Affirmation
and Discovery: Learning from Successful
Community College Developmental Programs in
By Hunter R. Boylan & D. Patrick Saxon
Introduction
The State of
In 1987 the state legislature established the Texas Academic Skills Program, probably the most advanced developmental education system in the country at that time. This program required that:
Along
with these features, the TASP also included comprehensive reporting, data
collection, analysis, and feedback procedures.
At each campus a “TASP Liaison” officer was appointed who monitored
student performance and insured that the campus program complied with state
requirements.
The TASP remained in effect until 2003 when it
was eliminated by the Texas Legislature.
At that time, the TASP was replaced by the Texas Success Initiative, a
program requiring all
In addition to providing courses and
services, the evaluation of developmental education has also been a priority in
It has now been seven years since
the last external study of
The purpose of the study was
threefold:
·
to
affirm best practices in
·
to
discover promising practices in
·
to
learn how assessment and placement is done at community colleges that have been
successful in developmental education.
These purposes are consistent with the title of
this report “Affirmation and discovery: Learning from successful community
college developmental education programs in
Section Two
For the time period
under consideration (2000-2003), the measure most commonly used by the State of
Institutions were selected
to include rural, urban, and suburban colleges and both community and technical
colleges. The major ethnic groups represented
in the study included White, African-American, and Latino.
Using data from the
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, 10 institutions were selected with
the highest post-developmental education TASP pass rates generally and by
subject area. A tally was then compiled
to determine the number of times a particular institution appeared on the list
from 1999 to 2003. This is shown in
Table 1.
|
Table 1 Tally of Institutions |
|
|
Institution |
Tally |
|
Lamar Institute of Technology |
6 |
|
South Plains College |
5 |
|
Wharton County Junior College |
4 |
|
Alamo CCD NW Vista College |
4 |
|
Grayson County College |
4 |
|
North Central Texas College |
4 |
|
Temple College |
4 |
|
Weatherford College |
4 |
|
Texarkana College |
4 |
|
Midland College |
4 |
For the institutions
that were represented more frequently, a final list was selected based on considerations
such as location, size, and student ethnic diversity. Given these criteria, the following
institutions were selected: Lamar
Institute of Technology (Beaumont), Northwest Vista College (San Antonio),
South Plains College (Levelland), Temple College (Temple), and Texarkana
College (Texarkana).[1] A detailed discussion of each institution’s
inclusion in the study follows.
Lamar Institute of Technology
Lamar
Institute of Technology ranked seventh in 2001, twelfth in 2002, and fifth in
2003 in first year TASP completions following remediation. They also ranked fifth in writing, seventh in
mathematics, and seventh overall in TASP retake attempt pass rates for the
academic year 1999-2000.
The College has a technical mission focus and represents the eastern most section of the state. Forty-four percent of the students enrolled at Lamar Institute of Technology are ethnic minorities.
Northwest Vista College
This institution is
a comprehensive community college located in southern Texas. It was designated as urban because it is
located within the San Antonio City Limits.
Fifty-three percent of those attending Northwest Vista are ethnic
minorities.
South Plains College
South Plains College
ranked 11th in 2002 and 9th in 2003 in first year TASP
completions following remediation. It
ranked ninth in writing, sixth in mathematics, and fifth overall in TASP test
retake attempt pass rates for the academic year 1999-2000.
South Plains is a
comprehensive community college. It
represents moderate to large size institutions and is located in Northwestern Texas. Twenty-nine percent of South Plains Students
are ethnic minorities.
Temple College
Temple College
ranked 11th in 2003 in first year TASP completions following
remediation. It also ranked 12th
in mathematics, 5th in reading, and 4th overall in TASP
retake attempt pass rates for the academic year 1999-2000.
Temple College is a
relatively small comprehensive community college located in central Texas just
outside of Waco. Thirty percent of its
students are ethnic minorities.
Texarkana College
Texarkana
College ranked eighth in 2001 and ninth in 2002 and fourth in 2003 in first
year TASP completions following remediation.
It also ranked eighth in mathematics in TASP retake attempt pass rates
for the academic year 1999-2000.
Texarkana College is
a comprehensive community college. It is
a relatively small institution located in northeastern Texas. Nineteen percent of its students are ethnic
minorities.
Site Visit Methodology
Upon identification of potential exemplary programs, personal contact
was made with administrators of these programs to clarify what was found in the
review of the THECB reports and to make arrangements for site visits. A letter was sent to each college president
explaining the study and soliciting their participation (see APPENDIX 1). Telephone contact was then made with the
president of each college. Following
initial contact, a listing of administrators and faculty to be interviewed was
provided (see APPENDIX 2). The president
of each college or someone designated by the president made arrangements for
these individuals to be available for interviews during the site visitation.
Two researchers from
the National Center for Developmental Education were sent to each institution
to conduct the interviews. For purposes
of consistency, the same two individuals (Dr. Hunter R. Boylan, Director of the
National Center and Mr. D. Patrick Saxon, Assistant Director for Research and
Services) made all five site visits.
The data were collected
through note taking and audio recording of the interview sessions. Information was collected by meeting with
developmental program administrators, faculty, and staff. The visitation team also met with the
presidents and deans of instruction at each campus.
A series of structured
questions were used to guide the interview process. This document was entitled “Questions for
Texas Site Visits” (see APPENDIX 3). It
was compiled from a series of program evaluation questionnaires that were developed
from past National Center for Developmental Education research studies with
additional questions included that were intended to be specific to Texas
institutions. This document offered
general structure and guidance to the interview process, yet allowed for
flexibility to examine particular areas of interest that may have been
identified during the interview process.
Some of the broad topics that were investigated included the
organization and administration of the program, program structure and
components, and instructional practices.
The notes and
recordings from the interview process were reviewed by research staff to
identify common patterns of activity that appeared to contribute to positive developmental
education outcomes. During the site
visits, program brochures, evaluation reports, and other information were
collected. Program administrators were
also contacted by telephone and email to collect additional information
following site visits.
Limitations
Measures of Success
The
measure of developmental program success employed for this study may be
considered narrow and, to some extent, obsolete. During the observed time period (2000-2003),
developmental program success in Texas was defined by student success at
passing the TASP test. There are many
other measures of program success that were not considered. Therefore, one cannot ascertain with
certainty if the programs identified are truly outstanding in all facets of
developmental education. We can only say that they ranked in the top
percentiles of students’ post-developmental TASP test pass rates.
Changes in Assessment and Delivery Practices
Also, during the
time data was collected, the TASP was a required assessment for program
completion; that is no longer the case.
Institutions now have a choice whether to use the Texas Higher Education
Assessment (THEA, formerly the TASP) or some other assessment instrument. Since institutions have been offered the
flexibility to change their student assessment and developmental education
delivery practices, program performance may have been altered, for better or
worse, since the time period under investigation. In most cases, however, it was the consensus
of both the researchers and those interviewed that few major changes had taken
place in developmental education delivery at these institutions during the past
five years.
Self-Reported Data
The limitation of
self-reported data is also inherent in this study. The interviewees may have exhibited bias in
their opinions or they may have provided incomplete information,
misinterpretations, or inaccuracies in their reporting. It is hoped that by interviewing several
professionals associated with the programs examined in this study that this
limitation was minimized.
Sample Size
A combination of financial and time constraints
limited the number of institutional site visitations to five. The small number of case studies that
resulted from this study limited the scope of the findings. However, this sample is consistent with other
published studies of community college developmental education (Boylan, Bonham,
Keefe, Drewes, & Saxon, 2004; McCabe & Day, 1998; Roueche & Snow,
1977).
Data Collection Procedures
All data utilized in identifying exemplary institutions were obtained from THECB reports. Whatever limitations exist with regard to their data collection and reporting during the time period under consideration would apply as limitations to this study as well.
Section Three
The
emphasis of this report is on the identification of practices that contribute
to effective developmental education.
Consequently, site visit findings focus on each institution’s
developmental education activities rather than on the institution in general.
The findings of this
report are presented in two categories:
research-based best practices and promising practices. The research-based best practices section
describes the major consistent findings of this study generated from site
visits. These findings meet the
following criteria:
Promising
practices are those not well-grounded in research but, nevertheless, appear to
contribute to program success. There is
a minimal amount of previous research support for some of these practices. There is no previous research to validate
others. However, these practices are
considered by campus faculty and administrators to contribute to effective
developmental education. Promising
practices meet the following criteria:
Research-based best practices
There was remarkable consistency in the organizational patterns,
leadership styles, and support for developmental education encountered at the
institutions studied. Each of the study
institutions had a relatively flat organizational structure. Their administrators expressed considerable
confidence in their faculty, considered them to be professionals, and avoided
micromanaging their efforts. These
administrators also expressed a high degree of commitment to developmental
education and the success of developmental students.
Generally, the key
academic administrative officers at the institutions studied were the
president, the dean of instruction or its equivalent, and three or four
division chairs.[2]
There were few vice presidents or deans
or program directors.
As
a result of this flat organizational pattern, there were fewer layers of
bureaucracy to deal with before one reached the president’s office. At most, a faculty member would have to go
through one level of administration to get a hearing from the dean of
instruction. This contributed to clear
communication from developmental educators to administrators, to faculty
perceptions that their opinions were valued, and to a cooperative work environment.
All of these characteristics have been
cited in the literature as characteristics of successful organizations (Boylan,
Bonham, Keefe, Drewes, & Saxon, 2004).
This flat organizational pattern allowed
administrators to be quite responsive to the needs of developmental
education. As one faculty member put it,
“We know that if we have a serious concern, it will either be addressed or be
on the president’s desk within forty eight hours.” Another stated, “We don’t always get what we
want but we always feel that we’ve had a fair hearing.”
It is possible that
this organizational pattern contributes to successful developmental education
by enabling the concerns of developmental educators to be brought to the
attention of those who can do the most to address those concerns. It is also likely that this pattern allows
key administrators to have a better grasp of the problems and issues confronted
by faculty on the “front line.” Finally,
it is likely that this flat organizational pattern promotes better communication
throughout the institution.
Servant leadership styles
All
the campuses in this study were lead by presidents and vice presidents or deans
whose characteristics exemplified servant leadership as described by Greenleaf
(1991; 1996). These characteristics
included collaboration, trust, listening, and ethical behavior (Greenleaf,
1991). Research indicated that such
leadership characteristics were associated with successful organizations
(Kezar, 1998; Schuetz, 1999).
The leaders of these
institutions emphasized collaboration by working directly with individuals and
groups of faculty members to solve problems.
They considered faculty and staff of the institution to be colleagues as
well as employees. As the president of
one institution stated, “We believe that we get better solutions to our
problems when we work collaboratively.
There are no ‘lone rangers,’ everyone here is part of our team…
including me.”
The leaders of these
institutions listened to what faculty had to say and acted upon it. When questioned about why faculty felt they
had responsive leadership at one institution, a vice president said, “They can
see it in our actions. We usually do
what our faculty recommends, and they can see the results for themselves.”
These leaders also
inspired the trust of faculty and administrators by talking and acting
consistently. Their actions and their
words were consistent. One president was
described by a faculty member as a man who “not just talks the talk but also
walks the walk.”
Strong leadership support
The
characteristics of flat organizational patterns and servant leadership all came
together in support of developmental education at the campuses studied. All of the presidents, vice presidents,
deans, and division chairs indicated that developmental education was a major
priority for the institution. As one
senior administrator stated, “Most of our students are developmental. It would be foolish for us not to see their
needs as a top priority for the college.”
Another said, “We are here to provide developmental education. That’s why we exist.”
As
Robert McCabe points out, “developmental education is one of the most important
services provided by the community college” (2003, p. 13). Apparently the leaders of these campuses
agree with this statement and have acted accordingly. Leadership support is recognized in the
literature as one of the keys to successful developmental education (McCabe
& Day, 1998; McCabe, 2003; Roueche & Roueche, 1999).
At study
institutions, leadership support for developmental education is exemplified by
the following:
These characteristics were consistently found at
the institutions studied. Furthermore,
the leaders of these institutions made it very clear that these characteristics
were present because they valued developmental education.
Required assessment, placement, and advising
Texas
has had a strong commitment to assessment in its colleges and universities since
the late 1980s when it implemented the Texas Academic Skills Program (now known
as the Higher Education Assessment). It
was no surprise, therefore, that all of the institutions visited had
well-organized assessment procedures.
The NES instrument,
THEA, and the ETS instrument, Accuplacer, were the most common assessment
instruments used for initial placement.
It was also interesting to note that every institution in the study also
had some additional assessment, either cognitive or affective, to validate or
improve placement decisions.
Most of the faculty
members interviewed believed that the THEA did the best job of measuring
college level skills. However, they
felt that other instruments were easier to administer. Content from the THEA
was also used at two campuses for exit testing or to validate instructional
objectives.
In addition to
well-organized assessment procedures, the campuses in this study also had
strong advising and placement processes.
During the 1999-2003 period from which data was drawn, each of these
campuses put a great deal of emphasis on personalized student advising. Each entering student at these campuses spent
half an hour or more with an individual advisor before registering for classes. During this time, student scores were
interpreted, educational goals discussed, and options for placement
considered.
Each campus had
written rubrics to guide placement decisions.
Each campus made special efforts to train advisors, particularly with
regard to placement of students in developmental courses. Faculty and administrators generally
considered the training of academic advisors to be an essential feature of
successful developmental courses. As one
administrator stated, “We want all of our advisors to be positive about
placement in developmental education so students understand that it’s an
investment in their success.” The
importance of advisor training is validated by a substantial amount of research
(Boylan, 2002; Casazza & Silverman, 1996; McCabe, 2000; Maxwell, 1997).
Learner centered philosophy of operation
Developmental
educators at each of the study institutions had an intensely learner-centered
philosophy that governed their interactions with students. They were not simply student-centered but
learner-centered. Instructional, policy, and administrative decisions were made
based on the decision’s potential impact on student learning. Decisions ranging from the arrangement of
tables in classrooms to the type of software used in laboratories were made
based on the question, “How will this help or hinder student learning?”
This
philosophy appeared to be pervasive at the study institutions. Faculty interviewed frequently expressed
their commitment to student learning and were able to back this up with
examples of how they put the learner first in making classroom decisions. As one faculty member put it, “We do whatever
is necessary for our students learn.”
Another said, “When I ask my dean for something… ‘How will this help
students learn better?’ is what he always says.” At the study institutions faculty were held
accountable for student learning rather than just being accountable for
teaching.
The
use of such a learner centered philosophy is supported by the research on
developmental education. This research
consistently indicates that outcomes are improved when a learner centered philosophy
is central to program operations and decision making (Boylan, 2002; McCabe,
2000; Siliverman & Casazza, 1996).
Consistent formative evaluation
Each
of the study institutions placed a great amount of emphasis on data collection
and analysis. They also put great
emphasis on formative evaluation.
Formative evaluation takes place when faculty and administrators use
data to find out how well they are doing, to identify ways of improving what
they are doing, and by using data to see if the changes implemented have worked
or if modification is needed. Formative
evaluation has frequently been found to contribute to successful developmental
education (Boylan, Bliss, & Bonham, 1997; Casazza & Silverman, 1996;
McCabe, 2000).
At
study institutions with institutional research offices, these offices
frequently worked with developmental educators to identify data necessary to
make decisions. Most of the faculty
teaching developmental courses had at least a general knowledge of pass rates
and retention rates for developmental students and were aware of any campus
studies done on developmental education.
Several of the faculty interviewed kept their own records on student
persistence, grades, and pass rates in developmental courses which they used as
a baseline to evaluate their own performance.
One faculty member said, “I try to get as much information as I can
about my students’ performance… that helps me evaluate my own teaching.”
Data and evaluation
reports were regularly shared with developmental educators who were also asked
for their opinions in analyzing this data. One department chair made sure that everyone
received data on their students’ grades and pass rates and then had a
discussion with faculty individually and in groups at the end of each year to
help everyone understand the meaning of this data.
Careful hiring of developmental educators
Every
administrator interviewed emphasized that careful hiring of developmental
educators was a critical element in the success of developmental education at
their campuses. As one administrator put
it, “Most people think that anyone with a college degree can teach developmental
courses. I think that if we hire someone
who can teach developmental courses well, they can teach anything well.” This sentiment was echoed by faculty members
who served on hiring committees.
There
was a rigorous hiring process at the study institutions. At most of these institutions prospective
faculty members were asked to give a demonstration presentation as part of the
hiring process. They were also
frequently asked to direct this presentation to a hypothetical audience of
developmental students. Usually the
president or the dean of instruction would attend this presentation.
Candidates
for developmental education faculty positions were always interviewed by the
president or the dean of instruction.
They were also interviewed by a panel that included developmental
educators. During interviews, candidates were regularly
asked about their views of developmental education and developmental students
and their experiences in teaching these students.
Careful
hiring of developmental educators has support from the literature. A benchmarking study by the Continuous
Quality Improvement Network (2000) suggested that only those who were
interested in teaching developmental students should be assigned to do so. Roueche & Roueche (1999) argue that
community college developmental programs must “Recruit, develop, and hire the
best faculty (p. 32)” if they are to be successful.
Ongoing communication among developmental educators
At
each of the institutions studied, there was a great deal of communication among
those who taught developmental courses. This was true in spite of the fact that most
of the study institutions had decentralized developmental programs.
The lack of
centralization at these campuses is more than compensated for by the fact that
all those teaching developmental courses have regular communication with each
other. Such communication is essential
to successful programs (Boylan, 2002; McCabe & Day, 1998; Casazza &
Silverman, 1996). This communication
takes place through formal and informal meetings, email, and hallway
discussions. At each study institution
there are regular formal meetings of developmental education faculty within and
between disciplines.
Faculty at these
institutions also appeared to be genuinely interested in communicating with
each other about students and about teaching and learning issues. Consequently, there was not only strong
communication between developmental educators; there was strong communication
between developmental educators and other campus faculty.
The emphasis on
collaboration exemplified by the leaders of these institutions also
characterized the developmental education faculty and staff of these
institutions. There were many instances
of inter-disciplinary programming and innovations at study institutions. Such collaboration would be unlikely to take
place if good communication were not present to begin with.
Limited use of adjuncts
Two
of the institutions studied used adjuncts to teach developmental courses only
sparingly. At one institution, the
president proudly affirmed that, “Ninety percent of our developmental courses
are taught by full-time faculty.” It
appeared that, to the extent possible, the study institutions tried to staff
developmental courses with experienced full-time faculty.
Although all the
institutions in this study employed adjuncts to teach some developmental
courses, they made very serious efforts to orient and train these
adjuncts. Each of the institutions had
either a formal or an informal mentoring program for adjunct faculty. In these programs, adjunct faculty members were
paired with experienced full-time faculty who served as their mentors. These mentors met regularly with adjuncts,
visited their classes, provided constructive feedback, and were available to
answer questions.
The
study institutions had both formal and informal orientation programs for
adjunct faculty. Most of these
institutions also had manuals available for adjunct faculty that described the
institution’s teaching philosophy, provided guidelines for instruction, and
explained campus policies and procedures.
The
research is consistent in recommending that adjunct faculty not be the primary
providers of developmental education (Boylan & Saxon, 1998; McCabe,
2000). It is also consistent in
recommending that adjunct faculty teaching developmental courses be carefully
trained (Boylan, 2002; Grubb and associates, 1999; Neuburger, 1999). The institutions in this study have taken
these recommendations seriously and acted accordingly.
Aggressive professional development
Professional
development for developmental education personnel is generally considered to be
one of the most important characteristics of successful programs (Boylan,
Bliss, & Bonham, 1997; Grubb, 1999; McCabe, 2000; Roueche & Roueche,
1999). All of the institutions in this
study emphasized professional development for developmental educators in
particular and for faculty and staff in general.
Each
institution made funds available for developmental educators to attend
professional conferences. Almost all of
them had sent faculty to participate in one or more professional training institutes. Each institution sponsored regular
professional faculty development workshops that emphasized innovative
instructional methods. These
institutions also used local faculty to run mini-workshops for developmental
education instructors.
One
institution had a “Developmental Education Update” each semester describing
issues, trends, and techniques in the field.
Another institution established a local email network to discuss
instructional issues, methods, and techniques.
As one developmental educator explained, “The dean has always found
resources to support our (developmental educators’) professional
development.” Another said, “Training
counts here. We get supported and
rewarded for it.”
The
institutions in this study were very serious about developing the professionals
who worked with developmental students.
They used a wide variety of techniques, invested institutional funds in
conference and workshop attendance, and rewarded participation in professional
development. As noted earlier, they also
paid a substantial amount of attention to orientation and training for adjunct
faculty teaching developmental courses.
Promising Practices
Connecting
with high schools
Although Rainwater & Venezia
(2003) have described several approaches to improved high school/college
collaboration, there is little evidence as yet to suggest that these result in
improved student performance. Faculty
and administrators at many of the institutions in this study, however, believe
that making connections with high schools can reduce the need for remediation. As one administrator put it, “We may not
completely eliminate the need for recent high school graduates to take
developmental courses but we can at least try to make sure they place into the
highest levels of developmental education.”
Institutions in this study had various sorts of
liaisons with local high schools that were designed to clarify college
requirements and reduce the need for developmental education. At one institution, developmental education
faculty met with high school faculty from “feeder schools” to discuss
college-level requirements in English and mathematics. The objective of these
discussions was to insure that high school students would not be “surprised” by
college level requirements. Another
institution sponsored meetings of high school and college faculty in an attempt
to promote better alignment between the high school and college curricula.
Some institutions in the study
allowed high school students to take the college placement test in their
sophomore or junior years. The results
pointed out student’s academic shortcomings in time for them to take advanced
mathematics or composition courses during their high school years, thus
insuring they were better prepared for college.
Limiting class
size in developmental courses
There is at present little research
indicating that smaller class sizes in developmental courses contribute to
better student performance. However,
many of the faculty and administrators interviewed believed that smaller
classes do contribute to the success of developmental students. As a Dean of Instruction explained, “Having
lower class sizes in developmental education allows our faculty to give more
individual time to the students who need it most. That’s a priority for us.” As a result, many of the institutions in this
study made it a point to deliberately limit the enrollment in developmental
courses.
Typically, enrollment in developmental reading
and English classes at
Using values to drive operations
The developmental programs at
institutions participating in this study were typically driven by values. By this, we mean that the programs had a
clearly articulated set of student and learning centered values that were not
only understood by all personnel but also used consistently to make decisions. In some cases, the programs had written
values statements designed to guide operations.
In others, these values were simply understood by all parties and
reinforced verbally on a regular basis.
One faculty member stated that, “We see that part of our responsibility
is to inculcate our institutional values into new faculty members.”
As a result, policies and decisions
tended to be guided by the values of the program rather than having the values
of the program guided by policies. Typically, these values were learning centered and emphasized such
things as:
o
committing
to student success,
o
honoring
students’ worth as individual human beings,
o
accepting
students where they are and moving them as far as they can go,
o
emphasizing
the importance of student attendance and participation in class,
o
utilizing
active learning techniques in classrooms,
o
encouraging
students to become autonomous,
o
respecting
colleagues and students,
o
treating
students holistically, and
o
creating
a safe environment for learning.
Several
of these principles were part of the values driving operations at each of the
participating institutions.
Establishing
baselines for formative evaluation purposes
Two of the institutions in this
study developed baseline data to guide formative evaluation and program
improvement activities. They collected
data from the most recent three-year period on such things as: (a) student
completion rates in developmental courses,[3]
(b) students completing developmental courses with a C or better, and (c) semester
to semester retention for developmental students.
Faculty might then use this
information as a way of evaluating their own performance in teaching
developmental students by comparing it to the performance baseline. These baselines also served as a target for
improvement from year to year. Each
year, faculty would review the data and determine what actions or changes might
contribute to improving upon baseline performance.[4]
It also is important to note that
none of the formative evaluation activities of participating institutions were
undertaken for punitive purposes. To the
extent possible, data was anonymous and faculty and administrators agreed that
it would only be used to improve program performance.
Building valued activities into the reward system
Grubb,
et. al. (1999), point out that although community colleges ostensibly value
teaching, they rarely build good teaching into the reward system of the
institution. This shortcoming was not
discovered at any of the institutions participating in this study. Almost all of them had systematic processes
in place for promoting and rewarding quality instruction at some level. One of the administrators interviewed pointed
out that, “We don’t leave good teaching to chance. We try to put our money
where our mouth is by rewarding people for doing things right.”
These
institutions not only provided frequent professional development opportunities,
they also encouraged those who had participated in these activities off campus
to mentor others upon their return. At
one institution, instructors who participated as volunteer assistants in the
learning center in order to understand student problems first hand were later rewarded
with their choices of courses and schedules.
Another institution highlighted the successful teaching practices of
individual instructors in a campus newsletter.
Another developed a teaching techniques web site for adjunct faculty
while another established a “best practices” web site for developmental
faculty. In some cases, showing
evidence of using best practices or recommended techniques were built into the
salary, tenure, and promotion system.
A key characteristic
of these activities was that they were systematic. They were undertaken on a regular basis, they
were reviewed at the end of each year, and they were part of an overall campus
program for the improvement of instruction.
Encouraging students to take college level courses immediately following
completion of developmental courses
In
support of this, instructors of the highest level developmental mathematics
course would explain to students that their chances of passing college level
mathematics increased if they took it the semester following completion of
developmental mathematics. The college
had data to validate this point and this information was shared with students
on a regular basis. The data was also
used by college advisors to encourage students to follow up completion of
developmental mathematics with college level mathematics courses. Instructors, advisors, and administrators
worked together on a systematic basis to encourage students to do this. As an academic advisor at one college stated,
“We want our students to be successful and we have data to show them that if
they take these courses right after remediation, they’re more likely to be
successful.”
The
available data suggests that such actions contribute to an improved passing
rate among developmental students who take the first college level mathematics
course. It seems reasonable to assume
that encouraging early completion of the first college level course for those
who complete developmental courses would also work on other developmental
subject areas as well.
Providing aggressive mentoring for new developmental faculty
Most
of the faculty and administrators interviewed were in agreement that proper
orientation of new developmental faculty was essential to the success of the
developmental program. The prevailing
opinion was that it was far easier to get new developmental faculty started off
in the right direction than to attempt to change their behavior later on. As one senior faculty member noted, “We
consider mentoring new faculty to be a basic part of our job. Why let them make the same mistakes we did?”
Consequently, the
institutions in this study put a great deal of emphasis on the orientation of
new developmental faculty. The most
common way in which this orientation was delivered was through structured
mentoring programs.
Typically,
every new developmental instructor was assigned to a senior faculty member with
experience in teaching developmental courses.
The senior faculty member met with the new faculty member at the
beginning of each academic year to provide initial orientation. The senior faculty member subsequently visited
with the new faculty member on a regular basis throughout the semester to discuss
problems and issues and to provide guidance.
In addition, the senior faculty member also observed classes and
provided feedback for the new instructor.
At the institutions in this study, this process was typically supervised
by either a department chair or by another individual appointed specifically
for this purpose. It did not happen
randomly, but as part of a planned, consistent, and systematic mentoring
program.
Section 4
Conclusion
In an earlier study of developmental education in Texas colleges
and universities, the authors of this report found that outcomes for
developmental education varied dramatically from campus to campus (Boylan &
Saxon, 1998). Even when results were
compared for similar institutions with similar populations, there was an
extraordinary range in outcomes. At some
institutions, more than 70% of students passed the TASP on their first attempt
following participation in developmental education. At other, similar institutions, fewer than
30% of students passed the TASP on their first attempt following participation
in developmental education.
Our explanation for this at the time
was that the quality of developmental education in Texas colleges and
universities was uneven. Some
institutions gave it priority and put serious effort into doing it well. Other institutions did not consider it a
priority and put little effort into doing it well.
Among the things we consistently
encountered at the institutions described in this report was that they
considered developmental education to be a priority. This was made clear by the words and actions
of presidents, vice president, deans, division chairs, and faculty.
Because it was a priority, developmental
education was supported with resources, facilities, and personnel. Because it was a priority, providing quality
developmental education was rewarded both formally and informally. Because it was a priority, data was gathered
on developmental education outcomes and this data was used for program
improvement. Because it was a priority,
faculty and administrators talked with each other about how to do it better. Because it was a priority, a culture
emphasizing quality developmental education emerged at each of the institutions
studied. Ultimately, this culture served as a foundation for the excellence in
developmental education attained by the institutions included in this study.
Our conclusion, then, is that quality
developmental education results from an institutional culture that values
developmental education and considers it a priority. It is possible that, if this culture does not
exist, any number of best practices might be implemented without obtaining
significant improvement in developmental education. Where
the use of best practices is combined with a culture that values developmental
education, however, excellent developmental education is likely to result.
References
Boylan,
H.R., Bonham, B.S., Jackson, J., & Saxon, D.P. (1995).
Staffing