Best Practices in Developmental Education: Strengthening your Program and Improving Student Success

1
Best Practices in Developmental Education
Strengthening your Program and Improving Student
Success

• A Live Webinar
• for
• Innovative Educators
• February 12, 2009
• Linda R. Thompson, Ed.D.
• Director, McNair Scholars
• Harding University
• Searcy, AR
• lthompson_at_harding.edu

2
Todays Agenda Or Are you SURE we can get
through all this in one session?

• Brief history of Developmental Education in the
  U.S.
• Our studentswho are they?
• How is Dev Ed workingor not?
• How do we know if what were doing is working?
• What should we be doing for the best student
  outcomes?

3
A Proud History of Access in American Higher
Education

• 1636 Harvard establishes culture of access by
  reserving 10 of slots for poor students
• 1871 Harvard develops test of writing skills
  50 of applicants fail
• 1909 Over 350 colleges offering How to Study
  courses

4
A Proud History of Access in American Higher
Education

• 1946 Over a million veterans attend college,
  supported by the GI Bill
• 1960s 70s Broadening concepts of access
• 1980s to present Students with disabilities
  enroll in increasing numbers

5
EIGHT PRINCIPLES OF UNIVERSAL INSTRUCTIONAL
DESIGNfrom Pedagogy and Student Services for
Institutional Transformation Implementing
Universal Design in Higher Education J.L. Higbee
and E. Goff, eds., 2008, Regents of the
University of Minnesota, CRDEUL, College of
Education and Human Development, p. 34

• Create a welcoming classroom
• Determine the essential components of a course
• Communicate clear expectations
• Provide constructive feedback
• Explore the use of natural supports for learning

6
UNIVERSAL INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN

• Design teaching methods that consider diverse
  learning styles, abilities, ways of knowing and
  previous experience/back-ground knowledge
• Create multiple ways for students to demonstrate
  their knowledge
• Promote interaction among faculty and students

7
CRLA DEFINITION OF DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION

• A sub-discipline of the field of education
  concerned with improving performance of students
• A field of research, teaching, and practice
  designed to improve academic performance
• A process utilizing principles of developmental
  theory to facilitate learning

8
NADES DEFINITION OF DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION

• Developmental education is a field of practice
  and research with a theoretical foundation in
  developmental psychology and learning theory. It
  promotes the cognitive and affective growth of
  all learners, at all levels of the learning
  continuum.

9
NADEs DEFINITION OF DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION

• Developmental Education is sensitive and
  responsive to the individual differences and
  special needs among learners.

10
NADES DEFINITION OF DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION

• Developmental Education programs and services
  commonly address academic preparedness,
  diagnostic assessment and placement, development
  of general and discipline-specific learning
  strategies, and affective barriers to learning.

11
NADE GOALS OF DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION

• To preserve and make possible educational
  opportunity for each learner
• To develop skills and attitudes necessary to
  attain academic, career and life goals
• To ensure proper placement by assessing level of
  preparedness for college course work

12
NADE GOALS OF DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION

• To maintain academic standards by enabling
  learners to acquire competencies needed for
  success in mainstream courses
• To enhance retention
• To promote continued development and applica-tion
  of cognitive and affective learning theory

13
EXAMPLES OF STATEMENTS OF THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS

• Tutoring Services
• Developmental Reading Program
• Developmental Coursework
• Select the one that seems the most appropriate
  for you and your group, and discuss its merits
  among you

14
Sample Theoretical FrameworkSample
1 HISTORY AND THEORETICAL FOUNDATION OF TUTOR
SERVICES 

• The Peer Tutoring program at State College
  was conceived in the mid-1980s as a support
  program for students having difficulty in their
  academic classes. students had access to a
  Math Lab and a Writing Center, but there was no
  tutorial program for other core academic courses.
  Funding for the original program came from soft
  money, and the program was discontinued after one
  year. The director of the Learning Enrichment
  Center at that time was committed to the idea of
  offering free tutorial services to students,
  and in fall 1987 permanent funding was obtained
  from the institutions academic vice-president.
  One of the basic beliefs and rationales for
  implementing the tutorial program was that it
  could help with student retention.
•  
• Tutorial services were originally offered on a
  strictly one-on-one basis students could sign up
  for a tutor and receive 3-5 hours of tutoring
  each week. Tutor training was mostly
  non-existent, but the program was successful for
  students from the beginning. It was so
  successful that it was impossible to attract and
  hire enough qualified tutors to meet student
  demand.
•  
• As the Peer Tutor Coordinator met with the tutors
  for individual evaluations, concern was expressed
  that most of the students they were seeing didnt
  need intensive one-on-one tutoring. The
  Coordinator also developed a belief in the theory
  that students learn best in collaborative
  settings, and so the focus of tutorial services
  changed from individual tutoring to a small group
  model. Space, or a lack thereof, to house the
  Program was also an issue. It was easier to
  schedule empty classrooms for group sessions than
  to find space for one-on-one tutoring.
•  
• In the early 1990s, the Coordinator become aware
  of the CRLA International Tutor Certification
  program and began to develop a training program
  for the tutoring staff. The training program has
  been certified since 1995.
•  
• Also in 1995, the Supplemental Instruction
  program that had been developed at the University
  of Missouri at Kansas City came to the attention
  of the Peer Tutor Coordinator. After learning
  more about SI, the Coordinator attended one of
  their training workshops. It was evident from
  the beginning that the theories on which SI was
  founded were valuable in helping students to
  learn. Some of the theories behind the SI
  strategies are
•  

15
DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION

• Who are our students?
• How effective is it?
• What constitutes success?
• What works?

16
Who are Our Students?Study of Community College
Enrollments (Saxon Boylan)

• Scant Research, but shows
• Most (2/3) are white
• Slightly higher proportion of females
• Avg. age _at_ 23
• Most are single
• They are independent, financially
• Low-income many made less than 20,000/year
• They commute

17
Our Students

• Most attend college full-time
• Most intend to get a 2-year or 4-year degree
• Typically do not receive financial aid
• Motivated, but low self-efficacy in academic
  setting
• No demographic, economic, or personal
  characteristics differ significantly from the
  typical community college student. (Saxon
  Boylan, p. 6, nd)

18
How are we doing?

• STUDIES OF DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION

19
-AGE STUDENTS PASSING DEVELOPMENTAL COURSES WHO
PASSED FIRST COLLEGE-LEVEL COURSE IN THE SAME
SUBJECT

• SUBJECT
• Dev Math/Coll Math
• Dev English/Coll English
• Dev Reading/ Coll Soc. Sci.

• PASSING BOTH WITH C OR BETTER
• 77.2
• 91.1
• 83.0
• Boylan, et al.

20
PERSISTENCE/GRADUATION RATES FOR DEVELOPMENTAL
STUDENTS BY INSTITUTIONAL TYPE

• Institution
• 2-yr Comm Coll
• 2-yr Tech Coll
• 4-yr Public Inst
• 4-yr Pvt Inst
• Research Univ

• Persist/Grad
• 24
• 33.7
• 28.4
• 40.2
• 48.3
• Boylan, et al.

21
Retention Pass Rates of Developmental
StudentsNatl Study of Dev. Ed. II, RIDE, 20 (4)
2007Gerlaugh, et al., p.2
Subj. Developmental Course Pass Rate 1st Area Retent. Rate Pass Rate Coll. Course
Reading 83 76 69 Writing 83 73 64 Math 80 68 58
22
Institutions using Retention Pass Rates in
Content Areas for EvaluationNatl Study of Dev.
Ed. II, RIDE, 20 (4) 2007Gerlaugh, et al.,
p.2Developmental Course
Subject Area Pass Rate Retention Rate Next Level Course Pass Rate
Reading Writing Math 82.8 90.0 89.7 79.3 86.7 93.1 65.5 76.0 79.3
23
Other Services Offered on CampusNatl Study of
Dev. Ed. II, RIDE, 20 (4) 2007Gerlaugh, et al.,
p.2
Service Provided of time used
Tutoring Academic Advising Study Skills Workshops Freshman Seminar Orientation Supplemental Instruction 89.3 78.6 64.3 60.7 25.0
24
Class Size Per SubjectNatl Study of Dev. Ed.
II, RIDE, 20 (4) 2007Gerlaugh, et al., p.2
Subject Area Median Number of Students
Writing Reading Mathematics 20 18 21
25
of Dev. Courses taught by Full-Time
FacultyNatl Study of Dev. Ed. II, RIDE, 20 (4)
2007Gerlaugh, et al., p.2
Subject Area 1992 2004
Reading Writing Mathematics 21 20 17 20 25 21
26
2-yr. Inst. Mandating PlacementNatl Study of
Dev. Ed. II, RIDE, 20 (4) 2007Gerlaugh, et al.,
p.2
1992 2000
35 74
27
DEGREE ATTAINMENT OF STUDENTS OF THE NATL H.S.
CLASS OF 1982 BY AGE 30 AND IMPACT OF REMEDIATION
Earned Bachelor Earned Assoc Total
No remedial courses 54 6 60
One course 45 10 55
Two courses 31 14 45
Three or four courses 24 20 44
Five or more courses 20 15 35
Three or more, incl. Reading 18 17 35
28
BACHELORS DEGREE ATTAINMENT FOR STUDENTS IN
4-YEAR INSTITUTIONS

• Had remedial reading
• 1 or 2 remedial courses, no reading
• No remediation

• 39
• 60
• 69

29
Bettinger Long Effect of Remedial Mathematics
on College Completion in Ohio 4-year
Non-Selective Colleges (2004)

• Students who placed into remedial math were
  somewhat more likely to drop out or transfer to
  a 2- year college than academically-equivalent
  students not in remediation.
• BUTIt did not lower the likelihood of obtaining
  a bachelors degree.

30
Effect of Successful Completion of Remedial
Mathematics on College Completion in Ohio 4-year
Non-Selective Colleges (2004)

• Students who successfully completed their
  remedial mathematics courses were more likely to
  complete a bachelors degree than
  academically-equivalent students who did not
  complete remedial math.
• Bettinger Long (2004)
• Cited in Attewell, et al. (2006)

31
NEW EVIDENCE ON REMEDIATIONFROM
NELS88Attewell, Lavin, Domina Levy (2006)

• 40 of traditional college students took at least
  one remedial course
• Math (28)
• Writing (18)
• Reading (9)
• Other (9)

32
ENROLLMENT IN REMEDIATION BY TYPE OF
INSTITUTIONAttewell, Lavin, Domina Levy (2006)

• 2-Year College
• Non-selective 4-year
• Selective 4-year
• Highly-Selective 4-year

• 58
• 31
• 14
• 2

33
NO ONE TO WASTE OUTCOMES OF SUCCESSFUL
COMPLETERS OF REMEDIAL COURSES IN COMMUNITY
COLLEGES

• Successful completion is the most critical
  achievement in personal development.
• lt16 earn an Assoc. or Bach. degree
• More than 1/3 earn an occupational associate
  degree or certificate.

34
NO ONE TO WASTE OUTCOMES OF SUCCESSFUL
COMPLETERS OF REMEDIAL COURSES IN COMMUNITY
COLLEGES

• Following successful remediation, underprepared
  students do as well in college-level courses as
  do students who entered academically prepared.
• Successful remedial education students experience
  positive life developments after completing
  remediation.

35
NO ONE TO WASTE SUCCESSFUL COMPLETERS OF
REMEDIATION

• Nine years after students complete remedial
  education
• 98.5 are employed
• 90 work in jobs above entry or unskilled levels
• Most are in information-based positions/high
  demand
• Only 2 have been convicted of a felony.
• Dramatically better than the general population
  with comparable demographics.

36
MATRIX OF HIGHER EDUCATION BENEFITS ECONOMIC
PUBLIC ECONOMIC PRIVATE ECONOMIC
Increased Tax Revenues Greater Productivity Increased Consumption Increased Workforce Flexibility Decreased Reliance on Government Financial Support Higher Salaries and Benefits Employment Higher Savings levels Improved Working Conditions Personal/Professional Mobility IHEP, 1998
37
MATRIX OF HIGHER EDUCATION BENEFITS SOCIAL
PUBLIC SOCIAL PRIVATE SOCIAL
Reduced Crime Rates Increased Charitable Giving/Community Service Increased Quality of Civic Life Social Cohesion/ Appreciation of Diversity Improved Ability to Adapt to and Use Technology Improved Health/Life Expectancy Improved Quality of Life for Offspring Better Consumer Decision-Making Increased Personal Status More Hobbies, Leisure Activities
38
PERCENTAGE OF US POPULATION AGE 25 OLDER BY
EDUCATONAL ATTAINMENT (MARCH 04)IHEP, 1998
ltHS HS Dip. Some Coll. Bach. Deg. Adv. Deg.
United States 14.8 32 25.5 18.1 9.6
AR 20.8 36.9 23.6 14.2 4.6
IL 13.2 33.3 26.1 17.4 10.0
IA 10.2 35.8 29.7 17.3 7.0
KS 10.4 28.6 30.9 20.0 10.0
MO 12.1 35.6 24.2 17.9 10.2
NE 8.7 33.2 33.2 18.3 6.6
39
AVERAGE TOTAL PERSONAL INCOME US POP AGE gt25 BY
EDUC AND STATE (2003)
ltHS HS DIP. SOME COLL BACH DEG ADV DEG
United States 15,221 25,053 32,470 48,417 70,851
AR 12,509 21,719 30,146 53,646 56,909
IL 14,644 25,083 33,963 47,385 72,207
IA 17,044 26,777 31,598 43,266 53,650
KS 14,760 25,434 29,905 43,414 62,292
MO 14,375 24,441 31,400 42,182 68,230
NE 14,545 26,604 33,449 46,584 65,005
40
PERCENT US POPULATION AGE gt 25 NOT EMPLOYED BY
EDUCATION AND STATE
ltHS HS DIP SOME COLL BACH DEG ADV DEG
United States 10.2 5.9 4.8 3.0 2.6
AR 6.5 5.3 2.6 1.9 7.9(?)
IL 10.9 6.6 4.0 4.1 1.5
IA 10.3 4.1 3.3 1.0 1.8
KS 11.7 6.1 4.5 2.0 0.8
MO 15.4 5.5 4.8 1.9 3.2
NE 4.9 3.7 3.4 0.6 1.5
41
PERCENT US POPULATION AGE gt 25 WHO RECD PUBLIC
ASSISTANCE BY EDUCATION AND STATE
ltHS HS DIP SOME COLL BACH DEG ADV DEG
United States 2.1 0.9 0.9 0.3 0.1
AR 1.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0
IL 1.3 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0
IA 2.5 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.0
KS 1.7 0.9 2.1 0.0 0.0
MO 2.3 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.5
NE 2.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.0
42
PERCENT US POPULATION AGE gt 25 WHO DESCRIBE THEIR
HEALTH AS VERY GOOD BY EDUCATION AND STATE
ltHS HS DIP SOME COLL BACH DEG ADV DEG
United States 67.3 82.0 87.2 92.6 92.5
AR 49.3 72.5 77.9 91.0 83.5
IL 66.0 81.9 89.0 93.7 92.8
IA 74.0 85.0 90.1 95.5 91.6
KS 68.2 82.0 86.8 95.2 95.1
MO 64.3 80.6 86.2 92.4 91.0
NE 69.9 85.7 88.2 93.1 96.7
43
PERCENT US POPULATION AGE gt 25 WHO REPORTED EVER
VOLUNTEERING FOR OR THROUGH AN ORG. BY EDUCATION
AND STATE
ltHS HS DIP SOME COLL BACH DEG OR HIGHER
United States 11.8 20.8 31.0 36.1
AR 5.7 18.3 27.4 30.2
IL 13.5 18.2 27.6 31.5
IA 24.3 30.5 42.3 55.5
KS 19.4 24.5 40.7 48.2
MO 14.4 22.9 33.0 52.2
NE 21.6 28.5 43.7 48.7
44
PERCENT US POPULATION AGE gt 25 WHO VOTED IN NOV.
2000 ELECTION, BY EDUCATION AND STATE
ltHS HS DIP SOME COLL BACH DEG ADV DEG
United States 42.1 56.0 67.3 76.3 82.1
AR 34.6 47.3 63.7 64.5 75.8
IL 49.8 58.3 70.8 74.9 78.3
IA 53.8 60.8 73.2 87.8 90.1
KS 52.1 54.9 67.9 79.8 85.6
MO 56.0 65.8 78.1 82.4 84.2
NE 54.9 59.3 61.7 81.5 87.8
45
LESSONS FROM THE RESEARCH WHAT WORKS IN
DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATIONBoylan , 2002

• The establishment of clearly-specified goals and
  objectives for developmental programs and
  courses.
• The use of mastery learning approaches.
• The provision of a high degree of structure in
  remedial/developmental courses.

46
LESSONS FROM THE RESEARCH WHAT WORKS IN
DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION

• The use of a variety of teaching methods.
• The application of sound cognitive/learning
  theory in the design and delivery of remedial/
  developmental courses.
• The provision of a centralized or highly
  coordinated remedial/developmental program.

47
LESSONS FROM THE RESEARCH WHAT WORKS IN
DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION

• The use of formative evaluation to guide program
  development and improvement.
• The establishment of a strong philosophy of
  learning to develop program goals and objectives
  and to deliver program services.

48
LESSONS FROM THE RESEARCH WHAT WORKS IN
DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION

• An underlying program philosophy along with
  program goals and objectives based on this
  philosophy
• Mandatory assessment
• A counseling component integrated into the
  structure of developmental education

49
LESSONS FROM THE RESEARCH WHAT WORKS IN
DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION

• Tutoring performed by well-trained tutors.
• Use of computer-based instruction as a supplement
  to regular classroom activities.
• Integration of classroom and laboratory
  activities.
• An institution-wide commitment to the
  developmental program.

50
LESSONS FROM THE RESEARCH WHAT WORKS IN
DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION

• Assurance of consistency between exit standards
  for remedial courses and entry standards for the
  regular curriculum.
• use of learning communities in remedial/developmen
  tal instruction.

51
LESSONS FROM THE RESEARCH WHAT WORKS IN
DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION

• Use of Supplemental Instruction, particularly
  video-based Supplemental Instruction to support
  remedial/developmental courses.
• Courses or workshops on strategic thinking or
  teaching of strategic learning skills across the
  developmental curriculum.

52
LESSONS FROM THE RESEARCH WHAT WORKS IN
DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION

• Staff training and professional development for
  those who work with underprepared students.
• Ongoing student orientation courses.
• Integration of critical thinking into the
  developmental curriculum.

53

• Bad remediation costs about as much as good
  remediation and by failing to use what we already
  know to improve what we do, we insure that we get
  the least value for our investment
• Chuck Claxton

54
BASIC ASSESSMENT Developmental CourseworkNADE
Certification Council

• General Level
• 1. Of all incoming students, the number and
  percent who place into developmental courses.
• 2. Of all students placing into developmental
  courses, the number and percent who actually
  enroll in those courses.
• 3. Grade distributions for developmental courses,
  grouped and analyzed as successful completers a
  versus unsuccessful completers versus
  non-completers.
• define

55
BASIC ASSESSMENT Developmental CourseworkNADE
Certification Council

• Advanced Level
• For students who successfully complete the
  highest-level developmental course (i.e., earn a
  C or better), what are pass rates and/or grades
  in the subsequent college-level course?

56
ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION

• Two years baseline data.
• Action plans implemented
• Two years comparative data
• AND A SELF-STUDY

57

• We need to begin a serious discussion of the
  extent to which we have come to worship merely
  being smart, as opposed to the value of
  developing smartness.
• Providing effective remedial education
• would do more to alleviate our most
• serious social and economic
• problems than almost any
• other action we could take.
• --Alexander Astin
• Rethinking Academic Excellence

58
QUESTIONS? COMMENTS?

• THANK YOU!
• I HOPE YOU HAVE BENEFITED FROM TODAYS SESSION!
• CONTACT ME AT LTHOMPSON_at_HARDING.EDU
• IF YOU HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.

59
REFERENCES

• Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the Tool Box
  Academic Intensity, Attendance Patterns, and
  Bachelor's Degree Attainment. Washington, DC
  U.S. Department of Education.
• Adelman, C. (2006) The Toolbox Revisited Paths
  to Degree Completion From High School Through
  College. Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of
  Education.
• Astin, A. (1999). Rethinking Academic
  Excellence. Liberal Education, Spring 1999.
• Attewell, P., Lavin, D., Domina, T., and Levey,
  T. (2006). New evidence on college remediation.
  Journal of Higher Education, Sept. 06.
• Bettinger, E., Long, B. T. (2004). Shape up or
  ship out The effects of remediation on students
  at four-year colleges (Working Paper No. 10369).
  Cambridge, MA National Bureau of Economic
  Research. Retrieved from the National Bureau of
  Economic Research Web site www.nber.org/papers/w1
  0369
• Boylan, H. (2002). What Works Research-Based
  Best Practices in Developmental Education.
  Boone,NC Continuous Quality Improvement Network,
  National Center for Developmental Education.

60
REFERENCES

• Brenneman, D., and Haarlow, W. (1998). Remedial
  Education Costs and Consequences. Washington,DC
  Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
• Clark-Thayer, S., Putnam-Cole, L., eds. (2009).
  NADE Self-Evaluation Guides, Second Edition, Best
  Practice in Academic Support Programs. National
  Association for Developmental Education.
• Gerlaugh, K., Thompson, L., Boylan, H. Davis,
  H. (2007). National Study of Developmental
  Education II Baseline Data for Community
  Colleges. Research in Developmental Education, 20
  (4).
• Hardin, C. (1998). Who Belongs in College A
  Second Look. Developmental Education Preparing
  Successful College Students, Higbee and Dwinell,
  eds.. National Resource Center for the First-Year
  Experience Students in Transition, Univ. of
  South Carolina.
• Hardin, C. (1988) . Access to Higher Education
  Who Belongs? Journal of Developmental Education.
  12(1).

61
REFERENCES

• Higbee, J. and Goff, E., eds. (2008). Pedagogy
  and Student Services for Institutional
  Transformation Implementing Universal Design in
  Higher Education. Regents of the University of
  Minnesota, Center for Research in Developmental
  Education and Urban Literacy, College of
  Education and Human Development, University of
  Minnesota.
• Institute for Higher Education Policy. (1998).
  Reaping the Benefits Defining the Public and
  Private Value of Going to College.
• McCabe, R. (2000). No One to Waste A Report to
  Public Decision-Makers and Community College
  Leaders. The National Study of Community College
  Remedial Education. Community College Press A
  division of the American Association of Community
  Colleges. Washington, DC.
• Phipps, R. (1998). College Remediation What It
  Is, What It Costs, Whats At Stake, Institute for
  Higher Education Policy
• Saxon, D., and Boylan, H. (2001). The Cost of
  Remedial Education in Higher Education. Journal
  of Developmental Education, 25(2).

62
REFERENCES

• Saxon, D., and Boylan, H. (n.d.). Characteristics
  of Community College Remedial Students. National
  Center for Developmental Education. Boone, NC.
  Prepared for the League for Innovation in the
  Community College. Retrieved from
  http//www.ncde.appstate.edu/reserve_reading/stude
  nt_characteristics.htm
• U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
  Education Statistics. (2003). Remedial Education
  at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions in
  Fall 2000, NCES 2004-010, by Basmat Parsad and
  Laurie Lewis. Project Officer Bernard Greene.
  Washington, D.C.
• U.S. Department of Education. National Center for
  Education Statistics, Institute of Education
  Sciences. (1988-2000). National Education
  Longitudinal Study of 1988. (NELS88).
  Washington, D.C.
• Zeidenberg, M., Jenkins, D., Calcagno, J.C.
  (2007). Community College Research Center Brief
  (No. 36). Study funded by Lumina Foundation for
  Education through the Achieving the Dream
  Community Colleges Count initiative. Teachers
  College, Columbia Univ. Available for download
  free of charge at http//ccrc.tc.columbia.edu.