ACCELERATING INTO COLLEGELEVEL COURSEWORK THROUGH COREQUISITE REMEDIATION A

ACCELERATING INTO COLLEGE-LEVEL COURSEWORK THROUGH CO-REQUISITE REMEDIATION A Timeline for Success Kathy Haberer and Dr. Jill O’Shea Lane Lewis and Clark Community College

OVERVIEW • • Introduction Engaging Faculty Math Pathways Communication with Academic Advisors • Research Design • Successes and Challenges

INTRODUCTION • Illinois Community College Board and Complete College America Project • Our experience led us to believe we were ready to participate. • English co-requisite experience • Variety of pilot projects in math

TIMELINE

OUR GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR DEV ED • Contextualize • Accelerate • Support • Avoid

WHAT IS CO-REQUISITE REMEDIATION? • Pairing a developmental course and the gateway English or math course during the same semester. • Adding a credit (or more) to the gateway English or math course for developmental learners. • Adding a non-credit support course in the gateway English or math course for developmental learners – usually called a studio.

WHAT IS NOT CO-REQUISITE REMEDIATION? • Taking the developmental course one semester and the gateway English or math the next semester. • Merging two developmental courses into one • Beginning algebra and intermediate algebra • Blended reading/writing

IMPLEMENTATION • Created multiple co-requisite sections in four math pathways and two English pathways • Held meetings twice a semester with co-requisite remediation team of faculty, staff, and administrators to monitor progress • Surveyed students • Watched data closely and included follow-up on how students perform beyond co-requisite remediation

ENGAGING FACULTY • Buy in and understanding of what is co-requisite education • Courses available to get started right away • Decisions made by faculty • How many sections, times, days of week • Credit hours of support course • Made sure faculty understand how success is measured • Created new support course syllabi after being piloted for at least a semester or two

MATH PATHWAYS • Developed meta majors • • Applied Technology Business Education Fine and Performing Arts Healthcare Liberal Arts/Humanities Social Sciences STEM • Developed new “intent” screen in student information system

Student personal information

COMMUNICATION WITH ADVISORS • Rationale for co-requisite remediation • Impact on placement test cut scores and multiple measures • Advising handout – fill these first • Sample schedules that emphasize completing required math and English during the first year, the momentum year • Ongoing communication regarding scheduling and success data

CO-MINGLED = 7 DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION STUDENTS FROM EACH FIRST-YEAR ENGLISH 1 CLASSES ARE ENROLLED IN THE SUPPORT COURSE. ENGL 031 – CC 31 MWF 11: 00 AM 11: 50 AM BA 4449 Massie ENGL 131 – CC 31 MWF 09: 00 AM 09: 50 AM CW 4304 Massie ENGL 131 – CC 32 MWF 10: 00 AM 10: 50 AM CW 4303 Massie ENGL 131 – 31 Massie ENGL 031 – 32 Massie MWF 09: 00 AM 09: 50 AM CW 4304 MWF 10: 00 AM 10: 50 AM CW 4303 ENGL 131 First-Year English 1 ENGL 031 First-Year English 1 Support

RESEARCH DESIGN • Emphasize acceleration and retention • Willing to sacrifice course success rates to get more students to the finish line

RETENTION

DATA

DATA

DATA

Fall 2016 to Fall 2017 Retention by Course Grade (Success A, B, C – Failure D, F, W) CCA College Algebra – MATH 131 Returned 2016 Fall Failure 24 49% Success 33 82. 5 % Did Not Return 25 51% 7 17. 5% Non CCA College Algebra – MATH 131 Returned DATA 2016 Fall Failure 19 Success 72 32. 5 % 62. 1 % Did Not Return 35 64. 8% 44 37. 9%

Fall 2016 to Fall 2017 Retention by Course Grade (Success A, B, C – Failure D, F, W) CCA Elementary Math Modeling – MATH 137 Returned 2016 Fall Failure 9 Success 50 37. 5 % 82% Did Not Return 15 62. 5% 11 18% Non-CCA Elementary Math Modeling – MATH 137 Returned DATA 2016 Fall Failure 4 23. 5% Did Not Return 13 76. 5% Success 40 57. 1% 30 42. 9%

Fall 2016 to Fall 2017 Retention by Course Grade (Success A, B, C – Failure D, F, W) CCA General Education Statistics – MATH 145 Returned Failure 7 Did Not Return 31 81. 6% 18. 4 2016 % Success 33 78. 6 9 21. 4% Fall % Non CCA General Education Statistics – MATH 145 Returned DATA 2016 Fall Failure 21 Success 74 40. 4 % 78. 7 % Did Not Return 31 59. 6% 20 21. 3%

Fall 2016 to Fall 2017 Retention by Course Grade (Success A, B, C – Failure D, F, W) CCA Technical Math – MATH 125 Returned 2016 Fall Failure 6 50% Did Not Return 6 50% Success 6 75% 2 25% Non CCA Technical Math – MATH 125 Returned DATA 2016 Fall Failure 1 Success 10 33. 3 % 83. 3 % Did Not Return 2 66. 7% 2 16. 7%

Fall 2016 to Fall 2017 Retention by Course Grade (Success A, B, C – Failure D, F, W) CCA First Year English – ENGL 131 Returned 2016 Fall Failure 3 Success 30 17. 6 % 60% Did Not Return 14 82. 4% 20 40% Non CCA First Year English – ENGL 131 Returned DATA 2016 Fall Failure 34 Success 224 23. 3 % 65. 7 % Did Not Return 112 76. 7% 117 34. 3%

Fall 2016 to Fall 2017 Retention by Course Grade (Success A, B, C – Failure D, F, W) CCA Technical Writing – ENGL 137 Returned Failure 2 33. 3 2016 % Success 6 85. 7 Fall % Non CCA Technical Writing – ENGL 137 DATA Success 1 14. 3% Returned Did Not Return 5 100% 4 7 Failure 2016 Fall Did Not Return 4 66. 7% 36. 4 % 63. 6%

SUCCESS AND CHALLENGES • • • Acceleration works! Will continue to follow success into next courses Lowest level math and reading students did not succeed Support course works best when it comes after college-level course What to do with reading? Interesting differences between English and math success Tutor usage in math went up but went down in English Different approaches to grading in college-level course and support course Scaling-up • Bridging the Gap grant for faculty training

CO-REQUISITE EDUCATION START-UP CHECKLIST

QUESTIONS? For more information: Kathy Haberer, M. Ed. Dr. Jill O’Shea Lane Director, Student Development & Counseling Dean, Transfer Programs 618 -468 -4126 618 -468 -4900 khaberer@lc. edu jlane@lc. edu