Remediation of College Students: A Summary of Empirical Findings on Developmental Education

Transcription

1 Remediation of College Students: A Summary of Empirical Findings on Developmental Education Commissioned Paper for the Higher Education Policy Institute at the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board Prepared by: AMAURY NORA, PROFESSOR AND DIRECTOR NATIONAL CENTER FOR STUDENT SUCCESS COLLEGE OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON ANORA@UH.EDU February, 2009

2 Remediation of College Students: A Summary of Empirical Findings on Developmental Education Framework for Commissioned Paper to the Texas Higher Education Policy Institute The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of developmental studies in higher education with a focus on the empirical research that has been conducted on remedial students. The review was guided by theoretical perspectives and conceptual models that have been used and tested in various empirical investigations of developmental students at both two- and fouryear colleges. Five major areas were identified to provide the underlying design of the paper: Who participates in remediation? What do the findings say as to its effectiveness? What theoretical perspectives have guided the research? What developmental and non-developmental factors impact student outcomes? and What components are crucial in developmental education? The different bodies of literature on developmental education are not extremely extensive and there is still much to be researched. Unlike other literature reviews, this paper is not intended to provide a set of specific policy recommendations or an exhaustive list of practices and interventions. To develop such a list, it is first necessary to generate a research agenda on developmental education, define or redefine the notion of remediation, and to conceptualize appropriate theoretical models of student achievement, persistence and graduation that incorporate the different components underlying the processes in the remediation of college students. The review does provide for one recommendation: the need for theoretically-driven, culturally-sensitive databases that can more accurately guide program evaluation and inform interventions and institutional reform for better minority and non-minority student success in higher education. 2

3 Table of Contents Cover page. 1 Framework for Commissioned Paper 2 Table of Contents. 3 Motivation of the Review 4 Large Numbers of Students Not Prepared and in Developmental Education Preparation, Participation, and Persistence... 7 Problems with Placement Tests 13 Lack of a Consensus on Effective Solutions 17 Key Components for Developmental Education. 20 Technology and Developmental Education. 24 Discussion of Methods 26 A Case for Non-Experimental Studies.. 30 Results from a Study 31 Emerging Theoretical Basis for Effective Developmental Education.. 32 Student Integration/Engagement Models.. 33 Human Capital 34 Transformation of Curriculum A Final Thought. 35 References. 37 3

4 DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION: AN OVERVIEW In recent years, access to higher education has taken on a sense of urgency, specifically for the socioeconomically disadvantaged and for minorities who come from academically depressed schools or school districts (Kreysa, ; Rendon, Novack, & Dowell, 2005). While local, state and national initiatives have been created to tackle this issue, one reality that campuses must address is the fact that many of these students will come to college academically underprepared. The hope for these student populations is to enroll in developmental (remedial) courses so that they may become better prepared academically to enroll in college-level courses and vie successfully with students that are college-ready, ultimately allowing them to earn a postsecondary degree. However, a major drawback to these courses is that they are not applicable toward an associate or baccalaureate degree. Moreover, prevailing perceptions are that, while extremely costly, developmental courses are not working and producing the desired outcome. Bettinger s and Long s (2004) approximation of the annual cost of remediation is over $1 billion dollars for public colleges alone. Opponents of remedial education consider developmental education as a hoax perpetrated upon academically weak students who will be unlikely to graduate (Deil-Amen & Rosenbaum, 2002; Rosebaum, 2001). Proponents, on the other hand, stress that most students who take remedial/developmental coursework subsequently complete their degrees successfully (McCabe, 2000; Merisotis & Phipps, 1998). The remediation of college students has provoked a serious discussion on the effectiveness of developmental programs in successfully remediating college students. MOTIVATION OF THE REVIEW LARGE NUMBERS OF STUDENTS NOT PREPARED AND IN DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION. In an early investigation of the remediation of college students, Hagedorn, Siadat, Fogel, Nora and Pascarella (1999) reported that 46% of U.S. students enrolled in college, and who had acquired credit for 3 or more courses, had been enrolled at some point in at least one remedial course, be it 4

5 remedial English or mathematics or a course focusing on study skills. Based on a report by Adelman (1995), the authors note that remedial courses were offered in 64% of all four-year colleges, 90% of community colleges, and 91% of public colleges. Non-participation in remediation included those students that had achieved a high level of performance in mathematics, came from families with high socioeconomic levels, were not from a racial/ethnic minority group, and whose parents had either attended an institution of higher education or had earned an undergraduate degree. As for those students who had received remediation, they reported high levels of achievement in high school math and that the racial composition of their high schools and neighborhoods was much more highly mixed, if not totally minority. A year later, Merisotis and Phipps (2000) compared differences in remedial course offerings between two time periods, and They found that during the earlier time period, 82% of all higher education institutions had offered developmental courses in reading, writing, and mathematics, in contrast to the 78% reported in fall Remedial reading courses were offered 66% in and 57% in fall Courses in remedial writing were offered 73% compared to 71%; and courses in remedial mathematics were offered 71% in compared to 72% ten years later. A further breakdown of the data revealed that 78% of postsecondary institutions enrolling first-year students in fall 1995 had offered at least one remedial reading, writing, or mathematics course. Merisotis and Phipps found that all public two-year institutions and 94% of the institutions with high minority enrollments had offered remedial courses. At least 29% of all students enrolling in college for the first time had been assigned no less than one remedial reading, writing, or mathematics course. First-year students were also more likely to take a remedial mathematics course than a remedial reading or writing course, regardless of what institution they attended. Based on their findings, students from the different institutions in the study were not enrolled in remedial courses for any extended periods of time. Among all higher education institutions, the average length of time a student took remedial courses was less than one year, 28% were enrolled in remedial course for one year, and 5% for more than one year. In their comparison across time, Merisotis and Phipps concluded Although little change resulted in the percentage of students enrolling in remedial courses from fall 1989 to fall 1995, college and university enrollment increased by approximately a half million students. At least 78% of higher 5

6 education institutions enroll underprepared students and that, in all probability, more than 30% of the students require remediation. In a separate study, Hoyt (1999) examined the enrollment of community college students in general and found that roughly 21% of all entering students required remedial education in two subject areas while 11% needed remedial education in three subject areas. Among those students, 44% were assigned remedial math courses, 34% were enrolled in remedial English, and 12% were asked to take remedial reading courses. The author found that students who needed remediation in reading generally required remediation in all three areas. The findings were similar to those reported by Lewis, Farris and Greene (1996). Those authors established that 29% of first-time freshmen in higher education (and 41% of first-time freshmen in public two-year colleges) were enrolled in at least one remedial course. In a breakdown of who participates in remediation in the state of Florida, Grimes and David (1999) reported that among the 1993 cohort of entering Florida community college students, 54% of the non-minority students and 90% of the Black students were placed into at least one remedial course. In separate studies, Attewell, Lavin, Domina, and Levey (2006) and Woodham (1998) concluded that roughly 40% of the more traditional student takes at least one remedial course and that remediation is more frequent among older nontraditional students. Although different figures have been reported by different authors, the fact remains that the number of students entering higher education in need of remediation is not small. It is thought that in some institutions situated in large urban areas, between 80% and 85% of firsttime entering students are required to enroll in at least one remedial course (Krupnick, 2006). At Chaffey College, educators estimated that 98% of their students entering college for the first time were unprepared for college work in at least one basic area. In California, the problem extends beyond community colleges, as four-year institutions have been forced to deal with developmental education. At Cal State East Bay, for example, 70% of the 2000 freshman class needed English remediation, 64% needed math remediation and 54% needed work in both areas. More than 33% of UC Davis students enrolled required assistance in English. Only a little more than 33% of California's 11 th -graders were proficient in English in the previous year before enrolling in college. Among African American students, that ratio dropped to one in five. At the national level, the NCES ( ) report estimated that in fall 2000, some 76% of postsecondary institutions offered at least one remedial reading, writing, or mathematics course. 6

7 An examination of postsecondary transcripts of th -graders who enrolled in postsecondary education between 1992 and 2000 indicated that 61% of students who first enrolled in a public 2- year and 25% who first enrolled in a 4-year institution completed at least one remedial course at the postsecondary level. Based on those previous studies, so many conclusions have been drawn and assumptions made regarding the makeup of different groups of students in developmental education. In an attempt to address these controversial issues, Grubb (2001) examined students who were part of the NELS:88 database. The following table displays those assumptions that surround discussions on developmental education. Assumptions Developmental students are enrolled in too many remedial courses. Developmental students enter college with poor high school preparation. Developmental students enter college with very weak academic skills Findings Analyses indicated that, while such students exist, they are a numerical minority among students in remedial courses: 42% of students took no remediation 44% took between one and three courses only 14% enrolled in more than three remedial courses At nonselective four-year colleges: 69% took no remediation 26% enrolled in between one and three courses 5% took more than three At selective four-year colleges: 1. 2% of NELS:88 students took more than three remedial courses At highly selective four-year institutions: almost no one attempted multiple remediation courses Students from different high schools enroll in remedial courses: 1. 40% from rural high schools 2. 38% from suburban high schools 3. 52% from urban high schools High school quartiles and enrollment in remedial courses: 1. 10% from top quartile on skills tests 2. 25% from second quartile on skills tests Students from advanced curriculum programs in high school: 1. 14% from top quartile enrolled in at least one remedial course 2. 32% from second quartile enrolled in at least one remedial course 3. 32% from lowest quartile took no remedial coursework PREPARATION, PARTICIPATION, AND PERSISTENCE. While the previous section focused on the disproportionate number of students enrolling college requiring remediation, this section 7

8 examines factors that impact student outcomes for developmental students. Regardless of what research design or theoretical framework was employed, several findings have been reported in the existing literature. While the majority of these studies have focused on evaluation, a few have examined the interrelationships among behaviors, attitudes and perceptions and their impact on student outcomes. Attempts at assessing the effectiveness of remediation have not only resulted in mixed findings but are few in number. Moreover, the emphasis taken in these studies is just as mixed, with some focusing on the differences from the participation of students in developmental education to course completion, academic achievement, transfer, persistence or graduation. The following sections will examine the findings associated with those studies in five categories of emphasis. Pre-college Background Characteristics. Hagedorn, Siadat, Fogel, Nora and Pascarella (1997) compared first-year college students enrolled in remedial-type mathematics courses with their counterparts enrolled in non-remedial coursework. Their findings verified that students enrolled in non-remedial mathematics courses enter higher education with many advantages over students enrolled in remedial mathematics. Tests of a path analytic model confirmed that, for developmental students, their gender, ethnicity and family income levels played a major role in determining success in college mathematics. For non-remedial students, higher income, nonminority status, and having parents with higher education led to higher levels of math achievement. For remedial students, higher levels of high school math was the only significant construct, in addition to racial composition of high school attended and neighborhood in which the student resided, that affected achievement in mathematics. In an examination of participation in a community college developmental education writing course and its relationship to short and long-term academic performance, Crews and Aragon (2004) revealed that initial developmental writing course participants within a three-year period did not differ from non-participants at a statistically significant level with regard to age, gender, ethnicity, high school experience, writing test score, initial enrollment status, degreecertificate intent, or transfer intent. Participants in later developmental writing courses did not differ from non-participants at a statistically significant level according to the variables of age, gender, high school experience, writing test score, initial enrollment status, degree-certificate intent, or transfer intent. However, those enrolled in a developmental writing course past the first year differed significantly with non-participants according to ethnicity. Thirty-nine percent 8

9 among later participants were minorities compared to 24% of the non-participants. Because the study was not designed to investigate such a phenomenon, the authors could not conclude the reason behind the pattern. In a comparison of students enrolled in developmental education with those students that entered college prepared to take college-level courses, Grimes and David (1999) did not find any significant differences between developmental and college-ready students with regard to age and family demographics or significant differences in gender or part-time versus full-time status. Both groups of college students reported an average family income between $25,000-$29,000 and, in both groups, fathers who had earned credit in a few postsecondary courses or had received some kind of trainings. The two groups were found to be different by ethnicity, types of high school coursework previously taken, high school grade point averages (GPAs), educational degree aspirations, and numerous attitudinal factors. African American students were represented in greater numbers among developmental students, 21% compared to 6% among college-ready students. Remedial students differed from non-remedial students regarding: (1) the number of years of high school coursework in math, physical science, biological science, and foreign language, (2) high school GPAs with average grades of B- for developmental students compared to B for college-ready students, (3) fewer planned years of college with more vocational and associate of science degree aspirations than four-year or graduate degrees for remedial students, whereas college-ready students planned to attend more years of college with higher degree aspirations including graduate degrees, and in (4) reasons for attending college, ability ratings, previous year's activities, goals and values, future activities, and opinions, as well as academic performance and persistence. Differences as a Result of Program Participation. Utilizing college transcripts, Attewell, Lavin, Domina, and Levey (2006) designed a study where the effects of remedial coursework were separated from the effects of a high school preparation on different measures of academic success. Furthermore, they examined those differences by two- and four-year institutions. After accounting for a student s high school academic preparation, their findings indicated that, for students enrolled in two-year colleges, enrollment in remedial education was not associated with less academic success. As for students enrolled in four-year colleges, there were harmful effects attributed to remedial coursework. A positive finding associated with four-year developmental 9

10 efforts was that many minority students who completed an undergraduate degree did so after taking remediation. Hodges (1998) found that students required to take developmental courses (based on lower ASSET scores) were somewhat successful in completing those courses. The author, however, acknowledged that a completion rate of 61%-70% was only adequate. A positive aspect of remediation was the finding that indicated students who were required to take developmental courses prior to enrolling in college-level coursework were succeeding in nondevelopmental courses with similar completion rates; the negative side of the findings, on the other hand, revealed that developmental students recorded lower grades than those students who did not require any remediation because of their higher ASSET scores. Because so few comprehensive, large-scale, multi-institutional evaluations of remedial programs have been published, Bahr (2008) undertook such a venture paying particular attention to testing the efficacy of remedial math programs. The author s use of hierarchical multinomial logistic regression to analyze data of 85,894 freshmen enrolled in 107 community colleges was intended to compare the long-term academic outcomes of students participating in developmental education and who successfully achieve college-level math skills against those students who enter college ready to tackle college-level math skills without remedial assistance. Bahr concludes that students in both groups experience comparable outcomes (achieving college-level math skills) indicating that remedial math programs are highly effective at resolving skill deficiencies. Finally, using a regression-discontinuity design within the framework provided by discrete-time survival analysis, Lesik (2007) was able to derive an unbiased estimate of the causal impact of participating in developmental education in mathematics. The study established that the risk of dropping out of college among developmental students was significantly lower than for equivalent students who did not participate in such programs. Student Retention. The current section focuses on those studies that examined the impact of developmental education mainly on student retention. As previously discussed, Hoyt (1999) concluded that as the number of areas needing remediation increased for students, dropout rates also consistently increased. The effect of remedial education was noted not only in terms of student persistence but in other student outcomes such as the student's GPA during their firstterm in college. At the end of the first-term for students in the database, the average grade point 10

11 average for non-developmental students was 2.8 as opposed to a 2.54 for developmental students, with most students earning C grades in their courses. Those students in need of remediation in two areas recorded a first-term GPA of 2.47, while those in need of remediation in English, mathematics and reading had an average first-term GPA of Hoyt noted that a lack of preparation for college-level courses to a large extent reduced a student's chances of college success by decreasing their ability to perform academically. Bettinger and Long (2005) looked at the effects of English and math remediation on student persistence. The sample consisted of first-time community college students from 1998 to The authors found that students placed into remediation persisted just as well as similar individuals who were not enrolled in remedial courses, although math remediation appeared to improve some student outcomes. Their findings substantiated those of Jepsen (2006) who had analyzed the effects of taking developmental courses on persistence to the second year of college for a similar sample of community college students in the state of California. Jepsen similarly had found that enrolling in developmental courses was associated with returning to college for the second year as well as completing transfer-level classes. However, Jepsen also found differences in grouping the students by age. For the more traditional college-age students, developmental courses were negatively associated with transfer; for older students, the association was positive for returning and attaining a degree or certificate. In some studies, the focus of the investigation is not on the total remediation program but, rather, on individual remedial courses and the impact they may have on student outcomes. For example, Crews and Aragon (2007) examined the relationships between first semester enrollment in a developmental writing course at a community college and student persistence and goal attainment. In their study, the authors investigated whether participants in a developmental writing course completed more of the courses that they attempted, subsequently enrolled in more semesters, and completed a degree or certificate and/or transferred at higher rates when compared to those not required to enroll in a developmental writing course. Their analysis revealed that those students that had been enrolled in a developmental writing course had completed more of the hours they had attempted compared to those students that were not required to enroll in a developmental writing course. The same students enrolled in the remedial writing course were also found to be enrolled in more semesters than non-participants in the writing course. At the end of a three-year period, participants and non-participants were 11

12 examined for differences in degree/certificate completion. The finding was that there were none; those that initially enrolled in the writing course versus those that were not required displayed similar completion rates. Kreysa s (2007) study advanced the study on remediation by focusing on the explanatory predictors of student persistence among remedial and non-remedial students. An examination of the regression equations for both developmental and non-developmental students revealed that a set of variables based on a priori hypotheses did not exert the same influence across both groups. In combing both groups, the findings would indicate that declaring a major upon entering college had a positive effect by increasing the chances of persisting while changing majors had a negative effect leading to more dropout behavior. Yet, the finding is misleading as there are differences in how those variables play out in both groups. For non-remedial students, those factors that most predicted whether the student would persist inlcuded declaring a major upon entering college (positive influence), changing majors after declaring one (negative influence) and the student s cumulative grade point average (positive influence). As for developmental students, those factors that influenced their decisions to re-enroll in college included the student s SAT verbal scores (positive influence), changing majors after declaring one (negative influence), and cumulative grade point average (positive influence). For developmental students, entering college with a lower academic ability, changing their minds on what to major in, and not performing academically well led to the increased likelihood that the student would drop out of college. Pedagogical Factors. In their efforts at providing a conceptual framework for the evaluation of developmental education programs, Levin and Calcagno (2008) reviewed several studies that included a look at different remedial teaching approaches designed to raise the academic performance of remedial students at two-year institutions. The authors concluded that the traditional drill-and-skill approach that is often used at community colleges is not as productive as other available alternatives (e.g. collaborative learning, student-led instruction) in lessening the dropout rates among developmental students as well as their failure rates. For that reason, they encourage community colleges to carry out formal evaluations of different remedial approaches so that they may test their efficacy and cost-effectiveness, pursuing a wise remediation strategy. 12

13 Basic Skills Deficiencies. Another outcome associated with the remediation of college students is one that deals with college-level skills. Bahr (2007) tested the hypothesis that multiple basic skill deficiencies, rather than exhibiting additive effects alone, may exhibit a negative multiplicative interaction effect on the likelihood of successful remediation. In other words, the researcher tested the hypothesis that students who begin college with a math deficiency may decrease in magnitude over the years if it is accompanied by an increase in English competency. This interaction, however, did not have substantive importance because of the powerful negative direct effect of math deficiency on the likelihood of successful remediation in math. Eventually, students with math deficiencies did not overcome those deficiencies as they learned and became more proficient in English. Bahr sadly concludes that although intended to reduce disparities between advantaged and disadvantaged groups, in the end those who need remediation the most are the least likely to remediate successfully, while those who require the least remediation are the most likely to remediate successfully. PROBLEMS WITH PLACEMENT TESTS. An issue that highly overlaps with developmental education is the use of placement tests to classify remedial students and require them to enroll in developmental courses. The question remains, are these placement tests accurately measuring the student s ability to engage in college-level work. A big part of the assessment tools that are used to place developmental students are reading tests. Behrman (2000) examined content-general reading tests from which passages from a variety of subject areas are frequently used as part of a college's placement system. The author addresses issues of validity that are associated with three popular content-general reading tests. Behrman proposes a theoretical argument for the use of an alternative placement procedure using content-specific testing. Support for the use of content-specific testing is theoretically-based on research in reading and cognitive psychology that establishes the impact of content-related factors on comprehension. The author not only addresses a much-discussed issue, the ability of placement tests to correctly distinguish between those in real need of remediation versus those that do not require intervention but does provide empirical evidence on the need to be more accurate in identifying specific areas in need of remediation for those that are placed in developmental courses. Behrman articulates the importance of appropriate testing: 1. Content-specific testing should benefit students with high prior declarative or strategic knowledge in a given field who may have been denied access under a 13

14 content-general testing program to a course for which they were actually qualified. 2. Content-specific testing should also benefit students with low prior declarative or strategic knowledge by identifying the subject area in which developmental assistance is needed. 3. Follow-up diagnosis could then indicate whether a low score indicates weakness in prior declarative knowledge, content-related strategic knowledge, or contentgeneral skills. In a case study that examined the effectiveness of teaching developmental writing courses, Southard and Clay (2004) relied on the measurement of skills provided by the Florida College Placement Test as the major outcome used in their comparisons. The assumption guiding the study hypothesized that a college prep English course prepared students to succeed in a college-level composition course. The authors found no significant difference in the mean college-level composition grades between those students that initially enrolled in the developmental English course and those students that initially enrolled in the college-level course. Even more positive findings revealed that developmental students passed the collegelevel composition course at a higher rate than that of non-developmental students. Remedial students withdrew at a lower rate from the composition course than their non-remedial counterparts, and required fewer attempts to pass the course. However, the data revealed one indeterminate and disturbing finding. Southard and Clay found a non-significant association between Florida s state-mandated placement test scores and student grades in all writingintensive courses. One possible implication of that finding is that the placement tests may not function as they were intended. The fact that many students placed into remedial courses outperformed non-remedial students could possibly point to the misclassification of students. Without more theoretically-sound research, it is difficult to say whether the remedial students outperformed non-remedial students because of the remediation provided by the developmental education they received or simply because many remedial students were not in need of remediation. Further evidence of the lack of validity in current placement tests is seen in an earlier study by Lavin and Weininger (1998). While the authors found that graduation rates were inversely related to the number of academic skills or placement tests that remedial students had 14

15 failed, they pointed out that approximately a quarter of those students who initially failed all of the placement tests subsequently graduated. When ethnicity was introduced into the analysis, Lavin and Weininger noticed that among African American, Hispanic, and Asian American students that had earned a bachelor s degree, over 50% of them initially failed skills tests, exceeding the number of minority students who had initially passed all of the areas covered in the placement tests. The investigators arrived at a rather misguided conclusion: While placement in remedial courses per se did nothing to enhance students subsequent academic achievements, success in remedial courses did make a significant difference. Among students in bachelor s degree programs, those who passed at least one of their remedial courses were more likely to persist in college than were comparable low-skill nonremedial students, and they earned more credits. They further established that similar results were found among two-year college students. Students who passed at least one of their remedial courses (85% of takers were in this category) were more likely to stay in college, and were more likely to graduate or to transfer into a bachelor s degree program than were otherwise similar students who did not take remedial coursework. It is possible to conclude that remediation makes a difference; it is just as easy to reach the conclusion that placement tests were not as accurate in classifying students. Once more, without further research, it is difficult to reach a valid conclusion. Mazzeo (2002) examined the enactment and early implementation of remedial education in two states, MA and OK. In both states, remediation reforms were undertaken as part of a larger set of policies aimed at increasing the motivation of students by raising the stakes for their academic performance. A big part of the reform was based on the notion that high-stakes testing would provide incentives for learning that were otherwise absent in the American educational system and thus would have the potential to motivate higher levels of student academic performance (Bishop, 1996, 1998; Costrell, 1994). The implementation of high-stakes testing statewide is predicated on the ability and validity of placement tests to accurately identify those students most in need of remediation. Those efforts have been supported and aided by national organizations as the College Board, as in the developmental of the Florida College Placement Test. The efficacy of remediation relies largely on actionable assessment, advising, and placement. At the October 2008 meeting of the Higher Education Policy Institute, a project of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, one conclusion reached by a group of experts 15

16 from different sectors of higher education centered on the need to have assessment and placement of students into developmental courses based on valid and accurately derived placement scores along with the need for clear roadmaps leading to the completion of students program/educational goals. It is believed that student academic needs can only be addressed with the use of reliable and conceptually valid placement tests. Such tests would provide the starting point for remediation and the design of specific academic plans for students to follow on their way to a successful completion of their postsecondary goals. What doesn t work in the assessment of students for placement is the lessening of standards at the state or institutional levels. Perin (2006) conducted an investigation of state and institutional practices for remediation in 15 two-year colleges that were specifically selected for a representative sample of community colleges by region, size, and unbanicity. The author found that in dealing with the struggle between the access mission of the traditionally open-door community college and the drive to protect educational standards, quite often assessment and placement mandates were softened either at the state or institutional level, with the effect of reducing the number of students who were required to enroll in remedial courses. One program addressing the issue of underprepared students through appropriate and early assessment of students is the Early Assessment Program (EAP), a collaborative effort among three important state entities in California: California State University (CSU), California Department of Education (CDE), and California State Board of Education (SBE). The goal of the partnership was to ensure that college-bound high-school graduates have the English and mathematics skills expected by the state university. The program specifies that after 11 th -graders take a state placement test, they are notified whether they have either met the CSU expectations (and are thus exempt from any additional CSU placement tests) or whether they need additional preparation in order to be successful in college-level work. Those identified as requiring remediation have their entire senior year to prepare further. Individual strengths and weaknesses are pinpointed by using the CSU Diagnostic Writing Service on the web or the Mathematics Diagnostic Testing Project. The final component of the intervention program is faculty development. Through a collaborative effort, faculty in the CSU teacher-education program sponsor reading institutes and develop materials through which high school teachers can improve their skills in helping students to read and write effectively. The program was enacted in 2004 and yearly reports are available on the internet. However, an examination of the EAP 2008 Report reveals that even after four years, 82% of high school students did not demonstrate college readiness for College English and 75% did not demonstrate college 16

17 readiness for College Mathematics (Algebra II), while at the same time reporting that 65% were only conditionally ready based on a summative high school mathematics test and 14% not ready to handle college math. No studies have been conducted to uncover why such an assessment initiative has not had the positive results that were widely anticipated. Recently, the Education Commission of the States (2006) examined the placement policies of states. In their study, the Commission identified several issues surrounding developmental education: placement tests and mandatory remediation, concurrent enrollment, limits on time and course repeats, and strong state control. Their observation revealed that while several issues were debated in a fair number of states from 2004 to 2006, relatively little policy action was taken with respect to any of them. Among those issues that generated the most state policy actions during that time period was mandatory remediation for students who failed placement exams, emphasizing the importance of the validity and accuracy of those instruments that are used for placement into remedial courses. LACK OF A CONSENSUS ON EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS. Perhaps even more important is whether or not remediation fulfills it major goal, providing an opportunity to successfully engage a college-level curriculum and ultimately earn an undergraduate degree. The literature is mixed on this subject matter, somewhat limited in scope, and to a certain extent, dated. Guided by conventional thinking that two-year colleges are institutions that simply cool out the educational aspirations of students, Deil-Amen and Rosenbaum (2002) examined remediation in community colleges and concluded that extending the length of time to graduation by requiring students to enroll in developmental education was detrimental to those students. The authors conclude: This process looks a lot like the swindles that Goffman described and the delayed recognition caused by a stigma-free approach may be contributing to students dropping out of college altogether and hence accumulating no credentials rather than a lesser degree (p. 264). Adelman (2004) found that students that were required to enroll in remedial courses in college had markedly lower graduation rates, noting that only 39% earned a bachelor s degree in contrast to the 69% who earned degrees and were not required to enroll in developmental courses. Adelman concluded that students that are required to take copious remedial courses in college are among the least likely to graduate from college. Further evidence that the length of time that is added by enrolling in remedial courses is contributing to the dropout problem was the percent (55%) of students that graduated with a degree but had only 17

18 taken one developmental course. For those students that enrolled in five or more remedial courses, only 35% ever graduated with a degree. It is possible that for many developmental students, the unsuccessful performance in remedial courses extends the length of time in college, does not bring the student closer to earning college-credit courses, and adds a financial burden with every new semester enrolled in college. Grimes and David (1999) examined differences in semesters enrolled, hours completed, GPA, and persistence rates between remedial and non-remedial students. The authors reported that for course completion rates (calculated by dividing the total hours each student completed by the hours they attempted) those students considered underprepared recorded a 59.7% completion rate, having earned 28.8 mean credit hours and attended an average of 4.11 semesters. For college-ready students, a 76.7% completion rate, mean credit hours and 4.91 semesters were recorded. The difference in the average number of semesters for which developmental students enrolled in remedial courses, on the surface, may look as though it substantiates an entirely opposite view. However, taking into account the number of credit hours earned, one conclusion that can be drawn is that developmental students who had attended an average of 4.11 semesters, but had only earned a mean of 28.8 credit hours, had spent a large amount of time in remediation as opposed to those students who were not required to take remedial courses. After an average number of 4.91 semesters, these students had earned twice as many credit hours in roughly the same time period. For remedial students, the extra time without credit may have been too much and may have decided to drop out of college. Grimes and David (1999) also examined differences in persistence rates, imposing a three-year completion rate. Their study revealed that retention was significantly greater for those students that were considered as college-ready: a three-year graduation rate of 15%, with 32% completing more than 65 semester hours or remaining enrolled in college. Underprepared students, on the other hand, displayed a 2% graduation rate with 25% completing more than 65 hours or still enrolled in college. In other words, the attrition rate (or the number of students dropping out of college) at the end of a three-year period was 53% for the college-ready students compared to 73% for underprepared students. While the preceding studies make note of the lack of success of remediation efforts, other investigations point to the effectiveness of developmental education. Similar to the previous studies, these reports have focused on specific outcomes to include graduation rates, academic 18

19 performance, course completion rates, hours earned and student persistence rates. Merisotis and Phipps (2000) point to the evidence that reveals a story of success for developmental education. While students that never took a remedial course graduated at a rate of 60%, even those students identified as the least academically prepared who took five or more remedial education courses reported a 35% graduation rate. Based on those figures, the authors concluded that the remediation of students that were academically weak made it possible for those students to perform almost three-fifths as well as the students who did not need any remediation. Developmental students who needed to enroll in two remedial courses performed almost threequarters as well as the academically strongest students. In a multivariate analysis comparing developmental and non-developmental students at both two- and four-year institutions, Grubb (2001) emphatically establishes the effectiveness of developmental education for underprepared students. His research led to several findings: Public colleges are more likely to require remedial coursework than private institutions, for equivalently skilled students. A student is also less likely to graduate from a public than from a private university. Black students are more likely to take remediation than similarly prepared White students. The data shows that 28% of remedial students in two-year colleges graduate within 8.5 years (compared to 43% of non-remedial students) and that 52% of remedial students in four-year colleges finish bachelor s degrees (compared to 78% of students without remedial coursework). Grubb concludes that: The gap in graduation rates has little to do with taking remedial classes in college as opposed to preexisting skill differences carried over from high school. In separating differences between institutional types, Grubb notes that, at two-year colleges, taking developmental courses was not linked with lower chances of academic success. Moreover, this same conclusion was found for those students who had been enrolled in three or more remedial courses. The results of his multivariate analyses led him to conclude that two-year college students who took remedial courses were only somewhat less likely to drop out in the short run, and were also somewhat less likely to graduate than were non-remedial students with similar academic backgrounds. More to the point, those community college students that were required to enroll in remedial courses and successfully passed them were more likely to graduate than 19

20 equivalent students who never took remediation, suggesting that developmental courses did help those students who completed them. Grubb also examined students enrolled in remedial courses at four-year institutions. His findings pointed to a modest and negative effect of remediation on the students chances of graduation, even when prior academic preparation and skills were taken into account. At fouryear colleges, the graduation rate for students who initially had to take developmental coursework was about two-thirds of the graduation rate of students who took no remediation. However, while the rate of graduation did not exactly match for both developmental and nondevelopmental students, the fact that there was 66% similarity in completion rates makes a positive case for developmental education. At the state level, Bettinger and Long (2004) utilized a longitudinal database of 8,000 first-time, first-year students that were enrolled in nonselective four-year public colleges in Ohio from 1998 to Their goal was to gauge the consequences of taking remedial coursework in mathematics. As in similar studies, the effects of remediation after controlling for prior academic skills were analyzed. The authors conclusions were: (1) Students enrolled in remedial math courses were to some extent more likely to drop out or transfer to a two-year college when they were compared to academically equivalent students not enrolled in developmental courses; (2) Remediation did not significantly lower the likelihood of earning a bachelor s degree; and (3) Students attending four-year colleges who completed their college remedial coursework were more likely to earn an undergraduate degree compared to those equivalent students who did not complete remedial math. Contrary to popular belief, success in remedial mathematics courses improves a student s chances of graduating with a degree. KEY COMPONENTS FOR DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION. Several years back, the Institute for Higher Education Policy (1998) noted that additional research needed to be conducted to address the gaps in knowledge about remedial education. It was suggested that case studies of several key states would help to determine how strategies proposed and utilized met state goals. In spite of that request, little empirically-based research has been added to the knowledge base surrounding developmental education and its effectiveness in remediating students. Nevertheless, several researchers and practitioners have identified different, yet overlapping, sets of components that are believed to be effective and necessary for developmental education to succeed. 20

21 McCusker (1999) based those essential components of a developmental program on proven success as measured by the percentage of students' course completion and continuing college education. The author proposed that the following strategies have emerged as recommended ways of making developmental programs effective: Collecting student biographical data before and after remedial course completion. Linking counseling and support services with programmatic interventions and providing counselors with student profiles and course reading and writing requirements. Linking learning assistance center activities with classroom instruction. Incorporating volunteer instructors and peer tutors in language labs. Using computers in the classroom and learning lab. Using multi-learning systems (different learning approaches) and structuring sequential courses. Initiating flexible testing and completion strategies. Awarding college credit to some no-credit remedial courses. Minimizing remedial class size and hiring instructors who specialize in remediation. Requiring remedial instructors to share remediation techniques and otherwise collaborate with content-area faculty. Requiring content-area faculty to give reading and writing assignments to students. Implementing developmental education through the curriculum, as in adjunct models. Monitoring student behaviors and continuous evaluation of program effectiveness. Communicating with other community colleges to share internal evaluations, suggestions, and successful activities. Merisotis and Phipps (2000) further develop strategies proposed by the Institute for Higher Education Policy (1998) and provide a set of recommendations. Their suggestions focus on reducing the need for remediation in higher education by aligning high school and college requirements. Further, they propose early intervention for those needing remediation and providing financial aid programs to developmental students. Merisotis and Phipps also emphasize the need for student tracking and high school feedback systems so that student outcomes and enrollment patterns can be assessed and effectively compared. The responsibility for student remediation should also be shared by faculty, proposing that teacher preparation needs to be addressed. One important component of any remediation initiative is requiring better 21