TASK FORCE FINDINGS FINAL REPORT: Business Administration & Management Program Review Fall 2013 HILLSBOROUGH COMMUNITY COLLEGE, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA TASK FORCE MEMEBERS Chair, Ms. Andrea Borchard, Program Manager-Accounting/Business/Economics and Finance, Dale Mabry Campus Ms. Bea Bare, Advisory Committee Member Ms. Kimbril May, Accountant, Financial Services, GWSDAC Ms. Sabrina Peacock, Dean of Associate of Sciences, Brandon Campus Ms. Joan Sager, Business Assistant, Information Management & Reporting, GWSDAC Dr. Cameron Spears, Computer Science Faculty, Dale Mabry Campus Final Report Business Administration & Management Program Review
CONTENTS I. Introduction 3 II. Description of Unit 4 III. Unit Planning Objectives 5 IV. Task Force Finding A. Strengths of Unit 6 B. Weaknesses of Unit 7 C. Recommendations for improvement 9 V. Distribution List 10 VI. List of Appendices Appendix A: The 2011 2013 College Goals and Strategic Initiatives Appendix B: HCC Instructional Cost Analysis: 2011-2012 Appendix C: Program Viability Matrix Appendix D: HCC Factbook IV-3 and IV-4 Appendix E: HCC Factbook: Workforce Programs Demographics: 2012 2013 Enrollment Appendix F: HCC Factbook: Workforce Programs: Business Programs Five-year Enrollment and Completions Appendix G: Grade Distribution Report: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 Appendix H: HCC Catalog 2013-2014 Programs of Study Business Administration Appendix I: 2013-2014 HCC Catalog, Associate in Science and Business Administration and Management program of study Appendix J: 2013-2014 HCC Catalog, Academic Advising Guide Associate in Science Business Administration Appendix K: Entrepreneurship and Innovation @ HCC brochure Appendix L: 2013-2014 HCC Catalog, Course descriptions ENC 1102H ESC 1000L (appendix L) Appendix M: 2013-14 HCC Catalog, Course Description PHI 1600 Appendix N: Task Force Findings, Final Report: Business Administration and Accounting Program Review, Fall 2008, page 13 Appendix O: Datatel Course Section Availability Report Spring 2014 Appendix P: Community College Research Center: What We Know About Online Course Outcomes Appendix Q: Distance Learning Subcommittee resource recommendations Final Report Business Administration & Management Program Review
I. INTRODUCTION Hillsborough Community College engages in a review of academic, academic support, and administrative areas for the following purposes: 1. To complement the institution s strategic planning process requiring the internal development of unit plans with an external perspective in the review of those plans and the quality of programs and services. 2. To respond to intrinsic motivations for continuous improvement with a focus on the enhancement of institutional effectiveness and efficiency; student learning outcomes; and client satisfaction. 3. To respond to state mandates and accreditation requirements of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools calling for a systematic review of all programs and services. The review is conducted by a Task Force composed primarily of individuals outside the unit under review. The chair is a full time employee of the unit under review. The charge to the Task Force is to identify strengths and weaknesses of the unit as guided by empirical evidence. From the list of strengths and weaknesses, the Task Force is to develop recommendations for improvement to capitalize on strengths and redress weaknesses. The work of the Task Force is to be completed within a fall or spring semester culminating in a final report. For academic areas, a judgment should also be rendered regarding the continued viability of the program in context of service area demand, enrollment, and critical workforce needs. Subsequently, two brief follow-up reports are to be drafted. The first follow-up report is due in the following semester. The second is due one year later at the conclusion of the semester in which the original review was conducted. Each consists of a listing of the final recommendations with a few statements indicating the status of their achievement. Recommendations not achieved within a year may become unit planning objectives to ensure a continued focus on their attainment. Objectives that stem from review recommendations should be indicated as such in the Strategic Planning System of the College. Final Report Business Administration & Management Program Review
II. DESCRIPTION OF UNIT To prepare students to assume management or supervisory positions in business, industry, and government. Final Report Business Administration & Management Program Review
III. 2013-2015 UNIT PLANNING OBJECTIVES: Objective: Develop Business programs Open House sessions at least one session per year to improve retention and completion rates. Supports College Goal: 3. Enhance access, flexibility, and responsiveness to meet the changing educational needs of the students and community. Status: In Progress Status Date: 10/29/2013 Objective: Research and investigate ACBSP membership and benefits for faculty and College programs College Goal: 2. Foster partnerships with the local and global communities to position the College as a premier educational institution for college transfer, career workforce and economic development, lifelong learning, and community initiatives. Status: Accomplished Status Date: 10/29/2013 Objective: Review the 2013/14 and 2014/15 curriculum frameworks relative to the AS and CCC programs in Business Administration and make curriculum changes to the College's programs, if necessary Supports College Goal: 6 Continuously improve programs and services through a systematic and ongoing process of strategic planning, assessment, and review in which a "culture of evidence" guides our direction. Supports Strategic Initiative: 3-A Reexamine the complete array of program offerings to ensure they are responsive to community need and workforce demands (Partial Assessment: CSF). Status: Accomplished Status Date: 10/29/2013 Objective: Review the Business Entrepreneurship certificates for possible modifications and development. Supports College Goal: 6 Continuously improve programs and services through a systematic and ongoing process of strategic planning, assessment, and review in which a "culture of evidence" guides our direction. Supports Strategic Initiative: 3-A Reexamine the complete array of program offerings to ensure they are responsive to community need and workforce demands (Partial Assessment: CSF). Status: Accomplished Status Date: 10/29/2013 Final Report Business Administration & Management Program Review
IV. Task Force Findings A. STRENGTHS OF THE PROGRAM: 1) The Business Administration Program contributes positively to the College, with its revenues exceeding costs. This program rated second in the low expenditure group of the College s 30 credit instructional areas analyzed, comparing revenues and expenditures. a. Data source: HCC Instructional Area Cost Analysis Report: 2011-12 (appendix B) 2) Program exhibits positive indicators on nearly every column of Program Viability Matrix, helping to satisfy the College s Accountability value. a. Data source: Program Viability Matrix (appendix C) 3) Courses are offered across the institution in multiple modalities and varied semester lengths. During the fall 2013 term all but two of programrequired courses for AS Business Administration were offered online. This is in accordance with Goal 3 of the 2011-13 Strategic Plan. a. Data source: HCC 2011 13 College Goals and Strategic Initiatives (appendix A) b. Data source: Datatel Course Section Availability Report Spring 2014(appendix O) c. Data source: Grade Distribution Report for 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 (appendix G) 4) Business Administration enrollment for African-American, Hispanic, and Native American students is slightly above overall college percentages for corresponding groups. Enrollment during the last reported year showed a 56.3% minority (non-white) representation. This supports Goal 5, Promoting an institutional culture that fosters diversity and inclusiveness a. Data source: HCC Factbook: Workforce Programs Demographics: 2012 2013 Enrollment. (appendix E) 5) The number of completers in both the degree and CCC are increasing. a. Data source: HCC Factbook: Workforce Programs: Business Programs Five-year Enrollment and Completions (appendix F) b. Data source: Program Viability Matrix (appendix C) Final Report Business Administration & Management Program Review
B. WEAKNESSES OF THE PROGRAM 1) The program information is outdated. It does not reflect the recent elimination of AAS degrees. Curriculum information is from the 2012-2013 catalog. This is the case for both printed and online materials. Publishing outdated information is contrary to Goal 6 of the 2011-13 Strategic Plan. a. Data source: HCC 2011-13 College Goals and Strategic Initiatives (appendix A) a. Data source: HCC Catalog 2013-2014 Programs of Study Business Administration (appendix H ) 2) FIN 1100, ENT 1411 and ENT 1120 are all taught by business faculty. Both ENT 1411 and ENT 1120 are included in a certificate, but are not in the current catalog. All three of these courses are not listed as business electives for the degree. a. Data source: 2013-2014 HCC Catalog, Associate in Science and Business Administration and Management program of study (appendix I) b. Data source: 2013-2014 HCC Catalog, Academic Advising Guide Associate in Science Business Administration(appendix J) c. Data source: Entrepreneurship and Innovation @ HCC brochure (appendix K) d. Data source: 2013-2014 HCC Catalog, Course descriptions ENC 1102H ESC 1000L (appendix L) 3) Based on data comparisons of business courses provided through Distance Learning versus courses provided in a traditional classroom setting, attrition rates are notably higher among the Distance Learning courses. a. Data source: Grade Distribution Report for 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 (appendix G) 4) The Ethics course that is currently being offered in the Business Administration program is a philosophy-based ethics course. The course description is, Covers several major ethical theories in philosophy and their applications, including contemporary issues. This course does not appear to be specifically geared toward business-related ethics and risk management considerations. This is not following the recommendation to Final Report Business Administration & Management Program Review
make Business Ethics a required course in all Business Two-Year Programs. a. Data source: 2013-14 HCC Catalog, Course Description PHI 1600 (appendix M) b. Data source: Task Force Findings, Final Report: Business Administration and Accounting Program Review, Fall 2008, page 13 (appendix N) 5) Enrollment in the core business courses has fallen over the past two years at a rate higher than that of the College overall. a. Data source: Grade Distribution Report for 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 (appendix G) b. Data source: Factbook IV-3 and IV-4 (appendix D) Final Report Business Administration & Management Program Review
C. TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT AND IDENTIFICATION OF RELATED COLLEGE GOALS: 1) Update information that is listed on both printed and online materials to reflect the most current curriculum and other relevant program information. Verify and update program information two times per academic year. 2) Update the HCC catalog to include all business courses. Make FIN 1100, ENT 1411 and ENT 1031 electives for the degree. 3) High attrition rates for distance learning may not be specific to only the Business Program. Further college wide investigation may be warranted. Current distance learning instructors should review resources provided by the Distance Learning Subcommittee. a. Data Source: Community College Research Center: What We Know About Online Course Outcomes(appendix P) b. Data Source: Distance Learning Subcommittee resource recommendations (appendix Q) 4) Design and offer a Business Ethics course that examines ethical and moral principles, and the associated challenges associated with these principals, specific to the business environment. 5) Promote the Business Administration & Management programs through career fairs, K-12 recruitment efforts, and marketing materials. Completing recommendation 1 should indirectly support this effort as well. Final Report Business Administration & Management Program Review
V. DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR FINAL REPORT The final report and all follow-ups will be distributed to the President s Cabinet, appropriate deans and/or directors, unit head, unit members, task force members, and all campus libraries. It will be posted on the Strategic Planning & Analysis website and disseminated electronically to the HCC community. Final Report Business Administration & Management Program Review
VI. List of Appendices Appendix A: The 2011 2013 College Goals and Strategic Initiatives Appendix B: HCC Instructional Cost Analysis: 2011-2012 Appendix C: Program Viability Matrix Appendix D: HCC Factbook IV-3 and IV-4 Appendix E: HCC Factbook: Workforce Programs Demographics: 2012 2013 Enrollment Appendix F: HCC Factbook: Workforce Programs: Business Programs Five-year Enrollment and Completions Appendix G: Grade Distribution Report: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 Appendix H: HCC Catalog 2013-2014 Programs of Study Business Administration Appendix I: 2013-2014 HCC Catalog, Associate in Science and Business Administration and Management program of study Appendix J: 2013-2014 HCC Catalog, Academic Advising Guide Associate in Science Business Administration Appendix K: Entrepreneurship and Innovation @ HCC brochure Appendix L: 2013-2014 HCC Catalog, Course descriptions ENC 1102H ESC 1000L (appendix L) Appendix M: 2013-14 HCC Catalog, Course Description PHI 1600 Appendix N: Task Force Findings, Final Report: Business Administration and Accounting Program Review, Fall 2008, page 13 Appendix O: Datatel Course Section Availability Report Spring 2014 Appendix P: Community College Research Center: What We Know About Online Course Outcomes Appendix Q: Distance Learning Subcommittee resource recommendations Final Report Business Administration & Management Program Review
HISTORICAL COLLEGE PROFILE UNDUPLICATED HEADCOUNT Number of Students 50,000 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 - Credit Non-credit 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 STUDENTS BY PROGRAM TYPE 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 Credit 34,383 77.1% 38,317 79.8% 39,185 81.6% 39,429 83.4% 38,845 83.6% Non-credit 7,329 16.4% 7,177 15.0% 6,917 14.4% 6,374 13.5% 6,348 13.7% Rec. & Leisure 2,886 6.5% 2,502 5.2% 1,914 4.0% 1,501 3.2% 1,271 2.7% TOTAL 44,598 47,996 48,016 47,304 46,464 STUDENTS BY AVERAGE AGE & TYPE OF PROGRAM 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 Credit Non-credit Credit Non-credit Credit Non-credit Credit Non-credit Credit Non-credit Mean 25.5 35.9 25.9 36.1 26.1 35.7 26.1 35.9 26.0 36.9 Median 22.1 34.1 22.5 34.4 22.8 33.9 22.7 33.7 22.6 35.6 STUDENTS BY GENDER 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 Female 22,676 55.0% 24,547 54.7% 25,119 55.1% 24,977 55.5% 24,244 55.3% Male 18,556 45.0% 20,347 45.3% 20,475 44.9% 20,010 44.5% 19,627 44.7% Total Reported 41,232 44,894 45,594 44,987 43,871 Not Reported 480 600 508 816 1,322 TOTAL 41,712 45,494 46,102 45,803 45,193 STUDENTS BY RACE / ETHNICITY 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 African American 8,456 20.8% 9,338 21.5% 9,496 22.5% 9,310 22.6% 8,464 21.2% Amer Ind/AK Native 175 0.4% 189 0.4% 238 0.6% 226 0.5% 201 0.5% Asian 1,647 4.0% 1,693 3.9% 1,474 3.5% 1,412 3.4% 1,400 3.5% Hispanic 9,062 22.3% 10,293 23.7% 10,107 23.9% 10,525 25.5% 10,702 26.8% Hawaiian/Pac. Island 64 0.2% 84 0.2% 115 0.3% White 21,371 52.5% 22,005 50.6% 20,513 48.6% 19,210 46.6% 18,417 46.1% Two or more races 314 0.7% 483 1.2% 646 1.6% Total Reported 40,711 43,518 42,206 41,250 39,945 Not Reported 1,001 1,976 3,896 4,553 5,248 TOTAL 41,712 45,494 46,102 45,803 45,193 IR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH IV-3
HISTORICAL COLLEGE PROFILE BASE FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE) 30,000 25,000 Credit Non-credit 20,000 FTE 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 FTE BY PROGRAM TYPE 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 Credit 16,378.1 87.2% 18,772.5 89.9% 20,004.2 91.9% 20,012.6 92.3% 19,094.6 92.0% Non-credit 2,396.7 12.8% 2,113.6 10.1% 1,766.3 8.1% 1,663.0 7.7% 1,669.2 8.0% TOTAL 18,774.8 20,886.0 21,770.5 21,675.6 20,763.8 Total FTE is + 0.1 due to rounding. CREDIT FTE BY TYPE 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 A & P 10,904.8 66.6% 12,368.0 65.9% 13,117.4 65.6% 13,327.1 66.6% 12,999.6 68.1% College Prep 2,254.1 13.8% 2,638.2 14.1% 2,860.0 14.3% 2,235.3 11.2% 2,390.8 12.5% EPI 140.4 0.9% 217.0 1.2% 153.2 0.8% 132.3 0.7% 145.8 0.8% PSV 3,078.8 18.8% 3,549.4 18.9% 3,873.5 19.4% 4,317.9 21.6% 3,558.4 18.6% TOTAL 16,378.1 18,772.5 20,004.2 20,012.6 19,094.6 Credit FTE = credit hours divided by 30. Total FTE is + 0.1 due to rounding. NON-CREDIT FTE BY TYPE 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 Adult Basic Ed 150.1 6.3% 152.9 7.2% 132.6 7.5% 93.5 5.6% 50.4 3.0% Apprenticeship 1,622.9 67.7% 1,316.2 62.3% 1,059.6 60.0% 952.9 57.3% 1,017.5 61.0% CWE 206.5 8.6% 214.8 10.2% 238.5 13.5% 205.7 12.4% 169.4 10.1% PSAV 417.2 17.4% 429.6 20.3% 335.6 19.0% 410.9 24.7% 422.2 25.3% TOTAL 2,396.7 2,113.6 1,766.3 1,663.0 1,669.2 Non-credit FTE = clock hours divided by 900. Total FTE is + 0.1 due to rounding. In 2007-2008, HCC changed the way in which the College reports credit activity (FTE) to the State for students repeating college prep and/or college credit courses for the third time. The hour activity for these courses is not included in base (funded) FTE. IR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH IV-4
RESEARCH OVERVIEW / APRIL 2013 What We Know About Online Course Outcomes Online Higher Education Is Expanding Rapidly Since 2010, online college course enrollment has increased by 29 percent. Currently, 6.7 million students or roughly one third of all college students are enrolled in online courses. 1 Community colleges in particular have embraced online education as a way to better serve their large numbers of nontraditional students, many of whom juggle multiple responsibilities. In 2008, 97 percent of two-year colleges were offering online courses compared with only 66 percent of all postsecondary institutions. 2 Despite this rapid growth in online education, little is known about the effectiveness of online courses for community college students. Over the past two years, CCRC has sought to fill this gap in knowledge by conducting studies of online course outcomes at two large statewide community college systems, one in a southern state and one in a western state. 3 This research overview is part one in CCRC s online learning practitioner packet. To learn more about what administrators can do to improve student outcomes, see Creating an Effective Online Environment (part two). For more information on effective online teaching, see Creating an Effective Online Instructor Presence (part three). DefiniTION Online COURSE Throughout this practioner packet, an online course refers to a course held entirely online, as opposed to a hybrid course which consists of both online and face-to-face instruction. Who Takes Online Classes? In both state systems, online courses were more popular among community college students who had relatively strong academic backgrounds. Online students were more likely to be academically prepared at entry, from higher income neighborhoods, and fluent in the English language. Online students were also more likely to be balancing multiple life demands (e.g., to be 25 or older, to have dependents, or to be employed full time) and to be White. Nearly half of the students in these statewide systems took at least one online course during their first four or five years of enrollment. However, few students took all their courses online. Fewer than 5 percent of students took all of their courses online in their first semester; most online students enrolled in a mix of online and face-to-face courses throughout their college careers. 4 Online students were more likely to be academically prepared at entry, from higher income neighborhoods, and fluent in English.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE RESEARCH CENTER / TEACHERS COLLEGE, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY What the Research Tells Us Students More Likely to Withdraw From Online Courses Because of the distinct characteristics of students who take online classes, CCRC compared online and face-to-face course outcomes among only those students who had ever taken an online course during the period of study ( ever-online students). We first examined overall course failure and withdrawal rates, meaning that students paid full tuition for the course but ultimately earned no credit for it, either because they failed or dropped out of the course. In both states, failure and withdrawal rates were significantly higher for online courses than for face-to-face courses. In both states, failure and withdrawal rates were significantly higher for online courses than for face-to-face courses. Failure/Withdrawal Rates in Online and Face-to-Face Courses (Southern 5 and Western 6 States ) Face-to-Face Online 32% 19% 18% 10% Southern State Western State southern western In further analysis of the southern state, we examined introductory math and English courses key gatekeeper courses required for almost all students. Again, failure and withdrawal rates for online gatekeeper courses were substantially higher than those for face-to-face gatekeeper courses. Failure/Withdrawal Rates in Online and Face-to-Face Gatekeeper Courses (Southern State) 7 Face-to-Face Online 25% 12% 10% 19% 2 Gatekeeper Math Gatekeeper English
RESEARCH OVERVIEW / APRIL 2013 / ONLINE COURSE OUTCOMES Course Completers Perform More Poorly in Online Courses While former studies have found fairly similar grades among students who completed either an online or face-to-face section of a given course, 8 CCRC s studies of the two statewide systems suggest that these earlier studies may have underestimated differences in student performance. CCRC s analyses found that students who completed online course sections were 3 to 6 percentage points less likely to receive a C or better than students who completed face-to-face course sections. 9 Developmental Students Particularly Challenged in Online Courses Students who took their developmental courses online fared particularly poorly. In both states, failure and withdrawal rates were sharply higher in online developmental courses; in online developmental English, failure and withdrawal rates were more than twice as high. Failure/Withdrawal Rates in Online and Face-to-Face Developmental Courses (Southern State) 10 Face-to-Face Online Of students who enrolled in gatekeeper courses, students who had taken developmental education online were far less likely to pass than students who had taken it face-to face. 62% 43% 47% 23% Developmental Math Developmental English Students who took developmental courses online were also significantly less likely to enroll in first-level gatekeeper math and English courses. Of students who did enroll in gatekeeper courses, students who had taken developmental education online were far less likely to pass than students who had taken it face-to-face. 3
COMMUNITY COLLEGE RESEARCH CENTER / TEACHERS COLLEGE, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY Gatekeeper Pass Rates Among Online and Face-to-Face Developmental Students Who Enrolled in Gatekeeper Courses (Southern State) 11 Took Developmental Ed Face-to-Face Took Developmental Ed Online 59% 31% 32% 20% Gatekeeper Math Gatekeeper English Students Who Take Online Courses Less Likely to Persist and Attain a Degree Online course taking was also negatively associated with college persistence and completion. Western and southern state system students who took one or more online courses in their first semester were 4 to 5 percentage points less likely to return for the subsequent semester. In both states, students who took a higher proportion of credits online were also less likely to obtain a degree or transfer to a four-year institution than students who took lower proportions of online credits (6 and 4 percentage points less likely, respectively). 12 Achievement Gaps Tend to Widen in Online Courses Some groups of students had particular difficulty adjusting to online learning, including males, students with lower prior GPAs, and Black students. The performance gaps that existed among these subgroups in face-to-face courses became even more pronounced in online courses. The increases in performance gaps were present in all subject areas. 13 Withdrawal Rates for Higher and Lower Performing Students in Face-to-Face and Online Courses (Western State) 14 Face-to-Face GPA 3.02 Face-to-Face GPA < 3.0 12% The performance gaps that existed among student subgroups in face-to-face courses became even more pronounced in online courses. 8% 6% 4% 4 Face-to-Face Face-to-face Online
RESEARCH OVERVIEW / APRIL 2013 / ONLINE COURSE OUTCOMES Grades for Black and White Students Who Completed Face-to-Face and Online Courses (Western State) 15 White Black 3.0 2.7 2.8 2.2 Face-to-Face Online Adding Strict Controls Increases Negative Outcomes Associated With Online Courses The findings in this overview represent differences in online and face-to-face outcomes based on descriptive data. 16 To adjust these descriptive results for possible biases, CCRC researchers conducted analyses controlling for student socioeconomic and educational characteristics, 17 and they carried out a rigorous instrumental variable analysis in the western state. 18 In these analyses, the inclusion of strict controls for student characteristics increased estimated differences in failure and withdrawal rates among students taking online and face-to-face courses. Conclusion The inclusion of strict controls for student characteristics increased estimated differences in failure and withdrawal rates among students taking online and face-to face courses. CCRC s studies suggest that community college students who choose to take courses online are less likely to complete and perform well in those courses. The results also suggest that online courses may exacerbate already persistent achievement gaps between student subgroups. Additional CCRC qualitative research of online courses in one state system provides an in-depth look into why online courses may not be achieving better results. Part two of this practitioner packet, Creating an Effective Online Environment, reviews some of the findings from that research and makes recommendations for administrators seeking to improve online education at their institutions. Part three of this practitioner packet, Creating an Effective Online Presence, addresses the importance of student instructor interaction in online courses, describes a case study, and presents observations and considerations for online faculty working to improve student retention and performance in their courses. 5
COMMUNITY COLLEGE RESEARCH CENTER / TEACHERS COLLEGE, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY Endnotes 1. Allen & Seaman (2013). 2. Parsad & Lewis (2008). 3. Overall withdrawal and failure rates vary between the two states. One reason for this difference may be that in comparison with national data from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System the student population in the southern state system is more rural and low-income, with a greater proportion of Black students. The student population in the western state system is more urban, with a higher proportion of White students. 4. Results from a nationwide study from 2007 08 (Radford, 2011) corroborate this finding. 5. Southern state system sample consists of slightly less than 24,000 students at 23 community colleges who were tracked from fall 2004 through summer 2008. The analysis was limited to students who took at least one online or hybrid course during that period, leading to a sample of 184,357 courses (Jaggars & Xu, 2010). 6. Western state system sample consists of over 51,000 students at 34 community colleges who were tracked from fall 2004 through spring 2009. The sample was limited to students who took at least one online or hybrid course, leading to a sample of 323,528 courses(jaggars & Xu, 2011b). 7. Analysis based on observations of ever-online students in the 2004 cohort enrolled in 13,973 gatekeeper English and 8,330 gatekeeper math courses (Xu & Jaggars, 2011a). 8. See Jaggars & Bailey (2010). 9. Jaggars & Xu (2010); Xu & Jaggars (2011b). 10. Analysis based on 4,660 math remedial students and 2,495 English remedial students in the 2004 cohort who took at least one online course in the period of study. Analysis based on observations of 13,126 developmental courses; 373 of these courses were online developmental English and 773 courses were online developmental math (Jaggars & Xu, 2010). 11. Estimates derived from a model-based prediction of passing rates controlling for studentlevel and school-level characteristics among 4,660 remedial math students and 2,495 remedial English students in the 2004 cohort who took at least one online course in the period of study (Jaggars & Xu, 2010). 12. Jaggars & Xu (2010); Xu & Jaggars (2011b) 13. Xu & Jaggars (2013). 14. Analysis based on 51,017 degree-seeking students tracked from the fall term of 2004 through the spring of 2009 (Xu & Jaggars, 2013). 15. Analysis based on 51,017 degree-seeking students tracked from the fall term of 2004 through the spring of 2009 (Xu & Jaggars, 2013). 16. One exception is gatekeeper pass rates among students who enrolled and had taken developmental courses online and face-to-face (see figure on page 3), where estimates are derived from predictive models controlling for student and school characteristics. 17. Jaggars & Xu (2010); Xu & Jaggars (2011a, 2011b, 2013). 18. Xu & Jaggars (2012). 6
RESEARCH OVERVIEW / APRIL 2013 / ONLINE COURSE OUTCOMES Sources Allen, E.I., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing Course: Ten Years of Tracking Online Education in the United States. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/changing_ course_2012. Jaggars, S. S., & Bailey, T. (2010). Effectiveness of fully online courses for college students: Response to a Department of Education meta-analysis. New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center. Jaggars, S. S., & Xu, D. (2010). Online learning in the Virginia Community College System. New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center. Parsad, B., & Lewis, L. (2008). Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary institutions: 2006 07 (NCES Report No. 2009-044). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Radford, A. W. (2011). Learning at a distance: Undergraduate enrollment in distance education courses and degree programs (NCES Report No. 2012-154). Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Xu, D., & Jaggars, S. S. (2011a). The effectiveness of distance education across Virginia s community colleges: Evidence from introductory college-level math and English courses. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(3), 360 377. Xu, D., & Jaggars, S. S. (2011b). Online and hybrid course enrollment and performance in Washington State community and technical colleges (CCRC Working Paper No. 31). New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center. Xu, D. & Jaggars, S. S. (2012). Examining the effectiveness of online learning within a community college system: An instrumental variable approach. Manuscript in preparation. New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center. Xu, D., & Jaggars, S. S. (2013). Adaptability to online learning: Differences across types of students and academic subject areas (CCRC Working Paper No. 54). New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center. This research overview was prepared by Shanna Smith Jaggars, Nikki Edgecombe, and Georgia West Stacey, Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University. Funding was provided by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. 7
Community College Research Center Teachers College, Columbia University 525 West 120th Street, Box 174 New York, New York 10027 Tel: 212.678.3091 Fax: 212.678.3699 ccrc@columbia.edu http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu