Complete College OCCC OCCC Course Success Overview Office of Institutional Effectiveness September 18, 2013 Presentation By: Matt Eastwood

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Structured Learning Assistance. SLA Objectives Increase the number of students completing developmental requirements and earning their core mathematics.
Advertisements

Mathematics Course Redesign at the University of Idaho.
3 Developmental Math Courses Basic Math, Elementary Algebra, Intermediate Algebra 6 College Level Math Courses College Algebra, Statistics, Finite Math.
Day 3 of a fabulous year September 17, 2014 Presentation to the Board (Adapted from the All-School Assembly 9/4/2014)
Achieving the Dream: Baseline Data Office of Institutional Research, Planning, and Assessment December 2007 Research Report No
Freeman Elementary…state of the school.. Freeman Building Wide Goals Reading:  By May 2013, the percentage of K-2 students achieving benchmark standards.
1 Medicaid Reporting and Trend Review Department of Social Services Division of Financial Services October 10, 2014.
Illinois High School to College Success Report High School Feedback Reporting In Cooperation with ACT, Inc. Illinois Community College Board Illinois Board.
Student Success Pilot Project Overview Student Success Pilot Project ITS Workgroup March 8, 2010.
Report of Achieving the Dream Data Team October 10, 2007.
Report of Achieving the Dream Data Team January 11, 2008.
Achieving the Dream Using Data at SFCC Developing a Culture of Evidence Presentation to the Retention Committee February, 2006.
Math Placement at Utica College Superintendents Breakfast April 19, 2012.
Pass Rates in Paired and Unpaired Courses Fall 1998 Office of Institutional Research LaGuardia Community College.
Basic Algebra: A Comparison of Results- Hybrid Vs. Online AMATYC Conference Minneapolis, MN November 1, 2007 Louise Olshan County College of Morris.
 Jennifer Azzaro & Jon Townsend SJDC Professional Development Center.
Achieving the Dream: Developmental Courses and Student Retention Office of Institutional Research, Planning, and Assessment January 2008 Research Report.
Transforming Student Learning in Chemistry and Physics with Supplemental Instruction Jordan D. Mathias and Mitch H. Weiland April 30, 2013.
Return of Title IV Funds R2T4 NYSFAAA REGION VII PRESENTER DEBRA HANSEN STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY.
Data Analysis of Sweetwater High School Presented by: LeLycia Henderson & Zorayda Delgado.
ARCC /08 Reporting Period Prepared by: Office of Institutional Research & Planning February 2010.
Complete College OCCC OCCC Course Success Overview Fall 2013 Highlights Office of Institutional Effectiveness February 12, 2014 Presentation By: Matt Eastwood.
Dual Credit and Advanced Placement: Do They Help Prepare Students for Success in College? Mardy Eimers, Director of Institutional Research & Planning Robert.
College Success Program Fall 2010 Annual Report College Success Program.
Classroom Utilization Capacity Management Study: Findings and Next Steps Doug Swink Registrar Tuesday, December 7, 2010.
ARCC Accountability Report for the Community Colleges Focus on Quality.
It’s Time To Play… 2011 Plater Institute on the Future of Learning Rules of the Game Question format: Multiple choice Score sheets: 1 point for each.
Complete College OCCC Fall 2012 AtD Cohort Retention September 18,
© New Student Definitions As a result of the Foundations of Excellence © Self Study New: All students that have earned less than 15 college level credit.
Suspension Data Fall 2009 Compared to Fall Number of Students Suspended – Grade Level.
MSJC BSI Baseline Measures using FA’06 as Baseline and includes SP’07/FA’07/SP’08 Prepared for Instructional Services Updated 7/22/08 Compiled by MSJC.
Correlation between Different Online Homework Systems, Student Success, and Knowledge Decay Blain Mamiya, Ph.D., Professor of Chemistry, Independence Community.
The Nation’s Report Card Science National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
DRE: Developmental Reading and English
Chris Schroeder Morehead State University Morehead, Kentucky The National Center for Academic Transformation Redesign Alliance Fourth Annual Conference.
Final Report. WST 100 and WST 300 Large introductory course traditionally serving up to 2400 students a year in 18 sections With redesign we are able.
1 System Level Accountability Measures Dec. 16, 2003.
UNDERSTANDING 2012 NATIONAL SURVEY OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT (NSSE) RESULTS Nicholls State University October 17, 2012.
Achieving the Dream: Alexandria Campus Baseline Data Office of Institutional Research, Planning, and Assessment January 2008 Research Report No
What Did We Find - Challenges Homogenous population High levels of poverty High number of first generation college students High levels of math dual placement.
 California community colleges serve over 2.9 million students each year  70 to 80% of students enrolled in California community colleges need developmental.
2010 ARCC Overview Michael Orkin, Ph.D. Associate Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs Peralta Community College District.
Higher Education Data Vernon College & Midwestern State University.
CCSSE 2012 Findings for Southern Crescent Technical College.
Student Success Updates Shelley Tiwari, Achieving the Dream Project Director.
Student Enrollment By Grade Graduating Class size 458 (396 Recommended H.S. Program ◦ 62 Minimum H.S. Program)
Achieving the Dream Preliminary Assessment of Developmental Strategies Data Team August 13, 2007.
Weber State University Impact in Davis County Presented to the Davis Chamber of Commerce Legislative Affairs Committee October 6, 2011 Brad Mortensen.
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board Data Highlight: Completion CAAP Meeting March 30,
Laney College Institutional Effectiveness Goal Indicators: Proposal for Adoption Draft Proposal June 13, 2016.
Community College of Rhode Island Enrollment Report: Fall 2008 Who Are Our Students? William LeBlanc, Institutional Research & Planning.
Report of Achieving the Dream Data Team
Report of Achieving the Dream Data Team
Newberry Data Overview
Report of Achieving the Dream Data Team
Objectives How reliable are the student success measures that are reported to the Board of Trustees? How accurate is the underlying student record data.
Louisiana State University DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS Course Redesign Using Technology Spring 2008
State System of the.
Annual Report Georgetown ISD 2016 Accountability Rating:
TEXAS Grant Program Report
Educational Master Plan
Indicators Four areas of institutional effectiveness
Texas Academic Performance Report (TAPR)
Measuring Student Success Ysu 2020 Strategic plan – Cornerstone update
SVC Students: Who are they
Report on the TEXAS Grant Program for Fiscal Year 2014
Report of Achieving the Dream Data Team
Annual Report Public Hearing
Student Demographics and Success Trends
USG Dual Enrollment Data and Trends
Presentation transcript:

Complete College OCCC OCCC Course Success Overview Office of Institutional Effectiveness September 18, 2013 Presentation By: Matt Eastwood 1

What is success? - Adopting definitions used by Achieving the Dream, course success is defined as a student earning a(n) A, B, C or S as their final grade in a course. What is a success rate? - The number of students in a given population that received an A, B, C or S as percent of the entire population. Students receiving an Incomplete grade or Auditing the course were not included in the aggregate. 2

2 -Year over year percent change in credit hours was -8.1%. -OCCC course success increased by.7 percentage points since last year. -Since 2006, the percentage of F grades has increased 3 percentage points and the percentage of W grades has decreased by the same amount.

4

Course Level FY 2006FY 2013Percent Difference 0000 Level Level Level Campus Breakdown of Enrollments by Course Level - FY 2013 vs. FY

-Since its low in 2010, developmental math have increased their success rates by 18.4 points. -Reading has increased its success rates 8.5 percentage points since its low in FY

- In Fiscal Year 2008, 23% of all enrollments were online, by 2013 this number had increased to 40% of all SCL enrollments. Success in College and Life - Success Rates (FY 2006 through FY 2013) Fiscal YearEnrollments 20082, , , , , ,158 7

- 40% of our students this fall enrolled in one or more online courses. 8

9

- 5 of the 11 ‘Large Programs’ witnessed an increase in overall success rates since FY

-In 2006, 80% of all enrollments were in 16 week formats, and 15% were in 8 week formats. 11

12

13 -One night a week course successes ranged from 67.1% success for Fridays only, to 73.0% success on Tuesdays only during FY 2013.

- These courses consist of any general education course with more than 800 enrollments during last fiscal year. 14 courses met this threshold. 14

Traditional versus Online Comparisons Percent Change Difference in Percent Traditional Enrollments3,3593, % Online Enrollments6471, % Traditional Success68.4%68.9%0.5 Online Success51.5%64.4%12.9 Percentage of Enrollments Online16.2%25.1% 15

Traditional versus Online Comparisons Percent Change Difference in Percent Traditional Enrollments2,9572,9710.5% Online Enrollments % Traditional Success62.3%61.2%-1.1 Online Success60.6%50.5%-10.1 Percentage of Enrollments Online13.2%20.6% 16

Traditional versus Online Comparisons Percent Change Difference in Percent Traditional Enrollments3,1312, % Online Enrollments5431, % Traditional Success66.7%66.5%-0.2 Online Success40.9%57.9%17.0 Percentage of Enrollments Online14.8%27.7% 17

Traditional versus Online Comparisons Percent Change Difference in Percent Traditional Enrollments2,4182, % Online Enrollments % Traditional Success70.2%57.7%-12.5 Online Success61.0%66.3%5.3 Percentage of Enrollments Online13.6%20.7% 18

Traditional versus Online Comparisons Percent Change Difference in Percent Traditional Enrollments1,5682, % Online Enrollments % Traditional Success60.6%63.5%2.9 Online Success51.3%51.9%0.6 Percentage of Enrollments Online10.8%18.1% 19

Traditional versus Online Comparisons Percent Change Difference in Percent Traditional Enrollments2,1981, % Online Enrollments % Traditional Success71.3%68.9%-2.4 Online Success60.0%65.8%5.8 Percentage of Enrollments Online21.2%29.0% 20

Traditional versus Online Comparisons Percent Change Difference in Percent Traditional Enrollments % Online Enrollments % Traditional Success65.4%58.2%-7.2 Online Success85.3%63.0%-22.3 Percentage of Enrollments Online22.8%50.2% 21

Traditional versus Online Comparisons Percent Change Difference in Percent Traditional Enrollments1,2641, % Online Enrollments % Traditional Success69.1%62.3%-6.8 Online Success71.6%67.3%-4.3 Percentage of Enrollments Online15.5%23.4% 22

Traditional versus Online Comparisons Percent Change Difference in Percent Traditional Enrollments1, % Online Enrollments % Traditional Success72.1%65.2%-6.9 Online Success63.5%44.2%-19.3 Percentage of Enrollments Online17.8%44.3% 23

Traditional versus Online Comparisons Percent Change Difference in Percent Traditional Enrollments1, % Online Enrollments % Traditional Success69.6%61.5%-8.1 Online Success71.7%65.8%-5.9 Percentage of Enrollments Online17.9%28.4% 24

Traditional versus Online Comparisons2011*2013Percent Change Difference in Percent Traditional Enrollments1,2751, % Online Enrollments % Traditional Success51.3%47.0%-4.3 Online Success68.0%76.2%8.2 Percentage of Enrollments Online19.9%25.4% 25 * FY 2011 is the first year with a significant number of online enrollments availalble.

* Chem-1115 does not offer online sections. 26

Traditional versus Online Comparisons Percent Change Difference in Percent Traditional Enrollments % Online Enrollments % Traditional Success77.3%76.6%-0.7 Online Success66.1%70.0%3.9 Percentage of Enrollments Online16.2%38.9% 27