College Success Program Fall 2010 Annual Report College Success Program.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
David Fairris Tarek Azzam
Advertisements

Achieving the Dream: Baseline Data Office of Institutional Research, Planning, and Assessment December 2007 Research Report No
Complete College OCCC OCCC Course Success Overview Office of Institutional Effectiveness September 18, 2013 Presentation By: Matt Eastwood
Tennessee Education Lottery Scholarship Program Annual Report Tennessee Higher Education Commission January 29, 2009.
Richard Turner Assessment and Certification Center Manager Florida State College at Jacksonville Kent Campus 1.
Funding Formula Data Work Session Student Information System Website: ▬►Resources ▬►CompleteCollegeTN.
Report of Achieving the Dream Data Team November 14, 2007.
Institutional Effectiveness and the National Community College Benchmark Project Dr. Glynis Daniels Dr. Ceil Connelly-Weida Lehigh Carbon Community College.
HOPE Changes DOE Workshop. HOPE Scholarship Basic eligibility requirements: –Unchanged for current seniors College Prep Diploma – 3.0 GPA Career Tech.
Report of Achieving the Dream Data Team January 11, 2008.
Instruction Matters: Purdue Academic Course Transformation (IM:PACT) Longitudinal analysis of GPA, DFW and Retention Rates, Fall 2011-Fall 2013 M. Brooke.
AGC Update November Wyoming Public Schools’ Middle College is a collaboration between Wyoming Public Schools and Grand Rapids Community College.
Financial Aid Scenarios How enrollment status can impact a student’s financial aid status.
1 Foothill College Basic Skills College Hour Rob Johnstone, Ph.D. 10/8/03.
June 17, % of our high school students indicate their intention to go on to college. - OUS Post High School Plan Survey, 2003.
Dual Credit and Advanced Placement: Do They Help Prepare Students for Success in College? Mardy Eimers, Director of Institutional Research & Planning Robert.
Patricia Bergh, Dean of Humanities Professors Laura Tobias, Michele Dunnum, and Jackie Knoll.
A Comprehensive Analysis of a PrOF Instructional Data Packet To illustrate the data analysis process CRC Research Office 2009.
Background of Performance Measures identified 12 Performance Measures Baseline data collected in Performance Funding in Results.
Dr. Christina Whitfield April 29, 2013 Big E Symposium KCTCS PERFORMANCE METRICS WHERE’S THE DATA?
Collaboration with College Faculty to Develop and Implement an Enrollment Management Plan Presented to the Texas Association for Institutional Research,
Region VII College and Career Readiness Data AVATAR Initiatives.
1 2-YR INCREASES FOR A+ COLLEGE READY COHORT 1 SCHOOLS FAR EXCEED NATIONAL AND STATE AVERAGES Percentage Increase in scores of 3 or greater in math, science,
Common Measures How do we fit?. 2 Overview Common Measures, where did they come from? Common Measures Concepts New Reporting Elements Questions Common.
College Success Program Fall 2009 Annual Report. Fall 2009 Cohort For comparative analysis, the cohort of Clermont students whose first enrolled term.
ARCC Accountability Report for the Community Colleges Focus on Quality.
EXPLORE and PLAN College Readiness Benchmark Scores The EXPLORE and PLAN College Readiness Benchmark Scores are based on the ACT College Readiness Benchmark.
Data Collection Process: USDOL Data Requirements Colleges must be able to identify grant participants by program (credit & non-credit) I. Initial Point.
Middle College High San Bernardino Valley College Their future starts here.
LEADERSHIP COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 10, 2013 Update on Curriculum Enrollment, Student Characteristics & Student Success.
Aggregated Core Indicator Data TOPs Code 12 – Performance Of All Voc Ed & Special Populations Students.
SLOs Shamica Long-Lane. Purpose of SLO’s Measure the growth of ALL students Focused on ALL students moving forward Expectation is different for each student.
A Workshop on Satisfactory Academic Progress FYA101 Fall 2012.
A Tool for Tracking the Enrollment Flow of Older Undergraduates William E. Knight and Robert W. Zhang Bowling Green State University Dwindling state financial.
Complete College OCCC Fall 2012 AtD Cohort Retention September 18,
MSU Retention Profile: Part II. * Includes full-time and part-time, associate and bachelor credential-seeking students.
ESC Region XI Module Two B Studying Local Data for Region XI Fort Worth Partners All AVATAR artifacts :
An Equal Opportunity University Transitions from High School to the University of Kentucky Mike Mullen Associate Provost for Undergraduate Education.
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.
Retention: Some Recurring Themes n Impact of small groups on freshmen retention n Does declaring a major make a difference in retention? n Do GPA ranges.
LEEWARD COMMUNITY COLLEGE NEW STUDENT ORIENTATION
STATISTICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR EXAMINING PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS Carli Straight, PhD and Giovanni Sosa, PhD Chaffey College RP Group Conference.
Identifying At-Risk Students With Two- Phased Regression Models Jing Wang-Dahlback, Director of Institutional Research Jonathan Shiveley, Research Analyst.
Middle College High San Bernardino Valley College Their future starts here.
What Did We Find - Challenges Homogenous population High levels of poverty High number of first generation college students High levels of math dual placement.
AGC Update April This AGC update will report on process measures that currently pertain to the Wyoming Middle College.
Integrated Basic Skills & Certified Nursing Assistance Program In 2 quarters students are prepared to work as Certified Nursing Assistants upon completion.
JCHS School Counselors 10 th -12 th Grade Counselors: Mr. Chrisman: Students A-Co Mr. Montgomery: Students Cr-He
Cohort Graduation Rate. Cohort Graduation Rate Trends by Ethnicity 2014 N Size
Institutional Effectiveness at CPCC DENISE H WELLS.
Achieving the Dream Preliminary Assessment of Developmental Strategies Data Team August 13, 2007.
President’s Special Commission to Improve Graduation Rates Retention & Graduation Presentation to PAC 1.
DEI A Title V Project Developmental Education Initiative.
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board Data Highlight: Completion CAAP Meeting March 30,
SUPPORTING DATA 1 Pipeline Subcommittee June 29, 2010 DRAFT.
Report of Achieving the Dream Data Team
Overview of Year One and Into Year Two November, 2016
North Texas Regional P-16 Gap Analysis for the School Year of
SCC Basic Skills Initiative
ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN 2020
Student Success Scorecard & Other Institutional Effectiveness Metrics
AVID College Completion Project
Undergraduate Retention
SCC Basic Skills Initiative
Academic Progress Standards
Using Advanced Analytics to Boost Student Success
MSJC Demographics AY 2007-’08
CCC Operational Definitions
Advanced Placement Enrollments & Exam Results
Report of Achieving the Dream Data Team
Presentation transcript:

College Success Program Fall 2010 Annual Report College Success Program

Fall 2010 Cohort For comparative analysis, the cohort of Clermont students whose first enrolled term at the university equals 10A was selected. The CSP Participants, Non-participants, College Ready and Developmental Education cohorts are defined as follows: –CSP Participants are students who placed into 2 or 3 developmental courses and participated in the CSP program CSP Participants have been divided into 2 subgroups: –CSPA are students who had ongoing visits during 10A and additional support during 11W & 11S in some cases. –CSPB are students who registered for CSP and had one meeting during 10A. –Non-participants are students who placed into 2 or 3 developmental courses and did not participate in the CSP program. NOTE: 09A cohort was recoded based on the new Reading Placement Test cut-scores implemented 10S. –College Ready are students who have placement test scores on file in one or more areas, placed into fewer than 2 developmental courses and did not participate in the CSP program. NOTE: 09A cohort was recoded based on the new Reading Placement Test cut-scores implemented 10S. –Developmental Education are students who had 1 placement test score on file and placed into 1 developmental course. These students do not meet the CSP or College Ready cohort definitions The 10A Total in the demographic section reflects the composition of all Clermont students enrolled in 10A. Calculations of the average GPA have changed to reflect total quality points earned versus average of grade point averages.

Fall 2010 Demographics CSP Participants (N=61) Non- Participants (N=169) College Ready (N=519) Dev Education (N=4) 10A Total (N=3,990) #%#%#%#%#% Freshmen61100%169100%519100%4 2,37860% Male1931%7645%24447%125%1,68042% Female4269%9355%27553%375%2,31058% Full-time (12+)3252%11669%40879%375%2,52163% Half-time (6-11)2846%4325%8917%00%1,11128% Part-time (1-5)13%106%224%125%3589% Percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding

Fall 2010 Average Term GPA N=61 n=61 N=48 n=48 N=519 n=505 One-way Anova with Dunnet T3 post hoc analysis determined mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level between 10A NP & 10A CR cohorts N=13 n=13 N=169 n=160 N=4 n=4

Fall 2010 and Fall 2009 Average GPAs

Fall 2010 Course Completion Hours Carried Hours Earned % Carried Hours Earned CSP Participants % CSPA % CSPB % Non-participants % College Ready % Developmental Ed %

Fall 2010 and Fall 2009 Course Completion The percentage of carried hours earned by 10A CSP Participants exceeds 10A Non-participants and is comparable to 10A College Ready. The 10A CSPA percentage of carried hours earned exceeds the 10A College Ready by 10%. Hours Carried Hours Earned % Carried Hours Earned 10A CSP Participants % 10A CSPA % 10A CSPB % 10A Non-participants % 10A College Ready % 10A Developmental41 100% 09A CSP Participants % 09A CSPA % 09A CSPB % 09A Non-participants % 09A College Ready %

Second Quarter Persistence Cohort Fall Entering Headcount Enrolled WinterNot Enrolled Winter #% Avg Fall GPA #% 10A CSP Participants615692% % A CSPA131292% % A CSPB484492% % A Non-participants % % A College Ready % % A Developmental44100% A CSP Participants423583% % A CSPA161381% % A CSPB262285% % A Non-participants906876% % A College Ready % %1.034 Fall to Winter Note: Average fall gpa based on students who have a gpa on record for fall quarter. *Reading criteria changed in 10A were applied retroactively for comparison purposes which resulted in a change in the cohorts

Second Quarter Average GPAs Note: Reflects second quarter persistence of students who were enrolled fall and winter quarters and have a gpa on record for both quarters.

Winter 2010 Course Completion Hours Carried Hours Earned % Carried Hours Earned CSP Participants % CSPA % CSPB % Non-participants % College Ready % Developmental373081% Note: For data consistency, we followed term-to-term persistence as in charts for GPA which is different from previous years

Winter 2010 and Winter 2009 Course Completion Note: The winter quarter percentage of carried hours earned by 10A CSPA Participants exceeds 10A College Ready. Hours Carried Hours Earned % Carried Hours Earned 10A CSP Participants % 10A CSPA % 10A CSPB % 10A Non-participants % 10A College Ready % 10A Developmental373081% 09A CSP Participants % 09A CSPA % 09A CSPB % 09A Non-participants % 09A College Ready %

Third Quarter Persistence Cohort Entering Cohort Enrolled SpringNot Enrolled Spring FallWinter# % of Wtr ret’d Avg Winter GPA # % of Wtr ret’d Avg Winter GPA 10A CSP Participants % % A CSPA % % A CSPB % % A Non-Participants % % A College Ready % % A Developmental444100% NA 09A CSP Participants % % A CSP A % % ACSP B % % A Non-participants % % A College Ready % %2.035 Winter to Spring Note: Reflects third quarter persistence of students who were enrolled both fall and winter quarters. Students who were enrolled fall, stopped out winter, then enrolled spring quarter are not included. Average winter gpa based on students who have a gpa on record for winter quarter.

Third Quarter Average GPAs Reflects students who were enrolled fall, winter and spring quarters. * One-way Anova with Dunnet T3 post hoc analysis determined mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level between the Non- participants and College Ready

Spring 2010 & Spring 2009 Course Completion Reflects students who were enrolled fall, winter and spring quarters and have hours carried/earned on record for spring quarter Hours Carried Hours Earned % Carried Hours Earned 10A CSP Participants % 10A CSPA % 10A CSPB % 10A Non-participants % 10A College Ready % 10A Developmental % 09A CSP Participants % 09A CSPA % 09A CSPB % 09A Non Participants % 09A College Ready %

First Year Retention Cohort Entering Cohort Enrolled Following Fall Quarter Not Enrolled Following Fall Quarter Fall#% Avg Fall College GPA #% Avg Spring Term GPA 10A CSP Participants613253% %2.899 CSPA131077% %0 CSPB482246% % A Non-Participants % % A College Ready % % A CSP Developmental44100%2.6160NA 09A CSP Participants421945% %2.467 CSPA161169% %2.533 CSPB26831% % A Non-Participants905258% % A College Ready % %2.576 Reflects all students in cohort who entered in the fall quarter and were enrolled in the fall quarter of the following year. Average fall gpa based on those students who have a gpa on record for fall quarter

Areas of Growth When looking at the number of subjects, those who participate in the program are 31% of the population who qualify Those who actively participate in the program are less than 10% of those who qualify