Prerequisite Approach to Learning Assistance: Developmental-Level Courses, Part Three

The following is an excerpt from my book, "Access at the crossroads" described int he left-hand column.

Several reasons are possible why analysis of developmental courses sometimes yields mixed or negative results. As stated earlier about remedial courses, it is unreasonable to expect that years of inadequate education or ineffective student effort in high school can be overcome by a single developmental course. A second reason may be a basic flaw in research design. Previous national studies (Bailey, 2009; Kulik, Kulik, and Schwalb, 1983; Roueche and Roueche, 1993, 1999) did not add variables to their analyses concerning attributes of the developmental courses and contexts in which they were offered. They did not have the ability to sort out poorly managed, average, or well-managed programs. When student data from all institutions are aggregated, it is not surprising to find inconclusive results. A finer level of analysis is needed for this complex issue. The only national study on developmental courses was sponsored through the Exxon Foundation in the late 1980s; it found these courses effective when they observed best practices and poor results for those that did not (Boylan, Bonham, and Bliss, 1994).

The bottom line is that more careful and detailed research is needed to understand developmental courses and the variables that affect their effectiveness. Proponents and opponents of developmental courses call for more research in this area (Bailey, 2009; Boylan, Saxon, Bonham, and Parks, 1993). As the most vexing and controversial element of learning assistance, this issue demands careful and detailed national study. It is one of the recommendations for action listed in the final chapter of this report.

Prerequisite Approach to Learning Assistance: Developmental-Level Courses, Part Two

The following is an excerpt from my book, "Access at the crossroads" described in the left-hand column.

Sometimes students who enroll in these classes feel disconnected, perhaps because of the administrative location of the remedial or developmental course. No uniform pattern exists for location of these credit courses across the United States. At some institutions, the courses are taught in the academic departments of mathematics, psychology, or writing. At other institutions, the courses and other learning assistance activities are clustered in a separate academic or administrative unit in the institution (Boylan, Bonham, and Bliss, 1994).

A review of the professional literature identifies developmental courses as the most controversial and contested element of learning assistance. They have ignited fierce public debates between supporters and opponents. As described in one of the contemporary controversies, opponents of these courses question colleges dealing with learning competencies that should have been met while the student was in high school. With scarce funds for postsecondary education, spending money on instruction of remedial and developmental courses appears to duplicate efforts by the high school and waste precious resources. Another issue that critics raise with these courses is their effectiveness.

Although a review of the ERIC database and the professional literature reveals institutional studies affirming the efficacy of developmental courses, few national research studies are available of developmental courses. Older national studies found when developmental courses are offered separate from other learning assistance activities, the results are sometimes inconclusive (Kulik, Kulik, and Schwalb, 1983; Roueche and Roueche, 1993, 1999).  Bailey (2009) analyzed these courses with a national dataset and found them ineffective. Among his recommendations were more research on these courses and use of more noncredit learning assistance services such as peer study groups.

Prerequisite Approach to Learning Assistance: Developmental-Level Courses, Part One

The following is an excerpt from my book, "Access at the crossroads" which is described in the left-hand column.

These courses, in contrast with remedial courses, focus on students’ strengths, develop both cognitive and affective domains, and build skills necessary for success in college-level courses. Remedial courses look to the past and focus on acquiring the skills and knowledge that should have been obtained while in high school; developmental courses look to the future and the skills needed for success in college. Typical developmental courses include intermediate algebra, college textbook reading, learning strategies, and basic writing composition. These courses count toward meeting financial aid requirements and often receive institutional credit. About 10 percent of institutions allow them to fulfill graduation requirements (National Center for Education Statistics, 2003).

According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2003), two-year public institutions are the most common providers of developmental courses, with 98 percent offering them in one or more academic content areas. Eighty percent of public four-year institutions offer them. At private two-year institutions, the rate is 63 percent; it declines to 59 percent at four-year private institutions. The trend for these courses is relatively stable over the 1990s (National Center for Education Statistics, 1991, 1996, 2003), except for a steeper decline at public research universities (Barefoot, 2003).

Developmental courses are placed in the category of prerequisite acquisition approaches, because at most colleges students must successfully complete them before they are allowed to enroll in the next course in the academic sequence. For example, if the student scores low on college or institutional entrance exams in mathematics and is placed in intermediate algebra, he or she must successfully complete this course before being allowed to enroll in college algebra. Like for remedial courses, a student might be enrolled in a single developmental course during the academic term while all the other courses are college level, which is why students who are enrolled in these courses are not called “developmental students.” Most students who enroll in these courses do so only in one academic content area (National Center for Education Statistics, 2003). Although they need development in one academic content area, they are college ready or advanced in other areas based on college or institutional entrance exams.

Prerequisite Approach to Learning Assistance: Academic Preparatory Academies

The following is an excerpt from my book, "Access at the crossroads" described in the left-hand column.

Learning assistance is offered at a separate academic preparatory academy. Such academic preparatory academies first appeared in the early to mid-1800s, when four-year colleges often felt the need to provide the equivalent of a high school education for potential college students because public education was not widely available in the United States. Public two-year institutions were yet to become available for most people. Although these academies required enrollment by students for a year or more, some modern-day preparatory academies are shorter length. Academic bridge programs for high school seniors prepare them over the summer to be more successful during fall at college. Bridge programs are often hosted by four-year institutions (ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, 2001). Research studies attest to the efficacy of such programs for improving students’ academic success. Research studies have documented positive outcomes, including higher college grades and higher rates of graduation (Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005), stronger academic preparation and easier transition to college (Swail and Perna, 2002), and deeper connection with the college (McLure and Child, 1998).

Another factor favoring the effectiveness of these high school–college bridge programs is the seamless flow of the education experience for students. Analysis of the national grade-cohort longitudinal study by the National Center for Education Statistics found that college enrollment immediately following high school graduation increased college degree completion rates (Adelman, 2006). Maintaining academic focus by students continuing their education immediately increased the likelihood of their timely college graduation. A review of the professional literature revealed a successful case study of this approach by St. Thomas Aquinas College (Sparkill, New York), a four-year, independent institution. Academic Services (http://www.stac.edu/AcademicService.htm) provides traditional learning assistance services and hosts the summer academic preparatory academy. It focus on graduating high school seniors who share characteristics of TRIO students such as predominately first-generation college attendees, low family income, and other variables that place them at higher risk for attrition. Activities include developing academic skills and acculturating them to expectations for college. The summer period provides sufficient time to develop simultaneously their essential learning skills while enrolled in rigorous classes.   Modern incarnations of preparatory academies also include private commercial schools such as Kaplan and Sylvan Learning Systems. Public two-year colleges through their function of preparing students for successful transfer to senior institutions are another example.

The next blog posting will provide another of these approaches, remedial courses which are very different than "developmental" courses.

Different Approaches and Systems of Learning Assistance

The following is an excerpt from my book, "Access at the crossroads" described in the left-hand column.

Learning assistance encompasses a variety of activities and models with varying levels of efficacy for institutions and participating students. The variety of these models is a result of different policies, funding formulas, student population characteristics, historical traditions, campus culture, political decisions, and stakeholders’ expectations.  Better understanding of the choices taken when offering learning assistance occurs when it is categorized into different approaches taken at the institutional level. The three broad categories are based on where and when the particular learning assistance activity is offered: a prerequisite activity on the college campus before a student enrolls in a class for graduation credit; concurrent activity on the college campus while a student is enrolled in a class predicted to be academically challenging; and outsourcing of the learning assistance activity to another institution or commercial firm.

The goal of these three approaches is preparation of students for academic success in a rigorous core curriculum of college-level course that exceeds the average of other college-level classes and is challenging for many members of the student body. This class has high withdrawal and failure rates. Sometimes it is called a “gatekeeper” class (Jenkins, Jaggars, and Roksa, 2009).  The name used to describe classes that offer learning assistance activities specifically designed to support the students enrolled in them are called “target classes,” as the learning assistance services are customized and “targeted” for serving students enrolled in that specific course. The focus is shifted from erroneously attempting to identify students at risk in the class to students in that particular class who are welcome to use the learning assistance activities to meet course expectations or as supplemental or enrichment experiences deepening their mastery of course content. Faculty members who teach this target class are involved to varying degrees with the learning assistance activities preparing students for academic success.

The following three blog postings in upcoming weeks will share briefly about each of these approaches.

Cost Estimates for Providing Learning Assistance

The following is an excerpt from my book, "Access at the crossroads" described in the left-hand column. 

It is clear that a large percentage of students use learning assistance services every year. Some policymakers perceive this high volume of participation and wide range of activities as too expensive. Recent studies disprove this view. As pervasive as learning assistance has become, it consumes a minor amount of a given institution’s budget. The most recent national study (Phipps, 1998) estimates its cost at less than $1 billion of $115 billion in the public higher education annual budget. This amount includes spending on developmental credit courses and noncredit services (tutoring, drop-in learning centers) that a wide variety of students of varying academic preparation levels use. Saxon and Boylan (2001) confirmed this finding through analysis of other similar studies. Additional analysis by Phipps (1998) found the unit cost of remedial or developmental courses was less than other academic content areas such as English, mathematics, or business. Classes were smaller than for most core academic subjects but cost less. It may be because faculty members who teach developmental courses are paid less compared with faculty members who teach other courses. It may also reflect the heavy use of adjunct and part-time instructors for these courses at public two-year institutions, the primary providers of these courses (National Center for Education Statistics, 2003).

Others advocates (Phipps, 1998; McCabe and Day, 1998; Wilson and Justiz, 1988) argue learning assistance is essential for economic reasons because of the costs to society and the economic level of students who do not complete their college degrees because sufficient learning assistance was lacking. The United States risks development of “an educational and economic under-class whose contributions to society will be limited and whose dependency on others will grow. The risk increases for creating a culture and economy that ignores the talents of a large number of citizens” (Wilson and Justiz, 1988, pp. 9–10). McCabe and Day (1998) estimate that 2 million students each year will drop out of postsecondary education because they did not participate in learning assistance, which will negatively affect their own lives as well as the national economy. Alphen (2009) conducted a multicountry study of the impact of not completing an undergraduate college degree. Controlling for country-level variables, the findings confirmed the negative economic impact of people not obtaining at least an undergraduate degree compared with the cost of providing postsecondary education.

Funded by the Lumina and Wal-Mart foundations, a national study investigated the costs and returns of providing academic support programs and the net impact on revenue at the institution. Institutions were two-year and four-year, public and private, of various sizes, and geographically dispersed throughout the United States. The study found that learning assistance was positively related to higher student persistence and increased revenue above the cost of providing academic support services (Delta Project, 2009). Another study focused on the Community College of Denver concerned the cost-effectiveness of learning assistance. Net revenue generated through higher rates of student persistence were significantly higher than the cost of the learning assistance services (Corash and Baker, 2009).

Annual Scope of Learning Assistance (Part Two)

The following is an excerpt from my book, Learning Assistance at the Crossroads.  More information about obtaining a copy of the book is provided in the upper left-hand column.  It may already be in your school library.

Understanding the scope of learning assistance throughout the United States requires careful review of national studies of enrollment patterns in developmental courses, participation in noncredit activities, and institutional and state policies affecting learning assistance activities. Table 1 focuses on one element of learning assistance, developmental courses in reading, mathematics, or writing. No uniform state or national reporting systems exist for noncredit services such as tutoring and attendance in learning centers (explored later in this report). The terms “remedial” and “developmental” course are used inter­changeably in this section.

Learning assistance often expresses itself differently among various institutional types: two-year and four-year, public and private. The services also appear differently in these categories among institutions of differing admissions selectivity. Although noncredit services such as tutoring and learning centers are commonly found among institutions, the provision of developmental courses is more commonly found at two-year institutions. Many institutions, however, provide both credit and noncredit services.

Many students who enroll in postsecondary education participate in learn­ing assistance activities in one form or another. Boylan (1999) confirms that nearly 2 million of the 12 million students enrolling in U.S. postsecondary education enroll in a developmental course or participate in other noncredit services such as tutoring or use of a learning center. Because 600,000 to 700,000 students enroll in the courses, more than 1 million students access noncredit services such as tutoring and learning assistance centers (Boylan, 1999; National Center for Education Statistics, 2003). For the past twenty years, nearly three-quarters of higher education institutions enrolling first-year students have offered at least one developmental reading, writing, or mathe­matics course. Although four-year research institutions decreased course offer­ings in this area during the 1990s (Barefoot, 2003), most institutions showed little overall significant change (National Center for Education Statistics, 1991, 1996, 2003). Offerings vary widely among institutional types. The highest percentage offering such courses are public two-year colleges (98 percent), fol­lowed by public four-year (80 percent), private two-year (63 percent), and pri­vate four-year (59 percent) (National Center for Education Statistics, 2003).