Mott Community College
Achieving the Dream Data Team
Preliminary Findings Report
March 24, 2011
Table of Contents
Table of Figures .............................................................................................................................................4
I.
Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................................6
II.
Introduction......................................................................................................................................8
A.
Report objectives ............................................................................................................................. 8
B.
ATD goals statement ........................................................................................................................ 8
C.
ATD Data Team ................................................................................................................................. 9
1.
Team objectives...........................................................................................................................9
2.
Membership ................................................................................................................................9
3.
Meetings/materials covered .................................................................................................... 10
4.
ATD data set ............................................................................................................................. 11
5.
Development process ............................................................................................................... 12
6.
Cohort definition ...................................................................................................................... 12
7.
Analysis method ....................................................................................................................... 12
III.
Findings ......................................................................................................................................... 14
A.
Demographic profile....................................................................................................................... 14
1.
ATD Cohort ............................................................................................................................... 14
2.
Cohort gender .......................................................................................................................... 14
3.
Cohort age ................................................................................................................................ 15
4.
Cohort race ............................................................................................................................... 15
5.
Cohort race/gender .................................................................................................................. 16
6.
Section summary ...................................................................................................................... 17
B.
Financial aid profile ........................................................................................................................ 17
1.
FAFSA Cohort trends ................................................................................................................ 17
2.
Received Pell (any amount) ...................................................................................................... 18
3.
Received max Pell ..................................................................................................................... 18
4.
Received no Pell ....................................................................................................................... 19
5.
Pell gender trends .................................................................................................................... 20
6.
Pell race trends ......................................................................................................................... 20
7.
Pell race/gender trends ............................................................................................................ 22
2
8.
C.
Section summary ...................................................................................................................... 22
Developmental placement profile.................................................................................................. 23
1.
Development classification scheme ......................................................................................... 23
2.
ATD Cohort placement testing ................................................................................................. 23
3.
ATD Cohort placement testing/gender .................................................................................... 24
4.
ATD Cohort placement testing/race......................................................................................... 25
5.
ATD Cohort placement testing by developmental program .................................................... 27
6.
ATD Cohort placement testing by developmental program/gender ....................................... 28
7.
ATD Cohort placement testing by developmental program/race............................................ 29
8.
ATD Cohort placement testing by developmental program/race/gender ............................... 30
9.
ATD Cohort developmental placement combinations ............................................................. 31
10.
ATD Cohort developmental placement combinations by age group ....................................... 32
11.
ATD Cohort developmental placement by Pell status.............................................................. 34
12.
Section summary ...................................................................................................................... 36
D.
Developmental course funnels....................................................................................................... 37
1.
Description of funnel concept .................................................................................................. 37
2.
Developmental Math – gateway success funnel ...................................................................... 38
3.
Developmental Writing – gateway success funnel .................................................................. 40
4.
Developmental Reading – gateway success funnel ................................................................. 42
5.
Section summary ...................................................................................................................... 43
E.
Success outcomes by Cohort .......................................................................................................... 43
1.
Fall-to-Fall retention ................................................................................................................. 43
2.
Degree attainment ................................................................................................................... 44
3.
Credit attainment ..................................................................................................................... 44
4.
Pell sub-cohort credit attainment ............................................................................................ 46
5.
Section summary ...................................................................................................................... 49
F.
2009 CCSSE/CCFSSE survey summary ............................................................................................ 49
1.
Review of selected CCSSE/CCFSSE questions ........................................................................... 49
2.
Section summary ...................................................................................................................... 51
IV.
Observations ................................................................................................................................. 52
V.
Issues ............................................................................................................................................. 55
VI.
Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 56
3
Table of Figures
Figure 1 - ATD Data Team Members .......................................................................................................... 10
Figure 2 - ATD Data Team Meetings ........................................................................................................... 11
Figure 3 - ATD Cohort Naming Convention ................................................................................................ 12
Figure 4 - ATD Cohort Counts ..................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 5 – Cohorts by Gender ..................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 6 - Cohorts by Age Group ................................................................................................................ 15
Figure 7 - Cohorts by Race .......................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 8 – Cohorts by Race and Gender ..................................................................................................... 16
Figure 9 - Cohort Financial Aid Records ..................................................................................................... 17
Figure 10 – Pell Recipients (Any Amount) .................................................................................................. 18
Figure 11 - Pell Recipients (Maximum Amount)......................................................................................... 18
Figure 12 - Pell Not Received (Applied or Not)........................................................................................... 19
Figure 13 - Pell Recipient Gender Trends ................................................................................................... 20
Figure 14 - Pell Recipient Race Trends ....................................................................................................... 20
Figure 15 - Maximum Pell Recipients Race Trends .................................................................................... 21
Figure 16 - Pell Recipient Race and Gender Trends ................................................................................... 22
Figure 17 - Developmental Recommendation Grouping Trends ............................................................... 23
Figure 18 - Developmental Recommendation Groupings by Gender (Females) ....................................... 24
Figure 19 - Developmental Recommendation Groupings by Gender (Males) ........................................... 24
Figure 20 - Developmental Recommendations by Major Race Groupings ................................................ 25
Figure 21 - Developmental Recommendation Grouping Trends (Black/African American) ...................... 26
Figure 22 - Developmental Recommendation Grouping Trends (Hispanic/Latino) ................................... 26
Figure 23 - Developmental Recommendation Grouping Trends (Unknown Category) ............................. 26
Figure 24 - Developmental Recommendation Grouping Trends (White) .................................................. 27
Figure 25 - Developmental Discipline Recommendation Trends ............................................................... 27
Figure 26 - Developmental Discipline Recommendation Trends by Gender (Female) .............................. 28
Figure 27 - Developmental Discipline Recommendation Trends by Gender (Male) .................................. 28
Figure 28 - Developmental Discipline Recommendation Trends by Race (Black/African American) ........ 29
Figure 29 - Developmental Discipline Recommendation Trends by Race (White) .................................... 29
Figure 30 - Developmental Discipline Recommendation Trends by Race and Gender.............................. 30
Figure 31 - Developmental Course Placement Combinations by Student Count ...................................... 31
Figure 32 – Top Three Developmental Course Placement Combinations by Age Group........................... 32
Figure 33 – Top Three Developmental Course Placement Combinations Seat Counts ............................. 33
Figure 34 - Developmental Recommendation Groupings by Pell Status ................................................... 34
Figure 35 - Developmental Recommendation Groupings by Race and Gender (Max Pell Recipients) ...... 35
Figure 36 - Developmental Success Funnel Concept.................................................................................. 37
4
Figure 37 - Developmental Math Gateway Success Outcomes ................................................................. 38
Figure 38 - Developmental Writing Gateway Success Outcomes .............................................................. 40
Figure 39 - Developmental Reading Gateway Success Outcomes ............................................................. 42
Figure 40 - Fall-to-Fall Retention Rates (Developmental Education Impact) ............................................. 43
Figure 41 - Degree Attainment (Developmental Education Impact).......................................................... 44
Figure 42 - Credit Attainment (Developmental Education Impact) ........................................................... 44
Figure 43 - Developmental Placement Impact on Significant 3-Year Credit Attainment ........................... 45
Figure 44 - Significant Credit Attainment by Pell Status and Developmental Grouping ............................ 46
Figure 45 - Highest Persistence Populations .............................................................................................. 47
Figure 46 - Three Year Significant Credit Attainment Rates (Doubles) ...................................................... 48
Figure 47 - Three Year Significant Credit Attainment Rates (Triples)......................................................... 48
Figure 48 – CCSSE/CCFSSE Advising Questions .......................................................................................... 49
Figure 49 – CCSSE/CCFSSE Tutoring Questions .......................................................................................... 49
Figure 50 – CCSSE/CCFSSE Child Care Questions ....................................................................................... 50
Figure 51 – CCSSE/CCFSSE Skills Lab Questions ......................................................................................... 50
Figure 52 – CCSSE/CCFSSE Advising Questions .......................................................................................... 50
Figure 53 – CCSSE/CCFSSE Disability Service Questions............................................................................. 51
5
I.
Executive Summary
Mott Community College (MCC) entered Achieving the Dream (ATD) as part of the 2010 cohort of
colleges participating in the initiative. The first step in participation with ATD is the collection,
submission, and analysis of student performance data for the previous three year period. This report
represents the preliminary findings of MCC's ATD Data Team which was charged with the analysis and
presentation of these measures.
Top level and detailed analysis of information generated from Achieving the Dream data has revealed
trends in the Mott Community College enrollment data over the three years, as discovered in our first
year of participation in the ATD initiative (2007-2009). The information revealed provides clear paths to
action.
Our incoming students are more likely to have comprehensive developmental education needs as
evidenced by the developmental assessment recommendations and course taking patterns in the data.
Student persistence, as measured by total credit attainment over time, shows that our students are
lagging in acceptable progress measures, and this is also evident in the data related to the overall
college outcome of degree/certificate attainment. These weak indicators provide impetus for the
college's examination of and planning for improved programs, systems, and services designed to enable
our students to reach their educational goals.
We are in an environment where we are experiencing an ongoing cycle of more students who need
supportive education in Reading, Writing and Math. Structural inconsistencies in the design of
curriculum, assessment, organization of developmental disciplines across campus and evident needs for
means of strengthened monitoring and support of student success outcomes all present challenges that
can be addressed with the ATD and Academic Quality Improvement Program (AQIP) strategies.
Significant findings have been observed over the course of the Data Team’s analysis of the ATD dataset.
The ATD cohort data reflect a significant increase in the number of highly underprepared students
entering Mott Community College as first time students. These students are presenting with greater
needs in at least two developmental subjects, with the greatest growth found among students requiring
three developmental subjects. The growth in underprepared students is present among the most
populated racial groups at MCC (Black/African American, Unknown, and White), although Black/African
American students of both genders consistently receive a higher percentage of developmental
recommendations than their other racial counterparts.
The majority of student placement recommendations are observed to occur in one of the three
combinations (ordered greatest to least): Math/Writing/Reading; Math/Reading; and Reading. Reading
consistently presents as the primary developmental subject to which students are referred. These
developmental placement combinations are most often recommended for students within the 18-19
year and 20-29 year age groupings, although growth in the level of 30-49 year olds requiring
developmental coursework is observed.
6
Data related to student persistence and degree completion provide encouragement that MCC students
from the 2007 Cohort who follow their recommended placement have somewhat higher degree
completion, more stable Fall-to-Fall retention, and higher credit attainment rates over a 3 year span.
The higher credit attainment rates among students who follow their placement recommendations span
race and gender groups, although individual rate differences do exist between the major racial groups.
Students who follow their Developmental Math recommendation appear to have similar course-taking
success in MATH-110 as compared to their counterparts who were deemed to be college-ready at the
time of placement testing. Additional investigation is required, however, to better understand the
relatively small population of students who achieved success in MATH-110 after bypassing their
Developmental Math recommendation.
The number and percentage of students receiving partial or maximum Pell funding awards are
increasing, particularly among students presenting with three developmental placement
recommendations. While an expectation may exist that students with greater financial need have
lower persistence, the 2007 Cohort data suggest that students who receive the maximum Pell award
actually have the highest levels of persistence and credit attainment over a 3-year span. This finding
was true for students in the major racial groups and genders.
Finally, in studying existing CCSSE and CCFSSE artifacts, the Data Team discovered potential disconnects
between students’ perceptions of the value of certain student services (peer tutoring, financial advising,
academic advising, and child care) in contrast to the stated utilization of these services. Repeatedly,
students state the value for these services but give the appearance that they do not utilize them as
much as we would expect. These findings, in conjunction with the discoveries within the ATD dataset,
provide a basis for further conversation and exploration in the development of student success
intervention strategies.
The analysis presented in this report will allow the college to proceed with data-informed actions that
will lead to a greater degree of student success, and additional years of data analysis will help us
monitor improvement trends and modify strategies in a highly effective manner.
7
II.
Introduction
A. Report objectives
This report provides a summary of information reviewed and discussed by the ATD data team between
October, 2010 and March, 2011. The information presented is the result of analysis performed on the
historical baseline data submitted to ATD in September of 2010 and serves as a preliminary examination
of Mott Community College student persistence and achievement within the prescribed cohorts.
The information reported serves to inform both the ATD Core Team and the AQIP Action Project Teams
as they strive to develop strategies and interventions to improve student success outcomes.
B. ATD goals statement
The goals of ATD, as expressed on their website (www.achievingthedream.org) are as follows:
Achieving the Dream aims to bring about change within community
colleges and in state and federal policy. The initiative also seeks to
augment knowledge about strategies that increase student success and
to expand public support for raising postsecondary attainment levels.
At its core, the initiative seeks to help more students reach their
individual goals, which may include earning a community college
certificate or degree, attaining a bachelor's degree, and/or obtaining a
better job. Achieving the Dream colleges will maintain a high degree of
access for historically underrepresented groups while working to
increase the percentage of students who accomplish the following:
•
•
•
•
•
successfully complete the courses they take;
advance from remedial to credit-bearing courses;
enroll in and successfully complete gatekeeper courses;
enroll from one semester to the next;
earn degrees and/or certificates.
After four to eight years, a substantially higher percentage of students
at Achieving the Dream colleges—especially low-income students and
students of color—will experience success, as measured by the list
above, with no reduction in enrollment for these populations. Longer
term, Achieving the Dream aims to influence national policy and practice
in order to increase student success at colleges that do not have the
opportunity to participate directly in the initiative.
8
In support of its ultimate goal, increased student success, the initiative is
working to achieve certain outcomes in four areas: institutional change,
policy change, public engagement, and knowledge development.
C. ATD Data Team
1. Team objectives
The primary objective of the Data Team has been to mine, review, and communicate information
contained within the ATD data in support of intervention strategy development by the ATD Core Team
and AQIP Action Project Teams. As part of the ongoing Academic Quality Improvement Project (AQIP)
effort at MCC, two AQIP Action Project teams will be important users of this report. The efforts of these
teams will be aligned with the ATD Core Team; both AQIP teams are poised to make significant
improvement recommendations based on the findings of the ATD data analysis.
The goal of the Developmental Education/Placement action project team is to recommend policies and
processes that address the academic needs of under-prepared students and increase success, retention
and graduation/completion rates. This project will study the curricular and skill-based aspects of student
academic preparedness and developmental education from the college-wide perspective of Academic
Affairs and Student Services. This team will make specific recommendations on two aspects of
developmental education at MCC: (1) the creation of a comprehensive, coordinated, and crossdisciplinary developmental education program, and (2) mandatory placement into developmental
courses based upon the academic preparedness of incoming students.
The goal of the Campus Cultural/Behavioral Readiness action project team is to recommend policies and
processes that address the behavioral, cultural, and socialization needs of under-prepared students in
ways that go beyond academic skill level. This project will study the behavior, cultural expectations, and
personal management skills required of students in an academic setting. The project will study ways to
improve students’ ability to meet college expectations and basic life skills such as how to respectfully
deal with peers, faculty, and staff. Specifically, this team will make a recommendation on ways to
integrate and/or expand our efforts to support non-academic college readiness for MCC students.
2. Membership
The ATD Data Team is a cross-functional team comprised of the following individuals:
9
Member
Title
Chris Engle
Registrar - Records & Registration
Christine Hughes
Faculty-Mathematics - Advising
Clark Harris
Dean - Technology Division
David Schaaf
Advisor - Advising
Freida Urquhart
Faculty/Coordinator - Reading
Gail Ives
Executive Director - IR
Jackie Knoll
Faculty - English
Janet Westhoff
Faculty-Coordinator, Nursing
Lisa Banks
Faculty - Business Division
Lori Hancock
Sr. Analyst - IR
Mark Leach
Director Of Enterprise Architecture
Mike Cieslinski
Resource Coordinator - Student & Administrative Services
Paul Jordan
Coordinator / Faculty - Social Sciences Division
Robert Matthews
Executive Dean - Workforce Development
Steve Robinson
Executive Dean - Planning, Research & Quality
Teresa Raubinger
Data Warehouse Specialist
William Reich
ATD Faculty Lead - Planning, Research, And Quality
Figure 1 - ATD Data Team Members
3. Meetings/materials covered
At the time of writing, the ATD Data Team has met 9 times, with additional information exchanges
performed via email and SharePoint. Materials covered in team meetings have progressed in parallel
with analysis of the data set, starting with a review of existing survey instrument results (i.e.
CCSSE/CCFSSE) and then progressing to increasingly more complex slices of the persistence and
achievement data.
10
Meeting
Information Reviewed
Data Sources
10-08-2010
CCSSE/CCFSSE summaries
Survey
10-15-2010
New/Current/Exit Survey summaries
Surveys
10-27-2010
Cohort Demographics
General File
11-10-2010
Developmental Placement Summary
General File
11-17-2010
Developmental Placement Details
General File
12-01-2010
Degree Attainment Funnels; Gateway Math Funnel
General + Term Files
12-08-2010
Cohort Retention (Fall-to-Fall Registration & Overall
Credit Attainment); Core Team Report
General + Term Files
12-15-2010
Pell Summaries – High Level; Core Team Report
General + Term Files
01-14-2011
(email)
Pell Details (Fall-to-Fall Registration & Overall Credit
Attainment); Gateway Writing and Prototype Reading
Funnel
General + Term Files
02-03-2011
Preliminary Findings Report
General + Term Files
Figure 2 - ATD Data Team Meetings
4. ATD data set
MCC is required to annually submit two file sets for upload to the ATD data warehouse: the General
Record and the Term Record.
The General Record, commonly referred to as the General file, contains all credential-seeking students
entering MCC for the first time during the fall term of the prescribed cohort years. It is submitted once
for each student and contains data that is unique to each student record, such as demographic
information.
The Term Record, commonly referred to as the Term file, is a series of term-specific data files that
correspond to each General file student record. The files are submitted annually and capture data
specific to students’ activities for the reporting terms, such as GPA, credits attempted, and credits
earned.
11
5. Development process
A team of individuals from MCC Institutional Research and ITS held a series of meetings to review the
prescribed data requirements as defined in the ATD Instructions for Data Submissions document. The
team developed the required logic to map and/or transform existing data within the MCC data
warehouse to a corresponding ATD data field.
Sophisticated Cognos queries were developed by ITS to generate the General and Term files from the
MCC data warehouse. This approach will enable an efficient and reliable method to generate future
General and Term files for the next ATD data submission.
6. Cohort definition
The historical baseline data submission of the General and Term files was September 15, 2010. This
submission included student records related to the prescribed ATD cohort years 2007, 2008, and 2009,
which corresponded to the following MCC coding:
MCC
ATD Cohort Semester Code Semester Name Fiscal Year Academic Year
2007
2008/2
Fall 2007
2008
2007-2008
2008
2009/2
Fall 2008
2009
2008-2009
2009
2010/2
Fall 2009
2010
2009-2010
Figure 3 - ATD Cohort Naming Convention
7. Analysis method
To avoid delay in having information available to share with the ATD Data Team, on the
recommendation of our ATD Data Coach our General and Term files were incorporated into an Access
database for development of the preliminary findings. A longer term data strategy was concurrently
developed with MCC ITS to design and implement an analysis package in the MCC data warehouse.
The Data Team reviewed data at a various levels of granularity to observe any difference in student
success measures. The major slices of data that the team focused on were:
•
Total ATD Cohort
The Total Cohort slice represents all students in each ATD cohort year and enables an overall
view of the historical baseline data.
•
Developmental Analysis Sub-cohort
12
The Developmental Analysis Sub-cohort represents that portion of students who took the
Accuplacer exam and excludes those who did not. This slice enabled the analysis of
developmental education outcomes within the data set.
•
Pell Sub-cohort
The Pell Sub-cohort represents aggregate data from students according to their Pell status. This
slice enabled analysis of student records according to financial need.
13
III.
Findings
A. Demographic profile
1. ATD Cohort
ATD Cohort Counts
3748
4000
3500
3212
3206
2007 Cohort
2008 Cohort
Students
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
2009 Cohort
Figure 4 - ATD Cohort Counts
Explanation: Figure 4 represents the number of “degree seeking” FT and PT credit students in the Fall
semester of each cohort year.
Key Observations: From 2007-2009 there is an overall 17% increase in the number of students in these
cohorts.
Issues & Considerations: Our definition of “degree seeking” is predicated on the fact that any nondevelopmental credit at MCC can be used towards degree completion.
2. Cohort gender
Count
Female
Male
Total
2007
%
2008
%
2009
%
1793
55.82%
1775
55.36%
2078
55.44%
1419
44.18%
1431
44.64%
1670
44.56%
3212 100.00% 3206 100.00% 3748 100.00%
Figure 5 – Cohorts by Gender
Explanation: Figure 5 represents the distribution of males and females in the cohorts.
Key Observations: The majority of students within each cohort year are female, and there is a
consistent pattern over all three years of the cohort data.
14
Issues & Considerations: The male population is slightly higher in the ATD cohorts than in the college
data as a whole.
3. Cohort age
Count
2007
Under 18
436
%
2008
%
2009
%
13.57%
437
13.63%
427
11.39%
41.62%
18-19
1519
47.29%
1489
46.44%
1560
20-29
747
23.26%
765
23.86%
945
25.21%
30-39
255
7.94%
260
8.11%
426
11.37%
40-49
149
4.64%
175
5.46%
261
6.96%
50-59
63
1.96%
59
1.84%
105
2.80%
60-69
37
1.15%
15
0.47%
20
0.53%
Over 69
4
0.12%
4
0.12%
3
0.08%
Unknown
2
0.06%
2
0.06%
1
0.03%
Total
3212 100.00% 3206 100.00% 3748 100.00%
Figure 6 - Cohorts by Age Group
Explanation: Figure 6 represents the age distribution of the three cohort groups using the same age
categories as other MCC college studies.
Key Observations: The majority of students in each cohort year are under the age of 30; in the 2009
cohort year, there is an increase in the number of students in the 30-49 age groups.
Issues & Considerations: The 2009 upward trend among the 30-49 age groups may not be sustained
over time depending on the state of the economy and changes in workforce development.
4. Cohort race
Count
2007
%
2008
%
2009
%
American Indian/Alaskan Native
26
0.81%
27
0.84%
32
Asian
22
0.68%
13
0.41%
30
0.80%
555
17.28%
625
19.49%
729
19.45%
82
2.55%
76
2.37%
103
2.75%
1
0.03%
24
0.64%
Black/African American
Hispanic
More Than One
Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian
Unknown
White
Total
723
22.51%
635
19.81%
1804
56.16%
1829
57.05%
3212 100.00% 3206 100.00%
0.85%
1
0.03%
847
22.60%
1982
52.88%
3748 100.00%
Figure 7 - Cohorts by Race
Explanation: Figure 7 represents the race/ethnicity distribution of the three cohort years. For analysis
purposes, the Hispanic Ethnic group, as defined by Federal IPEDS reporting, was converted to a race
category.
15
Key Observations: The four largest racial/ethnic groups in the ATD cohort are White, Black/African
American, Unknown, and Hispanic; as a percentage of the whole, there is an increase in the
Black/African American population with an associated decrease in the White population.
Issues & Considerations: The Unknown racial group represents those students who did not self identify
a race/ethnicity upon admission; this group represents an unusually large percentage of the cohort
population. Due to the size of this group, the ATD data team has elected to examine this population as a
separate race/ethnicity group for the purpose of analysis. Behaviorally, it can be noted that the
Unknown racial group exhibited success characteristics similar to the White racial group.
5. Cohort race/gender
Count
American Indian/Alaskan Native
Asian
2007
Female
Hispanic
More Than One
%
2009
9
34.62%
14
51.85%
17
53.13%
65.38%
13
48.15%
15
46.88%
Female
14
63.64%
7
53.85%
20
66.67%
8
36.36%
6
46.15%
10
33.33%
Female
344
61.98%
364
58.24%
429
58.85%
Male
211
38.02%
261
41.76%
300
41.15%
Female
50
60.98%
42
55.26%
61
59.22%
Male
32
39.02%
34
44.74%
42
40.78%
0.00%
14
58.33%
100.00%
10
41.67%
1
100.00%
459
0.00%
54.19%
Female
1
Female
Male
Unknown
Female
Male
White
Female
Male
Total
%
17
Male
Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian
2008
Male
Male
Black/African American
%
376
52.01%
351
55.28%
347
47.99%
284
44.72%
388
45.81%
1000
55.43%
997
54.51%
1077
54.34%
804
44.57%
832
45.49%
905
45.66%
Female
1793 55.82% 1775
55.36% 2078
55.44%
Male
1419 44.18% 1431
44.64% 1670
44.56%
Figure 8 – Cohorts by Race and Gender
Explanation: Figure 8 represents a breakdown of the race/ethnicity groups by gender.
Key Observations: Females represent the highest proportion of students by gender across the four
major racial/ethnic groups (White, Black/African American, Unknown, and White). However, the rate of
enrollment of Black/African American, Unknown, and White male students has increased slightly from
2007 to 2009.
The distribution of cohort students by gender appears to be relatively consistent at approximately a 55%
Female/45% Male split, as compared to a trend of the overall college population at a 60% Female/40%
Male split. These trends in the cohort and the college as a whole show no variation in the data over
time and we have no strong expectation that these data will change in the foreseeable future.
Issues & Considerations: None.
16
6. Section summary
Using basic demographic data in the cohort files, it appears that we have consistency in the makeup of
the population of new students at Mott Community College. This will inform and support the design of
interventions with some certainty in the size and profile of the groups of students who will be targeted.
B. Financial aid profile
1. FAFSA Cohort trends
Cohort
2007 Cohort
2008 Cohort
2009 Cohort
07-08 AY 08-09 AY 09-10 AY
47.1%
44.3%
50.4%
50.5%
53.5%
61.9%
Figure 9 - Cohort Financial Aid Records
Explanation: Figure 9 represents the percentage of students in each cohort year which had a financial
aid application (FAFSA) on record.
Key Observations: The percentage of students with a FAFSA record has increased consistently across
the 3 Cohort years and their associated Academic Years
Issues & Considerations: Due to the organizational changes at the time of the data flow into the Cognos
Data Warehouse (in the 2008-2009 Academic Year), many student financial aid records were not
finalized, resulting in a delay in the data showing up in student records. This resulted in a one-time
decline in the number of FAFSA records identified in the ATD Term file.
17
2. Received Pell (any amount)
Received Pell (Any Amount)
70.0%
% Students
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
07-08 AY
2007 Cohort
Cohort
2007 Cohort
2008 Cohort
2009 Cohort
09-10 AY
08-09 AY
2008 Cohort
2009 Cohort
07-08 AY 08-09 AY 09-10 AY
39.3%
34.6%
40.6%
39.9%
42.4%
49.9%
Figure 10 – Pell Recipients (Any Amount)
Explanation: Figure 10 represents the percentage of students in each cohort who received any amount
of Pell grant funding across Academic Years.
Key Observations: The percentage of students receiving Pell (at any level) has increased consistently
across the 3 Cohort years and their associated Academic Years.
Issues & Considerations: None.
3. Received max Pell
Received Max Pell
70.0%
% Students
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
07-08 AY
2007 Cohort
Cohort
2007 Cohort
2008 Cohort
2009 Cohort
08-09 AY
2008 Cohort
09-10 AY
2009 Cohort
07-08 AY 08-09 AY 09-10 AY
10.7%
9.7%
12.7%
9.7%
14.1%
16.1%
Figure 11 - Pell Recipients (Maximum Amount)
18
Explanations: Figure 11 represents the percentage of students in each cohort who received the
maximum amount of Pell grant funding.
Key Observations: From the 2008-2009 AY to the 2009-2010 AY, there has been a significant increase in
the number of students who receive maximum Pell grant funding. The decrease in 2008-2009 AY
reflects a one-time issue in institutional practice in the area of Financial Aid.
Issues & Considerations: For any analysis over time, the 2007 cohort is being used to provide a threeyear data set. Max Pell is defined as receiving the maximum annual amount available under the Federal
Pell grant.
4. Received no Pell
Received No Pell (No App or No Award)
70.0%
% Students
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
07-08 AY
2007 Cohort
Cohort
2007 Cohort
2008 Cohort
2009 Cohort
08-09 AY
2008 Cohort
09-10 AY
2009 Cohort
07-08 AY 08-09 AY 09-10 AY
60.7%
65.4%
59.4%
60.1%
57.6%
50.1%
Figure 12 - Pell Not Received (Applied or Not)
Explanation: Figure 12 represents percentage of students in each cohort who received no Pell grant
funding.
Key Observations: As compared to Figures 10 and 11, this figure demonstrates a decreasing trend in
students receiving no Pell funds.
Issues & Considerations: As observed in Figure 9, the increase in 2008-2009 AY reflects a one-time issue
in institutional practice in the area of Financial Aid.
19
5. Pell gender trends
Received Pell - Any Amount by Gender
(% Gender Cohort)
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
Received Pell - Max Amount - By Gender
(% Gender Cohort)
10.0%
0.0%
2007
2008
Female
2009
Male
Max
Pell
Subset
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
2007
2008
Female
2009
Male
Figure 13 - Pell Recipient Gender Trends
Explanation: Figure 13 represents the gender distribution across the group of students receiving any
Pell and the group receiving the maximum Pell grant.
Key Observations: Females receive a higher percentage of Pell funds (at any level) than their male
counterparts, although the rates of males receiving Pell funds have increased more rapidly across the 3
year span of Cohorts.
Issues & Considerations: None
6. Pell race trends
Received Pell - Any Amount
(% Race Cohort)
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
2007 Cohort
Black/African American
2008 Cohort
Hispanic
2009 Cohort
Unknown
White
Figure 14 - Pell Recipient Race Trends
20
Explanation: Figure 14 represents the percent of cohort student who received any Pell funds
distributed across the four largest racial/ethnic groups.
Key Observations: The increase in Pell funds received cuts across the four major racial/ethnic groups
studied. The gap between African American Pell recipient counts and White recipient counts is roughly
32-41% across the 3 Cohort years. Additionally, the gap between African American maximum Pell
recipient counts and White recipient counts is roughly 11 – 15%, although the gap appears to be
narrowing as the number of White students receiving the maximum Pell increases.
Issues & Considerations: As noted above, the Unknown racial group represents those students who did
not self identify a race/ethnicity upon admission; this group represents an unusually large percentage of
the cohort population. Due to the size of this group, the ATD data team has elected to examine this
population as a separate race/ethnicity group for the purpose of analysis.
Received Pell - Max Amount
(% Race Cohort)
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
2007 Cohort
Black/African American
2008 Cohort
Hispanic
2009 Cohort
Unknown
White
Figure 15 - Maximum Pell Recipients Race Trends
Explanation: Figure 15 represents the percent of cohort student who received the maximum amount
of Pell funds distributed across the four largest racial/ethnic groups.
Key Observations: Consistently across the three years, the Black/African American group demonstrates
a higher percentage receiving maximum Pell funding than the other racial/ethnic groups. Additionally,
there is a slight increase in maximum Pell funding for the White students in the cohort years.
Issues & Considerations: None
21
7. Pell race/gender trends
Received Pell- Any Amount
(% Race Cohort)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Female
Male
Black/African Black/African
American
American
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Hispanic
Hispanic
Unknown
Unknown
White
White
2007
2008
2009
Received Pell - Max Amount
(% Race Cohort)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Female
Male
Black/African Black/African
American
American
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Hispanic
Hispanic
Unknown
Unknown
White
White
2007
2008
2009
Figure 16 - Pell Recipient Race and Gender Trends
Explanation: Figure 16 shows the Pell award trends associated with the four major racial/ethnic groups
broken down by gender.
Key Observations: As a percentage of their race/gender cohort, African American females receive Pell
funds at a rate higher than the Hispanic, Unknown, and White racial groups. It should be noted that
males across all racial groups, as well as white females, have experienced an overall increase in being a
recipient of Pell funds across the Cohort years.
Issues & Considerations: None
8. Section summary
Using the financial aid status of cohort students, the data indicate that our students are overall
experiencing a greater state of financial need. This describes a student body which has a significant
need for stability in aspects of their lives beyond their college experience; they have work, family and
22
other life issues that create additional challenges to their ability to participate fully and successfully in
the educational experiences available at the college.
C. Developmental placement profile
1. Development classification scheme
The Data Team determined a grouping scheme to identify the number of developmental
recommendations in a student’s record. The groupings entitled “zeros”, “singles”, “doubles”, and
“triples” correspond directly to the number of such recommendations.
2. ATD Cohort placement testing
Developmental Course Recommendations
(% of Developmental Analysis Cohort)
35%
% Cohort
30%
25%
20%
15%
2007 Cohort
2008 Cohort
2009 Cohort
Zero
19%
20%
20%
Single
29%
27%
26%
Double
31%
31%
27%
Triple
20%
23%
27%
Terminology:
Developmental Analysis Cohort - Students who took the
Accuplacer exam
Zero - No developmental recommendation in student record
Single - One developmental recommendation in student record
Double - Two developmental recommendations in student record
Triple - Three developmental recommendations in student record
Figure 17 - Developmental Recommendation Grouping Trends
Explanation: Figure 17 represents the percent of students by developmental recommendation grouping
by cohort year.
Key Observations: 84% of total ATD cohort took the Accuplacer exam. Of those, 81% of tested students
received at least one developmental recommendation. In terms of overall college readiness, the
23
percentage of students being recommended for three developmental courses (“Triples”) has increased
each cohort year.
Issues & Considerations: Approximately 16% of the ATD Cohort records each year did not have
Accuplacer test data available.
3. ATD Cohort placement testing/gender
% of Tested Females
Developmental Course
Recommendations - Females
(% of Tested Females)
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
2007
2008
2009
Zero
16%
17%
16%
Single
28%
28%
26%
Double
36%
34%
30%
Triple
21%
21%
27%
Figure 18 - Developmental Recommendation Groupings by Gender (Females)
% of Tested Females
Developmental Course
Recommendations - Males
(% of Tested Males)
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
2007
2008
2009
Zero
23%
23%
23%
Single
31%
25%
26%
Double
26%
26%
24%
Triple
20%
26%
27%
Figure 19 - Developmental Recommendation Groupings by Gender (Males)
24
Explanation: Figures 18 and 19 illustrate the percent of developmental recommendations by cohort
year by gender.
Key Observations: Females in the Cohort appear to have more developmental recommendations than
males in each year. For both genders, the number of Triples has increased from 2007 to 2009.
Issues & Considerations: None.
4. ATD Cohort placement testing/race
Developmental Course
Recommendations - Race
(% of Developmental Analysis Cohort)
% Cohort
Students recommended for at least one
developmental course
100%
95%
90%
85%
80%
75%
70%
2007
2008
2009
Black/African American
94%
93%
96%
Hispanic/Latino
83%
81%
78%
Unknown
79%
78%
79%
White
77%
76%
75%
Figure 20 - Developmental Recommendations by Major Race Groupings
Explanation: Figure 20 illustrates the percent of students being recommended for at least one
developmental discipline by cohort year and major race/ethnicity groupings. In greater detail, Figures
21 through 24 illustrate the trend in developmental recommendation levels for each of the largest
racial/ethnic groups by cohort year.
Key Observations: The percentage of Black/African American students being recommended for at least
one developmental course is 18-21% higher than the other major racial groups (2009 Cohort
Hispanic/Latino, Unknown, and White students). The requirement for 3 developmental courses has
consistently increased across Cohort years for the Black/African American, Unknown, and White racial
groups.
Issues & Considerations: None.
25
Black/African American
60%
% Students
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009
Zeros
Singles
Doubles
Triples
Figure 21 - Developmental Recommendation Grouping Trends (Black/African American)
Hispanic/Latino
60%
% Students
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009
Zeros
Singles
Doubles
Triples
Figure 22 - Developmental Recommendation Grouping Trends (Hispanic/Latino)
Unknown
60%
% Students
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009
Zeros
Singles
Doubles
Triples
Figure 23 - Developmental Recommendation Grouping Trends (Unknown Category)
26
White
60%
% Students
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009
Zeros
Singles
Doubles
Triples
Figure 24 - Developmental Recommendation Grouping Trends (White)
5. ATD Cohort placement testing by developmental program
% Students
Tested Below College Level
(% Students Tested by Developmental
Program)
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
2007
2008
2009
Math
55.52%
57.56%
60.85%
Writing
29.43%
34.02%
37.04%
Reading
78.59%
79.80%
77.75%
Tested below college level = recommendation noted in Datatel for:
Math -> MATH-021
Writing -> ENGL-095/098/099
Reading -> ENGL-010/012/014/016/020/030
Figure 25 - Developmental Discipline Recommendation Trends
Explanation: Figure 25 illustrates the percent of students recommended for each developmental
program by cohort year.
27
Key Observations: Approximately 80% of students tested below college level in Reading; 58% of
students tested below college level in Math; 34% of students tested below college level in Writing.
Reading levels appear to be relatively stable from 2007-2009; however, the percentage of students
testing below college level in Math and Writing appears to be increasing
Issues & Considerations: A. Our analysis of the ATD data set is limited to demonstrating students
testing at one level below college ready only due to the non-sequential nature of developmental
courses. B. Raw Accuplacer scores drive the course recommendations but are not presently available in
our data warehouse package. C. Conversations among Data Team members identified that the collegeready grade levels for gateway courses are inconsistent across disciplines.
6. ATD Cohort placement testing by developmental program/gender
% Females
Female Placement Details
(% of Females Tested by Developmental Program)
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Tested at
College
Level
Tested
below
College
Level
Tested at
College
Level
Tested
below
College
Level
Tested at
College
Level
Tested
below
College
Level
Math
Math
Writing
Writing
Reading
Reading
2007
36.35%
63.65%
72.72%
27.28%
18.81%
81.19%
2008
37.62%
62.38%
71.01%
28.99%
18.52%
81.48%
2009
32.79%
67.21%
65.47%
34.53%
18.70%
81.30%
Figure 26 - Developmental Discipline Recommendation Trends by Gender (Female)
% Males
Male Placement Details
(% of Males Tested by Developmental Program)
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Tested at
College
Level
Tested
below
College
Level
Tested at
College
Level
Tested
below
College
Level
Tested at
College
Level
Tested
below
College
Level
Math
Math
Writing
Writing
Reading
Reading
2007
54.53%
45.47%
67.95%
32.05%
24.64%
75.36%
2008
48.48%
51.52%
60.06%
39.94%
22.28%
77.72%
2009
46.99%
53.01%
59.97%
40.03%
26.51%
73.49%
Figure 27 - Developmental Discipline Recommendation Trends by Gender (Male)
28
Explanation: By gender, figures 26 and 27 illustrate the percent of students testing at or below college
level for each developmental discipline by cohort year.
Key Observations: Females test below males in Math and Reading, but they test slightly above males in
Writing. Males and females testing at college level in Reading are consistently the lowest among the
developmental disciplines.
Issues & Considerations: Conversations among Data Team members identified that the college-ready
grade levels for gateway courses is inconsistent across disciplines.
7. ATD Cohort placement testing by developmental program/race
% Black/African American
Black/African American Placement Details
(% of Race Tested by Developmental Program)
100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Tested at
College
Level
Tested
below
College
Level
Tested at
College
Level
Tested
below
College
Level
Tested at
College
Level
Tested
below
College
Level
Math
Math
Writing
Writing
Reading
Reading
2007
17.68%
82.32%
49.20%
50.80%
7.77%
92.23%
2008
21.51%
78.49%
42.18%
57.82%
6.55%
93.45%
2009
15.86%
84.14%
37.04%
62.96%
7.82%
92.18%
Figure 28 - Developmental Discipline Recommendation Trends by Race (Black/African American)
% White
White Placement Details
(% of Race Tested by Developmental Program)
100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Tested at
College
Level
Tested
below
College
Level
Tested at
College
Level
Tested
below
College
Level
Tested at
College
Level
Tested
below
College
Level
Math
Math
Writing
Writing
Reading
Reading
2007
51.41%
48.59%
77.70%
22.30%
26.10%
73.90%
2008
49.79%
50.21%
75.36%
24.64%
25.66%
74.34%
2009
46.78%
53.22%
73.03%
26.97%
29.46%
70.54%
Figure 29 - Developmental Discipline Recommendation Trends by Race (White)
Explanation: By race, figures 28 and 29 illustrate the percent of students in the two largest racial/ethnic
groups testing at or below college level for each developmental discipline by cohort year.
29
Key Observations: Black/African American students test below other racial groups in Math, Writing,
and Reading. There is an approximate 20% gap in placement reading levels between Black/African
American and White students. There is an approximate 30% gap in placement math levels between
Black/African American and White students.
Issues & Considerations: None.
8. ATD Cohort placement testing by developmental program/race/gender
Females
Males
100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Placement Details - Math
Males - Place Below College Level by Race
% Males
% Females
Math
Placement Details - Math
Females Place Below College Level by Race
Black/African
American
Hispanic
Unknown
White
Unknown
White
87.26%
59.09%
59.56%
56.52%
74.36%
22.22%
43.27%
38.90%
2008
81.96%
61.29%
52.34%
57.46%
2008
73.59%
51.72%
57.50%
41.50%
2009
89.78%
42.55%
62.80%
60.00%
2009
76.07%
52.78%
50.84%
45.17%
100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Placement Details - Writing
Males - Place Below College Level by Race
Black/African
American
Hispanic
Unknown
White
2007
50.49%
21.95%
23.26%
19.57%
2008
51.30%
27.59%
25.22%
2009
59.42%
30.77%
30.94%
Hispanic
Unknown
White
2007
51.31%
34.62%
32.82%
25.56%
20.34%
2008
66.82%
24.00%
44.04%
29.43%
23.75%
2009
67.88%
30.56%
35.66%
30.61%
Placement Details - Reading
Males - Place Below College Level by Race
% Males
100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Black/African
American
Placement Details - Reading
Females Place Below College Level by Race
% Females
Hispanic
2007
% Males
% Females
Writing
Black/African
American
2007
Placement Details - Writing
Females Place Below College Level by Race
Reading
100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Black/African
American
Hispanic
Unknown
White
2007
93.93%
85.71%
80.15%
76.18%
2008
93.35%
93.55%
82.05%
75.68%
2009
94.36%
82.05%
83.13%
73.76%
100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Black/African
American
Hispanic
Unknown
White
2007
89.42%
65.38%
75.95%
71.13%
2008
93.58%
66.67%
75.90%
72.76%
2009
89.09%
71.43%
74.39%
66.86%
Figure 30 - Developmental Discipline Recommendation Trends by Race and Gender
30
Explanation: By race and gender, figure 30 illustrates the percent of students testing at or below college
level for each developmental discipline by cohort year.
Key Observations: Black/African American females test below the other racial groups in Math and
Reading. Black/African American males test below other racial groups in Writing.
Issues & Considerations: None.
9. ATD Cohort developmental placement combinations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2007 Cohort 2008 Cohort 2009 Cohort
Triples Math/Writing/Reading
554
611
858
Doubles Math/Reading
691
639
686
Singles Reading
586
514
538
Singles Math
194
182
262
Doubles Writing/Reading
150
160
156
Doubles Math/Writing
13
18
20
Singles Writing
15
18
15
Students Placed
2203
2142
2535
Figure 31 - Developmental Course Placement Combinations by Student Count
Explanation: Students referred to developmental courses at MCC can be referred in combinations of
classes, ranging from single course recommendations to various combinations of double course
recommendations to triple course recommendations. Figure 31 summarizes the combinations of
developmental course recommendations according to the number of students placed.
Key Observations: The top three placement combinations at MCC, across all three cohort years, are
triples in Math/Writing/Reading, doubles in Math/Reading, and singles in Reading. In 2009, these top
three placement recommendations represented 82% of the total placement recommendations made.
Issues & Considerations: None.
31
10. ATD Cohort developmental placement combinations by age group
Triples - Math/Writing/Reading
(18-29 Year Olds)
Triples - Math/Writing/Reading
10.0%
600
8.0%
500
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
Students Placed
% Students Placed
12.0%
300
2007
2008
2009
Under 18
1.5%
1.2%
1.3%
18-19
9.3%
10.0%
9.7%
20-29
5.2%
6.4%
8.5%
30-39
2.2%
2.7%
4.2%
40-49
1.4%
1.7%
2.6%
20-29
Over 50
0.7%
0.8%
0.8%
18-19
100
0
Doubles - Math/Reading
18-19
18-19
18-19
2007
2008
2009
141
171
269
254
267
306
12.0%
600
10.0%
8.0%
500
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
400
20-29
20-29
20-29
18-19
18-19
300
2007
2008
2009
Under 18
2.3%
2.1%
1.4%
18-19
13.0%
11.7%
9.5%
20-29
7.2%
6.9%
6.3%
30-39
1.7%
1.7%
2.6%
2007
2008
2009
40-49
0.7%
1.2%
1.4%
20-29
195
184
198
Over 50
0.5%
0.5%
0.6%
18-19
354
311
299
200
18-19
100
0
Singles - Reading
16.0%
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
Under 18
Singles - Reading
(18-29 Year Olds)
600
500
2007
2008
2009
3.4%
3.1%
2.5%
Students Placed
% Students Placed
20-29
Doubles - Math/Reading
(18-29 Year Olds)
Students Placed
% Students Placed
20-29
200
14.0%
0.0%
20-29
400
400
20-29
300
200
18-19
20-29
20-29
18-19
18-19
100
18-19
13.6%
11.7%
9.6%
20-29
3.3%
2.9%
3.2%
30-39
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
2007
2008
2009
40-49
0.2%
0.6%
0.6%
20-29
90
76
100
Over 50
0.1%
0.0%
0.2%
18-19
369
311
302
0
Figure 32 – Top Three Developmental Course Placement Combinations by Age Group
Explanation: The left side of Figure 32 illustrates the percent of students by age group who were placed
in the top three placement recommendation combinations across the three cohort years. The right side
of Figure 32 quantifies the number of students in the top two age groups being placed in the top three
developmental placement combinations.
32
Key Observations: The 18-19 and 20-29 year old age groups represent the highest percentage of
students consistently placed in the top three placement combinations. Overall, 46.8% of 18-29 year olds
who took the Accuplacer in the 2009 Cohort were placed in one of the top three developmental
placement combinations.
In quantifying the scale of students within the 18-29 year age groups, 1,474 students in the 2009 Cohort
fell into one of the top three developmental placement combinations. For illustration purposes, these
1,474 students could potentially translate into the following developmental placement seat counts
(Figure 33).
Potential Developmental Seats
Age Group
Reading Math
Writing
Total
18-19 Years
907
605
306
1,818
20-29 Years
567
467
269
1,303
Total 1,474
1,072
575
3,121
Figure 33 – Top Three Developmental Course Placement Combinations Seat Counts
Issues & Considerations: Developmental section capacity represents a significant issue that requires
additional discussion and investigation to determine an appropriate level of placement intervention
balanced against institutional resources and capability.
33
11. ATD Cohort developmental placement by Pell status
% Developmental Analysis Cohort
Pell Received (Any Amount) by Level
of Developmental Placement
20%
18%
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
Zeros
Singles
2007 Cohort
Doubles
2008 Cohort
Triples
2009 Cohort
Max
Pell
Subset
% Developmental Analysis Cohort
Pell Received(Max Amount) by Level
of Developmental Placement
20%
18%
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
Zeros
2007 Cohort
Singles
2008 Cohort
Doubles
Triples
2009 Cohort
Figure 34 - Developmental Recommendation Groupings by Pell Status
Explanation: Figure 34 illustrates the percent of Pell students (Any Pell and Max Amount) within each
developmental grouping by cohort year.
Key Observations: Students in the Pell Sub-cohort (Any Pell or Max Amount) exhibited an increase in
triple developmental recommendations across the 3 Cohort years, which is consistent with the overall
ATD Cohort.
Issues & Considerations: None.
34
% Race (Dev Analysis Cohort)
Black/African American Student Placement - Females
Pell Received (Max Amount)
20%
10%
0%
Zero
Single
Double
Triple
Zero
Single
2007
% Race (Dev Analysis Cohort)
Female
0%
5%
15%
11%
2%
6%
Zero
Single
Double
Triple
2009
7%
14%
1%
2%
10%
14%
Double
Triple
20%
10%
0%
Male
% Race (Dev Analysis Cohort)
Triple
Black/African American Student Placement - Males
Pell Received (Max Amount)
Zero
Single
Double
Triple
Zero
Single
2007
3%
3%
Double
Triple
Zero
Single
2008
8%
10%
3%
2%
2009
6%
16%
4%
4%
6%
13%
Double
Triple
White Student Placement - Females
Pell Received (Max Amount)
20%
10%
0%
Zero
Single
Double
Triple
Zero
Single
2007
Female
% Race (Dev Analysis Cohort)
Double
2008
4%
6%
Double
Triple
Zero
Single
2008
6%
2%
4%
4%
2009
4%
2%
6%
3%
Zero
Single
6%
3%
Double
Triple
White Student Placement - Males
Pell Received (Max Amount)
20%
10%
0%
Zero
Single
Double
Triple
Zero
Single
2007
Male
2%
3%
Double
Triple
2008
2%
1%
2%
3%
2009
3%
1%
5%
3%
4%
2%
Figure 35 - Developmental Recommendation Groupings by Race and Gender (Max Pell Recipients)
Explanation: Figure 35 illustrates the percent of Max Amount Pell students within each developmental
grouping by cohort year, disaggregated by race and gender in the top two racial categories of each.
35
Key Observations: Among maximum Pell recipients, Black/African American females exhibit the highest
need for double or triple developmental course work.
Issues & Considerations: None.
12. Section summary
Placement data reveal that the 81% of Accuplacer-test students at MCC, across all races and both
genders, require some degree of developmental education. Among those students, the number of
students with triple developmental discipline recommendations has increased from 20% to 27% over
the span of the 2007-2009 ATD Cohort.
Across all racial groups, Reading is the most recommended developmental discipline with over 75% of
students in each cohort year having a placement recommendation.
Black/African American students exhibit the highest percentage of developmental placement needs in
contrast to the other racial groups, with 54% of students in 2009 receiving triple developmental
recommendations. Black/African American females exhibit the highest percentage of placement need in
the Math and Reading disciplines, whereas Black/African American males exhibit the highest percentage
of need in the Writing discipline.
The top three combinations of developmental placement are consistently Math/Writing/Reading (first),
Math/Reading (second), and Reading (third). The age groups which represent the majority of students
within these developmental placement combinations are 18-19 and 20-29 year olds. Under a
mandatory placement scenario, this particular intersection of students represents 1,474 students
requiring seats within the developmental disciplines. Extrapolating the number of students in this
subset to the number of seats required across the three developmental disciplines reveals a potential
need for approximately 3,120 seats.
Pell awards (at any level) have increased among students in the triple developmental grouping.
The percent of student records without Accuplacer data indicates an area for further data investigation
to determine what factors were present that excluded them from placement testing (e.g. acceptable
ACT scores). ACT and other assessment score data can be associated with student Datatel records in the
future to make this area of analysis more robust and reveal nuances in the data that may further inform
action plans. Enhancements to the data validity, reliability and availability are planned for the upcoming
data years.
36
D. Developmental course funnels
1. Description of funnel concept
The Data Team studied developmental program success outcomes through the use of funnel analysis.
Conceptual funnels, as illustrated in Figure 36, were developed that measured the student success
outcomes at each stage of the Developmental-Gateway course sequence.
Developmental
Analysis Cohort:
Subset of ATD
Cohort who took
Accuplacer exam
Figure 36 - Developmental Success Funnel Concept
37
2. Developmental Math – gateway success funnel
Developmental Success Funnel – 2007 ATD Cohort - 3 Year Performance
- Math 021
Developmental Math
1
2
- Math 101 or Math110
2007
Cohort
3,212
(100%)
No
596 (19%)
Take
Accuplacer?
Yes
2,616 (81%)
No
Developmental
Recommendation?
1,164 (44%)
No
1125
(97%)
Attempt
Developmental
Course1?
No
10
(26%)
Yes
1,452 (56%)
Yes
No
647
(45%)
39
(3%)
Pass
Developmental
Course1?
Attempt
Developmental
Course1?
No
302
(38%)
Attempt
Gateway
Course2?
No
15
(52%)
Yes
269
(24%)
No
53
(20%)
Pass
Gateway
Course2?
Yes
216
(80%)
S4
216 Students
18.6% of “No” Dev
Recommendations
Attempt
Gateway
Course2?
No
556
(86%)
Yes
14
(48%)
No
2
(14%)
Pass
Gateway
Course2??
Yes
12
(86%)
S3
12 Students
1.0% of “No” Dev
Recommendations
805
(55%)
Pass
Developmental
Course1?
Yes
503
(62%)
Yes
29
(74%)
No
856
(76%)
Yes
Attempt
Gateway
Course2?
No
177
(35%)
Yes
326
(65%)
Yes
91
(14%)
No
22
(24%)
Pass
Gateway
Course2??
Attempt
Gateway
Course2?
No
64
(20%)
Yes
69
(76%)
S2
69 Students
4.7% of ‘Yes’ Dev
Recommendations
Pass
Gateway
Course2?
Yes
262
(80%)
S1
262 Students
18.0% of ‘Yes’ Dev
Recommendations
Figure 37 - Developmental Math Gateway Success Outcomes
Explanation: Figure 37 represents the student success outcome for Developmental Math and illustrates
the course taking behavior of students within the Developmental Analysis Cohort (those students who
took Accuplacer).
38
Key Observations: Students recommended for Developmental Math who took and passed the
developmental course had comparable success in gateway Math to those students who tested as
college-ready in Math.
Issues & Considerations: For consistency, the only gateway Math course analyzed for success outcome
was MATH-110 (formerly MATH-101). Students who took a course higher than MATH- 101/110 as their
first non-developmental class are not included in the count of “Pass Gateway Course”. In addition, there
may be other additional assessments of learning and the effectiveness of developmental courses.
39
3. Developmental Writing – gateway success funnel
Developmental Success Funnel – 2007 ATD Cohort - 3 Year Performance
- Engl 095, 098, or 099
Developmental Writing
- Engl 101
1
2
2007
Cohort
3,212
(100%)
No
722 (22%)
Take
Accuplacer?
Yes
2,490 (78%)
No
Developmental
Recommendation?
1,758 (71%)
No
Attempt
Developmental
Course1?
1719
(98%)
No
12
(31%)
Yes
732 (29%)
Yes
No
39
(2%)
371
(51%)
Pass
Developmental
Course1?
Yes
Attempt
Developmental
Course1?
361
(49%)
Pass
Developmental
Course1?
No
113
(31%)
Yes
248
(69%)
Yes
27
(69%)
No
502
(29%)
Attempt
Gateway
Course2?
No
5
(19%)
Yes
1217
(71%)
No
206
(17%)
Attempt
Gateway
Course2?
No
245
(66%)
Yes
22
(81%)
Pass
Gateway
Course2?
No
3
(14%)
Yes
1011
(83%)
Pass
Gateway
Course2?
Yes
19
(86%)
S4
1011 Students
57.5% of “No” Dev
Recommendations
S3
19 Students
1.1% of “No” Dev
Recommendations
Attempt
Gateway
Course2?
Attempt
Gateway
Course2?
No
77
(31%)
Yes
171
(69%)
Yes
126
(34%)
No
23
(18%)
Pass
Gateway
Course2?
Pass
Gateway
Course2?
No
31
(18%)
Yes
103
(82%)
S2
103 Students
14.1% of ‘Yes’ Dev
Recommendations
Yes
140
(82%)
S1
140 Students
19.1% of ‘Yes’ Dev
Recommendations
Figure 38 - Developmental Writing Gateway Success Outcomes
Explanation: Figure 38 represents the student success outcome for Developmental Writing and
illustrates the course taking behavior of students within the Developmental Analysis Cohort (those
students who took Accuplacer).
40
Key Observations: Due to the off-line grade data maintained by the Writing faculty, questions have
arisen regarding the S/U grades in Developmental Writing classes. This will require further analysis for
full understanding. Additionally, “college-ready” was determined if the student received an S grade in
any of the Writing classes due to the fact that these classes are not necessarily designed to be taken in
sequence.
Issues & Considerations: Pass/Fail rates have been calculated using the existing S/U grading scale for
purposes of the ATD analysis.
41
4. Developmental Reading – gateway success funnel
Developmental Success Funnel – 2007 ATD Cohort - 3 Year Performance
- Engl 010, 012, 014, 016, 020, or 030
Developmental Reading
- Gateway course presently undefined
1
2
2007
Cohort
3,212
(100%)
No
691 (22%)
Take
Accuplacer?
Yes
2,521 (78%)
No
Developmental
Recommendation?
540 (21%)
No
Attempt
Developmental
Course1?
No
Yes
1,981 (79%)
Yes
No
1,660
(84%)
Pass
Developmental
Course1?
Attempt
Developmental
Course1?
No
127
(40%)
Attempt
Gateway
Course2?
No
Yes
No
Attempt
Gateway
Course2?
No
Yes
Pass
Gateway
Course2?
No
Yes
Pass
Gateway
Course2?
Yes
S4
___ Students
__% of “No” Dev
Recommendations
S3
___ Students
__% of “No” Dev
Recommendations
321
(16%)
Pass
Developmental
Course1?
Yes
194
(60%)
Yes
No
Yes
Attempt
Gateway
Course2?
No
Yes
Yes
No
Pass
Gateway
Course2?
Attempt
Gateway
Course2?
No
Yes
S2
___ Students
__% of ‘Yes’ Dev
Recommendations
Pass
Gateway
Course2?
Yes
S1
___ Students
__% of ‘Yes’ Dev
Recommendations
Figure 39 - Developmental Reading Gateway Success Outcomes
Explanation: Figure 39 represents the student success outcome for Developmental Reading and
illustrates the course taking behavior of students within the Developmental Analysis Cohort (those
students who took Accuplacer).
42
Key Observations: Due to the fact that no gateway course has been identified for the Reading sequence
yet, the success outcome funnel cannot be completed at this time for Developmental Reading.
Additionally, further investigation has revealed that the more appropriate way to indicate “college
ready” is to identify an S in ENGL-030; future ATD data submissions may be modified for this reason.
Issues & Considerations: None.
5. Section summary
Preliminary findings suggest that developmental Math course-taking behavior among students
recommended for the developmental discipline is predictive of success in the identified gateway Math
course. Similar findings in the Writing and Reading disciplines are not possible with the current data set
and associated departmental processes, some of which include:
•
•
•
•
•
Out of system data capture
Alignment of ready/not-ready for gateway courses
Lack of gateway reading course designation
Non-sequential nature of developmental course-taking
Reading section level registration changes
E. Success outcomes by Cohort
1. Fall-to-Fall retention
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Fall to Fall Retention - 2007 Cohort
Attempted No Developmental Recommendations
% Retention
% Retention
Fall to Fall Retention - 2007 Cohort
Attempted All Developmental Recommendations
Zero Rec
Single Rec
Double Rec
Triple Rec
0 Dev
Attempts
1 Dev
Attempt
2 Dev
Attempts
3 Dev
Attempts
2008/2
100%
100%
100%
100%
2009/2
52%
64%
58%
54%
2010/2
28%
39%
37%
35%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Zero Rec
Single Rec
Double Rec
Triple Rec
0 Dev
Attempts
0 Dev
Attempts
0 Dev
Attempts
0 Dev
Attempts
2008/2
100%
100%
100%
100%
2009/2
52%
52%
35%
20%
2010/2
28%
28%
16%
9%
Figure 40 - Fall-to-Fall Retention Rates (Developmental Education Impact)
43
Explanation: Figure 40 compares the Fall-to-Fall retention rates of 2007 Cohort students who
attempted to follow their developmental program recommendations against those who did not attempt
to follow their developmental program recommendations.
Key Observations: Students in the 2007 Cohort who attempted their developmental recommendations
had more consistent Fall-to-Fall retention rates in the 35% - 39% range. Students who did not follow
their developmental recommendations had significantly lower Fall-to-Fall retention rates.
Issues & Considerations: None
2. Degree attainment
Attempted at least one
developmental course
Attempted no developmental
courses
Developmental % Degree
Recommendations Attainment
Zero
Single
1.90%
Double
5.50%
Triple
2.00%
Developmental % Degree
Recommendations Attainment
Zero
10.30%
Single
6.50%
Double
1.30%
Triple
1.30%
Figure 41 - Degree Attainment (Developmental Education Impact)
Explanation: Figure 41 compares the degree attainment rates of 2007 Cohort students who attempted
at least one developmental course recommendation against those who attempted no developmental
course recommendations.
Key Observations: In the double and triple developmental course recommendation categories, students
who attempted at least one developmental course had an overall higher degree attainment rate over
students who did not attempt developmental courses.
Issues & Considerations: None.
3. Credit attainment
Attempted at
least one
developmental
course
Developmental
% 35 or
Recommendations More Credits
Single
51.40%
Double
40.60%
Triple
26.80%
Attempted no
developmental
courses
% 35 or
More Credits
34.70%
20.20%
14.60%
Figure 42 - Credit Attainment (Developmental Education Impact)
44
Explanation: Figure 42 compares the credit completion rates of 2007 Cohort students who attempted
at least one developmental course recommendation against those who attempted no developmental
course recommendations. For analysis purposes, the % of students achieving 35 credits or higher in the
3 year Cohort span was used as an indicator of significant academic progress.
Key Observations: Of students who were referred for one or more developmental courses, those who
took and passed at least one had a higher credit attainment rate.
Issues & Considerations: None.
All Racial Groups
Black
Hispanic/Latino
Unknown
White
Overall
33%
25%
33%
34%
36%
% Students with >= 35 Credit Hours Attained
Males & Females
Males
Females
Zeros Singles Doubles Triples Overall Zeros Singles Doubles Triples Overall Zeros Singles Doubles Triples
37%
38%
32%
23%
30%
34%
35%
29%
21%
35%
41%
42%
34%
25%
16%
39%
25%
21%
25%
15%
45%
26%
18%
25%
17%
34%
25%
22%
33%
34%
42%
17%
29%
30%
22%
25%
40%
36%
50%
40%
47%
0%
43%
34%
33%
25%
34%
45%
33%
33%
23%
34%
41%
36%
33%
27%
37%
40%
34%
26%
30%
31%
35%
28%
22%
40%
43%
45%
37%
29%
Figure 43 - Developmental Placement Impact on Significant 3-Year Credit Attainment
Explanation: Figure 43 illustrates the credit attainment rates of 2007 Cohort students by developmental
grouping and by race and gender. For analysis purposes, the % of students achieving 35 credits or
higher in the 3 year Cohort span was used as an indicator of significant academic progress.
Key Observations: Black/African American females and males in the 2007 Cohort exhibited similar
overall 3-year credit attainment rates, although Black females achieved higher credit attainment rates in
the triple developmental recommendation category. Black/African American males exhibited a 5%
lower credit attainment level than their White male counterparts. Black/African American females
exhibited a more pronounced 15% lower credit achievement gap in comparison to their White female
counterparts.
There is a 10% overall gap in significant credit attainment levels between White males and females, with
females having the consistently higher attainment rates across all developmental groupings. There is a
similar overall gap between Hispanic/Latino males and females, with the notable exception of female
triples (of which there were none).
Issues & Considerations: None.
45
4. Pell sub-cohort credit attainment
Credit Attainment by Pell Status
% Students Attaining > 35 Credits
2007 Cohort - 3 Year Performance
% Students > 35 Credits
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Zeros
Singles
Doubles
Triples
Received Less Than Max
28%
33%
22%
13%
Received Max
81%
64%
55%
55%
No Pell Received
33%
35%
31%
21%
Note: Comparison to overall 2007 Developmental Analysis Cohort (i.e. students who took
Accuplacer)
2007 Development Analysis Cohort
Overall
33%
Zeros Singles Doubles Triples
37%
38%
32%
23%
Figure 44 - Significant Credit Attainment by Pell Status and Developmental Grouping
Explanation: Figure 44 illustrates the credit attainment rates of 2007 Cohort students according to their
Pell award status and developmental grouping. For analysis purposes, the % of students achieving 35
credits or higher in the 3 year Cohort span was used as an indicator of significant academic progress.
Key Observations: Students in the 2007 Cohort who received the maximum Pell award had a
significantly higher 3 year credit attainment rate than students receiving partial amounts or none at all.
Students receiving partial Pell had the lowest credit attainment rates across all developmental
groupings.
Issues & Considerations: None.
46
All Races
Singles Doubles Triples
33%
22%
13%
64%
55%
55%
35%
31%
21%
Black/
African
American
Black/African American Students
Pell Status
Overall Zeros Singles Doubles Triples
Received Less Than Max
15% 15%
26%
18%
10%
Received Max
49% 67%
61%
44%
50%
No Pell Received
15%
6%
33%
10%
15%
White
Pell Status
Overall
Received Less Than Max
28%
Received Max
68%
No Pell Received
33%
Highest Persistence
All Races
Pell Status
Overall Zeros
Received Less Than Max
23% 28%
Received Max
61% 81%
No Pell Received
31% 33%
White Students
Zeros Singles Doubles Triples
29%
39%
23%
17%
88%
65%
62%
67%
33%
35%
33%
23%
Figure 45 - Highest Persistence Populations
Explanation: Figure 45 illustrates the overall credit attainment rates of 2007 Cohort students according
to their Pell award status, developmental grouping, and race. Figures 46 and 47 provide expanded
detail related to credit attainment counts and rates for students in the double and triple developmental
categories. For analysis purposes, the % of students achieving 35 credits or higher in the 3 year Cohort
span was used as an indicator of significant academic progress.
Key Observations: The higher credit attainment rates for students who received the maximum Pell
award consistently cut across racial and gender groups.
Among Black/African American and White students of both genders in the Triple developmental
grouping, those who received less than the maximum amount of Pell had the lowest 3-year credit
attainment rates, closely followed by students who received no Pell funds.
Credit attainment rates by race and lesser Pell status become less clear as differences emerge between
the races. Among doubles, Black/African American students who received no Pell achieved the lowest
47
level of significant 3 year credit attainment. Among White doubles, students who received less than the
maximum amount of Pell had the lowest 3-year credit attainment rates.
Issues & Considerations: None.
Black/African
American Females
Black/African
American Males
White Females
White Males
Developmental
2009
2007
2008
Grouping
Pell Level Students Students Students
Partial
60
71
67
Max
48
24
40
None
17
23
24
Double
Partial
36
28
33
Max
16
15
17
None
14
17
10
Double
Partial
94
100
107
Max
50
31
54
None
151
156
104
Double
Partial
55
43
63
Max
13
22
30
None
99
120
96
Double
Total
653
650
645
3 Year
% 2007
Average Cohort >
Students 35 Credits
66
12%
37
48%
21
6%
32
28%
16
31%
14
14%
100
30%
45
56%
137
36%
54
13%
22
85%
105
29%
649
Figure 46 - Three Year Significant Credit Attainment Rates (Doubles)
Black/African
American Females
Black/African
American Males
White Females
White Males
Developmental
2007
2008
2009
Grouping
Pell Level Students Students Students
Partial
99
79
130
Max
36
45
56
None
9
19
29
Triple
Partial
39
58
88
Max
20
37
36
None
24
31
35
Triple
Partial
48
49
68
Max
15
13
25
None
49
41
58
Triple
Partial
24
31
53
Max
9
8
17
None
62
66
61
Triple
Total
434
477
656
3 Year
% 2007
Average Cohort >
Students 35 Credits
103
10%
46
56%
19
22%
62
10%
31
40%
30
13%
55
19%
18
60%
49
31%
36
13%
11
78%
63
18%
523
Figure 47 - Three Year Significant Credit Attainment Rates (Triples)
48
5. Section summary
The data indicate a pattern whereby students who receive the maximum Pell grant are more likely to
persist at the college. Discussion and consideration of the learning support needs related to this group
is crucial to further determine all of the other variables that influence a student's ability to remain at the
college and demonstrate an effort to experience success.
Counts and associated retention rates by race, gender, and Pell status provide critical information that
can be utilized to assess and scope potential intervention strategies.
F. 2009 CCSSE/CCFSSE survey summary
1. Review of selected CCSSE/CCFSSE questions
How important is academic advising/planning
to you at this college?
How often do you use academic
advising/planning?
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
% Respondents
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
% Respondents
50%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Don't
know/N.A.
Rarely or
never
Sometimes
Often
Not at all
Somewhat
Very
Student %
5%
32%
47%
16%
Student %
7%
23%
70%
Faculty %
0%
15%
43%
42%
Faculty %
1%
13%
87%
Student Count
53
321
475
166
Student Count
69
230
685
Faculty Count
0
17
49
47
Faculty Count
1
14
97
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Figure 48 – CCSSE/CCFSSE Advising Questions
Key Observations: 37% of students rarely or never use academic advising or planning. Despite this,
70% of students reported that academic advising was very important to them (Figure 48).
How often do you use peer or other tutoring?
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
40%
% Respondents
30%
20%
10%
0%
How important is peer and other tutoring to you
at this college?
% Respondents
50%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Don't
know/N.A.
Rarely or
never
Sometimes
Often
Not at all
Somewhat
Very
Student %
35%
48%
13%
4%
Student %
35%
29%
36%
Faculty %
0%
15%
48%
37%
Faculty %
2%
25%
73%
Student Count
350
476
130
42
Student Count
332
282
343
Faculty Count
0
17
54
42
Faculty Count
2
28
83
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Figure 49 – CCSSE/CCFSSE Tutoring Questions
49
Explanation: 17% of students reported that they used peer or other tutoring. Despite this, 65% of
students reported that tutoring was somewhat to very important to them (Figure 49).
How important is child care to you at this
college?
600
500
400
300
% Respondents
% Respondents
How often do you use child care?
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
200
100
0
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Don't
know/N.A.
Rarely or
never
Sometimes
Often
Not at all
Somewhat
Very
Student %
57%
40%
2%
1%
Student %
55%
18%
27%
Faculty %
13%
72%
13%
1%
Faculty %
6%
38%
55%
Student Count
560
397
21
12
Student Count
522
172
253
Faculty Count
15
81
15
1
Faculty Count
7
43
62
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Figure 50 – CCSSE/CCFSSE Child Care Questions
Explanation: Only 3% of students reported themselves to have used (MCC?) childcare, but 45% say it is
somewhat to very important to them (Figure 50).
How important are skills labs (writing, math,
etc.) to you at this college?
How often do you use skills labs (writing, math,
etc.)?
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
% Respondents
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
% Respondents
50%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Don't
know/N.A.
Rarely or
never
Sometimes
Often
Not at all
Somewhat
Very
Student %
29%
39%
21%
12%
Student %
28%
29%
42%
Faculty %
1%
27%
37%
36%
Faculty %
3%
19%
79%
Student Count
293
389
206
116
Student Count
269
277
401
Faculty Count
1
30
41
40
Faculty Count
3
21
88
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Figure 51 – CCSSE/CCFSSE Skills Lab Questions
Explanation: Only 33% of student respondents say they use writing or other skill labs, although 71%
report that using such labs is somewhat to very important (Figure 51).
How often do you use financial aid advising?
50%
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
40%
% Respondents
30%
20%
10%
0%
Don't
know/N.A.
Rarely or
never
Sometimes
Often
Student %
18%
27%
31%
25%
Faculty %
4%
27%
44%
24%
Student Count
175
266
306
250
Faculty Count
5
31
50
27
Figure 52 – CCSSE/CCFSSE Advising Questions
Explanation: Only 56% of students use financial aid advising, although a Scott Jenkins report dated
1/5/2011 states that 80% of our students receive some level of financial aid (Figure 52).
50
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
How important are services to students with
disabilities to you at this college?
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
% Respondents
% Respondents
How often do you use services to students with
disabilities?
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Don't
know/N.A.
Rarely or
never
Sometimes
Often
Not at all
Somewhat
Very
Student %
59%
34%
4%
3%
Student %
42%
15%
42%
Faculty %
2%
23%
58%
18%
Faculty %
1%
28%
71%
Student Count
590
343
40
27
Student Count
401
146
402
Faculty Count
2
26
65
20
Faculty Count
1
31
78
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Figure 53 – CCSSE/CCFSSE Disability Service Questions
Explanation: Although 57% of students reported that disabilities services were somewhat to very
important to them, only 7% report their usage of the services. This comparison is possibly impacted by
the phrasing of the importance question, whereby students are answering on behalf of population of
students with disabilities.
2.
Section summary
According to the 2009 CCSSE/CCFSSE results, students clearly view peer tutoring, financial advising,
academic advising, childcare, and other student supportive services to be of value. On the other hand,
when surveyed on the usage of these services, the reported use appears to be far less than the
perceived need.
Some of the discrepancy in use versus need may be, in part, due to interpretation of the particular
survey question. Assuming, however, that these responses are indicative of a potential imbalance
between need and usage, the question of why services are not used more frequently arises. Questions
for potential investigation through additional methods, such as focus groups, may shed light on some of
the following questions:
•
•
•
•
Do services have adequate capacity to meet the need?
Are services available at times students can use them?
Are services well advertised and are they welcoming to students who seek their help?
Are the service providers sufficiently expert in their particular area to consistently provide high
quality information and assistance to students that is focused on student success?
51
IV.
Observations
Analysis of the 2007-2009 ATD Cohorts generated the following significant observations by the Data
Team.
Demographic Observations
The 2007 to 2009 ATD Cohorts provide a reasonable analysis cohort that resembles the overall
demographic makeup of new students at Mott community college. This similarity provides power to use
the ATD data set in an ongoing fashion to assist in the development and implementation of student
success strategies.
The 2009 Cohort is almost 17% larger than its 2007 counterpart. The majority of students in each cohort
year are under the age of 29, although increases in the 30 to 49 year old demographic groups exhibit
consistent increases.
Pell Status Observations
The percentage of students receiving Pell, either partial or maximum award amounts, increased from
2007 to 2009 across race and gender sub-groups with approximately 50% of students in the 2009 Cohort
receiving some level of Pell funding. African American students present the highest need based on 77%
of 2009 Cohort students receiving some level of Pell, in contrast to the 45% of White students in the
same time period.
Developmental Placement Observations
84% of Accuplacer-tested students in the 2009 Cohort received some level of developmental placement
in any combination of courses within the Developmental Math, Writing, and Reading disciplines.
Black/African American students presented the highest percentage of developmental placement with
96% receiving recommendations in 2009, with White students presenting the lowest percentage with
75% receiving recommendations. Although the gap is the largest between the Black/African American
and White racial groups, the placement rate in all groups is of concern within the context of academic
readiness.
Of students receiving a placement recommendation, those receiving three recommendations
(commonly referred to as “triples” by the Data Team) steadily increased from 20% in 2007 to 27% in
2009. This increase was accompanied by an associated decrease in the number of “single” and “double”
placement recommendations and a relatively flat percentage of students receiving no developmental
placement recommendation. The steady increase in triple developmental placement recommendations,
in conjunction with an annually increasing new student population, is of tremendous concern in our
efforts to foster student success outcomes.
52
Black/African American students present the highest level of triple developmental education with
consistent increases from 42% to 54% of tested students from 2007 to 2009. White students present
the lowest level of triple placement with increases from 13% to 17% of tested students from 2007 to
2009.
The discipline that presents the most developmental placements across the three cohort years, with
approximately 80% of tested students receiving placement, is consistently Developmental Reading. This
is closely followed by Developmental Math with approximately 58% of tested students and then
Developmental Writing with approximately 34%. Females, in general, test below males in Reading and
Math, while males test slightly below females in Writing.
Within racial groupings, Black/African American students tested below White students in all three
developmental disciplines with an approximate 20% higher Reading placement rate and 30% higher
Math placement rate. In Reading, approximately 91% of Black/African American students test below
college level in Reading, in contrast to approximately 70% of White students. Expanding needs
assessment to the level of race and gender, we find that Black/African American females test below all
other race/gender groups in Math and Reading with approximately 90% and 94%, respectively, testing
below college level in 2009. In Writing, Black/African American males test below all other race/gender
groups with approximately 68% testing below college level. However, as stated above, while gaps exist
between the racial groups there is ample concern that developmental needs are substantial across all
race/gender groups.
Among students receiving Pell funding, placement rates (particularly in the triple recommendation
category) tend to follow the larger cohort group trends, with the percentage of Pell recipients with triple
recommendations experiencing a steady increase of 6% from 2007 to 2009. Among maximum Pell
recipients, African American/Black males and females present the highest percentage of double and
triple developmental recommendations with approximately 24% of females and approximately 19% of
males, respectively.
The top three combinations of developmental placement are consistently Math/Writing/Reading (first),
Math/Reading (second), and Reading (third). The age groups which represent the majority of students
within these developmental placement combinations are 18-19 and 20-29 year olds. Under a
mandatory placement scenario, this particular intersection of students represents 1,474 students
requiring seats within the developmental disciplines. Extrapolating the number of students in this
subset to the number of seats required across the three developmental disciplines reveals a potential
need for approximately 3,120 seats.
Success Outcome Observations
Funnels
Conceptual funnels measure program success outcomes within the ATD data set and essentially track
student outcomes at each stage of the Developmental-Gateway course sequence. The 2007 Cohort
53
provides a three year snapshot of course-taking behavior and has been extensively mined for the Math,
Writing, and Reading disciplines.
The 2007 Cohort Developmental Math funnel provides encouraging information relating to success of
students in Math 110, whereby Accuplacer-placed students who successfully complete developmental
MATH-021 appear to have success in MATH-021 comparable to those students who placed out of
Developmental Math.
Information from the Reading and Writing funnels are less clear primarily due to offline departmental
processes and ambiguous S/U data, from the perspective of readiness for Gateway courses, within
Datatel.
Fall-to-Fall Retention
Students in the 2007 Cohort who follow their developmental placement recommendations, and at least
attempt their developmental courses, have relatively stable retention rates in the 35%-39% range.
Students who do not follow their placement recommendations appear to have steadily diminishing
retention rates in accordance with their developmental placement level.
Degree Completion
2007 Cohort data reflect higher degree completion rates among students with double or triple
developmental placement recommendations who attempt at least one developmental course as
compared to students with similar recommendations who make no developmental attempt. Students
with a single developmental recommendation who attempt a developmental course do not appear to
have a similar increase in retention rates.
Overall, 3 year degree completion rates are low, ranging from 1.3% for triple developmental
recommendations with no attempt at a developmental course to 10.3% for students with no
developmental recommendations following Accuplacer testing.
Credit Attainment
The degree completion rates for the 2007 Cohort are in range with MCC’s overall degree completion
rates. However, because of the relatively low numbers of students and the various issues that impact
degree completion at community colleges, the Data Team places additional focus on credit attainment
as a means to provide information relevant to student success.
The Data Team utilizes a 35 credit attainment level as being a significant marker of student progress
toward degree completion, and credit attainment levels for the 2007 Cohort present interesting
findings. Overall, students across all levels of developmental placement recommendation (singles,
doubles, and triples) who attempt a developmental course have significantly higher 3-year credit
achievement rates than students who don’t.
54
Credit attainment rates among students in the 2007 Cohort appear to negatively correlate with
increasing levels of developmental placement. For example, 32% of students within the 2007 Cohort
who have a double placement recommendation achieve 35 credits within 3 years, whereas only 23% of
students with a triple recommendation achieve this credit level.
The overall relationship between developmental placement level and significant credit attainment
appears to be consistent across all racial and gender groups, although individual differences in credit
attainment rates are present between racial groups. For example, 25% of Black/African American
students in the cohort with double developmental recommendations achieve significant credit
attainment within 3 years, whereas 34% of White students in the cohort achieve that status in the same
timeframe.
The impact of Pell status and its impact on significant credit attainment provide interesting information
relative to student course-taking behaviors. 2007 Cohort students who receive the maximum Pell
award consistently have the highest significant credit attainment rates across all levels of developmental
placement. Maximum Pell recipients with triple developmental recommendations have a 3-year
significant credit attainment rate of 55%, which is in contrast to 13% of students who receive only partial
Pell funding. Although individual differences exist at the developmental placement level, the impact of
maximum Pell award on significant credit attainment spans racial groups, as well. For instance, among
Black/African maximum Pell recipients with triple developmental recommendations, 50% achieve the
significant credit attainment level in 3-years. This is in contrast to only 10% of the same developmental
population who receive only partial Pell. The findings for White students are comparable, although
White students in the double/triple developmental categories experience 17-18% higher overall credit
attainment levels.
Survey Artifacts
Review of the 2009 CCSSE/CCFSSE reveals a potential disconnect between students’ views relative to the
perceived value of certain student services (peer tutoring, financial advising, academic advising, and
child care) in contrast to their stated utilization of the services. Students appear to view services as
valuable, but they may or may not be taking adequate advantage of them. The potential implication of
students not utilizing available services is potentially significant within the overall conversation relating
to factors that enable student success.
V.
Issues
The following major issues were noted by the Data Team throughout the course of the analysis process.
•
Changes in system/data capture can improve future analysis and enable continuous
improvement. The ATD data set is a prescribed set of data, however necessary assumptions have been
made and data transformations have taken place to enable generation of the initial data files. Through
the process of analysis, additional insight into the state of data within Datatel has been gained that will
55
enable future improvements to data collection and storage. Specific example of system/data capture
issues are the S/U assignment and tracking within the Writing and Reading disciplines.
•
The Preliminary Findings report is somewhat limited to, especially as it pertains to longer term
retention data, analysis of the 2007 Cohort. The 2007 Cohort provides a 3 year window through which
we can view student success outcomes. As time progresses, we will have an adequate time frame in
which to analyze the outcomes of the 2008 and 2009 Cohorts, essentially rounding out and providing a
richer data set.
•
The increasing rate of students requiring developmental education calls into question an
evaluation of our resources and policies related to providing this basic education in conjunction with the
development of external initiatives (e.g. high school interventions) to help stem the tide.
•
The ATD data are fairly prescriptive and do not provide much latitude with respect to assessing
why our students come to MCC. Low degree completion rates are reflective of this problem and are
representative of student course-taking behavior and how students do not have a monolithic goal to
obtain degrees and/or transfer. The statement of educational goals is an important factor in assessing
student outcomes, and a more reliable means of tracking and measuring could provide greater context
to the overall analysis.
VI.
Recommendations
It is the primary recommendation of the Data Team that the ATD Core Team reviews the contents of this
preliminary report and advise the Data Team on additional needs it may have in its development of
intervention strategies.
The Data Team recognizes that as intervention strategies are discussed, implemented, measured, and
refined, the form and function of the Data Team will likely evolve to meet the needs of the Core Team
and college as a whole.
56