Developmental Education Program Survey (DEPS) 2

Transcription

1 Developmental Education Program Survey (DEPS) 2 A Statewide Survey of Developmental Education Programs and Policies FY 2011 Colby J. Stoever Isaac J. Ortega

2 Developmental Education Program Survey Texas statute requires submission of DE plans DE Plans were not standardized Narrative DE Plans Information reported across institutions was not consistent Information could not be effectively linked to outcome data Information could not be used to start effective statewide planning DE is an important issue to study, and policymakers are asking for increasing amounts of information.

3 DEPS Development Hunter Boylan s Research National Association of Developmental Education (NADE) Pilot Institutions Comments THECB expertise

4 DEPS Questions DEPS is behavioral (street level) survey. Do you have it? Who does it? When do you do it? Who gets it? To some degree --how is it done?

5 Survey Development 5 main sections General Information Academic Advising College Readiness Assessment Course Information Faculty Development Section 6- Interchangeable (Hot Topic Survey) ESL this year

6 Survey Development Old Developmental Education Plans 4 Institutions (2 universities, 2 community colleges) were given early versions and piloted the DEPS. Approval by Data/Research Committee Glossary of Terms developed. DEPS information website was developed. IHE s leadership were asked to provide a point person to complete the DEPS.

7 DEPS Training DEPS training sessions were conducted with all institutions two weeks prior to the start of the survey (Live Meeting). Question and Answer sessions were conducted at the time of training. FAQ s section was added to DEPS website based on training session and all question asked to staff All institutions were provided with a DEPS address and staff contacts to answer questions during the survey process.

8 Survey Methodology 97 Public Institutions 67 CTC s and/or Districts 30 Universities (institutions with only DE programs) Institutions were given 6 weeks to complete the survey. After all institutions completed the survey, each institution was sent an error report and asked to fix all errors and resubmit survey. Institutions were then asked to certify their survey responses.

9 Reporting DEPS Statewide, 2-year, and university results are posted online. Individual institution reports were posted online. EPS.cfm

10 ORGANIZATION OF D.E. PROGRAMS

11 Institutions with Centralized Developmental Education Programs 2011 (N=30) 40% 60% 2010 (N=29) 2011 (N=67) 66% 34% 55% 45% University Decentralized Univ Centralized C.C. Decentralized C.C. Centralized 2010 (N=67) 39% 61% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

12 Percentage of Decentralized Institutions with DE Coordinators 2011 (N=21) 19% 81% 2010 (N=19) 21% 79% Univ No Univ Yes 2011 (N=43) 49% 51% C.C. No C.C. Yes 2010 (N=42) 31% 69% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

13 Example Mission Statements Our mission is to help students develop the attitude, skills, and knowledge necessary to advance in their academic pursuits. We will work to help students understand the benefits of cooperative learning and how it can be balanced with independent thinking to foster lifelong learning. Mission Statement - The College Preparatory Studies recognizes the need of under prepared students needing to bridge the gap between entry-level skills and college skills work in math, reading, and writing. It is the goal of the department to provide an academic base for all students enrolled in developmental courses by providing accurate placement with advising, as well as delivering effective instruction that incorporates use of technology, and utilizing support services to assist students in developing the academic skills necessary for college-level work. The purpose of the College Preparatory Studies department is to prepare students for college level course work by strengthening reading, writing, and mathematical skills.

14 ACADEMIC ADVISING

15 Institutions Requiring Academic Advising for DE Students 2011 (N=28) 0% 100% 2010 (N=29) 3% 97% Univ No Univ Yes 2011 (N=62) 15% 85% CC No CC Yes 2010 (N=67) 19% 81% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

16 Specialized Academic Advising for DE Students 2011 (N=28) 25% 75% 2010 (N=28) 2011 (N=62) 2010 (N=55) 36% 64% 44% 56% 51% 49% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Univ Not Specialized Univ Specialized Advising CC Not Specialized CC Specialized Advising

17 Specialized D.E. Advising Examples Group Advising- all FTIC students are required to attend a group advising session prior to registering for their first semester (this encompasses developmental students). Drop Advising- all developmental students wanting to withdraw from a course must with an advisor prior to withdrawing from any course. In addition, instructor signatures are needed prior to dropping the course. Returning Group Advising- All students enrolled in SDEV0370 (Foundations for College Learning) and SDEV0170 (College Success) will be presented with a returning group advising session by an advisor in preparation for the upcoming semester (this encompasses developmental students). Students who are not college ready based on their initial assessments will be individually advised by well-trained and knowledgeable developmental advisors before they enroll. Students will receive an individualized Academic Success Plan, with their initial scores, developmental course requirements, and retest requirements, and measures of college readiness clearly designated. Students will be assigned a developmental advisor to assist them with future enrollment and questions. Only students who are college ready in all TSI skill areas (reading, writing, math) can enroll themselves in classes without the assistance of an advisor. Students are required to complete TSI paperwork (advising contract) and meet with the TSI advisor each semester.

18 Institutions that Develop Individualized Education Plans for DE Students 2011 (N=30) 3% 97% 2010 (N=29) 24% 76% Univ No Univ Yes 2011 (N=67) 18% 82% CC No CC Yes 2010 (N=67) 42% 58% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

19 ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE MONITORING

20 Institutions that Monitor DE Students Academic Performance 2011 (N=30) 17% 83% 2010 (N=25) 14% 86% Univ No Univ Yes 2011 (N=67) 24% 76% CC No CC Yes 2010 (N=67) 19% 81% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

21 Monitoring Academic Performance Examples Weekly absentee reports prepared by DE Faculty and submitted to Professional Advisor's. Students demonstrating attendance irregularities receive a phone call or visit from either the Advisor or the Instructor. Advisor's use these reports as part of "Early Alert" system. Students with poor academic performance at mid-term are notified via mail and phone and are required to meet with their Advisor. Faculty monitor attendance and performance. If a student is missing class then they are sent warning letters. Students who need help are advised to go to the counseling office. Office of Institutional Research collects cohort data. The data is used to identify retention, success, and persistence rates. DE advisors work with faculty to monitor student performance throughout the semester. Students who perform poorly on class work, quizzes, or exams, or who demonstrate attendance problems are contacted for additional advisement sessions, during which referrals for additional support might be made. TSI Coordinator oversees daily advising procedures, and Director monitors effective coordination between faculty, advisors, and students.

22 Institutions with Early Warning Systems 2011 (N=30) 13% 87% 2010 (N=25) 8% 92% Univ No Univ Yes 2011 (N=67) 25% 75% CC No CC Yes 2010 (N=54) 24% 76% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

23 Early Warning Examples Faculty monitor performance on an ongoing basis. They initially address students that are not performing well and subsequently refer students to an intervention coordinator. Intervention coordinators contact and work with students and refer them to appropriate resources such as tutoring, counseling, etc. and perform follow-up and tracking. Weekly Absentee Reports (Students demonstrating attendance irregularities receive a phone call or visit from either the Advisor or the Instructor); Mid-term Grade Reports; Referral to Center for Academic Support for tutoring by Advisor and faculty. Student development staff, instructors, coaches and scholarship supervisors exchange information regarding student performance and attendance in an effort to monitor progress and retain students. Students are contacted via telephone, , and letters to encourage regular student attendance.

24 COLLEGE READINESS ASSESSMENTS

25 TSI Approved Mathematics Assessments Used by Institutions CTC s CR Assessment Frequency ACCUPLACER 51 (76.12%) ASSET 17 (25.3%) COMPASS 26 (38.8%) THEA 40 (59.7%) Universities CR Assessment Frequency ACCUPLACER 22 (73.3%) ASSET 1 (3.3%) COMPASS 8 (26.6%) THEA 18 (60%) *CTC (N=67), Universities (N=30)

26 TSI Approved Reading Assessments Used by Institutions CTC s CR Assessment Frequency ACCUPLACER 50 (74.6%) ASSET 18 (26.8%) COMPASS 14 (20.9%) THEA 40 (59.7%) Universities CR Assessment Frequency ACCUPLACER 21 (70%) ASSET 2 (6.67%) COMPASS 9 (30%) THEA 20 (66.6%) *CTC (N=67), Universities (N=30)

27 TSI Approved Writing Assessments Used by Institutions CTC s CR Assessment Frequency ACCUPLACER 51 (76.2%) ASSET 17 (25.3%) COMPASS 27 (40.3%) THEA 38 (56.7%) Universities CR Assessment Frequency ACCUPLACER 20 (66.6%) ASSET 1 (3.3%) COMPASS 6 (20%) THEA 17 (56.6%) *CTC (N=67), Universities (N=30)

28 FACULTY DEVELOPMENT

29 Institutions with Faculty Development Units 2011 (N=30) 33% 67% 2010 (N=29) 17% 83% Univ No Univ Yes 2011 (N=67) 40% 60% CC No CC Yes 2010 (N=67) 33% 67% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

30 Institutions Having Professional Development Opportunities for DE Faculty 2011 (N=30) 50% 50% 2010 (N=29) 45% 55% Univ No Univ Yes 2011 (N=67) 13% 87% CC No CC Yes 2010 (N=67) 25% 75% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

31 Institutions that Hold Regular Meetings of DE Faculty to Discuss Institutional Strategies 2011 (N=30) 37% 63% 2010 (N=29) 38% 62% Univ No Univ Yes 2011 (N=67) 27% 73% CC No CC Yes 2010 (N=67) 24% 76% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

32 Examples of D.E. Faculty Development National Association of Developmental Education (NADE) 12 - NADE focuses on the academic success of students by: Providing professional development Supporting student learning Providing public leadership Disseminating exemplary models of practice Coordinating efforts with other organizations Facilitating communication among developmental education professionals Anticipating trends

33 Examples of D.E. Faculty Development (Continued) Learning Communities We have had in-house workshops in which we've brought in experts from other colleges and universities; we've had numerous break-out presentations on this topic at Faculty conferences; and we have sent faculty to professional workshops at Columbia University, Evergreen State University, and other places. North Texas Community College Consortium 5 Personnel presented to developmental faculty from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board as well as representatives from regional developmental programs. This was a one day workshop.

34 Number of Institutions that Include DE Part-Time Lectures/Adjunct Faculty in DE Faculty Meeting 2011 (N=11) 9% 91% 2010 (N=17) 0% 100% Univ No Univ Yes 2011 (N=49) 12% 88% CC No CC Yes 2010 (N=50) 12% 88% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

35 COURSE INFORMATION

36 Levels of Math D.E. CTC s (N=67) Levels Frequency 0 0 (0.0%) 1 0 (0.0%) 2 3 (4.4%) 3 45 (67.1%) 4 14 (20.9%) 5 5 (7.4%) Universities (N=30) Levels Frequency 0 0 (0.0%) 1 4(13.3%) 2 21 (70%) 3 5 (16.6%) 4 0 (0.0%) 5 0 (0.0%)

37 Levels of Reading D.E. CTC s (N=67) Levels Frequency 0 0 (0.0%) 1 4 (5.9%) 2 22 (32.8%) 3 35 (52.2%) 4 6 (8.9%) 5 0 (0.0%) Universities (N=30) Levels Frequency 0 0 (0.0%) 1 22 (73.3%) 2 6 (20%) 3 2 (6.6%) 4 0 (0.0%) 5 0 (0.0%)

38 Levels of Writing D.E. CTC s (N=67) Levels Frequency 0 0 (0.0%) 1 7 (10.4%) 2 34 (50.7%) 3 21 (31.3%) 4 5 (7.4%) 5 0 (0.0%) Universities (N=29) Levels Frequency 0 0 (0.0%) 1 22 (75.8%) 2 6 (20%) 3 1 (3.4%) 4 0 (0.0%) 5 0 (0.0%)

39 Systematic Plan for DE Course Evaluation: (N=29) 24% 76% 2010 (N=67) 21% 79% Univ No Univ Yes CC No CC Yes 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

40 Systematic Plan for DE Course Evaluation: (N=30) 2011 (N=67) 66.7% 73.3% 76.7% 76.1% 77.6% 85.1% Univ Writing Univ Reading Univ Mathematics CC Writing CC Reading CC Mathematics 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

41 Offer Study Skills/Learning Strategies Courses 2011 (N=30) 27% 73% 2010 (N=29) 17% 83% Univ No Univ Yes 2011 (N=67) 12% 88% CC No CC Yes 2010 (N=67) 18% 82% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

42 Offer Study Skills/Learning Strategies Seminars/Workshops 2011 (N=30) 27% 73% 2010 (N=29) 17% 83% Univ No Univ Yes 2011 (N=67) 36% 64% CC No CC Yes 2010 (N=67) 30% 70% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

43 Non-Course Based Remediation: (N=29) 34% 66% 2010 (N=67) 45% 55% Univ No Univ Yes CC No CC Yes 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

44 Non-Course Based Remediation: (N=67) 2011 (N=67) 30.0% 33.3% 46.7% 23.9% 22.4% 31.3% Univ Writing Univ Reading Univ Mathematics CC Writing CC Reading CC Mathematics 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

45 ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS (ELL)

46 Institutions Providing ESL Services 2011 (N=30) 27% 73% 2011 (N=67) 30% 70% Univ No Univ Yes CC No CC Yes 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

47 Nature of ESL Programs 2011 (N=22) 14% 14% 73% Univ Both Univ Non Credit Bearing Univ Credit Bearing CC Both 2011 (N=47) 8% 35% 57% CC Noncredit Bearing CC Credit Bearing 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

48 Future DEPS is under review by the DE Advisory Committee for the next 2 years. Translation.

49 Thank You