Upload
noe-mallicoat
View
230
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Innovation and Value in Basic Skills and ESL: Got Noncredit?
Innovation and Value in Basic Skills and ESL: Got Noncredit?
Host: Wheeler North, Basic Skills/Noncredit Committee Chair
Karen Dennis, Santa Ana CollegeJanet Fulks, Noncredit Ad Hoc Task ForceCandace Lynch-Thompson, School of Continuing Education
0 Information from a two-year pilot measuring student success in ESL and basic skills with a variety of instructional methods (e.g. self-paced, open entry/open exit, managed enrollment).
0 Examined faculty norming (with primarily adjuncts), assessment using multiple measures, and hours of study.
0 Do some basic skills and ESL courses belong as noncredit rather than credit?
0 Basic skills units are limited to 30 and this credit is not transferable or degree applicable.
0 Over 70% of our students needing basic skills0 Would students benefit by teaching initial basic skills
and ESL courses in noncredit?
Assessment Levels of Incoming Students
Overall (N=23) English (N = 23) Math (N = 23) Reading (N= 11) ESL (N = 15) Average based on Counts % Placements % Placements % Placements % Placements Transfer level 26% 20,083 16% 12,539 33% 12,782 1% 71 One level below transfer 32% 24,100 19% 14,986 36% 13,921 9% 493 Two levels below transfer 29% 22,142 25% 19,626 24% 9,136 20% 1,102 Three or more levels below 13% 9,814 39% 30,080 7% 2,895 70% 3,964
Total 100% 76,138 100% 77,231 100% 38,733 100% 5,629
Overall (N=23) English (N = 23) Math (N = 23) Reading (N= 11) ESL (N = 15) Average based on Counts % Placements % Placements % Placements % Placements Transfer level 26% 20,083 16% 12,539 33% 12,782 1% 71 One level below transfer 32% 24,100 19% 14,986 36% 13,921 9% 493 Two levels below transfer 29% 22,142 25% 19,626 24% 9,136 20% 1,102 Three or more levels below 13% 9,814 39% 30,080 7% 2,895 70% 3,964
Total 100% 76,138 100% 77,231 100% 38,733 100% 5,629
Overall (N=23) English (N = 23) Math (N = 23) Reading (N= 11) ESL (N = 15) Average based on Counts % Placements % Placements % Placements % Placements Transfer level 26% 20,083 16% 12,539 33% 12,782 1% 71 One level below transfer 32% 24,100 19% 14,986 36% 13,921 9% 493 Two levels below transfer 29% 22,142 25% 19,626 24% 9,136 20% 1,102 Three or more levels below 13% 9,814 39% 30,080 7% 2,895 70% 3,964
Total 100% 76,138 100% 77,231 100% 38,733 100% 5,629
Credit Noncredit *
326,478 393,004
* supervised tutoring
Total Enrollment (2006-2007 headcount)
Basic Skills & ESL
Course Alignment Prior to TRANSFER
Student Success Conference 2009
6
Discipline Credit Noncredit Likely bridge noncredit to credit
Math Four levels CB 21 A, B, C, D
Six levels CB 21 A, B, C, D, E, F
Levels C & D
English Four levels CB 21 A, B, C, D
Seven levels CB 21 A, B, C, D, E, F, G
Level B or C
Reading Four levels CB 21A, B, C, D
Five levels CB 21A, B, C, D, E
Level A or B
ESL 6 levels ESL Reading CB 21A, B, C, D, E, F
8 levels ESL Integrated CB 21A,B,C,D,E, F, G, H
Includes vocational and Cultural skills
Most noncredit end 2 levels prior to English 1 A at Level B
6 levels ESL Writing CB 21A, B, C, D, E, F
6 levels ESL Speaking & Listening CB 21A, B, C, D, E, F
What is Noncredit?
Fact: Noncredit serves over 350,000 FTES in our system and represents about half of the basic skills work in the CCCs.
Fact: Students are significantly more diverse, represent students with greatest need and least likely to succeed Link to data
Fact: Noncredit offers flexible schedules, increased contact hours, self paced learning
ALL AT NO COST to the STUDENT
Traditional Educational Expectations and Accountability
Perce
nt
Su
ccessfu
l
Grades for a specified semesterTime is the independent variableSuccess is dependent on the time
Perce
nt
Su
ccessfu
l
A B C D F
Adult Ed & Noncredit Education
Percent SuccessfulSuccess is the independent variable and time is dependent on success
Time
Why Accountability?Enhanced Noncredit Funding0Noncredit gets funded less per FTES than
credit ($4,565)0SB 361 increased noncredit funding from
$2745per FTES to $3232 per FTES 0Applies to students enrolled in a
sequence of courses leading to career development or college preparation (CDCP certificates)
The Puzzle of Noncredit Accountability
Current statewide data
Only 2.3 – 5.1% of noncredit students transition to credit
All noncredit courses without grades report zero success.
Wage data is incomplete because of SSN#s
CDCP data is incomplete or programs are undefined.
This is not the noncredit story?
This is not really the noncredit story. And we have data to prove it!
Data Link
2007-08 SCE Award Data from MIS
Award hours Program Type Counts
Unknown (Top code 99) 9
192 – to fewer than 288
Business and Management 27
288 – to fewer than 480
Family and Consumer Sciences 9
288 – to fewer than 480
Health 20
960 or more Interdisciplinary Studies 214Total 279
SCE Actual Data
Program Type Counts
Administrative Assistant 62Management 10Early Childhood Education 21Pharmacy Technician 50High School Diploma 322
Total 465
Credit students start in Noncredit
Statewide –
1 of every 4 AA/AS degree-earners started in Noncredit
Source: Leslie Smith, 2006. Noncredit: The Education Gateway. City College of San Francisco
CDCP Wage Reporting
Data Collection Strategies
0 SCE’s “You Count!” Campaign0 Collecting more SSN’s
0 DREAM team efforts0 Program improvement0 Tracking student progress
0 Benefits of Banner0 Assessment scores0 Enrollment trends0 Certificates earned
AccountabilityBackground & Rationale
0 How progress has been measured0 The interplay of proof of progress and funding0 The role of CB21 coding0 Enhanced funding for noncredit Career Development and College
Preparation (CDCP) courses0 The need for progress indicators in noncredit
0 Review and Evaluate current mandated noncredit metrics – further meetings and discussion to take place in November
0 Pilot project to allow the use of noncredit progress indicators – Fall pilot to begin this semester and another group beginning in Spring
Academic Senate Resolution 13.04 S10
Improve Noncredit Accountability Reporting through Progress Indicators• Task force of primarily noncredit faculty and administrators representing all noncredit areas and other representative.
Pilot Project Goals
0Develop a set of working progress indicators to use in the pilot project
0Establish clear communication between institution MIS reporting and noncredit programs
0Collect a pilot set of accountability data based on these indicators
0Evaluate the ability for noncredit programs to work with these indicators
0Evaluate the effectiveness of these indicators for use as accountability requirements
Grades and Title 555021: not required for noncredit55023: currently accepted symbols
Currently some noncredit classes are graded in order to qualify for federal funding. But the CCCCO only accepts UG for noncredit. Every grade submitted by a faculty member is changed to UG and all student success data reads as zero.
Pilot Progress Indicators0 Pass (P)0 Satisfactory Progress (SP)0 No Pass (NP)0 A – B – C – D - F
Timeline & Guidelines0 First Cohort - Fall 20100 Collection of First
Cohort data - February 2011, July 2011, February 2012
0 Participant Evaluation of Usability of the Indicators - Fall 2011, Spring 2012
0 Data can still be submitted
0 Pilot Project Work is risk free
0 Data will not be shared with anyone else.
0 Data will be available to individual institutions about their own college
0 Information will be analyzed as aggregate anonymous data outside of the institutions
Measuring Learning Gains
Multiple Measures Scoring by Rob Jenkins for Santa Ana College School of Continuing Education
0 Factors to consider include :0 tests scores0 school experience0 speaking and writing ability.
Example of Mt Sac. Rubric for Instructors
ProgressIndicator
Level Courses Skills Courses
P completed all necessary requirements (written & oral evaluation and SLO or Measurable Assessment), good attendance and participation, scored 70% or higher on the final exam.
priority attendance, good participation, ability at level, passed SLO or Measurable Assessment
NP poor attendance and participation, didn’t complete necessary requirements, scored below 70% on the final exam.
poor attendance and participation, ability below level, didn’t pass SLO or Measurable Assessment.
SP Added class too late to make decision of P / NP
Added class to late to make decision of P / NP
Noncredit Grading (Progress Indicators) Pilot Final Survey
Please provide your demographic information.
Answer OptionsResponse Percent
Response Count
Name: (Mostly Faculty) 99.5% 186College: Over 14 Institutions(some responding for groups of faculty e.g. Mira Costa 1 response 25 faculty)
100.0% 187
answered question 187
Answer OptionsResponse Percent
Response Count
I assessed and submitted grades (progress indicators) before this pilot
39.1% 66
I assessed in my class but did not need to submit grades (progress indicators)
43.2% 73
I did not assess or grade my students
8.9% 15
Other (Please specify below)
8.9% 15
Other: 19answered question 169
skipped question 26
39.1%
43.2%
8.9%
8.9%
What was your assessment and grading practice in your non-
credit classes prior to your par-ticipation in this pilot?
I assessed and submitted grades (progress indica-tors) before this pilot
I assessed in my class but did not need to submit grades (progress indicators)
I did not assess or grade my stu-dents
Other (Please specify below)
Noncredit Grading (Progress Indicators) Pilot Final Survey
Q2. What was your assessment and grading practice in your noncredit classes prior to your participation in this pilot?
Noncredit Grading (Progress Indicators) Pilot Final SurveyQ3. How practical was the assignment of P/SP/NP in measuring learning progress for your student population?
Answer Options
Response Percent
Response Count
Very practical 45.5% 76
Somewhat practical
33.5% 56
Neutral 10.2% 17
Somewhat impractical
7.2% 12
Very impractical
3.6% 6
Please explain your choice:
72
answered question 167
45.5%
33.5%
10.2%
7.2%3.6%
How practical was the as-signment of P/SP/NP in
measuring learning progress for your student
population?
Very prac-tical
Somewhat practical
Neutral
Somewhat impractical
Very imprac-tical
Noncredit Grading (Progress Indicators) Pilot Final Survey Q8. Would you support an ASCCC resolution to implement progress indicator reporting for noncredit areas with the caveat that some areas (e.g. older adults, parenting) may need more time to adequately explore and implement what indicators work best?
Answer Options
Response Percent
Response Count
Yes 72.5% 116
No 8.8% 14
I would support it if (please add comment)
18.8% 30
answered question 160
72.5%
8.8%
18.8%
Q8. Would you support an ASCCC reso-lution to implement progress indicator reporting for noncredit areas with the
caveat that some areas (e.g. older adults, parenting) may need more time to adequately explore and implement
what indicators work best? Yes
No
I would support it if (please add com-ment)
Statewide ARCC Data 2008-2011ARCC DATA Statewide RatesIndicator 2008 2009 2010 2011 Change since
inceptionStudent Progress & Achievement
51.2% 51.8% 52.3% 53.6% 2.4%
Completed 30 or more units
70.4% 71.2% 72.4% 72.8% 2.4%
Fall to Fall persistence 68.3% 69.2% 68.7% 67.6% 0.7%
Vocational Ed Course Completion
78.2% 77.7% 77.6% 77.0% 1.2%
Basic Skills Course Completion
60.5% 60.5% 61.5% 61.4% 0.9%
Basic Skills Course Improvement
50.0% 51.2% 53.8% 58.6% 8.6%
ESL Course Improvement 44.7% 50.1% 50.2% 54.6% 9.9%
What have we learned about noncredit?How much time is required for Success?
Cost over time for SPOpen Entry Open Exit Costs less over the years.
Course Students %PMedian P hours %SP
Median SP hours %NP
Median NP Hours %NG
Median NG
hoursESL 410 2111 16.4 75 42.9 40 16.4 12 24.3 21ESL 480 735 35.6 112.25 21.8 47.5 20.8 12 21.8 35
Cost over time for SPOpen Entry Open Exit Costs
less over the years.
Typical class: 30 students, 17 weeks, 10 hrs per week
Total Cost
Total Hours %P P_Cost P_Hrs %SP
SPMEDIAN
HRS SP_Hrs %NP
NPMEDIAN
HRSNP
_Hrs3
terms ESL-410
Beginning ESL 1 30 $31,397 5100 7.44
$14,192 2305.2 9.36 $11,743 1907.4 12.9 $ 5,149 836.4
1 Term
ESL-410
Beginning ESL 1 30 $31,397 5100 5.58 $11,177 1815.6 12.1 $13,469 2187.9 12.3 $ 6,719 1091
Santa Ana College School of Continuing Education ESL Program2011SPN (19 weeks)
CB21 TitleTotal
Students
Median Hours
FTES %P %P HrsP Median
Hrs%SP
%SP Hrs
SP Median Hrs
%NP%NP Hrs
NP Median
Hrs
G Beginning ESL 1
1,89
4 45.0 230.
817.4 32.7 129.0 43.6 45.4 48.0 39.0 21.9 20.0
F Beginning ESL 2
1,73
9 59.5 247.
724.3 40.8 120.0 32.7 34.4 57.5 43.0 24.8 24.0
E Beginning ESL 3
1,30
3 65.0 178.
925.9 48.2 138.0 26.9 34.
9 80.5 47.2 17.0 21.0
D Intermediate ESL 1
1,04
0 60.0 135.
926.8 48.3 131.0 30.7 31.4 57.0 42.5 20.3 22.8
C Intermediate ESL 2
941 72.8 160.
424.5 36.9 136.5 24.2 23.8 77.0 51.2 39.3 44.0
B Intermediate ESL 3
652 73.5 90.3 39.
4 68.9 135.0 22.9 22.4 55.0 37.7 8.6 14.0
Santa Ana College School of Continuing Education ESL Program
2011SPN
Beginning ESL 3 P SP NP
Students (%)25.9 26.9 47.2
Hours (%)48.2 34.9 17.0
Students (%) Hours (%)0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
47.2
17.0
26.9
34.9
25.9
48.2
PSPNP
Due to the at-risk situation of non-credit students, almost one half of them are either not graded or the instructor didn’t have enough elements to assess progress. However, those students consume only 17% of the hours.
Santa Ana College School of Continuing Education ESL Program2011SPN (19 weeks) Vs.Three Terms (2010Fall, 2011 Spring and 2011 Fall)
51 weeks of instruction and skipping summer (5 weeks)
Beginning ESL 3 P SP NP
Students 1 Term (%) 25.9 26.9 47.2
Students 3 Terms(%) 30.6 26.6 42.8
Beginning ESL 3 P SP NP
Hours 1 Term (%) 48.2 34.9 17.0
Hours 3 Terms (%) 55.6 30.8 13.6
Students 1 Term (%) Students 3 Terms(%)0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
47.2 42.8
26.926.6
25.9 30.6
PSPNP
Hours 1 Term (%) Hours 3 Terms (%)0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
17.0 13.6
34.930.8
48.255.6
PSPNP
The metrics improve when scope is increased from a single term to multiple terms.
Santa Ana College School of Continuing Education ESL Program2011SPN (19 weeks) Vs.Three Terms (2010Fall, 2011 Spring and 2011 Fall)51 weeks of instruction and skipping summer (5 weeks)
Typical class: 30 students, 17 weeks, 10 hrs per week5100 attendance hours = 9.71 FTES9.71 x $ 3,232 = $ 31,397
Beginning ESL 3 P SP NPStudents (out of 30) 9.18 7.98 12.84Cost (out of $31,397) $ 17,456 $ 9,670 $ 4,270
Students (out of 30) Cost (out of $31,397)0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
$13
$4,270
$8
$9,670
$9
$17,456
PSPNP
Noncredit is successful & efficient
0 We need more time to finalize the info on Parenting, OA and DSPS0 ESL Pass rate 64-80% (lowest ESL less & middle more
successful, highest less successful)0 HS good Pass rate0 Parenting high pass
0 Number of hours necessary to Pass & SP0 ESL0 CTE
0 Cost for success and non-success0 Cost over three semesters
Considering Accountabilityand the Resolutions
Healthy accountability should:0 Address higher level learning outcomes0 Report on authentic student proficiencies0 Indicate potential interventions and improvement 0 Target improved practice not just reportingNoncredit has piloted and examined training fro progress indicators and the results of student data.0 Fully support resolutions0 Urgency due to the link of funding and reporting
Questions
0 What are the factors in basic skills classes that represent barriers for students at your college?
0 Do you see anything here that would benefit your institution?
0 In addition to innovative and flexible scheduling, what other ideas do you have?
CCC General Student Ethnicity 2008-2009 in the General, Credit and Noncredit Population Compared to California’s Current and Projected Population
Ethnicity
ETHNICITY % Total
Enrollment
% Total Credit Basic
Skills/ESL
% Total Noncredit
Basic Skills/ESL
California Population
2010
California Population Ethnicity
Projection 2050
AFRICAN-AMERICAN
7% 11.3% 3.5% 6% 5%
ASIAN 12% 17% 15.5% 12% 13%
HISPANIC/ LATINO
30% 41.3% 52.1% 37% 52%
NATIVE AMERICAN
1% 0.9% 0.3% 1% 1%
PAC ISLANDER
1% .9% .3% 0% 1%
WHITE 35% 21.8% 12.3% 42% 26%
MiraCosta Noncredit ESL Data 2008 - 2009
Term I Persistence % Promotion %
Morning Classes 80% (10% Perfect Attendance) 43%
Evening Classes 80% (7% Perfect Attendance) 47%
Term II
Morning Classes 79% (9% Perfect Attendance) 50%
Evening Classes 79% (7% Perfect Attendance) 56%
Term III
Morning Classes 81% (8% Perfect Attendance) 30%
Evening Classes 76% (5% Perfect Attendance) 54%
Term IV
Morning Classes 78% (10% Perfect Attendance) 63%
Evening Classes 74% (8% Perfect Attendance) 46%
Brain Anatomy overlaid with Kolb’s Learning Cycle Zull p 18
Active Learning:Engages all of the Brain
Epilepsy Foundation of America http://www.epilepsyfoundation.org/about/science/functions.cfm
Note that as we go down the pyramid, we are engaging additional areas of the brain, creating deeper learning.
OVERVIEW and Background1. Issues with Accountability in Higher Education2. Mandated reporting– ARCC, CDCP and Basic Skills legislated reports – some does not include noncredit due to lack of success and progress indicators 3. CDCP certificates – current state of noncredit and CDCP4. BSI and the attempt to capture progress CB 21
a. Noncredit and credit aligned b. Progress only by subsequent enrollmentc. inability to count success
5. In noncredit progress all indicators and grades turned in are converted to UG ungraded at the state level
See Background document and Noncredit Accountability Documents for more information
43
Persistence Indicators
Is this the noncredit story? Link to Mira Costa Data