1
NOTE: The Learning Skills Program moved from Instruction to Student Services in July
2011. The program plan posted here was completed in Fall 2010 when the department
was still part of Instruction, using the format in use at the time. It includes the
assessment of one college core competency. The Learning Skills program has
additionally written a Student Service SLO and assessed it. The assessment results are
posted on the Student Services website. The Learning Skills program will write a new
program plan in 2013. In addition, its course SLOs will be assessed and the results
reported to the Council of Instructional Planning on their schedule.
LEARNING SKILLS PROGRAM
PROGRAM PLANNING REPORT
FALL 2010
I. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Program Description: The core purposes of the Learning Skills Program (LSP) are to
identify students with learning disabilities (LD) through college-provided assessment or
review of existing records, identify students with ADD/ADHD through review of existing
records, then to provide those students with support services, academic
recommendations, and specialized classes to help them succeed in their mainstream
classes. We offer Learning Skills (LS) classes in study skills, compensatory techniques
and strategies, and math study skills. The LSP is one of the programs under the umbrella
of Disabled Students Programs and Services (DSPS). Our program helps keep the
college in compliance with federal laws (Section 504 of the National Rehabilitation Act,
Americans with Disabilities Act) and state law (Title 5) protecting the rights of students
with disabilities. Our services, which may include test accommodations, compensatory
learning and study techniques, notetaking services, specialized tutorial instruction, access
to assistive technology, priority registration, and/or other support services, enable
students with LD or AD/HD to succeed in regular college programs and classes.
The services we offer directly support the Chancellor’s priorities for California
Community Colleges (CCC), serving students in basic skills, transfer, and vocational
programs.
Campus & Community Relationships & Outreach: The faculty of the LSP has served
on numerous shared governance committees at Cabrillo which currently include the
following: Faculty Senate, Subcommittee of the Academic Council for Course
Substitutions, the Basic Skills Committee, and the CCFT Council. Our faculty has also
recently participated in statewide professional organizations and activities such as Region
IV representative of the LD Advisory Board for California Community Chancellor’s
Office, as well as membership in the California Association for Postsecondary Educators
of the Disabled (CAPED).
We speak to groups of prospective college students on campus about our program
through group high school tours. But the majority of our campus outreach involves
speaking to students in mainstream Cabrillo classes. We have also established a very
1
2
good working relationship with the local Transition Partnership Programs (TPP) and the
local high school districts’ special education personnel so we can obtain student records
once the students have transitioned to Cabrillo. (TPP is a liaison program that connects
special education high school students with Department of Rehabilitation. TPP refers
many students to LSP.)
Our faculty has also provided Cabrillo staff and faculty with information and workshops
related to better serving students with LD. These workshops highlight classroom
strategies and information on referring students for LD assessment. Most importantly, our
program provides faculty with the assistance they need, so the LD students in their
classes can receive the appropriate specialized help that enables them to be successful.
This is a critical partnership.
In order to increase communication among all student support services and enhance
student success, we would like to begin meeting with the general counselors and the
counselors working with EOPS, CalWorks, FAST TRACK, STARS, and ACE, to discuss
strategies related to students with LD issues. Possible discussion topics would include
how to spot identified or potential students with LD, especially if they don’t mention
their past history; how to gauge LD students’ tolerance for class load; and ways to build
escape valves into the long-range education plan, in case a class is dropped or failed.
The LSP website provides faculty, as well as current and prospective students, with
information on the LSP, LD assessment, and other related classes and services. It also
contains self-screening tools. Our DVD, made with funds from a 2008 Student Senate
grant, is accessible online and can be helpful to faculty when making student referrals for
LD assessment.
Costs: The LSP is a categorically funded program paid for with DSPS funds. The
program has endured drastic cuts because of the recent 45.5% cut (2009-2010) to DSPS
at the state level. The program has lost funding for faculty, staff, supplies, conference
expenses, and equipment. Since we are “categorical,” our cost to the district is minimal,
yet we generate revenue for the college through our classes and through the success of
our students (686 Cabrillo students with LD as reported in the Chancellor’s Office for the
academic year 2008-2009), who would not be able to successfully complete courses and
programs without the assistance the LSP offers them. Without that assistance, they would
probably not be attending Cabrillo, graduating, or transferring. Every student identified
as eligible for LD services garners more funds through DSPS weighted student count
than students identified as Other. Because of their weighted count, students claimed as
LD bring in almost 60% more funds to DSPS than students we claim as Other. It’s
important to realize that Other students do not require less faculty/staff time and effort
(accommodations, counseling, etc.) than LD students.
As recently as Fall 2009, the LSP had two contract LD Specialists and 21 adjunct LD
Specialist units. Currently, we have only 3 adjunct units. With the loss of these adjunct
units, we can identify and serve far fewer students. This results in greatly reduced
revenue to the DSPS program. In the chart on the next page, the numbers of new LSP
2
3
students identified either as LD or OTHER in the following semesters illustrates the
trend. Budget cuts began in fall 2009.
Semester
LD
OTHER*
*not ADHD
FA 2007
71
7
SP 2008
51
5
FA 2008
71
3
SP 2009
61
5
Fall 2007
Spring 2008
Fall 2008
Spring 2009
Fall 2009
of 78 potential LD students - 8 % were counted as Other
of 56 potential LD students - 9 % were counted as Other
of 74 potential LD students - 4 % were counted as Other
of 66 potential LD students - 8 % were counted as Other
of 74 potential LD students - 68 % were counted as Other
FA 2009
44
30
With or without state categorical funding, the college is legally obligated to identify and
provide appropriate services for students with LD. Since LD specialists are the only ones
qualified to evaluate and identify LD students, the LSP is the most efficient way to serve
students with LD.
Student Learning Outcomes: From the Core Competency of Critical Thinking and
Information we chose to measure D: Solve Problems. The 2 classes of the LSP
conducted by LSP faculty in spring 2010—LS 254 Diagnostic Assessment and LS 264
Study Skills—both involve addressing this competency.
The LS 254 SLO, “Students recognize they have learning problems and come to the LSP
to be assessed,” was measured by the homework assignment, in which students read the
LD Handbook Learning Differently, watch the DVD A Matter of Perception, answer 7
questions, then create a Personal Strategies Chart. In this chart they identify their
challenges in specific learning contexts and determine what strategies and/or
accommodations would help them use their strengths to mitigate their weaknesses and
increase their academic success.
For LS 264, the SLO requires students to critically assess their difficulties in the areas of:
• reading textbooks
• note taking
• organizing their time and materials for studying
• preparing for tests
• test taking
Using the Wise Choice Process from the class textbook On Course, students answer 6
essay questions to describe each of the problems, imagine an ideal outcome, formulate
specific choices, predict the outcome of each choice, commit to a choice, create a plan,
and decide criteria by which the plan will be evaluated.
3
4
Due to the severe cutback in staffing, the LSP’s program SLO is to identify ways to
streamline services without sacrificing quality. We will accomplish this by:
• Streamlining routine accommodation appointments. Students now fill out the
Individual Education Plan before they meet with an LD Specialist for drop-in
(rather than scheduled) appointments during the first 2 weeks of each semester.
• Scheduling appointments immediately when students bring outside records to the
LSP which show that they have been previously served as LD. Previously these
students have had to wait 2 -3 weeks for their appointments, which meant waiting
2-3 weeks before getting services. To increase efficiency, students complete the
student information form before (rather than during) their appointment.
• Exploring the possibility (with DSPS) of changing the accommodation form
distribution process. This could result in less paperwork, put more responsibility
and advocacy in the hands of the student, and hopefully save time and work for
the DSPS staff.
We will evaluate the effectiveness of these changes through student questionnaires. If
other variables could be accounted for, which might be very difficult (less staff, etc.), we
might also consider collecting data to see if we were able to serve more students using
these new methods. We are committed to as much proactive response as possible to the
budget cuts.
SLO Assessment Results: In Spring 2010, 53 students began LS 254 Diagnostic
Assessment. Of those, 40 received credit, 5 dropped, and 8 received incompletes. Of the
8 incompletes, 6 were due to incomplete homework assignment, and 2 to incomplete
testing.
Fifteen LS 281 students in Fall 2009 completed the Wise Choice Process. They then
discussed the use of the Process in class and student responses were generally favorable.
Since the SLOs in LS classes almost always involve assessing students’ success in their
mainstream classes, we need to develop a follow-up procedure to assess whether LS
classes and services are helping LD students succeed. This could involve emails,
postcards, or paper surveys that contain a checklist to measure student satisfaction with
their LD services and what effect services are having on their grades or general success in
classes. We would work with PRO to determine how best to collect useful data.
Student Success: An LD is “a persistent condition of presumed neurological
dysfunction” which “continues despite instruction in standard classroom situations.”
Students with LD have severe processing deficits which make their success in standard
classes extremely difficult, if not impossible. LSP faculty review outside records to
determine student eligibility, or identify LD students through LS 254 (an assessment
process that costs $1000-5000 if done privately), and connect them to services which will
greatly enhance their chances of success. Likewise, when LD students transfer, LD
faculty can provide data to the transfer college, so that students may continue to receive
LD services there. LD faculty also makes it possible for LD students to use test
accommodations when taking high-stakes board and entrance exams. The law (Section
56027 of Title 5 Regulations) requires that students be provided with accommodations in
4
5
a timely manner, and a reduction of LD staff and faculty could potentially lead to OCR
complaints, due to students having to wait too long for services. LD assessment gives
students critical access to college classes and services, and LD services make it possible
for them to succeed in standard classes.
MIS data from 2007-2008 that compares CCC LD students with the general CCC
population, shows that LD students performed as well or better than their peers on
various measures of student success.
Persistence Persistence Degree Applicable Course Completion
F07-S08
F07-F08
Courses Completed Basic Skills
LD
.83
.66
.85
.45
General
CCC
.65
.49
.86
.36
Rates are rounded to nearest hundredth & represent percentages of students in each category
In the 2002-2003, the Planning and Research Office at Cabrillo reported that although
LD students were 3% of the total student population, they received 6.2% of degrees and
certificates. In Spring 2003, LD students also earned 66.9% of the units attempted
compared to 64.1% of other students.
The California Community College (CCC) Learning Disabilities Eligibility Model
(LDEM), which is used to determine student eligibility for LD services, was created
statewide over 30 years ago to standardize assessment procedures and eligibility criteria.
A 2009 study done for the Chancellor’s Office of the LDEM by Noel Gregg, Ph.D.,
found that over half the students who were tested and found eligible for LD services in
CCC reported not having received any LD services prior to attending college. Many of
these students likely experienced significant barriers to academic success due to LD that
had gone unidentified, so that they could not use academic accommodations and support
services to improve success. Without current assessment results, we have less knowledge
about a student’s cognitive, perceptual, and academic strengths and weaknesses. With the
current K - 12 Response to Intervention Model, which does not require assessing students
for LD, fewer students entering college will have been identified as having LD, so we can
expect even greater numbers of students requiring an LD assessment. Without recent
assessments, it is more difficult to advise students about study techniques, class
schedules, use of services such as assistive technology, and best tutorial practices. An
administrator from the Chancellor’s Office stated that the LDEM is the most cost
effective way to identify students with LD, as the cost of assessment outside the CCC
system is prohibitive for most students: “[I]f we do not support the model, we have an
equity issue . . . [since] with no LDEM you disenfranchise students who are poor.”
As of October 1, 2010, due to severely reduced LD specialist units, we had to begin
placing students on a wait list for Spring 2011. As of December 6, 2010 there were 50
students on the wait list for LD testing in Spring 2011. To assist with the wait list, we are
beginning the LD assessment process during Fall and Spring flex weeks. Although this
should help, without additional LD Specialists we will still be counting more students as
Other, and testing fewer students. This directly reduces our state allocation. (After the
5
6
first week of classes in Spring 2011, an additional 23 students have requested an LD
assessment.)
One of our previous adjuncts was able to assess students in Spanish. With the loss of this
adjunct LD Specialist, we can no longer do so.
Since the LSP has often ended each semester with a small wait list for LS 254, there are
often students whom we cannot assess in a timely manner. When we had LD testing
available in the Winter and Summer semesters we were able to serve many of these
students, and, therefore, increase their success, because they could begin the semester
with services. Currently, Winter and Summer assessment can only be reinstituted if we
receive additional funds from the general fund or Basic Skills.
According to the information available from the Planning and Research Office (chart on
the following page), the success rate for students enrolled in LS courses was better than
the college average in eight out of ten previous semesters. In two semesters the success
rate in LS courses was close to the college average (<2%). Retention rates in LS courses
were also better than the college average in seven of the ten semesters. In the remaining
three semesters the retention rate in LS classes was again close to the college average (<
5%).
LS - Program planning data for 2009/10
3
5
2
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
Fall
71.0%
78.1%
69.3%
70.9%
66.0%
5
3
Spring
79.6%
69.3%
66.2%
68.0%
68.1%
Fall
83.1%
86.0%
76.5%
88.0%
84.9%
Instructional Development (IDEV)
5
Learning Skills
Academic
Year
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
Course Enrollment
Fall
134
128
166
167
167
Source: Data Warehouse
FA
Majors
Spring
130
126
163
162
99
SP
Fall
0
0
0
0
0
FA
FTES
Academic
Year
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
Fall
SP
FA
Fall
224.5
195.1
262.0
298.7
315.0
Retention
Fall
Count
Time
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
Certificates of
Achievement
Count
Time
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
Skill Certificates
Count
0
0
0
0
0
Time
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Licensure Exams
Fall
Spring
Source: Datatel
FTEF
Spring
216.7
213.5
291.6
275.8
156.9
Degrees
Spring
84.3%
81.6%
77.7%
81.0%
74.7%
SP
WSCH
Spring
6.9
6.8
9.3
8.8
5.0
7.1
6.2
8.3
9.5
10.1
Success
Spring
Percent of College Percent of College
WSCH
FTEF
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
0.14%
0.14%
0.18%
0.22%
0.12%
0.14%
0.22%
0.15%
0.16%
0.18%
0.21%
0.21%
0.16%
0.15%
0.20%
0.22%
0.17%
0.09%
0.22%
0.09%
WSCH/FTEF = Load
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
Spring
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.3
Fall
431.8
304.8
413.7
471.6
472.5
Spring
338.5
492.7
460.5
413.7
569.8
3
5
3
5
Spring
67.8%
66.6%
67.8%
68.9%
70.6%
Fall
81.0%
80.6%
80.6%
85.7%
85.3%
Source: Datatel XFAS report [Faculty Assignment Sheets.]
3
5
4
Spring
46,652
47,024
51,727
51,634
49,920
Fall
6,870
7,531
8,425
8,948
8,726
College Totals
Academic
Year
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
Dept. Majors
Course Enrollment
Fall
47,997
48,151
51,362
56,005
52,855
Success
Spring
7,082
7,954
8,572
8,677
8,446
Fall
67.2%
66.7%
67.3%
68.5%
69.7%
Retention
Spring
80.9%
80.3%
82.0%
84.6%
84.7%
College Enrollment includes both Credit and Non-Credit coures.
Degrees
Count
828
769
863
787
905
Time
9.6
10.1
10.1
10.6
10.8
Certificates of
Achievement
Count
Time
127
13.3
98
16.0
89
14.4
366
9.2
547
11.0
Skill Certificates
Count
141
165
149
192
145
Time
10.8
10.5
12.1
10.0
12.3
Source: Datatel
Source: Data Warehouse
FA
Academic
Year
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
SP
FA
FTES
Fall
5,217.8
5,068.5
5,405.1
6,088.1
5,978.4
Spring
5,014.3
4,927.0
5,248.1
5,901.3
5,666.0
SP
WSCH
Fall
162,371.3
157,687.2
168,320.7
189,534.5
186,017.0
Source: Datatel XFAS report [Faculty Assignment Sheets.]
Spring
156,095.9
153,261.4
163,414.1
183,474.9
177,199.9
FA
SP
FTEF
Fall
283.9
288.8
305.3
310.5
296.7
WSCH/FTEF = Load
Spring
290.8
296.5
305.3
299.0
293.4
Fall
571.9
546.1
551.4
610.3
627.0
Spring
536.9
516.9
535.3
613.5
604.0
Success
Retention
WSCH
FTES
FTEF
Time
- Grade was A,B,C, or CR or P
- Grade was any except W
- Weekly Student Contact Hours
- Full Time Equivalent Students
- Full Time Equivalent Faculty
- Average semesters to award (2 per year)
Detailed Notes: http://pro.cabrillo.edu/pro/factbook/InOut_How_Use2010.PDF
LS classes and services contribute to the success rates of our students. But since the LSP
is a student service oriented program, the great majority of LSP students are not in LS
courses. To measure their success strictly on success in LS classes gives a very
6
7
incomplete and inaccurate picture, since in any given semester there are probably less
than 20% of LS students enrolled in LS classes.
In Fall 2009 the LSP had a Laboratory Instructional Assistant (LIA) whose main job was
to conduct specialized tutorials. When this position was 30 hours per week, the LIA was
also able to do some of the achievement assessment portion of the CCC LD eligibility
process, thus freeing the LD Specialists to focus on cognitive assessment and
recommendations for services. Employing the LIA in this way enabled the LSP to test
more students more efficiently, and to provide those eligible with services more quickly,
thereby increasing their chances of success in their mainstream classes.
Since all students must now pass Math 152 in order to receive an associate degree, and
since many LD students lack only the required math classes in order to graduate, it is
necessary to revise the Course Substitution process and forms, which allow qualified LD
students to substitute another class for the math requirement. This revision would take
place in collaboration with a DSPS counselor. The existing process and forms have not
been updated in many years and need to be reexamined, especially in light of recent
updates to the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Summary of Learning Skills Program Survey (from LSP students in fall 2009)
52 students responded, over 60% of whom had been in the program for 3 or more
semesters.
• 50% of the students said they always followed class recommendations made by
LD specialists.
• About 81% used services recommended by LD specialists.
• 50% used the recommended assistive technology.
• 60% of these students said they use priority registration without seeing an LD
specialist or counselor.
• 98% of the students found test accommodations useful.
• About 62% found LS 255/Sir Richard Griffiths (open) Learning Lab useful.
• 54% found note takers useful.
• 54% found tape recording lectures useful.
• About 93% of students who responded said they prefer flexible LD assessment
appointments arranged to suit their schedules, as opposed to a scheduled class.
30 students responded to the question that asked for suggestions for improving the
program. Their suggestions include the following:
• Extend the lab hours to include evenings and weekends.
• Help students with getting and taking notes and/or notetakers.
• Publicize the program more so more students can take advantage of it.
Students who have difficulty with notes or notetakers are now also advised to use the
LiveScribe Smart Pen, which records what an instructor says as the student takes notes.
We will keep the other suggestions in mind and make changes as the budget allows.
During Fall 2010, 113 unduplicated students used the Sir Richard Griffiths Learning Lab
for a total of 809 hours. In the LSP program surveys from 2009, the Learning Lab was
7
8
the second most used service after test accommodations, and the majority of students
responding recommended increased lab hours. Staffing the lab was a goal of our
previous program plan, and it is clear that it was a very successful improvement.
In the PRO report from summer 2010, data showed that test accommodations alone are
not enough to help some students with LD pass Math 154 and 152. It is highly probable
that they need additional tutorial or other services in order to be successful. This is
another reason we seek to maintain the LIA position in the SRG Learning Lab. To
increase student success, we may consider requesting additional funds from the general
fund, or basic skills, to fund this urgent need. This directly affects student success, a
college-wide priority. As more students are required to pass both Math 154 and 152,
more will need our services in order to be successful, and the Lab is one of the services
attested to be most utilized and most helpful.
Summary of Instructional Planning Survey
(responses from students of LS 200/200L, 264, and 281in fall 2009)
40 students responded.
• 60% responding were taking 12 or more units in fall 2009, all daytime classes.
• 85% had high school diplomas or GEDs.
• About 74% said they were taking one LS class; about 26% were taking more.
• 66% said they decided to take an LS class because advised by a counselor or LD
specialist.
• About 95% said the course outline (syllabus) reflected what was taught in class.
• About half said they plan to take another LS course.
• 85% said they’d recommend an LS class to other students.
95% of students listed major strengths, which included:
• good teaching (teachers cared about students and were willing to help them
succeed) teaching learning techniques and giving examples
• providing information that helped with problems
• teaching good study habits
• instilling confidence
• making the class fun
We should continue to offer all LS classes each semester, since students find them
beneficial and even instrumental in their success in mainstream classes.
Curriculum Review: Since we are primarily a student service program, not curriculumbased, and because the budget is so uncertain, we have elected to make very minor
changes in our curriculum so we may put our energies into the service aspects of the
program, such as reducing course offerings in order to provide more hours of LD
assessment. None of the changes we are currently making in our classes require the
formal curriculum review procedures.
LS 254 - Diagnostic Assessment - determines if a student is eligible to receive LD
services according to the CCC Chancellor’s Office guidelines, and guides students in
finding ways to maximize strengths and minimize weaknesses.
8
9
LS 255 – Tutorial Instruction – emphasizes the use of assistive technology to support
students in their other courses. This course will no longer be offered. Our lab, if it can be
staffed, will only be an open lab, possibly offered as LS 502L. We feel that a drop-in lab
is more helpful to our students at this time.
LS 264 – Study Skills – instructs students in basic study skills and learning strategies.
This class currently uses the On Course techniques and textbook.
LS 200 – Math Study Skills - study strategies for students having difficulties in math.
LS 200L – Reduced Anxiety Lab – teaches students how to improve test performance and
test anxiety through the use of Heart Math software (class taught by DSPS counselor)
LS 281 – Strategies for Students with LD & ADD – helps students understand LD &
ADD/ADHD and learn self-awareness techniques and the use of related compensatory
strategies for success at home, school, and work. Because of budget cuts, this class was
not offered this year. Meanwhile, some of the strategies taught in this class have been
incorporated into LS 264. When funding improves, LS 281 will be offered both Fall and
Spring semesters, along with LS 264.
II. PROGRAM DIRECTIONS, GOALS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 2010
1. Hire another LD Specialist—contract or, if funds are limited, adjunct(s)—who, if
possible, is/are bilingual (English/Spanish), and who can also be a presence in Aptos
& Watsonville. This was one of our primary recommendations in the 2005 LSP report
and continues to be a pressing need. In keeping with the college-wide emphasis on
increasing student success, we may request additional funds from the general fund, or
Basic Skills, to fund this necessary position.
2. Reestablish the LIA position in the LSP Sir Richard Griffiths Learning Lab to its
previous level of 30 hours per week. This position has made a great difference in
students’ use of the SRG Learning Lab and in the use of our assistive technology. We
need to find a way to continue this funding.
3. Reinstitute additional adjunct LD specialist units for summer and winter sections
of LS 254 Diagnostic Assessment (LD testing). Testing students before each fall and
spring semesters allowed them to have LD services in place before classes began in the
new academic year, a great help to their success.
4. Revise the Course Substitution process and forms in collaboration with a DSPS
counselor. The current process to approve courses that can be used to substitute for the
mathematics graduation requirement needs to be revised. Also, the current forms are
cumbersome and the accompanying instructions confusing. The goal is to make the
revised process, forms, and instructions more student-friendly.
5. Meet with the general counselors, and counselors working with EOPS,
CalWorks, FAST TRACK, STARS, and ACE, to discuss strategies related to
students with LD issues to increase communication among student services and to
enhance student success.
9
10
6. Develop a follow-up procedure to assess whether LS classes and services are
helping students succeed. We would work with PRO to determine how best to collect
useful data.
7. Once additional LD Specialists have been hired, reinstitute teaching all LS
courses every Fall and Spring semester. LS 254, Diagnostic Assessment, should also
be offered in the Summer & Winter semesters. As previously stated, our classes’
success and retention rates are generally better than the college average. Also, as the
college continues to commit to serving basic skills students, there is an increased need for
our LS classes among that population.
Student Services Department SLO Assessment Analysis Form
Use the form below to summarize the results of the department meeting in which you discussed the
results of your SLO assessment.
Department
Learning Skills Program
Meeting Date
10/2/12
Number of Staff participating
3
% of department
SLOs measured
100%
Students who commit to the learning disabilities evaluation process
will analyze their learning challenges and create a plan of study
strategies they can use to improve their learning.
Assessment Tool
(Briefly describe assessment tool)
The assessment tool included comparisons of data from electronic
appointment and enrollment databases with student completion of
coursework. Electronic data included: 1) student attendance at an
intake appointment, 2) student attendance at evaluation
appointments, and 3) student enrollment in a learning skills class.
Data was also collected on whether a Learning Disabilities Specialist
had determined that each student completed their coursework in
applying their knowledge of study strategies to creating a plan they
can use to improve their learning.
Results: In Spring semester 2012, student commitment to the
learning disability evaluation process was assessed following
student attendance at an initial intake meeting. Of the 57 students
who attended intakes, 89% scheduled and attended at least one
evaluation appointment while 87% enrolled in the course
associated with the evaluation.
Assessment Analysis
(Summarize the assessment results;
discuss what student needs and issues
were revealed)
Data was then collected to assess the percentage of students who
attended the intake meeting and then went on to study and apply
what they had learned about study strategies to create a study
skills plan, therefore meeting the SLO. Of the 57 students attending
10
11
an initial intake, 84% completed their coursework in learning about
study strategies and applied this to creating a study strategies plan.
Discussion: The high rate (87-89%) of students committing to the
evaluation process demonstrates the success of initial screening
and information provided to students prior to scheduling an intake
to ensure that those attending are eligible and interested in
committing to the evaluation process. During the intake process,
faculty typically identify some students who may be less
appropriate for learning disability testing and who are likely to
benefit from other services within our program or the college. The
goal in scheduling intake meetings is to minimize student/faculty
time for the 3-hour intake meeting and maximize openings and
participation by students eligible and committed to the evaluation.
In light of recent staffing and program changes, the faculty decided
to examine the screening and scheduling processes and discuss
them with our new team of faculty and staff. We plan to work
toward consistency in our procedures with the goal of continuing to
ensure that students eligible and interested in committing to the
evaluation process are the majority of those scheduled for intake
appointments.
Data indicated that 84% of students accomplished the SLO and
created a study skills plan. These students attended the 3-hour
intake, participated in a series of 4-6 assessment appointments,
were provided with results on their eligibility for learning disability
services, studied information about learning disabilities, learned
about study strategies that may benefit them, and developed a
plan for implementing study strategies in their coursework. These
results demonstrate a high rate of success in achieving the SLO and
providing services that students actively participate in and from
which they have an opportunity to benefit.
Discussion about the SLO and program goals led to a decision to
make some improvements to the student homework assignments.
Faculty decided to make changes to the homework to include more
efficacy-based language for students and to more clearly tie the
study strategies plan to a student’s current courses.
The data analysis and discussion also led faculty to look at
additional data on eligibility qualification following evaluations.
While not a direct measure of the SLO, this data indicated that 79%
of the students who participated in the evaluation were
determined to be eligible for services under the California
Community Colleges Learning Disability Eligibility Model. The
faculty decided they would gather data from other similar
community college programs around the state to find out if this
eligibility rate matches other programs.
11
12
Next Steps
(How will you address the needs and
issues revealed by the assessment?)
Faculty and staff will review, discuss, and develop a new plan for
intake appointment screening and scheduling procedures.
The Learning Disabilities Specialists plan to review and revise the
homework associated with the learning disability evaluation course
with an increased focus on self-efficacy and application to current
coursework.
Faculty will also gather data from similar colleges (size,
demographics of student population) on the percentage of
students completing learning disability assessments who are
determined to be eligible for services under the state model. Data
will be gathered and shared during a professional development
(flex week) meeting.
Timeline for Implementation
(Make a timeline for how you will
implement the next steps outlined
above )
Re-evaluate
Fall 2012:
1) Review and discuss intake appointment screening and
scheduling procedures.
2) Revise student homework assignment.
3) Gather data from similar colleges on eligibility
determinations following learning disability assessment.
Spring 2012:
1) Complete new intake appointment screening and
scheduling procedure.
2) Implement revised homework.
3) Discuss comparison of our eligibility rates with those of
similar colleges.
12