470 likes | 603 Views
Foothill College. Opening Day 2004 Selected Findings on Basic Skills. Rob Johnstone, 9/17/04. Section 1 Benchmark Statistics, Placement Testing. 1.1 – Placement Results for Students Taking Placement Tests in 2003-04. 1.2 – English Placement Results, 2003-04.
E N D
Foothill College Opening Day 2004 Selected Findings on Basic Skills Rob Johnstone, 9/17/04
1.1 – Placement Results for Students Taking Placement Tests in 2003-04
1.2 – English Placement Results, 2003-04 Note: Does not include students who were directed to take ESL test or to see Counselor/Division Dean.
1.3 – ESL Placement Results, 2003-04 Note: Does not include students who were directed to take English test or to see Counselor/Division Dean.
1.4 – Math Placement Results, 2003-04 Note: Does not include students who were directed to take another test and never followed through.
1.5 – What are the course-taking outcomes of students who have Pre-Collegiate placements?
1.5A – Course-Taking Outcomes for Pre-Collegiate English Note: Based on students taking placement tests in 2002-03; enrollments followed through 2004 Spring.
1.5B – Course-Taking Outcomes for Pre-Collegiate ESL Note: Based on students taking placement tests in 2002-03; enrollments followed through 2004 Spring.
1.5C – Course-Taking Outcomes for Pre-Collegiate Math Note: Based on students taking placement tests in 2002-03; enrollments followed through 2004 Spring.
Math 250: 65% 200: 58% 101: 57% 105: 69% 2.1 – What are the success rates of Basic Skills students? • English • 100: 75% • 110: 73% • ESL • 130s: 71% • 140s: 67% • 150s: 67% • 160s: 80% • 170s: 78% • 025: 81% Data Covers 2003-2004 School Year
Math Asian: 71% Black: 46% Filipino: 68% Hispanic: 54% White: 68% Other/Unk: 68% 2.2 – What are the success rates in B.Skills courses by ethnicity? English • Asian: 76% • Black: 68% • Filipino: 65% • Hispanic: 68% • White: 80% • Other/Unk: 77% ESL • Asian: 82% • Hispanic: 64% • White: 84% • Other/Unk: 71% Data Covers 2003-2004 School Year
Math 250: 88% 200: 85% 101: 86% 105: 79% 2.3 – What are the retention rates of Basic Skills students? • English • 100: 88% • 110: 88% • ESL • 130s: 90% • 140s: 86% • 150s: 88% • 160s: 92% • 170s: 93% • 025: 93% Data Covers 2003-2004 School Year
2.4A – What are the persistence rates of Basic Skills students? • Basic Skills English Students in 2003F • Persistence to 2004W in any course = 80% • Persistence within English in 04W or 04S = 67% • Basic Skills ESL Students in 2003F • Persistence to 2004W in any course = 76% • Persistence within English or ESL in 04W or 04S = 74% Note: For reference, campus-wide persistence from 2003F – 2004W in all segments was 65%, and in Segments 4 & 5 was 76%.
2.4B – What are the persistence rates of Basic Skills students? • Basic Skills Math Students in 2003F • Persistence to 2004W in any course = 77% • Persistence within Math in 04W or 04S = 59% Note: For reference, campus-wide persistence from 2003F – 2004W in all segments was 65%, and in Segments 4 & 5 was 76%.
Any course in 04W Asian: 82% Black: 77% Hispanic: 80% White: 83% Other/Unk: 77% 2.5A – What are the persistence rates of 2003F Basic Skills English students by ethnicity ? English in 04W or 04S • Asian: 69% • Black: 69% • Hispanic: 67% • White: 67% • Other/Unk: 63% Note: For reference, campus-wide persistence from 2003F – 2004W in all segments was 65%, and in Segments 4 & 5 was 76%.
Any course in 04W Asian: 87% Hispanic: 64% White: 73% Other/Unk: 84% 2.5B – What are the persistence rates of 2003F Basic Skills ESL students by ethnicity ? English/ESL in 04W or 04S • Asian: 84% • Hispanic: 66% • White: 64% • Other/Unk: 72% Note: For reference, campus-wide persistence from 2003F – 2004W in all segments was 65%, and in Segments 4 & 5 was 76%.
Any course in 04W Asian: 77% Black: 81% Hispanic: 71% White: 79% Other/Unk: 78% 2.5C – What are the persistence rates of 2003F Basic Skills Math students by ethnicity ? Math in 04W or 04S • Asian: 57% • Black: 64% • Hispanic: 56% • White: 60% • Other/Unk: 57% Note: For reference, campus-wide persistence from 2003F – 2004W in all segments was 65%, and in Segments 4 & 5 was 76%.
2.6 – Does our existing curriculum adequately prepare students for the sequence of classes they need to take?
Starting in Math 200 Pass 200: 72% Pass 101: 37% Pass 105: 20% Pass CL: 11% Starting in Math 101 Pass 101: 79% Pass 105: 41% Pass CL: 24% Starting in Math 105 Pass 105: 72% Pass CL: 32% 2.6A – Math Sequence Progression, 2000-2001 Entering Cohort Enrollments tracked through Spring 2004
Starting in Eng 100 Pass 100: 79% Pass 110*: 47% Pass 1A: 36% Pass 1B: 21% Starting in Eng 110 Pass 110: 86% Pass 1A: 62% Pass 1B: 39% Starting in Eng 1A Pass 1A: 90% Pass 1B: 58% 2.6B – English Sequence Progression, 2000-2001 Entering Cohort Enrollments tracked through Spring 2004
Starting in ESL 150s Pass 150s: 87% Pass 160s: 55% Pass 25: 32% Pass 26: 26% Starting in ESL 160s Pass 160s: 94% Pass 25: 66% Pass 26: 55% Starting in ESL 26 Pass 25: 94% Pass 26: 61% 2.6C – ESL Sequence Progression, 2000-2001 Entering Cohort Enrollments tracked through Spring 2004
2.7 – Is a student who took a Basic Skills sequence course last quarter more likely to pass the next course in the sequence than a student who waits 3+ quarters?
2.7 -Time Lag/Non-Success in BS Sequence Courses Data Covers 2003-2004 School Year
2.8 – How does course load affect the success of Basic Skills students?
2.8A – Non-Success in Basic Skills Courses and Overall Course Load : English Data Covers 2003-2004 School Year
2.8B – Non-Success in Basic Skills Courses and Overall Course Load : ESL Data Covers 2003-2004 School Year
2.8C – Non-Success in Basic Skills Courses and Overall Course Load: Math Data Covers 2003-2004 School Year
2.9 – Does prior course grade relate to future course success in Basic Skills sequence courses?
2.9A - Prior Course Grade and Non-Success: Math Enrollments tracked from 1998M to 2003S
2.9B - Prior Course Grade and Non-Success: Eng 110 Enrollments tracked from 1998M to 2003S
2.9C - Prior Course Grade and Non-Success: Eng 1A Enrollments tracked from 1998M to 2003S
2.10 – Do students who complete their Basic Skills courses have a higher rate of success than those who don’t?
2.10A – English Course Completion and BSS Non-Success Enrollments tracked from 1996M to 2002S
2.10B – English/ESL Placement and BSS Non-Success Enrollments tracked from 1996M to 2002S
2.10C – Math Level and Econ 1/Actg 1/Astr 10 Non-Success Enrollments tracked from 1996M to 2002S
Section 3 Research Highlights from Basic Skills Special Programs At Foothill and Other California Schools
3.1 – Foothill Pass the Torch • Widely successful model pairing at-risk current students with academically successful former students from same class. • Success rate improvements of 8 to 15 points in English, 7 to 22 points in Math • Improvements noted are independent of prior levels of knowledge; PTT members had lower levels of academic success upon entry to program. • After one year, 63% of non-PTT members of similar risk status had left campus by the following Fall quarter – only 11% of PTT members had left campus.
3.2 – Foothill Puente & Mfumo • Both programs combine counseling, English, and mentoring for the English 100 through English 1A sequence. • Puente focuses on Hispanic/Latino students, and Mfumo on African-American students (although not exclusively) • 2002 Cohort Results: • Puente: 44% of students succeeded through Eng 1A • Mfumo: 38% • Control Group: 22% • 2003 Cohort Results: • Puente: 45% of students succeeded through Eng 1A • Mfumo: 34% • Control Group: 22%
3.3 – De Anza Math Performance Success (MPS) Program • Program for pre-collegiate Math courses • Takes traditional 5 days a week, 1 hr/day and transforms it into 5 days a week, 2 hrs/day • More collaborative group work • Counselor in every session • Group peer tutoring and study sessions • Amazing increase in success rates – 40 points higher in Math 101, 30 points in Math 105, 20 points in Math 10 • Actively recruits students who have previously been unsuccessful in coursework
3.4A – Mt. San Antonio College Math Academy • Beginning and Intermediate Algebra have 41-54% success rates at Mt. Sac; only 19-24% get through both in two semesters. • Math Academy combines the two semesters into one semester • Adds in a student peer advisor, a supplemental instructor giving individualized instruction, and regular visits with counselor • Also two-hour study skills course every week
3.4B – Mt. San Antonio College Math Academy • Another key component – the two-hour study skills course also focuses on math in real-world environments, and on math throughout the rest of the college curriculum • Increased success rates of completing both courses in a single semester to 62-77%, 2.5 times higher than the two-semester rate of 19-24%. • Student quote:“My hope at the beginning of the class was to get my math over with so I could go on to the stuff I am good at and enjoy, but now I am beginning to see math as empowering. I am now beginning to wonder if perhaps I want to take more than the minimum math requirements. I am beginning to wonder if I want to teach math also.”
3.5A – City College of San Francisco (CCSF) Special Program Services • Tracked service usage for pre-collegiate basic skills programs at individual level • Nine programs studied were African-American Scholastic Programs, DSPS, EOPS, Homeless/At Risk Students Program, Latino Service Network, Learning Assistance Center (LAC), Math Bridge, Puente, & Writing Service Program. • Number of students served ranged from 50 (Math Bridge) to over 13,000 (LAC)
3.5B – City College of San Francisco (CCSF) Special Program Services • Found that 84% of students utilized only one service. • Success rates of students utilizing services were 3 to 24 points higher in Math, and 6 to 33 points in English • For specific minority groups, success rate improvements were even higher. • Noted that demand far outweighed supply – 13,000 students take pre-collegiate courses every semester, only 3,000 served by non-LAC services in entire academic year.
3.6 – Common Threads for Success • Shift traditional delivery model to more learner-centered model (Barr Learning College vs. Teaching College) • Utilize cohorts/peer group investment • Focus on developing study skills early in pre-collegiate course sequences • Additional student time on task is required; this is an issue for recruiting • Student confidence in their own abilities is increased
3.7 – Cost Considerations • Foothill’s system for tracking students at point-of-service is coming in the near future. • CCSF has calculated cost per student of special programs – found an average of $1,350 per student. • Yes, expensive, but aside from the fact we should be doing this because it works, we need to consider downstream benefits of WSCH gained from persisting students. • IRP will attempt to calculate return-on-investment (ROI) model similar to those calculated in industry for investments.