A recent report by The Institute for Higher Education Policy (p. v) debunks the misconceptions that remediation is too expensive and is an inappropriate function for colleges.  Instead, the report argues that remediation is a core function of higher education and a good investment for society as well as for colleges and universities.  According to Jamie P. Merisotis, the Institute’s president, “one of our concerns with the debate about college remediation…is that there really hasn’t been a whole lot of factual discussion about what remediation is, how it works, and the impact proposed policy changes might have” (Remedial).  David W. Breneman, Dean of the College of Education at the University of Virginia, said “the report’s findings mirrored those of a remedial-education study that he and another researcher published this summer” (Woodhams).  The Institute argues that as higher education strives to educate the populace, remediation will continue to be a core function of college and universities (p. 6) and proposes a set of strategies designed to reduce the need for remediation in higher education while also enhancing its effectiveness (p. v). 

Background 

The executive summary of College Remediation:  What It Is: What It Costs: What’s at Stake presents information that should be considered in any debate regarding developmental education.  First, the report argues (p. vi) that the “financial costs of remediation are modest and generally comparable to or lower than the costs of other academic programs” (p. vi).   Remediation absorbs less than 1 percent—$1 billion of the $115 billion annual higher education budget (p. 12)—of  expenditures, a relatively modest proportion.  The report goes on to posit that even if “remedial education were terminated at every college and university in the country, it is unlikely that the money would be put to better use” (p. vi). 

 As for the appropriateness of remediation in college, it must be noted that remediation is not just for recent high school graduates.  Over one-quarter (27 percent) of entering freshmen in remedial courses were 30 years of age or older, and only half (56 percent) of the students enrolled in remedial courses were freshmen (Institute, p. 9).  In fact, remediation has been a function of colleges since early colonial days, beginning with Harvard College in the seventeenth century when Greek and Latin tutors were provided.  The need for remediation is no different today.  A 1995 survey by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) found that 78 percent of higher educational institutions that enroll freshmen and 100 percent of public two-year institutions offered remedial courses (Institute, pp. v-vi).  Twenty-nine percent, as compared to 30 percent in 1989, of first-time freshmen enrolled in at least one of these remedial courses, and freshmen were more likely to enroll in a remedial mathematics courses than in a remedial reading or writing course.  In fact, a recent study of remediation by Maryland Higher Education Commission found that for students who completed college-preparatory courses in high school and immediately attended a community college, 40 percent needed math remediation (Institute, p. 8).

The Institute’s report not only sanctions remediation as a core function of colleges but also views remediation as a good investment for society and colleges.  The alternatives to remediation can range from unemployment and low-wage jobs to welfare participation and incarceration—all of which are more expensive for society.  A good remediation program can serve as a cost-effective investment.  Students who are admitted to college and complete a remediation program go on to enroll in regular courses, pay tuition, and participate in college activities, which partially offset the costs of providing remediation (p. viii).  Furthermore, the long-term social and economic benefits of going to college—increased tax revenues, greater productivity, reduced crime rates, increased quality of civic life—means that students who succeed as a result of remedial instruction in higher education also make their contribution to the public good. 

A final concern of the Institute was that evaluation of remedial programs was minimal.  Findings from their study of 116 two- and four-year colleges and universities found “that only a small percentage conducted any systematic evaluation of their remedial education programs” (p. 10).  Furthermore, the Southern Regional Education Board has raised the issue of the effectiveness of remedial programs by observing “few states have exit standards for remedial courses” (Institute, p. 11).  The report concludes by proposing strategies for the future—two mutually reinforcing goals (p. ix): 

(1)                 Reducing the need for remediation in higher education and

(2)                 Improving the effectiveness of remedial education in higher education. 

The focus of attention in this study is the latter of these two charges—to improve the effectiveness of the developmental mathematics program in the Virginia Commuity College System.  The report lists three strategies to improve the effectiveness of remedial education:                               

(1)        Creating interinstitutional collaboration among colleges and universities in a state or system, allowing “best practices” and ideas to be shared and replicated; 

(2)        Making remediation a comprehensive program that encompasses more than just tutoring and skills development;  and

(3)        Utilizing technology to enhance the teaching-learning process. 

The first of these strategies—creating interinstitutional collaboration—is most consistent with the three charges made in 1998 by Dr. Arnold Oliver, Chancellor of the Virginia Community College System (VCCS), to the VCCS Developmental Studies Implementation Task Force: 

(1)                 To develop common sytemwide guidelines for interpreting the results of the standardized test.

(2)                 To develop systemwide measurable objectives and exit criteria for developmental reading, writing, and mathematics.

(3)                 To make recommendations concerning performance indicators and assessment methods that can be implemented systemwide for the purpose of monitoring the success of these new procedures. (Bartholomay, Report No. 1, 2000) 

These charges require systemwide collaboration in standardized test interpretation, common objectives, exit criteria, and assessment methods for developmental courses.  Such agreement should do much to standardize the treatment of developmental mathematics across the state system.  All of the mathematics representatives serving on this Task Force are also members of VMATYC (the state affiliate of AMATYC—American Mathematical Association of Two-Year Colleges).  Thus, the AMATYC Standards—Crossroads in Mathematics:  Standards for Introductory College Mathematics Before Calculus—served as a guide for mathematics decisions made by the Task Force.  In fall semester of 2000, the Task Force recommendations were implemented statewide.  Major changes include common ASSET and COMPASS cutoff scores for placement into mathematics courses, mandatory placement into developmental mathematics classes, when appropriate, and common core exit exams for all three developmental mathematics courses—MTH 02, MTH 03, and MTH 04.  

Methodology

The current collaborative study complements the work of this Task Force by determining which teaching methodologies or practices work best to ensure success in preparing developmental mathematics students for college-level mathematics courses.  During spring semester of 2000 this researcher carried out a study of five community colleges in the VCCS to observe experienced instructors, gather data, and extract the most effective ideas and teaching methods being utilized in the developmental mathematics classrooms for implementation into our own classrooms.

Ten instructors and fifteen developmental mathematics classrooms—Basic Arithmetic (02), Basic Algebra I (03), and Basic Algebra II (04)—in five colleges were involved in the study.  The researcher visited each classroom at least three times—at the beginning, middle, and end of the semester—to observe teaching methods and techniques as well as to gather attendance and student participation data.  She also used this time to discuss details of the project and concerns for the class with the instructors.  The variables under consideration in this study were course credit hours, class size, attendance, student gender, teacher gender, class participation rates (questions and answers), method of instruction (lecture or individualized), success rates in developmental and subsequent college-level mathematics courses, and retention and graduation rates for developmental students.  The primary goal of the researcher was to isolate factors that could positively impact the degree of success in developmental mathematics programs in two-year colleges. 

Course Logistics 

Table 1 containing the classroom logistics of these different classes describes the setting for developmental classrooms in these five colleges. 

Table 1

Class Logistics for Developmental Mathematics 

 

CAMPUS	COURSE	TEACHER	HRS CREDIT	TEACHING METHOD	NUMBER ENROLLED	PASSING CRITERION
A	MTH 02	Female	5	LectureLab	20	70%
A	MTH 03	Male	5	LectureLab	24	70%
A	MTH 04	Male	5	LectureLab	18	70%
B	MTH 02	Male	3	LectureLab	12	70%
B	MTH 03	Male	5	LectureLab	22	70%
B	MTH 04	Male	5	LectureLab	30	70%
C	MTH 02	Male	3	LectureLab	18	70%
C	MTH 03	Female	5	LectureLab	21	70%
C	MTH 04	Female	5	LectureLab	16	70%
D	MTH 02	Female	5	Individual	22	85%
D	MTH 03	Female	5	Individual	24	75%
D	MTH 04	Female	5	Individual	22	75%
E	MTH02,03,04	Female	5	Individual	19	80%
E	MTH02,03,04	Female	5	Individual	22	80%

 

First, these three courses—Basic Arithmetic (MTH 02), Basic Algebra I (MTH 03), and Basic Algebra II (MTH 04)—were, for the most part, offered for five hours credit.  An earlier study (Waycaster, 1998) revealed that the hours of credit given for developmental mathematics courses varied across the VCCS.  Since that time, adjustments have been made in the credit hours for courses in at least two of the five colleges involved in this study, making them more consistent with other colleges in the system.  At the time of this study, only two sections of MTH 02 were offered for three hours credit.  All other courses were offered for five hours credit.  The five-hour credit courses had a variety of class meeting patterns.   

·        2 days per week for 2 hours and 15 minutes each with a break

·        3 days per week for 1 hour and 25 minutes each

·        3 days per week—2 days for 2 hours each with a break, 1 day for 50 minutes

·        4 days per week—2 days for 50 minutes each, 2 days for 75 minutes each

·        5 days per week for 50 minutes each

 

Developmental courses are taught in the system at a funding ratio of 15:1 and usually with a maximum enrollment of 20-25 students with the understanding that a few students will never attend class and/or withdraw during the first couple of weeks.   Enrollment in these classes ranged from 12 to 24 with the exception of one MTH 04 class with 30 students.  However, no more that 23 students were ever present during any observation day.

Usually from 56% to 81% of the students attended, with the exception of one MTH 04 class that never saw 50% of its students present.  Attendance dropped to under ten students in several classes during my third visit near the end of the semester, which is characteristic of many developmental mathematics classes.  This attendance problem was most prevalent in the lecture courses with a break.  A few students would simply not return from break for the second half of the class period.  One of these colleges has decided to change its meeting times for Fall 2000 from one with a break to the 3 days per week for 1 hour and 25 minutes each day without a break in an attempt to resolve this problem.

Female students outnumbered male students in six classes, and males outnumbered females in four classes—three of which were MTH 04.  Females tend to outnumber males in MTH 02 and MTH 03 while males outnumber females in MTH 04.  As for gender of teacher, there were six female instructors and six male instructors.  Only experienced developmental mathematics faculty members were involved in this study.  All but one instructor was full-time.  This one part-time instructor was a retired high school teacher who had taught the same developmental mathematics course at the college for the last eight years. 

The primary methods of instruction were lecture/lab and individualized (Computer-Assisted Instruction).  Three of the colleges use a lecture/lab format, one college is individualized with tutors assisting teachers, and one college offers all developmental courses in both a lecture and CAI mode.  For this study, only the CAI sections at this college were observed.  All classes taught in a lecture/lab format at three of the colleges routinely reserved specified times during class for students to work individually and/or in groups with worksheets. 

Participation Rates 

One way to determine if students are engaged in learning is the degree of student participation, i.e., the number of questions asked and answers given by the students during a lecture.  So this question/answer data was gathered on nine of the classes in the three colleges that utilized the lecture/lab mode of instruction.  Table 2 presents this information.

 

Table 2

Participation Rates During Lectures in Developmental Math Classes

 

 

Site	Course	Teacher Gender	Student Gender	Attend	Male	Female	Question	Male	Female	Answer	Male	Female
A	MTH02	F	F	15	20%	80%	65	5%	95%	126	9%	91%
A	MTH02	F	F	12	17%	83%				103	8%	92%
A	MTH02	F	F	6	17%	83%				81	4%	96%
A	MTH03	M		14	50%	50%	23	87%	13%	59	54%	46%
A	MTH03	M		13	46%	54%				130	45%	55%
A	MTH03	M		14	50%	50%				81	47%	53%
A	MTH04	M	M	8	75%	25%	30	87%	13%	126	74%	26%
A	MTH04	M	M	4	100%	0%				176	100%	0%
A	MTH04	M	M	4	75%	25%				126