BSLCACFlexMee,ng,August2012 Its time to work on our 2012-13 BS - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

BSLCAC
Flex
Mee,ng,
August
2012



• It’s time to work on our 2012-13 BS

Action Plan, due Oct. 10: 4 things BSLCAC needs to do:

1.
Analyze
Cabrillo
College
success
data
using
Basic
Skills
Cohort
Tracker
 2.
Write
a
Reflec,ve
Narra+ve
Response:


• “Knowing
what
you
know
now
about
basic
skills
and
implemen,ng


basic
skills
interven,ons
on
your
campus,
what
would
you
have
 done
differently
over
the
last
five
years
with
regards
to
your
basic
 skills
ini,a,ve
work?”
 3.
Revise/update
our
Long‐Term
(5‐year)
Goals
for
Basic
Skills
(3
max)
 4.
Determine
Ac,vi,es
for
2012‐13
BS
Ac+on
Plan
(5
max)


A
few
notes

and
about
using
the
BS
Cohort
Tracker


• “Success”:



– Passed
a
course
with
a
C
(or
Pass)
grade
or
higher.
 – 1
term
success
is
a
limited
indicator
of
“success”;
longitudinal
studies
are
be\er
measures
of
success.
 – Keep
in
mind
the
state’s
defini,on
of
“long‐term
success”
(i.e.,
succeed
at
transfer‐level)
is
not
always
in
 synch
with
our
real
students’
lives
and
educa,onal
goals.


• Focus
here
is
mainly
on
English
and
math.
Why?


– Difficult
and
close
to
impossible
to
follow
Cabrillo’s
ESL
204
success
rates
due
to
discrepancies
in
coding
of
 courses,
&
I
was
unable
to
merge
ESL
204
&
English
255,
for
example
(BS
Tracker
is
not
useful
for
ESL).
 – Although
reading
is
important,
with
the
excep,on
of
those
who
assess
at
the
English
255
level,
at
Cabrillo
 there
is
no
reading
requirement
or
prerequisite
to
move
up
the
basic
skills
to
transfer‐level
English
courses;
 also,
with
this
tool,
it’s
impossible
to
merge
English
255
and
Read
255/206
success
data
(and
206
doesn’t
 even
appear
as
an
op,on).
 – Compiling
the
following
data
charts
was
an
arduous,
laborious
task,
and
there’s
not
enough
,me
to
look
up
 everything
and/or
circumvent
BS
Cohort
Tracker
issues.
 – Although
Data
tracker
is
less
than
perfect,
it
is
somewhat
user‐friendly
and
readily
accessible,
so
anyone
can
 use
it
to
look
up
addi,onal
data!
h\p://datamart.ccco.edu/Outcomes/BasicSkills_Cohort_Tracker.aspx



• College
Comparisons:



– 1
or
2
or
3
levels
below
transfer‐level
courses
ogen
have
addi,onal
courses
that
“count”
(i.e.,
English
100L);
 we
can
filter
these
out,
but
not
as
easy
to
do
when
I
looked
at
other
colleges
whose
courses
I
am
less
familiar
 with.


• Conduc,ng
research
is
exci,ng
but…


– I
am
not
a
researcher
by
training!



English
255/256
Success



(2008‐2011,
semester‐by‐semester—not
longitudinal)


semest/year
 #
of
students
 #
of
a:empts
 success
#
 success
%
 change
 Fall
2011
 297
 297
 213
 71.7%


 9.1+
 Spring
2011
 190
 190
 119
 62.6%
 1.2‐
 Fall
2010
 268
 268
 171
 63.8%












 2.8+
 Spring
2010
 182
 182
 111
 61.0%







 3.1‐
 Fall
2009
 270
 270
 173
 64.1%
 5.4+
 Spring
2009
 172
 173
 101
 58.7%
 9.1‐
 Fall
2008
 301
 301
 204
 67.8%
 ‐‐‐‐‐


English
100
Success
 
(2008‐2011,
semester‐by‐semester—not
longitudinal)


semest/year
 #
of
students
 #
of
a:empts
 success
#
 success
%
 change
 Fall
2011
 579
 747
 460
 79.4%
 3.9+
 Spring
2011
 375
 525
 283
 75.5%
 0
 Fall
2010
 592
 784
 447
 75.5%
 5.9+
 Spring
2010
 369
 507
 257
 69.6%
 9.1‐
 Fall
2009
 619
 763
 487
 78.7%
 12.6+
 Spring
2009
 330
 412
 218
 66.1%
 7.8‐
 Fall
2008
 644
 769
 476
 73.9%
 ‐‐‐‐‐‐


Math
254
A/B/CM/SI
Success


(2008‐2011,
semester‐by‐semester—not
longitudinal)


semest/year
 #
of
students
 #
of
a:empts
 success
#
 success
%
 change
 Fall
2011
 523
 523
 330
 63.1%
 4.7+
 Spring
2011
 505
 505
 295
 58.4%
 6.6‐
 Fall
2010
 500
 500
 325
 65.0%
 5.4+
 Spring
2010
 446
 446
 266
 59.6%
 8.9+
 Fall
2009
 598
 599
 303
 50.7%
 5.0‐
 Spring
2009
 548
 548
 305
 55.7%
 4.3+
 Fall
2008
 609
 609
 313
 51.4%
 ‐‐‐‐‐


Math
154
&
A/B
Success
 
(2008‐2011,
semester‐by‐semester—not
longitudinal)


semest/year
 #
of
students
 #
of
a:empts
 success
#
 success
%
 change
 Fall
2011
 434
 434
 231
 53.2%
 2.8+
 Spring
2011
 244
 244
 123
 50.4%
 0.3+
 Fall
2010
 419
 419
 210
 50.1%
 0.5+
 Spring
2010
 278
 278
 138
 49.6%
 2.3+
 Fall
2009
 465
 465
 220
 47.3%
 4.6‐
 Spring
2009
 293
 293
 152
 51.9%
 4.1‐
 Fall
2008
 550
 550
 308
 56.0%
 ‐‐‐‐‐


Math
152
&
A/B
Success



(2008‐2011,
semester‐by‐semester—not
longitudinal)


semest/year
 #
of
students
 #
of
a:empts
 success
#
 success
%
 change
 Fall
2011
 452
 452
 213
 47.1%
 6.0‐
 Spring
2011
 213
 213
 113
 53.1%
 8.3+
 Fall
2010
 480
 481
 215
 44.8%
 12.4‐
 Spring
2010
 201
 201
 115
 57.2%
 8.9+
 Fall
2009
 561
 561
 271
 48.3%
 8.1‐
 Spring
2009
 220
 220
 124
 56.4%
 7.3+
 Fall
2008
 601
 602
 295
 49.1%
 ‐‐‐‐‐


Cabrillo
Fall
2011
Success


course
 success
 Change

 English
255/256
 71.7%
 9.1+
 English
100
 79.4%
 3.9+
 Math
254
&
A/B/CM
 63.1%
 4.7+
 Math
154
&
A/B
 53.2%
 2.8+
 Math
152
&
A/B
 47.1%
 6.0‐


2‐Semester
College
Comparison:

 2
levels
below
transfer‐level
English


College
 Sem/Year
 #
students
 success
 %
 Cabrillo
 Fall
2011
 297
 213
 71.7%
 Cabrillo
 Spring
2011
 190
 119
 62.6%
 MPC
 Fall
2011
 168
 123
 73.2%
 MPC
 Spring
2011
 110
 74
 67.3%
 Skyline
 Fall
2011
 326
 213
 65.3%
 Skyline
 Spring
2011
 163
 83
 50.9%
 Hartnell
 Fall
2011
 443
 263
 59.4%
 Hartnell
 Spring
2011
 309
 158
 51.1%
 West
Valley
 Fall
2011
 78
 60
 76.9%
 West
Valley
 Spring
2011
 54
 44
 81.5%


2‐Semester
College
Comparison:

 1
level
below
transfer‐level
English


College
 Sem/Year
 #
students
 success
 %
 Cabrillo
 Fall
2011
 612
 478
 78.0%
 Cabrillo
 Spring
2011
 401
 298
 74.0%
 MPC
 Fall
2011
 316
 212
 67.1%
 MPC
 Spring
2011
 169
 115
 68.0%
 Skyline
 Fall
2011
 407
 273
 67.1%
 Skyline
 Spring
2011
 233
 153
 65.7%
 Hartnell
 Fall
2011
 440
 312
 70.9%
 Hartnell
 Spring
2011
 245
 154
 62.9%
 West
Valley
 Fall
2011
 505
 334
 66.1%
 West
Valley
 Spring
2011
 342
 226
 66.1%


College
Comparison:

 3
levels
below
transfer‐level
Math


College
 Sem/Year
 #
students
 success
 %
 Cabrillo
 Fall
2011
 523
 330
 63.1%
 Cabrillo
 Spring
2011
 505
 295
 58.4%
 MPC
 Fall
2011
 121
 93
 76.9%
 MPC
 Spring
2011
 88
 52
 59.1%
 Skyline
 Fall
2011
 123
 86
 69.9%
 Skyline
 Spring
2011
 89
 57
 64.0%
 Hartnell
 Fall
2011
 383
 228
 59.5%
 Hartnell
 Spring
2011
 311
 178
 57.2%
 West
Valley
 Fall
2011
 105
 62
 59.0%
 West
Valley
 Spring
2011
 91
 65
 71.4%


2‐Semester
College
Comparison:

 2
levels
below
transfer‐level
Math


College
 Sem/Year
 #
students
 success
 %
 Cabrillo
 Fall
2011
 533
 309
 58.0%
 Cabrillo
 Spring
2011
 295
 166
 56.3%
 MPC
 Fall
2011
 201
 90
 44.8%
 MPC
 Spring
2011
 153
 75
 49.0%
 Skyline
 Fall
2011
 230
 168
 73.0%
 Skyline
 Spring
2011
 172
 119
 69.2%
 Hartnell
 Fall
2011
 351
 227
 67.7%
 Hartnell
 Spring
2011
 138
 94
 68.1%
 West
Valley
 Fall
2011
 342
 181
 52.9%
 West
Valley
 Spring
2011
 297
 166
 55.9%


2‐Semester
College
Comparison:

 1
level
below
transfer‐level
Math


College
 Sem/Year
 #
students
 success
 %
 Cabrillo
 Fall
2011
 482
 230
 47.7%
 Cabrillo
 Spring
2011
 213
 113
 53.1%
 MPC
 Fall
2011
 234
 145
 62.0%
 MPC
 Spring
2011
 171
 110
 64.3%
 Skyline
 Fall
2011
 212
 163
 76.9%
 Skyline
 Spring
2011
 150
 90
 60.0%
 Hartnell
 Fall
2011
 402
 257
 63.9%
 Hartnell
 Spring
2011
 198
 122
 61.6%
 West
Valley
 Fall
2011
 286
 163
 57.0%
 West
Valley
 Spring
2011
 182
 104
 57.1%


Cabrillo
College,
2008‐2011
 Basic
Skills
to
Transfer
Level:
Persistence
&
Success


English
255/256
&
100
 Success/Transfer
Level
 Start
2‐levels
below
transfer
 26.6%
 Start
1‐level
below
transfer
 53.4%
 Math
254,
154,
&
152
 Success/Transfer
Level
 Start
3‐levels
below
transfer
 7.1%
 Start
2‐levels
below
transfer
 21.8%
 Start
1‐level
below
transfer
 40.1%


2‐levels
below
transfer‐level
English:
Sorted
by
 ethnicity,
Cabrillo
College,
2008‐2011



2‐levels
below
transfer‐level
math:
Sorted
by
 ethnicity,
Cabrillo
College,
2008‐2011


Some
Observa,ons
of
the
Data


• Cabrillo
has
seen
some
improvements
in
English
and
math
(semester‐by‐semester,


2008‐2011)
success
rates.
Some
highlights:


• Fall
2011
saw
improvements
in
all
English
&
math
BS
courses
except
math
152.

• Math
154
&
English
100
have
shown
steady
improvements
for
the
past
1.5
to
2
years.

• Cabrillo
is
doing
fairly
well
(or
be\er)
with
regards
to
English
success
rates
(2011)
in


comparison
to
other
neighboring
colleges;
however,
our
math
results
are
mixed,
and
 this
should
be
an
area
we
pay
more
a\en,on
to
in
our
BS
efforts
&
Ac,on
Plan.


• Could
our
LCs,
all
of
which
include
English,
be
one
reason
our
English
results
are
stronger?

Has
English
accelera,on
made


a
difference?


• Should
we
focus
on
crea,ng
more
LCs
with
math?
Or,
come
up
with
other
strategies?
What
strategies/ac,vi,es
can
we


come
up
with
to
try
to
improve
our
math
success
rates?


• What
has
been
the
impact
of
Professional
Development?

In
English?

In
math?
(i.e.,
are
English
faculty
more
likely
to


a\end
professional
development
opportuni,es
like
On
Course,
and/or
are
these
PD
strategies
more
useful
in
an
English
 course
seqng?
Etc.)


• Our
more
long‐term
analysis
(2008‐2011)
shows
that
much
needs
to
be
done
to
assist


students
who
begin
at
the
lowest
basic
skills
levels
to
succeed
at
the
transfer
levels,
 especially
in
math.


• We
should
look
more
closely
at
what
STARS
and/or
ACE
have
been
doing
in
their
efforts


to
posi,vely
impact
students’
math
success
rates.


• ESL:
need
research
assistance
looking
at
success
pa\erns.

• Other?


STARS
Title
V


Students
Transi-oning
in
Academics
and
 Reaching
Success


First
Year
Experience
 Learning
Community:


What
We’ve
Learned
So
Far…
 Terra
Morris
 August
21,
2012


Progression
through
basic
skills
math
sequence


August
2010
–
June
2012



Star,ng
MATH‐254:
3‐levels
below
transfer‐level
(TL)


33%
 33%
 27%
 7%


STARS
Cohort
#1


79%
 12%
 5%
 2%
 2%


Comparison
Cohort
#1


Progression
through
basic
skills
math
sequence


August
2010
–
June
2012



Star,ng
MATH‐154:
2‐levels
below
transfer‐level
(TL)


67%
 17%
 5%
 11%


STARS
Cohort
#1


56%
 28%
 16%


Comparison
Cohort
#1


Progression
through
basic
skills
math
sequence


August
2010
–
June
2012



Star,ng
MATH‐152:
1‐level
below
transfer‐level
(TL)


60%
 20%
 20%


STARS
Cohort
#1


69%
 24%
 7%


Comparison
Cohort
#1


Progression
through
basic
skills
English
sequence


August
2010
–
June
2012



Star,ng
ENGL‐255:
2‐levels
below
transfer‐level
(TL)


20%
 20%
 37%
 23%


STARS
Cohort
#1


49%
 10%
 24%
 17%


Comparison
Cohort
#1


Progression
through
basic
skills
English
sequence


August
2010
–
June
2012



Star,ng
ENGL‐100:
1‐level
below
transfer‐level
(TL)


32%
 18%
 50%


STARS
Cohort
#1


40%
 30%
 30%


Comparison
Cohort
#1


Lessons
Learned
from
2010‐11


• Early
Alert
System

• Math
254SI
–
more
units

• Anchor
SI
schedule
to
STARS
student
needs

• Modifica,ons
to
CG
sequence

• Mid‐day
gap
between
classes

• No
8am
start
,mes

• 12
units,
not
16


STARS
H&W
Pilot
 Fall
2010
vs.
Fall
2011


Course
Success
Rates


0%
 20%
 40%
 60%
 80%
 100%
 120%
 MATH‐254
 MATH‐154
 ENGL‐255
 READ‐255
 STARS
 Cohort
#1
 Fall
2010
 STARS
 Cohort
#2
 Fall
2011


How
Effec,ve
 is
the
ACE
Model?


Educational Outcomes of the Academy for College Excellence: Findings from a Multivariate Analysis

Jenkins, D., Hayward, C. (2009)

Compared educational outcomes of the first nine cohorts of ACE (DBA) students with over 11,500 students at Cabrillo who did not participate in the program. This study found significant positive effects for participation in both the accelerated and non-accelerated versions of the ACE (DBA).

Academy
for
College
Excellence
(ACE)
was
formerly
known
as
Digital
Bridge
Academy
(DBA)


Funded by The James Irvine Foundation and The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation

Columbia
University
Community
College
Research
Center


27


Longitudinal
Evalua+on


Proven
Success
in
Developmental
Educa,on


28
 Cabrillo College Comparison Group ACE Cohort Students

On
average,
ACE
students
also
earned
an
es,mated

 21
more
credits
than
those
in
the
comparison
group


Source:
Jenkins,
Davis,
 Zeidenberg,
Ma\hew,
and
 Wachen,
John,
“Educa,onal
 Outcomes
of
Cabrillo
College’s
 Digital
Bridge
Academy:
Findings
 from
a
Mul,variate
Analysis,”
 Community
College
Research
 Center,
Teacher’s
College,
 Columbia
University,
2009.


Columbia
University
Community
College
Research
Center


Summary
of
Outcomes


“While
par,cipants
in
the
non‐accelerated
version
of
the
program
 generally
had
significantly
be\er
outcomes
on
most
measures
than
did
 students
who
did
not
par,cipate
in
ACE
(DBA),
the
es,mated
effects
for
 the
accelerated
version
were
in
most
cases
higher…
 “To
the
extent
that
colleges
are
seeking
strategies
for
increasing
the
rate
at
 which
academically
underprepared
students
complete
“gatekeeper”
 courses
such
as
college‐level
English
and
earn
college
credits,
the
 accelerated
version
of
the
ACE
program
seems
to
hold
par,cular
promise…
 “ACE
students
are
very
likely
to
be
more
at‐risk
than
Cabrillo
students
with
 similar
levels
of
academic
prepara,on,
although
comparable
risk
sta,s,cs
 are
not
available
for
non‐
par,cipa,ng
Cabrillo
students.
To
the
extent
that
 the
ACE
students
in
the
sample
were
substan,ally
more
disadvantaged
 than
other
students,
it
may
be
that
the
es-mates
produced
through
this
 analysis
understate
the
effect
of
par-cipa-ng
in
ACE.”


MPR
Evalua,on
of
ACE
Program


ACE N 461 Female 38% Latino 53% GED or HS Dropout 33% Placed 2+ levels below College English 40% Placed 1 level below College English 47% Mean Age 26.2 Prior College Credits 3.7

Source:



Demographics
of
ACE
Students
in
Study


Funded by The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation 30


Columbia
University
Community
 College
Research
Center


Student
Outcomes
 Analysis


Cabrillo
College
 Comparison
 Group
 Accelerated

 ACE
Cohorts
 Non‐Accelerated
 ACE
Cohorts


Chance
of
Passing
English
100
 1
Level
Below
Transfer
English


35%
 60%*
 15%


31
 Funded by The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Spring
2010
Cohort
–
Longitudinal
Study
of
Three
Semesters
 *
Sta+s+cally
Significant
p<.01;
two‐tailed
test
 



n=69
 If
enrolled
in
the
ACE
program:


• Aier
3
semesters
70%
more
likely
to
successfully
complete
English
100

• Aier
1
semester
118%
more
likely
to
successfully
complete
English
100

• Aier
2
semester
106%
more
likely
to
successfully
complete
English
100


N=116
at
Three
Colleges


Columbia
University
Community
 College
Research
Center


Student
Outcomes
 Analysis


Cabrillo
College
 Comparison
 Group
 Accelerated

 ACE
Cohorts
 Non‐Accelerated
 ACE
Cohorts


College
Credits
Earned


7.5
 16**
 16


Chance
of
Persis,ng
1
Semester


66%
 75%
 67%


Chance
of
Enrolling
Full‐Time

 in
Second
Semester


34%
 49%*
 38%


Chance
of
Passing
English
100
 1
Level
Below
Transfer
English


36%
 60%*
 33%


33
 Funded by The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Fall
2010
Cohort
–
Longitudinal
Study
of
Two
Semesters
 *



Sta+s+cally
Significant
p<.01;
two‐tailed
test
 **
Sta+s+cally
Significant
p<.05;
two‐tailed
test
 



n=129
 If
enrolled
in
the
ACE
program:


• Aier
2
semester
70%
more
likely
to
successfully
complete
English
100

• Aier
1
semester
107%
more
likely
to
successfully
complete
English
100


n=219
at
Three
Colleges


Columbia
University
Community
 College
Research
Center


Student
Outcomes
 Analysis


Cabrillo
College
 Comparison
 Group
 Accelerated

 ACE
Cohorts
 Non‐Accelerated
 ACE
Cohorts


College
Credits
Earned


4.3
 12.4**


Chance
of
Passing
English
100
 1
Level
Below
Transfer
English


18%
 58%*


35
 Funded by The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Spring
2011
Cohort
‐
Study
First
Semester
 *



Sta+s+cally
Significant
p<.01;
two‐tailed
test
 **
Sta+s+cally
Significant
p<.05;
two‐tailed
test
 






n=136
 If
enrolled
in
the
ACE
program:


• Aier
1
semester
216%
more
likely
to
successfully
complete
English
100


2012‐2013
BS
Ac,on
Plan
Documenta,on:

 Due
Oct.
10,
2012


1.
Analyze
Cabrillo
College
success
data
using
Basic
Skills
Cohort
Tracker
 2.
Write
a
Reflec,ve
Narra+ve
Response:


• “Knowing
what
you
know
now
about
basic
skills
and
implemen,ng


basic
skills
interven,ons
on
your
campus,
what
would
you
have
 done
differently
over
the
last
five
years
with
regards
to
your
basic
 skills
ini,a,ve
work?”
 3.
Revise/update
our
Long‐Term
(5‐year)
Goals
for
Basic
Skills
(3
max)
 4.
Determine
Ac,vi,es
for
2012‐13
BS
Ac+on
Plan
(5
max)