Florida College System
Developmental Education
Accountability Reports
December 30, 2016
Acknowledgements
The Division of Florida Colleges gratefully acknowledges the contributions of the 28 colleges
within the Florida College System for their efforts to make educational opportunity a reality and
their collaboration which contributed to the creation in this product.
Preferred Citation
Florida College System Developmental Education Accountability Reports (2016). Tallahassee, FL:
Florida Department of Education, Division of Florida Colleges.
Copyright
2016 © Florida Department of Education, Division of Florida Colleges
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3
System Overview of Developmental Education Accountability .................................................... 3
Overall Student Course Outcomes .................................................................................................. 4
A Comparison of Enrollments ........................................................................................................ 5
Students Outcomes in Math by Delivery Strategy.......................................................................... 6
Student Outcomes in Reading by Delivery Strategy ...................................................................... 7
Student Outcomes in Writing by Delivery Strategy ....................................................................... 8
Student Success Outcomes for Targeted Subpopulations ............................................................... 8
Best Practices for Success ............................................................................................................... 9
Delivery Strategy Structure......................................................................................................... 9
Advising Services ....................................................................................................................... 9
Pedagogical Revisions ................................................................................................................ 9
Content alignment ..................................................................................................................... 10
Programmatic Implementations ................................................................................................ 11
Impact of Reforms ........................................................................................................................ 12
Impact to Student ...................................................................................................................... 13
Impact to Institution .................................................................................................................. 13
Impact to State .......................................................................................................................... 13
Future Efforts ................................................................................................................................ 14
Appendix A – 2015 Florida College System Developmental Accountability Reports Executive
Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 15
Appendix B – Developmental Education Student Course Outcomes ........................................... 16
Appendix C – 2015-16 Individual College Developmental Education Reports ........................... 17
Page 2 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
Introduction
This compilation of Florida College System (FCS) developmental education accountability
reports is submitted in accordance with section (s.) 1008.30(6)(b), Florida Statutes which states:
Beginning October 31, 2015, each Florida College System institution shall annually
prepare an accountability report that includes student success data relating to each
developmental education strategy implemented by the institution. The report shall be
submitted to the Division of Florida Colleges by October 31 in a format determined by
the Chancellor of the Florida College System. By December 31, the chancellor shall
compile and submit the institutional reports to the Governor, the President of the
Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the State Board of Education.
This document represents the second compilation of developmental accountability reports. The
first edition included data from Fall 2014 and Spring 2015 and a summary is included in
Appendix A. This version includes data from Summer 2015 in addition to data from Fall 2015
and Spring 2016 as the required changes in developmental education occurred in Fall 2014.
The Chancellor of the FCS provided each institution a report template to complete that built
upon the previous year’s report. This year’s developmental education accountability reports
required colleges to focus on the results of their specific implementation plans that were
submitted to the Chancellor of the Florida College System by March 1, 2014. In addition,
requiring colleges to utilize the Department of Education’s Florida's PK-20 Education
Information Portal (EdStats) online business intelligence tool led to consistency of reporting.
System Overview of Developmental Education Accountability
Over the past three years, FCS institutions reformed developmental education by developing
implementation plans for new education strategies, changing the way students are advised,
through a multiple measures approach to guide student choice, and delivering these new
education strategies in the classroom. In addition to changes in structure, colleges have focused
on pedagogical enhancements and content realignment all in an effort to help a larger number
of students succeed in college, graduate and enter the workforce. Students are positively
impacted by these changes which have resulted in reduced costs and improved student success
in developmental education courses.
The accountability report template provided to each college was comprised of two sections.
First, institutions completed a standard data table that details developmental student course
outcomes by the delivery strategy, as required by statute. These delivery strategies included
compressed, contextualized, co-requisite, and modularized.
Page 3 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
•
Modularized developmental instruction is customized and targeted to address specific
skills gaps through courses that are technology-based and self-paced. Course material is
divided into sub-unit parts and allows students to master targeted skill area deficiencies.
For example, one three-credit course could be converted into three one-credit courses,
each targeting a different set of concepts to master.
•
Compressed developmental instruction accelerates student progression from
developmental instruction to college-level coursework by reducing the length of the
course. Course delivery is more intense, and courses are offered in a variety of
shortened timeframes to allow students to progress quickly. For example, a course that
was originally scheduled to meet once a week for 16 weeks could meet twice a week for
8 weeks.
•
Contextualized developmental instruction is related to meta-majors. For example, the
course content would be presented in a way that bridges developmental instruction
with courses aligned to specific degree or certificate programs.
•
Co-requisite developmental instruction or tutoring that supplements credit instruction
while a student is concurrently enrolled in a credit-bearing course. For example, a
student would be enrolled in a credit-bearing course and take a related lab/course to
supplement their learning.
For each of the delivery strategies, system-level student course outcomes for 2015-16
developmental courses are detailed in Appendix B.
The second section of each institution’s accountability report details success rates of
subpopulations they identified and outlined strategies to improve performance in last year’s
report. Each college was required to focus on two subpopulations of students. This year,
colleges reviewed the impact of the implemented strategies on the selected subpopulations
and highlighted future strategies.
A summary of institutional submissions is provided on the following pages. In addition, each
college’s report is included in the Appendix C.
Overall Student Course Outcomes
2015-2016 enrollments reflect that Mathematics is the primary subject area in which students
registered. In fact, math accounted for approximately 64 percent of all developmental
education course enrollments. Sixteen percent – or 16,072 of all course enrollments – were in
Page 4 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
developmental reading courses, and 20 percent – or 20,152 of all course enrollments – were in
developmental writing courses.
Students in developmental writing and reading courses performed better than in
developmental math courses with 74 percent, 72 percent, and 61 percent of students earning a
grade of C or better, respectively. Figure 1 provides additional detail regarding the full range of
student course outcomes.
Percentage of Students
Writing
Reading
Math
100%
80%
60%
74% 72%
62%
40%
20%
0%
Grade C and Above
3% 5% 4%
7% 9% 10%
13% 12% 18%
Grade D
Withdrawal
Unsuccessful
2% 2% 6%
Grade Other
Student Course Outcome
Figure 1. Student Course Outcomes for Students in Developmental Education Courses at Florida College System
Institutions: 2015-2016 Academic Year
Source: Florida Department of Education. Notes. Grade "C" or Above includes the data values of "A", "B", "C", "P", "S" ("P" is passed, "S" is
satisfactory); Grade of "D" includes only grades of "D"; Withdrawals includes "W" and "WU" ("W" is Official withdraw, "WU" Unofficial
withdraw); Unsuccessful includes "U" and "F" ("U" is unsatisfactory, "F" is fail); and Other category includes "I", "PR", "X" and "Z" ("I" is
incomplete, "PR" is progress, "X" no grade awarded, "Z" audit). N=101,561. Additional data detail is available in Appendix B. Values may not
sum to 100 due to rounding.
A Comparison of Enrollments
Compared to 2007-08, total full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollments in the FCS have increased
seven percent. Over this same period of time, FTE enrollments in developmental education
have decreased 44 percent from 29,004 to 16,305. This downturn is due in part to legislative
changes that made developmental education optional for students starting in 2014-15.
However, data from the FCS show that a downward trend in developmental education started
in 2012-13, after an increase of 46 percent from 2007-08 to 2011-12. An index of full-time
equivalent to development enrollments is depicted in Figure 2.
Further analysis indicates 2015-16 FTE enrollments in developmental education decreased eight
percent from 2014-15. During the same time period, enrollments in each of the individual
subject areas experienced a portion of the downturn. Reading decreased by 15 percent,
followed by writing with a nine percent decline and math with a six percent decline.
Page 5 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
FTE
FTE (Indexed to 2007-08)
1.6
DevEd FTE
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
Year
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
2015-16
Figure 2. Developmental Education Enrollments Indexed to FTE: 2007-08 to 2015-16
Source: Florida Department of Education.
Students Outcomes in Math by Delivery Strategy
The overall percent of students earning a C or better in development math education was 62
percent. The co-requisite model, as illustrated in Figure 3, had the highest success rate with 72
percent of students earning a grade of C or better. The modularized model had the lowest pass
rate with 52 percent of students earning a grade of C or better; though 14% received a grade of
“other”.
Occurring most frequently with modularized courses, the grade of “other” included
“incompletes”, “progress” or “no grade awarded”. As currently reported, modularized courses
may not accurately capture student success as compared to the other delivery strategies
because the modularized strategy crosses more than one semester. Once the student
completes the work, the grade will be updated and has the potential to enhance success rates
which may be more comparable to the other course delivery strategies.
Page 6 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
Course Delivery Strategy
Grade C and Above
Grade D
Modularized
Withdrawal
52%
Contextualized
Unsuccessful
1% 10%
22%
64%
Compression
7%
60%
Co-requisite
5%
10%
20%
30%
40%
11%
60%
15%
3%
22%
4%
50%
14%
10%
72%
0%
Grade Other
70%
3%
8%
11%
4%
80%
90%
100%
Percentage of Students
Figure 3. Student Course Outcomes in Developmental Education Math Courses at Florida College System
Institutions: 2015-2016 Academic Year
Source: Florida Department of Education. Notes. Grade "C" or Above includes the data values of "A", "B", "C", "P", "S" ("P" is passed, "S" is
satisfactory); Grade of "D" includes only grades of "D"; Withdrawals includes "W" and "WU" ("W" is Official withdraw, "WU" Unofficial
withdraw); Unsuccessful includes "U" and "F" ("U" is unsatisfactory, "F" is fail); and Other category includes "I", "PR", "X" and "Z" ("I" is
incomplete, "PR" is progress, "X" no grade awarded, "Z" audit). N=65,337. Additional data detail is available in Appendix B. Values may not
sum to 100 due to rounding.
Student Outcomes in Reading by Delivery Strategy
The overall success rate for students taking developmental reading courses was 72 percent. For
modularized and compressed courses, 75 percent of the students earned a C or better. Figure 4
provides detailed success rates for developmental reading by strategies.
Course Delivery Strategy
Grade C and Above
Grade D
Modularized
Withdrawal
Unsuccessful
2% 7%
75%
Contextualized
6%
71%
Compression
Grade Other
3% 8%
75%
Co-requisite
7%
69%
0%
20%
40%
9%
60%
12%
80%
12%
3%
0%
14%
10%
5%
1%
12%
100%
Percentage of Students
Figure 4. Student Course Outcomes in Developmental Education Reading Courses at Florida College System
Institutions: 2015-2016 Academic Year
Source: Florida Department of Education. Notes. Grade "C" or Above includes the data values of "A", "B", "C", "P", "S" ("P" is passed, "S" is
satisfactory); Grade of "D" includes only grades of "D"; Withdrawals includes "W" and "WU" ("W" is Official withdraw, "WU" Unofficial
withdraw); Unsuccessful includes "U" and "F" ("U" is unsatisfactory, "F" is fail); and Other category includes "I", "PR", "X" and "Z" ("I" is
incomplete, "PR" is progress, "X" no grade awarded, "Z" audit). N=16,072. Additional data detail is available in Appendix B. Values may not
sum to 100 due to rounding.
Page 7 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
Student Outcomes in Writing by Delivery Strategy
Developmental education in writing had the least variance among course delivery strategies
with only a three percent difference between the highest and lowest grade of C or better
success rates by strategy. The overall percent of students earning a C or better in writing was
74 percent. The contextualized course delivery strategy had the highest number of students
earning a C or better at 76 percent followed by co-requisite at 75 percent. Detailed success
rates for developmental writing are included in Figure 5.
Course Delivery Strategy
Grade C and Above
Grade D
Modularized
Withdrawal
Unsuccessful
73%
Contextualized
76%
Compression
73%
Co-requisite
75%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Percentage of Students
Grade Other
1% 8%
2% 7%
15%
3%
1%
14%
9%
11%
3%
4% 6%
13%
3%
4%
80%
100%
Figure 5. Student Course Outcomes in Developmental Education Writing Courses at Florida College System
Institutions: 2015-2016 Academic Year
Source: Florida Department of Education. Notes. Grade "C" or Above includes the data values of "A", "B", "C", "P", "S" ("P" is passed, "S" is
satisfactory); Grade of "D" includes only grades of "D"; Withdrawals includes "W" and "WU" ("W" is Official withdraw, "WU" Unofficial
withdraw); Unsuccessful includes "U" and "F" ("U" is unsatisfactory, "F" is fail); and Other category includes "I", "PR", "X" and "Z" ("I" is
incomplete, "PR" is progress, "X" no grade awarded, "Z" audit). N=20,152. Additional data detail is available in Appendix B. Values may not
sum to 100 due to rounding.
Student Success Outcomes for Targeted Subpopulations
Each college provided updated data on last year’s two targeted subpopulations. Carrying over
from last year, more than half of the colleges identified one or more subpopulations as
students enrolled in math courses. The subpopulations, listed by most frequent selection
included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Students in math (compressed, modularized or co-requisite)
Male students (with lower success rates and higher withdrawal rates than females or
Hispanic)
Black students
Economically disadvantaged students
Students age 20-24
Students in writing
Page 8 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
•
•
•
Students taking modularized English
Students taking reading
Students with a native language other than English
Colleges implemented strategies to increase the success of students in the identified
subpopulations. The results of college efforts demonstrate the effectiveness of the
implemented strategies. Outcomes for the overwhelming majority of subpopulations indicated
a positive increase in success rates and reductions in educational gaps when the subpopulations
were compared to the overall population.
Best Practices for Success
FCS institutions implemented nationally recognized, high impact practices which enhanced
student success as well as addressed the statutorily mandated changes to the populations
enrolled in developmental education. The additional efforts colleges employed beyond
changes to the delivery strategy structure and advising services included pedagogical revisions,
content alignment and programmatic implementations.
Delivery Strategy Structure
FCS institutions reported adjustments in course offerings to conform to student preferences for
delivery strategies and based on student success. The most popular delivery strategy across all
types was compression, allowing students to complete more work in a shorter time frame,
followed by modularized which focused on students developing specific skills where identified
gaps exist.
Advising Services
Since the initial advising implementation plans, colleges recognized opportunities to enhance
advising services. Colleges shifted advising philosophies to center on building long-term
relationships and support for students so they may achieve success by earning a credential. For
example,
•
North Florida Community College initiated a minority success program where students
applied to participate and were assigned to an advisor to meet at least three times a
semester. The large network of academic and personal support connected students to
the college classroom and community to promote academic success.
Pedagogical Revisions
Improvements in student success rates may be attributable to pedagogical revisions where
faculty require attendance, provide online practices, self-assessments, and more frequent
Page 9 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
feedback. Faculty have adjusted assessments to align with the way in which the material is
taught.
With a continual focus on improvement, colleges employed collaborative learning activities and
focused on peer group learning. In some cases, curricular modifications disaggregated more
complex topics into smaller granular topics to accurately diagnose and address gaps in
knowledge and skills.
Faculty ensured lessons and assignment objectives were clearly communicated, encouraged
students to participate in class planning, discussed learning strategies and encouraged peer
collaboration and assessment of work. Additional curricular revisions entailed verbalizing
thinking processes as math problems were modeled. Examples of additional pedagogical
strategies included:
•
•
Pensacola State College reviewed and revised diagnostic exams and remediation
modules provided to students in gateway courses.
Santa Fe College aligned developmental writing curriculum with college writing and
created master course templates for all developmental writing courses. Faculty selected
common course materials and shared resources.
To reduce costs, colleges offered hybrid courses, integrated and linked courses along with using
open education resources.
Content alignment
Particularly in math, content was restructured to focus on skills where students struggled the
most. Faculty concentrated on the development of the most critical knowledge and skills,
moving away from teaching individual isolated skills to grouping skill sets for a more
comprehensive approach and creating course companion websites to introduce students to a
wide selection of materials while also encouraging students to broaden exposure to the
content, apply knowledge and practice skills.
In addition to addressing immediate support for students, colleges augmented student
preparation in content areas with a particular focus on STEM-related pathways and majors.
Alignment of skills prior to college will establish a strong foundation for college success. The
following is an example:
•
Gulf Coast State College partnered with Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University and the
University of Florida to provide “Algebra Nation” training activities to eight county
region surrounding the college’s service area. The Algebra Nation staff worked with
math specialists who determined the training needs of math teachers, developed and
Page 10 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
conducted the needed training. As part of the program, student math ambassadors
were deployed to engage in hands-on learning with middle school students.
Programmatic Implementations
Beyond the classroom, colleges established and refined services and programs to support
student achievement. With a long-term impact in mind, colleges collaborated with middle and
high school students focusing on career pathways, financial aid and building relationships early
to deepen an understanding of how college works. To illustrate:
•
Gulf Coast State College hired several transition academic advisors to work directly with
middle and high school students, establishing rapport to prepare students to succeed in
postsecondary education.
Even before prospective students enter the first year, colleges are launching summer programs
where students engaged in tutoring and intensive skill building workshops.
•
•
•
Palm Beach State College created Math Jump and Jump into Writing workshops offered
in the late summer to prepare students for gateway courses.
State College of Florida, Manatee-Sarasota continues to offer the Summer Bridge
Programs focused on increasing the skills of Black and Hispanic students.
Florida Gateway College created a Student Success Center by combining two services
(TRiO grant team and learning lab team) in one location that targets low income, firstgeneration students to offer additional supports services such as peer and instructor
tutors to at risk students.
Colleges aligned programs within one of eight meta-majors, resulting in far greater numbers of
students initially choosing the right path toward achieving postsecondary and career goals.
Clearly defined program maps afford students default schedules and ensure students have
access to program expectations. Colleges mandated first year experience courses assisting
students with a better understanding of college and at least one college offered a first year
experience course at no cost to the students.
To provide academic support beyond the classroom, colleges invested heavily in success
centers and tutoring, increasing student use of services which led to improved student success
rates. Faculty volunteer time in these centers and work with peer supplemental instruction
leaders. Collaboration between faculty and success center staff ensures a focus on the needs of
students. Centers have added services and integrated with other departments to centralize
and co-locate resources for students. Expanded hours allow students juggling multiple
obligations greater opportunity to utilize resources. Marketing efforts promote the wealth of
Page 11 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
free academic resources students may access. Over a third of the institutions mentioned the
addition of round-the-clock virtual tutoring services. Specific examples included:
•
•
•
At Florida Gateway, tutors received Level II CRLA (College Reading and Learning
Association) training and certification.
Florida SouthWestern State College test piloted a “push in” model, embedding tutors in
two sections of developmental mathematics courses. Support services were available
to all students in an effort to demonstrate the value of services and reach to those who
typically access resources at lower rates.
Northwest Florida State College expanded the African-American Student Association to
include Sankoa, an organization whose purpose is to assist African-American students
with success in math courses by offering peer tutoring.
Approximately a third of colleges mentioned the implementation of early alert systems to
identify and support students exhibiting at risk behaviors. Early alert programs focused on
daily attendance and support for students who previously attempted developmental education.
Advisors follow up with students to address concerns and provide resources.
Colleges invested time and effort in faculty and staff by hosting professional developmental
opportunities centered on student achievement. Primarily, core activities encompassed overall
student success, improvement in developmental education and response to external barriers
and issues. Advisors participated in training on diversity and retention training related to
addressing educational gaps. The following examples define specific programs:
•
•
•
Pasco-Hernando State College scheduled weekly Retention Behavior Inventory (RBI)
Strategy meetings where personnel created college-wide awareness and accountability
to student behaviors that influence student success in courses. Self-examination of
services, a reexamine of pedagogy and reviews of diagnostic assessments led to
increased success.
Seminole State College hosted a Student Success Summit prioritizing strategies for
improving success and Developmental Education course completion rates.
St. Petersburg College faculty partner with college advising to identify and anticipate
external student challenges.
Impact of Reforms
Colleges work diligently to ensure the reforms they implement have a positive impact on
student achievement. Benefits to students, institutions and the state abound with primary
reductions in time to degree and the cost of completion.
Page 12 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
Impact to Student
The greatest positive impact for students has been the reduction in time to degree. The
primary strategies implemented in developmental education, particularly compression and
modularized, allow students to quickly address skill deficiencies and possibly move to college
level work within the same semester. Additionally, reducing the number of developmental
courses and student attempts provides direct entry into college level work while raising
standards and academically challenging students. To support this work, colleges have
established extensive services, programs and resources leading to more paths for student
success.
The exemption of Florida public high school graduates shifted the population of students
enrolling in developmental education to older students who have been out of the educational
environment for numerous years and benefit most from the opportunity to refresh skills,
particularly in math.
The development of meta-majors has resulted in a greater number of students entering their
chosen area of study, beginning with developmental education, if needed, as well as the
appropriate courses to achieve their educational goals. Many colleges developed program
maps affording students a suggested schedule for completing program requirements while
reducing the number of choices as well as resulting in a more efficient and streamlined
progression to attain a college credential.
Impact to Institution
For institutions, a greater focus on data ensures efficiency in support success by increasing the
impact of actions. Colleges use data on enrollments, success rates and student perceptions as a
means to assist students with effectively reaching their goals. A few examples include:
o Tallahassee Community College has more full-time faculty teaching
developmental education courses based on data that indicated students perform
better in classes taught by full-time faculty.
o Valencia College instituted a twice-annual developmental education data review
conducted by the Dev Ed Task Force to review trends and patterns in the data.
As a result of the meetings, the college removed reading and English courses to
replace them with combined courses. The college is also conducting focus
groups to understand the student experience.
Impact to State
By reducing developmental education requirements, taxpayers incur a lower expense while
citizens earn degrees which shortens the timeframe for increasing attainment.
Page 13 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
Future Efforts
Colleges have worked diligently to support student success in developmental education.
Where colleges have seen success, strategies will continue to support students. As need arises,
the exploration of research-based, best practices will be a priority especially for
underperforming subpopulations who need enhanced support.
Math will continue to be a primary focus because of student need and high enrollments.
Colleges plan to explore strategies for success and use data to determine their next steps.
Continuing to monitor and address issues will assist underperforming students for the rigor of
college level work and ultimately for reaching their educational and career goals.
Page 14 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
Appendix A – 2015 Florida College System Developmental Accountability Reports Executive
Summary
A total of 110,374 developmental education course enrollments occurred during the 2014-2015
academic year. Of these, 69,324 enrollments – or 63% of all course enrollments – were in
developmental math courses, 18,813 – or 17% of all course enrollments – were in
developmental reading courses, and 22,237 – or 20% of all course enrollments – were in
developmental writing courses. Students in developmental reading and writing courses
performed better than in developmental math courses with 73%, 71%, and 52% of students
earning a grade of C or better.
Page 15 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
Appendix B – Developmental Education Student Course Outcomes
Student Outcome
Math
Grade C or Above
Delivery Strategy
Co-requisite
Compression
Contextualized
Modularized
Total or
Average
38,295
62%
Grade D
2,514
4%
Withdrawal
6,565
10%
Unsuccessful
13,506
18%
Grade Other
4,457
6%
Total
65,337
25%
Reading
Grade C or Above
#
677
8,246
523
2,465
11,911
%
69%
75%
71%
75%
72%
Grade D
#
69
326
46
73
514
%
7%
3%
6%
2%
5%
Withdrawal
#
117
915
63
243
1,338
%
12%
8%
9%
7%
9%
Unsuccessful
#
116
1,061
100
406
1,683
%
12%
10%
14%
12%
12%
Grade Other
#
8
520
2
96
626
%
1%
5%
0%
3%
2%
Total
#
987
11,068
734
3,283
16,072
%
6%
69%
5%
20%
25%
Writing
Grade C or Above
#
226
10,826
1,204
2,516
14,772
%
75%
73%
76%
73%
74%
Grade D
#
12
567
27
41
647
%
4%
4%
2%
1%
3%
Withdrawal
#
17
1,272
112
294
1,695
%
6%
9%
7%
9%
7%
Unsuccessful
#
38
1,678
228
504
2,448
%
13%
11%
14%
15%
13%
Grade Other
#
9
458
8
115
590
%
3%
3%
1%
3%
2%
Total
#
302
14,801
1,579
3,470
20,152
%
2%
73%
8%
17%
25%
Table A1. Student Course Outcomes for Students in Developmental Education Courses at Florida College System
Institutions: 2015-2016 Academic Year
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
3,431
72%
208
4%
407
9%
539
11%
205
4%
4,790
7%
21,543
60%
1,765
5%
3,623
10%
7,722
22%
1,103
3%
35,756
55%
2,275
64%
242
7%
409
12%
541
15%
97
3%
3,564
6%
11,046
52%
299
1%
2,126
10%
4,704
22%
3,052
14%
21,227
33%
Source: Florida Department of Education. Notes. Grade "C" or Above includes the data values of "A", "B", "C", "P", "S" ("P" is passed, "S" is
satisfactory); Grade of "D" includes only grades of "D"; Withdrawals includes "W" and "WU" ("W" is Official withdraw, "WU" Unofficial
withdraw); Unsuccessful includes "U" and "F" ("U" is unsatisfactory, "F" is fail); and Other category includes "I", "PR", "X" and "Z" ("I" is
incomplete, "PR" is progress, "X" no grade awarded, "Z" audit).
Page 16 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
Appendix C – 2015-16 Individual College Developmental Education Reports
College:
Broward College
Year:
2015-2016 Academic Year (Fall/Spring/Summer)
Date:
10/15/16
Report Completed by (name and title): Dr. Steve Roig-Watnik, Associate VP for Developmental Education & Student Success
Part I. Student Success Data
Subject
Math
% of
# of
Students
Students
by
Enrolled
Strategy
Student Course Outcomes
Co-requisite
21
0.4%
# of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
12
Compression
5,217
93.8%
3,250
62.3%
0
0.0%
597
11.4%
1,350
25.9%
20
0.4%
Modularized
326
5.9%
158
48.5%
0
0.0%
35
10.7%
132
40.5%
1
0.3%
Co-requisite
133
5.7%
111
83.5%
4
3.0%
9
6.8%
7
5.3%
2
1.5%
Compression
2,205
94.3%
1,802
81.7%
75
3.4%
170
7.7%
155
7.0%
3
0.1%
Co-requisite
203
10.7%
156
76.8%
9
4.4%
14
6.9%
23
11.3%
1
0.5%
Compression
1,695
89.3%
1,141
67.3%
129
7.6%
185
10.9%
234
13.8%
6
0.4%
Strategy
% of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
57.1%
# of
Students
(Grade
“D”)
% of
Students
(Grade “D”)
# of Students
(Withdrawal)
% of Students
(Withdrawal)
# of Students
(Unsuccessful)
% of Students
(Unsuccessful)
# of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
% of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
0
0.0%
5
23.8%
4
19.0%
0
0.0%
Contextualized
Reading
Contextualized
Modularized
Writing
Contextualized
Modularized
Notes.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Grade “C” and Above includes the data values of “A”, “B”, “C”, “P”, “S” (“P” is passed, “S” is satisfactory);
Grade “D” includes only grades of “D”;
Withdrawals includes “W” and “WU” (“W” is Official withdraw, “WU” is Unofficial withdraw);
Unsuccessful includes “U” and “F” (“U” is unsatisfactory, “F” is fail);
Other category includes “I”, “PR,” “X” and “Z” (“I” is incomplete, “PR” is progress, “X” is no grade awarded, “Z” is audit)
To protect the privacy of individual students, data are not reported when the total number of students in a group is fewer than 10. Double asterisks (**) will appear when data are suppressed. When there are
no students reported in a category, a dot (.) will appear in the table cell.
Page 17 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
Part II. Supplemental Data
Part A: The first subpopulation identified in our 2015 report (males experiencing lower course success rates and
higher withdrawal rates than females) demonstrated several noteworthy gains in 2016.
First, a cumulative analysis of all three developmental subject areas revealed an increase in course success rates for
both genders. For the fall/spring semesters combined, males earning grades of ‘C’ and above rose 2.8pp, from
59.6%(n=2,324) to 64.0%(n=1,820). For females, the increase was 1.8pp, from 66.6%(n=3,847) to 68.4%(n=3,322).
Second, further by-subject-area disaggregation showed success rate increases for both genders in nearly all three
subjects (excluding males in writing coursework), with the largest percentage point increase for both genders being
in mathematics:
Mathematics
Females(+2.9pp): from 58.5%(n=1,922) to 61.4%(n=1,708)
Males(+5.7pp): from 52.7%(n=1,112) to 58.4%(n=959)
Writing
Females(+1.4pp): from 71.2%(n=749) to 72.6%(n=678)
Males(unchanged): from 56.9%(n=442) to 56.9%(n=329)
Reading
Females(+0.5pp): from 81.6%(n=1,176) to 82.1%(n=936)
Males(+0.1pp): from 76.2%(n=770) to 76.3%(n=532)
The between-gender difference in withdrawal rates narrowed 0.5pp, from 2.1% to 1.6%. Females withdrew at a rate
of 10.2%(n=494), as compared to 9.4%(n=545) in 2014-15. 11.8%(n=343) of males withdrew in 2015-16, as
compared to 11.5%(n=448) in 2014-15.
Part B: Our 2015 report’s second subpopulation (lower success rates in modularized mathematics course section
offerings than other modalities) demonstrated little change, except for a marked 63.0% decrease in the numbers of
enrollees in modularized classes (from n=633 in 2014-15 to n=234 in 2015-16).
Our 2015-16 modularized math success rate was 47.9%(n=112), which was 0.6pp lower than the prior year (48.5%,
n=307). Hence, the success-rate gap between this and compressed math offerings widened, in light of that
modality’s 3.7pp rate increase (from 57.3% to 61.0%).
Modularized math’s withdrawal rate increased 1.5pp (from 10.9% to 12.4%), whereas compressed’s increased 0.8pp
(from 10.8% to 11.6%).
As for the aforementioned gender differences in success rates, further disaggregation of modularized math revealed
a 3.5pp increase (males) and a 2.9pp decrease (females):
Success-by-gender (Female-vs-Male)
2015-16: 49.7%(n=72)-vs-44.9%(n=40)
2014-15: 52.6%(n=206)-vs-41.4%(n=96)
Page 18 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
Part C: What follows are summaries of four institutional strategies that occurred/evolved subsequent to our 2015
report and are nationally-recognized, high-impact practices we implemented at-scale.
First, Broward College (BC) revamped its longstanding organizational structure from campus/location-based to a
Pathways-Community model aligned by meta-major, resulting in far greater numbers of students upon entry getting
on their chosen right path toward achieving their postsecondary/career goals. Directing students toward pathwayappropriate readiness/developmental services is an essential component of this work. The remaining three
initiatives below illustrate the depth/breadth of our strategies for achieving this.
Second, all 104 of our programs have robust “program maps” embedded on our college website, affording students
default schedules among many other benefits.
Third, effective August-2016, all FTIC students are enrolled in a mandatory five-week, non-credit First-YearExperience course at no out-of-pocket cost.
Fourth, BC has invested heavily in its Academic Success Centers (ASCs) throughout this post-SB1720 era, resulting in
rampant increases in student usage rates. In AY2015-16, the percentage of developmental/gateway enrollees using
these services exceeded 50%.
We are excited about these and the many other improvements we are determined to make in the year ahead.
Page 19 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
College:
Chipola College
Year:
2016
Date:
August 25, 2016
Report Completed by (name and title): Dr. Sarah Clemmons, Senior Vice President of Instruction
Part I. Student Success Data
Subject
Math
Strategy
% of
# of
Students
Students
by
Enrolled
Strategy
Student Course Outcomes
# of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
% of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
# of
Students
(Grade
“D”)
% of
Students
(Grade “D”)
# of Students
(Withdrawal)
% of Students
(Withdrawal)
# of Students
(Unsuccessful)
% of Students
(Unsuccessful)
# of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
% of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
Co-requisite
Compression
153
100%
86
56.2%
8
5.2%
19
12.4%
39
25.5%
1
0.7%
74
100%
48
64.9%
5
6.8%
7
9.5%
14
18.9%
0
0%
68
100%
59
86.8%
4
5.9%
3
4.4%
1
1.5%
1
1.5%
Contextualized
Modularized
Reading
Co-requisite
Compression
Contextualized
Modularized
Writing
Co-requisite
Compression
Contextualized
Modularized
Notes.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Grade “C” and Above includes the data values of “A”, “B”, “C”, “P”, “S” (“P” is passed, “S” is satisfactory);
Grade “D” includes only grades of “D”;
Withdrawals includes “W” and “WU” (“W” is Official withdraw, “WU” is Unofficial withdraw);
Unsuccessful includes “U” and “F” (“U” is unsatisfactory, “F” is fail);
Other category includes “I”, “PR,” “X” and “Z” (“I” is incomplete, “PR” is progress, “X” is no grade awarded, “Z” is audit)
To protect the privacy of individual students, data are not reported when the total number of students in a group is fewer than 10. Double asterisks (**) will appear when data are suppressed. When there are
no students reported in a category, a dot (.) will appear in the table cell.
Page 20 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
Part II. Supplemental Data
Note: One course delivery strategy (compression) was used during 2015-2016. Modularized courses were cancelled due
to low enrollment.
Two subpopulations were identified in the 2015 report: 1) black economically disadvantaged students in mathematics
and 2) black male students in reading. 2015 and 2016 outcomes are shown in the following charts.
Percentage of Economically Disadvantaged Students
Earning C or Higher in Developmental Mathematics by
Race
100%
75%
49%
50%
54%
45%
32%
25%
0%
2015
2016
Black
White
Percentage of Students Earning C or Higher in
Developmental Reading by Race and Gender
100%
75%
50%
59%
42%
30%
76%
71%
64%
50%
44%
25%
0%
2015
Black Males
2016
White Males
Black Females
White Females
Results
Data show improvement for both subpopulations. The percentage of black economically disadvantaged students
earning a C or higher in developmental mathematics increased from 32% in AY15 to 45% in AY16. The percentage of
black male students earning a C or higher in developmental reading increased from 30% in AY15 to 50% in AY16.
Summary of Institutional Strategies to Address the Educational Gap
Page 21 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
Strategies employed included research-supported practices such as collaborative learning activities, peer group
opportunities, and early-alert strategies. Other strategies include: 1) notifying instructors of students who are repeating
a developmental course and who may need additional assistance; 2) reading workshops into the College’s Student
Support Services grant activities; 3) requiring all instructors to report daily attendance, which is used to identify students
with excessive absences and who may be at-risk of dropping out; 4) informing students of face-to-face and online
tutorial services offered by the College; and 5) encouraging students to participate in student organizations and peer
group activities such as “English Corner” and Black Student Union.
Another important strategy was the use of student performance data in the advising process. College advisors used
grade distributions of two groups of students in ENC 1101 and MAT 1033: 1) those who opted out of advisorrecommended developmental education courses and 2) all other students. The data show that those who opt out of the
recommended developmental education courses have significantly higher withdrawal and failure rates than the other
students. These data help students to make more informed decisions regarding course selection.
During AY 16-17, Chipola College will implement the Dropout Detective early warning system to further improve the
college outcomes pertaining to the target populations. Because of improved outcomes from the past academic year,
the college will continue the AY 15-16 strategies.
Page 22 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
College:
College Of Central Florida
Year:
2015-2016
Date:
10-15-2016
Report Completed by Marguerite Jones, Department Chair, Academic Foundations
Part I. Student Success Data
Subject
Math
Strategy
% of
# of
Students
Students
by
Enrolled
Strategy
Co-requisite
Student Course Outcomes
# of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
% of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
# of
Students
(Grade
“D”)
% of
Students
(Grade “D”)
# of Students
(Withdrawal)
% of Students
(Withdrawal)
# of Students
(Unsuccessful)
% of Students
(Unsuccessful)
# of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
% of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
Compression
Contextualized
Modularized
Reading
1,317
100%
649
49.3%
0
0.0%
33
2.5%
400
30.4%
235
17.8%
404
100%
329
81.4%
0
0.0%
0
0
75
18.6%
0
0.0%
468
100%
378
80.8%
0
0.0%
5
1.1%
84
17.9%
1
0.2%
Co-requisite
Compression
Contextualized
Modularized
Writing
Co-requisite
Compression
Contextualized
Modularized
Notes.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Grade “C” and Above includes the data values of “A”, “B”, “C”, “P”, “S” (“P” is passed, “S” is satisfactory);
Grade “D” includes only grades of “D”;
Withdrawals includes “W” and “WU” (“W” is Official withdraw, “WU” is Unofficial withdraw);
Unsuccessful includes “U” and “F” (“U” is unsatisfactory, “F” is fail);
Other category includes “I”, “PR,” “X” and “Z” (“I” is incomplete, “PR” is progress, “X” is no grade awarded, “Z” is audit)
To protect the privacy of individual students, data are not reported when the total number of students in a group is fewer than 10. Double asterisks (**) will appear when data are suppressed. When there are
no students reported in a category, a dot (.) will appear in the table cell.
Page 23 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
Part II. Supplemental Data
Analyzing statistical data from our two sub-populations a) white males, and b) black males revealed the following
results.
In 2014-2015, white males underperformed their female counterparts by nearly 10%. In 2015-2016, while white males
continued to underperform, the gap closed to 5% in Mathematics, 1% in Reading, and 4.6% in Writing. This is statistically
significant in that the performance gap was reduced by 5% or greater. In 2014-2015, black males underperformed their
female counterparts by 5% to 20% depending on the discipline. In 2015-2016, this gap was significantly reduced to 2.1%
in Mathematics, 3.5% in Reading, and 3.7% in Writing.
More significantly, in 2015-2016 the overall success rate (C or better) in Mathematics, Reading, and Writing increased
24.9%, 3.5%, and 0.2% respectively.
Over the past year, faculty and administration have worked together to identify specific strategies which could be
utilized to close the performance gap. Several college wide initiatives have contributed to these successful results.
Paramount to student success is quality first year advising. With the implementation of SB 1720, the older, nontraditional students comprise more of our developmental education enrollment. These students, out of the educational
environment for several years, require proper placement during enrollment and early intervention during the course.
The Quality Education Plan (QEP) addresses these critical issues for first year students. Dedicated first year advisors, will
properly place our students. Our Early Support Program provides a network of communication to identify student
deficiencies and provide appropriate support.
Page 24 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
College:
Daytona State College
Year:
2015-2016
Date:
October 31, 2016
Report Completed by (name and title): Amy E. Locklear, Ph.D., Vice President, Academic Affairs
Part I. Student Success Data
Subject
Math
Strategy
% of
# of
Students
Students
by
Enrolled Strategy
Student Course Outcomes
# of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
184
% of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
62.4%
# of
Students
(Grade
“D”)
% of
Students
(Grade “D”)
# of Students
(Withdrawal)
% of Students
(Withdrawal)
# of Students
(Unsuccessful)
% of Students
(Unsuccessful)
# of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
% of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
Co-requisite
295
7.7%
21
7.1%
27
9.2%
63
21.4%
0
0.0%
Compression
3443
90.1%
2406
69.9%
188
5.5%
191
5.5%
658
19.1%
0
0.0%
83
2.2%
78
94.0%
0
0.0%
5
6.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
444
100.0%
328
73.9%
28
6.3%
16
3.6%
72
16.2%
0
0.0%
Contextualized
671
65.4%
526
78.4%
0
0.0%
44
6.6%
101
15.1%
0
0.0%
Modularized
355
34.6%
327
92.1%
4
1.1%
2
0.6%
22
6.2%
0
0.0%
Contextualized
Modularized
Reading
Co-requisite
Compression
Contextualized
Modularized
Writing
Co-requisite
Compression
Notes.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Grade “C” and Above includes the data values of “A”, “B”, “C”, “P”, “S” (“P” is passed, “S” is satisfactory);
Grade “D” includes only grades of “D”;
Withdrawals includes “W” and “WU” (“W” is Official withdraw, “WU” is Unofficial withdraw);
Unsuccessful includes “U” and “F” (“U” is unsatisfactory, “F” is fail);
Other category includes “I”, “PR,” “X” and “Z” (“I” is incomplete, “PR” is progress, “X” is no grade awarded, “Z” is audit)
To protect the privacy of individual students, data are not reported when the total number of students in a group is fewer than 10. Double asterisks (**) will appear when data are suppressed.
When there are no students reported in a category, a dot (.) will appear in the table cell.
Page 25 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
Part II. Supplemental Data
Last year, the two subpopulations that we marked for concern were students taking compressed (MAT 0018, 0028,
1033) and co-requisite (MAT 1033 and 1033A) math courses. Last year’s pass rate for compressed math courses was
57.7%. This year’s pass rate has risen to 69.9%. Last year’s pass rate for co- requisite math was 46.5%. This year’s pass
rate has risen to 62.4%. (Note: the pass rate for the modular math option (MAT 0056L) for the 61 students who
completed the necessary components was at 95% last year. This year’s cohort of 78 students completed the pass/fail
course with a 94% success rate.)
Increased success among these student populations is a result of a number of initiatives. Based on feedback from
students and faculty, the content of MAT 1033 (and its co-requisite 1033A) was restructured to focus on topics
students struggle with the most. In both the MAT 0018 and 0028 compressed courses, online lab materials have been
moved into the online course shell which has augmented both students’ facility with the college’s online learning
management system as well as faculty’s fluency with the content. Mathematics faculty have absorbed students’
increased need for contextualized support. Faculty volunteer time in the ASC and Writing Center, offer virtual office
hours, work with peer supplemental instruction leaders, offer additional study halls, facilitate math studios, make
more calls and send more emails. Finally, robust collaboration between the Math Department and the Academic
Support Center has resulted in additional innovative supplemental instruction models.
Note: Strategies for reading and writing courses are listed incorrectly as modularized and contextualized options. This
is due to incorrect coding in crosswalk tables and we are correcting it for next year. The college offers compressed
reading (REA0017) and writing (ENC0025) courses and a co-requisite, combined reading and writing, one-credit lab
made up of students who are also enrolled in various sections of the composition gateway course (ENC1101). Student
success in the co-requisite (ENC0055L) and the gateway are equivalent at 65.4% (for ENC0055L) and 69% (for
ENC1101) among students recommended to take ENC 1101 along with the co-req.
Finally, student enrollment numbers in the listed contextualized [co-requisite] course (ENC0055L) are accurate.
Enrollment in the listed modular [compressed] courses (ENC0025 and REA0017) in this state report is duplicated
because students take the class and lab together.
Population percentage data across reading and writing strategies requires contextualization because this report’s
categories cannot be listed as combined. ENC0055L is listed as a writing option, but is a combined, reading and
writing co-requisite.
Page 26 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
College:
Eastern Florida State College
Year:
2015-16
Date:
October 24, 2016
Report Completed by (name and title): Linda Miedema, Vice President of Academic Affairs
Part I. Student Success Data
Student Course Outcomes
Subject
Math
Reading
Strategy
% of
Students
by Strategy
# of
Students
% of
Students
# of
Students
% of
Students
(Grade “C”
and Above)
(Grade “C”
and Above)
(Grade
“D”)
(Grade
“D”)
# of
Students
(Withdrawal)
% of
Students
# of Students
% of Students
# of
Students
% of
Students
(Withdrawal)
(Unsuccessful)
(Unsuccessful)
(Grade
“Other”)
(Grade
“Other”)
Co-requisite
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Compression
1,514
65.48%
848
56.01%
0
0.00%
200
13.21%
461
30.45%
5
0.33%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Modularized
798
34.52%
547
68.55%
0
0.00%
92
11.53%
159
19.92%
0
0.00%
Co-requisite
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Compression
593
98.02%
450
75.89%
0
0.00%
58
9.78%
56
9.44%
29
4.89%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12
1.98%
12
100.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
Contextualized
Contextualized
Modularized
Writing
# of
Students
Enrolled
Co-requisite
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Compression
596
97.39%
414
69.46%
0
0.00%
73
12.25%
55
9.23%
54
9.06%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
16
2.61%
12
75.00%
0
0.00%
2
12.50%
2
12.50%
0
0.00%
Contextualized
Modularized
1. Grade “C” and Above includes the data values of “A”, “B”, “C”, “P”, “S” (“P” is passed, “S” is satisfactory);
2. Grade “D” includes only grades of “D”;
3. Withdrawals includes “W” and “WU” (“W” is Official withdraw, “WU” is Unofficial withdraw);
4. Unsuccessful includes “U” and “F” (“U” is unsatisfactory, “F” is fail);
5. Other category includes “I”, “PR,” “X” and “Z” (“I” is incomplete, “PR” is progress, “X” is no grade awarded, “Z” is audit)
To protect the privacy of individual students, data are not reported when the total number of students in a group is fewer than 10. Double asterisks (**) will appear when data are suppressed. When there are no
students reported in a category, a dot (.) will appear in the table cell.
Page 27 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
Part II. Supplemental Data
EFSC identified 2 subpopulations in the 2015 Developmental Education Report: 1. Age Group: 20-24 and 2.
Economic Status: Students who were economically disadvantaged.
1. Age Group: 20-24: Overall rates for 20-24 year olds improved in all three subjects. However, Males 20-
24 were less successful in both reading and writing. Females 20-24 improved in all three subjects.
Older females did not perform as well in the three categories. Through the EFSC Core Scholar Program,
the college will seek to identify peer tutors who fall within the older age range to work with students in
their same peer group. Students who have successfully completed ENC 1101 and MAT 1033 will work as tutors
for the developmental math students and will be matched with their peers for tutoring opportunities.
Faculty have agreed to conduct open lab help sessions wherein faculty and tutors will be available to assist students in
these subpopulations.
Internal communication sheets will be created and distributed to college advisors to better educate them regarding
compressed and modularized courses. This will allow them to better advise students for the most appropriate
selections.
Exempt students and those identified as “at risk” sub-populations will be notified about free access to up to 15 hours of
Smarthinking online tutoring and the online MyFoundations lab.
2. Economically Disadvantaged: Reading in the economically disadvantaged subgroup slightly decreased in success
rate. Faculty are working to improve success rates in reading. Rather than teaching individual, isolated skills,
instructors are “grouping” skill sets and teaching them as related, complementary approaches for gaining
meaning from text. Common groupings may include the following:
o Successful College Reading Strategies
o Literal Skills Analysis
o Critical Skills Analysis
Faculty are including interactive small group activities in these reading classes to enable students to work together to
comprehend reading selections and debate their effectiveness by examining for the various skill sets.
In the lab component of these classes, the faculty are using course-companion websites that introduce students to a
wide selection of reading materials that vary in content, style, interest level, and difficulty. These materials encourage
students to read more widely and allow them to build schema on subjects they may not have been exposed to before.
(See attached chart of actual comparison data)
Page 28 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
Success Rate by Gender, Age Group, and Strategy
Gender
Subject
Age Group
19 or Less
Math
20-24
25 or Above
19 or Less
Female
Reading
20-24
25 or Above
19 or Less
Writing
20-24
25 or Above
Strategy
Compression
Modularized
Both
Compression
Modularized
Both
Compression
Modularized
Both
Compression
Modularized
Both
Compression
Modularized
Both
Compression
Modularized
Both
Compression
Modularized
Both
Compression
Modularized
Both
Compression
Modularized
Both
N Stdts
230
71
301
284
74
358
492
169
661
107
0
107
83
0
83
97
0
97
90
10
100
101
0
101
125
0
125
2015
N Success
125
43
168
130
40
170
282
107
389
84
0
84
64
0
64
84
0
84
61
9
70
64
0
64
90
0
90
Page 29 of 83
Rate
54.3%
60.6%
55.8%
45.8%
54.1%
47.5%
57.3%
63.3%
58.9%
78.5%
78.5%
77.1%
77.1%
86.6%
86.6%
67.8%
90.0%
70.0%
63.4%
63.4%
72.0%
72.0%
N Stdts
203
97
300
255
139
394
465
282
747
89
0
89
92
0
92
148
0
148
122
2016
N Success
119
71
190
130
88
218
263
196
459
71
0
71
73
0
73
118
0
118
98
122
82
98
60
82
124
0
124
60
83
0
83
Rate
58.6%
73.2%
63.3%
51.0%
63.3%
55.3%
56.6%
69.5%
61.4%
79.8%
79.8%
79.3%
79.3%
79.7%
79.7%
80.3%
80.3%
73.2%
73.2%
66.9%
66.9%
Improved?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
Success Rate by Gender, Age Group, and Strategy
Gender
Subject
Age Group
19 or Less
Math
20-24
25 or Above
19 or Less
Male
Reading
20-24
25 or Above
19 or Less
Writing
20-24
25 or Above
Strategy
Compression
Modularized
Both
Compression
Modularized
Both
Compression
Modularized
Both
Compression
Modularized
Both
Compression
Modularized
Both
Compression
Modularized
Both
Compression
Modularized
Both
Compression
Modularized
Both
Compression
Modularized
Both
N Stdts
2015
N Success
154
37
191
212
66
278
304
93
397
72
0
72
78
0
78
87
0
87
82
0
82
85
10
95
93
0
93
70
24
94
95
33
128
159
61
220
54
0
54
50
0
50
65
0
65
51
0
51
48
5
53
56
0
56
Page 30 of 83
Rate
45.5%
64.9%
49.2%
44.8%
50.0%
46.0%
52.3%
65.6%
55.4%
75.0%
75.0%
64.1%
64.1%
74.7%
74.7%
62.2%
62.2%
56.5%
50.0%
55.8%
60.2%
60.2%
N Stdts
138
65
203
158
91
249
292
124
416
103
0
103
81
0
81
78
0
78
112
0
112
72
0
72
83
0
83
2016
N Success
74
53
127
82
57
139
179
82
261
77
0
77
51
0
51
59
0
59
76
0
76
39
0
39
57
0
57
Rate
53.6%
81.5%
62.6%
51.9%
62.6%
55.8%
61.3%
66.1%
62.7%
74.8%
74.8%
63.0%
63.0%
75.6%
75.6%
67.9%
67.9%
54.2%
54.2%
68.7%
68.7%
Improved?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
Success Rate by Economic Status, Subject, and Strategy
Economic
Status
2015
Subject
Math
Eco.
Disadvantaged
Reading
Writing
Math
Non-Eco.
Disadvantaged
Reading
Writing
Strategy
Compression
Modularized
Overall
Compression
Modularized
Overall
Compression
Modularized
Overall
Compression
Modularized
Overall
Compression
Modularized
Overall
Compression
Modularized
Overall
N Stdts
1321
401
1722
396
22
418
454
32
486
366
110
476
131
0
131
126
19
145
N
Success
658
238
896
298
15
313
284
15
299
208
70
278
105
0
105
88
12
100
2016
Rate
49.8%
59.4%
52.0%
75.3%
68.2%
74.9%
62.6%
46.9%
61.5%
56.8%
63.6%
58.4%
80.2%
80.2%
69.8%
63.2%
69.0%
Page 31 of 83
N Stdts
1112
611
1723
429
10
439
424
0
424
402
187
589
164
0
164
172
0
172
N
Success
590
418
1008
318
10
328
282
0
282
258
129
387
132
0
132
132
0
132
Rate
53.1%
68.4%
58.5%
74.1%
100.0%
74.7%
66.5%
66.5%
64.2%
69.0%
65.7%
80.5%
80.5%
76.7%
76.7%
Improved?
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
College:
Florida Gateway College
Year:
2015-2016
Date:
October 1, 2016
Report Completed by (name and title): Paula L. Gavin, Ph.D., Dean of Academic Programs
Part I. Student Success Data
Subject
Math
Strategy
% of
# of
Students
Students
by
Enrolled
Strategy
Co-requisite
Compression
Student Course Outcomes
# of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
% of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
# of
Students
(Grade
“D”)
% of
Students
(Grade “D”)
# of Students
(Withdrawal)
% of Students
(Withdrawal)
# of Students
(Unsuccessful)
% of Students
(Unsuccessful)
# of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
% of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
119
46.9%
71
59.7%
24
20.2%
4
3.4%
20
16.8%
0
0.0%
135
53.1%
75
55.6%
8
5.9%
19
14.1%
33
24.4%
0
0.0%
10
27.8%
7
70.0%
0
0.0%
2
20.0%
1
10.0%
0
0.0%
26
72.2%
16
61.5%
0
0.0%
3
11.5%
7
26.9%
0
0.0%
62
86.1%
56
90.3%
0
0.0%
1
1.6%
5
8.1%
0
0.0%
10
13.9%
9
90.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1
10.0%
0
0.0%
Contextualized
Modularized
Reading
Co-requisite
Compression
Contextualized
Modularized
Writing
Co-requisite
Compression
Contextualized
Modularized
Notes.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Grade “C” and Above includes the data values of “A”, “B”, “C”, “P”, “S” (“P” is passed, “S” is satisfactory);
Grade “D” includes only grades of “D”;
Withdrawals includes “W” and “WU” (“W” is Official withdraw, “WU” is Unofficial withdraw);
Unsuccessful includes “U” and “F” (“U” is unsatisfactory, “F” is fail);
Other category includes “I”, “PR,” “X” and “Z” (“I” is incomplete, “PR” is progress, “X” is no grade awarded, “Z” is audit)
To protect the privacy of individual students, data are not reported when the total number of students in a group is fewer than 10. Double asterisks (**) will appear when data are suppressed. When there are
no students reported in a category, a dot (.) will appear in the table cell.
Page 32 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
Part II. Supplemental Data
Based on data from the developmental education business intelligence tool, the two subpopulations that were
determined to be the most challenged by the developmental education reform efforts were:
• reading for our Black subpopulation
• mathematics for our economically disadvantaged subpopulation.
Reading
During the 2014-15 academic year, our modularized reading courses had a success rate (grade C and above) of 78.8% for
our White subpopulation while our Black subpopulation had a success rate (grade C or above) of 54.5%. The gap
widened during the 2015-16 academic year with a 50% (n=10) success rate for the Black subpopulation as opposed to a
100% (n=7) success for the White subpopulation. The gap for the compressed reading course is virtually opposite with
75% (n=4) success rate for our Black subpopulation versus a 60% (n=5) success rate for our White subpopulation.
Generalized conclusions cannot be made with such a low sample size.
We continue to offer one to two sections of our modularized reading course(s) and one section of a compressed reading
course due to our diminishing developmental education enrollments. We are offering dedicated reading peer tutors in
our student success lab for targeted reading support to impact the success of our Black subpopulation.
Mathematics
During the 2014-15 academic year, our compression mathematics course(s) had a higher success rate at 71.0% than our
modularized mathematics course(s) at 52.8%; however, when comparing these two strategies this year, we see
approximately equal success rates at 59.7% and 55.6%, respectively. The gap widened within the compression
mathematics course(s) with our non-economically disadvantaged students’ success rates at 71.4% and the economically
disadvantaged students’ success rates at 56.0%.
FGC has combined our Student Support Services TRiO grant team and our collegewide learning lab team in one location
to target low income, first generation students and offer additional support services. This Student Success Center
provides peer and instructor tutors for all levels of Math, Writing, and Reading, but targets our subpopulations at risk of
not being successful. Tutors receive Level II CRLA (College Reading and Learning Association) training and certification.
The center also offers Peer Mentors for college success and provides space for our students to study in subject specific
Learning Groups. Learning Groups provide opportunities for students to work with a Tutor on particular competencies
and to focus on strengthening their foundation skills.
Page 33 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
College:
Florida Keys Community College
Year:
2016
Date:
September 5, 2016
Report Completed by (name and title): Michael McPherson, Dean of Arts and Hospitality/Mark Roby, Dean of Sciences and Nursing
Part I. Student Success Data
Subject
Math
Strategy
% of
# of
Students
Students
by
Enrolled Strategy
Student Course Outcomes
# of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
% of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
# of
Students
(Grade
“D”)
% of
Students
(Grade “D”)
# of Students
(Withdrawal)
% of Students
(Withdrawal)
# of Students
(Unsuccessful)
% of Students
(Unsuccessful)
# of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
% of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
Co-requisite
Compression
Contextualized
Reading
Modularized
175
100%
99
56.6%
0
0%
23
13.1%
26
14.9%
27
15.4%
Co-requisite
**
**.*
**
**.*
**
**.*
**
**.*
**
**.*
**
**.*
Compression
64
87.7%
45
70.3%
5
7.8%
5
7.8%
9
14.1%
0
0.0%
**
62
**.*
92.5%
**
40
**.*
64.5%
**
4
**.*
6.5%
**
6
**.*
9.7%
**
11
**.*
17.7%
**
1
**.*
1.6%
Contextualized
Modularized
Writing
Co-requisite
Compression
Contextualized
Modularized
Notes.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Grade “C” and Above includes the data values of “A”, “B”, “C”, “P”, “S” (“P” is passed, “S” is satisfactory);
Grade “D” includes only grades of “D”;
Withdrawals includes “W” and “WU” (“W” is Official withdraw, “WU” is Unofficial withdraw);
Unsuccessful includes “U” and “F” (“U” is unsatisfactory, “F” is fail);
Other category includes “I”, “PR,” “X” and “Z” (“I” is incomplete, “PR” is progress, “X” is no grade awarded, “Z” is audit)
To protect the privacy of individual students, data are not reported when the total number of students in a group is fewer than 10. Double asterisks (**) will appear when data are suppressed.
When there are no students reported in a category, a dot (.) will appear in the table cell.
Page 34 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
Part II. Supplemental Data
In the 2015 Developmental Accountability Report, the College identified two subpopulations in developmental
mathematics upon which to focus the College’s efforts to improve success rates: students age 20-24 and
students who were non-economically disadvantaged. In the 2014-15 academic year the Developmental
Education Business Intelligence Tool revealed only 40% of the subpopulations age 20-24 were successful in
developmental mathematics (passing with a “C” or higher). In 2015-16 the number of successful students has
increased to 47.6% of students. In the 2015 report, only 43.5% of non- economically disadvantaged students
passed developmental mathematics with a “C” or higher. In 2015-16 the number of successful students in this
subpopulation increased to 51.8%. These two demographics matched the demographics of the College’s
residential students; therefore, the new strategies implemented were specifically targeted to these students.
The College implemented several strategies to address the identified achievement gap. Through the College’s
Student Success Center, developmental math students receive face-to-face support from qualified and trained
tutors. The College offers both walk-in and scheduled times to meet with tutors to receive assistance in
mathematics. Additionally, the Student Success Center has partnered with faculty to offer study groups and
exam reviews led by peer tutors. The College has also partnered with Smarthinking to provide tutoring to
students 24 hours a day, seven days a week from any Internet-enabled computer.
To ensure awareness of student resources, a team comprised of representatives from the College’s Learning
Resource Center and Student Success Services join classes throughout the semester and give a presentation of
the resources available to students. This strategy is intended to “put a face with a name” and to encourage
students not to be anxious about utilizing the many resources available to them. Additionally, the College
expanded the Student Success Center hours to include weekends.
Student Success staff also coordinate with faculty in the Early Alert program to proactively support student
achievement. From the first week of class, faculty track attendance and student performance and utilize the
online reporting system to notify student support of any issues. Support staff then contact each student, who
has been identified as at-risk, to determine their needs and coordinate effective support to meet those needs.
Curricular modifications were also made to the developmental mathematics courses. Instructional topics
were disaggregated into smaller granular topics. This enabled student weaknesses to be more accurately
diagnosed and addressed.
Page 35 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
College:
Florida State College at Jacksonville
Year:
2016
Date:
October 25, 2016
Report Completed by (name and title): Kathleen Ciez-Volz, Executive Dean of Academic Foundations
Part I. Student Success Data
Subject
Math
Strategy
% of
# of
Students
Students
by
Enrolled
Strategy
Co-requisite
Compression
Student Course Outcomes
# of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
% of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
# of
Students
(Grade
“D”)
% of
Students
(Grade “D”)
# of Students
(Withdrawal)
% of Students
(Withdrawal)
# of Students
(Unsuccessful)
% of Students
(Unsuccessful)
# of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
% of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
3,838
99.8%
2,474
64.5%
272
7.1%
204
5.3%
860
22.4%
28
0.7%
**
**.*
**
**.*
**
**.*
**
**.*
**
**.*
**
**.*
1,135
100.0%
860
75.8%
36
3.2%
48
4.2%
190
16.7%
1
0.1%
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
825
100.0%
644
78.1%
31
3.8%
38
4.6%
110
13.3%
2
0.2%
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Contextualized
Modularized
Reading
Co-requisite
Compression
Contextualized
Modularized
Writing
Co-requisite
Compression
Contextualized
Modularized
Notes.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Grade “C” and Above includes the data values of “A”, “B”, “C”, “P”, “S” (“P” is passed, “S” is satisfactory);
Grade “D” includes only grades of “D”;
Withdrawals includes “W” and “WU” (“W” is Official withdraw, “WU” is Unofficial withdraw);
Unsuccessful includes “U” and “F” (“U” is unsatisfactory, “F” is fail);
Other category includes “I”, “PR,” “X” and “Z” (“I” is incomplete, “PR” is progress, “X” is no grade awarded, “Z” is audit)
To protect the privacy of individual students, data are not reported when the total number of students in a group is fewer than 10. Double asterisks (**) will appear when data are suppressed. When there are
no students reported in a category, a dot (.) will appear in the table cell.
Page 36 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
Part II. Supplemental Data
The Business Intelligence Tool revealed two student subpopulations most challenged by the developmental education
reform efforts at Florida State College at Jacksonville in the 2014-15 academic year: students of color and economically
disadvantaged students. In 2015-16, black students and students of two or more races continued to experience lower
success rates in developmental math than did white, Hispanic, and Asian students. However, the majority of students
across all population segments attained a “C” or above in developmental reading and writing. Likewise, the educational
gap between economically disadvantaged and non-economically disadvantaged students narrowed between 2014-15
and 2015-16 while revealing a decline in the overall success rates of non-economically disadvantaged students in the
current reporting cycle.
In 2015-16, black students and students of two or more races experienced success rates that were significantly lower in
developmental math than those of their white, Hispanic, and Asian counterparts. Whereas black students achieved a
57.2% success rate and students of two or more races attained a 56.3% success rate, white students achieved a 69.6%
success rate, Hispanic students 69.1%, and Asian students 82.3%. Notably, the success rate of American Indian students
increased from 57.9% (n=11) in 2014-15 to 70.0% (n=14) in 2015-16.
In 2015-16, the majority of students across all population segments were successful in both developmental reading and
writing, with success rates in developmental reading ranging from 71.8% among black students to 88.5% among Asian
students. Additionally, the success rates in developmental reading among students of two or more races demonstrated
a nearly twenty-percent improvement from 66.7% (n=20) in 2014-15 to 85.7% (n=24) in 2015-16. Success rates in
developmental writing ranged from 74.2% among black students to 84.6% among students of two or more races, who
attained the highest success rate.
Furthermore, economically disadvantaged students experienced a 63.3% success rate in developmental math, while
non-economically disadvantaged students performed comparably at a 66.5% success rate. In developmental reading,
economically disadvantaged students experienced a 74.6% success rate, whereas non-economically disadvantaged
learners attained a 78.4% success rate. In developmental writing, economically disadvantaged students achieved a
77.8% success rate, and their non-economically disadvantaged peers attained a 78.8 % success rate. Although success
rates for economically disadvantaged and non-economically disadvantaged learners did not reveal significant
differences, the overall success rates of students in both categories declined somewhat across all developmental
education areas from 2014-15 to 2015-16, with the exception of developmental math performance among economically
disadvantaged students.
To address educational gaps, the College provides on-ground tutoring in mathematics and communications, including an
Enhanced Learning Support program specifically dedicated to developmental education and gateway course students in
the 2014-15 and 2015-16 academic years. The College also offers students online tutoring through Smarthinking.
Additionally, the College launched a supplemental instruction pilot and developed computerized “Math Self-Checks”
that feature practice exercises for helping students assess their mathematical knowledge and skills and therefore make
informed course-taking decisions. The College will continue to explore research-based practices for enhancing the
success of developmental learners and narrowing educational gaps among student subpopulations.
Page 37 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
College:
Florida SouthWestern State College
Year:
2015-2016 (Fall, Spring, and Summer data)
Date:
October 31, 2016
Report Completed by (name and title): Dr. Eileen DeLuca, Associate Vice President, Academic Affairs, Dr. Joseph van Gaalen, Director, Academic Assessment
Part I. Student Success Data
Subject
Math
Co-requisite
0
~
Compression
448
27.8%
221
49.3%
0
0.0%
33
7.4%
104
23.2%
90
20.1%
0
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
1164
72.2%
508
43.6%
13
1.1%
117
10.1%
290
24.9%
236
20.3%
Strategy
Modularized
Writing
Student Course Outcomes
# of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
~
Contextualized
Reading
% of
# of
Students
Students
by
Enrolled
Strategy
% of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
~
# of
Students
(Grade
“D”)
% of
Students
(Grade “D”)
# of Students
(Withdrawal)
% of Students
(Withdrawal)
# of Students
(Unsuccessful)
% of Students
(Unsuccessful)
# of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
% of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
Co-requisite
0
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
Compression
196
44.1%
156
79.6%
6
3.1%
14
7.1%
19
9.7%
1
0.5%
Contextualized
62
14.0%
47
75.8%
2
3.2%
4
6.5%
9
14.5%
0
0.0%
Modularized
186
41.9%
140
75.3%
9
4.8%
8
4.3%
29
15.6%
0
0.0%
Co-requisite
0
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
Compression
385
95.3%
296
76.9%
14
3.6%
28
7.3%
47
12.2%
0
0.0%
Contextualized
0
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
Modularized
19
4.7%
12
63.2%
0
0.0%
2
10.5%
5
26.3%
0
0.0%
Source: local Banner data (9/12/2016); Note: Discrepancies between local banner data and data published in Business Intelligence tool exist in some cases resulting in disagreement of +/- 3%.
Notes.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Grade “C” and Above includes the data values of “A”, “B”, “C”, “P”, “S” (“P” is passed, “S” is satisfactory);
Grade “D” includes only grades of “D”;
Withdrawals includes “W” and “WU” (“W” is Official withdraw, “WU” is Unofficial withdraw);
Unsuccessful includes “U” and “F” (“U” is unsatisfactory, “F” is fail);
Other category includes “I”, “PR,” “X” and “Z” (“I” is incomplete, “PR” is progress, “X” is no grade awarded, “Z” is audit)
To protect the privacy of individual students, data are not reported when the total number of students in a group is fewer than 10. Double asterisks (**) will appear when data are suppressed. When there are
no students reported in a category, a dot (.) will appear in the table cell.
Page 38 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
Part II. Supplemental Data
By using the Business Intelligence (BI) tool in the 2014-2015 data review, FSW located two subpopulations which tend to
have lower developmental course pass rates than others: male students and students between the ages of 20-24.
Included in the 2015 Accountability Report, FSW Academic Affairs conducted a study of usage of the Academic Support
Center (ASC) by the two identified subpopulations. In line with lower course success rates identified by the BI tool, the
study revealed that males utilized these services less than females and the 20-24 age group utilized these services less
than the other age groups as defined according to the BI tool. Based on these data, FSW implemented a pilot study
during the fall 2015 term in which tutors were provided within two sections of developmental mathematics courses.
This “push-in” model brings the support services straight to all students (not just the populations which are likely to
voluntarily visit centers outside of class) in an effort to demonstrate the value of the center such that students will
continue to visit on their own as needed.
While there were no significant improvements in course success rates when compared to the previous fall, the push-in
model was successful in getting students to voluntarily visit the Math Center. In fall 2015, 57% of students from push-in
model sections visited the Math Center. By comparison, only 44% of all other developmental math students visited the
Math Center. This result is statistically significant according to a χ2 test for independence (χ2 =2.935, p=0.087).
Moreover, this result is also statistically significantly higher than the previous fall term (2014) in which 49% of all other
developmental math students visited the Math Center.
Academic support continues to be available for all students. In fall 2015, 3,335 students utilized ASC services across 23,628
sign-ins totaling 31,000 hours of support. Student Satisfaction surveys are sent to students each term with the majority
of the students indicating satisfaction with services based on Likert Scale items. Correlation studies are conducted each
term and demonstrate the significant positive effects of Academic Support Programs.
To better engage and support males as well as students age 20-24, the Office of First Year Experience has implemented
the following during academic year 2015-2016:
Offered 163 evening workshops during fall and spring semesters to accommodate working students over the
traditional age.
• Increased male student attendance at workshops. For example, a Web Design-themed session was one such
workshop, 55% of attendees were male.
• Hired 16 students age 20 or older to serve as leaders and mentors.
• Doubled the number of male peer mentors on our Charlotte campus.
• Hired two male military veterans to serve as peer mentors.
Peer mentoring continues to be available through FSW’s SLS 1515: Cornerstone Experience course which promotes
Critical Thinking skills and the acquisition of success strategies among first-time in college, degree-seeking students. Peer
mentors are assigned to each section of SLS 1515. To date, over 15,000 students have enrolled in the course and have
been assigned a peer mentor.
•
Page 39 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
College:
Gulf Coast State College
Year:
2015-2016
Date:
September 28, 2016
Report Completed by (name and title): Holly Kuehner, Vice President of Academic Affairs & Learning Support
Part I. Student Success Data
Subject
Math
Strategy
% of
# of
Students
Students
by
Enrolled
Strategy
Co-requisite
Compression
Student Course Outcomes
# of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
% of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
# of
Students
(Grade
“D”)
% of
Students
(Grade “D”)
# of Students
(Withdrawal)
% of Students
(Withdrawal)
# of Students
(Unsuccessful)
% of Students
(Unsuccessful)
# of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
% of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
578
100%
348
60.2%
25
4.3%
14
2.4%
157
27.2%
34
5.9%
Co-requisite
80
62%
61
76.3%
2
2.5%
2
2.5%
11
13.8%
4
5%
Compression
49
38%
37
75.5%
0
0%
2
4.1%
9
18.4%
1
2%
Co-requisite
81
58.3%
61
75.3%
2
2.5%
1
1.2%
12
14.8%
5
6.2%
Compression
58
41.7%
43
74.1%
7
12.1%
1
1.7%
5
8.6%
2
3.4%
Contextualized
Modularized
Reading
Contextualized
Modularized
Writing
Contextualized
Modularized
Notes.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Grade “C” and Above includes the data values of “A”, “B”, “C”, “P”, “S” (“P” is passed, “S” is satisfactory);
Grade “D” includes only grades of “D”;
Withdrawals includes “W” and “WU” (“W” is Official withdraw, “WU” is Unofficial withdraw);
Unsuccessful includes “U” and “F” (“U” is unsatisfactory, “F” is fail);
Other category includes “I”, “PR,” “X” and “Z” (“I” is incomplete, “PR” is progress, “X” is no grade awarded, “Z” is audit)
To protect the privacy of individual students, data are not reported when the total number of students in a group is fewer than 10. Double asterisks (**) will appear when data are suppressed. When there are
no students reported in a category, a dot (.) will appear in the table cell.
Page 40 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
Part II. Supplemental Data
1. Sub-population #1: Mathematics compressed delivery method.
a. The success rate in the mathematics compressed delivery method increased from 53.1% in academic
year 2014-15 to 60.2% in academic year 2015-16; this represents a 7.1% increase.
2. Sub-population # 2: Writing compressed delivery method.
a. The success rate in the writing compressed delivery method increased from 62% in academic year 201415 to 74.1% in academic year 2015-16; this represents a 12.1% increase.
To help engage high school and middle-school students, the college hired several transition academic advisors that are
working directly with students, in their middle and high school settings, to help them understand career pathways,
financial aid policies, the long-term impact of student loans and student debt, and the multitude of postsecondary
opportunities – everything from industry certification and degree programs to the various programs and opportunities
provided by regional technical centers, state colleges and universities, and private institutions. These transition
academic advisors are increasing students’ knowledge of what it takes to prepare for and to succeed in postsecondary
education. They are establishing rapport with middle-and high school students, and their parents or guardians, to assist
with academic pathways and prerequisite course selection, deadlines/priorities, terminology and career resources, and
postsecondary education admissions and financial aid/scholarship application processes.
To help augment student preparation in Mathematics needed for success in STEM-related majors, from October 2015 to
April 2016, Gulf Coast entered into a partnership with Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University and the University of Florida
to provide “Algebra Nation” training and activities to an eight county region surrounding the college’s traditional service
area. The college’s Algebra Nation staff worked with math specialists in each school district to determine the training
needs of math teachers, developed appropriate training opportunities and conducted the needed training. In addition,
this effort included deployment of student math ambassadors who supported the Algebra Nation training activities with
hands-on learning opportunities for middle-school students. The College held two Saturday Boot Camps for Bay county
students, and provided tutoring to students at Port St. Joe High School and Wewahitchka High School.
To improve the success rates, the developmental program has implemented the following practices:
attendance/participation grades, math professors have the option of giving on-line test, math students are required to
complete homework and quizzes on-line, math instructors changed the testing format to follow the format that it’s used
to teach the material, increased communication between course manager and all instructors of developmental courses,
added on-line tutoring, and increased marketing of Mathematics, Writing and Reading Lab tutorial services (in-house
and online tutoring). In addition, Student advising processes have been adjusted so that students are given special
caution regarding the abbreviated time frame involved in compressed courses, including scheduling options for
alternatives utilizing co-requisite delivery mode.
Page 41 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
College:
Hillsborough Community College
Year:
2015-16
Date:
October 26, 2016
Report Completed by (name and title): Craig Johnson, Vice President of Academic Affairs
Part I. Student Success Data
Subject
Math
Strategy
Co-requisite
Compression
Contextualized
Modularized
Reading
Co-requisite
Compression
Contextualized
Modularized
Writing
Co-requisite
Compression
Contextualized
Modularized
Notes.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
% of
# of
Students
Students
by
Enrolled
Strategy
Student Course Outcomes
# of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
% of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
# of
Students
(Grade
“D”)
% of
Students
(Grade “D”)
# of Students
(Withdrawal)
% of Students
(Withdrawal)
# of Students
(Unsuccessful)
% of Students
(Unsuccessful)
# of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
% of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
302
10.6%
452
15.9%
402
14.1%
2,846
61.5%
1,590
55.9%
100
3.5%
671
14.5%
434
64.7%
28
4.2%
52
7.7%
75
11.2%
82
12.2%
1,109
24.0%
629
56.7%
0
0.0%
116
10.5%
364
32.8%
0
0.0%
95
6.5%
57
60.0%
11
11.6%
4
4.2%
23
24.2%
0
0.0%
1,372
93.4%
950
69.2%
54
3.9%
122
8.9%
223
16.3%
23
1.7%
**
**.*
**
**.*
**
**.*
**
**.*
**
**.*
**
**.*
1,307
91.2%
848
64.9%
47
3.6%
116
8.9%
230
17.6%
66
5.0%
126
8.8%
96
76.2%
0
0.0%
9
7.1%
19
15.1%
2
1.6%
Grade “C” and Above includes the data values of “A”, “B”, “C”, “P”, “S” (“P” is passed, “S” is satisfactory);
Grade “D” includes only grades of “D”;
Withdrawals includes “W” and “WU” (“W” is Official withdraw, “WU” is Unofficial withdraw);
Unsuccessful includes “U” and “F” (“U” is unsatisfactory, “F” is fail);
Other category includes “I”, “PR,” “X” and “Z” (“I” is incomplete, “PR” is progress, “X” is no grade awarded, “Z” is audit)
To protect the privacy of individual students, data are not reported when the total number of students in a group is fewer than 10. Double asterisks (**) will appear when data are suppressed. When there are
no students reported in a category, a dot (.) will appear in the table cell.
Page 42 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
Part II. Supplemental Data
The two subpopulations in HCC’s development education reform efforts that are being focused upon are the
subpopulations of students enrolled in MAT 0055 Developmental Mathematics Module and in REA 0019 Developmental
Reading.
MAT 0055 was designed to target students who were interested in flexible format that allowed them to limit
remediation to skill sets they were assessed to need. The course showed early promise as a successful strategy for
students. In spite of comparable success rates, increasingly students are gravitating towards the compressed courses
(MAT 0018 Pre-Algebra and MAT 0028 Beginning Algebra) over the modularized course, MAT 0055. In 2014-15, total
enrollment in MAT 0055 was 3,121 whereas in 2015-16, total enrollment had decreased by more than half to 1,109.
Regarding success rates, in 2014-15 it was reported that 7.2% of the MAT 0055 students earned a ‘C’ or better and in
2015-16, 56.7% earned a ‘C’ or better. This increase primarily reflects a change in the way modules were graded rather
than an increase in success rates. HCC is not going to continue to offer the course based on the following barriers:
A. Financial Aid – Students taking the modules encountered difficulty in obtaining their financial aid, and problems
were not resolved until the end of spring 2015. Students couldn’t exit at any 5 week increment as designed or
they would/could affect their FA status. This obstacle has never been resolved. Academic advisors, financial aid
counselors, veteran’s advisors and the athletic department were not in support of this curricular approach.
B. Veterans Affairs – VA services could not accommodate an “S” grade and the one credit hour module format.
C. Campus Equity – not all campuses were able to offer MAT 0055, and some that did only offered one section.
The failure to align the approaches across all campuses created confusion among advisors and students alike.
D. Classroom format - Grade and exit requirement were defined as the successful completion of 90% of the course
material and a 70% on the district wide exit exam also used for MAT 0028 students. Classroom was emporium
style with faculty available to answer questions, monitor progress, and encourage focus and consistent time on
task. No tests were scheduled, and five-week grades were based on weekly time spent and topics mastered in
the software. Without intermediate benchmarks or tests, students had difficulty staying motivated to advance.
Students interpreted the new classroom format as a license to miss class and work at home as a distance
learning course.
E. New Modular Structure and Early Exit - Students continually misunderstood the modular approach, and
expected a final exam at the end of the semester as traditional classes. They didn’t fully grasp a course grade
every 5 weeks, and didn’t demonstrate the capability of advancing and exiting at their own pace. The financial
aid issues surrounding early exit eliminated the capability and incentive for students to exit early and accelerate
into MAT 0028.
Faculty modified grading requirements, attendance requirements, class assessments, and other approaches, but the
solution to keep students moving through the course material at an appropriate pace remained elusive. Emporium style
courses requires a student to possess focus and self-motivation similar to distance learning courses. Faculty speculate
that the general prep student population isn’t mature enough academically. Emporiums may require screening for
appropriate students. The current results indicate it is not a format for the general prep student population. Since we
use the same software for MAT 0018/0028/0055, we can eliminate the software for a hypothetical discussion. Results
indicate that if two MAT 0028 level cohort of students were used, about 60% would pass the traditional MAT 0028 in 8
weeks, and MAT 0055 would not produce results even close to that. Reinstating MAT 0055 may take place at a future
date.
REA 0019 combines the competencies of the previous two levels of developmental reading in a three-credit hour
format. Based on instructor feedback, the course was been increased to four credit hours effective Fall 2015 to cover the
course competencies more adequately. Student enrollment in developmental reading courses in general has dropped
significantly as a result of SB 1720, and ENC 0027 Developmental Reading and Writing is seen as a superior option for
students who need remediation in reading and writing. In 2014-15, total enrollment in REA 0019 was 1,503, and in 2015Page 43 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
16 total enrollment had decreased to 1,372. Similarly, enrollment in ENC 0027 dropped from 1,503 in 2014-15 to 1,307
in 2015-16. In 2014-15, the percentage of students who earned a ‘C’ or better in REA 0019 was 65.9%; this percentage
increased to 69.2% in 2015-16. In 2014-15, the percentage of students who earned a ‘C’ or better in ENC 0027 was
59.4%; this percentage increased to 64.9% in 2015-16.
Page 44 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
College:
Indian River State College
Year:
2016
Date:
October 15, 2016
Report Completed by (name and title): Marta Cronin, Ed.D., Vice President of Academic Affairs
Part I. Student Success Data
Subject
Math
Reading
Writing
Strategy
Co-requisite
Student Course Outcomes
% of
# of
Students
Students
by
Enrolled
Strategy
% of
# of
Students
Students
(Grade
(Grade
“C” and
“D”)
Above)
0%
0
% of
Students
(Grade “D”)
# of Students
(Withdrawal)
% of Students
(Withdrawal)
# of Students
(Unsuccessful)
% of Students
(Unsuccessful)
# of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
% of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
Compression
840
43.3%
624
74.3%
47
5.6%
78
9.3%
87
10.4%
4
0.5%
Contextualized
725
37.3%
540
74.5%
61
8.4%
44
6.1%
71
9.8%
9
1.2%
Modularized
377
19.4%
254
67.4%
24
6.4%
36
9.5%
57
15.1%
6
1.6%
Co-requisite
0
# of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
0%
0
0
0%
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
Compression
303
47.9%
242
79.9%
9
3.0%
24
7.9%
28
9.2%
0
0.0%
Contextualized
193
30.5%
158
81.9%
13
6.7%
8
4.1%
14
7.3%
0
0.0%
Modularized
137
21.6%
89
65.0%
10
7.3%
14
10.2%
20
14.6%
4
2.9%
Co-requisite
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
Compression
324
48.4%
272
84.0%
8
2.5%
14
4.3%
24
7.4%
6
1.9%
Contextualized
291
43.5%
238
81.8%
6
2.1%
15
5.2%
32
11.0%
0
0.0%
54
8.1%
30
55.6%
3
5.6%
8
14.8%
13
24.1%
0
0.0%
Modularized
0
Notes.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Grade “C” and Above includes the data values of “A”, “B”, “C”, “P”, “S” (“P” is passed, “S” is satisfactory);
Grade “D” includes only grades of “D”;
Withdrawals includes “W” and “WU” (“W” is Official withdraw, “WU” is Unofficial withdraw);
Unsuccessful includes “U” and “F” (“U” is unsatisfactory, “F” is fail);
Other category includes “I”, “PR,” “X” and “Z” (“I” is incomplete, “PR” is progress, “X” is no grade awarded, “Z” is audit)
To protect the privacy of individual students, data are not reported when the total number of students in a group is fewer than 10. Double asterisks (**) will appear when data are suppressed.
When there are no students reported in a category, a dot (.) will appear in the table cell.
Page 45 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
Part II. Supplemental Data
The two areas on which we elected to focus were:
1. Students enrolled in modularized reading classes and
2. Students enrolled in modularized English classes.
The intention was to use a Title III grant to create a more robust modularized learning environment in both these content
areas. As indicated on this year’s report, there was no positive change in the success rate of these courses. The rate for
modularized reading went down slightly from 65.6% in 2015 to 65% in 2016, a decrease of 0.6%. The success rate in
modularized English also decreased from 60.7% in 2015 to 55.6% in 2016, a drop of 5.1%. A change in faculty and the
need to change the outside partner who was assisting with the development of the online content, have put us behind on
our timeline for these two projects. The modularized versions of these classes are expected to roll out in January of 2017.
It is important to note that a smaller percentage of students have been opting to enroll in the modularized versions of
these courses. In 2015, 8.8% of English developmental education students were enrolled in modularized sections
compared to 8.1% in 2016 and in 2015, 27.1% of reading developmental education students were enrolled in modularized
sections when compared to 21.6% in 2016.
Page 46 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
College:
Lake-Sumter State College
Year:
2016
Date:
October 31, 2016
Report Completed by (name and title): Thom Kieft, Associate Vice-President General Studies, [email protected]
Part I. Student Success Data
Subject
Math
Strategy
% of
# of
Students
Students
by
Enrolled
Strategy
Co-requisite
Student Course Outcomes
# of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
% of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
# of
Students
(Grade
“D”)
% of
Students
(Grade “D”)
# of Students
(Withdrawal)
% of Students
(Withdrawal)
# of Students
(Unsuccessful)
% of Students
(Unsuccessful)
# of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
% of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
Compression
Reading
Contextualized
66
10.6%
47
71.2%
0
0.0%
2
3.0%
17
25.8%
0
0.0%
Modularized
555
89.4%
248
44.7%
0
0%
24
4.3%
225
40.5%
58
10.5%
101
100%
90
89.1%
2
2.0%
1
1.0%
8
7.9%
0
0.0%
102
100%
87
85.3%
1
1.0%
2
2.0%
12
11.8%
0
0.0%
Co-requisite
Compression
Contextualized
Modularized
Writing
Co-requisite
Compression
Contextualized
Modularized
Notes.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Grade “C” and Above includes the data values of “A”, “B”, “C”, “P”, “S” (“P” is passed, “S” is satisfactory);
Grade “D” includes only grades of “D”;
Withdrawals includes “W” and “WU” (“W” is Official withdraw, “WU” is Unofficial withdraw);
Unsuccessful includes “U” and “F” (“U” is unsatisfactory, “F” is fail);
Other category includes “I”, “PR,” “X” and “Z” (“I” is incomplete, “PR” is progress, “X” is no grade awarded, “Z” is audit)
To protect the privacy of individual students, data are not reported when the total number of students in a group is fewer than 10. Double asterisks (**) will appear when data are suppressed. When there are
no students reported in a category, a dot (.) will appear in the table cell.
Page 47 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
Part II. Supplemental Data
The first subpopulation identified in the 2015 report was the group of students taking the modular strategy for MAT
0028 Developmental Mathematics II. The success rate for MAT 0028 was 42.2% in fall 2015, 51.5% in spring 2016, and in
summer 2016 has the potential success rate of 63.8% through IP, In Progress, grades. To address the educational gap,
the math redesign team has reduced the number of modules in MAT 0028 from 10 to 8 beginning in summer 2016. In
doing this, the redesign team has condensed the first three modules into one module. It should be noted that the
modularized and contextualized approaches to developmental mathematics have a very small withdraw rate (3.0% and
4.3%) compared to the withdraw rate in the other math classes (12.2%).
The 58 “other” grades displayed on the success data chart for modular math were IP, In Progress, grades for those
students that have nearly completed the MAT 0018 (or MAT 0028) course that are eligible to take a one credit minisemester course in the following semester to complete the remaining 1-3 modules and, once completing the
outstanding modules, have their grade in MAT 0018 (or MAT 0028) changed to “S” for Satisfactory. During the past fall
and spring semesters, 74% of the students awarded an IP grade were successful in the follow-up mini-semester.
The second subpopulation was the group of students that were exempt from development math coursework that chose
to take MAT 1033 Intermediate Algebra. From Fall 2007 to Fall 2014, the success rate in MAT 1033 was 57.2%. Since the
implementation of SB 1720, the success rate in MAT 1033 has been 50.9% yet has increased each year. Exempt students’
success rate has increased 1.3% since last year. One of the improvement methods discussed last year was the creation of
MAT 1100 Intermediate Math for Liberal Arts which was first taught in spring 2016. MAT 1033 will be the prerequisite to
the gateway math course for STEM and business meta-majors and the new MAT 1100 course will be the prerequisite to
the gateway math course for other meta-majors.
The success rate in all delivery modes of MAT 1100 was 60.9% with the exempt students having a success rate of 53.6%.
However, when exempt students are in a seated MAT 1100 section their success rate is 71.4%, which is 29.1 percentage
points higher than exempt students in MAT 1033 in 2014-2015. During the fall 2016 semester, LSSC is offering a late
start MAT 1100 section in hopes that students who were not successful on the diagnostic and first test in MAT 1033
would re-evaluate whether that were in the correct math pathway. At that point, students would be able to transfer to
MAT 1100 or enter the modular MAT 0028.
During the 2015-2016 academic year the success rate in MAT 1033 was 53.3%. When a student successfully completed
MAT 0028, the success rate in MAT 1033 was 72.6%. Students who attempted and were unsuccessful in MAT 0028, but
used their exemption to enter MAT 1033 had a success rate of only 3.9%.
Page 48 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
College:
Year:
Date:
Report Completed by (name and title):
Miami Dade College
2015-16
October 30, 2016
Dr. Lenore Rodicio, Executive Vice President and Provost
Part I. Student Success Data
Subject
Math
% of
# of
Students
Students
by
Enrolled
Strategy
Student Course Outcomes
Co-requisite
2,402
24.8%
# of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
1,932
Compression
2,289
23.6%
1,528
66.8%
0
0%
184
8.0%
243
10.6%
334
14.6%
5,000
51.6%
2,369
47.4%
0
0%
584
11.7%
629
12.6%
1,418
28.4%
2,521
95.7%
1,688
67.0%
0
0%
342
13.6%
64
2.5%
427
16.9%
112
4.3%
96
85.7%
0
0%
9
8.0%
3
2.7%
4
3.6%
2,907
89.0%
2,275
78.3%
0
0%
300
10.3%
60
2.1%
272
9.4%
361
11.0%
261
72.3%
0
0%
37
10.2%
34
9.4%
29
8.0%
Strategy
% of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
80.4%
# of
Students
(Grade
“D”)
% of
Students
(Grade “D”)
# of Students
(Withdrawal)
% of Students
(Withdrawal)
# of Students
(Unsuccessful)
% of Students
(Unsuccessful)
# of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
% of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
0
0%
96
4.0%
185
7.7%
189
7.9%
Contextualized
Modularized
Reading
Co-requisite
Compression
Contextualized
Modularized
Writing
Co-requisite
Compression
Contextualized
Modularized
Notes.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Grade “C” and Above includes the data values of “A”, “B”, “C”, “P”, “S” (“P” is passed, “S” is satisfactory);
Grade “D” includes only grades of “D”;
Withdrawals includes “W” and “WU” (“W” is Official withdraw, “WU” is Unofficial withdraw);
Unsuccessful includes “U” and “F” (“U” is unsatisfactory, “F” is fail);
Other category includes “I”, “PR,” “X” and “Z” (“I” is incomplete, “PR” is progress, “X” is no grade awarded, “Z” is audit)
To protect the privacy of individual students, data are not reported when the total number of students in a group is fewer than 10. Double asterisks (**) will appear when data are suppressed. When there are
no students reported in a category, a dot (.) will appear in the table cell.
Page 49 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
Part II. Supplemental Data
Students enrolled in MAT0022C and MAT0057 were identified as the two subpopulations of interest in the Miami Dade
College 2015 Developmental Education Accountability Report. Below are updated data for these subpopulations.
Percent of Students with Grade C and Above
MAT0022C
2015: 35.1% (42% total developmental mathematics enrollment)
2016: 44.4% (35% total developmental mathematics enrollment)
MAT0057
2015: 46.8% (18% total developmental mathematics enrollment)
2016: 48.6% (14% total developmental mathematics enrollment)
Success rates have improved in both MAT0022C and MAT0057 with the most notable increase of nearly 10 percentage
points in MAT0022C. The enrollment in both courses has declined in terms of proportion of total developmental
mathematics enrollment. This is a result of a strategic emphasis on implementing a non-algebra track mathematics
pathway with a comprehensive communication and training plan for advisors and a shift of student enrollment to
MAT0029 (7% in 2015; 25% in 2016). MAT0029 has strong success rate of 80.4%, the highest for developmental
mathematics.
Page 50 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
College:
North Florida Community College
Year:
2016
Date:
October 27, 2016
Report Completed by (name and title): Jennifer H. Page, Director of Curriculum and Instruction
Lawrence Dunn, Research Analyst
Part I. Student Success Data
Subject
Math
Strategy
Co-requisite
Compression
Contextualized
Modularized
Reading
Co-requisite
% of
# of
Students
Students
by
Enrolled Strategy
Student Course Outcomes
# of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
% of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
# of
Students
(Grade
“D”)
% of
Students
(Grade “D”)
# of Students
(Withdrawal)
% of Students
(Withdrawal)
# of Students
(Unsuccessful)
% of Students
(Unsuccessful)
# of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
% of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
23
21.1%
13
56.5%
3
13.0%
3
13.0%
4
17.4%
0
0.0%
82
75.2%
53
64.6%
3
3.7%
9
11.0%
16
19.5%
1
1.2%
**
**.*
**
**.*
**
**.*
**
**.*
**
**.*
**
**.*
**
**.*
**
**.*
**
**.*
**
**.*
**
**.*
**
**.*
13
26.0%
7
53.8%
1
7.7%
2
15.4%
3
23.1%
0
0.0%
37
74.0%
23
62.2%
3
8.1%
11
29.7%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
Compression
Contextualized
Modularized
Writing
Co-requisite
Compression
Contextualized
Modularized
Notes.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Grade “C” and Above includes the data values of “A”, “B”, “C”, “P”, “S” (“P” is passed, “S” is satisfactory);
Grade “D” includes only grades of “D”;
Withdrawals includes “W” and “WU” (“W” is Official withdraw, “WU” is Unofficial withdraw);
Unsuccessful includes “U” and “F” (“U” is unsatisfactory, “F” is fail);
Other category includes “I”, “PR,” “X” and “Z” (“I” is incomplete, “PR” is progress, “X” is no grade awarded, “Z” is audit)
To protect the privacy of individual students, data are not reported when the total number of students in a group is fewer than 10. Double asterisks (**) will appear when data are suppressed.
When there are no students reported in a category, a dot (.) will appear in the table cell.
Page 51 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
Part II. Supplemental Data
In 2015, North Florida Community College used the Developmental Education Business Intelligence tool to identify two
subpopulations which are most challenged by the developmental education reform efforts: African American males and
African American females. The 2016 data from the BI tool indicate that African American student enrollment in
developmental education courses has decreased. Regarding the success of these two subpopulations, the data show
that 56.3% of the African American females who were enrolled in a compressed developmental math course at NFCC
were successful, with success defined as earning a “C” average or above in the course.
Furthermore, 36.4% of the African American females who were enrolled in a compressed developmental writing course
were successful, earning a “C” average or higher. 18.8% of the African American females enrolled in compressed math
courses withdrew from the course, while 54.5% of the African American females enrolled in compressed writing courses
withdrew. The BI tool does not provide enrollment data for NFCC’s African American male population in developmental
education courses due to the significantly low number of African American males enrolled.
The institutional strategies aimed at addressing the educational gap for the African American male and female
subpopulations are centered around advising and academic support resources. In the fall of 2016, NFCC advising began
implementing case load advisement. Currently enrolled students are assigned to an academic advisor who serves as a
case manager and coach for students. Advisors have continued to participate in diversity and retention training related
to addressing the educational gaps with minority and/or special populations. Moreover, initiated in the fall of 2015,
NFCC’s first Minority Success Program was developed. An advisory committee was formed and applications from
interested students have been submitted. This program focuses on offering a large network of academic and personal
support for students in both the college classroom and the community. Each student member of this program meets
with an academic advisor a minimum of three times each semester to discuss objectives and progress. The NFCC
Academic Success Center also helps to address the needs of students in the two subpopulations by working with
academic advisors and instructors to contact students who receive course early alert notices at weeks three and seven in
the semester. This contact with support services on campus aims to meet the needs of struggling students early in the
semester and then continues to provide support and resources throughout the remainder of a student’s time at NFCC.
Faculty directly support these institutional strategies by working closely with advisors and learning resources staff to
meet the needs of both African American males and females.
Page 52 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
College:
Northwest Florida State College
Year:
2015-2016
Date:
October 26, 2016
Report Completed by (name and title): Dr. Deborah Fontaine, Acting Dean, General Education and Grants
Part I. Student Success Data
Subject
Math
Strategy
% of
# of
Students
Students
by
Enrolled
Strategy
Co-requisite
Compression
Student Course Outcomes
# of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
% of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
# of
Students
(Grade
“D”)
% of
Students
(Grade “D”)
# of Students
(Withdrawal)
% of Students
(Withdrawal)
# of Students
(Unsuccessful)
% of Students
(Unsuccessful)
# of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
% of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
424
63.9%
286
67.5%
51
12.0%
13
3.1%
40
9.4%
34
8.0%
240
36.1%
157
65.4%
40
16.7%
15
6.3%
16
6.7%
12
5.0%
101
78.3%
82
81.2%
5
5.0%
0
0.0%
1
1.0%
13
12.9%
28
21.7%
21
75.0%
1
3.6%
3
10.7%
2
7.1%
1
3.6%
81
65.3%
69
85.2%
0
0.0%
1
1.2%
0
0.0%
11
13.6%
43
34.7%
41
95.3%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1
2.3%
1
2.3%
Contextualized
Modularized
Reading
Co-requisite
Compression
Contextualized
Modularized
Writing
Co-requisite
Compression
Contextualized
Modularized
Notes.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Grade “C” and Above includes the data values of “A”, “B”, “C”, “P”, “S” (“P” is passed, “S” is satisfactory);
Grade “D” includes only grades of “D”;
Withdrawals includes “W” and “WU” (“W” is Official withdraw, “WU” is Unofficial withdraw);
Unsuccessful includes “U” and “F” (“U” is unsatisfactory, “F” is fail);
Other category includes “I”, “PR,” “X” and “Z” (“I” is incomplete, “PR” is progress, “X” is no grade awarded, “Z” is audit)
To protect the privacy of individual students, data are not reported when the total number of students in a group is fewer than 10. Double asterisks (**) will appear when data are suppressed. When there are
no students reported in a category, a dot (.) will appear in the table cell.
Page 53 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
Part II. Supplemental Data
NWF State College utilized several institutional strategies to address the educational gap for the subpopulations African
American Math Students and Economically Disadvantaged Math Students.
Subpopulations and Strategies
1. The primary strategy for the African American Math subpopulation included the expansion of the AfricanAmerican Student Association to include Sankofa, an extra-curricular organization whose purpose is to assist
African-American students succeed in math courses through peer-tutoring.
2. The primary strategy for the Economically Disadvantaged Math subpopulation incorporated a closed D2L
discussion group for students enrolled in MAT0028.
Common treatment for both groups included incorporating transparent instruction, adapted from the Transparency
Project, into the curriculum. These research-based strategies required faculty to
• ensure lesson and assignment objectives were clearly understood,
• encourage students to participate in class planning,
• discuss learning strategies, and
• encourage students to work with and assess peers’ work.
Results
The table below indicates the increase/decrease in success as compared to 2014-2015.
2014-15
2015-16
2014-15
2015-16
Success
Rate
Success
Rate
Grade
Other
Grade
Other
Compression
Modularized
47.80%
44.40%
54.80%
65.00%
0.00%
0.00%
8.10%
0.00%
Compression
Modularized
66.80%
62.20%
63.70%
61.60%
1.20%
0.70%
9.50%
3.60%
Subpopulations Delivery
AfricanAmerican
Economically
Disadvantaged
African-American Subpopulation
The most gain occurred with the African American subpopulation, increasing 7% in compressed delivery and 20.6% in
modularized delivery. The group’s success in modular sections proved equal to the overall Developmental Math
population success rate of 65.4%, a significant accomplishment.
Sankofa/AASA
Despite concerted efforts to engage African American students in extracurricular groups to create peer-tutoring
opportunities, little of the improvement noted above can be attributed to this strategy due to limited
participation.
Page 54 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
Sankofa attracted seven developmental education math participants, three of whom took advantage of peertutoring opportunities. Organizers found that the math students required more time than the volunteers could
provide and that volunteers lacked sufficient training to deal with varied personalities and learning styles.
Economically Disadvantaged Subpopulation
Data illustrates that less intrusive strategies involving voluntary participation in technology-based discussion groups did
not improve success.
D2L Discussion: XMI0028
Although 351 students were enrolled in a private LMS shell designated as a space to receive peer and instructor
tutoring, only 18 students participated, despite email invitations and instructor encouragement to join the
discussion group.
Although reported data indicates a slightly reduced success rate from last year, the percent of students earning
a grade of “Other” (most being Incompletes) increased significantly in both deliveries for this group (see table
above). If only half of these students were successful after completing coursework, comparison of success rates
would show a slightly positive change.
Transparent Instruction
In both subpopulations, strategies incorporating transparent instruction were infused into the curriculum. A sample of
curricular changes included the following:
• clearer instructions for all class expectations,
• verbalized thinking process as math problems were modeled, and
• rewritten test instructions to ensure expectations were clear.
Student feedback indicates that content delivered utilizing these strategies created clearer expectations. These
strategies also increased instructor engagement with students, a research-based best practice. NWF intends to continue
the use of transparent instruction.
Page 55 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
College:
Palm Beach State College
Year:
2016
Date:
October 19, 2016
Report Completed by (name and title): Susan Bierster, Associate Dean for Developmental Education/Interim Dean of Curriculum
Part I. Student Success Data
Subject
Math
Strategy
% of
# of
Students
Students
by
Enrolled
Strategy
Co-requisite
Compression
Student Course Outcomes
# of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
% of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
# of
Students
(Grade
“D”)
% of
Students
(Grade “D”)
# of Students
(Withdrawal)
% of Students
(Withdrawal)
# of Students
(Unsuccessful)
% of Students
(Unsuccessful)
# of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
% of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
3,063
74.5%
1,540
50.3%
0
0.0%
427
13.9%
1,094
35.7%
2
0.1%
1,047
25.5%
648
61.9%
0
0.0%
145
13.8%
254
24.3%
0
0.0%
131
100.0%
98
74.8%
0
0.0%
21
16.0%
12
9.2%
0
0.0%
1,127
87.6%
757
67.2%
0
0.0%
136
12.1%
234
20.8%
0
0.0%
159
12.4%
121
76.1%
0
0.0%
11
6.9%
27
17.0%
0
0.0%
Contextualized
Modularized
Reading
Co-requisite
Compression
Contextualized
Modularized
Writing
Co-requisite
Compression
Contextualized
Modularized
Notes.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Grade “C” and Above includes the data values of “A”, “B”, “C”, “P”, “S” (“P” is passed, “S” is satisfactory);
Grade “D” includes only grades of “D”;
Withdrawals includes “W” and “WU” (“W” is Official withdraw, “WU” is Unofficial withdraw);
Unsuccessful includes “U” and “F” (“U” is unsatisfactory, “F” is fail);
Other category includes “I”, “PR,” “X” and “Z” (“I” is incomplete, “PR” is progress, “X” is no grade awarded, “Z” is audit)
To protect the privacy of individual students, data are not reported when the total number of students in a group is fewer than 10. Double asterisks (**) will appear when data are suppressed. When there are
no students reported in a category, a dot (.) will appear in the table cell.
Page 56 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
Part II. Supplemental Data
Last year two subpopulations were identified as being challenged by the developmental education reform efforts of the
state. The two subpopulations are black students’ success rates in Math and Writing and success rates of non-exempt
students, by gender, in Math.
For the first subpopulation, the success rates in math improved slightly from 2014/2015 to 2015/2016. In 2014-15 black
students pass rate was 46.9% and in 2015-16 the pass rate rose to 47.9% with a net gain of 1%. In Writing, the results
were a slight dip in the pass rate among black students, with a decrease in pass rate by a little over half a percent (64.7%
to 64.1%). The slight increase can be attributed to the advising process at the college where high school transcripts and
any college placement tests (ACT/SAT) students completed so that students were advised properly.
For the second subpopulation, the results in 2015-16 revealed a higher success rate in Math by male students (49.8%
this year compared to 47.1% in 2014-15). However, for female students we saw a decline in pass rates from 59.8% in
2014-15 to 56.8% this year. Further drilling down in the Math data revealed that both exempt and non-exempt
students did better in the modularized course versus the compression course, especially female students. This data will
be used when faculty re-examine the developmental math courses and recommend adjustments to the course offerings.
The compression course is an intense course covering a wide range of material and for students who are weak in math,
this course can be overwhelming. The faculty may need to develop more modularized courses that cover smaller
amounts of course work in a shorter timeframe.
Last year the College’s data did not reflect the modularized courses although the College did offer such courses.
Palm Beach State College’s vision to have students complete within two years has initiated programs that will help
contribute to overall success for the College’s students and for the students identified in these subpopulations.
Title V Pathways to Success Grant:
This program serves all degree-seeking, First Time in College, Hispanic or low-income students. Embedded in this
program are Pathways to Success coaches who are also advisors for students. This year the Success coaches are
implementing the theoretical infrastructure of Appreciative Advising and skills training. Each coach has developed a
framework for delivering proactive, case-based, holistic advising services and will implement this into their daily work.
A new student services software, Starfish/Hobsons, is currently being piloted with the Title V Pathways to Success
students and their Success Coaches. This software is an additional layer of support for the students using it. The
student is able to connect with their Success coach, instructors and additional departments in their Success Network.
Math Jump:
With support from Title V and the College Foundation, Palm Beach State’s math department has created a Math Jump
program, which is a five-day intensive workshop offered in late summer to prepare students for gateway algebra course
(MAT1033C – Intermediate Algebra) or college-ready algebra course (MAC1105 – College Algebra). The English
department is developing a Jump into Writing workshop for summer 2017 to help prepare students to take gateway
English course (ENC1101 – College Composition).
Curriculum review:
Developmental faculty will begin reviewing course offerings in 2017 for possible recommendations to offer more
modularized courses that cover specific topics students need to be successful in gateway courses as data has shown
students are performing better in that style of instruction. Introduction to the College Experience continues to be a
requirement for all FTIC, AA degree seeking students and last year the faculty developed a follow-up course which is not
a required course but an elective, Personal Development. This course focuses on helping students become responsible
and successful learners by hands-on activities involving motivation, self-management, self-awareness, social
interdependence, emotional intelligence and self-esteem.
Page 57 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
College:
Pasco Hernando State College
Year:
2016
Date:
September 26, 2016
Report Completed by (name and title): Patricia R. Campbell, Ph.D., Dean of Arts and Sciences
Part I. Student Success Data
Subject
Math
Strategy
Co-requisite
% of
# of
Students
Students
by
Enrolled
Strategy
Student Course Outcomes
# of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
12
28
1.4%
1935
98.4%
732
36
7.8%
427
% of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
42.9%
# of
Students
(Grade
“D”)
% of
Students
(Grade “D”)
# of Students
(Withdrawal)
% of Students
(Withdrawal)
# of Students
(Unsuccessful)
% of Students
(Unsuccessful)
# of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
% of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
0
0%
2
7.1%
9
32.1%
5
17.9%
37.8%
0
0%
117
6%
666
34.4%
420
21.7%
35
97.2%
0
0%
0
0%
1
2.8%
0
0%
92.2%
297
69.6%
14
3.3%
21
4.9%
94
22%
1
.2%
36
8.6%
28
77.8%
0
0%
0
0%
8
22.2%
0
0%
381
91.4%
260
68.2
9
2.4%
24
6.3%
85
22.3%
3
.8%
Compression
Contextualized
Modularized
Reading
Co-requisite
Compression
Contextualized
Modularized
Writing
Co-requisite
Compression
Contextualized
Modularized
Notes.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Grade “C” and Above includes the data values of “A”, “B”, “C”, “P”, “S” (“P” is passed, “S” is satisfactory);
Grade “D” includes only grades of “D”;
Withdrawals includes “W” and “WU” (“W” is Official withdraw, “WU” is Unofficial withdraw);
Unsuccessful includes “U” and “F” (“U” is unsatisfactory, “F” is fail);
Other category includes “I”, “PR,” “X” and “Z” (“I” is incomplete, “PR” is progress, “X” is no grade awarded, “Z” is audit)
To protect the privacy of individual students, data are not reported when the total number of students in a group is fewer than 10. Double asterisks (**) will appear when data are suppressed.
When there are no students reported in a category, a dot (.) will appear in the table cell.
Page 58 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
Part II. Supplemental Data
In 2015, using the developmental education business intelligence tool, PHSC reported that the two (2) subpopulations
who were most challenged by the development education reform were students (96.8%) enrolled in modularized
developmental mathematics and students (86.3%) enrolled modularized writing. After the implementation of strategic
intervention services over the course of the past year for students enrolled in developmental education courses, the
data for 2016 reflects a marked increase in student success.
In a comparison between the 2211 students enrolled in developmental math 2015 and 1935 students enrolled in 2016,
the success rate rose from 29.9% to 37.8%. In a similar comparison for modularized writing with the 410 students who
enrolled in 2015 compared to the 381 students who enrolled in 2016, the success rate rose from 65.1% to 68.2%. The
increase of student success in developmental courses affirms the viability of PHSC’s institutional strategies for the
academic support of at-risk students.
As its first institutional strategy, PHSC launched a Faculty Alert system for a student who: (1) has excessive absences, (2)
has failed a major assignment, (3) needs tutoring services, (4) is at risk of failing due to low grades, (5) is at risk of
withdrawal due to excessive absences, or (6) is consistently tardy. If the student is not reached in three communication
attempts, a hold for future registration is placed on his or her registration status. To remove the registration hold the
student must visit an academic advisor. By the end of the 2015-16 academic year for both fall and spring terms, a total
of 2307 students college-wide were contacted by either their department or by an academic advisor who intervened
with academic support strategies.
PHSC also implemented a college-wide expansion of the use of its peer mentors who work with the Retention
Coordinator and Teaching-Learning Center Coordinators to call, email, and meet with students to assist in connecting to
various academic and student support services. Based upon duplicated enrollment, the raw data from the 2015-16
academic year that includes both developmental, as well as other at risk students, reflects the total number of students
contacted by peer mentors as over 26,624.
Third, the dedicated schedule of 29 weekly meetings of Retention Behavior Inventory (RBI) Strategy meetings resulted
the sharing of data with college personnel creating a college-wide awareness and accountability to student behaviors
that influence student success in courses. Debriefing includes follow-up for questions and concerns.
In summary, as a result of the data collection and documentation of educational reform strategies, PHSC continues to
increase their efforts in promoting student success through a self-examination of services, as well as through a
reexamining of pedagogy. For example, both PHSC math and English faculty reviewed the diagnostic assessments from
their developmental courses and addressed changes that proved necessary to improve student success rates. PHSC
continues monitor and assess the institutional strategies for addressing the educational gap facing students who
underprepared for the academic rigor of college-level math and writing.
Page 59 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
College:
Polk State College
Year:
2016
Date:
October 28, 2016
Report Completed by (name and title): Cate Igo, Director Academic Success Initiatives
Part I. Student Success Data
Subject
Math
Co-requisite
.
.
Compression
1093
74.9
561
Strategy
Modularized
Writing
Notes.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Student Course Outcomes
# of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
.
Contextualized
Reading
% of
# of
Students
Students
by
Enrolled
Strategy
% of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
.
# of
Students
(Grade
“D”)
% of
Students
(Grade “D”)
# of Students
(Withdrawal)
% of Students
(Withdrawal)
# of Students
(Unsuccessful)
% of Students
(Unsuccessful)
# of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
% of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
51.3%
102
9.3%
195
17.8%
232
21.2%
3
0.3%
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
366
25.1%
132
36.1%
54
14.8%
45
12.3%
104
28.4%
31
8.5%
Co-requisite
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Compression
223
100.0%
159
71.3%
16
7.2%
24
10.8%
23
10.3%
1
0.4%
Contextualized
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Modularized
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Co-requisite
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Compression
463
100.0%
319
68.9%
47
10.2%
23
5.0%
74
16.0%
0
0.0%
Contextualized
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Modularized
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Grade “C” and Above includes the data values of “A”, “B”, “C”, “P”, “S” (“P” is passed, “S” is satisfactory);
Grade “D” includes only grades of “D”;
Withdrawals includes “W” and “WU” (“W” is Official withdraw, “WU” is Unofficial withdraw);
Unsuccessful includes “U” and “F” (“U” is unsatisfactory, “F” is fail);
Other category includes “I”, “PR,” “X” and “Z” (“I” is incomplete, “PR” is progress, “X” is no grade awarded, “Z” is audit)
To protect the privacy of individual students, data are not reported when the total number of students in a group is fewer than 10. Double asterisks (**) will appear when data are suppressed. When there are
no students reported in a category, a dot (.) will appear in the table cell.
Page 60 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
Part II. Supplemental Data
Subpopulation #1 – Exempt students enrolling into (MAT 1033) Intermediate Algebra.
Data suggests an increase in failure/withdrawal rates for (MAT 1033) Intermediate Algebra since the launch of
developmental education reform. In the two fall terms preceding reform, the average failure/withdrawal rate was
33.8%. In the two fall terms since reform the failure rate has moved to 39.8%. In the two spring terms prior to reform,
the average failure/withdrawal rate was 40.15%. In the two spring terms since reform, the average failure rate is 48.7%.
Failure/withdrawal creates a financial and academic burden for students who must repeat courses and potentially
delays graduation.
In response to this escalating problem the Polk State College mathematics faculty worked diligently to develop two
alternate math pathways. Beginning 2017-1 students selecting meta-majors that do not require College Algebra have
the option of taking (MAT 1100) Introduction to College Mathematics. This course provides a foundation for students
preparing to take Topics in Mathematics (MGF 1106) or Explorations in Mathematics (MGF 1107). MAT 1100 topics
parallel the Statewide Course Numbering System course description.
Students who place into MAT 1033 or above by virtue of high school completion but choose supplemental mathematics
education based on PERT scores, may elect to take modularized (MAT0057) Essential Math as an Open Entry, Early Exit
(OEEE) course. Using a modular format, this course provides a study of the arithmetic and algebra skills that enable
success in college-level mathematics. Based on diagnostic testing, students only complete skills not yet mastered.
Continuous OEEE registration allows a student to enroll in a 1 credit-hour course at any time, complete it at their own
pace, and receive grades upon demonstration of competency. Registration can occur at any point within the term. The
window to complete remains open for five (5) weeks – even across semester breaks. The course begins 24 hours after
registration. The OEEE program was patterned after our two‐year Engineering Technology AS degree program. The
faculty are also currently developing an MAT 1033 curriculum that will be modularized for Open Entry, Early Exit (OEEE).
Over the last year the College began piloting the STARS Early Alert system and in 2017-1 introduced Success Coaching.
MAT 1033 faculty can refer mathematic students suffering from academic distress to a Success Coach for assessment
and intervention. Coaches work one-on-one with students to create a success plan related to their area of difficulty.
Interventions can include tutoring, provision of needed resources, development of success skills, and other strategies.
The College continues to offer a Readiness Assessment in the first week of MAT 1033. Following the assessment,
students meet with their professor to discuss results and benchmarks for success. Professors discuss the availability of
free tutoring, study groups, supplemental instruction, supplemental material provided through Polk Access to Learning,
Smarthinking Online Tutoring, MyMathLab resources, and other online educational resources. Students who elect to
Drop Down receive no academic or financial penalty.
Subpopulation #2 – Students with a native language other than English.
Exempt students with a native language other than English experience increased difficulty in (ENC 1101) College
Composition I. To respond to this growing population, the College launched the World Connect Center (WCC) in
September 2015. The WCC promotes the success and retention of students from multiple campuses, whose first
language is other than English, by providing one-on-one tutoring sessions with TESOL certified faculty. At Polk State
College the WCC stands out as an international center where diversity and academic success are celebrated. Students
choosing to utilize the WCC can schedule individual appointments or drop by the Tutoring Lab as their schedule allows.
Since inception the WCC has provided services to 64 students and offered over 200 personal tutoring sessions. 47% of
the students receiving services were enrolled in developmental reading and writing courses. 84% of all students
receiving tutoring services through WCC successfully completed their coursework. 85% of those student seeking
Page 61 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
assistance in ENC 1101 successfully completed the course and progressed to (ENC 1102) College Composition II.
Anecdotal feedback from the students and associated faculty has been very positive.
Polk State College also developed the STARS Early Alert System to expedite timely identification, referral, and
intervention with students in academic distress. ENC1101 faculty can refer a student in distress to a Success Coach
through STARS. Students may also choose to voluntarily work with a Coach. Success Coaches meet individually with
students for assessment and intervention. Action plans may include tutoring in the WCC, provision of needed resources,
development of success skills, or other actions as indicated.
The Teaching Learning Computing Center (TLCC), in conjunction with the English faculty on the Polk State College
Lakeland campus, developed a Writing Center to assist students with ENC1101. Students may schedule appointments in
the Writing Center or drop by as needed. The English faculty also offered an English Studio Workshop early in the term
to help students plan for success in ENC1101. All students were eligible to attend.
Consideration at this time is being given to the development of a co-requisite writing lab that could be attached to
ENC1101 for students with a native language other than English or those needing remediation. This could also allow
students testing into developmental education courses for English, who are not exempt, an avenue to begin college level
coursework right away.
Page 62 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
College:
Pensacola State College
Year:
2015-2016
Date:
October 26, 2016
Report Completed by: Dr. Erin Spicer, Vice President, Academic and Student Affairs
Part I. Student Success Data
Student Course Outcomes
Subject
Math
Strategy
% of
# of
Students
Students
by
Enrolled
Strategy
# of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
% of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
# of
Students
(Grade
“D”)
% of
Students
(Grade “D”)
# of Students
(Withdrawal)
% of Students
(Withdrawal)
# of Students
(Unsuccessful)
% of Students
(Unsuccessful)
# of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
% of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
Co‐requisite
Compression
139
8.3%
85
61.2%
0
0.0%
21
15.1%
2
1.4%
31
22.3%
1543
91.7%
765
49.6%
0
0.0%
205
13.3%
36
2.3%
537
34.8%
34
8.9%
26
76.5%
0
0.0%
2
5.9%
0
0.0%
6
17.6%
347
91.1%
256
73.8%
0
0.0%
23
6.6%
0
0.0%
68
19.6%
27
6.8%
22
81.5%
0
0.0%
4
14.8%
0
0.0%
1
3.7%
373
93.3%
259
69.4%
0
0.0%
42
11.3%
1
0.3%
71
19.0%
Contextualized
Modularized
Reading
Co‐requisite
Compression
Contextualized
Modularized
Writing
Co‐requisite
Compression
Contextualized
Modularized
Notes.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Grade "C" and Above includes the data values of "A", "B", "C", "P", "S" ("P" is passed, "S" is satisfactory);
Grade "D" includes only grades of "D";
Withdrawals includes "W" and "WU" ("W" is Official withdraw, "WU" is Unofficial withdraw);
Unsuccessful includes "U" and "F" ("U" is unsatisfactory, "F" is fail);
Other category includes "I", "PR," "X" and "Z" ("I" is incomplete, "PR" is progress, "X" is no grade awarded, "Z" is audit)
To protect the privacy of individual students, data are not reported when the total number of students in a group is fewer than 10. Double asterisks (**) will appear when data are suppressed.
When there are no students reported in a category, a dot (.) will appear in the table cell.
Page 63 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
Part II. Supplemental Data
In the 2015 Developmental Education Accountability Report, Pensacola State College identified students in
modularized developmental mathematics and economically disadvantaged students as two subpopulations
that were challenged by developmental education reform. A decrease in achievement gaps is evident in the
modularized developmental mathematics subpopulation. A decrease in achievement gaps is also evident in
the economically disadvantaged student subpopulation in 3 of the 6 developmental education course
offerings/strategies. Two of the course offerings/strategies show no change, and 1shows an increase in the
educational achievement gap.
The table below illustrates increased success rates in modularized developmental mathematics from 20142015 to 2015-2016.
Developmental
Education Strategy
Modularized
Developmental
Mathematics
2014-15
2015-16
% of students
earning a C or above
46%
% of students
earning a C or above
50.7%
The institutional strategies that were implemented to improve the educational gap in the modularized
strategy were the development and implementation of a training module that clarifies the expectations
of the modularized classroom environment. Additionally, information was provided to all advising staff
members that explains the differences between modularized and compressed delivery so that students
understand their options. This information was available to students at orientation sessions and during
advising sessions.
The table below shows the reduction in achievement gaps or no change in achievement gaps between
economically disadvantaged and non- economically disadvantaged students over the past year in all
developmental education strategies except for modularized developmental writing.
Developmental Education
Strategy
Modularized
Developmental
Mathematics
2014-15
2015-16
Economically
Disadvantaged-NonEconomically
Disadvantaged
Achievement Gap
Economically
Disadvantaged-NonEconomically
Disadvantaged
Achievement Gap
5.1
Page 64 of 83
0.8
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
Compressed
Developmental
Mathematics
-1.3
-11.5
Modularized Developmental
Reading
4.7
-29
Compressed Developmental
Reading
0.0
0.0
Modularized Developmental
Writing
3.1
266
Compressed Developmental
Reading
0.0
0.0
One institutional strategy that was implemented to improve the educational gap between
economically disadvantaged and non-economically disadvantaged students was the development
and implementation of virtual tutoring in mathematics and communications courses. Virtual
tutoring is offered to students via the College's learning management system and provides free
assistance to students without the requirement to physically visit one of the lab locations.
A second institutional strategy that was implemented was the review and revision of diagnostic
exams given to students in gateway courses and the review and revision of remediation modules
provided to students in gateway courses.
Page 65 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
College:
State College of Florida, Manatee - Sarasota
Year:
2015-16
Date:
September 29, 2016
Report Completed by (name and title): Jaquelyn McNeil, Dean, Student Services
Part I. Student Success Data
Student Course Outcomes
Subject
Math
Strategy
% of
Students
(Grade “D”)
# of Students
(Withdrawal)
% of Students
(Withdrawal)
# of Students
(Unsuccessful)
% of Students
(Unsuccessful)
# of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
% of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1048
76.7%
605
57.7%
147
14.0%
94
9.0%
197
18.8%
5
0.5%
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
318
23.3%
124
39.0%
95
29.9%
34
10.7%
59
18.6%
6
1.9%
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
184
65.7%
148
80.4%
9
4.9%
6
3.3%
17
9.2%
4
2.2%
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
96
34.3%
80
83.3%
2
2.1%
6
6.3%
8
8.3%
0
0.0%
Co-requisite
Compression
Contextualized
Modularized
Co-requisite
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Compression
194
65.5%
157
80.9%
9
4.6%
7
3.6%
19
9.8%
2
1.0%
Contextualized
Modularized
Notes.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
# of
Students
(Grade
“D”)
Compression
Modularized
Writing
% of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
Co-requisite
Contextualized
Readin
g
% of
# of
Students
Students
by
Enrolled
Strategy
# of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
102
34.5%
84
82.4%
10
9.8%
4
3.9%
4
3.9%
0
0.0%
Grade “C” and Above includes the data values of “A”, “B”, “C”, “P”, “S” (“P” is passed, “S” is satisfactory);
Grade “D” includes only grades of “D”;
Withdrawals includes “W” and “WU” (“W” is Official withdraw, “WU” is Unofficial withdraw);
Unsuccessful includes “U” and “F” (“U” is unsatisfactory, “F” is fail);
Other category includes “I”, “PR,” “X” and “Z” (“I” is incomplete, “PR” is progress, “X” is no grade awarded, “Z” is audit)
To protect the privacy of individual students, data are not reported when the total number of students in a group is fewer than 10. Double asterisks (**) will appear when data are
suppressed. When there are no students reported in a category, a dot (.) will appear in the table cell.
Page 66 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
Part II. Supplemental Data
Hispanic and Black males enrolled in developmental math classes were identified as the most
challenged by the developmental education reform efforts. We developed and utilized the following
strategies to improve the educational gap:
Continued to employ diagnostic tools to better advise students of areas of weakness at the start
of each semester.
• Continued the use of data sheets by instructors to track high risk students.
• Utilized Academic Resource Center (ARC) services to increase student success rates. Those
services include:
o Regularly scheduled workshops to address those skills that have been identified as
problem areas in math classes.
o On-demand skills workshops that are a collaborative effort between faculty and ARC
staff. These workshops can be requested by faculty or students.
o Drop-in and appointment tutoring for developmental and gateway math courses.
• Continued to support the Summer Bridge programs focused on increasing skills in incoming
Black and Hispanic students.
Hispanic males’ success rates dropped from 54.5% to 50.0% in compressed math courses. Less than 10
Hispanic males enrolled in modularized math courses; therefore, no data was reported.
•
Black males’ success rates increased from 45% to 52.9% in compressed math courses. Zero Black males
enrolled in modularized math courses; therefore, no data was reported.
Page 67 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
College:
Santa Fe College
Year:
2016
Date:
October 25, 2016
Report Completed by: Dr. Jackson N. Sasser, President
Part I. Student Success Data
Subject
Math
Strategy
% of
# of
Students
Students
by
Enrolled
Strategy
Co-requisite
Compression
Student Course Outcomes
# of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
% of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
# of
Students
(Grade
“D”)
% of
Students
(Grade “D”)
# of Students
(Withdrawal)
% of Students
(Withdrawal)
# of Students
(Unsuccessful)
% of Students
(Unsuccessful)
# of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
% of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
1970
99.6%
1172
59.5%
267
13.6%
84
22%
433
22%
14
.7%
604
99.7%
451
74.7%
72
11.9%
18
10.1%
61
10.1%
2
.3%
702
100%
399
56.8%
160
22.8%
29
16.4%
115
16.4%
0
0%
Contextualized
Modularized
Reading
Co-requisite
Compression
Contextualized
Modularized
Writing
Co-requisite
Compression
Contextualized
Modularized
Notes.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Grade “C” and Above includes the data values of “A”, “B”, “C”, “P”, “S” (“P” is passed, “S” is satisfactory);
Grade “D” includes only grades of “D”;
Withdrawals includes “W” and “WU” (“W” is Official withdraw, “WU” is Unofficial withdraw);
Unsuccessful includes “U” and “F” (“U” is unsatisfactory, “F” is fail);
Other category includes “I”, “PR,” “X” and “Z” (“I” is incomplete, “PR” is progress, “X” is no grade awarded, “Z” is audit)
To protect the privacy of individual students, data are not reported when the total number of students in a group is fewer than 10. Double asterisks (**) will appear when data are
suppressed. When there are no students reported in a category, a dot (.) will appear in the table cell.
Page 68 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
Part II. Supplemental Data
Our two target groups were economically disadvantaged African American students and males in all
areas. Repeat analyses for 2016 indicated that for white students, economic disadvantage continues
not to make a difference in success. All whites are also doing better than they did last year.
Economically disadvantaged whites are doing better than last year in all three areas and perform better
than non-disadvantaged white students. However, the impact of disadvantage on minorities is greater
than last year.
For Hispanics, economic disadvantage had a minimal impact last year (e.g., in reading only). However,
this year economic disadvantage has a greater impact on Hispanic success. Disadvantaged students do
worse than advantaged in all three areas. Also disadvantaged Hispanic students performed worse this
year than last year.
For African Americans, economic disadvantage continues to have a significant impact, leading to poorer
performance in all three areas. Furthermore, the impact appears to have increased in reading and
writing compared to 2015.
Math
Disadvantage
d
2015 2016
Non-Dis.
201
5
49.6
58.5
201
6
54
60.4
Reading
Disadvantage
d
2015 2016
Black 43.7
48
53.4
64.5
Whit 58.4
65.2
70.2
89.1
e
Hisp
64.3
61.7
63.8 68.9 73
68.9
*Data reflect the percent students with a C or above.
Non-Dis.
201
5
58
68.8
201
6
73.5
76.1
80.9
85.7
Writing
Disadvantage
d
2015 2016
Non-Dis.
48.7
53.9
47.1
62.1
201
5
50.9
54.9
60.8
49.2
61.3
201
6
59.1
62.7
65.5
Gender had a significant impact on success. Although men did worse in all three areas last year, the
difference has lessened. Women do better in all areas, but only barely in math, and the difference in
success between men and woman in reading and writing is less than last year.
Math 2015
Math 2016
Reading
2015
Women
56.6
59.7
68.6
Men
54.3
59.1
60.4
*Data reflect the percent students with a C or above.
Page 69 of 83
Reading
2016
75.3
73.7
Writing
2015
57.6
48.1
Writing
2016
58.6
54.5
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
During the past year, interventions with faculty and advisors addressed the success of vulnerable
populations:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The QEP director provided a presentation for developmental education faculty on our vulnerable
populations and discussed strategies and interventions to improve success for minority students.
The QEP director provided the same presentation at a campus-wide advising workshop.
Dr. Omid Fotuhi, a leading expert on mindset interventions provided a presentation for advisors and
a workshop for faculty.
Student Affairs staff discussed Mindset: the New Psychology of Success by Carole Dweck, focusing
on how the strategies could be employed in advising.
A support group for Hispanic students called “Futuros” was implemented. Participants enrolled in a
section of ENC1101 that emphasized Hispanic themes and had a special advisor.
The Futuros advisor offered a seminar for Student Affairs staff on the Latino/a immigrant experience
at the College.
A panel of African American male students shared their experiences at the college in a professional
development workshop for Student Affairs staff.
Individualized tutoring services were provided to Black males through the My Brother’s Keeper
Program.
Developmental education faculty provided “Second Chance Academy” for students who were close
to passing, allowing them to complete and pass the course the following term.
Developmental education faculty aligned SF writing curriculum with the state’s to create a seamless
transition into college writing.
Developmental education faculty created Canvas master course templates for all developmental
writing courses.
Developmental education faculty selected common course materials that align with the curricula
and satisfy the requirements of the Textbook Affordability Act.
Developmental education faculty developed an online Developmental Writing Faculty Commons
Canvas course for sharing materials and resources.
Page 70 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
College:
South Florida State College
Year:
2016
Date:
October 27, 2016
Report Completed by (name and title): Dr. Sid Valentine, Vice President of Academic Affairs and Student Services
Part I. Student Success Data
Subject
Math
Reading
Writing
Notes.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
% of
# of
Students
Students
by
Enrolled
Strategy
Student Course Outcomes
Co-requisite
0
0
# of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
0
Compression
Strategy
% of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
0
# of
Students
(Grade
“D”)
% of
Students
(Grade “D”)
# of Students
(Withdrawal)
% of Students
(Withdrawal)
# of Students
(Unsuccessful)
% of Students
(Unsuccessful)
# of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
% of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
107
100
64
59.8
12
11.2
17
15.9
14
13.1
0
0
Contextualized
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Modularized
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Co-requisite
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Compression
17
100
16
94.1
1
5.9
0
0
0
0
0
0
Contextualized
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Modularized
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Co-requisite
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Compression
22
100
19
86.4
2
9.1
0
0
10
4.5
0
0
Contextualized
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Modularized
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Grade “C” and Above includes the data values of “A”, “B”, “C”, “P”, “S” (“P” is passed, “S” is satisfactory);
Grade “D” includes only grades of “D”;
Withdrawals includes “W” and “WU” (“W” is Official withdraw, “WU” is Unofficial withdraw);
Unsuccessful includes “U” and “F” (“U” is unsatisfactory, “F” is fail);
Other category includes “I”, “PR,” “X” and “Z” (“I” is incomplete, “PR” is progress, “X” is no grade awarded, “Z” is audit)
To protect the privacy of individual students, data are not reported when the total number of students in a group is fewer than 10. Double asterisks (**) will appear when data are
suppressed. When there are no students reported in a category, a dot (.) will appear in the table cell.
Page 71 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
Part II. Supplemental Data
Using information provided by the EdStats tool, two subpopulations were identified for the purpose of
this report/analysis: (1) economically disadvantaged and (2) race. Consistent with the previous year,
developmental education at SFSC is primarily serving an economically disadvantaged student
population. For example, SFSC served 79 and 28 economically disadvantaged and non-economically
disadvantaged students in its developmental education math courses, respectively. A similar ratio was
apparent in 14-15 (77.7% economically disadvantaged). In reference to pass rates (C or above) for this
subpopulation (economic status and math), there was a notable difference in pass rates: the pass rate
for economically disadvantaged students was approximately 10 percentage points lower than their noneconomically disadvantaged counterparts. For reading and writing, it was determined that all students
were identified as economically disadvantaged.
For math, it was shown that age was a contributing variable of interest with regard to students who
successfully completed with a “C” or above. The reported completion rate was higher for older students
(25 or above) than younger students. This may infer that the need for developmental education within
these subpopulations is not being met. Low sample sizes precluded similar analysis for reading and
writing.
The college was recently awarded Title V HSI – STEM (for low income and minority students) funding. It
is anticipated that the additional pre-collegiate and collegiate advising services, for the programs
specific to this grant, will have a notable impact on the college participation and success rate of
economically disadvantaged students. Student performance information provided by the grant will be
used to demonstrate the success and/or viability of the implemented services (i.e., can these services be
taken to scale for the entire college population). It is believed that this enhanced advising methodology
will better encourage students to participate in developmental education than past efforts. This
methodology (intrusive and structured advising) is intended to “close the gap” for those entering
developmental courses and their success in subsequent non-developmental coursework.
Lastly, SFSC is increasing its efforts to improve communication between college and service area high
school counselors. One outcome will be high school counselors encouraging students to enroll in
developmental education if suggested by assessment scores. The college will share data that
demonstrate the positive impact of developmental education on completion and success rates with
school districts.
Page 72 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
College:
St. Johns River State College
Year:
2015-2016
Date:
October 12, 2016
Report Completed by (name and title): Melanie Brown, Ph.D., Vice President for Academic Affairs/CAO
Part I. Student Success Data
Subject
Math
% of
# of
Students
Students
by
Enrolled
Strategy
Student Course Outcomes
Co-requisite
167
15.8%
# of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
79
Compression
520
49.2%
205
39.4%
93
17.9%
113
21.7%
109
21%
0
0%
Modularized
370
35%
155
41.9%
64
17.3%
78
21.1%
73
19.7%
0
0%
Co-requisite
75
23.8%
50
66.7%
4
5.3%
12
16%
9
12%
0
0%
Compression
75
23.8%
51
68.0%
5
6.7%
12
16%
7
9.3%
0
0%
165
52.4%
119
72.1%
6
3.6%
19
11.5%
19
11.5%
2
1.2%
123
35.7%
87
70.7%
10
8.1%
19
15.4%
6
4.9%
1
0.8%
222
64.3%
135
60.8%
14
6.3%
40
18%
33
14.9%
0
0%
Strategy
% of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
47.3%
# of
Students
(Grade
“D”)
% of
Students
(Grade “D”)
# of Students
(Withdrawal)
% of Students
(Withdrawal)
# of Students
(Unsuccessful)
% of Students
(Unsuccessful)
# of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
% of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
15
9%
37
22.2%
36
21.6%
0
0%
Contextualized
Reading
Contextualized
Modularized
Writing
Co-requisite
Compression
Contextualized
Modularized
Notes.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Grade “C” and Above includes the data values of “A”, “B”, “C”, “P”, “S” (“P” is passed, “S” is satisfactory);
Grade “D” includes only grades of “D”;
Withdrawals includes “W” and “WU” (“W” is Official withdraw, “WU” is Unofficial withdraw);
Unsuccessful includes “U” and “F” (“U” is unsatisfactory, “F” is fail);
Other category includes “I”, “PR,” “X” and “Z” (“I” is incomplete, “PR” is progress, “X” is no grade awarded, “Z” is audit)
To protect the privacy of individual students, data are not reported when the total number of students in a group is fewer than 10. Double asterisks (**) will appear when data are
suppressed. When there are no students reported in a category, a dot (.) will appear in the table cell.
Page 73 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
Part II. Supplemental Data
For the 2014-2015 accountability report year St. Johns River State College identified the following two
subpopulations as posing the greatest challenge to local developmental education reform: 1) high
school exempt students electing to enroll in co-requisite & modularized math, and 2) students electing
to enroll in compression in all subject areas.
1) For 2014-15, the college observed that high school exempt students had lower success rates than
non-exempt students in co-requisite and modularized math courses. The 2015-2016 academic year
observation produced similar success results. While 59.7% of high school non-exempt students
earned a grade of C and above in co-requisite math, only 40% of high school exempt students earned
a grade of C. While the 2015-2016 non-exempt students produced results higher than the exempt
students, their success rate was approximately 30% lower than in 2014-2015. In the case of
modularized math, 51.9% of non-exempt students earned a grade of C and above, while only 31.7%
earned a grade of C. Also of note was the 2015-2016 observation that in both cases (exempt/nonexempt), more students enrolled in the compressed strategy but produced much lower success rates
(29.4%).
The results of this section of the 2015-2016 accountability report will be shared with both our student
intake advisors and our mathematics faculty to be incorporated into our advising of students. Our prior
year’s belief that many exempt students came from a high school population was confirmed by the
enrollment data. Since the completion of the last report, the college has ramped up the operation of its
student alert system (GradesFirst) and added innovative tools (EdReady) to the developmental
curriculum. It is our belief that both efforts, recognized as successful across the nation, will be of
benefit to all developmental education populations across all instructional strategies.
2) Compared to 2014-2015, the 2015-2016 accountability report revealed SJR State’s success rates in
compressed courses dropped for the Fall 2015 observation in every area except compressed writing.
Compared to the other modes of delivery, the 2015-2016 success rates for compressed were relatively
closer to the rates for the other modes of delivery than they were in 2014-2015. Co-requisite success,
which stood out in 2014-2015, dropped over 30% in math. Overall, about 4 out of 10 students
succeeded across all delivery modes in math; and 7 out of 10 in reading across all delivery modes.
Writing compressed course success improved for 2015-2016, while writing modularized fell almost 20%.
While the compressed course is designed to serve those students needing the most remediation,
enrollment in the course is affected by the student’s exemption status and interpretation of previous
coursework. The college has initiated an effort to increase course assessment opportunities, thereby
giving students earlier and more frequent feedback. This also enables faculty to identify weaknesses
earlier and to provide remediation when needed. In addition, the college has ramped up the operation
of its student alert system (GradesFirst), introduced the tutoring platform SmartThinking, and added
innovative tools (EdReady) to the developmental curriculum. It is our belief that these efforts,
recognized as successful across the nation, will be of benefit to all developmental education populations
across all instructional strategies.
Page 74 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
College:
St. Petersburg College
Year:
2015-2016
Date:
October 27, 2016
Report Completed by (name and title): Theresa Dimmer, Research and Reporting Coordinator
Part I. Student Success Data
Subject
Math
Strategy
#
Students
Enrolled
%
Students
by
Strategy
#
Students
(Grade C
and
Above)
%
Students
(Grade C
and
Above)
#
Students
(Grade D)
%
Students
(Grade D)
#
Students
(Withdra
wal)
%
Students
(Withdra
wal)
#
Students
(Unsucce
ssful)
%
Students
(Unsucce
ssful)
# Students
(Grade Other)
% Students
(Grade Other)
1,908
44.6%
1,155
60.5%
0
0.0%
172
9.0%
498
26.1%
83
4.4%
2,372
55.4%
1,326
55.9%
0
0.0%
218
9.2%
765
32.3%
63
2.7%
365
37.4%
276
75.6%
0
0.0%
21
5.8%
59
16.2%
9
2.5%
610
62.6%
435
71.3%
0
0.0%
43
7.0%
116
19.0%
16
2.6%
743
50.8%
575
77.4%
0
0.0%
36
4.8%
114
15.3%
18
2.4%
720
49.2%
457
63.5%
0
0.0%
63
8.8%
191
26.5%
9
1.3%
Co-requisite
Compression
Contextualized
Reading
Modularized
Co-requisite
Compression
Contextualized
Writing
Modularized
Co-requisite
Compression
Contextualized
Notes.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Modularized
Grade “C” and Above includes the data values of “A”, “B”, “C”, “P”, “S” (“P” is passed, “S” is satisfactory);
Grade “D” includes only grades of “D”;
Withdrawals includes “W” and “WU” (“W” is Official withdraw, “WU” is Unofficial withdraw);
Unsuccessful includes “U” and “F” (“U” is unsatisfactory, “F” is fail);
Other category includes “I”, “PR,” “X” and “Z” (“I” is incomplete, “PR” is progress, “X” is no grade awarded, “Z” is audit)
To protect the privacy of individual students, data are not reported when the total number of students in a group is fewer than 10. Double asterisks (**) will appear when data are
suppressed. When there are no students reported in a category, a dot (.) will appear in the table cell.
Page 75 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
Part II. Supplemental Data
Math
An analysis of the overall math success rates saw significant gains in 2016 compared 2015. A more
detailed analysis, however, saw a contrast in success rates between African American/Black Males and
Hispanic Males. Hispanic Males declined 7.4% in the compressed delivery, but increased by 11.2% in
the modularized delivery. The success rates went in the opposite directions for African American/Black
Males (6.1% increase in the compressed, 3.1% decline in the modularized).
The gaps have widened in the White/Hispanic Males in the compressed delivery as well as the
White/African American/Black Males in the modularized delivery. The gap in the compressed delivery
narrowed slightly between White Males and the African American/Black Males, but there is still
significant work to be done. The gap in the modularized delivery between White and Hispanic Males has
closed.
Another major factor to consider is in reviewing the data, the enrollment figures from 2014-15 to 201516 continues to plummet. Due to the developmental education reform passed in 2013, more students
are continuing to choose to directly enroll in college-level gateway courses, including math, even when
developmental coursework may be recommended. This has led to fewer students in developmental
math courses across all demographics. As a result, fewer students will result in significant shifts in data
analysis.
Reading and Writing
Along with declining enrollments, the achievement gap between white and black/Hispanic male
students in reading classes – either modularized or compressed – has continued to widen. An analysis of
success rates in reading also saw declines in the compressed delivery for Black males (1.1%) and
modularized delivery for Hispanic males (30.6%). An encouraging sign is that the success rates for Black
males taking modularized reading courses in 2016 exceeded those in 2015 by 14.8% despite declines in
enrollments for those courses.
In contrast to reading course enrollments, writing course enrollments in both deliveries increased in
2016. A more detailed analysis of writing courses saw a decline in the achievement gap between White
males and Black males regardless of the method. Hispanic Males enrolled in modularized writing
courses, however, saw a 17.3% improvement in the achievement gap between themselves and White
Males. Success rates in the compressed and modularized delivery of writing courses increased for Black
males, 9.5% and 15.3% respectively; Hispanic Males increased their success rates by 32.6% in
modularized writing courses, eclipsing their White and Black male counterparts by 17.3% and 28.1%
respectively.
A few of the current strategies include embedded tutors and librarians, usage of college electronic
resources such as Smarthinking and adaptive learning toolkits available through Virtual Learning
Commons, and for faculty to partner with college advising to identify and anticipate external challenges
to students enrolled in these courses. SPC will further explore these data and survey the above
mentioned populations to determine possible reasons for the differences in success and to see if there
is a preference in delivery between the students as well as to embed additional out-of-class support for
students into the curriculum.
Page 76 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
College:
Seminole State College of Florida
Year:
2016
Date:
1/11/2017
Report Completed by: Dr. Mark Morgan, Associate Vice President, Institutional Effectiveness
Part I. Student Success Data
Subject
Math
Strategy
% of
# of
Students
Students
by
Enrolled
Strategy
Co-requisite
Compression
Student Course Outcomes
# of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
% of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
# of
Students
(Grade
“D”)
% of
Students
(Grade “D”)
# of Students
(Withdrawal)
% of Students
(Withdrawal)
# of Students
(Unsuccessful)
% of Students
(Unsuccessful)
# of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
% of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
214
18.5%
125
58.4%
10
4.7%
30
14.0%
49
22.9%
0
0.0%
941
81.5%
660
70.1%
0
0.0%
59
6.3%
222
23.6%
0
0.0%
258
100%
223
86.4%
0
0.0%
29
11.2%
6
2.4%
0
0.0%
19
8.0%
7
36.8%
0
0.0%
2
10.5%
10
52.6%
0
0.0%
218
92.0%
178
81.7%
0
0.0%
20
9.2%
20
9.2%
0
0.0%
Contextualized
Modularized
Reading
Co-requisite
Compression
Contextualized
Modularized
Writing
Co-requisite
Compression
Contextualized
Modularized
Notes.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Grade “C” and Above includes the data values of “A”, “B”, “C”, “P”, “S” (“P” is passed, “S” is satisfactory);
Grade “D” includes only grades of “D”;
Withdrawals includes “W” and “WU” (“W” is Official withdraw, “WU” is Unofficial withdraw);
Unsuccessful includes “U” and “F” (“U” is unsatisfactory, “F” is fail);
Other category includes “I”, “PR,” “X” and “Z” (“I” is incomplete, “PR” is progress, “X” is no grade awarded, “Z” is audit)
To protect the privacy of individual students, data are not reported when the total number of students in a group is fewer than 10. Double asterisks (**) will appear when data are
suppressed. When there are no students reported in a category, a dot (.) will appear in the table cell.
Page 77 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
Part II. Supplemental Data
Overall, Seminole State was pleased with student completions and progressions from the second year of
Developmental Education options, as Students Earning “C” or Better consistently exceeded statewide
averages in each discipline:
Math: Seminole State = 68.0% vs. statewide average = 58.9%
Reading: Seminole State = 86.4% vs. statewide average = 75.2%
Writing: Seminole State = 78.1% vs. statewide average = 74.5%
Detailed analyses in 2015 of Seminole State’s results by strategy, race, gender, and age indicated the
following subpopulations experiencing the greatest difficulty with Developmental Ed options:
Black students in Modularized Math (Completion Rates of 60.5% vs. Overall Completion Rates of
67.0%)
• Male students in Modularized Writing (Completion Rates of 66.9% vs. Female Completion Rates of
78.0%).
The College held a Student Success Summit in February 2015 to prioritize the top strategies for
improving student success, including Developmental Education course completion rates. Strategies
identified and implemented during 2015/16 included the purchase of an enhanced student
communications portal to identify and contact struggling students more easily and enhanced tutoring in
the College’s Academic Success Centers. The Academic Success Center expanded hours, increased the
number of tutors in both math and writing, and conducted outreaches in Developmental Education and
Gateway courses. Additionally, the Academic Success Center partnered with the English and Math
departments to train peer tutors and better equip them to assist struggling students.
•
Student success rates in Math Developmental Education improved slightly, from 69.7% in 2014/15 to
70.0% in 2015/16. African American students in Modularized Math courses achieved gains in success
rates from 60.5% to 61.6%, with African American Male students achieving increases from 60.5% to
64.0%, significantly greater than the statewide average of 44.7% for African American Males in
Modularized Math courses. Despite the gains, efforts continue to improve course completion rates in
Developmental Education courses for all students.
Strategies appeared successful in achieving overall gains in Developmental Writing, particularly in
closing the performance gap between Female and Male students. In 2014/15, a gap of 11% existed
between Female (78%) and Male (67%) students in Developmental Writing. In 2015/16, Female
students achieved success rates of 82.5% in Developmental Writing, while Male students achieved
success rates of 81.1%, a 1.4% difference.
Efforts continue to improve course completion rates in Developmental Education courses, Gateway
courses, and all courses across Seminole State College. Associate Deans, Program Managers and faculty
members continually monitor course completion rates and closely examine completion rates by
instructional mode (on-campus, hybrid, online), with further analyses by campus, instructor, and
section, if needed, to identify concerns with instructional approach, classroom environment, course
materials, syllabus sequence, or other factors. Associate Deans, Program Managers and faculty
members continually share best practices and student success strategies to ensure student learning.
Page 78 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
College:
Tallahassee Community College
Year:
2015-16
Date:
October 31, 2015
Report Completed by (name and title): Margaret Wingate, Director of Institutional Research (850-201-8366)
Part I. Student Success Data
Subject
Math
Strategy
Co-requisite
Compression
Contextualized
Modularized
Reading
# of
Students
(Grade
“D”)
% of
Students
(Grade “D”)
# of Students
(Withdrawal)
% of Students
(Withdrawal)
# of Students
(Unsuccessful)
% of Students
(Unsuccessful)
# of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
% of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
103
4.7%
72
69.9%
7
6.8%
8
7.8%
16
15.5%
0
0.0%
2,102
95.3%
1,254
59.7%
153
7.3%
311
14.8%
378
18.0%
6
0.3%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
Compression
487
50.5%
372
76.4%
28
5.7%
38
7.8%
49
10.1%
0
0.0%
Contextualized
478
49.5%
318
66.5%
31
6.5%
50
10.5%
77
16.1%
2
0.4%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
Co-requisite
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
Compression
479
44.3%
381
79.5%
14
2.9%
21
4.4%
59
12.3%
4
0.8%
Contextualized
603
55.7%
426
70.6%
21
3.5%
53
8.8%
95
15.8%
8
1.3%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
Modularized
Notes.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Student Course Outcomes
% of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
0.0%
Co-requisite
Modularized
Writing
% of
# of
# of
Students Students
Students
by
(Grade
Enrolled
Strategy “C” and
Above)
0
0.0%
0
Grade “C” and Above includes the data values of “A”, “B”, “C”, “P”, “S” (“P” is passed, “S” is satisfactory);
Grade “D” includes only grades of “D”;
Withdrawals includes “W” and “WU” (“W” is Official withdraw, “WU” is Unofficial withdraw);
Unsuccessful includes “U” and “F” (“U” is unsatisfactory, “F” is fail);
Other category includes “I”, “PR,” “X” and “Z” (“I” is incomplete, “PR” is progress, “X” is no grade awarded, “Z” is audit)
To protect the privacy of individual students, data are not reported when the total number of students in a group is fewer than 10. Double asterisks (**) will appear when data are
suppressed. When there are no students reported in a category, a dot (.) will appear in the table cell.
Page 79 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
Part II. Supplemental Data
Last year, Tallahassee Community College (TCC) identified the following subgroups with particular
challenges: students in the 20-above age group and students who are economically
disadvantaged. Strategies that our institution implemented to assist these subgroups were the
following: intrusive advising, peer-mentoring, more non-course based support, and an increased
number of compressed courses. As a result, both subgroups achieved learning gains from 2014-2015. A
pattern that has emerged is higher success rates in the compressed courses for all three disciplines in
both of the subgroups. Another contributing factor to the improvements is the fact that more full-time
faculty are teaching the developmental education courses, and our institutional data shows that
students perform better in classes taught by full-time faculty. In math, TCC established a built-in lab
requirement which gives students an opportunity to work individually with faculty and learning support
staff.
As TCC continues to develop mechanisms that will enable students in developmental education to
achieve greater success in order to reach their academic goals, we are considering the following: hybrid
classes, more integrated and linked courses, open education resources to reduce costs, and an
expansion of the current peer mentoring model in order to target math success.
Page 80 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
College:
Valencia College-system data
Year:
RY 2016
Date:
September 8, 2016
Report Completed by (name and title): Karen Borglum, Assistant Vice President, Curriculum and Assessment
Part I. Student Success Data
Subject
Math
% of
# of
Students
Students
by
Enrolled
Strategy
Student Course Outcomes
Co-requisite
98
1.8%
# of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
62
Compression
5307
98.2%
3168
59.7%
556
10.5%
790
14.9%
792
14.9%
1
0%
594
100%
393
66.2%
47
7.9%
87
14.7%
66
11.1%
1
0%
1942
100%
1493
76.9%
76
3.9%
205
10.6%
167
8.6%
1
0%
Strategy
% of
Students
(Grade
“C” and
Above)
63.3%
# of
Students
(Grade
“D”)
% of
Students
(Grade “D”)
# of Students
(Withdrawal)
% of Students
(Withdrawal)
# of Students
(Unsuccessful)
% of Students
(Unsuccessful)
6
6.1%
18
1.84%
12
12.2%
# of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
% of
Students
(Grade
“Other”)
Contextualized
Modularized
Reading
Co-requisite
Compression
Contextualized
Modularized
Writing
Co-requisite
Compression
Contextualized
Modularized
Notes.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Grade “C” and Above includes the data values of “A”, “B”, “C”, “P”, “S” (“P” is passed, “S” is satisfactory);
Grade “D” includes only grades of “D”;
Withdrawals includes “W” and “WU” (“W” is Official withdraw, “WU” is Unofficial withdraw);
Unsuccessful includes “U” and “F” (“U” is unsatisfactory, “F” is fail);
Other category includes “I”, “PR,” “X” and “Z” (“I” is incomplete, “PR” is progress, “X” is no grade awarded, “Z” is audit)
To protect the privacy of individual students, data are not reported when the total number of students in a group is fewer than 10. Double asterisks (**) will appear when data are
suppressed. When there are no students reported in a category, a dot (.) will appear in the table cell.
Page 81 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
Part II. Supplemental Data
Overview
When looking at FTIC students taking at least one developmental education course, Valencia had a
significant decline from 6,226 students in the 2009/2010 academic year to 2,518 students in 2015/2016.
Where the decline in students enrolled in these courses was the desired impact from Senate Bill 1720, it
unfortunately had unintended consequences. Our sub-populations under review were African American
males and females; they had less success than their Hispanic and Caucasian counterparts. The above
modality data is an accurate reflection of how our courses are being offered. We discovered that there
was an error in the pulling of the data in that the majority of math courses are not offered as corequisites; they are offered in parts of term, thus making them compressed, so we attached both the
state data and our report for your review.
Developmental Education Data
It is understood that students who are exempt are electing to take developmental courses based upon
their meta major interest and their assessment of their own academic readiness for gateway courses.
With the exception of ENC 0017 the non-exempt students had more success in their developmental
education courses:
ENC 0017 success: Non-exempt-73%; Exempt-78%
ENC 0027 success: Non-exempt-76%; Exempt- 72%
MAT 0018 success: Non-exempt- 57%; Exempt 53%
MAT 0022 success: Non-exempt- 59%; Exempt 53%
MAT 0028 success: Non-exempt- 70%; Exempt 60%
Entry-Level College Credit Course Data
The entry-level college credit courses for Valencia are MAT 1033C, MGF 1106, and STA 1001C.
MAT 1033C
When reviewing the data for MAT 1033C, the exempt students were not as successful as the nonexempt students (56%) and (78%) respectively. When broken down by race and gender, the success
rates are even more unfortunate.
African American Males: 42%, African American Females: 52%
Caucasian Males: 54%, Caucasian Females 62%
Hispanic Males: 57%, Hispanic Females 67%
Page 82 of 83
Developmental Education Accountability Reports
MGF 1106
In looking at the success rates for FTIC students in MGF 1106, one can see that non-exempt students
were more successful (78%) than the exempt students (63%). African American males and females were
also less successful that Hispanic males and females as well as Caucasian males and females:
African American Males: 45%; African American Females: 48%
Hispanic Males: 70%; Hispanic Females: 68%
Caucasian Males: 62%; Caucasian Females: 76%
STA 1001C
The overall success by exemption status for STA 1001C is 67% (non-exempt) and 65% (exempt). Once
again, the data states that African American males and females are less successful than Hispanic and
Caucasian students.
African American Males: 57%; African American Females: 50%
Hispanic Males 71%; Hispanic Females 77%
Caucasian Males 80%; Caucasian Females 66%
ENC 1101
In breaking down the data by exemption status of FTIC students, the exempt students had a 74%
success rate compared to non-exempt students who had a 80% success rate.
African American Males: 59%, African American females had 71%
Hispanic Males: 70%, Hispanic Females 79%
Caucasian Males: 73%, Caucasian Females 82%.
Strategies
The college has instituted a twice-annual development education data review conducted by our Dev Ed
Task Force. The taskforce is comprised of Math and Communications Deans, as well as the Deans for
Learning Support, Student Affairs staff, IR, Assessment, and faculty. The purpose of this team is to
review the data to understand trends and/or patterns, so that we can develop meaningful solutions. To
date, we have already removed REA 0007 and ENC 0015 from our curriculum, and we will remove REA
0017 and ENC 0025 courses from our catalog due to low enrollments; we are going to focus on the two
combined courses: ENC 0017 and ENC 0027.
We are also going to conduct student focus groups that ask students how they are making decisions,
how they are experiencing outreach, and what their first experience in a college classroom was like? We
will also conduct a campus review of the data, so that each campus can target specific student needs.
When we review the data again in May, we will review campus strategies and Focus Group results along
with the data to see what, if any curriculum modifications need to be made.
Page 83 of 83
Division of Florida Colleges
325 W. Gaines Street, Suite 1544
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400