Best Practices in Developmental Education: Strengthening your Program and Improving Student Success - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Best Practices in Developmental Education: Strengthening your Program and Improving Student Success PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 531a42-YTk2O



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

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

Description:

Title: Learning Assistance Program Standards & Guidelines: Self Assessment Procedures Author: Suffolk University Last modified by: val kisiel Created Date – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:248
Avg rating:3.0/5.0

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: 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.
About PowerShow.com