Outcomes of Remediation
Prepared for The League for Innovation in the Community College
National Center for Developmental Education
Previous sections of these background papers have established that remedial courses are widespread in American higher education and that over a million students are enrolled in some form of community college remediation each year. Estimates have also been cited indicating that about a billion dollars a year is spent at public colleges and universities to provide remedial courses. What has not yet been addressed is just what happens as a result of remediation. Is remediation successful in the community college?
This paper addresses what happens to students who participate in community college remedial courses. It describes the criteria that are typically used to assess the outcomes of remediation. It also integrates the results of several national, regional, and large-sample studies to develop a summary of the known outcomes of community college remediation. Studies of this nature usually measure college-level academic performance variables such as course completion rates, student grade point averages (GPAs), or student retention.
It should also be noted that there are a variety of outcomes of remediation that are not typically measured in research and evaluation studies. It is reasonable to assume, for instance, that there are societal and economic benefits associated with the provision of remedial education to underprepared students. If remedial courses actually help students complete college, then these courses also contribute to better employment opportunities for students, improved skills for the workforce, and subsequent benefits for society and the economy. With the exception of the works of McCabe and Day (1998) and Lavin and Hyllegard (1996) these outcomes have, as yet, remained largely unexplored. Consequently, this report focuses on the academic outcomes of remedial courses while recognizing that there are many other nonacademic outcomes that might be measured.
Based on reviews of the literature and the opinion of experts (Casazza & Silverman, 1996; Maxwell, 1997) it was assumed that remediation could be considered successful if it met the following criteria:
(a) students were able to complete remedial requirements within a
reasonable period of time,
(b) students who successfully completed remedial courses were able to pass college-level courses in the same or similar subject areas,
(c) students who successfully completed remedial courses were able to achieve GPAs comparable to students who were not required to participate in remediation, and
(d) students who took remedial courses were retained over time.
In order to gather information to determine if community college remediation met these criteria, a review of the literature was conducted. This review identified numerous studies of remedial courses that addressed these criteria. Unfortunately, most of these studied the outcomes of remediation at a single institution or used very small samples to assess outcomes.
Once again, we found that O’Hear and MacDonald’s (1995) conclusion regarding the research in the field to be accurate. That is, much of it was too limited to be of use or it suffered from design flaws. Most of the studies that were reviewed either contained serious methodological flaws or were based on inadequate samples. The studies selected for inclusion in this report:
(a) incorporated some recognized research or evaluation methodology; and
(b) included either a large sample from a single institution, samples from several institutions, or a national sample of community college students.
Findings from these studies were then sorted according to the criteria they addressed. These findings were organized into the following categories: (a) completion of remediation, (b) post-remediation performance in college-level courses, (c) post-remediation GPAs, and (d) post-remediation retention and reported below.
Completion of Remediation
The most recent and extensive report of student completion rates in remedial courses was conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (1996b). According to this report, 90% of public community colleges reported that the average length of time taken by students to complete remediation was one year or less (see Table 1). Only 10% of public community colleges reported that the average length of time taken by students to complete remediation was more than one year.
Table 1
Length of Time Required to Complete Remedial Courses
2 Year
Institutions, 1995
|
Institution
Type |
Time Period |
||
|
|
Less than 1 year |
1 year |
More than 1
year |
|
Public 2 year |
46% |
44% |
10% |
|
Private 2 year |
95% |
5% |
0% |
Source: NCES, 1996b
Among private community colleges, 95% reported that the average length of time taken by students to complete remediation was less than one year. Only 5% of private community colleges reported that their students took a full year to complete remediation and none reported that their students took longer than one year to do so (NCES, 1996b).
Although the
report did not cite specific data for community colleges in its discussion of
ethnicity and remedial completion rates, it did indicate that at institutions
with high minority enrollments, it took longer for students to complete
remediation than at institutions with lower minority enrollments. According to the report “Institutions with
low minority enrollment reported the average length of time in remedial courses
as less than 1 year more often than did institutions with high minority
enrollment” (NCES, 1996b, p. 12).
These figures are encouraging. They suggest that a substantial percentage of students who begin remediation complete it in a reasonable period of time. However, they should not be interpreted to mean that all students who take remedial courses complete them in the periods noted. Many community college students never finish their remedial courses. They either dropout of the courses or leave school before completing them.
A recent study of Texas institutions, for instance, reported that, depending on the institution and the subject area, 25% to 50% of those taking remedial courses in any given term fail to complete them (Boylan & Saxon, 1998). Grubb (1998), cited data from the City University of New York (CUNY) system which indicated that only 61.7% of students taking remedial courses took the subsequent post-test. This suggested an attrition rate of close to 40% in those courses.
A large-sample study of remedial course completion rates at a midwestern community college indicated that these rates varied considerably depending upon the subject area. The highest completion rates were 76% for remedial reading and the lowest were 52% for remedial mathematics (Morain Valley Community College, 1996).
The NCES (1996b) also studied successful completion rates in remedial courses using data from institutional surveys. It found that 77% of remedial students in public community colleges successfully completed remedial reading, 79% successfully completed remedial writing, and 74% successfully completed remedial mathematics. This is consistent with their institutional survey data which indicated that 75% of students complete their remedial courses within one year. However, the study did not indicate if students who dropped out before completing the remedial course were included in the sample.
The National Study of Developmental Education (Boylan, Bonham, Claxton, & Bliss, 1992) found that:
(a) dropout rates in remedial courses were higher in community colleges than in universities,
(b) dropout rates in remedial courses were highest in mathematics,
(c) dropout rates in remedial course for all institutions averaged about 25%, and
(d) those who actually completed their first remedial course successfully (with a grade of C or better) at either colleges or universities were more likely to fulfill their remedial requirements within one year.
Unfortunately, this study did not break data on completion rates down into institutional categories. While the studies findings may be generally true of postsecondary education, it was difficult to determine the extent to which they were representative of community colleges.
Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to assume that those who actually completed their remedial courses on their first attempt were very likely to finish their required remediation within one year. However, there was a high non-completion rate in remedial courses. Many students had to retake remedial courses at least once and occasionally several times, not because they failed the course outright but because they either dropped out or did not finished all course requirements within the prescribed grading period (Boylan, Bonham, Claxton, & Bliss, 1992).
This created difficulty in interpreting the variable of course completion rates. As Grubb (1998) pointed out, the high dropout rate in remedial courses was one of the major problems in evaluating the effectiveness of remediation. The high noncompletion rate in remedial courses made it difficult to assess the meaning of data that were intended to describe the amount of time it took students to complete required remediation. Most studies that reported remedial course passing or completion rates did not discuss whether or not those students who dropped the course early were included in the final reported figures.
The National Study of Developmental Education (Boylan, Bonham, Claxton, & Bliss, 1992) explored post-remediation performance in college courses in a sample of 6,000 students at 150 institutions. The study used data from college transcripts to determine success in remedial courses and subsequent progress in college-level courses.
The results are presented in Table 2.
As noted in Table 2, students who completed their remedial courses with a grade of C or better were very likely to pass their first college-level course in the
same or a related subject. Of those who passed remedial mathematics, 77.2% also
passed their first college-level mathematics course. Of those who passed remedial
Table 2
Percentage of Students Taking Remedial Courses Who Passed Their First
College-level Course in the Same or a Related Subject
Subject Area |
Percent Passing Remedial and Subsequent College-Level Courses |
Remedial/College Math
|
77.2%
|
Remedial/College English
|
91.2%
|
Remedial/College Reading |
83.0%
|
Note: A grade of C was considered passing for
remedial courses. A grade of D was
considered passing for college-level courses.
College English courses were used as the post-remediation course for
remedial reading.
English, 91.1% passed their first college-level English course. Of those who passed remedial reading, 83% passed their first college English course.
It should be noted that this study aggregated results on post-remediation success rates from both universities and community colleges. Two-year colleges comprised roughly 50% of the sample of institutions and since they tended to have larger numbers of students participating in remediation, the resulting statistics were heavily weighted in favor of community colleges. It should also be noted that, in order to be counted in these figures, students had to complete their remedial course with a C or better and have enrolled in a college-level course in the same or related subject.
In spite of these limitations, the findings of this study were confirmed by other statewide studies of post-remediation performance in college-level courses. A Maryland study of post-remediation pass rates in college-level courses found that 80% of community college students who passed remedial mathematics also passed their first college-level mathematics course. The study also found that 81% of those who passed remedial English also passed college-level English (Maryland Higher Education Commission, 1996).
The Maryland (1996) study also compared the post-remediation pass rates in mathematics and English with those of all students taking these courses in Maryland community colleges. The comparison indicated that those who passed the highest level remedial course in a given subject area were only 4% less likely to pass the college-level course in that subject than the general community college population.
A study of remediation in Minnesota community colleges also found that students who completed remedial courses had high rates of success in college-level courses. The pass rates in college-level mathematics and English courses of students completing remediation were as high or higher, depending upon the institution, than those who were not required to participate in remediation (Schoenecker, 1996).
A study of post-remediation pass rates in Texas community colleges also found that those who successfully complete remediation were very likely to pass college-level courses in the same subject area. Between 75% and 85% of those who passed remedial courses in English or mathematics and took college-level English or mathematics within the next year also passed their first college-level courses in these subjects (Boylan & Saxon, 1998).
The results of all these studies were fairly consistent. In summary, about 80% of those who completed remediation with a C or better passed their first college-level course in English or mathematics.
It should be noted, however, that not all of those who pass remedial courses actually took college-level courses in comparable subject areas. An Illinois study, for instance, reported that only 64% of those who completed remedial English and reading in the Fall of 1996 actually completed their first college-level courses in those subjects within a year. Of those who completed remedial mathematics, only 41% went on to pass any college-level mathematics course within one year (Gutierrez & Gonzales, 1997).
In studying post-remediation pass rates in college-level courses it is important to bear in mind that many of those who successfully complete remediation may drop out before enrolling in credit courses or they may postpone taking college-level courses. Also, many students participating in remediation are not enrolled in programs requiring them to take college transfer level courses.
In a system-wide study of 21 Minnesota community colleges, Shoenecker and others (1996) compared the GPAs of those students who placed in remediation and took remedial courses with the GPAs of those who placed in these courses and did not take them. They found that the cumulative GPAs of students who took remedial courses were significantly higher than those students who placed into but did not take them. However, the cumulative GPAs of those who took remedial courses were still somewhat lower than those who did not need remediation in the first place (Shoenecker, 1996).
A study conducted by the U.S. General Accounting Office (1997) concluded that, at most institutions, the cumulative GPA of those who participated in remedial courses was lower than those who were not required to participate in remediation. The reported differences, however, were less than one-half of a letter grade.
Chen and Cheng (1999) examined the grades of remedial and nonremedial students in a representative sample of 1,334 freshmen students entering the City University of New York in 1992 and continuing through 1998. They reported that the cumulative GPAs of students who completed remediation were somewhat lower than those of students who were not required to participate in remediation. They also found that the GPAs of those who needed remediation and completed it were considerably higher than those who needed remediation but did not complete it.
A Maryland study of the GPAs of community college students indicated that those who participated in remedial courses had first year GPAs that were about .4 lower (2.30 versus 1.90) than students who did not require remediation. This study also found that the more remedial courses students required, the lower their first year GPA (Maryland Higher Education Commission, 1996). This data is consistent with the research of Adelman (1995) who found that the more remedial courses students needed, the lower their GPAs and the poorer their chances for success in college.
Furthermore, according to Boylan, Bonham, Claxton, and Bliss (1992), these differences became smaller as both groups of students continued through their college years. In the Chen and Cheng (1999) study reported earlier, the differences in GPA between remedial and non-remedial students also tended to decrease over time. In fact, as Chen and Cheng pointed out, “in their fifth year of study the difference was actually reversed, with the remedial group having a higher average GPA than the nonremedial group” (p. 12).
The evidence on the post-remediation GPAs of remedial students is fairly clear. The research indicates that those students who place in remediation and participate in remedial courses at community colleges earn higher cumulative GPAs than those who place in remediation but do not participate in it. The research also indicates that those who take remedial courses have somewhat lower cumulative GPAs than those who are exempt from remediation. However, the differences in GPA between these two groups tends to decline over time.
The extent to which those students who participate in remedial courses are retained over time is another popular measure of the outcomes of remediation. It should be noted at the outset that it is not the purpose of remedial courses to promote student retention. The purpose of these courses is to teach students the basic skills necessary to pass college-level courses. If remedial courses are successful in doing this, some increased retention might, indeed, be an expected result. However, student retention or attrition is usually a function of a variety of complex variables. Academic requirements in general and remedial courses in particular are but one among a vast array of variables affecting student retention (Tinto, 1986). Although measuring the outcomes of remediation using retention as a yardstick is not an uncommon practice, it is also a measurement that should be interpreted with caution.
While
student retention has been a relatively popular measure for the evaluation of
remedial courses and programs, the vast majority of studies using this measure
have reported on very small samples of students. Only a handful of reports have employed either large-sample
studies or major reviews of the literature.
Nevertheless, the findings of these studies have been remarkably
consistent.
Kulik, Kulik, and Schwalb (1983) reported that those who participated in remediation were retained at higher levels than the general student population at colleges and universities. Boylan (1983) found that students who took remedial courses were more likely to be retained than comparable groups of students who did not participate in remediation at both 2-year and 4-year institutions.
The
National Study of Developmental Education (Boylan, Bonham, Claxton, &
Bliss, 1992) reported that about 24% of those who participated in community
college remediation had either graduated or were still in school four years
later. These rates of retention or
graduation were higher than the overall rates reported during the same period
for community colleges participating in the study. They were also higher than the 22% retention and completion rate
after four years for all community college students as reported by the National
Center for Education Statistics (1996a).
A statewide study of remediation in Minnesota community colleges found that students who participated in remedial courses were more likely to be retained for one year than students who placed into remediation but did not participate. The study also found that those who completed remedial courses had higher rates of retention than those who were considered college ready (Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, 1996). This finding was consistent for practically all Minnesota community colleges.
A longitudinal study of persistence in a suburban midwestern community college indicated that students who took remedial courses were more likely to be retained over a 12-month period than those who did not take remedial courses (Campbell & Blakey, 1996). This study also found that taking remedial courses in the first semester of enrollment was also highly correlated with retention. The importance of early participation in remediation was also echoed in studies reported by Kulik and Kulik (1991), Boylan, Bonham, Claxton, and Bliss (1992), and Roueche and Roueche (1999).
The National Center for Education Statistics (1996) also studied the retention of those participating in remedial courses using a different methodology than most other studies. In this study, a survey of a representative sample of colleges and universities was used to identify whether retention was considered to be “high,” “medium,” or “low” for all students and for those who enrolled in remedial courses. In other words, respondents were asked to compare the retention rates of remedial students to the retention rates of all students attending the institution. High rates were considered to be 75% to 100% retention from first to second year. Medium rates were considered to be 50% to 74% from first to second year. Low rates were considered to be 1% to 49% from first to second year.
An equal number of
institutions (53%) reported a medium rate of year-to-year retention for both
remedial and all first year students.
However, only 23% of the institutions reported high rates of retention
for remedial students, but 32% of the institutions surveyed reported high rates
of retention for all students.
Conversely, 24% of responding institutions reported low rates of
retention for remedial students, but only 15% of respondents reported low rates
of retention for all students (National Center for Education Statistics,
1996b). This
study did not provide data to indicate whether those institutions reporting
high or low rates of retention for participants in remedial courses were
community colleges or universities.
Because of this, it was difficult to determine the study’s meaning for
community college remediation.
The National Center for Education Statistics report notwithstanding, the available evidence suggests that students who participate in remediation are likely to be retained at rates at least as high and frequently higher than those who do not. This finding has been fairly consistent in all studies conducted since 1983.
A high percentage (90%), of those who actually complete remedial courses at community colleges tend to finish their remedial requirements within one year. However, there is a high dropout rate in these courses. An unknown number but perhaps as many as 40% of those taking remedial courses do not complete the courses, and consequently, do not complete remediation within one year.
As Grubb points out “The dropout rates from remedial courses need more investigation. While it's plausible that dreary teaching is the reason, the difficult lives of many community college students – including financial problems, child care problems, transportation problems, other family problems including abusive spouses and boyfriends, and the pervasive indecision of experimenting and uncommitted students – surely play important roles” (Grubb, 1998, p. 22).
The question of how long it takes for students to complete remediation is, therefore, a complicated one. For those who successfully complete their remedial courses early in their academic careers, it takes only a modest amount of time to fulfill remedial requirements, usually less than one year. On the other hand, for those who fail to finish their remedial courses or dropout of school before completing them, it may take considerably longer than 12 months to complete remedial requirements. Furthermore, students who require combinations of remediation in English and reading, or English, reading, and mathematics have a lower chance of completing their remedial requirements at all. They also tend to have low GPAs, and are least likely to be retained (Adelman, 1995).
Nevertheless, for those who successfully complete remediation, the rewards are many. Although those who take remedial courses in community colleges tend to have lower cumulative GPAs than the general community college population, the differences between their GPAs and that of other students tend to be slight, not statistically significant, and decreasing over time. On the other hand, the research is quite consistent in demonstrating that those who are assessed as needing and who participatie in remediation have substantially higher GPAs than those who need, but do not participate in it.
The research also consistently indicates that those who complete remedial courses in English or mathematics are very likely to pass their first college-level courses in those subjects. This, in turn, probably makes a postive contribution to their academic self concept and may be linked to improved attitudes about learning (Bloom 1976).
In practically all studies of the outcomes of remediation, those who complete it successfully it had cumulative GPAs of 2.0 or better. Because a 2.0 GPA is the standard required for certification or graduation in community colleges, remediation can, at the very least, be associated with success in community college programs.
The research further suggests that participation in remediation is also linked to student persistence in the community college. Students who successfully complete remediation are not only retained at rates comparable to better prepared students, they are frequently retained at higher rates.
The fact that remedial students do as well as they do in the regular college curriculum, and are frequently retained at rates higher than their better prepared peers, is commendable. Such measures, however, ignore even more important issues.
As McCabe and Day (1998) point out, the difference between having a work force of former community college students who are able to read, write, and calculate, and those who cannot, has immeasurable economic consequences for the nation. Furthermore, remediation of academic deficiencies, whatever their origin, is an essential component of postsecondary educational opportunity. As Lavin and Hyllegard (1996) note, the opportunity for underprepared students, many of whom are also socially or economically disadvantaged, to receive an Associate Degree or vocational or technical certification from a community college represents the promise that has historically been a part of American life. Without this promise and without the opportunities represented through remediation, the long standing social contract between the United States and its least powerful citizens is violated. There are, unfortunately, a variety of outcomes of remediation that are not adequately examined or measured by scholars. These, however, may well be the most important ones.
Adelman, C. (1995). The new college course map and transcript files: Changes in course taking and achievement, 1972-1993. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education.
Bloom, B. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Boylan, H. (1983). Developmental Education: An analysis of the literature. Chicago, IL: National Association for Remedial/Developmental Studies in Postsecondary Education.
Boylan, H., Bonham, B., Claxton, C., Bliss, L. (1992, November 13). The state of the art in developmental education: Report of a national study. Paper presented at the First National Conference on Research in Developmental Education, Charlotte, North Carolina.
Boylan, H., & Bonham, B. (1992). The impact of developmental education programs. Research in Developmental Education, 9(5), 1-4.
Boylan, H., & Saxon, P. (1998). An evaluation of developmental education in Texas colleges and universities. Austin, TX: Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.
Campbell, J., & Blakey, L. (1996, May). Assessing the impact of early remediation in persistence and performance of underprepared community college students. Paper presented at the 36th Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Albuquerque, NM.
Chen, S., & Cheng, D. (1999, June). Remedial education and grading: A case study approach to two critical issues in American higher education. New York, NY: The Research Foundation of the City University of New York.
Grubb, N. (1998, January 25). From black box to Pandora’s box: Evaluating remedial/developmental education. Paper presented at the Conference on Replacing Remediation in Higher Education, Palo Alto, California, Stanford University.
Gutierrez, A., & Gonzales, C. (1997). Profiles of students taking remedial education courses in the fall 1996. Chicago, IL: Chicago City Colleges, Office of Planning and Research.
Kulik, J., & Kulik, C-L. (1991). Developmental instruction: An analysis of the research. Boone, NC: National Center for Developmental Education.
Kulik, C.-L., Kulik, J., & Schwalb, B. (1983). College programs for high-risk and disadvantaged students: A meta-analysis of findings. Review of Educational Research, 53, 397-414.
Lavin, D. & Hyllegard, D. (1996). Changing the odds: Open admission and the life changes of the disadvantaged. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Maryland Higher Education Commission (1996, May). A study of remedial Education at Maryland Public Campuses. Annapolis, MD: Maryland Higher Education Commission.
Maxwell, M. (1997). Improving student learning skills. Clearwater, FL: H & H Publishing.
McCabe, R., & Day, P. (1998). Developmental education: A twenty first century social and economic imperative. Mission Viejo, CA: Learning for Innovation in the Community College.
Minnesota State Colleges and Universities. (1996, May) Developmental education outcomes at Minnesota community colleges. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota State Colleges and Universities.
Morain Valley Community College, Office of Institutional Research. (1996). Remedial students from summer 90 to spring 93 – Follow-up through spring 96. Palos Hills, IL: Author.
National Center for Education
Statistics. (1996a). The
condition of education: 1996.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1996b). Remedial Education at Higher Education Institutions in Fall, 1995). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
O’Hear, M., & MacDonald, R. (1995). A critical review of research in developmental education, Part 1. Journal of Developmental Education, 19(2), 2-6.
Roueche, J., & Roueche, S. (1999). High stakes, high performance: Making remedial education work. Washington, DC: Community College Press.
Schoenecker, C. (1996, May). Developmental education outcomes at Minnesota community colleges. Paper presented at the 36th Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Albuquerque, NM.
Tinto, V. (1986). Leaving college: Understanding the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
U.S. General Accounting Office (1997, August). Student financial aid: Federal aid awarded to students taking remedial courses. Washington, DC: U. S. General Accounting Office, Division of Health, Education, and Human Services.