1. Redesigning Remedial Education TENNAIR – Fall 2012 Greg Schutz – TBR Lilly Hsu – TBR

2. Purpose  Introduce Tennessee Board of Regents (TBR) Learning Support (developmental education) course redesign results as background for analysis.  Set the stage for the importance of understanding Learning Support.  Provide some methods and tools for researching the impact of Learning Support (developmental education) and course redesign.

3. Definition The field of developmental education supports the academic and personal growth of underprepared college students through instruction, counseling, advising, and tutoring. The clients of developmental education programs are traditional and nontraditional students who have been assessed as needing to develop their skills in order to be successful in college (The National Center for Developmental Education, Retrieved from Web on 8/8/12).

4. Background  1984 – System-Wide Developmental Studies (DSP) Courses for High School Gaps  2001 – Defining our Future  2006 – NCAT Developmental Studies Redesign Grant o Partner: Education Commission of the States (ECS) o Partner: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS)  2007 – Redesign Planning for Developmental Studies  2008 – Pilots (Spring 08, Fall 08, Spring 09)  2010 – Policy Change from Developmental Studies Program (DSP) to Learning Support (LS)  2010 – Complete College Tennessee Act  2013 – System-Wide Implementation of LS

5. National Environment  Completion Agenda  More Credentials (Degrees/Certificates)  Outcome based assessment, funding, program planning, student learning  Course Embedded Remediation  Course Redesign  Fast Track to Degree Completion with dual enrollment, dual admission, reverse articulation, prior learning assessment

6. TBR Policy Changes (TBR A100)  New focus on success in college curriculum and away from high school gaps  Flexibility for new approaches and technology  Individualized plans based on diagnostic assessment  Competency-based mastery of academic skills and knowledge  Technology adaptive  Tracking of college success indicators

7. Assessment for Placement  Initial assessment as a screening tool (ACT or comparable)  Diagnostics (many options available)

8. Learning Support Defined Minimum scores are based upon national concordant score of February 2010.  Note: Prior to new A-100 guidelines subject scores were English = 19, Reading = 19, and Math = 19. TestCollege Course(s)ACT Benchmark Score Minimum Subject Concorded Score ACTCOMPASSASSET EnglishEnglish Composition 18 7743 ReadingSocial Studies 21 198343 MathCollege Algebra 22 193839

9. TBR A-100 Accountability Evaluation of the learning support services must be a continuous process. As a component of the approved plan, the institution will establish benchmarks and subsequent annual performance indicators to demonstrate progress of students who are placed in learning support. (TBR A-100 Guideline)

10. Delivery of LS is (very) Different  Under former Developmental Studies Program (DSP), students took traditional developmental studies courses in Reading, Writing and Math with each course as one semester in length.  Under the new Learning Support (LS) Initiative, the goal is for the student to be able to complete all required competencies in one semester. o Students only engage in LS competencies where they are diagnosed as requiring remediation. o Delivery of LS is technology driven

11. TBR A-100 Measures of Success  Common Student Outcomes o student completion of learning support, o enrollment and success in college entry-level courses, o fall to fall retention, and o graduation rates.  Unique institutional measures.  Tracking od students with ACT of 12 or below.  Annual reports from institutions to TBR  Intervention systems with the high school districts’ Local Educational Agency (LEA)

12. Each Redesign Pilot Unique  NeSCC – Emporium Model (reading)  CoSCC – Replacement Model (reading/writing)  APSU – Structured Learning Assistance (SLA) (math)  ClSCC – Emporium Model (math)  JSCC – Emporium Model (math)  ChSCC – Replacement Model (math)

13. Traditional Eight Courses College Level Algebra IIAlgebra I Basic Math College Level Dev. Reading Basic Reading College Level Dev. Writing Basic Writing College Level Study Skills

14. Retention and Graduation UniversitiesCommunity Colleges DSP CoursesACT Fall to Fall Retention Six Year Grad RateACT Fall to Fall Retention Six Year Grad Rate Zero23.471.9%45.4%22.161.5%29.1% One19.765.5%31.4%19.060.5%22.2% Two18.963.2%27.2%18.155.5%19.0% Three17.558.1%21.7%16.550.2%13.1% Four16.454.6%23.2%15.645.8%9.3% Five15.668.4%25.1%15.254.0%10.7% Six15.160.7%18.3%14.548.4%7.3% Seven14.365.4%19.2%13.945.4%6.5% Eight14.144.8%17.2%13.242.0% 3.8% Totals21.167.5%36.8%18.054.6% 18.0% 2000 First-Time Freshman Cohort. Based upon returning to or graduating from initial enrolling institution.

15. Sixteen Departure Points College Level Algebr a II Algebra I Basic Math College Level Dev. Reading Basic Reading College Level Dev. Writing Basic Writing College Level Study Skills Do not complete Do not enter

16. Five Other Departure Points 1. Never enter college or university 2. Never enter college Math 3. Never complete college Math 4. Never enter college English 5. Never complete college English

17. Austin Peay State University (APSU) Traditional Model Complete 3-6 hours non-university level courses before enrolling in Core Mathematics course MATH1010 Mathematical Thought and Practice Earn a D or Higher 85.0% all students 43.5% DSP students DSPM 0800 Elementary Algebra ACT 15-16 53.1% Complete course with a grade of C or higher DSPM 0850 Intermediate Algebra ACT 17-18; or Completed DSPM 0800 51.2% Complete course with a grade of C or higher Math 1530 Fundamentals of Statistics Earn a D or Higher 61.2% all students 28.8% DSP students

18. APSU Linked Workshop (Redesign) Model Professor: Classroom Core course content Grade determination SLA Leader: Workshop Prerequisite competencies Reinforce key course concepts Test review Guidance Feedback

19. APSU: Results CourseRedesign (LS)Traditional (DSP) Math 1010 (Mathematical Thought and Practice) 76.3%43.5% Math 1530 (Fundamentals of Statistics) 61.2%28.8% Course Completion of Student’s Requiring Support for Below College Level Competencies Notes: 1.Students completing the course earn a D or higher. 2.Below college level is Learning Support (LS) after redesign and Developmental Studies Program (DSP) prior to redesign.

20. Cleveland State Outcomes Total Pre-College Success Next Course Entry Next Course Success Count % % % Prior to Redesign 41320750.1%14168.1%7754.6% Redesign45129565.4%20870.5%15072.1% All86450258.1%34969.5%22765.0%

21. Cleveland’s Math Success TBR Study (Schutz & Tingle) - Cleveland State Redesign ◦ Students tracked 3 semesters before and after redesign ◦ Students tracked from dev math into college math ◦ Examined impact on course success & next course success ◦ Logistical regression, significance level 95% The Results ◦ Redesign had a strong positive impact on course success ◦ Redesign had a strong positive impact on next course success, including both dev math and college math ◦ Gender and race were not factors in predicting course success - achievement gaps were closed

22. Jackson State Outcomes 41% 54% 57% 59% 74% 72% 75% 83% Student Learning = Students making ABC Course Retention = Students enrolled in the course to the end of semester

23. Northeast State Community College Learning Outcomes  Student success ( “C” of better) increased from 52% (traditional) to 58% (redesigned delivery).  Students with a grade of “A” increased from 14% (traditional) to 30% (redesigned delivery).

24. Recommendations  Use technology to cut costs and improve student engagement  Embrace change for improvement from both inside the organization and out  Data-driven integration of tracking (trend), comparisons, and predictive benchmarking  Reduce student departure points  Best practice adoption and sharing  Tailor to individuals and student populations

25. Practical Tips  Recording of completion o Banner automation of courses and tests o Competency achievement codes Satisfied by assessment (diagnostic) Waived by advisor (manual recording equivalent to satisfied) Completed by course or post-test  Completion of college level course satisfies all competencies Required to complete In progress  TBR Indicators and Trajectories  TBR collection of Census and End-of-Term data

26. Models for Study  Cleveland State/TBR tracking through entry and completion with logistic regression.  Austin Peay comparison of traditional model and new model.  Enrollment extract competency tracking o R = Required o I = In Progress o S = Satisfied by Test o W = Waived Manually (Equivalent to S) o C = Completed (by Course or Test)  Complete College America tracking o Uses Banner modified form SZAADEF  National Center for Developmental Education publications - http://ncde.appstate.edu/publicationshttp://ncde.appstate.edu/publications

27. Next Steps for TBR Institutions  Under the TBR Completion Delivery Unit (CDU), the System will be focusing on learning support this year with projected impact on student degree completion.  TBR A-100 Guidelines have tracking mechanisms outlined.  State will be asking for Math and English course level data, which will likely be collected in the enrollment extract in fall 2013.  Institutions will be looking at costs and impact on funding formula.

28. Redesigning Remedial Education TENNAIR – Fall 2012 Treva.Berryman@tbr.edu Greg.Schutz@tbr.edu Lilly.Hsu@tbr.edu