CSULB is committed to improving graduation rates, but not at the expense of quality instruction and student learning. One approach to facilitating graduation is to reduce the percentages of unsatisfactory student performance (e.g., grades of D, F, W). Course completion data provides a starting point for consideration of educational practices and campus dialogue about the need to improve student learning outcomes. The Low-Completion-Rate Course Project is directed toward the broader goal of improving student learning outcomes. Examining low-completion courses is starting point for reducing the percentages of unsatisfactory student performance.
We identified low-completion-rate courses using course completion data provided by CSULB’s Office of Institutional Research and Assessment. Once courses were identified, we asked the department chair and one faculty member who taught the low-completion-rate course to participate in a semester-long focus group.
Our starting assumption was that persistently low completion rate courses have many and multiple causes (e.g., lack of prerequisites or inadequate student preparation, poor student motivation, insufficient student support services, outdated pedagogy, inconvenient course scheduling, insufficient staffing, etc.). Consequently, our project had two goals: (1) To identify and diagnose factors that contribute to low completion rates for specific courses; (2) To define and adopt realizable solutions for managing/solving the identified problem(s).
For the purposes of this project, we defined low-completion courses as multi-section, high-enrollment courses with completion rates (students making A, B, or C) lower than 75%. From courses satisfying these criteria, we selected five courses that had potential impacts on graduation rates, either for students as a whole or within their respective majors (i.e., math, accounting, sociology, psychology, computer science).
The following five courses were selected as the focus for this project: Math 122 (College Algebra), Accounting 300A and 300B, Psychology 100 (Introduction to Psychology), Sociology 260 (Quantitative Research Methods), and Computer Science 174 (Programming and Problem Solving I). Current organizational policies and practices were analyzed and modified to improve student success in each of these five courses.
The project adopted several modifications to improve course success rates. We lowered the enrollment per section limits to provide more attention and help to students who may be struggling. We made some changes in the instructors assigned to teach the courses. We changed the textbooks used in the courses. We also adopted an online homework program that provides immediate feedback students’ work and provides hints to help students complete assignments successfully.
The project uncovered several factors that may contribute to low completion rates in these courses. Department chairs and faculty associated with these courses maintained that students are solely responsible for student success. No department represented in this group followed campus policy governing selection of textbooks for multi-section and sequential course (Academic Policy 79-08), other than some limited oversight of textbook selection for certain courses. Department chairs in the group relied more heavily on anecdotal evidence than data when attempting to identify bottleneck or low completion rate courses. Team participants expressed little or not concern about low completion rates for some courses in their programs (i.e., “this is our weed-out course” or “this course is supposed to be difficult”). Department chairs reported reluctance to get involved in personnel issues associated with instruction. In fact, chairs expressed concerns that any monitoring of instruction and instruction-related activities will result in a “community college-like culture” where instruction is pre-designed or standardized. Some departments use courses offered by the Department of Mathematics (or other departments) as a means of eliminating students from the major with little concern about student-based learning needs that will facilitate their development within the major or program. We have no system of communicating “best practices” so that departments can share information and learn from one another.
