A Study of the Progress of Basic Skills Students through an Examination of Their Success and Retention Rates
 
Jing Luan
Office of Institutional Research
May1997
 
 
 
Table of Contents
 
 
  Introduction
1
  Cohort Enrolled in English
2
  Course progress
2
  Analysis of demography & educational goals
4
  Cohort Enrolled in Math
7
  Course progress
7
  Analysis of demography & educational goals
10
  Cohort Enrolled in Reading
13
  Course progress
13
  Analysis of demography & educational goals
15
  Cohort Enrolled in ESL
17
  Cohort progress
17
  Analysis of demography & educational goals
19
  Summary of Findings
22
  Appendix - Longitudinal analysis retention and success rates in English, Math, Reading and ESL
24
     
A Study of the Progress of Basic Skills Students through an Examination of Their Success and Retention Rates

(DRAFT)

Jing Luan
Office of Institutional Research
May1997
INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to identify: 1) the success and retention rates of basic skills students, and 2) the rates of basic skills students’ progress from basic skills courses to college level courses, and ultimately, transfer level courses.

This study took advantage of the Cabrillo College Datawarehouse which made cohort tracking possible. The study chose its cohorts from the semester of Fall 1994. Essentially, four cohorts were identified:

Students enrolled in ENGL 255 (n=221),

Students enrolled in MATH 256 & 256 (S) (n = 247),

Students in READ 205 and READ 255 (n = 102), and

Students in ESL 200 and ESL 201 (n = 77).

For each basic skills cohort, the study tracked its progress from basic skills courses in Fall 1994 on to the next courses in line (last semester data available: Spring 1996), following the normal sequence of courses. For example, the cohort which took ENGL 255 in Fall 1994 was followed from ENGL 255 to ENGL 100 and to ENGL 1A. Descriptive statistics were reported for all of the tracking. For each cohort’s performance in each course, the study reported the number of students in the class, the grades they received, and the success and retention rates. The study also compared the cohort’s performance to the general population (also called comparison group in this study) that was enrolled in the course in Fall 1994. For example, all students enrolled in ENGL 100 were compared to the students who moved on from ENGL 255 to ENGL 100.

Wherever applicable, the tables in this study used a comparison group - ‘general’ population enrolled in the same courses. In these tables, if there was more than one course of the same level listed, i.e., READ 205 and READ 255, the total of the courses was used.

The definitions used for success and retention in this study are as follows:

Success rate: (A+B+C+CR /A+B+C+CR+D+F+IF+NC+W+XX) x 100

Retention rate: (A+B+C+CR+D+F+IF+NC /A+B+C+CR+D+F+IF+NC+W+XX) x 100

Progress rate: (# in higher level course / # in lower level course) x 100

 
 
FINDINGS

ENGLISH * COHORT ENROLLED IN ENGL 255 IN FALL 1994

There was a total of 221 students enrolled in basic skills ENGL 255 in Fall 1994. The success rate for these students was 55.7% and retention rate 67.4%. Out of this group of 221 students, 101 students moved on to ENGL 100. The progress rate was 45.7%. The success and retention rates in ENGL 100 for these 101 students were 66.3% and 78.2% respectively. Compared to the success and retention rates for all students enrolled in ENGL 100 (n = 1,009) in Fall 1994, the rates were substantially higher. The cohort’s success rate was almost 10 percentage points higher and its retention rate 6 percentage points higher.

Table 1. Grades from ENGL 255 (Basic Skills Level) - Fall 1994

#
%
A
19
8.6%
B
4
1.8%
C
1
0.5%
CR
99
44.8%
D
0
0.0%
F
0
0.0%
IF
5
2.3%
NC
21
9.5%
W
65
29.4%
XX
7
3.2%
Total
221
S Rate:
55.7%
R Rate:
67.4%
Table 2. Grades from ENGL 100 (College Level) - comparisons between the cohort enrolled in ENGL 255 in Fall 1994 and All Students Enrolled in ENGL 100 in Fall 1994
Cohort from 
ENGL 255
All Students in 
ENGL 100
#
%
#
%
A
25
24.8%
205
20.3%
B
31
30.7%
243
24.1%
C
11
10.9%
110
10.9%
CR
0
0.0%
14
1.4%
D
3
3.0%
36
3.6%
F
0
0.0%
41
4.1%
IF
6
5.9%
54
5.4%
NC
3
3.0%
25
2.5%
W
18
17.8%
266
26.4%
XX
4
4.0%
15
1.5%
Total
101
1009
S Rate:
66.3%
56.7%
R Rate:
78.2%
72.2%
 

Table 3. Grades from ENGL 1A (Transfer Level) - comparisons between the cohort enrolled in ENGL 100 and all students enrolled in ENGL 1A in Fall 1994

Cohort from 
ENGL 100
All Students in 
ENGL 1A
#
%
#
%
A
7
22.6%
204
26.2%
B
10
32.3%
186
23.9%
C
5
16.1%
106
13.6%
CR
0
0.0%
2
0.3%
D
1
3.2%
16
2.1%
F
0
0.0%
15
1.9%
IF
3
9.7%
26
3.3%
NC
2
6.5%
31
4.0%
W
1
3.2%
173
22.2%
XX
2
6.5%
19
2.4%
Total
31
778
S Rate:
71.0%
64.0%
R Rate:
90.3%
75.3%
Out of this group of 101 students enrolled in ENGL 100, 31students moved on to ENGL 1A. The progress rate was 30.7%. The success and retention rates in ENGL 1A for the 31 students were 71.0% and 90.3% respectively. Compared to the success and retention rates for all students enrolled in ENGL 1A (n = 778) in Fall 1994, the rates were substantially higher. The cohort’s success rate was more than 10 percentage points higher, and its retention rate 15 percentage points higher.

About half of the students (45.7%) from ENGL 255 moved on to ENGL 100. Out of that group, about a third (30.7%) moved on to ENGL 1A. Fourteen percent of the students from the initial cohort in Fall 94 (ENGL 255) progressed from basic skills English courses to transfer level English courses by Spring 96. Students from the cohort performed better than the comparison group students who enrolled at both the college and transfer level English courses.

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4. The Age of Students Enrolled in English Courses:

ENGL 255
ENGL 100
ENGL 1A
#
%
#
%
#
%
<21
106
48.2%
51
50.5%
20
64.5%
21-25
41
18.6%
11
10.9%
3
9.7%
26-30
26
11.8%
16
15.8%
5
16.1%
31-40
31
14.1%
13
12.9%
2
6.5%
41-50
11
5.0%
7
6.9%
1
3.2%
51-60
2
0.9%
1
1.0%
61-
1
0.5%
1
1.0%
Total
220
101
31
For both ENGL 255 and ENGL 100, almost half of the students were younger than 21. Age did not seem to be a factor in students making the transition from the pre-collegiate level to collegiate level until they reached transfer level. In ENGL 1A, almost 2/3 (64.5%) of the students were younger than 21. This means that younger students are more likely to take transfer level courses. This does not necessarily mean that younger students do better than older students (26 and above).

Table 5. The Gender of Students Enrolled in English Courses:

ENGL 255
ENGL 100
ENGL 1A
#
%
#
%
#
%
F
99
45.0%
49
48.5%
13
41.9%
M
121
55.0%
52
51.5%
18
58.1%
Total
220
101
31
 

Interestingly, the distribution of females and males in basic skills classes goes against the trend in the general population. In absolute numbers, more males (n=121) were enrolled than females (n=99), and this study found that more males (n=18) went into transfer level classes than females (n=13).

 

Table 6. The Ethnicity of Students Enrolled in English Courses:

ENGL 255
ENGL 100
ENGL 1A
#
%
#
%
#
%
AA
4
1.8%
1
1.0%
AI
2
0.9%
1
1.0%
1
3.2%
ASIAN
15
6.8%
3
3.0%
HISPANIC
114
51.8%
57
56.4%
20
64.5%
OTHER
4
1.8%
2
2.0%
WHITE
81
36.8%
37
36.6%
10
32.3%
Total
220
101
31
More than half of the students were Hispanic students and almost 2/3 (64.5%) of the students who went into transfer English classes were Hispanic. The percentage of white students did not change much from being 1/3 of the group in the entire process. Asian students, on the other hand, started out to be 6.8% of the group, but none of them went on transfer English courses.

 

Table 7. The Educational Goals of Students Enrolled in English Courses:

ENGL 255
ENGL 100
ENGL 1A
#
%
#
%
#
%
BA/BS w/ AA/AS
43
19.5%
28
27.7%
11
35.5%
BA/BS w/o AA/AS
12
5.5%
6
5.9%
2
6.5%
AA/AS w/o TRANSFER
16
7.3%
5
5.0%
1
3.2%
AA/AS/V w/o TRANSFER
15
6.8%
5
5.0%
2
6.5%
CERT w/o TRANSFER
9
4.1%
3
3.0%
1
3.2%
CAREER PLANS
20
9.1%
12
11.9%
3
9.7%
SKILLS
26
11.8%
8
7.9%
2
6.5%
UPDATE
8
3.6%
2
2.0%
1
3.2%
LICENSE
3
1.4%
1
1.0%
LEISURE
10
4.5%
3
3.0%
BASIC SKILLS
17
7.7%
11
10.9%
4
12.9%
GED/HSCH
2
0.9%
UNDECIDED
19
8.6%
8
7.9%
2
6.5%
UNKNOWN
20
9.1%
9
8.9%
2
6.5%
Total
220
101
31
More than 1/3 (35.5%) of the students in transfer English had in their original educational goals "to obtain a BA/BS with an Associated Degree, compared to 19.5% in the pre-collegiate level. This means that students were more likely to follow their original intent of study than not. This is further verified by the number of students with "improving basic skills" as their goal. Their percentage increased as students progressed from pre-collegiate level to transfer level classes. However, given the possibility of students changing their educational goals every new term when they registered, caution should be used when examining the educational goals of those students. Another finding is that there did not appear to be any dominant goal clusters among the students. Even though "to obtain BA/BS with an Associate Degree" was 19.5%, almost half of the college’s general population, in actuality, declared that as their goal.

Table 8. The Disability Information of Students Enrolled in English Courses:

ENGL 255
ENGL 100
ENGL 1A
#
%
#
%
#
%
Acq. Brain Inj.
2
6.5%
1
6.3%
Dev. Delayed
1
3.2%
1
6.3%
Learning Disabled
20
64.5%
9
56.3%
3
60.0%
Mobility Impaired
1
3.2%
Other Disability
1
3.2%
Psych Disability
3
9.7%
2
12.5%
1
20.0%
Visually Impaired
3
9.7%
3
18.8%
1
20.0%
Total
31
16
5
The majority of the students who claimed disabilities were learning disabled (64.5% in ENGL 255).

Table 8a. Comparisons of Rate of Progress between All Students in the Cohort and Students with Disabilities.

 
ENGL
255
ENGL
100
  
ENGL
1A
  
 
#
#
prog. rate
#
prog. rate
All Students
220
101
45.7%
31
30.7%
Std. w/ disabilities
31
16
51.6%
5
31.3%
Compared to all students in the cohort, students with disabilities progressed at a higher rate from English 255 to English 100 (51.6% vs. 45.7%). The rate of progress from English 100 to English 1A is almost the same for both groups – a little over 30%. Nine out of 20 students with Learning Disabilities (the majority of disabilities) progressed from English 255 to English 100 - a rate of 45% which is lower than that observed in the entire group of students with disabilities.

Profiling: For a student enrolled in basic skills English courses, he most likely was a young Hispanic male. If he had a disability, it would be a learning disability.

MATH * COHORT ENROLLED IN MATH 256 and MATH 256S IN FALL 1994

There was a total of 247 students enrolled in basic skills MATH 256 and MATH 256S in Fall 1994. The overall success rate for these students was 48.6%, and the retention rate was 80.2%. Students in MATH 256S had a higher success rate (85.4%) than students in MATH 256 (41.3%). The retention rate in MATH 256S was higher (97.6%) than in MATH 256 (76.7%). Out of this group of 247students, 176 moved on to MATH 154 and MATH 154A classes. The progress rate was 71.3%. The success and retention rates in MATH 154 and MATH 154A for the 176 students were 40.9% and 59.7% respectively. Compared to the success and retention rates for all students enrolled in MATH 154, (n = 729) in Fall 1994, the rates were substantially lower. The cohort’s success rate in MATH 154 (MATH 154A had too few students, n = 5), was 16 percentage points lower, and its retention rate almost 15 percentage points lower.

Note: several factors (outside faculty control) may have influenced the progress rate: intended educational goals, and fewer than 4 semesters for tracking a student cohort.

 
Table 9. Grades from MATH 256 and MATH 256S (Basic Skills Level) - Fall 1994
MATH 256
MATH 256S
Total All Courses
#
%
#
%
#
%
A
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
B
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
C
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
CR
85
41.3%
35
85.4%
120
48.6%
D
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
F
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
IF
15
7.3%
2
4.9%
17
6.9%
NC
58
28.2%
3
7.3%
61
24.7%
W
41
19.9%
1
2.4%
42
17.0%
XX
7
3.4%
0
0.0%
7
2.8%
Total
206
41
247
S Rate:
41.3%
85.4%
48.6%
R Rate:
76.7%
97.6%
80.2%
 

 

Table 10. Grades from MATH 154 (College Level 1) - comparisons between the cohort from MATH 256 & 256S in Fall 1994 and all students enrolled in MATH 154 & 154A in Fall 1994

MATH154
MATH 154A
Total Courses
All Students in 
MATH 154
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
A
15
8.8%
0
0.0%
15
8.5%
130
17.8%
B
27
15.8%
0
0.0%
27
15.3%
144
19.8%
C
27
15.8%
3
7.3%
30
17.0%
140
19.2%
CR
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
D
14
8.2%
0
0.0%
14
8.0%
58
8.0%
F
15
8.8%
1
2.4%
16
9.1%
58
8.0%
IF
2
1.2%
1
2.4%
3
1.7%
6
0.8%
NC
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
W
65
38.0%
0
0.0%
65
36.9%
184
25.2%
XX
6
3.5%
0
0.0%
6
3.4%
9
1.2%
Total
171
5
176
729
S Rate:
40.4%
60.0%
40.9%
64.7%
R Rate:
58.5%
100.0%
59.7%
73.5%
Out of this group of 176 students in MATH 154 and 154A, 52 students moved on to MATH 152. The progress rate was 30.0%. The success and retention rates in MATH 152 for these 52 students were 59.6% and 76.9% respectively. Compared to the success and retention rates for all students enrolled in 152 (n = 707) in Fall 1994, the rates were substantially higher. The cohort’s success rate was more than 10 percentage points higher, and its retention rate 7 percentage points higher.

 

 

Table 11. Grades from MATH 152 (College Level 2) - comparisons between the cohort from MATH 154 and all students enrolled in MATH 152 in Fall 1994

MATH 152
All Students in 
MATH 152
#
%
#
%
A
4
7.7%
98
13.9%
B
13
25.0%
104
14.7%
C
14
26.9%
144
20.4%
CR
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
D
5
9.6%
70
9.9%
F
2
3.8%
72
10.2%
IF
2
3.8%
4
0.6%
NC
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
W
8
15.4%
209
29.6%
XX
4
7.7%
6
0.8%
Total
52
707
S Rate:
59.6%
48.9%
R Rate:
76.9%
69.6%
 

Table 12. Grades from MATH 4, 10,11,12,13 (Transfer Level) - comparisons between the cohort from MATH 152 and all students enrolled in MATH 4,10,11,12,13 in Fall 1994

MATH 4,10,11,12,13
All Students in 
MATH 4,10,11,12,13
#
%
#
%
A
1
5.9%
143
21.4%
B
3
17.6%
154
23.1%
C
4
23.5%
107
16.0%
CR
0
0.0%
5
0.7%
D
1
5.9%
34
5.1%
F
0
0.0%
42
6.3%
IF
0
0.0%
6
0.9%
NC
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
W
6
35.3%
160
24.0%
XX
2
11.8%
16
2.4%
Total
17
667
S Rate:
47.1%
61.3%
R Rate:
52.9%
73.6%
Out of this group of 52 students in MATH 152, 17 students moved on to transfer courses of MATH 4, MATH 10, MATH 11, MATH 12 or MATH 13. The progress rate was 32.7%. These transfer MATH courses have been combined into one for this study because of the small number of students enrolled in each course. The success and retention rates in MATH 4, 10, 11, 12, & 13 for these 52 students were 47.1% and 52.9% respectively. Compared to the success and retention rates for all students enrolled in transfer courses of MATH 4, MATH 10, MATH 11, MATH 12 or MATH 13 (n = 667) in Fall 1994, the rates were substantially lower. The cohort’s success rate was almost 14 percentage points lower, and its retention rate 21 percentage points lower. However, the number in Transfer Math for the cohort students (n = 17) was too small to substantiate this finding.

A large percentage of the students (71.3%) from MATH 256 and 256S moved on to MATH 154 and 154A. Out of that group, about one third (30.0%) moved on to MATH 152. Out of the 52 students in MATH 152, about one third (32.7%) moved on to transfer MATH courses. Less than 7% of the students from the initial cohort in Fall 94 (MATH 256 & 256S) progressed from basic skills MATH courses to transfer level MATH courses by Spring 96.

 

 

 

Table 13. The Age of Students Enrolled in Math Courses:

MATH 256, 256S
MATH 154, 154A
MATH 152
TRANSFER MATH 
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
2
0.8%
1
0.6%
1
1.9%
<21
75
30.4%
47
26.1%
10
19.2%
4
23.5%
21-25
67
27.1%
54
30.0%
11
21.2%
4
23.5%
26-30
29
11.7%
18
10.0%
7
13.5%
2
11.8%
31-40
42
17.0%
44
24.4%
15
28.8%
2
11.8%
41-50
26
10.5%
14
7.8%
8
15.4%
5
29.4%
51-60
5
2.0%
2
1.1%
61-
1