Characteristics of Community College Remedial Students

 Prepared for The League for Innovation in the Community College

 

by D. Patrick Saxon and Hunter R. Boylan

National Center for Developmental Education

 

In the literature, remedial students are also known as at-risk, underprepared, low-achieving, developmental, disadvantaged, non-traditional, and skill-deficient.  There are many political and social forces at work that limit their higher education access.  The cost of delivering learning assistance and instruction to them is now under legislative scrutiny in many states.  Yet research as reported in the literature shows them to be quite successful, even in the face of these pressures.  Who are these students?  The literature describes them as a segment of society getting left behind in a growing service and technology-oriented economy.  It suggests that they have experienced financial hardship and are now seeking a better standard of living.  And it shows that they are quite a significant portion of the community college student population (McCabe & Day, 1998).

It is widely agreed upon that academically underprepared students have represented a major population in the American community college for decades.  Currently there are estimates that 40% of first-time students entering the average community colleges are underprepared for college-level work (National Center for Educational Statistics, 1996).  This figure approaches 70% at some community colleges for particular subjects (McCabe, n.d; Roueche & Roueche, 1999).  And there is speculation that the societal trends of today may even increase the numbers of these students in the future.  For example, the largest growth areas in the population now are the ethnic minority groups.  African-American and Hispanic students are already overrepresented (relative to their representation in higher education) in remedial programs and it is expected that these numbers will continue to grow along with their increased participation in higher education. 

It is also well-documented, if not natural to assume, that poverty correlates strongly with academic underpreparedness (Lavin & Hyllegard, 1996; McCabe & Day, 1998).  The relatively high poverty rate maintained in America perpetuates itself as the most common barrier to education attainment.  For these reasons and others, significant numbers of academically underprepared students will continue to enter the doors of higher education; and community colleges will, for the most part, provide the gateway.  Remedial students, as a whole, will constitute a diverse population; however, they will possess some commonalities and similar educational needs.  This study examines the common characteristics of these students.

Methods

The research examined in this study was collected by the following methods:

a.  searches of the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) and ERIC Document Reproduction Service databases,

b.  searches of the literature in the National Center for Developmental Education Resource Library,

c.  searches of the WebSPIRS Silver Platter Psychlit databases,

d.  searches of the Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company  dissertation abstracts,

e.  reviews of the reference lists from articles collected in the literature search process,

f.  informal consultation with nationally recognized experts in the field, and

g.  searches of the LEXIS-NEXUS Academic Universe database of news media,

A total of 18 studies were identified and reviewed.  About half of the studies were national in scope, however only four were based on primary data (Boylan, Bonham, & Bliss, 1994; Knopp, 1996; National Center for Education Statistics, 1996; Thompson, 1998).  Three were regional and each of these reported on primary data (Inman & Mayes, 1999; Ley & Young, 1998a; Ley & Young, 1998b).  Four were statewide, three of which reported on primary data (McCabe, n.d.; Schoenecker, Bollman, & Evens, 1996; The Florida House of Representatives, 1996).  In addition, two books addressed remedial student characteristic along with other issues (Roueche, 1968; Roueche & Roueche, 1999).  The remainder included campus-based studies (Reed, Makarem, Wadsworth & Shaughnessy, 1994; Sedlacek, 1987; Shaughnessy & Moore, 1994).  The literature was reviewed with the intent of examining what prevailing demographic, social, and personal characteristics describe the community college remedial student.  Findings in each of these categories were then summarized and described in the following tables and text.

Findings

Demographic Profile

Although the few studies that addressed gender varied in scope and size, they reported similar findings.  The percentage of female students that participated in community college remediation was moderately higher than that of males.  Females accounted for about 53% to 57% of the total students needing remediation (Boylan, Bonham, & Bliss, 1994; Knopp, 1996)[1].   These findings were consistent with first-time community college enrollees in general (The Florida House of Representatives, 1996).

According to one national study the average age of community college remedial students is 23 (Boylan, Bonham, & Bliss, 1994).  More specifically, 59% of students in the study were under the age of 24, 24% were between the ages of 25 and 34, and 17% were over age 35 (Knopp, 1996).  These data were similar in comparison to the total community college population as reported in statewide data (Shoenecker, Bollman, & Evens, 1996).

The majority of students who participated in remediation at community colleges were White.  Nationally based studies suggested that White students accounted for about 67% of remedial students.  African-American remedial students were 23% and Hispanic remedial students were 6% of the population.  Some smaller groups included Asians and American Indians who made up 3% and 1% of remedial students respectively (Boylan, Bonham, & Bliss, 1994).  These data were supported, with only slight variances, by other studies (Knopp, 1996; Change, 1999).  It was also mentioned regularly in the literature that minorities were represented disproportionately in remedial education.  Minorities represented about 9% of America’s college students, but they accounted for 23% of the remedial population (Boylan, Bonham, & Bliss, 1994).  However, the data showed that White students were still receiving the greatest share of remedial education services.

Nearly one in four remedial students were married.  National studies reported that married students accounted for 22% to 28% of the population (Boylan, Bonham, & Bliss, 1994; Knopp, 1996).

Only one national study examined the financial status of community college remedial students.  In this study, slightly more than half (51%) of the students reported that they were financially independent.  Fifty-four percent of financially independent students reported annual family incomes of less than $20,000[2] (Knopp, 1996).  Although no other studies provided actual income data, some did cite low socioeconomic status as a common characteristic of remedial students (Lavin & Hyllegard, 1996; McCabe & Day, 1998; Roueche & Roueche, 1999).  It was reported that students taking remedial classes were more likely to come from families with low annual incomes than their counterparts who did not take remedial classes (Knopp, 1996).

 Military service veterans accounted for 7% of community college remedial students.  Students with physical disabilities represented 10%.  (Knopp, 1996; The Florida House of Representatives, 1996). 

A summarization of the demographic characteristics of community college remedial students as reported in the reviewed literature is presented in Table 1. 

Table 1

Demographic Characteristics of Community College Remedial Students

 

                   Gender*

                                Female                            55%

                                Male                               45%

Average Age                           24

Race

                                    White                               67%

African-American             23%

Hispanic                            6%

Asian                                 3%

American Indian                 1%

Married*                                      25%

Income less than $20,000             54%

        

* Note:  An average of all studies reporting

Academic Profile

The mean cumulative high school grade point average (GPA) of entering community college remedial students was 2.40.  A national study tracked the performance of students participating in community college remediation during a 3 ˝-year time frame.  Their mean cumulative college GPA upon completion or departure was 2.28.  These data, however, reflected grades received in college-level classes as well as remedial classes (Boylan, Bonham, & Bliss 1994).  The impact of grades obtained in remedial courses on overall GPA, however, was considered by the researchers to be slight.  

Though it was suggested that Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores were typically not required for entry into community colleges, it was mentioned that less than 2% of remedial students had SAT total scores of 900 or more (Boylan, Bonham, & Bliss, 1994).  Fifty percent of remedial students scored 800 or lower on the SAT (Knopp, 1996).  One local study also suggested that as many as 72% of entering students tested academically deficient in one or more subject areas (McCabe, n.d.). 

A summarization of the academic profile of community college remedial students as reported in the reviewed literature is presented in Table 2.

Table 2

Academic Profile of Community College Remedial Students

 

                   Average High School GPA          2.40

                   Average College GPA*               2.28

       SAT of 800 or less                     50%

*Note:  Reflects grades received in remedial and college-level classes

Enrollment status

There were conflicting reports on student course load.  National data suggested that 68% percent of remedial students were enrolled full time (Boylan, Bonham, & Bliss, 1994), however a local-level study reported that (of the students in their study) "the majority attend part-time" (McCabe, n.d.).  However, very few community college students are residential.  Due to the small number of community colleges maintaining residence facilities, only 6% of remedial students lived in campus housing (Boylan, Bonham, & Bliss, 1994). 

Most of the students participating in remediation were enrolled with the intent of obtaining a degree.  Two national studies showed that between 77% and 90%[3] of remedial students declared themselves as degree seeking.

Financial aid recipients comprised about 40% of community college remedial students (Boylan, Bonham, & Bliss, 1994; Knopp 1996).  This was slightly lower than the total community college student population that received financial aid, which was reported to be 44.5% (Boylan, Bonham, Bliss, 1994). 

A summarization of the enrollment status of community college remedial students as reported in the reviewed literature is presented in Table 3.

Table 3

Enrollment Status of Community College Remedial Students

             

Full-Time Students                    68%

Residential Students                     6% 

Degree-Seeking*                       83%

          Financial Aid Recipients             40%        

*Note:  Average based on all studies reporting

Noncognitive Characteristics Profile

 

It should be noted that the overall research base on noncognitive characteristics of community college remedial students was quite limited.  It was mentioned sporadically though, that remedial students typically appeared to be properly motivated for college work (McCabe, n.d).  One study concluded that remedial students’ level of motivation is similar to that of regularly admitted students (Ley &Young 1998a). 

          There was some evidence, however, that remedial students’ self-regulated learning behaviors were lacking.  Using data from the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory, Ley & Young (1998b) found that remedial students used fewer self-regulation strategies and used them less frequently than non-remedial students.  It was also indicated that remedial students were typically uncertain about their goals and had low self-efficacy toward some academic tasks (Thompson, 1998).

    Many references also suggested significant numbers of community college remedial students were the first in their family to attend college (Roueche, 1968; Roueche & Roueche, 1999).  In a study that focused specifically on remedial mathematics students, it was concluded that the older the student, the smaller the likelihood that their parents had a college education (Umoh & Eddy, 1994).  The research on first-generation community college students reported findings similar to those for remedial students.  These students typically came from poorer families, were more likely to be female and older, but were as able to succeed in college as second and third generation college students (Inman & Mayes, 1999).

A few studies addressed issues such as cognitive ability and psychosocial development in remedial students.  But these examined only small samples of 4-year college students.  Some conclusions that were drawn here stated that remedial students lacked the academic aptitude, higher order and, particularly, critical thinking skills necessary to survive in college without intensive assessment, counseling, and other learning assistance services (Reed, Makarem, Wadsworth, & Shaughnessy, 1994; Shaughnessy & Moore, 1994).  This finding was consistent with the work of Weinstein, Dierkling, Husman, Roska, and Powdrill (1998).

Discussion

Although there are a few national and regional studies that address a wide range of student characteristics, research in the area of remedial student characteristics is lacking.  As previously mentioned, there is little research on the affective characteristics of community college remedial students.  Sedlacek (1987) has concluded that certain noncognitive characteristics having little to do with academic skill are strongly associated with minority students’ success at predominantly White colleges.  This area of study may be applicable to community college remedial students as well.  References to these variables and their significance to remedial students are noted in the literature, but there is no empirical research being conducted in this area.

The cross-referencing of findings is also common among this literature.  Therefore, upon first glance, the research activity here may be misconstrued as being more widespread than it actually is.  The research also has limitations with regard to its timeliness and methodology; the most current national data identified in the literature comes from the early to mid-1990s.  And many of the local studies in this field are based on small sample sizes and do not appear to be undertaken with the goal of being systematically updated.  Research based on more current data and improved methodology would help to further validate this area of study. 

Nonetheless, the available research shows the following about remedial students at community colleges:

-   there is a slightly higher proportion of females;

-   they are about 23 years old;                                                   

-   they are White;

-   they are single;

-   they provide for themselves financially;

-   they live and educate themselves on less than $20,000 a year;

-   their high school grades, standardized test scores, and financial condition are sufficiently low that their access to and opportunity in higher education is limited;

-   they commute;

-   they attend college full-time;

-   they claim to be seeking degrees;

-   they typically do not receive financial aid;

-   they are motivated for college work, but possess low self-efficacy.

The research does point out some similarities across the remedial student population; however, it should not be assumed that remedial students can be typified in any particular way.  Boylan, Bonham, and Bliss (1994) point out:

 

There is really no such thing as the “typical”

(remedial) student.  They range in age from 16 to

55.  Some are financially disadvantaged and some

are quite wealthy.  Most are white but a large

percentage are African-American or Latino.  Some

are married and some are single.  Most have low

high school grades and SAT scores and some are

well above average in both categories.  In fact, it is

the very diversity of (remedial) students that is,

perhaps, most interesting.  (p. 3)

 

In essence, students participating in community college remedial courses are very much like most other community college students.  There are no demographic, economic, or personal characteristics in which they differ significantly from the typical community college student.  The only factor that appears to separate them from non-remedial students is that they have lower scores on institutional assessment tests. 

References

Boylan, H. R., Bonham, B. S., & Bliss, L. B.  (1994).  Who are the developmental students?  Research in Developmental Education, 11(2).

 

Change.  (1999, January/February).  Raising the bar in developmental education.  Change, 31(1), 57-60.

        

Inman, W. E., & Mayes, L.  (1999, Spring).  The importance of being first:  Unique characteristics of first generation community college students.

Community College Review, 26(4), 3-19.

        

Knopp, L.  (1996).  Remedial education: An undergraduate student profile.  American Council on Education, Research Briefs, 6(8), 1-11.

        

            Lavin, D., & Hyllegard, D. (1996).  Changing the odds:  Open admissions and the life changes of the disadvantaged.  New Haven, CT:  Yale University Press.

 

Ley, K., & Young, D. B.  (1998a).  Motivation in developmental and regular regular admission college students.  Research and Teaching in Developmental Education, 14(2), 29-38.

        

Ley, K., & Young, D. B.  (1998b).  Self-regulation behaviors in underprepared (developmental) and regular admission college students.  Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 42-64.

    

McCabe, R. H.  (no date given).  Remedial education in Florida’s community colleges:  Cost effective for Floridians.  Miami, FL:  Miami-Dade Community College.

        

McCabe, R. H., & Day, P.R., Jr. (Eds.).  (1998).  Developmental education: A twenty-first century social and economic imperative.  Mission Viejo, CA:  League for Innovation in the Community College, The College Board.

 

National Center for Educational Statistics.  (1996).  Remedial education at higher education institutions in fall 1995 (Report No. NCES 97-584).  Washington, DC.

 

Reed, T., Makarem, K., Wadsworth, T., & Shaughnessy, M. F.  (1994).  Intellectual and psychosocial status of remedial students.  Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78, 249-250.

        

Roueche, J. E.  (1968).  Salvage, redirection, or custody?  Remedial education in the community junior college.  Washington, DC:  American Association of Junior Colleges.

        

Roueche, J. E., & Roueche, S. D. (1999).  High stakes, high performance:  Making remedial education work.  Washington, DC:  Community College Press.

        

Schoenecker, C., Bollman, L., & Evens, J. (1996, May).  Developmental education outcomes at Minnesota community colleges.  Paper presented at the Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional

Research.  (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 397 712)

        

Sedlacek, W.  (1987).  Black students on White campuses:  20 years of research.  Journal of College Student Personnel, 24(1), 484-495.

 

Shaughnessy, M. F., & Moore, J. N.  (1994, October).  The KAIT with developmental students, honor students, and freshmen. Psychology in the Schools, 31, 286-287.

        

The Florida House of Representatives.  (1996).  An analysis of postsecondary student preparedness and remedial education needs.  A joint interim project of the Committee on Higher Education and the Committee on Education.  (Report No. RR-96-O1).  Washington, DC:  U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.396 633)

        

Thompson, J. M.  (1998).  Developmental students in higher education:  Path analysis of a national sample.  College Student Journal, 32(4), 499-510.

        

Umoh, U. J., & Eddy, J. (1994). Factors related to student retention in community college developmental education mathematics.  Community College Review, 22(2), 37-47.

 

Weinstein, C.E., Dierking, D., Husman, J., Roska, L. & Powdrill, L.  (1998). The impact of a course on strategic learning on long term retention of college students.  In J. Higbee & P. Dwinell (Eds.), Developmental education:  Preparing successful college students (pp. 85-96).  Columbia, SC:  National Research Center for the First Year Experience and Students in Transition.

[1] The study conducted by Knopp (1996) grouped 2 and 4-year students in the analysis.

[2]Non-remedial students were also included in these numbers.

[3] Associate Arts degree seekers and non-degree students were grouped together and accounted for 14% of  the sample.