SLIDE 1
PASS
Placement Advising for Student Success
SLIDE 2 Presenters
English/Writing Faculty Adviser David Mount, English Faculty
davidmo@clackamas.edu
Math Faculty Adviser Carrie Kyser, Math Faculty carriek@clackamas.edu Data Expert Stefan Baratto, Math Faculty sbaratto@clackamas.edu Administrator Darlene Geiger, Associate Dean darleneg@clackamas.edu
SLIDE 3 Show-of-hands survey
- Have you been involved in any of the OR
State Dev Ed or Placement meetings?
- Is your school currently discussing how to
improve placement? Any work underway?
- Have you personally taken your school’s
WR, RD, or Math placement tests?
- Do you ever talk to students about how it
feels to take the tests?
SLIDE 4 How it feels: One CCC student’s perspective
“Writing in English has been . . . difficult for
- me. Having to learn grammar, punctuation
and pronunciation has been a big challenge. I was very discouraged when I took the placement test and got my results.”
- -Martin Velazquez, Winter 2016
SLIDE 5 Brainstorm, Discuss, Report
- Why is placement necessary? What do we
need to know about incoming students?
- What does your school’s existing
placement process attempt to measure?
- Is there anything your school’s placement
process might fail to capture?
- What messages does the experience of
placement send to students about your school? About college?
SLIDE 6
Placement Method: Content-level proficiency?
“…more students fail to complete developmental sequences because they never enroll in their first or a subsequent course than because they drop out of or fail to pass a course in which they enrolled.”
(Bailey, Jeong, & Cho, 2010).
SLIDE 7 Placement Method: Multiple Measures
Workgroup Recommendations:
- use multiple measures to place students,
including at least one non-cognitive assessment
- use a range of scores, not a single cut score, for
placing students
- disallow placement exam testing on the same
day that students learn about the test; provide students with preparation materials
SLIDE 8 Why Change?
- Misplacement (Rodriguez, Bowden, Belfield & Scott-Clayton,
2015);
- Equity (Hetts, 2015);
- Costs (Rodriguez, Bowden, Belfield & Scott-Clayton, 2015);
- Completion: This is seen both in national research
(Bailey & Cho, 2010) and in Oregon (Hodara, 2015).
From:
HB 2681: February 2016 Preliminary Report
http://www.oregon.gov/HigherEd/Documents/HECC/2016%20Full%20Commission%20Meetings/01_J an-14-16/12.1b.HouseBill2681CommunityCollegeCourse%20PlacementDraftReport.pdf
SLIDE 9 Change at Clackamas
- Learn about placement program rationale and
process used for development.
- Review the 2014-15 data to learn about success
rates and goal fulfillment.
- Discuss the tools that have been developed to
scale-up the program for all incoming students.
SLIDE 10 Placement Advising for Student Success PASS
The Clackamas PASS program uses multiple measures, rather than a single test score, to place students into the highest-level course(s) in which they are likely to be at least as successful as traditionally placed students. Measures may include:
- Compass cut scores within decision zones for one or more test
- H.S. coursework & GPA and/or SAT, ACT, AP/IB scores
- Available time to focus on academic coursework
- Work experience and/or life experience
- Motivation/confidence & academic goals
SLIDE 11 Development of PASS
- Participation: Faculty, Staff & Administrator participation in
OCCA & CCWD Community College Developmental Education Redesign Project (2013-present).
- Pilot: Piloted non-cognitive assessment tool in dev ed
courses (fall 2013) followed by faculty interviews (winter 2014) and PASS team formation (spring 2014).
- Collaboration: Math & Writing faculty co-located in Testing
Center (2014-present)
- Data: Parallel effort to develop key metrics and data
collection using student information system. (2015-present)
- Roll-out: Development of Communication & Training plans
for roll-out (2015-16)
SLIDE 12 How to Change?
Shared Goals
STATE LEADERSDHIP FACULTY SERVICE STAFF
SLIDE 13 Placement Levels: Acceleration
153 Students 71 Students 3,982 Students 71 Students 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 Placed Students Students with PASS & PC
Placement Level: Math
PASS PC 133 Students 65 Students 2,763 Students 65 Students 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 Placed Students Students with PASS & PC
Placement Level: Writing
PASS PC
SLIDE 14 Placement Levels: Acceleration
2,053
2,556 1,380 956
1,146 672 69
45 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% %Succ\YIO %AB\YIO Success & High-Performance Rates
Outcomes: WR-121 and Below
Overall PC PASS 4,535
5,915 3,461 956
1,225 754 86 of 107 66
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% %Succ\YIO %AB\YIO
Success & High-Performance Rates
Outcomes: Math
Overall PC PASS
SLIDE 15
Placement Acceleration: Math
There were 153 math students placed by the PASS program; 71 had also been placed using traditional means. Students placed by both methods “saved” 2.52 terms of math classes. Overall, students placed through the PASS program “saved” 2.20 terms of math classes compared to students placed by traditional means
SLIDE 16 Placement Acceleration: Writing
There were 133 writing students placed by the PASS program; 65 had also been placed using traditional means. Students placed by both methods “saved” 1.43 terms of writing classes. Overall, students placed through the PASS program “saved” 0.57 terms of writing classes compared to students placed by traditional means
Note: Because there are fewer placement levels in writing, differences appears less stark; however, the results are just as significant.
SLIDE 17 PASS Analysis: Other Metrics
– Success Rates – High-Performance Rates (A or B grade)
– Within Term: Likelihood Student Completes Term – Across Terms: Likelihood Student Continues in Subsequent Terms
Students Performed Substantially Similar to All Other Student Groups Under Each of These Metrics
SLIDE 18
A NEW View
We – Clackamas faculty and staff - have changed how we do what we do. Students come to us the same – same readiness, same challenges– we are making more support referrals and considering capacity. It takes believing that all students can succeed when offered the opportunity with the right supports.
SLIDE 19
We Used to Ask
What can you PROVE you’re able to do?
SLIDE 20
Now We Ask
What are you CAPABLE of?
SLIDE 21 PASS Tools to Scale-up
- Intake form collected from incoming students.
- Interview guide for faculty & staff to use during conversations
about non-cognitive aspects of student success.
- Placement Guides that provide “if-then” placement options
for support staff to recommend higher placements during conversations with students.
- Faculty to address more difficult placements.
SLIDE 22
Discussion of Tools
1. Fill out the form as a student 2. Use the guides to determine placement options. 3. Discuss next steps with “student.”
SLIDE 23 Lessons we’re Learning:
- Cross-representation among team: faculty, math
& testing center staff with administrator to liaison with state leads in the Developmental Education Redesign workgroup
- Creating a consistent message for PASS
- Producing tools for ensuring confidence &
consistency in placements
- Regular meetings of data group for back-end
SLIDE 24 How will our data, campus and workforce
Potential for dramatic increases in rates and time to completion of:
– Developmental education sequence – Gateway courses based on intent – Subsequent courses in chosen discipline – Degree or certificate – Transfer to 4-year or entered employment
For all student populations!
SLIDE 25 Questions/Comments for:
- Administrator?
- Math Faculty?
- Writing Faculty?
- Testing Center Lead?
- Data Team Members?
SLIDE 26 Contact Information
English/Writing Faculty Adviser David Mount, English Faculty
davidmo@clackamas.edu
Math Faculty Adviser Carrie Kyser, Math Faculty carriek@clackamas.edu Data Expert Stefan Baratto, Math Faculty sbaratto@clackamas.edu Testing Center Lead Ric Jenkerson, Enrollment Services Specialist Lead ricj@clackamas.edu Administrator Darlene Geiger, Associate Dean darleneg@clackamas.edu
