top 25 course data etc. subcommittee: kathryn wells, co-chair brad bostian ,co-chair denise wells

Top 25 Course DataEtc.

Subcommittee: Kathryn Wells, Co-ChairBrad Bostian ,Co-Chair

Denise WellsBrenda Armentrout

Rick Coulter

CIS110

ENG111

COM110

ACA111

PSY150

MAT161

COM231

MAT155

SOC210

ENG1120.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

Success Gaps By Delivery Fall 2009

TraditionalOnline

CIS110

ENG111

COM110

ACA111

PSY150

MAT161

COM231

MAT155

SOC210

ENG1120

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Success Gaps By Age Group

All20-24

CIS110

ENG111

COM110

ACA111

PSY150

MAT161

COM231

MAT155

SOC210

ENG1120

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Success Gaps By Benchmark

70%Current

Online Black Males Age 20-24 Part Time Pell GEDVersus Versus Versus Versus Versus Versus

Traditional All All Full Time No Pell Diploma

-12.00%

-10.00%

-8.00%

-6.00%

-4.00%

-2.00%

0.00%

Average % Success Gap in Fall 2009 Top 25 Courses

In percent terms, here are some of the gaps we found.



0.00%5.00%

10.00%15.00%20.00%25.00%30.00%35.00%40.00%45.00%

27.03%

9.19%

36.54% 35.41%40.85%

5.64%

% of All 20,933 Fall 2009 Top 25 Enroll-ments

We should also consider the proportion of the Top 25 population each group

represents



0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

602

196

381

70

240

88

Additional Course Completions With Gaps Eliminated

The relative sizes of gaps change dramat-ically when looked at in numerical terms

and not percentages

Onl

ine

Blac

k M

ales

Age

20-2

4

Part

Tim

e

Pell

GED

8 G

atek

eepe

r

8 G

atek

eepe

r

Versus Versus Versus Versus Versus Versus Courses CoursesTradi-tional

Other Other Full Time No Pell Diploma at 70% at 75%

0400800

12001600

602 232 60170 240 88

8541334

Additional Completions With Gaps Elimi-nated

Here we made the comparisons more consistent by comparing black males and 20-24 year olds to the rest of the Top 25

population; we also added a hypothetical gap for just 8 Gen Ed Courses, between

actual success r

N % A-C At 70% At 75%

CIS110 2287 55.10% 341 455

MAT161 1078 59.50% 113 167

ACC120 487 48.90% 103 127

SPA111 817 58.50% 94 135

ENG113 674 56.10% 94 127

COM231 1007 63.30% 67 118

ENG111 2078 68.10% 39 143

PSY150 1184 69.80% 2 62

Here are the numbers to show how each course contributes to the success gap for the 8 courses.

Changes In Fall 2009 Top 25 Courses

We did a casual survey to find out what changes might reasonably be expected to impact gatekeeper course success rates.

Aside from the withdrawal policy in Fall 2008 (term #35 in the chart), the main one was the ongoing introduction of prerequisites.

ACA111 no changes with the exception of adding a fast-track over summer 2010ACA118 no changes with the exception of adding a fast-track over summer 2010ACC120

BIO110seeking the best textbook for the class; seeking the best lab manual; semester to semester re-evaluation of our lab experiments; better attempts to insure that our PT faculty are informed about course expectation

BUS110CIS110 pre-requisites were added in summer 2010. Students need MAT070, ENG080, RED080 or CIS070 or anything higherCIS111 no changes

COM110

ENG/RED prerequisite planned for summer 2011; Longterm positive influence is careful selection of textbooks (student friendly), especially critical for online/teleweb students and for part-time instructors. Common course syllabi developed/updated by all fulltime instructors and used for all sections.

COM231

ENG/RED prerequisite planned for summer 2011; Longterm positive influence is careful selection of textbooks (student friendly), especially critical for online/teleweb students and for part-time instructors. Common course syllabi developed/updated by all fulltime instructors and used for all sections.

ENG111 no changesENG112 no changesENG113 no changesENG114 no changesENG231 no changes

HEA110

Motivated students who need course to graduate in limited sections; textbook is “user friendly” with lots of extras to help students be successful; course is offered via three delivery modes – telecourse, BB, traditional. If student is unsuccessful in course more than one time, they have to take the course by another delivery mode or take PED’s instead; number of successful students started to improve after Priority Registration was implemented by college

HIS111 added ENG/RED prerequisite summer 2010MAT155MAT161 MAT171

MUS110increased number of sections offered; Fall 2010 incorporated publisher’s online component for textbook into course but having some problems with logistics which may impact 2010-11 student completion rate

PSY150 added ENG/RED prerequisite summer 2010SOC210 ENG/RED prerequisite planned for 2011SOC213 added ENG/RED prerequisite summer 2010SPA111 no changesSPA181 no changes

The Impact Of The New Withdrawal Policy

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 380.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

A-CDFInstrctrWStudentW

Grade Distribution By Term from Summer 1997 Through Fall 2009(Not Including Drops)

Grade Distribution By Term from Summer 1997 Through Fall 2009(Not Including Drops)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 380.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

ABC

Additional Demographics

The next slides try to answer the question of demographic interactions. For example,

someone suggested that maybe black males make up a disproportionate number of the

20-24 year olds, and help to explain that gap.

In the following slide, we charted the ratio of other groups to black males by age range. While the ratio of most groups to black males does

drop, with the exception of Asians and U.S. Residents, there is not enough difference to explain the other gaps.

We looked at Pell as a simple rate (not other groups compared to black males). The Pell rate doesn’t change much at all either from the 0-19 to

20-24 year old age group.

Ratio of Ratio of

Others to Others to Pell Pell

Black Males Black Males Rate Rate

0-19 20-24 0-19 0-24

WF 3.27 2.9 18.71 21.92 WF

WM 3.13 2.93 14.74 16.51 WM

BF 1.8 1.76 65.06 74.11 BF

BM 1 1 55.3 55.68 BM

HF 0.42 0.34 42.8 45.99 HF

HM 0.4 0.29 46.26 35.78 HM

AF 0.11 0.16 45.31 52.17 AF

AM 0.14 0.19 27.85 34.31 AM

NF 0.03 0.02 42.11 56.25 NF

NM 0.02 0.01 8.33 14.29 NM

OF 0.35 0.18 47.45 53.54 OF

OM 0.23 0.17 46.51 40.34 OM

NRF 0.34 0.48 60.94 45.54 NRF

NRM 0.31 0.45 52.25 33.55 NRM

0-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 44-49 50+ Total0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

31.21%36.54%

11.72%7.34% 5.03% 3.48% 2.59% 2.09%

100.00%

Fall 2009 Top 25 Population By AgeMore students fall into the 20-24 year old

range than any other.

WF WM BF BM HF HM AF AM NF NM OF OM NRF NRM0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Top 25 Fall 2009 Relative Demographic Propor-tions By Age Range

Here you can see several interesting stories, such as black females coming in great numbers in their 30’s, or white females coming to us in

their 40’s and 50’s, with white males coming to us yo

0-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 44-49 50+ Total

37.54% WF41.38% WM27.94% BF36.59% BM36.92% HF39.31% HM42.12% AF50.93% AM27.12% NF18.92% NM27.97% OF40.34% OM36.76% NRF43.78% NRM36.54% Total

Black Males match the population average for percent of students in the 20-24 range for Fall 2009 Top 25 courses. Other ethnicities deviate from the average significantly.

Nursing Cohorts We’d Like To TrackThis cohort has nothing to do with gatekeeper course success, however we would like

to study them at some point. What happens to the 41 motivated, goal-oriented students who were not accepted into the nursing program? Do they shift to other

programs, drop out, transfer?

Eligible Not

July 2009 32 18

January 2010 36 23

Total 68 41

Some First Year Student Facts

These facts are especially important given the delivery gap between online and

traditional classes.

39%

24%

12%

11%

5%5%

3% 1%

More Semester Year Students Attend Mul-tiple Campuses Their First Semester Than

Attend Any One CampusMultiple Central Levine OnlineNorth Cato Harper Harris

Central Online Levine Cato North Harper Harris

50

35

28

14 127 5

Percent Of First Semester Students Attending Each Campus

(39% Attend Multiple Campuses)

Number Of Online Credits Enrolled In By First Semester Online Students

Table 2. Distribution of online credit hours, First-year students registered for online course September 2010 (Mean = 4.2; Median = 3)

Number of Credits

Count Percent

1-5 CREDITS 1097 72.31%

6-11 CREDITS 356 23.47%

12-18 CREDITS 64 4.22%

Total 1517 100.00%

A Comparison Of Students Starting In Fall 2007 And Not Returning

In Spring 2008

515 Transfers/Completers Through Summer 2010 Versus 1292 Missing

Since most of the transfer/completers transferred, they are referred to in the charts as transfers

Attempted Completed A to CGPA Credits Credits Credits

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Academic Success

TransfersMissing

GPA Credits A to C% with 0 % with 0 % with 0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Academic Failure

TransfersMissing

%No Test % 080/085 %090/095 % 1110

10

20

30

40

50

60

English PlacementThe missing students were more

likely to take placement tests and place into developmental classes.

TransfersMissing

%No Test % ABE % 080 % 090 % 1110

10

20

30

40

50

60

Reading Placement

TransfersMissing

%No Test

% 050 % 060 % 070 % 080+ % 155+ % 172+0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Math Placement

TransfersMissing

White Black Hispanic Asian Native NR Alien Other0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

EthnicityMissing students are more likely to

be black, Hispanic, Asian, or non-res-idents.

TransfersMissing

Dual First SummerEnrolled Generation Bridge

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%

14.00%

Other FactorsThe missing students are not much

different in these other factors.

TransfersMissing

A Comparison By Delivery Method For 831 First Semester Students Starting In Fall 2009 And Taking

Both Online And Traditional Classes That Term (all curriculum courses, not just Top 25 Enrolled)

Here, we wanted to compare the GPA success of the same students between their traditional and their online courses.

GPA≥2.00 in both tradi-tional and online

60%Traditional GPA≥2.00 and Online GPA<2.00

17%

Online GPA≥2.0

0 and Tradi-tional

GPA<2.00

5%

GPA<2.00 in both

online and tra-ditional

19%

Distribution of Online and Traditional GPA

Traditional Online0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

2.63

2.2

GPA Comparison

Traditional Online0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

77%

64%

2.0+ GPA Rates

A Comparison By Delivery Method For 4365 Returning Students

Enrolled In Fall 2009 And Taking Both Online And Traditional

Classes That TermAgain, this is a GPA comparison.

GPA≥2.00 in both tradi-tional and online

64%

Traditional GPA≥2.00 and Online GPA<2.00

15%

Online GPA≥2.0

0 and Tradi-tional

GPA<2.00

7%

GPA<2.00 in both

online and tra-ditional

14%

Distribution of Online and Traditional GPA

Traditional Online0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

32.70

2.43

GPA Comparison

Traditional Online0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

79%71%

2.0+ GPA Rates

A Comparison By Delivery Method For All 5349 Students Enrolled In Fall 2009 And Taking Both Online And Traditional Classes That Term

Traditional Online0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

2.311.99

GPA Comparison (W Included)

Traditional Online0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%70%

60%

Success Rate ComparisonThis is a typical aggregate difference in

success rates by delivery method.

Traditional Online0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

13

18

W, WN Rate Comparison

A Comparison By Delivery Method For Students Of 184 Instructors

Teaching Both Online And Traditional Classes In Fall 2009

Here we are comparing the online and traditional students of the same instructors, those teaching both online and traditional classes in

the same semester.

Traditional Online0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5 2.37 2.26


Traditional Online0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%71%

66%

Success Rate ComparisonSo even with the same instructor, there is

still a difference.

Traditional Online0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1215

W, WN Rate Comparison

A Comparison By Delivery Method Between 1062 First Term Fall 2009

Students And 4297 2nd+ Term Students Enrolled In Fall 2009 And Taking Both Online And Traditional

Classes That Term

1st Semester 2nd+ Semester0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

2.22 2.33

1.72

2.06


TraditionalOnline


10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

67 71

5162

Success Rate ComparisonNew students don’t do well in general,

and especially online.

TraditionalOnline


5

10

15

20

25

14 13

22

17

W Rate Comparison

TraditionalOnline

A Comparison By Delivery Method Between The First Term Students Of 144 Instructors Teaching Both Online And Traditional Classes In

Fall 2009 And The 2nd+ Term Students Of 184 Instructors Teaching Both Online And

Traditional Classes That Term


0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

2.212.39

1.992.28


TraditionalOnline


10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

6772

5866

Success Rate ComparisonAgain, even for the same instructor, there

is less success in online courses.

TraditionalOnline


5

10

15

20

25

12 11

20

14

W Rate Comparison

TraditionalOnline

What Elsewould you like to know?

top 25 course data etc. subcommittee: kathryn wells, co-chair brad bostian ,co-chair denise wells

Documents