chance of Passing English 100 1 Level Below Transfer English 18% 58%* Analysis ACE Cohorts If enrolled in the ACE program: • Aier 1 semester 216% more likely to successfully complete English 100 * Sta+s+cally Significant p<.01; two‐tailed test ** Sta+s+cally Significant p<.05; two‐tailed test n=136 35 2012‐2013 BS Ac,on Plan Documenta,on: Due Oct. 10, 2012 1. Analyze Cabrillo College success data using Basic Skills Cohort Tracker 2. Write a Reflec,ve Narra+ve Response: • “Knowing what you know now about basic skills and implemen,ng basic skills interven,ons on your campus, what would you have done differently over the last five years with regards to your basic skills ini,a,ve work?” 3. Revise/update our Long‐Term (5‐year) Goals for Basic Skills (3 max) 4. Determine Ac,vi,es for 2012‐13 BS Ac+on Plan (5 max)
