Updated Annotated Bibliography of Postsecondary Peer Cooperative Learning Programs Available

Greetings,

As part of my research, I maintain an annotated bibliography on the five major postsecondary peer cooperative learning programs: Emerging Scholars Program (ESP, Treisman Model), Peer-Led Team Learning (PLTL, City College New York), Structured Leanring Assistance (SLA, Ferris College Model), Supplemental Instruction (SI, UMKC Model), and Video-based Supplemental Instruction (VSI, UMKC Model). I released an earlier version in 2005 and placed it in the online ERIC Database maintained by the Department of Education. Since then, I have added nearly 100 pages of new annotated references for these five programs. The most citations continue to be SI, however as a percentage basis the PLTL model is growing more quickly in the professional literature.

You might this a helpful resource for tutoring programs, peer learning programs, and scholars who publish on this topic area. It is free and available at http://z.umn.edu/peerbib No doubt I have missed some references (there are nearly 1,000). Please let me know about them and I will revise the bibliography and post to the same web address as the current version.

Take care, David

Call by Dept. of Education for Promising and Practical Strategies

A perfect opportunity has been created for educators to share promising and practical strategies to increase postsecondary success, transfer, and college graduation through the U.S. Department of Education. Please read further how you can share what works with your students and programs with your colleagues nationally. While it is the middle of the academic term and you no doubt have more than a full work load, do not miss the chance to influence other educators and policymakers with what you know for making a difference and demonstrate how your profession has the expertise to increase college success rates. The priority review deadline for submission is April 30th.

The U.S. Department of Education announced at its College Completion Symposium and posted to the Federal Register on January 30, 2012 a Request for Information (RFI) for any person or organization to share with them strategies for increasing college completion that may then be made available through a special web site created by the Department. Submissions received by April 30, 2012 receive priority consideration for dissemination. Click on the following web link for the complete announcement published in the Federal Register, https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/01/30/2012-1963/promising-and-practical-strategies-to-increase-postsecondary-success#p-3

It is important in your proposal to stress the unique features of your activity or program. For example, while many schools have a tutoring or mentoring program, what is novel about yours? How are your credit-hour courses different than others? These are some of the questions the RFI asks for the submissions to address.

The Jandris Center for Innovative Higher Education (http://cehd.umn.edu/jandris/) based at the University of Minnesota has volunteered to provide several free hour-long webinars in the near future to share suggestions for completing a submission with examples from others that have already have or in process of completing their document. Announcements about these webinars will be posted to this blog page soon. Based on the regulations from the published announcement in the Federal Register, click on the following web link for suggestions by a Jandris Center staff member for the submission: http://www.besteducationpractices.org/storage/pdf-documents/Summarized%20RFI%20Announcement.pdf

For more official information and technical assistance with the submission, contact Dr. David Soo at the Department of Education, (202) 502-7742, david.soo@ed.gov Information about the Jandris Center is available at http://cehd.umn.edu/jandris/

Illinois Releases New Report on Practices to Increase College Completion Rates

Illinois Lt. governor Sheila Simon this month released a report called "Illinois Community Colleges: Focus on the Finish." <Click on this link to download the complete report> It is practical examples how the collegtes are implementing practices to improve college completion rates for their students. Some of these could be appropriately modified and integrated into TRIO and other opportunity programs.

Following is the Executive Summary of the report: Community colleges are the future of the Illinois economy. Nearly 1 million students pass through their doors each year in search of accessible, affordable education and career training. Unfortunately, too many students leave campus without the certificate or degree necessary for a good-paying job. Slightly fewer than one in five Illinois students who began their studies as first-time, full-time students at Illinois community colleges in the fall of 2007 graduated by the summer of 2010. In order for our state to attract and retain businesses – and do right by our students – we need to dramatically increase this success rate.

As the Governor’s point person on education reform, I completed a statewide fact-finding tour of all 48 Illinois community colleges in 2011. I wanted to hear firsthand how schools were working to improve completion rates, and to gather input on how the state could facilitate their success. Given that community colleges reach more students – but graduate fewer – than other higher education institutions, their performance is critical to creating a globally competitive workforce.

Today, the Illinois workforce is slightly ahead of most states, with 41 percent of our nearly 7 million working-age adults (25-64 years old) holding at least a two-year degree. But if we do not increase the proportion of certificate and degree holders over time, Illinois will not only fall behind our neighbors, but also lose out on international job investment. As Chair of the P-20 Council’s Joint Educational Leadership Committee and a member of Illinois’ Complete College America team, I am working to increase the proportion of Illinoisans with meaningful college and career credentials to 60 percent by 2025.

During the tour, I found that colleges are actively pursuing the state’s “60 by 2025” completion goal. I witnessed several small scale, but promising, reforms to prepare incoming students and reduce the time it takes for them to earn credentials and enter the regional and national workforce. These emerging on-the-ground practices, coupled with overviews of national research and completion strategies, provide the foundation for this report.

Institutional Mission Differentiation, Academic Stratification, and Reduced Access for Historically Underrepresented Students

Bastedo, M. N., & Gumport, P. J. (2003). Access to what? Mission differentiation and academic stratification in U.S. public higher education. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning, 46(3), 341-359. This article analyzes developmental education policy in Massachusetts and New York to examine recent policy decisions regarding the termination of academic programs, elimination of remedial education, promotion of honors colleges within each state system. A result of these policy decisions has been to increase stratification of programs and students within a public state higher education system as well as with individual institutions within the state system. The authors argue that more intense analysis needs to be conducted before systematic changes are made within education systems to avoid or at least forecast major changes in the stratification of student opportunity to attend postsecondary education.

Contextualizing the historic role of learning assistance, those who work in learning assistance programs neither determine admission criteria nor set aca­demic standards (Boylan, 1995a). Admissions officers, administrators, fac­ulty committees, and state higher education executive offices are responsible for those decisions. Once standards are set, however, it is the job of learning assistance faculty and staff to ensure students meet or exceed them. The need for learning assistance was created as soon as the first college opened its doors to those prepared to pass the admissions examination and those who were not. These criteria de facto divided students into two groups: those admitted normally and those admitted provisionally. Provisional students need addi­tional academic assistance and enrichment. As the upcoming history chap­ter documents, many students attending U.S. colleges in the 1700s and 1800s participated in learning assistance activities before admission as well as throughout their academic career (Boylan and White, 1987; Brier, 1984).

Nearly all institutions historically offered developmental courses. During the past twenty years, eight states have or are in process of eliminating devel­opmental courses at public four-year colleges. At the same time, thirty states rejected similar legislation (Abraham and Creech, 2000). These mixed results indicate that some states are mandating the shift of the courses from public four-year institutions to community colleges (Hankin, 1996). Shifting the developmental courses often occurs at the level of the campus or state system. For example, in Missouri no state legislation required shifting these courses. Three decades ago, the University of Missouri system eliminated the courses. State four-year and two-year institutions informally assumed them.

During the past quarter century, community colleges assumed primary responsibility for vocational programs, workplace literacy, displaced worker retraining, certificate programs, and others. Their primary role of preparing students for transfer to senior institutions expanded. Traditional boundaries between commu­nity and technical colleges blurred as costly technical programs were offered at community colleges. These expanded curricular responsibilities required community colleges to invest in more buildings, equipment, and faculty mem­bers for expensive high-demand certificate and associate degree programs in response to local needs of citizens and employers. Increased prestige of com­munity colleges and heightened stigma concerning developmental courses led a growing number of community college leaders to reject increased responsi­bility for them (McGrath and Spear, 1994; Oudenhoven, 2002). Community colleges are placed in a double bind to maintain their traditional open admis­sion access and increase academic standards necessary for the new curricular offerings. Some leaders question how both can be maintained while dealing with a large influx of students needing developmental courses formerly offered at four-year colleges (Perin, 2006).

Some policymakers direct students with academic preparation requiring developmental courses to begin their college career at junior and community colleges. These students might be accepted for transfer to the senior institu­tion if their junior college academic profile warrants. The transfer process from community colleges to senior institutions has numerous challenges. As a result, the students are placed at higher risk for academic failure than those who begin their careers in four-year schools (Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991).

Considerable effort has been made with articulation agreements among two-year and four-year institutions. The transfer process is not transparent, however, and the rate of completing an undergraduate degree is lower for stu­dents who begin at a two-year institution than for those beginning at a four-year institution, even when controlling for other variables (Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991). Barriers to success for transfer students include not accepting or requir­ing them to repeat courses previously completed and the turbulence experi­enced by students as they move from one academic environment to another. It is common for students to experience academic difficulty and earn lower grade averages as a result at the senior institution (Eggleston and Laanan, 2001).

With institutional resources, including learning assistance, students from a wide range of ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds can be accepted and supported for academic success. Learning assistance, especially developmen­tal courses, have been significant resources for students of color (Boylan, Bonham, and Bliss, 1994). These services along with other institutional sup­ports increase the likelihood of higher student achievement and persistence toward graduation.

• Abraham, A. A., and Creech, J. D. (2000). Reducing remedial education: What progress are states making? Educational Benchmark 2000 Series. Atlanta: Southern Regional Educa­tion Board. Retrieved August 19, 2004, from http://www.sreb.org.
• Boylan, H. R. (1995a). Making the case for developmental education. Research in Develop­mental Education, 12(2), 1–4.
• Boylan, H. R., and White, W. G., Jr. (1987). Educating all the nation’s people: The historical roots of developmental education. Part I. Review of Research in Developmental Education, 4(4), 1–4.
• Brier, E. (1984). Bridging the academic preparation gap: An historical view. Journal of Devel­opmental Education, 8(1), 2–5.
• Eggleston, L. E., and Laanan, F. S. (2001). Making the transition to the senior institution. In F. S. Laanan (Ed.), Transfer students: Trends and issues. New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 114, pp. 87–97. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• McGrath, D., and Spear, M. B. (1994). The remediation of the community college. In J. L. Ratcliff, S. Schwarz, and L. H. Ebbers (Eds.). Community colleges (pp. 217–228). Need-ham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster.
• Oudenhoven, B. (2002). Remediation at the community college: Pressing issues, uncertain solutions. In T. H. Bers and H. D. Calhoun (Eds.), New steps for the community college. New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 117. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Pascarella, E. T., and Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Perin, D. (2006). Can community colleges protect both access and standards? The problem of remediation. Teachers College Record, 108(3), 339–373.

Stigma for Enrolling in Developmental-Level Courses

I have commented recently about how the state of Ohio is the latest to ban the offering of developmental-level courses at the four-year college level, instead reserving those offerings for the community-college system. While it initially appears to be a good policy decision to differentiate offerings among different types of public institutiohns, the discussions nearly always fail to take into account the psychological consequences of such decisions.

Scholars at several institutions conducted research studies concerning students’ perceptions of learning assistance programs, especially developmental credit courses. Research indicated negative stigma was attached, regardless of volun­tary or mandated enrollment (Higbee, Lundell, and Arendale, 2005; Pedelty, 2001; Valeri-Gold and others, 1997). Perceptions of stigma have plagued learning assistance throughout history. Some believe stigma increases restric­tions and curtails programs, especially at public four-year institutions (Barefoot, 2003; Jehangir, 2002; Martinez, Snider, and Day, 2003).

Various factors contribute to stigma: (1) mandatory enrollment in devel­opmental courses; (2) new students placed in cohorts identified for academic risk; (3) use of terms such as “at-risk students,” “high-risk students,” “devel­opmental students,” and “academically disadvantaged students,” all of which represent a negative condition characterizing students’ academic abilities and potential; (4) public policy fights over admission of students perceived to be academically underprepared; and (5) memories of emotional hazing in previ­ous schools.

Students often experience two concurrent emotions regarding learning assistance. They appreciate the help of learning assistance personnel to strengthen their academic skills, are grateful the institution admits them, and appreciate varied learning assistance activities. On the other hand, contact with these activities inadvertently leads to self-stigmatization because they recog­nize that not all students use the same learning assistance activities, especially developmental courses. Students enrolled in developmental courses recognize their academic profile is lower than that of other students at the institution. Diminished self-esteem and believing they do not belong often emerge. Some­times anger is directed at others and themselves, leading to self-sabotaging aca­demic behavior. This chain of events results in premature academic failure and departure from the institution (Higbee, Lundell, and Arendale, 2005).

When stigma attaches itself to language describing learning assistance and the students served by it, institutional leaders can lose interest and curtail these programs, especially at four-year institutions (Jehangir, 2002). Insufficient ser­vices diminish students’ academic success. A future blog entry will explore the question whether students’ rights are abridged by institutions’ failing to provide them the same services provided to students in previous generations?

References:

• Barefoot, B. O. (2003). Findings from the second national survey of first-year academic practices. Brevard, NC: Policy Center for the First Year of College. Retrieved July 4, 2004, from http://www.brevard.edu/fyc/survey2002/findings.htm.
• Higbee, J. L., Lundell, D. B., and Arendale, D. R. (Eds.). (2005). The General College vision: Integrating intellectual growth, multicultural perspectives, and student development. Min­neapolis: Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy, General College, University of Minnesota.
• Jehangir, R. R. (2002). Higher education for whom? The battle to include developmental education at the four-year university. In J. L. Higbee, D. B. Lundell, and I. M. Duranczyk (Eds.), Developmental education: Policy and practice (pp. 17–34). Auburn, GA: National Association for Developmental Education.
• Martinez, S., Snider, L. A., and Day, E. (2003). Remediation in higher education: A review of the literature. Topeka: Kansas State Board of Education. Retrieved July 1, 2004, from http://www.ksde.org/pre/postsecondary_remediation.doc.
• Pedelty, M. H. (2001). Stigma. In J. L. Higbee, D. B. Lundell, and I. M. Duranczyk (Eds.), 2001: A developmental odyssey. Warrensburg, MO: National Association for Developmen­tal Education.
• Valeri-Gold, and others. (1997). Reflection: Experience commentaries by urban developmen­tal studies students. In J. L. Higbee, and P. L. Dwinell (Eds.), Developmental education: Enhancing student retention (pp. 3–18). Carol Stream, IL: National Association for Devel­opmental Education.

Webinar Update on Developmental Education Practices for Counselors, Faculty, and Student Affairs Staff

On October 28, 2011 I conducted a webinar with faculty and staff at Austin Community College (TX) on a wide range of current topics confronting the field of developmental education. I began with an overview of what I thought were the forces at work on the field, both good and bad. I especially focused on the recent event in Ohio banning developmental-level courses at public four-year institutions. Previously postings to this blog explained my thoughts on this issue recently.

Following an overview of the trends impacting the field, I moved into the heart of the webinar with identifying promising and best practices of developmental education applied to counselors, faculty members, and student affairs staff. Go to the top menu bar in this web site and click on "my talks" and then click on "narrated PP presentations." This webinar is the first presentation listed. A handout of the key slides from the webinar is the next item. You can also reach this web site by clicking on this sentence. Your comments are welcome.

Mission Differentiation: Code Language for Cutting Programs at Schools No Longer Wanted

The following is excerpted from my recent book, Access at the crossroads: Learning assistance in higher education (2010, Jossey Bass). Several of my recent blog posts have been about the elimination of developmetnal-level courses in Ohio. I also posted the message to the LRNASST email listserv and received reports from half a dozen other states that had previously enacted the same policy. I was disappointed to read that some people welcomed the decision since the students were better served at the two-year instiutions. I don't disagree about that result (as diappointing as that is). The issue I am concerned about is what happens when four-year institutions engage in "mission differentiation" and discontinue services and programs that had previously provided for more than 100 years. The following is my analysis of the practice and supported by research studies of others concerning the dramatic and negative outcomes as a result. -- David Arendale

Impact of Institutional Mission Differentiation on Learning Assistance

Economic challenges since the 1970s, especially among public institutions, have intensified. Land-grant institutions debate how to balance their historic egalitarian mission serving all state residents while curtailing programs and raising admission standards. Institutional leaders increasingly employ institu­tional “mission differentiation” to reign in costs and focus resources on the institution (Slaughter and Rhoades, 2004). Mission differentiation recognizes institutions with special programmatic offerings and targeted student popu­lations. Selective college admission policies lead some to question the need for comprehensive learning assistance services, especially developmental courses.

Preliminary analysis of mission differentiation reveals unannounced and unanticipated outcomes for learning assistance (Bastedo and Gumport, 2003; Gumport and Bastedo, 2001; Slaughter and Rhoades, 2004). Analysis of learn­ing assistance policy in Massachusetts and New York confirmed that mission differentiation led institutions to terminate academic programs, eliminate remedial or developmental courses, and promote honors colleges. The result is stratification of academic program opportunity in the state. Prestigious and high-demand academic programs were offered at fewer institutions than before. For students, stratification encouraged higher admissions standards at upper-tier institutions. As a result, students had fewer choices for postsec­ondary education (Bastedo and Gumport, 2003; Gumport and Bastedo, 2001; Slaughter and Rhoades, 2004).

Another result was curtailment of developmental courses at upper-tier institutions in the state system (Bastedo and Gumport, 2003; Gumport and Bastedo, 2001). Developmental courses are often a key ingredient in providing access and success for historically underrepresented students. Bastedo and Gumport (2003) concluded that more intense analysis is warranted before sys­temic changes occur to avoid or at least predict major changes in the stratifi­cation of students’ opportunity to attend postsecondary education and the student support systems needed for their success.

As more historically underrepresented students from diverse racial and socioeconomic backgrounds seek admission, important learning assistance infrastructures are dismantled (Bastedo and Gumport, 2003). Mission differ­entiation assumes incorrectly that college aspirants are more academically pre­pared, and institutional leaders therefore conclude that developmental credit courses and other traditional learning assistance activities are not needed. Increasingly, public four-year institutions curtail or eliminate developmental courses with the expectation that students needing such instruction easily access them at a community college (Bastedo and Gumport, 2003; Gumport and Bastedo, 2001; Slaughter and Rhoades, 2004). This option requires a local community college. Most students do not have the financial resources or time to commute long distances for such classes. These students often are finan­cially disadvantaged and possess little free time. They cannot commute to mul­tiple institutions for courses while maintaining a job (or two) to pay for college and support a family. Based on a national dataset, students who attend mul­tiple institutions are less likely to graduate from college than those who begin at the intended degree-awarding institution (Adelman, 2006).

Mission differentiation raises a new set of questions and conflicts in post­secondary education (McPherson and Schapiro, 1999). Access to higher edu­cation shifts to access to what form of education and under what conditions. Differentiation among institutions increases stratification in society (Anderson, Daugherty, and Corrigan, 2005).

• Bastedo, M. N., and Gumport, P. J. (2003). Access to what? Mission differentiation and aca­demic stratification in U.S. public higher education. Higher Education, 46(3), 341–359.
• Gumport, P. J., and Bastedo, M. N. (2001). Academic stratification and endemic conflict: Remedial education policy at CUNY. Review of Higher Education, 24(4), 333–349.
• Slaughter, S., and Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Soliday, M. (2002). The politics of remediation: Institutional and student needs in higher educa­tion. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.