Analysis, Evaluation and Collaboration: AB 705 for Institutional Research Professionals - Shared screen with speaker view
I can hear you
The verbiage you displayed says completed within two semesters, not during the first two semesters. This is important with regards to first-time students who were previously dual enrolled. Count them in the cohort or not?
SCFF focuses on completion in the first year.
Whereas the AB 705 clock starts when the student takes their first course in the sequence.
I have seen charts reporting throughput that either doesn't specify time frame or specifies first term completion not two term completion.
In general, the time frame of throughput caclulations can be flexibly specified, as appropriate.
For AB 705 math & English, though, the time frame has been set by the CO.
(i.e., two semesters or three quarters)
The slides are not coming up correctly... missing wording due to blanks... anyone else experiencing this?
same for me
Yes, Raj. I am seeing that, as well.
@Rajinder---yeah, seeing like a white box blocking some text.
what constitutes a first attempt? Enrolled at census?
A transcriptable attempt.
One that would be reported to the CO in the MIS.
Can you please provide the link to access tomorrow's webinar that was just mentioned? I don't see it on the list of workshop events on the RP group website. Thank you.
I think the screen issue is fixed
screen appears fine for me
It looks ok
It looks good now!
good now :-)
@All - The guidance has been developed using first attempt success rates at transfer-level. This makes it a relatively conservative benchmark - it’s easier to clear than one that would allow for students that start at the transfer-level to retake the course.
Thursday, November 1411 to 12 pmJoin here on the date and time: https://cccconfer.zoom.us/j/926022616This webinar focuses on outcomes of DSPS students in transfer-level English and math courses. We will be joined by Antelope Valley College and Los Medanos College to share how they are supporting DSPS students as well as the California Community College Chancellor’s Office to answer your questions.
Sorry that was @WilliamSilver’s question about the throughput rates being used as guidance.
Is the graph for one term completion or two term completion?
we have a good number of students that have been out of HS for a while and may not remember or know their HS GPA, how would you suggest getting HS GPA for those individuals?
Self-report. If not available, then use guided self-placement.
fortunately we have that tool created
When will colleges receive feedback from the CCCCO regarding thier AB705 Adoption Plan?
@JohnElder - for most purposes now, since we’re mostly determine what level of support they might be best served by, knowing a general range will be sufficient.
Is cohort degree seekers only?
@Greg The AB705 Adoption Plan feedback are nearly finalized and should be coming out soon.
Right side blocked again.
Could you please refresh this slide? The right side is blocked.
Yes, thank you!
It would be helpful to see some written discussion/details of the two different policy rules affecting when two semesters begin and reach completion.
What is Chancellor's Office threshhold for success if district REQUIRES coreq of 2 or more units of pre-transfer coursework to support transfer-level course in English?
Students directed to corequisite courses should have a higher level of success than similar students (i.e., in the same HS GPA band) who are taking the transfer-level course without the corequisite support.
Regarding "Needing only show that students who participate in the coreq are more likely to succeed than similar students who do not... " -- there will be no similar students found - if their HSGPA requires them to take the coreq, they have to take coreq.
@Lan -- historical data could be used.
@Craig - thanks
You're welcome. :)
@Lan 2 -- Also, it is often the case that our systems are more porous than we would think, so there may still be students showing up in transfer-level work who could form a comparison group.
@Lan final -- some colleges may be implementing pilots which affect only a portion of the incoming student cohort, in which case there would also be similar HSGPA students in both the coreq. and the transfer-only groups.
about time frame for annual reporting is still confusing - do we include students who started first course in Spring term but not having two semesters to track in the cohort for annual report?
@lan - also, you could use regression discontinuity or at least comparison of students on either side of the cutoff for some opportunities for comparison.
I have the same question with mtsai: are FT Spring term students included in the cohort?
So, there is the annual AB 1805 reporting. That does not include outcome data, just placement info.
@mtsai - The annual mandated reporting is about placement of students.
For the evaluation templates, those would be centered around each cohort.
(What Craig said on both things)
the regression discontinuity is proving tricky to find enough students who reported a full 3.10 or 2.95 GPA opposed to just 3.0
What I heard is that if students have high school data they cannot choose their course through guided self-placement. This seems to create an inequity in that students who went to HS can be required to take a coreq, and so forth, but international students or others can choose through the self-placement process. Am I missing important info?
Once you have multiple cohorts that have finished their two-semester (or three quarter) run, the results on the templates could be combined into one larger group, for additional power & reliability.
@ryanbs -- I feel your pain!
@ryanbs you might need to expand the size of the GPA categories…
@ryan but yeah, the .5 increments are strong attractors especially for students further out of high school.
is this power point going to be available to us?
@Lara Triona -- AB 705 has been talked about as a right to access to transfer. So, even though the law does not explicitly require students to be able to self-place higher when they have a HS GPA, it may be a good local practice to allow that in cases where students are insistent about wanting to access transfer-level work without the coreq. support.
Thanks everyone! I hope the RP group houses a location where we can share our evaluations with other colleges.
@Lara - colleges could allow students to opt out of required support at their local discretion. The problem is that it can’t be used as a method to get around the high school placements to place students lower.
Thanks for the response Craig and John.