Author(s): |
Crosta, Peter M. |
Source: |
Community College Research Center, Columbia University |
|
Pub Date: |
2013-02-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Reports - Evaluative |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Credentials; Dropouts; Developmental Studies Programs; Community Colleges; Dropout Prevention; School Holding Power; Student Characteristics; Age Differences; Academic Persistence; College Preparation; College Readiness; Part Time Students; Student Financial Aid
Abstract:
For colleges to develop effective dropout prevention strategies, it is necessary to have a clear picture of who these early dropouts are. This report identifies distinguishing characteristics of this group by analyzing six years of transcript data on 14,429 first-time college students who in 2005 and 2006 enrolled at one of five community colleges in a single state. Of these students, 28 percent never returned to the same college after their first semester, and the majority of these students never attended any college again. Early dropouts were, on average, older than early persisters. While early dropouts did not differ appreciably from early persisters in terms of secondary credentials, their developmental placement rates suggest that they were somewhat less academically prepared than early persisters. Early dropouts performed very poorly in their college coursework, particularly in their developmental courses. With failure and withdrawal rates in some courses exceeding 60 percent, it is clear that the first-term experience for early dropouts was not a positive one.
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
 Show
 Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
 ERIC
Full Text (143K)
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2013-02-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Reports - Evaluative |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Educational Planning; College Credits; Developmental Studies Programs; Career Exploration; Community Colleges; Two Year College Students; Remedial Instruction; Mathematics Instruction; College Mathematics; Enrollment Rate; Academic Persistence; Academic Achievement; Outcomes of Education; Observation; Semi Structured Interviews; Holistic Approach; Program Evaluation
Abstract:
Originally designed for students who test into at least two levels of developmental education in a particular subject area, FastStart is a compressed course program model launched in 2005 at the Community College of Denver (CCD). The program combines multiple semester-length courses into a single intensive semester, while providing case management, career exploration, and educational planning services. This report discusses the development of FastStart, its program features, and student perspectives, and it presents findings from a quantitative analysis of the FastStart math program. The authors find that participation is associated with higher rates of enrolling in and passing college-level math courses but not with increased persistence or with increased accumulation of college-level credits. The analysis suggests that FastStart makes it possible for students to complete the developmental math sequence and required gatekeeper math course more quickly than would otherwise be possible, without harming other long-term academic outcomes. The report also analyzes pedagogical features of FastStart drawn from classroom observations and interviews. (Contains 11 figures, 5 tables, and 18 footnotes.)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
ERIC
Full Text (959K)
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2013-03-11 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Descriptive |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Community Colleges; Clubs; Remedial Instruction; Sentences; Developmental Studies Programs; Two Year College Students; Punctuation
Abstract:
Nobody wants to be here. In remedial English, earning no credit, stuck. Now--after months of commas, clauses, and four-paragraph essays--students have one last chance to write their way out. Twenty students sit at computers, poised to start the final in-class essay for English 002 at Montgomery College. Anybody can enroll here, and all kinds do. In 85 minutes the students must craft a thesis and clear topic sentences, using evidence to support their opinions. They have to answer one of three questions, about their assigned book, "The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian," by Sherman Alexie, or their difficulty in mastering goals for the course, such as "Write and edit sentences that observe the conventions of standard American English." The students in English 002 stand at higher education's threshold. If they make it through, they advance to college-level courses that count toward a degree. Otherwise they must decide whether to try again, running down their financial aid, or give up on college and make do without it. For now, they all belong to the second-chance club known as remedial education. They're here because something, somewhere, went wrong. They didn't care about school, or school didn't care about them. For some, reading or writing never came easily. Maybe they didn't speak English as children. Or they lacked money, guidance, opportunity. Courses like English 002 are supposed to catch them all up. It's a lot to ask. Many students have a long way to go, and their obstacles are hardly confined to the classroom. Nationally, of the students who place into remediation--as many as 90 percent at some community colleges--only about a quarter go on to earn a degree. Here, past failures have worn some students down, and the prospect of success seems to frighten them. Several hope to attend four-year colleges and pursue careers, yet some have struggled to pull clear of bad circumstances or habits. Others are just drifting through.
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
 Help |
 Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2013-01-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Reports - Evaluative |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Credentials; Developmental Studies Programs; Evidence; Measures (Individuals); Nonprofit Organizations; Community Colleges; Grants; Educational Change; Remedial Instruction; Two Year College Students; Interviews; Program Evaluation; Program Effectiveness; Qualitative Research; Statistical Analysis; Outcomes of Education; Partnerships in Education; Program Implementation; Intervention; College Instruction; Student Needs; Educational Policy; Professional Development
Abstract:
There is wide agreement that the well-paying jobs of the future will require postsecondary credentials. But for many students attending community college, developmental (or remedial) classes in reading, composition, and/or mathematics--the courses that students often must complete before they can enroll in courses that confer credit toward a degree--pose an often-insuperable barrier to progress. While over half of all community college students are judged to need at least one developmental class, the majority of students who are referred to developmental education do not complete their prescribed sequence of remedial courses, much less persist and obtain a diploma or certificate. To address this issue, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation created the Developmental Education Initiative (DEI) in 2009; Lumina Foundation for Education funded the evaluation. Fifteen colleges that had been early participants in Achieving the Dream (AtD): Community Colleges Count, a national community college reform network dedicated to evidence-based decision-making, were selected to receive grants of $743,000 each over a three-year period. The institutions are highly diverse in size, location, and the characteristics of the students they serve. The purpose of the DEI grants was to enable the colleges to scale up existing interventions, or establish new ones, that would help students to progress through developmental courses more rapidly and more successfully or to bypass these courses altogether. DEI funding also financed state policy teams that sought to influence state higher education legislation and policies. MDC, a North Carolina-based nonprofit organization, was selected as managing partner of the demonstration and in this role monitored and assisted the colleges, organized communications, and convened regular meetings of demonstration participants. Six other organizations made up the partnership that provided leadership and support for the colleges. Among these, MDRC, a nonprofit, nonpartisan policy research organization, was asked to evaluate the demonstration, with the Community College Research Center (CCRC) at Teachers College, Columbia University, serving as evaluation partner. The directive to the evaluators was to examine the implementation of the DEI at the participating colleges. This report--the second and final report from the evaluation--relies on a combination of qualitative data (primarily interviews with key personnel conducted during the course of site visits to all 15 institutions and through periodic telephone calls with project directors) and quantitative data (information on participation and on student outcomes that the colleges regularly collected). It addresses three main questions: (1) To what extent did the colleges scale up their chosen developmental education reforms to serve more students?; (2) What factors affected the colleges' ability to expand their programs and practices?; and (3) To what extent were the colleges' strategies associated with improvements in student outcomes? The report also considers ways that participation in the DEI influenced the colleges more broadly. For these reasons, it may be of interest to other colleges looking to scale up reforms (especially reforms that are related to instruction and the provision of student supports), as well as to funders concerned about how best to support community colleges in bringing promising ideas to scale. Technical Appendix is included. Individual chapters contain footnotes. (Contains 16 tables and 6 figures.
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
ERIC
Full Text (1428K)
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2013-00-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Numerical/Quantitative Data; Reports - Research |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
College Students; Developmental Studies Programs; Enrollment; Scores; Data; Outcomes of Education; Grades (Scholastic); Remedial Instruction; Algebra; Reading; English; Writing (Composition); Program Effectiveness; Probability; Educational Improvement; Grade Point Average; Academic Persistence; Academic Achievement
Abstract:
There is a growing view that students who enroll in developmental courses are less successful in completing their programs than non-developmental students. Nevertheless, even though developmental students as a group ultimately might not be as academically successful as non-developmental students, many of them might still derive benefit from taking developmental courses. In this paper we address the question, "Does taking developmental courses benefit students at "all", in the sense that they are more successful than they would have been if they had not taken developmental courses?" Data for the study consisted of ACT[R] Test and college outcomes data for over 118,000 students who first enrolled in one of 75 two-year and four-year postsecondary institutions. We compared the success of students who initially enrolled in six developmental courses in English, mathematics, or reading with those of students who initially enrolled in associated higher-level courses. We first estimated probabilities of success with respect to twelve outcome variables ranging from performance in the associated higher-level college course to Bachelor's degree completion in six years. The probabilities of success were conditioned on ACT Test score, enrollment status (full- or part-time), college type (two-year vs. four-year), and the grade received in the developmental course (if taken). We then compared the probabilities of success of students who did and did not take the developmental course, but who otherwise were similar. Like others, we found that the developmental students in this study were less successful as a group than the non-developmental students with respect to GPA/persistence over time and degree completion within a fixed time period. Further consideration of time to degree, however, showed that developmental students typically completed a Bachelor's degree in six years at a rate similar to or higher than that of non-developmental students in five years. Particular subgroups of developmental students, as characterized by their ACT Test scores, the grade they received in the developmental course, and their enrollment status benefited from taking the developmental course. In particular, students who received an A (or sometimes a B) grade in the developmental course appeared to benefit from taking it. Moreover, part-time students appeared to derive more benefit from taking developmental courses than full-time students did. The report concludes with a discussion about the practical implications of these findings and possible contributing factors to academic success, such as the quality of developmental instruction, the time needed to complete a degree, and the noncognitive characteristics of developmental students. Appended are: (1) Pooled Descriptive Results; (2) Hierarchical Logistic Regression Models for Predicting Success in College; (3) Differences in Estimated Probabilities of Success for All Students and by Developmental Course Grade; and (4) Estimated Probabilities of Success for Full- and Part-Time Students. (Contains 33 tables, 25 figures and 17 footnotes.) [This paper was prepared with assistance from Justine Radunzel.
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
ERIC
Full Text (6474K)
|
|
