PASS Placement Advising for Student Success Presenters - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

PASS Placement Advising for Student Success

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

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?

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

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?

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).

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

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

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.

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

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)

How to Change? SERVICE STAFF Shared Goals FACULTY LEADERSDHIP STATE

Placement Levels: Acceleration Placement Level: Math Placement Level: Writing 6.00 4.00 133 Students 153 Students 65 Students 71 Students 3.50 2,763 5.00 Students 3.00 4.00 2.50 3,982 65 Students Students 3.00 2.00 71 Students 1.50 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 Placed Students Students with PASS & PC Placed Students Students with PASS & PC PASS PC PASS PC

Placement Levels: Acceleration Outcomes: Math Outcomes: WR-121 and Below 90.0% 100.0% 956 4,535 86 of 956 69 of of 2,053 107 of of 79 1,225 90.0% 80.0% 5,915 of 1,146 2,556 80.0% 70.0% 754 66 70.0% 3,461 60.0% 672 45 60.0% 1,380 50.0% 50.0% Overall Overall 40.0% PC PC 40.0% PASS PASS 30.0% 30.0% 20.0% 20.0% 10.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% %Succ\YIO %AB\YIO %Succ\YIO %AB\YIO Success & High-Performance Rates Success & High-Performance Rates

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

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.

PASS Analysis: Other Metrics • Outcomes – Success Rates – High-Performance Rates (A or B grade) • Persistence & Retention – 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

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.

We Used to Ask What can you PROVE you’re able to do?

Now We Ask What are you CAPABLE of?

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.

Discussion of Tools 1. Fill out the form as a student 2. Use the guides to determine placement options. Discuss next steps with “student.” 3.

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

How will our data, campus and workforce outcomes be different? 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!

Questions/Comments for: • Administrator? • Math Faculty? • Writing Faculty? • Testing Center Lead? • Data Team Members?

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