By Elizabeth Wilmer
from Inquiry, Volume 13, Number 1, Spring 2008, 5-19
© Copyright 2008 Virginia Community College System
Abstract
This essay
considers statistical reports on underprepared students, the history of
developmental education, the characteristics of underprepared students, and
the reasons it is imperative that we provide these students with a
college-level education.
The
needs of students who enter college underprepared transcend academic
preparation. These students require
an array of student services that will support them in their quest to achieve
the academic and personal skills necessary for college-level coursework and
academic success. The model I propose here is not unique, but it is
comprehensive and cognizant of the holistic purpose of developmental education.
It also is an ideal model. Budget limitations, personnel restraints, and
implementation difficulties may make parts of this model out of reach for many
VCCS colleges. However, in an ideal world, this is the model I would employ. In
an imperfect world, pieces of the model may be used to improve student services
for underprepared students.
Statistical Evidence
Recent reports on the level of
preparation of students entering college are contradictory in their assessment
of the progress made by American schools in the last ten years. “Measuring Up
2004,” published in September, 2004, by the National Center for Public Policy
and Higher Education, created a state-by-state report card on higher education.
Overall, the report shows that we have made little progress in increasing the
number of students completing college. However, on the subject of preparation,
the report shows that 44 states improved their standing on more than half of the
preparation measures studied over the ten-year period (Schmidt, 2004).
Peter Ewell (Breneman, Ewell, McCluskey, Reindl, & Volkwein, 2004)
suggests that the United States’ educational system has responded to the 1983 “A
Nation at Risk” report and has shown a clear pattern of improved preparation in
elementary and secondary education. Travis Reindl agrees that while our system
is better preparing students, the number of students who are attending and
completing college is far too low. He suggests that a gap exists between
secondary-school standards and the expectations of higher education, creating a
stumbling block to student success at the college level (Breneman, Ewell,
McCluskey, Reindl, & Volkwein, 2004).
Contradicting the
“Measuring Up 2004” report of progress, “Crisis at the Core: Preparing All
Students for College and Work,” which was published in October, 2004, by ACT
states, “Most of America’s high school students are not ready for either college
or work. We’ve made virtually no progress in the last ten years in helping them
to become ready.” The report states that only 22 percent of the 1.2 million
students tested were prepared for college-level courses in English, math, and
science (Jacobson, 2004) and goes on to specify that only 40 percent of students
are prepared to earn a C or higher in their first college algebra class, while
only 68 percent are prepared to succeed in English composition (ACT, “Crisis at
the Core,” 2004).
Though there are
contradictions in whether or not we have made progress in preparing students
over the last ten years, the fact remains that a significant proportion of
students who graduate from high school are not ready for college-level work. The
statistics show that only 42 percent of students graduate from high school with
the skills to begin college and that of those entering college, only one in four
is prepared (Hornstein, 2004). The number of institutions offering developmental
or remedial courses further exemplifies this situation. A 1995 study done by the
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) showed that, nationwide, 100
percent of public two-year institutions offer developmental coursework, while 78
percent of all colleges with freshmen offer these classes. The statistics also
show that 41 percent of freshmen at two-year colleges and 22 percent at
four-year institutions are enrolled in developmental courses (Stephens, 2001).
For students participating
in developmental coursework, retention is a major concern. This issue is not as
great for students needing remediation in only writing or intermediate algebra.
However, when students need developmental coursework in reading, basic
arithmetic, or a combination of subjects, their risk factor of not achieving
their academic goals significantly increases. Statistics show that one in eight
students needs remediation in reading. Of these students, 65 percent need
remedial courses in at least three additional areas, including math (Adelman,
1996), putting these students at risk.
Adelman (1996) illustrated that while 55 percent of students who needed
no remedial coursework and 47 percent of students who needed only one remedial
course went on to complete their bachelor’s degree, only 24 percent of students
who needed three or more remedial courses completed their degree.
The need for remedial
coursework is not new. In the 1700s, entrance requirements at colleges such as
Harvard and the College of William and Mary were based on students’ knowledge of
Latin and Greek and their moral character. However, with limited access to
secondary schools, these early colleges found very few applicants qualified to
enter college and had to initiate remedial coursework for underprepared students
in order to generate enough enrollments to keep their doors open. During the
early nineteenth century, many colleges admitted the sons of wealthy alumni
regardless of their level or preparation. They also began admitting economically
poor but academically bright students on scholarship to boost enrollment numbers
(Stephens, 2001).
By the mid-nineteenth
century, entrance requirements had increased substantially. A good example is
the change in requirements in mathematics at Yale between 1720 and 1835. In
1720, arithmetic was not required for admittance and Euclidean geometry was a
senior-level course. By 1743, geometry was a sophomore-level course; by 1825, a
freshman course; and by 1845, it was an entrance requirement along with algebra
(Stephens, 2001).
These increases in the
rigor of college curricula and the number of students arriving without the
necessary preparation led to the creation of preparatory departments within
colleges. The most noted of these was at the University of Wisconsin from
1849-1880 (Stephens, 2001).
The Morrill Acts and
opportunities for the education of women increased access to higher education,
but also heightened the number of underprepared college students. By 1892,
concern over underprepared students entering college sparked a report by the
Committee of Ten, commissioned by the National Education Association, to call
for the strengthening of secondary school education. They hoped that by
strengthening secondary schools only fully prepared students would apply to
college. This did not happen. In 1907, the majority of students who enrolled at
Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Columbia were still not prepared to meet their
entrance requirements (Stephens, 2001).
In the 1940s, the passage
of the G.I. Bill of Rights gave veterans, many of whom were academically
underprepared, the opportunity to attend college. This landmark legislation not
only provided funding for tuition but also funded services such as advising,
tutoring, and programs to improve reading and study skills to accommodate the
needs of the underprepared veterans.
For many reasons, including maturity, motivation, and an array of support
services, these students demonstrated a high degree of success (Stephens, 2001).
Access was further
increased during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. However, shortly after
this, the baby boom generation began attending college. This enormous increase
in college-bound students allowed colleges for the first time in American
history to become selective in their admissions policies. This happened because
they had enough college-ready students to maintain their enrollments without
accepting large numbers of underprepared students (Stephens, 2001).
The gap in access created
by the selectivity that emerged as the baby boom generation began college was
filled by the development of junior colleges and community colleges.
These colleges provided the opportunities of open access and affordable
tuition to underprepared, financially needy, non-traditional, and
first-generation college students (Stephens, 2001).
There is no simple description of this population. As pointed out by Higbee,
Dwinell, McAdams, GoldbergBelle, and Tardola (1991), they are not easily
categorized. Moore and Carpenter (1985) concluded “that the academically
underprepared student pool is large and diverse in terms of age, socioeconomic
condition, previous academic performance, standardized test scores, and
emotional health, and is enrolled in colleges and universities of all types
nationwide” (p. 100).
While recognizing their
diversity, McCabe (2003) attempts to
generalize their demographic characteristics by describing the underprepared
student population as being more female than male; as ranging in age but with
more than half over the age of 24; as often, but not always, being financially
disadvantaged; as being primarily white, although a greater proportion of the
Hispanic and African-American students attending college are underprepared; as
being both married and single; and including both parents and non-parents.
McCabe goes on to say that one-third are deficient in only one area, a
third in two areas, and a third in all three areas, but that the level of their
deficiency varies tremendously. His research concludes that while
demographically they are similar in their diversity to the overall population of
community college students, there is evidence that they have a more difficult
time connecting with the academic environment; that they are uncertain of their
goals; that they have little academic direction; and that they share many of the
non-cognitive characteristics seen in first-generation and minority students. He
also surmises that these students are not likely to have orderly lives or to
plan ahead for such things as registration or financial aid (McCabe, 2003).
While little data are
available on the characteristics of the underprepared, a study by Grimes and
David (1999) suggests that the attitudes, values, and self-expectations of
underprepared students dramatically affect their academic preparation.
They acknowledge Tinto’s retention model, which reveals that family
background, individual attitudes, and secondary preparation combined with the
student’s goals, commitment, and the institutional structure determine the
likelihood of success. Grimes and David’s survey of 500 community college
students revealed the following:
·
No significant demographic differences existed between underprepared and
college-ready students.
·
Underprepared students took fewer years of math, science, and foreign language
in high school.
·
Underprepared students planned for fewer years of college, limiting their goals
to associate’s degrees, while college-ready students aspired to bachelor’s and
graduate degrees.
·
Underprepared students rated their academic ability, intellectual
self-confidence, and emotional health lower than college-ready students, while showing no significant
difference in ratings of physical health, competitiveness, leadership ability,
social self-confidence, or artistic ability.
·
Underprepared students spent more time watching television and partying, while
college-ready students spent more time going to religious services, discussing
politics, and socializing with ethnically diverse groups.
·
Underprepared students indicated an expectation to fail one or more courses, to
need extra time finishing their degree, and to need tutoring services.
From these results,
Grimes and David conclude that because underprepared students have such
different affective and experiential ratings, the solution to their success goes
beyond simple academic preparation; only addressing skills deficits will not
ensure their success. Colleges must take a holistic approach and address both
their academic and personal development. Personal development is an evolving
process that cannot be completed in the course-by-course semester model used in
our educational system; rather, it must be sustained as they move through their
academic preparation (Grimes and David, 1999).
Higbee, Dwinell, McAdams,
GoldbergBelle, and Tardola (1991) also affirm that colleges must address the
non-cognitive needs of underprepared students.
They concluded that a host of personal issues ranging from
self-consciousness and isolation to concerns about financial or family matters
to unrealistic choices about classes and majors act as barriers to their
success. These issues of motivation, self-esteem, aptitude, and integration into
the college environment all play a role in their ability to achieve academic
success. It is only after their non-cognitive needs are met that these students
will succeed and persist in the academic environment.
Questions of the value and necessity of developmental education have persisted
as long as developmental programs have existed. In 1852, Henry Tappan, president
of the University of Michigan, argued in his inaugural address that the
institution was teaching too many courses that should be relegated to the
secondary schools (Stephens, 2001). These arguments have come and gone, have
sparked reform, and have caused restructuring of institutions both in favor and
rejection of developmental education, but the fact remains that a substantial
population of underprepared students exists in our colleges. There will always
be students who made poor choices in their youth, who suddenly find themselves
in need of an education to support themselves and their families, or who decide
late to enrich their life through education.
Helping these students to
find economic and social success through education is an admirable pursuit.
However, in a technological world, education is becoming a necessity.
Manufacturing jobs are rapidly disappearing, replaced by information-based
industries that require a highly skilled workforce. Eighty percent of future
jobs will require the literacy and skills provided by a college education
(McCabe, 2003). Therefore, we must find a way to prepare all students for the
challenges that the future presents. Our social and economic well-being depends
on it.
Defining a Developmental Partnership
Moore and Carpenter (1985) quoted Waterhouse in describing underprepared
students as those who are “unsure of themselves; need success – cognitive and/or
affective; need financial assistance; need tutoring and basic skill development;
possess minimal knowledge of career or educational opportunities and skills
related to taking advantage of both; and need to feel comfortable within the
learning environment” (pp. 96-97). Meeting these needs can only be accomplished
through a strong partnership between faculty and student services.
William Salyers, former
learning center director and developmental instructor, commented that any
developmental education program begins with caring and concerned faculty
(personal communication, October 11, 2004).
The National Association for Developmental Education (NADE), whose
mission is to promote issues and practices in developmental education, “defines
the purpose of developmental education as the ability ‘to develop in each
learner the skills and attitudes necessary for the attainment of academic,
career, and life goals’ (NADE)” (McCabe, 2003, p. 81). McCabe (2003) goes on to
say that this must be accomplished in partnership with faculty, counselors, and
the students themselves and that there is no single model for success.
The following model
proposes an aggressive, yet reasonably achievable model for institutions
dedicated to the success and retention of their developmental students. The
model includes the following elements:
·
a centralized organizational structure or department devoted to developmental
education,
·
mandatory placement testing for all new applicants who don’t meet exemptions
(such as a B average in high school English and math coursework or defined
scores on SAT or ACT tests),
·
mandatory placement in developmental courses if testing indicates the need,
·
a defined list of courses for which placement scores or successful completion of
developmental coursework is a prerequisite,
·
advising and counseling services that place a student in first-semester courses
as well as regular and ongoing personal and academic assistance throughout the
student’s developmental program and transition into college-level coursework,
·
an early warning system created in partnership between the student’s faculty and
advisor,
·
a mandatory extended student-success or orientation class that is completed
early in the student’s college career,
·
where appropriate, placement of students in developmental classes that are part
of a learning-community organization or a structure of paired classes, and
·
instructional support services in a variety of methods (including writing
centers, math centers, professional tutors, and peer tutors).
A centralized organizational structure places all developmental courses and
services under the direction of one division, department, or program. Led by a
director who is familiar with the cognitive and non-cognitive needs of
developmental students, this director will advocate to ensure that the
instructional, support service, and physical classroom and equipment needs for
the department are met. Funding for the department might be provided by the
institution or through grants, but the director would be responsible for
maintaining administrative support and grant funding to ensure the ongoing
success of the department. This
director would also coordinate the partnership between faculty and student
support services.
As McCabe (2003) points
out, this type of centralized organizational structure supports Roueche’s 1999
recommendation that developmental education treat the whole person, rather than
focusing on individual skills in isolation. It also supports Boylan’s 1999
assertion that developmental education should be student-centered rather than
subject-centered (McCabe, 2003). The effectiveness of a centralized
organizational structure has been demonstrated in two studies: the 1994 National
Study of Developmental Education and the 1995 J. Sargeant Reynolds Community
College Study of Effectiveness of Developmental Education (McCabe, 2003).
The effectiveness
of a centralized program is driven by the fact that the instructional and
support services needed by underprepared students are different from those
required by other students and are not always compatible with those provided for
all students. Underprepared students are the least likely student population to
seek or participate in support services. In many cases, they are resistant to
support and require a more intrusive approach to providing the services
necessary for their success. Because they are unlikely to seek assistance, they
are more inclined to make use of services that are easily accessible, located in
a single facility, and convenient to their classes, rather than those which are
spread across campus (Higbee, Dwinell, McAdams, GoldbergBelle, & Tardola, 1991).
While various arguments
exist for and against a centralized department, the fact remains that when a
college invests the resources in such a department, it demonstrates the
institution’s commitment to the success of developmental students. This may be
the first time that many of these students have been shown that they are
important and that someone cares about their success.
Furthermore, by providing a centralized structure, the institution makes
it easier for these students to access support and services and to increase
communication among those who are providing the services, ensuring that faculty,
counselors, and students work together to enable these students to succeed.
Placement testing should
be mandatory for all new applicants who do not meet exemptions, such as a B
average in high school English and math coursework or defined scores on SAT or
ACT tests. McCabe (2003) stated that
“Mandatory testing and placement is essential to the students’ best interest and
to maintaining a quality academic program” (p. 37). Seventy-one percent of
community colleges in the United States require pre-enrollment placement
testing. These tests are important because they identify students’ abilities and
facilitate their correct placement in classes. Without such tests, underprepared
students face the same frustrations and barriers to success that they
experienced in previous educational environments and are less likely to persist
(Perez, 1998).
Colleges should create a
defined list of courses for which placement scores or successful completion of
developmental coursework is a prerequisite. Prerequisites are important because,
as McCabe (2003) states, “It does not benefit students to permit them to enroll
in courses for which they are underprepared. This can only result in high rates
of failure and dropout or the compromise of college standards to accommodate the
underpreparedness of students” (p. 26).
The institution should ensure that students have met the reading,
writing, and math requirements before allowing them to take courses that require
these skills. It is a disservice to students to allow them to take courses for
which they are not prepared. Proper placement is essential to the success and
retention of these students.
David Crocket (1985) defines academic advising as the “developmental process
which assists students in the clarification of their life/career goals and in
the development of educational plans for the realization of these goals” (p.
248). Crockett also points out that proper advising from the beginning of a
student’s college experience through graduation is one of the single most
important services an institution can provide to increase student retention.
This is especially true with developmental students.
Crockett describes
O’Banion’s five-step advising model, which creates a logical sequence for
advising: beginning with (1) exploring the student’s life goals, (2) exploring
the student’s career goals, (3) selecting a program of study, (4) selecting
courses, and (5) scheduling courses (Crockett, 1985). It should be noted that
this is an academic-advising model and that while developmental students need
academic advising to help them identify goals and place them in courses to meet
those goals, their needs extend beyond academic advising into personal
counseling. McCabe (2003) supports this by saying that advisors should act as
case managers to define and break down developmental students’ barriers to
success. This requires a special
type of advisor trained not only in academic advising, but also someone familiar
with personal counseling and the needs of developmental students. According to
Meadows, Hensley and Tharp (1998),
One of the most
important support services for at-risk students is advising since this is where
a personal, supportive relationship can help students identify the forces that
are causing their academic difficulties and find the type of help that is
tailored to the individual student’s situation and circumstance. Very few
students in academic trouble are there because of lack of ability. Academic
advisors can help these students understand and overcome the causes of their
academic failure. (p. 95)
Higbee, Dwinell, McAdams, GoldbergBelle, and Tardola (1991) suggest that, in
working with developmental students, advisors should take the initiative to keep
regular and ongoing contact with their advisees. They suggest an intrusive
model, where advisors work with faculty to monitor students’ progress and meet
with students several times a semester, or more if needed, to ensure that they
have someone to communicate with concerning their personal and academic
difficulties.
Meadows, Hensley, and
Tharp (1998) confirm this by describing the success that has been achieved by
using such a model at Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU). MTSU encourages
faculty to work with advisors and to rely on them for support with at-risk
students. This provides the students with a contact person whom they know cares
about their success and can help them. Because of an active advising program,
retention rates for developmental students at MTSU are equivalent to retention
rates for non-developmental students (Meadows, Hensley, & Tharp, 1998).
Meadows, Hensley, and Tharp (1998) extend contact among students, advisors, and
faculty to include an organized early-warning system.
This system stipulates that faculty should work closely with advisors of
developmental students to warn them of attendance, academic, or personal
problems early – before these problems become unmanageable.
Having an early-warning system managed by an advisor provides a strong
system of communication and support because that advisor can compile information
received from multiple faculty, as well as other students, to form a complete
picture of a student’s progress or difficulties. Perez (1998) cites a study at
Irvine Valley College, where students who participated in an early-warning
system had an end-of-the-year retention rate of 81.3 percent, a much higher rate
than those who did not participate.
A student-success or orientation course serves the purpose of familiarizing
students with the college environment and providing them with basic study skills
and academic-management techniques that will help them successfully to navigate
their first experiences in college. Developmental students should be required to
take an extended version of the course taken by all students. Higbee, Dwinell,
McAdams, GoldbergBelle, and Tardola (1991) define a remedial program as one that
provides only basic skill development, while a developmental program extends
this to provide assistance with a student’s intellectual and emotional
development. A student-success course is a natural place to extend this
development beyond the implementation of academic skills such as reading or
math. This environment would serve as an appropriate setting to initiate a
series of non-cognitive tests to evaluate the whole student and help students to
understand their learning styles, personality characteristics, and aptitudes.
The results could be used in cooperation with the student’s advisor to
facilitate individual advising plans. Tests
such as LASSI (Learning and Study Skills Inventory), the Student Retention
Inventory, the Dunn and Dunn Learning Style Model, or the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator could provide such information (McCabe, 2003).
For underprepared
students, such a course could also help to socialize them in college practices
that often are not understood by these students.
The course could orient them to academic policies, communication skills,
campus resources, relationship-building skills, stress-reduction skills, time-
and financial-management skills, decision-making skills, and goal-setting
skills. Since these students are not
likely to take advantage of workshops and often do better in a structured
environment, an extended student-success course provides an opportunity to
introduce them to the personal and academic topics necessary to succeed in a
college environment. However, it is essential that they begin this course during
their first semester, as it provides them with a connection to the institution
and the skills needed to persist through that first critical semester.
The concept of a learning community can be defined in many ways.
Minkler (2002) defines a learning community as a way of
“deliberately structur[ing] the curriculum so that students are more
actively engaged in a sustained academic relationship with other students and
faculty over a longer period of time than in traditional course settings” (p.
2). But, because each college
structures learning communities differently, there is no absolute definition.
However, learning communities tend to share the following characteristics as
defined by Shapiro and Levine (1999):
·
Faculty and students are organized into small groups.
·
The curriculum is structured and integrated.
·
Students establish academic and social-support networks.
·
Students are given a setting to define the expectations of college life.
·
Faculty collaborate in meaningful ways.
·
Faculty and students work together on specific learning outcomes.
·
Academic support services are provided.
The rationale behind these characteristics is supported by Tinto’s
Interactionalist Theory, which states that students who achieve greater social
and academic integration are more likely to reach their goal of college
graduation (Braxton, Hirschy, & McClendon, 2004). Brittenham, Cook, and Hall
(2003) argue that failure to achieve social and academic integration contributes
more to voluntary attrition than any other factor.
Social and academic
integration can be achieved in a learning community through cooperative
learning. Cooperative learning consists of students and faculty actively working
together in a non-competitive environment to achieve shared learning goals. The
group mentality serves to boost the confidence levels of the individual, thus
increasing self-esteem and potential of academic success (Johnson, Johnson, &
Smith, 1998). Cooperative learning moves away from the traditional lecture
format and asks students to take a more active and responsible role in the
learning process, “causing students to look forward to the class, to feel
respected and needed in the pursuit of knowledge, and to respect and rely upon
each other in these endeavors” (J. H. Gill, as cited in Minkler, 2002).
In addition to
cooperative learning, learning communities often pair classes to provide an
interdisciplinary approach. Pairing a developmental course with a content-based
course can provide students with the opportunity to apply skills such as reading
or writing that were learned in their developmental courses to their academic
content. This makes the developmental coursework seem more relevant and gives
them the satisfaction of making progress in a credit course toward their degree.
While learning
communities and paired classes are not a direct function of student services,
their organization requires cooperation between academic and student services.
Colleges should
also provide instructional support services through a variety of methods,
including writing centers, math centers, professional tutors, and peer tutors.
Tutoring services, whether offered through the writing center or through an
assigned tutor, can be beneficial to the student’s learning process when it
supports and enhances the classroom instruction. Tutoring gives students the
opportunity to ask questions that they might not have felt comfortable asking in
class and to see the material presented in a different way. Having the same
material presented in alternative ways supports students with different learning
styles and shows them that different approaches and solutions to the same
problem are acceptable (Brittenham, Cook, & Hall, 2003).
Tutoring also offers
non-academic advantages. Tutoring has been shown to have a positive effect on
underprepared students’ confidence and attitudes toward their education. This is
particularly true when a peer tutor (another student who has successfully
completed the program) tutors the student (McCabe, 2003).
Peer tutors serve as mentors and role models, inspiring confidence in
underprepared students. As McCabe (2003) stated, “[U]sing a variety of tutoring
methods is not simply a common component of remedial programs; it is a major
factor in their success” (p. 63).
As much as we would like to believe in the concept, “[t]here was never a
golden age when all students came to college ready to do college work”
(Stephens, 2001, p. 9). However, with 42 percent of students entering college
underprepared and an estimation that 80 percent of future jobs will require the
skills that a college education provides, we must find better methods to prepare
these students and assist them in achieving their academic goals.
While the fact remains that not all of these students have the ability to
benefit and succeed in a college environment, a large number of them do have the
ability and can persist and graduate – if our colleges provide them with the
appropriate academic and personal interventions.
References
ACT. (2004). Crisis at the core: Preparing all students for college and work. Retrieved October 16, 2004 from http://www.act.org/path/policy/pdf/ crisis_exec_summary.pdf
Adelman, C. (1996, October 4). The truth about remedial work. The Chronicle
of Higher Education. Retrieved October 16, 2004 from
http://chronicle.com/prm/che-data/articles.dir/art-43.dir/issue-06.dir/06a05601.htm
Braxton, J. M., Hirschy, A. S., & McClendon, S. A. (2004). Understanding and
reducing college student departure. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports, 30(3),
pp. XI-XII, 1-97. Retrieved June 12, 2004,
from
http://wilsontxt.hwwilson.com/pdffull/04367/4VT66/DSV.pdf
Breneman, D. W., Ewell, P. T., McCluskey, N. P., Reindl, T., & Volkwein, F.
(2004). Grading the higher-education report card. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 51(8), B9. Retrieved October 13, 2004 from
http://chronicle.com/prm/weekly/ v51/i08/08b00901.htm
Brittenham, R., Cook, R., & Hall, J. B. (2003). Connections: An integrated
community of learners. Journal of Developmental Education, 27(1), pp.
18-20, 22, 24-5. Retrieved June 12, 2004, from
http://wilsontxt.hwwilson.com/pdffull/02444/WDUMN/8SB.pdf
Crockett, D. S. (1985). Academic
advising. In L. Noel, R. Levitz, D.
Saluri, & Associates (Eds.), Increasing Student Retention (pp. 224-263).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Grimes, S. K., & David, K. C. (1999). Underprepared community college students:
Implications of attitudinal and experiential differences. Community College
Review, 27(2), 73-92.
Higbee, J. L., Dwinell, P. L., McAdams, C. R., GoldbergBelle, E., & Tardola, M.
E. (1991). Serving underprepared students in institutions of higher education.
Journal of Humanistic Education and Development, 30, 73-80.
Hornstein, A. (2004, September 14). Market spotlight: Focus on developmental
education. Roadmap to Success, 3(6). Retrieved September 22, 2004 from
http://www.plato.com/ community/roadmap/2004/09/market.html
Jacobson, J. (2004). Core curricula in high schools provide inadequate
preparation for college work, report says. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Today’s News. Retrieved October 15, 2004, from
http://chronicle.com/daily/2004/10/ 2004101502n.htm
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Cooperative learning
returns to college. Change, 30(4), 26-36. Retrieved June 12, 2004, from
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/change/doc/31954423.html
McCabe, R. H. (2003) Yes we can! A community college guide for developing
America’s underprepared. United States of America: League for Innovation in
the Community College and American Association of Community Colleges.
Meadows, D. C., Hensley, B. L., & Tharp, T. J. (1998).
Advising underprepared students: A design for a successful program.
Research and Teaching in Developmental Education, 15(1), 95-100.
Minkler, J. E. (2002). ERIC review: Learning communities at the community
college. Community College Review, 30(3), 46-63. Retrieved June 12, 2004,
from
http://wilsontxt.hwsilson.com/pdffull/03788/W6B9M/VSI.pdf
Moore, W., Jr., & Carpenter, L. N.
(1985). Academically underprepared students.
In L. Noel, R. Levitz, D. Saluri, & Associates (Eds.), Increasing
Student Retention (pp. 95-115). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. (2004). 2004 Report
Card. The Chronicle of Higher Education. 51(5), A21. Retrieved October
13, 2004, from
http://chronicle.com/prm/weekly/v51/i05/05a02101.htm
Perez, L. X. (1998). Sorting, supporting, connecting, and transforming:
Intervention strategies for students at risk.
Community College Review 26(1), 63-78.
Schmidt, P. (2004). “Report card” spurs calls for change in academe: 10-year
analysis shows declines in affordability and access to college. The Chronicle
of Higher Education, 51(5), A1. Retrieved October 13, 2004, from
http://chronicle.com/prm/weekly/v51/i05/05a00101.htm
Shapiro, N. S., & Levine, J. H. (1999). Creating learning communities: A
practical guide to winning support, organizing for change, and implementing
programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Stephens, D. (2001). Increasing access: Educating underprepared students in
U.S. colleges and universities past, present, and future. Retrieved
September 22, 2004 from
http://faculty.etsu.edu/Stephen/increasingaccess.htm
Dr. Elizabeth Wilmer
is the dean of humanities at Virginia Western Community College. Her research
interests include exploring ways to improve the satisfaction, achievement, and
retention of developmental English students in the VCCS.