ED 316 076

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCY

REPORT NOPUB DATECONTRACTNOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

HE 022 979

Tomlinson, Louise M.Postsecondary Developmental Programs: A TraditionalAgenda with New Imperatives. ASHE -ERIC HigherEducation Report 3, 1989.Association for the Study of Higher Education.; ERICClearinghouse on Higher Education, Washington,D.C.

Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED),Washington, DC.ISBN-0-9623882-2-X89RI8806214127p.ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports, The GeorgeWashington University, One Dupont Circle, Suite 630,Dept. RC, Washington, DC 20036-1183 ($15.00).Information Analyses - ERIC Information AnalysisProducts (071)

MFO1 /PC06 Plus Postage.College Bound Students; *College Preparation;*Developmental Studies Programs; *EducationalDevelopment; Educationally Disadvantaged; HigherEducation; High Risk Students; Skill Development;Transitional Programs

The report examines postsecondary developmentaleducation for students denied regular admission to the institution.Addressed are such concerns as the evolution of developmentalprograms, the effect of developmental programs on the integrity ofacademic institutions, and the future of postsecondary developmentalprograms. The report's seven sections discuss the following topicsand subtopics: (1) the historical perspective of postsecondarydevelopmental education (the evolution of developmental programs inthe United States and the purpose, function, nature, definition andambiguities of such programs); (2) the rationale for developmentalprograms (new target population, projections, arguments on role andresponsibility, learning deficiencies, experiential deficiencies, andstandardized placement trends--SAT averages); (3) characteristics ofpostsecondary developmental programs (alternative structures, typesof interventions, delivery modes, operational models, and the role ofjunior and senior colleges and universities); (4) exemplars andproblems in the delivery of developmental services (profiles of twosuccessful programs, factors of success) personnel, program design,general criticisms, and problems); (5) program evaluation(assessments of program evaluation, focus and findings, andevaluation designs and implications); (6) changes in education andthe challenge to developmental curriculum (including a comparison ofSternberg on training intelligence, Feurstein on instrumentalenrichment, and Lipman on philosophy in the classroom); and (7)policy and possibilities for future developmental programs (the roleof the state in policy, training administrators and faculty, theprospective developmental student population, the general prosperityof programs, and developmental research). Contains 139 references.(SM)

-7;60

1202

Postsecondary Developmental Programs:A Traditional Agenda with New Imperativas

by Louise M. Tomlinson

ASHE-ERIC 11(gher L'ducation Report I 989

Prepared by

ERIC

in cooperation with

ASH*

Published by

The

ff. one .School of Education and Human Development

The George Washington lInivers.ity

Clearinghousv on Higher EducationThe George Washington Uniimity

Association for the Stud?of Higher Education

nwe tyWASHiNC; TON DC

Jonathan D. Fife, Series Editor

toi

Cite asTomlinson, Louise M. Postsecondary Developmental Programs:A Traditional Agenda with New imperatites Report No. 3.Washington, D.C.: School of Education and Human Devel-opment, The George Waslington University, 1989.

library ca' Congress Catalog Card Number 89-63439ISSN 0884-0040ISDN 0-9623882-2-X

Managing Editor. Christopher RigauxManuscript Editor: Jean ShirhallCover design by Michael David Bruton, Rockallg, Maryland

The ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education invites indi-viduals to submit proposals for writing monographs for the&HE ERIC Higher Education Report series. Proposals mustinclude:1. A detailed manuscript proposal of not more than five rages2. A chapter-by-chapter outline.3. A 75-word summary to be used by several review com-

mittees for the initial screening and rating of each proposal.4. A vita and a writing sample.

Clearinghorme on Higher EducationSchoo! of Education and Human DevelopmentThe George Washington UniversityOne Dupont Circle, Suite 630Washington, DC 20036-1183

This publication was prepared partially with funding fromthe Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S.Department of Education, under contract no. ED RI-88-062014.The opinions expressed in this report do not necessarilyreflect the positions or policies of OERI or the Department.

.1;

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

What Is Postsecondary Developmental Education?Developmental programs at institutions of higher educationencompass a variety of courses and services that are con-ducted to provide assistance to individuals who have beendenied regular admission to the institution because of failureto meet specified admission and placement requirementsor because of prediied risk in meeting the requirementsof college-level courses. These services focus primarily onskills in reading, writing, mathetnatiLs, and study and test-taking strategies, as well as personal adjustment and otheraffective variables that are critical to success in the collegeouriculum.

How Have Develornental Programs Evolved?In response to the needs of the underprepared student, pro-grams classified as "college preparatory" since the mid-1800shave served many of the same goals as those programs thathave more recently been labeled "academic development,""learning assistance," or "developmental studies." The changein the labeling of preparatory programs is, to some extent,associated with the change in student populations. Whereassocioeconomic status, Instead of ability, was once the primarydeterminant of attendance at a college or university, the stu-dent population now admitted to institutions of higher edu-cation through developmental programs or the regular cur-riculum reflects a wide range of statuses in terms of race,ethnic origin, socioeconomic background, high school gradeprAnt average, age, and career objectives. A major factor inthis diversity has been admissions policy in response to soci-ety's evolving pefception of the role and value of highereducation.

As a result of the growing diversity among enrollees at postseccaadary institutions of learning, a number of developmentalprogram models have emerged. Some of these models arecomprehensive and some are specialized. There are at leastfour different types of program categories: college campustutorial/remedial, college outreach programs, campus assis-tance centers, and off-campus instruction. The specific typesof intervention involve the teaching/lezning process, coun-seling, peer support, and supplemental use of media and thearts to develop students' articulation of basic skills and theapplication of those skills to various content areas in the col-lege curriculum.

Postsecondary Developmental Prop:rams

Of the numerous developmental programs across thenation, several can be identified as memplars in terms of theirsuccess. Many programs, including those considered success.ful, have encountered a variety of problems, however. Thecontinuous burdens that these programs face include prob-lems of funding, staff` recruitment and retention, admissionand placement standards, minority student enrollment, thequality of tests, the relativity of curriculum, and perceptionsof the program.

The evolution of academic assistance programs can he char-acterized as a progression from service for a small segmentof the total population through the use of limited techniquesand limited funds to service for a broad span of the nation'spopulation by means of a more cohesive and comprehensiveeffort and the support of regularly budgeted programs. Expen-ditures for the administration of developmental programsvary across institutions and states and have ranged from $6million for one state system to $12 million for one university.Approximately 90 percent of all institutions of higher edu-cation provide some developmental service, at least 30 per-cent of the national population in higher education is enrolledin some aspect of these setvices, and 33 percent of institutionsreport having a separate department or division for devel-opmental studies or learning centers.

Postsecondary remedial education and its relationship toequity are often perceived to be in conflict with the desireto maintain high standards and cost efficiency. Although asubstantial segment of popular opinion holds that develop-mental courses should be conducted exclusively at the two-year, community-college level, proponents of multilevel dis-tribution of developmental services argue that even the bestinstitutions in the nation have "low" students who benefitfrom such services. Senior colleges and universities houseschools of education with faculty and graduate students spe-cializing in the areas of remedial education and counseling,which are essential to developmental programs, and positiveresults have been reported in evaluations of services at two-year, four-year, and university levels. Moreover, two-year col-leges have often experienced the same problems in theirefforts to deliver remedial services as have other types ofimitutions.

iv

WW Developmental Programs Decreasethe Imegrity of Academic Institutions?Popular opinion often maintains that developmental programsdilute academic programs, but proponents of developmentalprograms argue that their role is to support and enrich theregular curriculum so that more students will succeed Thus,remedial programs are perceived by their supporters as addidons to, not replacements for, a required ccirriculum.

Postsecondary developmental programs have helped tofulfill the mission of providing equal educational opportunityin a democratic society. These programs have provided a lastchance" for many individuals to obtain worthwhile experi-enc in higher education that will enable them to find meaningful participation in employment and community life.Where institutions of higher education have had to strive tomaintain a balance between the competition for student en-rollments and a standard of excellence, developmental pro-grams have helped to increase the prx-il of qualified incomingfreshmen. Thus, the institution has served the communitywhile serving itself.

What Is the Future for PostsecondaryDevelopmental Programs?Enrollment in developmental programs has increased inrecent years, and the trend will most likely continue into the1990s and beyond. Observable and projected changes in thediversity of levels of preparedness of high school graduates,sociological and technological change, employment trends,and other demographic factors will continue to create educational needs that will require higher education's commit-ment to developmental assistance.

New precollege curriculum requirements, new admissionsand placement standards, and new trends in college curric-ulum will all create continuous need for academic supportof college applicants who fall short of meeting the challengeof these changes. The preparation of teachers and admin.istrators and the capacity of public policy to address theseconcerns will have to be monitored by long-term evaluationprocesses, which will add momentum to the refinement ofdevelopmental programs.

Emaging theories for training intelligence, enhancing intel-ligence, and using the application of philosophy to developthe an of thinking all hold groat potential for meeting the

Postsecondary Devapmenial Pnwams

51'

challenges that lie ahead in developmental curriculum forverbal comprehension, visual/spatial problem solving, andthe logic of communication--critical aspects of basic skillsinstruction and individual competence.

The impact of developmental ptomains will also be streng-thened by administrative training for developmental per-sonnel currently recognized as a priority for developmentaleducators. The doctoral degree program in developmentaleducation at Grumbling University, for example, has recentlyincorporated a specialization in management in higher edu-cation, and institutions across the nation have negotiated toenroll their faculty in this program. Doctoral programs indevelopmental education are also in place at other institu-tions, and national organizations have been establithed tosupport professional endeavors for developmental personnel.

In regard to issues of program recognition, relativity of cur-riculum, and the prosperity of learning assistance programs,it may be advantageous for some programs to be incorporatedinto standing departments or schools on their cainpus. Inthis way, collaborative efforts in research and curriculumdevelopment may be more easily achieved and in some cases,more substantial line-item funding can be obtained. Finally,if programs strive to identify sound internal and external eval-uation procedures, and those procedures are used with objec-tivity, policymakers and practitioners will be better able tomake informed and unbiased decisions about the improve-ment and direction of developmental programs for the future.

vi

ADVISORY BOARD

Roger G. BaldwinAssistant Professor of EducationCollege of William and Mary

Carol M. BoyerConsuham and Senior Academic PlannerMassachusetts Board of Regents of Higher Education

Ellen Rade ChaffeeAssociate Commissioner of Academic AffairsNorth Dakota State Board of Higher Education

Martin FinkelsteinAssodate Professor of Higher Education AdministrationSewn Hall University

Carol Everly FloydAssociate Vice Chancellor for Academic AffairsBoard of Regents of the Regency Universities SystemState of Illinois

George D. KuhProfessor of Higher EducationIndiana University

Yvonna S. LincolnAssociate Professor of Higher EducationUniversity of Kansas

Michael A. OlhasProfessor of lawUniversity of Houston

Richard F. Wilson.Associate ChancellorUniversity of Illinios

And ZeemanPrincipal Analym, Academic AffairsUniversity of California

Ptiorcandary Develapneat Prtgrams

CONSULTING EDffORS

Robert BerdahlProfessor of Higher EducationUniversity of Maryland

Kenneth A. BruffeeDirector, The Scholars ProgramBrooklyn College of the City of New York

L Leon CampbellProve and Vice President for Academic MaksUniversity of Delaware

Charles S. ClaxtonAssociate ProfessorCenter for the Study of Higher EducationMemphis State University

Darrell ClowesAssociate Professor of EducationViginia Tech

Susan CohenAssociate, Project for Collaborative LearningLesley College

John W. CreswellProfessor and Lilly Project DimetorUniversity of Nebraska

Andre DeruyttereVice PresidentCatholic University at Leuven, Belgium

Mazy E. DrtsDirector, Research and Information ServicesERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Education

Lawrence EricksonProfessor and Coordinator of Reading and language StudiesSouthern Illinois University

Irwin FellerDirector, institute for Policy Research and EvaluationPennsylvania State University

Kenneth C. GreenAssociate DirectorHigher Education Research InstituteUniversity of California at Lis Angeles

Thstsecondary Devellmuqual Prwrasas

1 0

Milton GreenbergProvostAmerican University

Jutikh Oozier HackmanAssociate DeanYale University

Brian I HawkinsVice President for Computing and Information SciencesBrown University

Lynn G.JohnsonExecutive DirectorHudson-Mohawk Association of Colleb,es and Universities

Cull LangeProfessor EmeritusThe George Washington University

Oscar LeaningVice President for Academic AffairsRobert Wesleyan College

Judith B. McLaughlinResearch Asstxiate on Education and SockiloivHarvard University

Andrew T. MasbndJudicial/Publk Safety Market ManagerDigital Equipment Corporation

Janus R. MingleExecutive DirectorRate Higher Education Executive Officers

Elizabeth M. HussExecutive DirectorNational Association of Student Personnel Administrators

Wayne OttoProfessor of Curriculum and InstuctiunUniversity of WAX insin

Anne M. PrattDirector for Foundation RelationsCollege of William and Mary

11

Karen T. RomerAssociate Dean for Academic AffairsBrawn University

John L RonecheProfessor and Director, Community College Leadt-rship ProgramSid W. Richardson Regents ChairUniversity of Tens

Nagy Ellen SheridanDirector of Sponsored Programs AdministrationOhio State University

Hefty TaylorCoordinator, Office of Educational PolicyNew jersey Department of Higher Education

J. Frederidks VolkweinDirector of Institutional Rest-archState University of New York at Albany

William R. WhippleDirector, Honors ProgramUniversity of Maine

Reginald WilsonSenior ScholarAmerican Council on Education

Postsecondary Dereiuptnostrd Programs xi

CONTENTS

Foreword xvAcknowledgmentslifiroduction xixHbtorical Perspective of Postsecondary

Developmental EducationEvolution of Developmental Programs in 1

United StatesPurpose 7

Function 7

Nature 8Definition and Ambiguities 8

The Rationale for Developmental Programs 13The New and Diverse Target Population 14

Projections 15

Arguments on Role and Responsibility 18

Learning Deficiencies 19

Experiential Deficiencies 20Standardized Placement TrendsSAT Averages

Characteristics of Postseccrndary 23Developmental Programs

Alternative Structures 25

Types of Interventions 26Modes of Delivery for Developmental ServicesOperational Models 29The Role of Junior and Senior Colleges and Universities 32

Exemplars and Problems in the Delivery 37of Developmental Services

Profiles of Two Successful Programs 37Factors of Success: Personnel 40Factors of Success: Program Design 41

General Criticisms 42Problems 43

Program Evaluation 53Assessments of Program Evaluation 53Focus and Findings of Program Evaluations 55

Evaluation Designs and Implications 56

Pos:secondaryDvvetupmentalPrivams

Changes in Education and the Chal lenge 61to Developmental unticulimi

Stembetg: Training Intelligence 65Feuerstein: Instrumental Enrichment 66Lipman: Philosophy in the Classroom 67Theoretical Bases Compared 69Relativity of Current Theory to 70

Developmental Studies

Policy and Possibilties for Future 73Developmental Plegtunis

The Role of the State in Policy 74Training for Adminisuators and Faculty 77The Prospective Developmental Student Population 79The General Prosperity of Programs 81Developmental Research 82

ReferencesIndex

8595

14

FOREWORD

There are two basic issues underlying discussions concerningacademic development programs at the postsecondary level.The first is a debate over the legitimacy of higher educationinstitttions having to offer these types of paograms. Thosewho feel that academic development programs should notbe pan of postsecondary education take an idealistic, Metit0-avalc position that is historically unsubstantiated. Their posi-tion an be thusly summarized: No student should apply whois not fully academically prepared for postsecondary educa-tkar; it is the secondary and elementary schools' responsibilityto adequately prepare students to go on to higher education.

While this position is admirable, it is not reality-bound.First, our national secondary school system did not come intoexistence until nearly 300 years after the founding of the firstAmerican college. As a consequence, American higher edu-cation has always had to help prepare some of its studentsto be academically capable for the intellectual rigor of highereducation. Second, even with a national secondary schoolsystem, the quality of this system is so inconsistent that it isunrealistic to expect that all students who are intellectuallycapable of a postsecondary education will have received ade-quate training.

The second debate is to what extent should an institutionof higher education provide academic developmeat oppor-tunities. In the 1950s and into the 1960s, the "revolving door"philosophy whereby students were admitted and then roufinely flunked out if they couldn't meet the academic stand-ards, is no longer acceptable in the 1980s and will not beacceptable in the 1990s. The national need for a well-educatedlabor pool will be so great in the 1990s that if our nation isto remain economically viable and competitive, every effortwill be needed to insure that there is no waste of the intel-lectual resounes of our youth. The point is not wbetber aninstitution should play resources in academic developmentactivities, but what academic development activites are no.:-essary in order to assist students to meet the necessarily ng-orous graduation standards of our institutions.

In this report, Louise Tanlinson, assistant professor of read-ing at the University of Georgia, delineates the r w conditionsthat make development studies such a compelling issue:changing student populations, renewed emphasis on civicresponsibility, identifiable learning deficiencies, and fillingstandardized test scores. After providing an overview of the

Postsecondary Developmental Programs acv

history of developmental programs, she goes on to identifycharacteristics of programs, examples of successful programs,and methods of evaluating programs.

As demonstrated by the author, when institutions carefullyintegrate academic development programs within their cur-riculum, the unnecessay tensions between those who havereceived adequate academic preparation and these who havenot cease to be an issue. If this country is to maintain a strongeducated citizenry, support for developmental programs bothwithin and external from the institution must be nurtured.This monograph helps to develop such a foundation.

Jonathan D. FifeProfessor and DirectorERIC Clearinghouse on Higher EducationSchool of Education and Human DevelopmentThe George Washington University

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was initiated in pan to fulfill a Sarah H. MossFellowship given to me by the University of Georgia to doresearch at Yale University.

I wish to thank Wayne Otto for inspiring me to write intothe future, Leroy Ervin for providing faculty developmentworkshops which encouraged me to examine some of themost recent philosophies in intelligence training programs,and Edmund Gordon for providing guidance and directionon the many facets of this report.

I would also like to thank Doris M. Backus, E.speranzaValdes, and the Goodins for inspiring me to inquire.

Most important, I thank my mother, Gladys Goodin Tom-linson, for spariong my desire to persevere

My special thanks go to Bertha H. McLaughlin for herpatient processing of the manuscript and to Carolyn Faustfor organizing the references.

Postsecomkity Devekionental Pi ogrwns =if

0

INTRODUCTION

Postsecondary developmental programs designed to assistthe underprepared college applicant have been in existencefor much longer than is usually acknowledged Divisions ordepartments currently labeled as "developmental studies"or "learning assistance" by institutions of higher educationoperate for the same basic purposes as services that were onceknown as "college preparatory." The presence and problemsof underprepared students were recognized in some of themost prestigious institutions of higher learning as early asthe 1860s, long before the enrollment of World War II vete-rans and the influx of students generated by desegregation.

This monograph describes the various perspectives on theelution of developmental programs, their current modesof cveration, their clients, and the issues surrounding theirCorr The intent is to provide information that willhelp answer questions related to whether institutions ofhigher education should offer developmental programs forunderprepared students, whether such involvement dimin-ishes the academic integrity of the institution, and the extentto which institutions should be involved in such programsif they elect to offer developmental services.

The literature strongly suggests that the point of commit-ment to the implementation of developmental assistance isthe trend in academic achievement scores over the past twodecadeslost ground has not yet been fully recovered Inaddition, issues of excellence versus equity, junior versussenior college administration of developmental programs,and the preparedness of program staff and administratorsare prominent concerns among developmental educators,policymakers, and the general public. These problems arealso explored.

The purpose, function, and nature of developmental pro-grams are delineated in the report in order to illustrate thesimilarities that have existed for over a century. Specific defi-nitions of developmental programs are taken from the lit-azure to provide perspective on how the roles and functionsof these programs have been viewed over the years. The vari-ability of admission and placement standards established bycolleges and universities, however, makes it impossible toarrive at a conclusive definition of developmental programsin terms of the concept of college-level work. Rationales forthe existence, continuance, and expansion of these programsare emphasized in a discussion of social and technological

Posisecontkay Darelopmental Programs

changes as they apply to advanced age populations and youngadults (Cross 1981), the level of underpreparedness amongcollege freshmen (Hardesty 1986), and the popularconcep-tualizations of developmental services (H. Astin 1985; GordonJ971).

Although the primary purpose of postsecondary learningassistance services at institutions of higher education hasremained the same for more than a century, the content andscope of these services have changed Whereas program focuswas once limited to how-to-study techniques, basic reading,writing, and math skills improvement have been incorporatedinto the thrust of most developmental services by means ofdiagnosis, prescription, and tutorial assistance, which areaccompanied by counseling and peer support to address atti-tudinal and self-management variables. The scope of servicesin any program may include classroom instruction, laboratorytutorials and self-paced activities, experiential activities onand off campus (e.g., plays, poetry readings, job training),and computer-monitored feedback on individual progressfor students participating in the program.

Developmental courses have been offered at two-year, four-year, and university-level institutions, but it is frequentlyargued that academic assistance programs should be admin-istered primarily at the junior-college level. Of the numerousdevelopmental programs established at senior institutions,however, many have experienced successes and failures sim-ilar to those of programs at two-year institutions. Exemplaryprograms (e.g., the University of Minnesota's General CollegeRetention Program and the Freshman Studies Program at Liv-ingston College, Rutgers University) and the specific problemsinherent to program operation are also presented.

The need for developmental programs that deliver instruc-tion of the utmost Integrity in terms of purpose, content, andscope is critical in efforts to optimize individual capabilitiessuch that students are encouraged to feel that they can exertcontrol over themselves and their environment through theenhancement of basic skills and the use of information thatis classic, contemporary, and futuristic. Basic skills shouldbe interrelated with and applied to content areas as well asareas of interest that auxiliary programs usually aim to address.Although statistics indicate that there are more courses offeredin developmental mathematics across institutions, the real-iration that reading and writing are the basic skills more often

19

necessary for daily survival has prlmpted a greater emphasison reading and language arts concerns in this report.

Programs of honest intent and integrity can afford to makea sincere effort to imbue students with a sense ofself worthand integrity by acknowledging their cultures, philosophies,and milieus in all that the curriculum imparts. This reportincludes some program descriptions and philosophies thatreflect such efforts. Commendable progress has been madein many instances, but there is still much room for theimprovement and refinement of developmental programsin term of goals, objectives, and approaches.

Many changes in educational programs have occurred inthe 1980s. There have been new commitments to excellence,new criteria for admission and placement, and new philos-ophies of instructional practice. Each of these changes isexamined in the report in terms of the implications for devel-opmental services. Particular attention is given to Stemberg'smodel for training intelligence, Feuerstein's program of instrumental enrichment, and lipnran's application of philosophyin the classroom-- all of which are relevant to the possibilitiesfor refining developmental instruction. These three insinx.,tional theories represent programs of training that have beenwidely implemented and successful in improving aspectsof verbal comprehension, visual/spatial problem solving, andthe logic of thought and expression.

The strength of the nation depends on our ability to equipthe broadest spectrum of the population with the knowledgeand skills that are required to face the increasing demandsof global competition and the increasing demands of ourimmediate environments. Critical factors that will ultimatelyaffect developmental programs are teacher training, funding,and the mature of assessment and evaluation processes at boththe secondary and postsecondary levels. Educational insti-tutions must meet these challenges at all levels, and for allwho seek to participate.

Postsecondary I kiced lonental Programs xxat

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF POSTSECONDARYDEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION

Programs designed for similar purposes as those we nowknow as "developmental studies" have been in existencein the United States for well over 100 years Despite the varietyof more recent labels for such programs (academic devel-opment, studem support services, special studies, or studentdevelopment), programs dubbed as "college preparatrxy"have existed since the mid-1800s to serve many of the samegoals as today's programs. Historical accounts document thisearly evolution of developmental programs for the post-secondary student

The presence of underiwepared students in American col-leges was recorded as early as the seventeenth century andhas been attributed to a social structure in which wealth, morethan ability, decided who went to college (Roberts 1986).The emergence of learning assistance programs for college-level study was officially ushered in by such events as thepublication of the first how-to-study manual by Todd in 1836;the recognition of students' underpreparedness for universitystudies in English, a transition from the previous use of Latinin classrooms, which was highlighted by Hatay P. Tappanin his inaugural presidential address ut the University of Mich-igan in 1852; and by the signing of the Mardi Act of 1862,which established kmd-grant colleges and new purposes forhigher education through agricultural and mechanical courses(Dempsey 1985). By the late nineteenth century, institutionssuch as Vassar College and Cornell University were experienc-ing problems with the academically deficient student (Roberts1986).

Evolution of DevelopmentalPrograms in United StatesA close look at the evolution of developmental programs inthe United States reveals the following course of significantevents and conditions. In 1865, the University of Wisconsinregistered 331 students, of which only 41 were consideredregular enrolleesthe others were assigned to the "prepsratory department" or classified as "special students" (1)unbar1935). In 1866, the achievement levels of the first studentsat Vassar were described in the president's annual report tothe board as a range of grade levels from a point appropriatefor a college junior to a point lower than any scale used couldindicate (Vassar College 1866). By 1872, a Preparatory Studies

1907, MOM50

'woven,* ofthe studentsenteringHarvant4 YalgColumbia, andPrincetoncould riot meetadmissionstandards.

Posiseconsisay Deivicromental Programs

program was established at Vassar afrer discrepancieswerenoted between the popular ideal of elevating entrancerzquirements, to eliminate low student-achievement recordsat the college, and the president's philosophy that it wouldbe financially more equitable to have underprepared studentsthan no students at all (Roberts 1986). Preparatory enrollmentstudents became 45 percent of the total student enrollmentat Vassar by 1876, which led to great cattroversy. Faculty whotaught preparatory students were stigmatized by those whotaught the regular collegiate curriculum, and "subcollegiate"students were stigmatized by the regular students. A percep-tion of Vassar as "half college and halfacademy" finallyresulted in stronger ties with secondary schools regardingadmission policies and the discontinuance of the PreparatoryStudies program (Roberts 1986).

The common problem of the underprepared college stu-dent was reemphasized from an instructional perspective inpublications emerging in 1877 and 1880 that focused on thenature of college reading, its demands, and theappropriatetechniques (Dempsey 1985). There was also the simultaneousinstallment of the first freshman English course at Harvard:n response to faculty complaints (Maxwell 1979).The trend toward breaking the traditional mode of edu-

cation that had prevailed in the seventeenth and eighteenthcenturies was given additional momentum by the signingof the Morrill Act of 1890, which increased federal aid tohigher educaticm in applied sciences and mechanical art asa way to expand crportunities for txxasecondazy educationfor Americans (Maxwell 1979). In the same year, and at a timewhen many new institutions were competing for students,the College Entrance Examination Board was founded andgiven the mission of making college admission standardsuniform (Dempsey 1985). Both of these events contributedto the increasing need for learning assistance.

By 1907, more than 50 percent of the students enteringHarvard, Yale, Columbia, and Princeton could not meet admis-sion standards, and by 1915 courses had been establishedto address underpreparetinms at 350 colleges in the nation(Maxwell 1980). During the 1920s almost 100 books on studyhabits were written to accommodate the instructional needsof the emerging preparatory courses (Blake 1953). Duringthis period also, scholarly research supported the need forpostsecondary learning assistance programs (Albright 1927;

24rs;

Book 1927; Remmers 1927), the first instrument to measurecollege reading adfievement was published (Haggerty andEurich 1929), and the first survey of remedial assistance pro-grams was conducted (Parr 1930). In addition to the focuson study skills in the assistance programs, a predominantemphasis on reading instruction is attributed to the prevalenceof freshman survey courses at the time, which required exten-sive reading (Dempsey 1985).

The 1930s saw continuous growth of the importance placedon reading improvement in academic assistance. The greateststrides were made in the diagnosis and categorization of read-ing deficiencies. The development of the tachistoscope asa mechanical aid in improving reading rate, the establishmentof college and university reading clinics that served as teachertraining and undergraduate learning assistance programs, thepublic schools' attention to remedial reading, and the emerg-ing trend of using a battery of psychological, reading, vocabulary, physiological, and visual tests to determine abilitiesand deficienciesall indicate the increased focus on reading.Also evident during this time was the growth of research oncollege students' reading abilities (Dempsey 1985), whichprovides a significant historical perspective (Buswell 1939;Robinson 1933). The majority of academic assistance pro-grams, however, still focused on how-to-study courses devel-oped primarily on the basisS s of narrowly perceived causes ofunderachievement, such as immaturity and poor study habits,commonly identified in students from "good families" (Cross1976).

A significant increas:.° in the addition of remedial readingto the how-to-study courses in academic assistance programsoccurred during the 1940s. These new courses were characterized mainly as voluntary and noncredit and were con-ducted by counselors or other student personnel maff. Someinstitutions offered these courses in summer sessions aspre. freshman preparation. The increased focus on remedialreading is attributed to the depressed performance on standatdized tests, which had gained popularity throughout theprevious decade (Cross 1976).

An intensification in establishing remedial and develop-mental programs during the late 1950s and early 1960s isassociated with an increased understanding of the nature andscope of the post -World War II college enrollment exp an.sion, which was due in pan to the flood of veterans entering

Postsecondary Diveillmiertkd Programs 3

college after the war. Valuable retrospective documentation,of reading and study skills instruction is available in com-prehensive research reports of the period (Blake 1953; Leedy1958) that trace the development of materials, powams, andother relevant research and reports from 1900 to the late1950s. Personal, demographic, and academic analyses Illustratethe diverse dimensions of the new student populations. Moreattention was directed to psycho- and sociocultural factorsof academic achievement, and remedial and developmentalprograms were considered essential to reduce the educationaldifferences among students. The results of achievement testsand other measures enabled colleges to distinguiA between"kvw-ability" students and "underachievers," and in responseto those findings, counseling and motivational programs wes-edeveloped to address academic achievement. This new focusand the expansion of programs were still not designed tomeet the needs of those who fell into the "low-ability" cat-egory, and those students remained unable to persist in college programs (Cross 1976). Several surveys conducted duringthe 1960s reveal a comparatively low level of involvementin educating the disadvantaged in institutions of higher edu-cation (Egerton 1968; Simmons 1970). In a survey of 2,131colleges and univeisities, for example, only 37 percent (224)of the responding Institutions reported having compensatoryprogramsnearly one-half of which were swing fewer than30 "new" (disadvantaged) students (Gordon and Wilkerson1966).

The late 1960s and early 1970s were 'nuked by massivecollege enrollments across the nation and greater efforts byinstitutions of higher education to meet the challenge of sewing a fully diverse and pluralistic student body. Academic sup-port programs began to address sociocultural differences andother variables that influence the development of the "lowability" student as well as the "underachiever." The "new"college entrants of this era were typically women, ethnicminorities, and those scoring in the lowest third of nationalsamples on academic ability tests (Cross 1976, 1%1). Majorcontributions to the literature on reading and study skillsinstruction were again produced in comprehensive reviewsof surveys documenting program developments (Lowe 1966),of major trends in instruction (Lowe 1970), of specific periodsof significance in the field (Aluendt 1975; Leedy 1%4), andof the specific focus on the development of one particular

pr tam typethe learning assistance model (Enright 1975).Surveys conducted at this time indicate a greater commitmentto and involvement in special educational programs. Out of180 midwestern community colleages, for example, 80 percent(110) offered remedial courses to prepare the "new" studentsfor their regular runiculum, 50 percent (68) provided aca-demic skills services, and almost 33 percent (47) had com-prehensive programs incorporating tutorials, academic andnonacademic counseling, and remedial courses. In addition,one out of nine students at the responding institutions wasinvolved in some sort of developmental education (Ferrin1971). A survey of 337 predominantly white colleges and univetsities in the South indicated widespread involvement Insuch !Norms When asked to describe innovative ratherthan traditional programs of remedial curriculum, 100 pres-idents reported 460 innovative programs at their institutions(Southern. Regional Education Board 1971). Remedial edu-cation has been estimated to be one of the fastest growingareas of the college curriculum during the 1970s (Wright andCahalan 1985).

The 199as have seen further improvement in the designand implementation of programs to meet the needs of theunderprepared. Institutions of higher education have becomeincreasingly aware of the need for support services that canassist the underpreccared student with personalized cognitive,social, and affective development as well as pragmatic, indi.vidualized, taesic ski !s development (Cross 1976). Significantcontributions to the professional literature preceding andduring this period reflect an emphasis on general historicaltrends (Sanders 1979), specific trend.; in experimentalresearch on college-level instruction in reading and studyskills (Bailey 1982), and the evaluation of research on theeffectiveness of college reading programs (Glass 1976)-all of which are umbubtetily useful in establishing and refining programs.

In sum. the evolution of academic assistance programssince the nineteenth century has been a progression fromisolated, narrowly conceived, poorly funded efforts to inte.grated, broadly conceptualized, regularly budgeted programs(Robots 1986). Along with progress in the development ofthese programs, however, there has also been resistance.

There has been much debate over whether remedial orbasic skills courses should be offered at certain types of

Postsvaindary 1 kvdepniental 5

schools. The Illinois legislature, for example, passed a reso-lution in 1977 calling for tht. reduction of remedial coursesat the university level and for the concentration ofany nec-essary remedial courses at the community-college level by1983. The Illinois resolution also supported the idea thatdegree credit should not be awarded for such courses. In1984, the governor of Virginia called for higher admissionstandards as a way of reducing remedial programs, whichhe generally perceived as wasteful. Maryland administraters,indeed, instituted higher admission standards in the sameyear and experienced declines in remedial English enroll-ment. New Jersey administrators tried a different awroach.They established a Basic Skills Council with the legal mandateto test all students' basic skills at the point of college entryand to encourage the requirement of remedial course workfor all who were deficient. A priority mission of the councilis to work with the high schools to intensify their focus onbasic skills instruction. In 1983, for the first time since theinception of the program in 1977, the council reported adecrease in the percentage of college entrants found to bedeficient in the basic skills areas tested (Wright and Cahalan1985).

Remedial education and its relationship to equity are oftenperceived to he in conflict with the desire to maintain highstandards and cost efficiency. The Commission on Excellencein Education holds that these goals should nut be mutuallyexclusive, however.

Some of the controversy associated with remediation hasbeen related to the variety of labels that schools across thecountry have placed on remedial courses. (Table I traces thelabels used since the 1860s.) labeling has been significantin that it is not only a product of remedial program organi-zation, structure, and targeted groups, but also of public per-ception, state and university policy, and other factors (Wrightand Cahalan 1985).

labeling has also created difficulty in defining academicassistance programs for the underprepared. The remainderof this section delineates the purpose, function, and natureof these programs; provides generic definitions; and addressesthe issue of variability in admission and placement proclures, which further complicates efforts to define theseprograms.

TABLE 1

LABELS USED FOR DEVELOPMENTAL PROGRAMSAND THEIR STUDENT POPULATIONS FROM 1860

TO PRESENT

Time Span Program Labels St .lent to

IS 0s to 189(is college preparatory special studentspreparatory studies

1900.~ to 1940s remedi?, assistance underachieverslearning assistance unprepared studentshow-to- study

1950s to present developmental low abilityremedial underachieverscompensator) disadvantagedspecial stud!es underpay:it-alacademic skills services deficientbasic skills high riskcollege reading nontraditionalacademic rehabilitationcollege study skillsacademic supportlearning assistance

PurposeThe overall purpose of so.called college preparatory anddevelopmental studies programs has been to eliminate aca-demic deficiencies that diminish students' potential to suc-ceed in college level coursys. More specifically, the purposehas been to assist the student in developing skills that wouldensure success on entrance or proficiency exams or in meeting other admissions criteria.

FunctionThe function of these programs has primarily been to offeralternative programs of study to students who would havebeen denied admission to institutions of higher educationby regular standards. The programs have most frequently beendesigned to prepare entering freshmen to meet the challengeof college-lewl courses in a variety of disciplines within thecore course requirements. These services have usually beenprovided through a series of special courses, often for nocredit, that allow the student to enroll in regular courses onsuccessful completion of the preliminary program.

Puctsecondary Derelopmeraal Program 7

Iaf.

NatureThe nature of these offerings has been primarily remedial;the focus is on basic skills in reading, writing, and mathe-matics, and the application of those skills to content areamaterials. Many of these courses have used content area mate-rials that progress in difficulty from secondary level to a levelcommensurate with that of materials used in the regularcourse offerings at the institution of higher education. A majoremphasis in most of these programs has been study and test-taking strategies.

Definition and AmbiguidesThere is much cross-usage of such terms as "remedial,""developmental," and "compensatory" in referring to pro-grams that assist students in obtaining required levels ofpro-ficiency they have failed to meet. This cross-usage is a prob-km in the reality of program operations, as is the ambiguityof the phrase "college-level study" (see below). The term"remedial" denotes the correction of poor habits; the tam"developmental" denotes that which is related to the effortto bring something into being as if for the first time; and theterm "compensatory" denotes the provision of knowledge,abilities, or skills that will substitute for others that are re-quired. The essence of each of these conditions, however,can often be found in programs that are labeled by any oneof these terms when those programs are in the business ofhelping students to negotiate the regular po stsecondary cur-riculum. (For example, in more unusual but increasing In-stances of beaming- disabled students pursuing postsecondaryeducation, services are delivered in a variety of manners andsett .ngs, from learning or remedial centers to specific pro-grams designed for learning-disabled students.) In any ofthese settings, educators are called on to assist student.' inchoices regarding remediation or compensation (Norlanderand Anderson 1987). In practice, any progr..... serving studentsat the postsecondary level win have failed to demonstraterequired proficiencies may be involved in the delivery of ser-vices that encompass remedial, developmental, andcom-pensatory approaches.

"Developmental education" is an umbrella term for a vari-ety of instructional programs and individualized services thatare unified by basic educational assumptions about variation

of learning style being greater than ability to learn, variationof age for the achievement of educational potential, and theability of those with varied cultural or environmental back-grounds or physical or economic handicaps to learngiventhe appropriate conditions and strategies (Illinois Associationfor Personalized Learning Programs 1985)- Thus, develoP-mental studies programs have been defined from a varietyof perspectives. This cross-usage is evident in Erickson andRosk2is (1978) definition of the course offerings of theseprograms

The courses descrthed as developmental we from reme-dial ope reading courses through basic writing mathe-matics sciencg and advanced study techniques They gen-erally cover all levels of academic achievement and consistof buiividualizet4 presaVive laboratory everiences aswell as kugegroup lecture vproaches (p. 19).

Erickson and Rosica perceive develormental programs aslearning or learner oriented. Christ (1971) supports this perception in his definition of learning centers:

A learning assistance center will be any place wherelearners, learns* data, and learning facilitators are inter-woven into a cybernetic, individualizeit oriPtled*stem to service all students (learners) and facuL!y (learn-ing fadlitators) of any institution where learning by itsstudenb is bnportant (p 3).

In a Response to Findings of the Office for Civil Mgt& theRegents Test Program tithe University System of Georgia(1984) described its developmental studies program as onethat exists to assist students in the elimination of academicdeficiencies that prevent their full admission to collegiate -level courses Developmental programs yaw greatly in theirspecific purposes, goals, features, dimensions, and parameterswithin which they operate. Any one program may be in a con-stant state of change due to internal variables, such as char-acterigics of the student population, and external variables,such as Institutional mission or state Wilding A program thatwas labeled as a freshman seminar over 12 years ago at a col-lege in the Natheast, for example, has evolved from a coursein survival skills for high-risk fieshmen showing deficiencies

Postsecondasy Devekpmental Prams 9'Th

41)

in mathematics, reading, and writing, with both voluntaryand mandatory assignments in its first year; to a graduationrequirement for all entering full-time, first-time freshmen inthe new year, with academic credit; to a course moved fromStudent Affairs to Academic Affairs, with assigned rather thanvoluntary instructors and sections added for undeclaredmajors, three years later; to a course whose curriculum currently focuses on intellectual issues as well as advit:ory infor-mation, introduces liberal arts topics, and requires a writtenproject. The seminar is said to have "evolved from ^ smallprogram for freshmen deficient in basic skills, to a generalorientation course, to a critical thinking seminar," and thoseshifts are said to reflect national trends (Dunphy, Miller,Woodruff, and Nelson 1989, p. 6).

From a success-ratio perspective, the most operational andpeivasive definition indicates that the most successful devel-opmental programs (.2n be defined as multidimensional orholistic in the sense that they help students develop attitudes,skills, and values, thereby markedly improving success ratiosfor high-risk students Thus, the most successful programsare those concerned with the education of the "whole stu-dent," that is, they emphasize development of the affectiveaspects of their clients (j. Roueche and Snow 1977).

From the perspective of placement standards, however,a recent Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) reportindicztes that, even within the parameters of a basic definitionof deveiripmental programs at the postsecondary level, thereis very little consensus on what college-level work is (Abra-ham 1986). This lack of consensus is evident in the resultsof a study of college placement standards, specifically in termsof cutoff scores on placement tests (reading, writing, andmathematics), that was conducted in the SREB states--Ala-Nana, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mary-land, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina,Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and We Virginia. The regionalsurvey found that, across these southeastern states, the term"college-level" varied greatly among two-year and four-yearpublic institutions. "In fact, depending on the test selected,these data indicate that entry-level placement is based onscores that vary from as low as the 1st percentile to as highas the 94th percentile" (Abraham 1986, p. 4). A subsequentSRF..B study at the state or system level shows that there isalso "little consensus for institutions in the same state and

l0

higher educational system on college-level placement stand-ards" (Abraham 1987, p. 15).

In analyzing the data in that mime study, Abraham foundthe following:

in every SREB state there is more than one means of deter.mining college-level placement The average number ofplacement tests used per state in the region is eigbt in read-ing eight in mathematics and seven in writing The numberof different placement tests used in any one curricula arearange from as few as three in Georgia for mathematicsto as many as 18 in North Carolina and Teca4 also formathematics (p. 7).

Only three SREB states had statewide placement standardsin 1987: Florida, Gemgia, and Tennessee. Arkansas and Texashad a legislative mandate for developing such standards, andfive other states were at some stage of considering a place-ment program. In most SREB states, colleges and universitieshave institutional autonomy to establish their own standards.

If variance exists within the three SREB states that havestatewide standards, then it follows that the variance withinstates kicking statewide policy will be even greater. Thus, itis virtually impassible to arrive at a truly collective definitionof developmental programs that could be considered rep-resentative of institutions of higher education in general. Veryfew global assumptions can he made about the standards,quality, or value of the undergraduate experienceeven atthe pogsecmdary developmental level.

Postrecondaty Dorkinnental Prwarns 11

THE RATIONALE FOR DEVELOPMENTAL PROGRAMS

In keeping with the emphasis on people-oriented, **holestudent" definitions of successful developmental programsthat pervade the literature, wherein students' attitudes as wellas skills are addressed by faculty and staff, a student-focusedapproach is necegary in the delivery of services to students.Thus, it seems that the optimal efficiency in such endeavorswould be contingent on sensitivity to what the individualstudent brings to the educational environment as well as whathe or she may not have in common with the educational envi-moment. Cultural background, social influences, and aca-demic needs of the student should receive equal consider-Won in the development of instructional goals and practices.Since students enrolled in developmental programs are inconflict with traditional expectations of institutions of learn-ing, some degree of compartmentalization inevitably existsbetween student and school. Where students are usuallylimited in the time allowed for fulfillment of standard requirements, programs that seek to close the gaps should avoida compartmentalized approach to instruction. In sum, themost effective developmental programs may well be definedas those that address the whole student and present a whole(interdisciplinary) academic process to the student.

Despite the long-standing history of learning assistanceservices, questions regarding the rationale for developmentalprograms, their purpose, and their place are frequently posed.Some of the most provocative questions have been expressedas follows:

What should be the role of the institutions of higher edu-cation in regard to the underprepared student?Should universities admit students who are not adequatelyprepared for college?Should colleges and universities engage in providingacademic preparation for the academically underpreparedstudent?Should institutions of higher education off-_-.r academicwork considered to be on a precolleg:Ate level? (Roberts1986, p. 1)

Observable and projected changes in the diversity of levelsof preparedness of high school graduates, sociological andtechnological change, and employment trends and otherdemographic factors create educational needs that affect therole and responsibility of institutions of higher education.

nwste,ffectivedel

be definedas those thatauldrats thewbok studentand pnwenta wbokaazdensicprocess tothe studenL

Paomondary Devekpmental Programs

9-'13

Titer New and Diverse Target PopulationThe characteristics and needs of the target groups for servicesnow known as developmental studies have come to reflectthe new diversity of the student population at the postsecon-dary level. A change in philosophy regarding the purposeof a college education has, in turn, created a change in thenumbers of minorities and individuals of low socioeconomicstatus who pursue their fundamental right to postsecondaryeducation. Consequently, there has also been an increasein the number of educationally disadvantaged--and underprepared individuals who seek enrollment in institutionsof higher education.

Cross's (1981) discussion of the more advanced age pop-ulation seeking postsecondary education has implicationsfor young adults who are of traditional school age. Aside fromdemographic factors resulting in larger numbers of adultsin the total population, Cross also addresses the influencesof social change and technological change. Social change,characterized by "the rising educational level of the populace,the changing roles of women, early retirement, civil rights,increased leisure time, and changing life-styles," has causededucation for adults to become "necessary for some, desirablefor others, and more acceptable and attainable for almosteveryone" (p. 3). Technological change, according to Cross,has created a situation in which "almost any worker in thesociety has the problem of keeping up with new knowledgeand of adapting to technological change as consumers as wellas producers" (p. 3). This new trend for advanced age groupshas also influenced the circumstances, if not the perceptions,of the younger generation with respect to the value of a highereducation as it relates to increased numbers of individualscompeting in the labor force.

Although the growth in population in the age range of 15to 29 years will decrease through at least 2000, the unem-ployment rate for young minority group members and theeducationally disadvantaged is predicted to increase dras-tically. Thus, there will still be a considerable i-iflux of the"new clientele" pursuing enrollment in institutons of highereducation. Postsecondary education has become at least abastion, if not a necessity, for those who anticipate difficultyin obtaining gainful and meaningful employment. Anotherreason for an increase of "new clientele" is that those whoare fortunate enough to find "meaningful employment" on

14

graduation from high school enter postsecondary institutionsin the years ahead. What may seem to be meaningful employ-ment for high school seniors may seem less meaningful withexperience and time. Thus, more individuals will seek reentryinto the educational systemmill in need of academic devel-opment in order to gain admission at the postsecondary level.

According to a report of the Special Studies Program of theUniversity System of Georgia (1984), "the size and importanceof this problem began to appear to many people in the University System in the mid-sixties. [it was] not fully perceived,but there was each year a growing conception of a larger andmore serious problem" (p. 64). The target group has beencharacterized as consisting mainly of incoming freshmen whofail to meet regular admissions criteria, are admitted provi-sionally, and are usually classified as high-risk students (J.Roueche and Snow 1977).

More recently, Hardesty (1986) of the Coordinating Boardof the Texas College and University System made the follow-ing statement:

At least 30,000 freshmen who enter Texas public collegesand universities each year cannot read write or computeat levels needed to perform effectively in higher education,

. . The committee's report shows that students uiyo meetthe standard admission criteria at the state's public collegesstill luck back They are intelligent, qualified stu.dents, competent enough to meet entrance requirementsdespite u deficiency in given skilLc To prevent than fromentering college would bar too many capable students fromhigher education (p. 1).

A recent Southern Regional Education Board report indicatesthat findings in the 15 southeastern membtfr states are consistent with other state and national studies on the numbersof students entering college who are not ready to do college-level work. The report states that "36 percentclose to fourof tenfirst-time entering college freshmen need additionalacademic support in reading, writing, or mathematics" (Abra-ham 1988, p. 2).

ProjectionsEnrollment in developmental programs has clearly increasedin recent years, anti it is likely to continue to increase into

fixasecondary Devekennental Prugrams 25

t

the 1990s. It is predicted that a pan of this increase will resultfrom inc reas 7d recruitment of disadvantaged students. Accord-ing to dem graphic trends, there will be more white studentsfrom rural CIO, more suburban students, and more low-income stut ins from suburban areas (Boylan 1985).

This new diversity has necessitated the restructuring of pro-grams to meet the needs of clients. The new population ofapplicants is increasing more rapidly than the rate at whichhigh school curriculum and teacher preparation for secondaryschools can possibly change. Thus, many theorists indicatethat developmental studies programs should be consideredan integral facet of higher education. A. Agin (1975) supportsthis notion in the following statement:

A number of mechanisms are availabk to most institutions[of hirner education' to bring about greater studentpar-ticpation: academic programs admissions freshmen ori-entation, counseling and advisemen4 financial aid, workopportunities extra -curricular activities and housing andstudent services . . The possible intervention techniquesare numerous.- tutoring programmed instruction, *rectal.*nurses for developing study skills and selfpaced learningamong others Institutions can, with relatively little invest-merzt of resources carry out controlled ersperiments on alimited scale to identify the most promising cqfroadres:with well designed studies the more effective techniquesin raising .students performance can be identified withina short timesay, within one term after initiating the study(p. 45).

Moreover, it would seem that senior institutions of highereducation would be most adequately equipped to providesuccessful programs of academic development. These insti-tutions house schools of education with faculty and graduatestudents specializing hi the critical areas of developmental/remedial instruction and counseling. Growth trends reflectthat, prior to 1960, the highest percentage of such programswere found at institutions offering postgraduate instruction.Again, by 1976 there Was increased involvement of seniorcolleges and universities in the provision of remedial anddevelopmental services (1. Roucehe and Snow 1977). Thesesenior institutions are usually committed to community ser-vice projects, which often establish viable links to the public

16

3-

schools, where in-service training/staff development can domuch to inform all individuals, secondary and postsecondary,who are concerned with meeting the needs of the targetpopulzions.

Currently, develownerkaliremedial or academic supportprivrams hold vast potential in the movement toward equaleducational opportunity in a democratic society. One of thetraditional roles of education in the United States has beento broaden opportunities for productive, influential andrewarding participation in the affairs of society by developingthe skills and credentials necessary for economic and socialsoisfaction (Gordon 1971). A recent increase in required edu-tzitmal competency levels is reflected in the 10-year CollegeBoard Educational Equality Protect (1983), in the new criteriakriplemented by the Southern Association of Colleges andSchools in 19K and in the higher Scholastic Aptitude Test(SAT) score requirements for many institutions of higher edu-cation At a time when high school waduation and collegeentrance requirements are being made more stringent nation-wide, there will still be numbers of hopeful students whowill not meet the admissions criteria. Gordon's (1971) dis-cussion of the purpose of education in a democratic societyilluminates the critical role of developmental programs forthose who fall short of standard college entranctrequirements:

If that purpose jof education in a democratic sodetyl isto brotikien opportunities for meanined partic4pation inthe mainstrtwn of society . then educational cvortunityis unequal unless it serves that purpose for all learners. Atany point in the history of a sdy, the minimum edu-catkmal goals we defined by Or: prerequisites for mean-ingful participation or for economic, sod al and politicalsurvival The educational experience can and should enablemany persons to go far beyond the development of smotesurvival skills but it cannot betzmidered to have providedequality af offrortunity unless it enabks near* all [saved 3% to 5% taro are truly mental2 defeaivej to reachthe stervkul or partidpation kvel(p. 7).

If college admissim criteria will exclude some high schoolgraduzes, then developmental studies programs can continueto playa crkical role in the scheme of higher educaticdi by

Postsecondary Devekpmental Progrrans 17

I

providing the kind of instruction and preparation that someindividuals need in order to gain access to postsecondaryeducational experience.

Arguments on Role and ResponsibilityAlthough senior institutions of higher education traditionallyhave more resources, Eat,: lities, and scholars and researcherswith the acumen to address the needs of the underpreparedstudent, many individuals hold that developmental coursesare bolt suited to two-year community colleges and shouldbe occluded from four-year colleges and universities. Thiscontroversy has been put into perspective by Ross and Roe(1986), who indicate that every institution has its lowest stu-dents, many of whom need remediation. They refer topro-grams for underprepared students at Duke University, Ohioslate University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, andStanford University. In reference to Harvard's remedial read'agprow-am, they quote William Petty (1959), who stated that"Harvard's 'remedial' students already were reading betterthan 85% of the nation's college freshmen, but they stillneeded help to measure up to the demands of their course-work" (p. 194).

In defense of the average student, it has been claimed that95 percent can lova a subject to a high level of mastery ifgiven sufficient learning time and appropriate types of help(Bloom 1971). Although it is predicted that a good remedialprogram can help only 50 percent of its students to perfirmadequately in regular courses and only 25 percent to meetgraduation requirements (Moore, 1984), this success ratiois substantial given that many underprepared students sufferseveral years' deficiency in specific skills when they enrollin postsecondary developmental programs, which generallyonly allow one year of remediation.

Two interesting arguments are presented in defense ofdevelopmental programs in terms of role and responsibility.First popular opinion often holds that developmental pro-grams dilute academic programs, but proponents of devel-opmental programs argue that their role is to support andenrich the regular curriculum and ensure that more studentswill succeed. From this perspective, remedial courses areviewed as additions to, not replacements for, the requiredcourses in a student's program of study (Ross and Roe 1986).

Second, it is often argued that many of the skills taught

is

r.

in developmental education programs at institutions of highereducation should have been mastered by the student earlier,but that has not always been possible, for a variety of reasons.Roberts (1986) concludes the following:

it is i?flpractical to tmpect adults to return to primarp orsecondary school to acquire the skills thty need to be ofvalue to themsebfres and to society. A choice mast be made.Developrental education programs demonstrate that societybas deciaml to be individuaLs overcome their skill deft-cienciet The alternative would be to allow those individualsto remain a liability not only to thernselms but also perhapsto society as well (p. 71).

Learnkig DeficienciesUnderprepared students may exhibit any of a great varietyof learning deficiencies, but they most often fall into the basiccategories of reading, writing, mathematics, and study skills.In the area of reading, underprepared students often lack adv.quate skills in regard to vocabulary, word decoding (phonics),text comprehension, and reading rate. In the writing category,the most prevalent skill deficiencies of the underpreparedlearner are usually found in sentence and paragraph ccxastru-tion, etrammatical coherence within sentences and paragraphs,logical and sequential structure of compositions and essays,and spelling. In mathematics, many underprepared studentslack necessary computational skills and arc deficient in understanding fundamental mathematical concepts; many suffermainly from "math phobias."

From a cognitive perspective, underprepared students areoften found to function at a literal thinking level (used formemory, translation, and interpretation in reading) and areunfamiliar with higher thinking levels (used for analysis, synthesis, and evaluation in reading) and/or abstract thinking(often required in problem solving). Research has suggestedthat more than 50 percent of college freshmen may not heat Piaget's formal operational level of thinking (Ross and Roe1986).

In the area of study skills, often considered a sub skill ofreading proficiency for higher learning, and inclusive t selfmanagement, underprepared students are usually lackingin an adequate repertoire of study strategies for texts in thecontent areas, novels, and other literature; listening, note-taking, and test-taking strategies; and time management skills.

Posbecontiwy Derielepmental Pnwrarns 19

Experiendsd DeficienciesLack of exposure to people, places, events, customs, and mun-dane features of life beyond the commonplace of an indi-vidual's immediate locale results in experiential deficienciesthat are often debilitating to academic motivation or to thecapacity for independent learning. Much of what would beconsidered new knowledge for the learner can only beacquired and synthesized through the use ofa base of priorknowledge. Effective assimilation of new material dependsgreatly on an individual's storehouse of knowledge to whic.hnew information can be related.

The underprepared student is often one who may havethe basic intellectual capacity but who has reached a pointof impasse temporarily created by a mismatch between hisor her knowledge base and the new information that he orshe is expected to absorb on an independent basis. Expe-riential deficiencies combined with the specific learning defi-ct, rides described above can create serious disadvantagcfor the student. These circumstances of underpreparecinesscan be remediated, however.

Standardized PlacementTrendsSAT AveragesThe College Board's 1986 Admissions Testing ProgramNational &port on college-bound seniors indicates that from1967 to 1986 MT score averages have suffered an overalldecline. Although there have been yearly increases in averagescores on the verbal and math sections of the SAT recently,those increases have only brought the averages back to a levelequal to the 1976 figures. In 1967, the total mean verbal scorefor males and females was 466; in 1976, 431; and after a con-tinuous drop from 1967 to 1980, the mean has increasedsteadily to a scone of 431 in 1986 still 35 points below the1967 average score. Math scores reveal the same trend. In1967, the mean math score was 492 for males and females;in 1976, 472; and after the same downtrend as verbal scoresfrom 1967 to 1980, the mean math score has increased since1980 to 475 in 1986still 17 points below the 1967 score.

The profile provided by SAT scores is not representativeof all high school graduates nor all college freshmen, butit is representative of a substantial national sample of approx-imately two-fifths of all high school graduatesapproximatel890,000 students. It is obvious that there has been a decline

in achievement worm over the past two decades that has notyet been remedied Because the strength of the nationdepends on its ability to equip the broadest spectrum ofpopulation with the knowledge and skills required to Facethe increasing demands of global competition, educationalinstitutions must meet this challenge at all levels and for allwho seek participation.

Postsecondary Devekiomented Programs 21

CHARACTERISTICS OF POSTSECONDARYDEVELOPMENTAL PROGRAMS

Of the numerous types of postsecondary developmental pro-grams that exist (see descriptions in Ross and Roe 1986;

Sharma 1977; Wright and Cahalan 1985), all have many fea-tures or services in common but each operates on the basisof some unique characteristicmost often resulting fromthe unique needs of its student population. Types of programsare discussed in this section in terms of types of studentdefi-ciencies usually addressed, services provided for the student,and the auspices under which the services are provided Fourtypes of programs predominate: college campus tutorial/remedial, college outreach programs, campus assistance cen-ters, and off-campus instruction.

College campus tutorial/remedial programs are campusbased and usually offered to students as noncredit courses;some tutorials are provided on a nonmandatoty basis to lendacademic support to high-risk students who may be enrolledin credit courses. Such programs also often include financialassistance, counseling, and in some cases, special educationalservices to help upgrade the academic skills of disadvantagedstudents This category also includes a unique alternativeknown at, the grade deletion policy program, which isdesigned to help students find a more appropriate choiceof wior done is giving them considerable difficulty.

College outreach programs are usually conducted underaffiliation with student community services. These programsprovide such services as contacting prospective students, preseating information on college programs, and enrolling stu-dents in garter courses in conjunction with individual coun-seling; creating "highly cohesive and supportive" studetaorganizations with special personnel and programs for specificminority ethnic grourxs, such as African-Americans, Chicane,and Native Americans; providing continuing admission forstudents who succeed in special summer programs; providingBig Sisters/Brothers to help freshmen of minority ethnicgroups; producing cultural festivals; and establishing satellitecounseling centers in neighborhoods populated by universitystudents characterized as alienatt J and hostile toward the"establishment" A unique service under this category of pro-grams is the establishment of day-care centers for the childrenof students who are disadvantaged.

Campus assistance centers are those programs that areestablished to facilitate "conununiversity" life. These programs

Pasbecondwy Developmental Brines

4

23

provide such services as crisis intervention, student advocates,change agents, informational resources, and referral agencies.A unique service in this category is the "commuter affairs"program, which makes units of the campus physical plantavailable to commuting students for study, rest, and otherbetween-class needs.

Off-campus programs of rosin laiOrt are offered on the sob,at home, and in other settings. Such programs provide edu-cational opportunities and in-service learning projects outsidethe traditional classroom.

At first glance, some aspects of the program categories listedabove may seem to be outside the boundaries of what arecomma* perceived to be developmental studies programs.If one considm the most comprehensive definition of suchprograms and aims to address the whole student, however,it is evident that a conscientious combination of the above-mentioned services world, in most cases, be in the best inter-est of those who are most typically in need of provisionaladmission to institutions of higher education. Other labelsfor the identification of similar services include special studiesprowams, learning assistance centers, course-related learningservices, and comprehensive learning systems (see table 1for additional program descriptors). In most developmentalprograms that provide remediation in the basic skills arras,diagnostic processing is often an integral component of theprogram or the diagnostic services of another testing centeror office on the campus are incorporated as a primary phasein the delive.y of program services.

National estimates indicate that about 90 percent of all ingi-tutions of higher education have at least some of the servicesdescribed above. About 33 percent report having a separatedepartment or division for developmental studies or collegelearning centers By type of school, the percentage havingseparately administered programs is as follows: public insti.tutions, 47 percent; two-year, 43 percent; and open admissioncolleges and universities, 45 permit. Smaller institutionsincorporate developmental services into their various aca-demic departments (Wright and Cahalan 1985).

The same survey indicates that 24 percent of all institutionshave a special pre-admission summer program that providesadditional services to accompany trasic remedial course work.Four-year traditional and selective schools are found to offerthis type of program more frequently than two-year and open

24

42

admission schools. Still, only about 33 percent of traditionaland selective schools reported having such a pram. In addi-tion to the more popular bask skills courses in reading, writ-ing, and mathematics, 58 percent of all institutions offer reme-dial courses in student development, and 21 percent offerremedial academic courses outside the three basic skills areas.

Thirty percent of the national rA3pulation in higher edu-cation is involved in some form of developmental education,and in some southern institutions mat figure is closer to 40percent (Joiner 19/00. In Georgia, for example, which is oneof only a few states that have mandatory developmental pro-grams, 30 to 40 percent of freshmen are required tv enrollin at least one developmental studies area. This statistic issaid to compare favorably with other states, such as Tennes-see, half of whose freshmen neLd developmental work (Ma,gan 1988).

Alternative StructuresEarly and midterm intervention programs have been operatedin some institutions for students who are at risk in regularc-oums. Students receive tutoring in course content, extrainstructor in laboratories, and counseling, all in lieu ofenrollment in an a-tual developmental program (Ross andRoe 1986).

Another innovative type of developmental assistance isadministered in the form of adjunct courses that are offeredfor high-risk courses, particularly at the introductory level,in areas such as social sciences, mathematics, the physicalsriences, and the humanities. This approach coordinates twocourses whereby a subject course taught by a regular facultymember is matched with an adjunct skills class taught by alearning skills instructor. Such a program has been imple-mented and found effective at the University of Missouri-Kansas City (Friedlander 1984).

The greatest departure from the traditional types of develop-mental programs can be f.lund in the junior colleges, wherethe needs of the student population are different from thoseof students at senior colleges and universities. Four basic typesof programs have been designed to help junior college stu-dents compensate for specific deficiencies. These programsare commonly known as pretransfer, adult basic education,handicapped, and remedial.

The pretransfer program in junior colleges is designed to

lbstsecondayy Deveirfonenta! Prvgrams

1

address deficiencies in grades or subjects required for admis-sion to a senicor institution, college, or transfer program. Theadult basic education program addresses deficiencies in lit-eracy and basic skills subjects necessary for a high schooldiploma. The handicapped programs address physical andmental handicaps that impose limitations on those studentswho are also academically or socially handicapped. Finally,the remedial programs are designed to address the same typesof basic skills deficiencies and deficiencies in study strategiesand self management that are typically addressed in otherdevelopmental/remedial programs (Lombardi 1979).

Types of IntenentionsFor purposes of this discussion, types of intervention aredistinguished from types of programs in that program de-scriptions indicate which services are offered, and types ofintervention indicate the manner in which those services areprovided and their affective intent Types of intervention arecategorized here as teaching/learning, counseling, peer sup-port, and supplemental use of media and the arts.

Teaching/leaning interventions are traditionally imple-mented through a variety ofcourse offerings, The most prey.alent structure of such interventions has been a program ofcourses divided into English (writing), reading, and mathcomponents.

From a national sample of 511 colleges and universities,the Higher Education General Information Survey enrollmentreport (Broyles 1982) indicated that 82 percent of the schoolshad at least one remedial/developmental course and thatmore colleges offered courses in remedial writing (73 per-cent) and mathematics (71 potent) than in reading (66 percent). In the majority of schools offering remedial programs,the courses are required if the student does not meet certainstandards. Remedial writing courses are mandatory in about64 percent, and remedial mathematics in about 59 percent,of schools offering the courses. Remedial reading coursesare manctatory in about 51 percent of the schools offeringthe course (Wright and Cahalan 1 :5).

Examples of the more innovative interventions have beenthose related to human development and life-style, with afocus on the concerns of marginal students; introspection,with an emphasis on the experience of the student, leadingto the evaluation of values, attitudes, beliefs, abilities, and

44A

relationships with others; community involvement; creativework; wilderness experiences; a focus on the interface of var-ious disciplines; sensitization of administrators and facultyto the operation and philosophy of the program; and finally,tutorial/remedial application, which is most often provkledas a supplement to the required course of study.

Counseling interventions, provided in the form of groupor one-on-one interactions, address issues of values, attitudes,and human relationships development for students andfaculty/staff, as well as personalized e-oluation of academicprogress to identify interests, abilities, and limitations. Casestudies of programs at 19 institutions during the 1969-70 aca,demic year indicated that tutoring, counseling trnt.1.- guidanceservices, and work-study opportunities were then commonto many programs (H. Agin, Bisconti, and Frankel 1972). Thisprogramming trend remains prevalent today.

The most innovative type of counseling intervention de-scribed in the literature is the use of "dual function personnel,that is, tutors who are trained to perform counseling servicesin some of the following areas: building rapport, establishingcredibility, assessing student needs and prescribing specificinterventions, maintaining a task oriented atmosphere, inform-ing students of expectations in the teaching-laming relationship and the rest of the program, providing and eliciting feedback, providing positive reinforcement, and monitoring theprogress of work. This type of intervention has been usedsuccessfully at the University of Southern California, wherepeer tutors/counselors are trained for these responsibilities(Jones 1984).

When this skills.therapy approach is used in the remedialprogram, the tutor/counselor muss conduct in-.depth inter-views and diagnosis "to discover whether the academic prublems are a cause or result of personal problems which mayinclude escape and avoidance defenses, unrealistic goals,or inadequate self concept' (Schmelzer and Brozo 1982,p. 647). Skills-therapy personnel do not have to be licensedcounselors, but they should have strong backgrounds in psrchology and counseling. This requisite combination of exper-tise makes it more difficult to staff a program initially, butit can be worthwhile in terms of the long-term effectivenessof the program (Ross and Roe 1986).

Peer support interventions have included peer tutoring,"buddy" systems, and a unique project in which emphasizing

Postsecondtvy Develoomental Programs 27

and

mon

itori

ng

stud

ent

conc

erns

,

such

as acad

emic

impr

ove-

men

t,

soci

al

cont

act,

wei

ght

ccat

trol

,

and

clas

s

pani

cipa

tion,

are

criti

cal

goal

s.

The

med

ia

and

the

arts

have

been

used to

supp

lem

ent

the

cont

ent

of cour

se

wor

k,

tuto

rial

s,

and

coun

selin

g.

An

infi

nite

vari

ety

of

com

pute

r-m

iste

d

inst

ruct

iona

l

serv

ices

(Tom

lin-

son

1%7)

,

for

exam

ple,

are

mad

e

avai

labl

e

in

lear

ning

labs

.

Com

pute

rize

d

mon

itori

ng

syst

ems

are

used in

man

y

deve

lop-

men

tal

prog

ram

s

to trac

k

acad

emic

perf

omun

ce,

effo

rt,

and

atte

ndan

ce.

Spec

ial

hand

nook

s

have

been

publ

ishe

d

and

dis-

trib

uted

(1)

to info

rm

stud

ents

from

spec

ial

inte

rest

grou

ps

abou

t

acad

emic

and

soci

al

cond

ition

s

on

cam

puse

s

and

abou

t

natio

nal

achi

evem

ents

and

orga

niza

tions

rela

ted

to thei

r

soci

al

inte

rest

and

(2)

to tran

smit

such

info

rmat

ion

to othe

r

stud

ents

on

cam

pus

for

the

purp

ose of di

scus

sion

and

the

enha

ncem

ent

of

imag

e

and

conf

iden

ce.

Fiel

d

trip

s

have

been

cond

ucte

d

to

enga

ge

stud

ents

in the

appr

ecia

tion

of danc

e,

dram

a,

and

poet

ry

rela

ted

to

spec

ial

inte

rest

grou

ps

and

vari

ous

them

es.

Mod

es

of

Del

iver

y

for

Dev

elop

men

tal

Serv

ices

The

deliv

ery

of

deve

lopm

enta

l

inst

ruct

ion

is usua

lly

acco

m-

plis

hed

thro

ugh

the

use of the

uadi

tiona

l

clas

sroo

m,

the

lab-

orat

cgy

appr

oach

,

or a com

bina

tion

of both

.

In the

clas

sroo

m

appr

oach

the

inst

ruct

or

and

stud

ents

mee

t

regu

larl

y

seve

ral

times a w

eek

to cove

r

mat

eria

l

and

rela

ted

stra

tegi

es

that

are

pred

eter

min

ed

by a cour

se

outli

ne

or

sylla

bus.

In the

labo

-

rato

ry

appr

oach

the

inst

ruct

or

and

stud

ent

may or may no

t

mee

t

on a

regu

lar

basi

s,

stud

ents

may be allo

wed

to

deve

lop

thei

r

own

sche

dule

s,

or stud

ents

may

atte

nd

spor

adic

ally

and

infr

eque

ntly if th

ey have

no

man

dato

ry

lab

appo

intm

ents

.

The

re

are

som

e

disa

dvan

tage

s

to both

appr

oach

es

to deve

l-

opm

enta

l

inst

ruct

ion.

In the

clas

sroo

m,

stud

ents

who

are

de-

fici

ent

in only

som

e of the

pred

eter

min

ed

inst

ruct

iona

l

se-

quen

ce

will

inev

itabl

y

spen

d

som

e of the

allo

tted

cour

se

time

rece

ivin

g

inst

ruct

ion

they do no

t

need

.

In the

labo

rato

ry,

whe

n

stud

ents

atte

nd

at thei

r

conv

enie

nce

and

have

no pre-

scri

bed

assi

gnm

ents

to addr

ess

thei

r

defi

cien

cies

,

they

ofte

n

seek

assi

stan

ce

on imm

edia

te

prob

lem

s

gene

rate

d

by cour

se

wor

k

and,

thus

,

only do w

ork

to reso

lve

imm

edia

te

prob

lem

s

(Ros

s

and

Roe

19$6

).

Whe

ther

inst

ruct

ion

is cond

ucte

d

in the

clas

sroo

m

or the

4 6

laboratory, group size is critical. Group size should be low,particularly in a classroom setting, where 15 to 20 studentsis the desirable number and classes larger than 20 becomeunmanageable for individual instruction.

Operational ModelsThere are numerous developmental/remedial programs inexistence but very few variations in basic program models.The most common type, tutorial/remedial programs, haveevolved from either the developmental/remedial or hulls&vs. skills-based philosophies (see following section). Somepr rams seek to assist students in obtaining proficiency inthe basic skills and study skills necessary for success incollege-level courses by tracking them through a series ofcourses in each basic skill area (reading, writing, mathemat-ics) for which deficiencies have been identified. Theseanuses are most often taught under separate subject com-patents within a department for developmental/remedialservices. Course content is usually based solely on the specificsubject area. Students are usually given a set period of timein which to demonstrate proficiency in each area.

An alternative approach to traditional developmental/reme-dial instruction is the interdisciplinary structure within which

the various basic skills courses are conducted in conjunction

with each other. The reading class, for example, incorporatesseveral writing assignments and math word problems, andthe writing class uses reading course materials or topics asa springboard for discussion and essay assignments.

Some programs operate on the premise of a holistic modelof instrixtion, which seeks to address remediation of the stu-dent's deficiencies by means of whole contexts (entire chap-

ters, articles, books) and the use of global communicationprocesses (reading for understanding, discussion, and writtensummaries or essay responses). Other programs incorporatea skills-based approach, which seeks to remediate the student's deficiencies through task analysis of the specific skillsrequired to master assignments in a given subject area andindividually prescribed assignments for practice of these in&vidual skills in application to the course content and supple-mentary materials.

Group vs. individualized instruction has often evolved outof the holistic vs. skills-based approaches. Group instructionfacilitates the holistic: approach and is most often used for

Ibis:secondary Devettynnentai Prugrains 29

course offerings in a classroom setting with a lecture or sem-inar format. Group instruction has also been used in taborattly settings, where individualized instruction is used aswell (Tomlinson 1985). Individualized instruction is seldomfound in the classroom setting, due to class size and timeconstraints; it is more often used in laboratory settings to facil-itate both holistic and skills based approaches.

Laboratory instruction has been incorporated into manyprograms as a means of providing tutorial support for coursework in the subject or skills area classes. Students are oftenscheduled into labs on a mandatory basis, in addition to thecourse schedule, and individualized education plans are pres-cribed as a supplement to course work labs have also servedthe ancillary function of providing impromptu tutoring forthose students seeking assistance on a voluntary basis. labsfrequently accommodate the self paced approach when instruction is individualized

The majority of developmental/remedial programs haveused combinations of these various approaches to deliverinstructional services in the three basic skills areas (reading,writing, and mathematics) and Nye also incorporated a coun-seling component to provide additional support services. Stu-dents are assigned to counselors, who are available for adviceon personal, academic, or social matters and who are ofteninvolved in relaying perbdic progress reports from instructorsto students.

Gin:dingGrading systems vary from campus to campus br develop-mental programs. Some institutions hold the philosophythat grades are threatening to the insecure remedial studentand suggest either giving no grades or at least no failinggrades as alternatives to the traditional grading system of lettergrades. In these alternative cases, students would receive A'sor B's for passing work, and those who fail would receiveno grade. Other institutions are opposed to lenient gradingpolicies and maintain that developmental grading policiesshould remain parallel to those of the rest of the institution.As another alternative, mastery learning is suggested suchthat students are allowed as much time as they need to reme-diate deficiencies (Ross and Roe 1986) to the point of passing.

More than half of the existing developmental programsgive traditional letter grades and about 40 pen- 1.1t give non

standard grades, such as pass/fail (J. Roueche, Baker, and S.Roueche 1984). The relevance of traditional grading practiceshas been questioned in application to developmental programs, and it has been suggested that assessment of academicsuccess be made in terms of changes in an individual stu-dent's performance (A. Min 1971).

Course Credi:Approximately 70 percent of those institutions who offerremedial courses do not give degree credit for such courses.The most common type of credit given for these courses isinstitutional credit, which determines the student's enrollmentstatus and is recorded on the student's transcript, but doesnot accrue toward degree or certificate completion. Just over50 percent of institutions report using this type of credit forremedial reading writing, and mathematics. For the variousalternative types of credit awarded, frequencies are as followsfor writing (and very similar for reading and mathematic-1i):institutional credit, 53 percent; elective credit, 25 percent;subject degree credit, 6 percent; and no formal credit, 16 per-cent (Wright and Cahalan 1985). (Some of the more non-traditional developmental courses outside the basic skillsarea may award credit differently.)

The awarding of credit may very well be a critical factorin the success ratios of students enrolled in developmentalprograms. S. Roueche (1983) indicates that research showssignificant success for students in remedial courses givingcredit, due to increased motivation. Many traditional insti-tutions, however, would view this approach as a loweringof college standards (Wright and Cahalan 1985) and a low-ering of the integrity of the institution's program by acceptingprecollegiate work on the same basis as collegiate work (Rossand Roe 1986). On the other hand, awarding no credit at allfor student's efforts in remedial course work could be cormterproductive---"demoralizing" to the student.

It seems that the awarding of institutional credit for developmental course work is the most popular compromise tothe student motivation/institutional integrity dilemma Inaddition to increasing student commitment, proponents indicue that institutional credit also enables students to qualifyfor veteran's benefits, athletic grants, and other forms of finan-cial aid and provides a basis for determining faculty load andformula funding for the institutional budget.

Postsecondary Devekrinnental Pry "gram 31

Exit CriteriaLike grading and credit policies, the policy for exit criteriaalso varies across institutions. Exit criteria determine the levelsof proficiency that a student must demonstrate and the timeframe within which the student must meet those predeter-mined competencies. For example, in a subject area such

. reading, students may be required to obtain a specifiedcourse average, final exam score, and systemwide (regents)competency test score minimums in order to exit the readingcourse. In addition, where students may fail a first attemptat meeting the exit criteria, a limited number of attempts areallowed in a given subject such that anywhere from two tofour terms may be the limit for attempts to demonstrate pro-ficiency and eligibility to exit the subject area

In keeping with the mastery learning concept, advocatesemphasize the flexibility of an open entry/open exit policy,which allows students to enter and leave developmentalcourses according to their own rates of learning. Seine pro-grams allow students to "test out" of courses when theybelieve they have met the objectives. From a practical per-spective, time limits for exit are advisable. Where two termsfor a course is considered a reasonable limit, students whofail two attempts may be prohibited from taking the coursefor a consecutive third time, receive counseling fur settingalternative academic goals, be allowed to reenter the courseafter a specified number of terms elapses, or under extremecircumstances, be allowed to appeal the decision (Ross andRoe 1986).

The Role of Junior and SeniorColleges and UniverakiesMuch of public opinion has maintained the notion that devel-opmental programs should be administered exclusively bythe junior, two-year, colleges. Although historicil accountsand current statistics indicate that developmental services,by any name, have been firmly established at junior and seniorcolleges and universities, public and private, ofevery caliber,a substantial pan of the literature is devoted to the role ofcommunity colleges in the delivery of developmental services(Campbell 1982; Kerstiens 1971; Moore 1971; Roberts 1J. Roueche 1984). (The t.sms junior college and communitycollege are used interchangeably in this discussion. Althoughpopularly used to denote "private academic two-year insti-

tution," the term "junior college" has not always been (ca-nned to this single usage. Until very recently, for example,public two-year colleges in Georgia that were not strictlydank =led the label "junior.")

The distnbution of services reported in a 1985 survey(Wright and Cahalan) shows remedial courses offered at 88percem of two-year and 78 percent of four-year institutiars;94 parent of public and 70 percent of private schools; and91 percent of open and 68 percent of selective admissionsinstitutions. The distribution of courses in a given subjectwas found to be typically one or two comes. Only about10 percent of the colleges offered four or more remedialcourses in a subject, and public, two-year, and open admis-sion schools offered about one more course per subject thanprivate, four-year, and selective schools.

The same survey shows the following distribution of thefrequency of student enrollment in remedial work: 28 percentof freshmen in two-year colleges and 19 percent in four-yearschools; 27 percent of freshmen in public colleges and 15percent in private colleges; and 30 percent of freshmen inopen colleges and 13 percent in selective and traditionaladmission colleges. The data indicate that remedial studentsare more likely to attend two year, public, and open admissioncolleges. It should be noted that almost two-thirds oral! fma-year students enroll in two -year and open admissions collegesand 85 percent of all rust-year students attend public colleges.Perhaps what appears to be a prevalence of developmentalprograms in two -year colleges is, to a gran extent, a functionof the nature of enrollment policy and trends rather than theefficacy or capability of two-year schools to provide devel-opmental services.

Proponents of the idea that developmental programs arebest suited to the junior college are, no doubt, inclined tosee a definite link between the mission of the two- year schooland the purpose of developmental course work. The twoyear institution emerged in the early 1900s with an open doorpolicy and the purpose of providing the disadvantaged highschool graduate and the minority student an opportunity totranscend their socioeconomic status by improving their skillsand gaining access to meaningful career opportunitits (Bass1982). Many of the courses taught in the junior college weredesigned to create equity in higher education, promote itspopularity, and make education available to the public in

liastsecondary Deveigpmental Pnwams 33

general. The courses were created to address the needs ofthe following types of nontraditional students: the pan-timestudent, the adult seeking refresher courses, the senior citizen,the handicapped veteran, the unemployed career changers,and the housewife entering the work force (Roberts 1986).

Junior colleges do have decades of experience in providingdevelopmental cr r....inedial education for undetpwared stu-dents. By 1965, but before the widespread realization of de-sewegation in institutions of higher education, over 60 per-cent of the community college students ranked at or belowthe 30th percentile on the School and College Ability Test(Moore 1971). By the late 1960s the most frequently offeredcourses in community colleges were remedial reading, remedial writing, and remedial arithmetic (J. Roueche 1984).

Although junior colleges have historically fulfilled a missionthat has consistently answered the needs of remedial students,they have often experienced the same problems in theirefforts to deliver remedial services as have other types of insti-tutions In a survey of members of the American Associationof Community and Junior Colleges (Campbell 1982), par-ticular attention was given to Monroe County CommunityCollege, which was described as an institution that had beenconcerned about students with academic deficiencies sinceits founding in 1964 but had been un. w , essful in meetingthe challenge. The extent of the institution's failure was evi-denced by a discontinuation of remedial courses, due to lackof enrollment five years after opening; discontinuation ofdiagnostic testing for counseling and class placement, dueto concerns that an older student population was reluctantto take the tests; concerns about grade inflation masking theneed for remedial education; concerns about the validity ofgranting college credit for below college -level work; and theincreasing costs of remedial/developmental courses. Theseconcerns prompted the college to conduct the nationwidesurvey at a time when their own capacity to re-establish devel-opmental services had improved.

Campbell reports that, at the time of the survey in 1981,out of 903 junior colleges, 98 percent offered remedial/devel-opmental courses, 81 percent awarded credit for remedialcourse work--48 percent granted regular college credit.Thirty-eight percent thought that remedial courses shouldbe offered for credit but not apply to transfer, and 16 percentthought that no credit should be awarded for remedial work.

The dilemmas experienced by Monroe County CommunityCollege and the responses to their national survey are rep-resentative of the problems and perspectives of many institutions of higher education, junior, senior, and universitylevel, in responding to the challenge of delivering developmental services.

Numerous contributions to the literature on developmentalprograms spec brolly address the role of community collegesin such services. Although some of the issues or approachesthat are discussed may appear to be unique to the junior col-lege program, the majority of issue particularly curriculumconcepts ----are applicable to any type of institution. The literasure notes, for example, the following parameters in reme-(Illation at the junior college level: the use of both descriptiveand prescriptive approaches to designing programs (I-last:her1980); offering compensatory programs and services as elec-tives; requiring train students to participate in skills courses;offering basic skills instruction as part of regular courses(Friedlander 1981); and support of the vital role of speechcommunication (Miller 1984).

From a practical perspective, additional arguments for adevelopmental program at every institution are presentedin terms of access and transferability. Supporters of the ideathat developmental programs should he maintained at everylevel of complex systems of higher education indicate that,if developmental programs are relegated to twayear colleges,then in cities that have senior colleges but no junior college,access would be denied to those students who are not withinreach of a two-year college. In terms of transferability, thosewho support the idea of a program at every institution -argueth..:. a developmental program at any particular institutionis specifically designed to assist students in developing thecompetencies needed ior success in that particular school'sregular freshman and core curriculum classes. Thus, attemptsto transfer competencies developed at a twoyear institutionto course work at a senior institution will not always succeed.

Postsecondary Der viupmental PriTsirams 35

r'N

EXEMPLARS AND PROBLEM IN THEDELIVERY OF DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES

Of the many developmental programs across the nation, sev-eral can he identified as exemplars in terms of their success.This section describes selected programs, delineates specificfactors of success, and identifies issues and problems inherentto the administration of developmental services.

Although the success of a variety of types of developmentalprograms can be attributed to any of a number of factors, thetwo exemplars described here were selected for discussionbecause they encompass an array of services with an intensefocus on the "whole student." The nature of these programsis in keeping with the elements of the most pervasive defi-nitions of developmental programs (see earlier section).

One program addresses the "whole student" in terms ofa curriculum that is sensitive to the ethnic background theindividual student brings to the educational environmentThe other program addres.ses the "whole student" in termsof personal, interpersonal, affective, and cognitive domains.Both programs incorporate a multidimensional, imerdiso-plinary approach designed to improve the success ratios ofhigh-risk students of minority or nontraditional groups thatare typical of the demoglaphk: profile presented in section 2.

The huge and inconsistent literature on developmentalprograms is best reflefied in the subsection below can "Prob-lems." (See also section 5 for additional information on pro-gram results.)

Profiles of Two Successful ProgramsThe first exemplar, the University of Minnesota's General Col-lege Retention Program, is described as an academic supportservice designed to assist, encourage, and retain high-riskstudents (Zanoni 1982). The program consists of three indi-vidualized packages gmred to meet the academic and supportservice needs of three particular ethnic or racial minoritygroups (Native American, Chicano/Latino, and African-American students). Students are recruited by the Universityof Minnesota Ofike of Minority and Special Student Affairs(016SA), and they attend an OMSSA Summer institute priorto their first fall quarter. Services are delivered to studentswithin the following model of integrated educationalmodules:

skills development courses (language modules),subject matter modules,

From a globalPersPeav4success/IdPrOgratinS arefound tohave twocbarwteristitzin COMMOcomiweben-sivenms intheir supportsesvices andinstitedion-alizatkmwith& theacademicmainstream

Postsecondwy Devekftmentat Programs 37

support services, andindividualized course assistance.

The skills development course are based on languagemodules designed to improve the students' reading, writing,and speaking skills. The language modules were created inrecognition of program participants' general weaknesses infundamental skills. The subject matter modules focus on thecultural values of each ethnic and/or racial group. Examplesof courses in the subject matter module are Issues in NativeAmerican Education, Contemporary Chicano Issues, and Afro-American literature. These courses are taught by "ethnic"instructors, who seek to enhance the students' sense of cul-tural identity and pride. Support services include tutorial assis-tance, availability of survival information, career planningassistance, and counseling avd advising. The program descrip-tion indicates the use of ethnic tutors, advisors, and c-oun-scion; whenever possible. Individualized course assistanceis provided for program participants who are enrolled in theGeneral College subject matter courses, such as mathematicsand science. The courses are taught by rtgular faculty, butspecial tutorial and support mechanisms are arranged for theparticularly needy special students.

The program reports that its overall retention rate increasedin its second year, from 59 percent in 1979-80 to 70 percentin 1980 ,S1. The general improvement in retention rate forstudents within the developmental program has been attri-buted to several reasons. The program report cites the selec-tivity of its recruitment efforts; the refining of course offeringsto include only those courses, methods, and support servicesthat have proved effective in meeting the needs of its students;the commitment of instructors to the objectives of the pro-gram and their levels of competence and sense of cooper-ation; and students' identification with the objectives of theprogram as a result of the cohesive inclusion of ethnic orracial minority instructors as team members.

The level of effectiveness of the Minnesota program is alsoreflected in "the nature, scope and content of the evaluation(Mail] . . . evidence that the prugram's measurement instru-ments are adequate to assess the impact of the total programon student retention" (Zanoni 1982, p. 7).

The second exemplar, the Freshman Studies Program (FR}at Livingstone College/Rutgers University, is a developmental

38

program fa , ,.xaraditional students that aims to improve theretention and academic achievement of the target population(Marshall 1981). Although conclusive evidence is not avail-able, preliminary findings (Marshall 1981) indicate that stu-dents who participated in the program performed better thantheir counterparts from the year before the program wasinitiated. The program's statement of purpose acknowledgesthe idea that "the most crucial factor in freshman attritionseems to be the degree of congruence of 'fit' between thestudent and the college environment . . . academically, sociallyand motivationally" (p. 1). Thus, the Rutgers program wasdesigned to attend to the total learning experience ofstudents by focusing on cognitive, personal, and interpersonaldomains.

An additional focus of the program is creating "an atmo-sphere which will promote student satisfaction and achieve-ment" by way of providing a "success oriented and acceptingenvironment" (p. 5). The program facilitators indicated a com-mitment to maintaining the success-oriented environmentby viewing their participants as "being as capable of success"as regularly admitted students.

The target population for the FSP includes every studentenrolled through the Equal Opportunity Fund. A Newiersey...sr Skills Test is used as the basis for assigning studentsto either of two gimps. Level I students are designated toparticipate in basic skills classes in reading, writing, and math-maks, and in content courses selected by staff to matchthe student's bask skill level. Level 1 students are alsoassigned to a weekly counseling group and sessions of a Col-lege Survival seminar. All other students are assigned onlyto the counseling group, the College Su,,ival seminar, andone content course. The selection if content courses includessuch titles as African-American Experience in America andPuerto Rican Studies.

Other features of the FSP that are said to have contributedto its success are the implementation of the interdisciplinaryteam teaching concept; a reading course entitled Analyticaland Critical Reading; a support unit of faculty from the variousdisciplines who volunteer to work with the program and whoare interested in innovative teaching methods and under.prepared students and are willing to include FSP studentsin their regular courses; peer counselors to facilitate outreachefforts and freshman adjustment by ea leading counseling

POSSeCOlidary DeVeklMletlied PrWraMS

I

group sessions; block scheduling matched to a content areacourse; and the percentage of class time spent applying theskills taught in reading, writing, and mathematics to theassignments in a specific content course. The program alsoseeks to enhance student development by means of parentalorientation and involvement, continuous monitoring, andproviding evaluative feedback to the students.

The potential for effectiveness in the Rutgers program alsorests, in part, in Its evaluation plan. The initial two-prongeddesign, for example, consisted ofa comparative study of fresh-men groups in two consecutive years, the control (nonpar-ticipant) preprogram group and the treatment (participant)group in the first year of the program, as well as evaluationsfrom all individuals involved in the project (students, admin-istratots, faculty, and staff) (Marshall 1%1).

It is evident that personnel and program design are criticaldeterminants. The influential factors underlying each of thesevariables are discussed below.

Factors of Success: PersonnelParticular personnel competencies are identified in the lit-erature as critical elements in the success of developmentalprograms. Good developmental teachers are describedasthose who set attainable goals, encourage students, providecontinuous positive feedback as reinforcement, and makestudents aware of their strengths and their own ability to con-trol their successes and failures (Ross and Roe 1986). Froma collection of 113 professional competencies of remedialinstructors, the following eight categories were established;1. manifest personal qualities2. application of interpersonal skills3. ability to structure and sequence skill competencies4. instructional planning skills5. instructional delivery6. assessment of student progress7. public relations and,8. program administration (Dickens 1980).Practitioners warn against the involuntary placement of

faculty in developmental positions, because such faculty arelikely to resent the assignment and manifest negative attitudesthat will transmit to students, who often bring their own neg-ative attitudes to such programs. The combination of negativeteacher attitudes and negative student attitudes c an be counter-

1_1101__a t .: . -; - :,!..j..,' 1.0 1 J, ' 4 4 0 .1_1,.01_ 1.-*

1,, I-, 1,1 1 10 ' 1 ....k_ e I Ir vo I' I IA....1 6, 1 . '. 11,...,0 II 1' :4.0 .A_ ' ' ' ,... 1

III I ti1.17aes , I kt , t_._i ilc A_ it 5 ' ... : ._ e 5 IL,

is ... -I 4 .6 L.: .., "t 1,,. I 11(.1'1 ), . 1 ? ir. I

;. - a 4* ` I

411_,..±±" r I ti_N_ ' a 4. ` v 1 .1. 4 V

IA1 10, 01 kylik 1 11 4,

.4 0 4,321._11 44I

6 1 II i 10,kil I 1

12.2tiLLUA: 4r1

' 11,..1 I kittiS t1 0 ...L' 1

4. I t 00_1_

v 1 Is' at. a 4,_I t v :4 r LL oP t 1

;1._ iti411,11 101 ;. r *11_1,...,1 IL: :AA*

-,61 A.!.: !le --

I I 4_4*&1_01,..14 :4 `I 1

kft,2-.4,1, 1 tiI 111 1 .4 1a a .41 . e, 00,1 *1A.11A:

it ;. 1 t t: .1 ice ."I s'A

$ I

II_A, 1 0 11 i I I air _ _.I.

wt 0.. ' .111 ....I f_ 1. 11,11 11 __ " ..."..:". 4,631

:Y.II.: I II I ., 11 'taus.% Ilk.. I e`..J , t: 1 . 1

I I '. -a 1 ... 4.4414...L_ :4 4 tail,. ;- 6,2,...a ,j -, ;I.:

:41,-Ill i ' I ' ' 1. 1,.'4 IIS 1 1 1 11.

6 111_1.:1 .4 ,,kA..4,....." I 1 " ' 4 ".4 In. I I..." I 1

Ifir..1111.1 " I ile_.0 Lye t t.2. 1.* ,.."1, i.e. f I, I 4

1 l I :. I In 41_,10,0 LA: 'I lb i I , .1,1I I I O. Oki

11.4 ' 1 . :1 16,:41 I 1 ' 1' Z 1,4 t,:t le

:,±1.1_;-- I :. I, ,4 4 t. 1_ :..,,' .... I '1

1 ','I 1_10 1 ..$ I, i ,-4 t it ' CC ,It,;.. ', .1 11.."Ii*:

i ; , 4 ..., ,: to to,h_.1 L2,1_ i i1 ... :

:4' 6 , I I ' 4,: 1 ..', :.. I+, .4 . 41,

Al kk- , ..i 1' ...,: 1 II I :6 I ' I :11,....,1.i,"

,a

operational functions that are considered essential for thesuccess of a program. For decisions relating to goals and ratio-nale, specific program needs are a comprehensive, structureddevelopmental program that includes mathematics, English,reading, study skills, and support services, such as tutoringand counseling (Ross and Roe 1986), and an interface of basicskills courses and regular, subsequent courses (J. Roueche,Baker, and S. Roueche 1984).

The program needs most commonly attributed to successin the area of instructional methods are flexible programsdesigned to meet the needs of different students (Ross andRoe 1986) and multiple learning systems (J, Roueche, Baker,and S. Roueche 1984) for use with the individual. Specificinstitutional policies and standards most frequently identifiedfor pnogram success are required entry-level tests and man-dated basic skills courses for students who lack minimumcompetencies; a limited number of courses allowed for reme-diating deficiencies; adequate funding (Ross and Roe 1986);and strong administrative support and awarding of credit U.Roueche, Baker, and S. Roueche 1984).

Vital program needs regarding professional and parapro-fessional staff and their roles are commonly defined as a full-time director to supervise and coordinate the program andstaff, faculty who are committed to the program and providedwith ongoing training (Ross and Roe 1986), and peer tutors(J. Roueche, Baker, and S. Roueche 1984). Finally, the con-tinuous evaluation of all aspects of the program, particular-ly the success rate of students after they leave the program(Ross and Roe 1986) and the effectiveness with which basicskills courses interface with regular, subsequent courses (J.Roueche, Baker, and S. Roueche 1984) are considered vitalto the ongoing success of developmental programs.

General Criticlainsin the same national study from which J. Roueche, Baker, andS. Roueche (1984) documented success factors commonlyassociated with developmental programs, it was also foundthat in a maprity of these programs some basic faults are re-current. Although students are required to do more reading,writing, and figuring in basic skills courses than in regularcourses, half the students in many developmental classes donot purchase textbooks, basic skills courses are only looselyrelated to other courses in the college, exams in develop-

42

mental courses are typically objective (short answers, true-false, or multiple choice), and the evaluation of developmen-tal courses is entirely inadequate ( Budig 1986). In a closelook at one institution, Budig also found that students hadvery little opportunity to enhance and practice the basic skillstaught within the courses offered.

Another common criticism of developmental programsis that they are not cost effective (Ross and Roe 1986). Theseprograms are expensive because they require special mate-dais, equipment, and space; the pupil/teacher ratio must belimited; and many tutorial hours must be provided in additionto classroom instruction. In 1981, for ocample, the state ofGeorgia spent more than $6 milks' on developmental pro-grams, and Ohio State University spent between $10 millionand $12 million in the same year ("Toughening Up" 1982).This criticism may not be well founded, however, becausethe impact of any educational experience may actually bevery difficult to measure accurately or appropriately for allof its participants when any one given expas-ure may generatedifferent levels of fulfillment, achieveme, or meaning fordifferent individuals within a group. Degree completion, per-sistence, grade point average, other traditional measures ofinstitutional effectiveness, and retention studies do not necessarily tap the cost-effect value of developmental instructionfor many participants.

ProblemsThis subsection discusses problems and issues that oftenattend implementation of developmental programs. Manyof these problems are contingent on each other such thatone tends to exacerbate the other and, thereby, thwarts theeffective delivery of services to possibly larger numbers ofstudents. Any of these problems or a combination of themcan also be identified in programs that are consideredsuccessful.

FundingAlthough legislation now entitles all American youths to finandal assistance for postsecondary education if they fall withinthe designated limit on household income, the unreliablefunding of some developmental programs leads to a pathof tenuous existence. In many instances, impressive sumsof money are designated for developmental programs at the

Postsecondwy Deveppmentai Pygrams

C ;71

system-wide level, but the allocation of such funds to the var-ious schools within the system does not necessarily coincidewith the particular needs of each institution. Where fundsare said to be distribuml equally, some recipient institutionsmust make more inten iive use of faculty, staff, equipment,and facilities in order to meet the special demands of its dis-advantaged students. The most common problem relatedto funding hoe been threats of cancellation of grant funding(Mallery, Bullock, and Madden 1987).

Recruitment of StaffRecruitment of program staff remains a constant problem formost institutions due to staff turnover (H. Astin et at 1972).Political infighting at some schools has also intensified theproblem. These problems are attributed to insecurity, thetemporary nature of funding in many instances, and the lowstature of staff as perceived by chairpersons of other depart-ments (Sharma 1977). Instructors for many programs are hiredas non-tenure track and/or temporary faculty and, thus, jobinsecurity is heightened, competent individuals are reluctantto pursue such positions, and incentives for scholarly con-tributions in curriculum development, research, or serviceare scarce. Poor staff morale and faculty burnout also exac-erbate the problem of recruitment and retention of individualswho are needed for the successful delivery of developmentalservices. Salaries that are not competitive, cutbacks in travelreimbursement, few opportunities for upward mobility withinuniversities, and a shift toward more stringent tenure andpromotional requirements have also created files to thesuccessful operation of developmental programs (Mallery,Bullock, and Madden 1987).

Minimum A4dmission Standardsand Placement StandarvisStandards vary within systems at various institutional levelssuch that there is no consistent indicator of what is held tobe the threshold of preparedness or underpreparedness (Abra-ham 1986). Within an institutional level (university, four-yearcollege, two-year college), minimum admission criteria nowvary across categories of entering freshmen (e.g., for athletes,the minimum total SAT score of 700 is set by proposition 48of the National Collegiate Athletic Amodation, while otherentering freshmen may qualify with total scores of less than

C

700). Students are also accepted with minimal entrance scoresand then deemed by faculty as too deficient to be taught effec-tively. Where systems allow each institution to determine itsown admission standards by a combination of high schoolgrade point average and SAT or American College Test scoresthat is said to predict success or failure, there is cause to conskier whether the process is adequatewhether all who areaccepted or rejected are accurately predicted for success orfor failure.

In a survey of remedial/developmental programs in 489public two-year and four-year colleges in the SouthernRegional Educational Board states, Abraham (1986) foundthe following:

Colleges and Ullitt'r SiiieS use few common standards tomake placement decisions . in the SRFR state% almost HX)combinations of about 70 different tests in the areas ofrelating writing and mathematics are used to place stu-dents in either college degree-credit or remedial/develop-ment courses . . . it is also reasonabk to azume that the lawvariety of tests in use implies a lack of utuform standardsfor what is usually considered "college-level" uvrir (pp, 1--4).

At least 10 instruments were identified (acres the aggregateof responding institutions) for each subject area placementprocess (see table 2).

Affirmative ActionAlthough many developmental programs were instituted asa part of the movement toward desegregation, there is oftena pervasive misconception that affirmative action is the solepurpose of such programs. At most institutions at which de-segregation has ever been an issue, the minority students with-in the developmental program are a small percentage of theprogram's enrollment. Another misconception is that thedevelopmental program exists solely for the purpose of serv-ing those who are underprepared as a result of disadvantagesAt many institutions, the student population of developmentalprograms includes individuals from affluent and middle-clamhomes. In some instances, foreign students speaking Englishas a second language have been enrolled in devekiprnentalprograms because there were no other services to assist themin overcoming language baniers. Despite such an enrollment

Many43vebpsnentedPrOgraMScontinue to=fifer theSigma ofbeingperveimmiprimarily asa vehicle foraffirmativeaakmpartiaanlyfordesegregation

Pagmaindary Developmetual Prigrams 45

TABLE 2

COLLEGE PLACEMENT TESTS USED BY SREB SURVEYRESPONDENTS, BY RANK, FOR READING, WRITING,

AND MATHEMATICS 1985-86

REAM*Rank itteemets Test

*bon- Denny

2 Kr -Combined

3 MAN- -DescrOnv

Teat of language

Mulls

4 SAT Verbs!

5 MET

6 Stale/System Devil

cipt.c1 Test

ACT Sot.111MildreS

8 MAPS- Comparative

Once PlacentasTest-

9 ACI

10 Test of Aduk Basic

Uralic in

WRITOGNettill' xi' Wish

43' In house/insti

tutionally developed

37 Writirs %triplet

buy

35 Test of Standard

Written English

29 ACT Combined

27 SAT Vertu!

Ai Slate/System Deed

Ted Test23 Alin -language

Ikage

18 MAPS Comparmive

Guichrice KammTest Wrkitg;

12 Micynelti andPlutons Services

of Community

colleges-414

NUMMIPhtiessent Test

72' In houseinsti 118'

tutionaily developed

66 ACT Mihemsics 71

57 MT -Mathematics 47

53 MAPSDescriptive 36

Tat of Mahentifics

Scals Ekmentary

Ad36 SeseiSysiem Devil 29

Ted Test

2$ MAPS -Ikscripme 27

Test of Miahemstic

Skills, Intermediate

*bra34 ACT -Conhined

24 MAPS Comparatise 23

Guidancr Mar

mug- ,Mathemitirs

C Test

24 MAPS Descriptive 22

Test of Mathematics

Stoics -,ArlInnetic

15 MT Numerical 17

Source: Abiatism 11861. Reproduced with permission of &ahem Regional Ethicatain Huard

mix, many developmental programs continue to suffer thestigma of beirig perceived primarily as a vehicle for affirmativeactionparticularly for desegregation. This misconceptionWAS born of an age of accountability in which, to a consid-erable exteir, desegregation orders have periodically drivendevelopmental program policies and procedures (Mallery,Bullock, and Madden 1987) as well as institutional policiessystemwide.

46

C3

RetentionMany retention studies indicate that substantial numbers ofstudents who exit developmental programs do successfullycomplete degree programs. Many other studies indicate thatstudents emerging from such programs do as well as or oftenbetter than other near-marginal students who were regularlyadmitted, particularly in certain core courses. Unfortunately,there are also many reports of significant numbers of studentswho are unsuccessful in completing developmental programsor in completing degree programs after exiting them.

Caution should be exercised in considering the overalloutccune of retention for developmental students becausemany institutions have only recently begun to conduct andreport retention studies and cannot provide pertinent infor-mation with regard to completion of four-year degree pro.grams. (A five-year period is generally considered in cyderto report retention rates for completion of the four-yeardegree program.) Currently, many systems are only able toprovide information on retention rates and degree completionkw their junior or community colleges.

Retention rates also fail to account for many students whomay, at some point, "stop out" of school and/or transfer toanother system and go on to complete degree programs overan extended period of time. At their worst, retention ratesemphasize numbers of individual who remain enrolled andnumbers of individuals who complete degree programs, whilebenefits accrued to individuals receiving developmentalinstruction and participating in campus life, regardless ofshort -term academic achievements, have been sorely over-looked with regard to long -term effects on consumerism, vot-ing behavior, self-awareness, and the quality of life in general.Withdrawal from college during or after a developmental pro-gram does not necessarily predict continued failure, although,ideally, all students who are allowed to enter such a programshould be able to meet completion requirements at somepoint in time if permitted to pursue completion for as longas they demonstrate effort and progress.

The retention of students during their enrollment in adevelopmental program is also said to be closely associatedwith whether the program is fully integrated into the main-stream of the institution or set apart. Where programs are setapart, the programs and students often suffer (Davis, Burk.heimer, and Borders-Patterson 1975).

Pactsecondary Develionental PIWUMS 47

Discriminatory restingIn view of the affirmative action stigma placed on develop-mental programs, it is ironic that, in many instances, the en-trance exams used by institutions of higher education for pur-poses of admissions and placement have been alleged todiscriminate against minority groups to the effect that notonly are minority applicants denied regular admissions andplaced in developmental programs, but they are also deniedaccess to developmental programs in significant numbers.In addition, the admissions tests that place minority studentsinto developmental programs and test preparation coursesare alleged to be discriminatory due to the poor preparationstudents are given prior to retaking the mandated admissionstest. In many cases, individuals who scored below the mini-mum requirement level on lustitutional admissions tests andwere allowed to enroll, on a provisional basis, have still failedto achieve the required minimum score after completing afour-year degree program and retaking the admissions test,sometimes repeatedly. Such results are, no doubt, in conflictwith the notion of setting levels of standards for admissionand instruction such that the majority of students whoare permitted to enter can successfully complete therequirements.

Rd: RequirementsExit requirements have often been set, arbitrarily, in terms oftime limitations within which students are required to com-plete a series of courses and/or demonstrate a particular levelof proficiency in a given abject area before they can regis-ter for regular course offerings within the same subject area.Quite frequently, substantial numbers of students who areadmitted into developrr ental programs make considerableprogress from term to term or from one course level to thenext, but they are still unable to meet the minimum exit re-quirements within the predetermined time limitations. Thishas been particularly true in instances in which students withextremely low achievement scores or specific deficiencieshave been enrolled. On the other hand, some developmentalprograms conduct courses that are considered more rigorousthan ceNrain core course offerings, which leads to a situationin which developmental students may have achieved pro-

5

ficiency in a given area comparable to the proficiency levelsof students who were marginally accepted under regular ad-missions criteria, but at the same time, the developmentalstudents are still unable to perform at the proficiency levelarbitrarily designated for exit criteria.

Proficiency ObjectivesAlthough exit requirements are frequently found to be strin-gent with regard to expected proficiency levels as well as timelimitations, there is still some question as to whether enoughstudents who do exit developmental programs are adequatelyprepared to succeed beyond the core course level. Whereretention rates indicate that substantial numbers of devel-opmental students do not complete degree programs, it issuspected that the emphasis of course content in the devel-opmental program is based primarily on developing the skillsnecessary to meet exit requirementsin essence, merely topass exit tests. Starks (1982) indicates that 2 successful pro-gram should show evidence of helping students to completeregular course work and, thereby, reduce attrition. Thus, acritical consideration for developmental programs is whetherenrolled students are trained to develop a capacity for independent inquiry and problem solving.

IficHstic vs. Shills ApproachesWithin some developmental programs there exist conflictingwinions as to whether instruction should evolve from a holis-tic or a specific skills focuswhether instruction should bebased on the use of whole contexts and global communi-cation and interpretation or the application of specific- andisolated skills to materials designed or selected for such .spe-cilk purposes. In instances in which students with very lowability levels are involved, the exclusive use of holistic ap-proaches presents a problem in that these students' progressremains thwarted by a lack of retnediation in a particular skillfor which pissing the threshold of proficiency is essentialto more global and holistic competencies.

As an example, students who lack total proficiency in thespecific reading skill of phonetic decoding will be at a lossto decipher certain individual words, let alone draw conclaslats, make inferences, and summarize a whole written pas-sage. At another level, there are those students who are adeptat drawing conclusions and summarizing information, ex-

Postsecondary De mental Programs 49

elusively on the basis of given EAU, but who are unable tomake inferences until given specific instruction and practicein the differences and similarities between conclusions andinferences and the logic required in deducing new informa-tion from that which is already presented. The overall goalof the Rutgers University FSP developmental program is oneof improving the skills deficits of the students that are iden-tified by their profiles (Marshall 1981). It is stated that theRutgers mission is to help students learn, in a concrete man-ner, how skills acquired in reading, writing, and mathematicsare applied to their regular course work.

Lack of RelativityThis problem is reflected in the curriculum of many devel-opmental programs in terms of both the lack of itaenelated-nes.s of content and subject area and the lack of relativity ofcmtent to the backgrounds and imrdediate concerns of stu-dents. Because most institutions of higher education conductdevelopmental programs within the same daily insmactionaltime constraints as other course offerings, an automatic lim-itation is placed on the amount of rernediation that can beexpected to occur in a given span of time 'Mir.. relevancein the teaching/le arnini process must be optimized in ord.?"to increase nuxivation and interest in tasks kw which studentsmay have developed disinterest, may have experienced failure,or may have assessed as useless pursuits bearing little rele-vance to real-world and immediate survival concerns. Inmany programs the basic skills are taught under the auspicesof separate subject components (English, mathematics, read-log) with separate curriculum and separate content area mate-rials. Even in instances in which the focus of one component,such as wilting, is stressed in the approach to another comjxxient (reading)--- the materials used and topics coveredare often totally different Moreover, curriculum and materialsare often found to he insensitive to the cultural backgrounds,interests, StliViVai skills, and other real world demands thatare inherent and necessary to various cultural groups withinthe student population. Lipman (1980) argues to this pointas follows:

if the f..ducation process were to he redes*ned . the overallobjective of such a design would he an educationalsystemof maximum intrinsic value (as contrasted with a system

50

whose values are purcify instrumental and extrinsic), max-union meaningfuhums and rationality, and maximummethodolcgical unity and consistency . the school mustbe defined by the nature of education 1 not educationby the nature of the school any,* :' t helps us dis-cover meaning in life is educationat an the schools arceducational only insofar as they do facilitate such discovery(p.3).

Lack of Acadeink RecognitionLack of academic recognition is a symptom of the stigma suffered by developmental programs in terms of course creditequivalents and in terms of opposition to the concept ofequity in higher education. At the institutional level, devel-opmental programs are often denied equal academic recognition in that students enrolled in developmental programsusually receive no college-level credit although they may hegiven institutional credit. Thus, faculty and administratorsin other disciplines hesitate to acknowledge any equivalencein scholarly rank to those faculty in developmental programswho hold the wine title (e.g., assistant professor). At all levels,from the highest position of governmental influence to thesingle average citizen, on the campus or in the community,there is often a reluctance to accept the notion of equal edu-cational opportunity for all individuals, which results in lackof academic recognition for developmental programs.

The Imminent Ib, azir of DiscontinuanceAt the same time that the various institutions are attemptingto serve the diversified Ironing needs of increasing numbersof individuals who do not meet regular admissions criteriabut who wish to pursue the benefits of higher education, M-ims factions within the public sector have questioned theefficacy, relevance, feasibility, and academic status of suchprograms within their resp ective institutions and among thelarger educational community. In the state of Georgia, forexample, where the Governor's Committee on PostsecondaryEducation has recommended the discontinuance of devel-opmental studies programs as scxm as new secondary andpostsecondary graduation and admissions criteria are met,there is controversy. It is evident that although the high schoolgraduating class of 1988 was the first to faze the new admis-sion and placement criteria of the Southern Association of

Pastsecondwy Deveitenental Pew ans 51

Colleges and Schools, the impact of this new trend on theneed for develmnental programs will be very gradual.

From a discussion of the implications of the new criteriafor developmental studies programs in the University Systemof Geotgia (Ervin and Tomlinson 1986), the critical actorsthat will uhimately affect developmental programs are teachertraining, legislation for need based funding, and the natureof assessment and evaluation processes at both the secondaryand poLsecondary levels. These factors will determine if,when, or how the purpose, content, or scope of the devel-opmental programs will change. A considerable amount oftime will elapse before significant numbers of teachers andstudents will be able to actualize the new criteria. Undoubt-edly, there will still be the WM, if not greater, numbers ofminority and educationally disadvantaged students who willnot meet the new criteria at the outset.

52

PROGRAM EVALUATION

Different methods are used for program evaluation at var-ious institutions The type of evaluation process that a Maniattar institution may choose is most likely determined bythe overall profile of the institution. A number of componentsthat differentiate among programs have been identified (Berl1987): program objectives, credit and grades, modes of in-struction, timing and duration of remedial education activitiesin a student's college studies, and the status and characteristicsof remedial faculty and staff. Other critical components arethe classification of students, testing and placement, and organization and funding.

Program evaluation provides a monitoring system withwhich to assess effectiveness and facilitate improvement; itis by no means a panacea in terms of serving to ameliorateall of the many problems that a program may experience.The ultimate purpose of program evaluation should be todetermine whether the program enables underprepared stu-dents to acquire skills necessary to complete college (Russand Roe 1986). Types of criteria used for evaluation can becategorized as follows: inputs or efforts (resources), perfor-mance (results or outcomes), adequacy of performance, effi-ciency, and process (Bets 1987).

Evaluation data can be obtained through informal prce-dures as well as formal procedures. Informal methods mayinvolve student assessments of instructors and counselorsand overall program effectiveness; staff can assess the utilityof various teaching techniques and materials; and regularfaculty can provide feedback on the performance of formerdevelopmental students (Ross and Roe 1986). Formal pnx:edunes involve carefully designed, systematically administeredmeasures that may require the identification of numerousvariables that are monitored, cross-referenced, and storedfor longterm and comparative analyses as well as immediatefeedback. 1.7citial evaluation may k. coordinated by the campus institutional research office or the research componentof the developmental program, or the collection and storageof data may be a joint effort.

Assessments of Program EvaluationAssessments of the validity and reliability of developmentalprogram evaluations over the past three decades prompt someskepticism as to the accuracy of this research in its efforts todetermine the effectiveness and value of programs. The re,

ProgramevalsietiLIZprovides amonitoringsystem withwhich toassesseffectivenemand facilitateimprovement;it is by nomeans apanacea interms ofserving toamelioplate allof the manyprobkms thata program

experience.

Pmisecundary Developmental Programs 53

search design of studies showing positive results from devel-opmental programs prior to the 1960s has been criticized asfaulty (Crass 1976).

One pervasive observation of the nature of education dlevaluation has been that although evaluation of student per-formance is frequent in all levels of American education, care-ful appraisal of educational programs has been rare (Wilker-son 1966).

lack of emphasis on systematic program evaluation is evi-dent in procedures set forth in the guidelines for prowamsfor the "new" student under the Special Services for Disad-vantaged Students (SSDS), funded by the Office of Education,Department of Health, Education and Welfare, in institutionsof higher education in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The36 page application information and program manual for theSSDS contains one paragraph on evaluation and research,which (1) prohibits the use of control groups and (2) callsfor the establishment of mechanisms to respond to studentevaluation (US. Department of Health, Education and Wel-fare 1970). The manual provides no other guidelines forevaluation. Subsequently, an Office of Education annual evalu-ation report states that systematic efforts at evaluation of edu-cational programs had a short history and that those programs,individually and collectively, had not yet met the objectiveof redressing various inequalities (U.S. Department o. Health,Education and Welfare 1972).

State-supported programs have produced another bodyof evaluative data. These programs, accountable to the statelegislature that appropriates funds, have usually incorporateda research effort. New York, for example, has provided fundsto public and private in state institutions fur financial aid andsupportive services to residents who exhibit potential forsuccessful completion of an associate or bachelor's degree(Higher Education Opportunity Program 1970). The eval-uation of the progress of participating institutions was basedprimarily on self-evaluations and on-site visitations. Additionalevaluations by an outside agency delineated the followingfor the state legislature: per student state aid allocutions, en-rollment, student retention rate, and the relationship of re-tention to various gudent characteristics, such as sex, maritalstatus, and occupation of Father (Human Affairs ReFearch Cen-ter 1970). There was no attempt, however, to consider pro-gram characteristics, such as tutoring, counseling, or the re-

54

P"-

medial curriculum, as functions of student retention rate.In numerous instances, program effectiveness has been

based on varying criteria for measuring improvement, rang-ing from specific skill performance to grade point average,matriculation, and persistence; applied to a variety of typesof schools, selective and public; within the various regionsof the nation; and among various ethnic groups. The diversityof variables from program to program confounds systematiccomparative assessments. During the rapid establishmentof record numbers of developmental programs in the late1960s and early 1970s, however, individual evaluation reportsreflect many positive results as well as some negative orunchanged performance trends among the populationsassessed

Focus and Findingsof Program EvaluationsPositive results have been documented in evaluations of speelk services. Some examples follow: reading instruction bystudent tutors and by faculty tutors against a control group(Yuthas 1971); a preA:ommunity college summer sessionfor African-American students (Gattman 1967); a summerprogram with a reading and study skills emphasis (Kling1972); a summer orientation for disadvantaged and minoritystudents at selective colleges (Oskamp, Hodges, Thompson,and Spuck 1970); assistance from graduate student tutors forhigh-risk students in advanced courses (Menges, Max, andTrumpeter 1972); a reading and writing emphasis with areduced kxad at a southern public university (Algier 1972);studentto-student counseling on study habits and instructionin tautly skills at a southwestern public university (W. Brown1971); and individual counseling and instruction at an easternIN. bile university (Kaye 1972).

Fewer negative reports are found. Specific services fromwhich negative results or unchanged performance was docu,mented include a summer readiness program at a selectivewestern college (Klingelhofer and lAmgacre 1972); a dual-function counselor/tutor program for African-American students at a southern university (Wilson 1970); and a readingrate and/or study skills program (with varying emphases)evaluated against a control group (Belcher 1971; DiSalvi 1971).

Comprehensive programs characterized by multidimen-sional efforts incorporating skills development curriculum,

Poskiecondary Devekpmentai Programs 55t*: n4 A.:

tutorial assistance, and academic and nonacademic counselinghave rarely been evaluated systematically. Of those that havebeen widely documented, however, most report positive re-sults (Brody, Harris, and lachica 1968; Bucklin and Bucklin1971; Tetkm 1970; Urtxm Problem Solving Program 1970;and Wenrich 1971).

During this period, there was a call for the evaluation ofspecific programming efforts in order to isolate those aspectsof developmental education programs that are most effectivein curbing attrition and promoting academic success (Co r-don 1970; Simmons 1970). The College Discovery and Devel-opment Program of the City University of New York is oneprogram that conducted evaluations in accordance with thisobjective. Where tutorial assistance was provided by collegestudents for program participants, a five-pronged evaluationfocused on other similar programs, the tutors, tutees, Leachers,and parents (Brody, Harris, and Lachica 1968). Russ and Roe(1986) cite a review of the research (Maxwell 1980) that indi-cates that many reading improvement programs, particularlythe individualized, counseling-oriented, and voluntary pro-grams, did produce improved grades, and they refer to ananalysis of 60 evaluative studies of developmental programs(C. Kulik, J. Kulik, and Schwalh 1983) that found programs"generally worthwhile." They also refer, however, to theanalysis of two major studies of postsecondary schools (J.Roueche, Baker, and S. Roueche 1984), which concludedthat few institutions evaluate their developmental programsadequately.

Evaluation Designs and ImplicationsThe designs of developmental program evaluations have beenreviewed substantially in the literature (Budig 1986; Arlinand Brown 1981; Ross and Roe 1986; Wright and Cahalan1985). A comprehensive model or the design ofprogramevaluation includes preprogram and past-program measures,a grouping statistic, and some form of control group for comparisom These basic guidelines allow for pretest measuresin the form of aptitude or achievement test scoms. Pustprogram measures should include shortrange measures, suchas final grade or final examination scores, and long rangemeasures, such as the student's grade in the next course,grade point average after a specified number of semesters,credits earned, car persistence in college (Akst and Hecht 1980).

56

The evaluation design that is considered to be the moststraightforwardthe single-group pretest/post-program com-parison has been criticized for a serious limitation (Swig1986), that is, the design addresses only the remedial pop-ulation and uses two equivalent forms of the same test forpreprogram and post-program measures. Budig recommendsthat this procedure be used only if there is no other alternativeand only if all evaluative biases are controlled for. Becausewithholding remedial opportunities from those who needit (for purposes of gaining a control group) would be con-sidered unethical, a recommended strategy for bypassing thisproblem is to rake as the control group students whose preprogram measures indicate the need for remedial work butwho evade it (Budig 1986).

Four evaluative designs that have been recommended (Akstand Hecht 1980) are outlined below:

1. The remediate exempted comparison, in which the per-formance of the exempted population is used as the stan-dard for assessing the achievement of remediated students.

2. The norm-group comparison, in which the standard isthe performance of a national population.

3. The cross-group comparison, which compares the effec-tiveness of two different remedial programs, usually atseparate institutions.

4. The historical comparison, which contrasts the effective-ness of a current program with that of one previouslyoffered at the same school.

Another popular source of program evaluation informationis the national sample survey, which provides data on howdevelopmental programs are operating collectively. In onesuch survey, respondents evaluated the success or effectiveness of such program aspects as courses, support services,organization and policy, and outcome for remedial students(Wright and Cahalan 1985). A scale of I (low) to 5 (high)was used. Wright and Cahalan found that most respondentsrated their programs moderately high, overall, with a meanscore of 3.8 for many items. What is particularly interestingis that the highest ratings were given to teacher attitude,teacher training, and curriculum content and structure, andthe lowest ratings were given to program evaluation, degreecompletion rate, and breadth of course offerings. Wright andCalahan report that 30 percent of the survey ravondents gaveprogram evaluation a below-average rating.

Itasecondary Dem:him:mug Programs 57

;';

A particular weakness found in evaluation processes, asindicated by the same survey, is the lack of focus on retentioninformation. Wright and Cahalan found that 63 percent ofcolleges repotted that they kept records on the percentageof total freshmen retained but only 35 percent reported thatthey kept separate records on the percentage of remedialstudents retained. The survey also indicated that retentionrecords were more frequently kept by four-year than two-year schools. (Two-year schools have a larger percentage ofpan-time students, who are difficult to track and whose be-havioral patterns are difficult to interpret.)

Finally, national survey approaches have also been usedto conduct collective program evaluations on the basis ofspecial interest foci, such as race. In a comparative study of

TABLE 3

EVALUATION CATEGORIES USED FOR THECOMPARISION OF PROGRAMS

gestitiationall Chaauctetchdastype of institution institutional settingcalendar year existence of developmental wadingadmissions policy course statuslength of operation program descriptionstudent pbcement

Enrollment and Retentioninstitutional enrollment classification of students servedenrollment in program completion ratestrident matriculation

Facuky StatusFaculty rank and tenure staff supervisionstaff composition tenure of administratorinstructor evaluation

Program Designsuccess of program project evaluationdepartmental affiliation method of conducting reading

coursesIn.struct':usal Delivery

instructional practicessupport services

Course Creditcredit hriur.s (Inner!stiident evaltration

Fundingsource of funding

instructor/student ratio

type r if credit

percentage of funding

developmental reading programs in traditionally AfricanAmerican colleges and universities and their white counter-parts (Joplin and Brown 1981), the variables of readinginstruction and racial composition of 113 institutions werethe primary factors under consideration. The major areas ofanalysis were institutional characteristics, enrollment andretention, faculty status, program design, instructional delivery,course credit, and funding. Several institutional characteristics,enrollment and retention characteristics, and additional areasof analysis were targeted (see table 3).

A four-stage model for evaluating developmental programsallows for the use of all of the above-mentioned criteria asthey apply to a particular program and its subjectivity to con-stant change. In stage one, activities within the developmeatalprogram are evaluated (for a sample of how this data mightbe collected, see table 4 on the next page). In stage two, thematch between the developmental program and the main-stream curriculum is evaluated. In stage three, student pro,gress and faculty, staff, and administrative judgments are usedto reassess the goals of both the developmental program andthe mainstream courses. For example, if there is a significantdifference between the percentage reported fir gradesachieved by regular and developmental students in main-stream courses, then the point of difference (subject area)would indicate that aspect of the developmental programthat would deserve closer attention for reevaluation of activ-ities in stage one. Finally, in stage four, the measures pre-viously used for evaluation are reconsidered in terms of theirappropriateness for new program goals (C.lowes 1984b).

Despite the available expertise on program evaluation de,sign for developmental education, the literature, also reflectsthe fact that honest effOrts to conduct meaningful evaluationsare still hampered by traditional obstacles that are pervasivein the educational setting. The difficulties in collecting data,controlling variables, allocating time for such purposes, andsecuring institutional support, among others, are some ofthe traditional pitfalls to which the evaluation of develop-mental programs is subject (Dempsey 1986).

Postsecondary Dertikpmental 117v-rum 59

4 1)

TABLE 4

MODEL FOR EVALUATINGDEVELOPMENTAL PROGRAMS

Stage One Performance of Students inDegelopmentd Studies Comes

Glade Distribudon Mean Number Number PercentQuarter A ECDF I Grade Engulled Exit ExitSummerEnglish

MathematicsReading

Fall

EnglishMathematicsReading

WinterEnglish

MathematicsReading

SpringEnglishMathematksReading

Stage Two: A Comparison of Performance in Selected CoreCurriculum COMM Degelotanestal Stinnes Studenb and

Regularly Enrolled Stuolenb

Grade of D Grade of C orSelected Total liniment of Seem BeierCote kph* Dewelopmettial Depitely Develornentd Verb* Developatents1Cwrialkna Enrolkd Stndies Barad Studio Enrolled StudiesCourses Ste:lents Students Nakao Students Students Students

Eng 101Eng 102Math 1 00Sus 105Psy 101Pol 101His 251His 252tips 108E1 102

;

CHANGES IN EDUCATION AND THECHALLEIGE TO DEVELOPMENTAL CURRICULUM

Throughout this century, instructional theories on what shouldbe taught, how it should be taught, and the extent to whichin.struction can be marvred by various individuals or popula-tions have been Ixised largely on concepts of the measure-ment of intelligence. A standardized procedure for the mea-surement of intelligence, the Stanford Binet IntelligenceQuotient, still in use, was initially developed in the early1900s. Since then, psychomeuicians and other psychologicaltheorists have explored the measurement of intelligence,refuted the concept of measuring intelligence by claimingthat mental processes could not be observed or measuredaccurately, suggested that intelligence is hereditary, and morerecently, turned to the inclusion of environment, experience,and the use of information processes as factors in the mea-surement of intelligence (Sternberg 1977).

During the 1980s many changes in educational programshave been planned. There have been new commitments toexcellence, new criteria for accreditation, and new philiaso-phies of instructional practice. Although new courses havebeen charted, there is still skepticism about goals and interLions with regard to compensatory education. Some of themost promising directions for curriculum have been deli.neated in Stemberg's (1984) program for training intelligence,Feuerstein's (1980) progra1 of instrumental enrichment, andLipman's (1980) program of philosophy in the clas.snx)m.Lipman has made valuable criticisms of remedial programs,and he warns that much restructuring will be necessary:

Over and wer again, ue have recourse m remediationrather than to redesign . . the fundamental source ofthe system's failure to divribute education effectively . . .

remains unexamineg and the increasingly vast sums arepoured into efforts to compensate for the inefficiency ofthe compensatory efforts . . We [Amid assuming thatthe only way to make compensatory education work is notto ajproach it as a . . . compensatory device, but to designit so as to promise educational excellence for all yining peo-Pk' (pp. 3-5).

As a preface to CrasN's (1981) discussion of adults aslearners, the Commission on Non-traditional Study made thefollowing statement:

Mainly*wag*decades of knvcipectationsforteof citizens,we baveperintuatedunnecessaltyacadendcfailuretbrontpseiNsigainigPrqthecY-

Postsecondary Devellimental Pitigrains 61

Mast of us agreed that non-traditional still,. is more anattitude than a system and lbw can nemr be defined erupttangentially. This attitude puts the student first and theinsiitution senora concentrates more on the former's needthan the kilter's convenience, encourages diversity of indi-vidual rather than uniform prescription) and deempbasizestime, space, and even cov- e requirements in favor of com-petence an where applicable, performance. It has concernfor the karner cif any age and circumstance, for the degreeaspirant as well as the person who finds sufficient rewardin enriching life through constan4 periodic, or occasionalstudy (p. xv).

Again, as in Upman's statement, it would seem that there isno effective strategy for compensatory or nontraditional education that woukl not be an effective strategy or considerationfur all education.

Ideally, we should be able to speak of education, ratherthan education, compensatory education, and nontraditionaleducation. Where nontraditional education will more easilytake its place within the concept of what an education oughtto he, there will still be the need for a greater effort to waivethe place of compensatory /remedial programs in the realmof education. Mainly through decades of low expectationsfar masses of citizens, we have perpetuated unnecessary aca-demic failure through self-fulfilling prophecy. Consequently,compensatory programs of the remedial nature will still henecesswy for large numbers of individuals for quite sometime to come.

To date, psychometric, Piagetian, and cognitive modelshave been primarily influential in the implementation ofinstructional programs. As a result of the adoption ofpsy-chometric models, students' intelligence, capabilities, anddeficits have been measured. analyzed, and approached onthe basis of scores in response to performance of a seriesof tasks, for which subscores have often been averaged. Thisapproach has often obscured the precise characteristics ofan individual's strengths and weaknesses. In keeping withPiagetian models, students have often been taught or instructed on the basis of sequences of information, concepts,or tasks in accordance with a predetermined hierarchy ofcog-nitive and psychomotor development. Cognition has receivedmuch attention in the past in terms of Piaget's stages of devel-

cement and, more recently, through the concept of metacognitionan individual's understanding of an ability to monitor his own actions (A. Brown 1978; Flavell 1976).

In the 1980s, educational theorists and practitioners havecome to recognize the nezd for intervention programs to trainstudents in the development of intellectual skills (Stemberg1983). This need is justified by the fact that there has beena marked decline in the intellectual skills of our youth, mostvisibly demonstrated by SAT test scores. According to Stem.berg, however, "college professors don't need SAT scores

they can see it in the poorer class performance, and par-ticularly in the poorer reading and writing of their students"(p. 18). Many significant works have been written on methodology for classroom instruction in the basic skills areas,most notably works such as Huey's (1969) The Psythoiggyand Pedagogy of Reading first published in the early 1900s,Pauk's (1962) How to Study in Colkwe, Bloom's (1956) tax-onomy of the levels of questioning for classroom instruction,and Whimbey and Lockhcad's (1983) Analytiad Reading andReasoning now in its fourth edition. These approaches toinstructional methodology, however, predate the more recently developed theories of training that address the cornponent processes that make up intelligence (Steinberg 1971).

Emerging philosophies of education involve theories thataddress the student's intelligence, skill development, problemsolving, and critical thought from new perspectives of cognitive processes. Sternberg, Feuerstcin, and Upman have beenthe major proponents of these new perspectives of cognitiveprocesses and cognitive development in terms of bum' train-ing programs. Each of these theorist. acknowledges the appli-cability of previous models but also criticizes their limitationsas they pertain to prediction, diagnosis, and instruction. Psychometric models have been most severely criticized.

These three recent pioneers in the development of programs for training intelligence have made significant con-tributions based on the premises that (1) intelligence canbe taught, (2) the majority of school children are not beingexposed to process training, and (3) standard curricula shouldbe supplemented with training in intellectual skills (Steinberg1983). Their work has been selected for further discussionhere because of the types of populations they have used fearthe development of their programs and because of thereported success of their programs. Steinberg, a noted Yale

Postsecondary Depelopmetual Pnvrams 63

scholar and authority on intelligence, has designed a trainingprogram that is based on a theory that has been subjectedto extensive empirical testing; covers a wide range of intellectual skills, both practical and academic, synthetic as wellas analytic; and is relevant to secondary and college-levelinstruction. In a thorough review of Feuerstein and Lipman'sprograms, !Weinberg (1983) has presented comparative anal-yses of the strengths and weaknesses of their applications.

Feuenitein's training program is assessed as appropriatefor children in the upper grades of elementary school to earlyhigh school; for a wide range of ability levels, from retardedto above average; and for a wide range of socioeconomicgroups. Moreover, the pngram appears to be effective in rais-ing intrinsic motivation, self-esteem, and scores on abilitytests (Sternberg 1983).

Lipman's program attends to many of the same skills asFeuerstein's program, but by means of a very different ap-proach. The program is assessed as most appropriate for upperelementary schoolchildren, and the content of the materialsis found to be highly motivational, effective in raising thelevel of the student's thinking skills, and applicable to thecontent areas such that durability and transfer of learningare facilitated (Sternberg 1983).

Stembeig notes that the limitations of his program are itslack of material on deductive thinking or traditional logicand its lesser focus on the contextual aspect of intelligence.Ile finds the limitations of Feuerstein's program to he in itsbreadth of skills and low potential for germ-Arability; Lip-man's program limitations are said to be that students withlow to average intellectual capacity might not he able to man-age the reading and reasoning levels and that lower class stndents may not relate to the characters in the program's stories.What is most important, however, is that, given the positivemerits of each program, the variance in applicable age ranges,ability levels, or background provides for adaptability to thenew diversity in freshman populations of college-level devel-opmental programs.

Although the theoretical perspectives are applicable toteaching/learning at all levels in all educational settings, theyshoukl be particularly useful to developmental studies programs if such programs seek to adopt the most exemplaryapproaches to instruction that arc available.

Sternberg: Training IntelligenceSternberg (1984) examines psychometric models in relationto prediction, diagnosis, and training. He recognizes the utilityof psychometrics for predicting future success in a particulareducational program or work setting. He views the psychometric model as derived from a set of underlying sources ofindividual differences, called factors, such as verbal compre-hension, verbal fluency, number, spatial vistialiration, rea-soning, memory, and perceptual speed. He considers factoranalysis useful for diagnosing individual strengths and weaknesss, but not as useful for prediction, because the factorsonly suggest broad abilities in which training is necessary.

As for training in intelligence performance, Sternberg indi-cates that the factors are of minimal usefulness. He explainsthat, for example, factors do not indicate in what specific as-pects of vertu] comprehension a student needs training ifa verbal comprehension score is too low. He also cautionsthat when information is obtained about specific factors ona single test, training based on such factors may not be galizable to other tests or tasks. Essentially, Sternberg refutesthe utility of the psychometric model in generating uccessfultraining programs because its strengths are not necessarily conducive to such purposes. His criticism of the psychometricmodel is based on a belief that a theory for training must spec-

ify the following:

competent puxesses used in performance of tasks wil;chit applies,strategies into which these component proves.sescombine,

internal representations on which these comp went grate

gies act,executive processes that control the selection of corm

potent pro xes.ses of perfimance, andhow these elements combine to interact with differentglobal paaerns of ability to produce ,;:sious levels of suecessful performance.

Psychometric models usually do not specify these elements.A most important aspect of Stemberg's theory is his con

ceptualization of the nature of intelligence in terms of its basicconstruct, which he explains as follows:

PosLseamdtay Developmental Program 65

The basic construct is the component. A component A anelementray infmnation process thatoperatcs upon internalrepresentations of objects or symbots. Components can beclawfied on the basis of their funolons into five differentkincks: metacomponents performance components acqui-sition components, retention components and transfercomponents . . . There can be no doubt that the major vari-able in the devektnnent of the intefiect is the metacompo-nential one. All feedback is filtered through these elements,and if tbey do not perform their function well, then it won'tmatter very much :viva the other kinds- of components cando (p. 28).

Intelligc nee, as explained by Steinberg, is based on theoperation of the five components, all interacting primarilythrough the metacomponential functions to provide the basisfor intellectual development throughout the life span. Meta-cognitionundemanding how a process worts and beingable to monitor the processis widely identified as the basisfax effective learning, which is undeveloped in the unsuccess-ful student. The teaching of studystrategies is frequentlyguided by this concept.

Feuerstein: Instntmentsi EnrichmentFeuer Lein (1980) has also criticized the use of psychmetricmodels in terms of prediction, diagnosis, and instruction.Ills critique is based on four points: the structure of tests,the exam situation, the orientation of tests, and the interpre-tation of results. According to Feuenaein, tests usually arenot constructed as if to be used in a teaching process thatwould facilitate the evaluation of the effect of teaching onthe capacity of the student in new situations. lie describesthe exam situation as one in which the interaction is forced,unnatural, nonconducive to learning or performance, andone in which the examiner usually does not act in ways thatwould develop latent potential in the examinee. The orien-tation of tests is described as one that emphasizes the pro-d acts of performance rather than the processes that give riseto the products. Feuerstdn aim) indicates that the psycho-metric model induces damaging motivational states in indi-viduals ( even more so in retarded individuals), which leadsto a depression of test performance. Finally, he concludesthat the interpretation of test results places an emphasis on

66

aggregates of pe formance Wu, when in fact peak scoresshould be used as an indication of the cognitive potentialof the examinee, rather than viewed as ermr of measurement.

In comparing his own training program to Feuerstein's,Sternberg (1984) indicates that Feuerstein's (1980) programof instrumental enrichment stems from a theory that

implies .1 broader base for training, including trainingof more effective and motivational elements;seems to assume some particular deficient functionsthat characterize the cognitive structure of the deprivedindividual;emphasizes process more than content;emphasizes tasks rather than components of the tasks;seeks to train potentially deficient cognitive operationsindirectly; andemphasizes fluid and visual abilities (spatial, form perception, etc.).

Psychometric models have done little to approach instructionin these specific ways.

According to Sternberg, Feuerstein's conceptualization ofthe nature of intelligence stems from a theory that has threebask parts:

A list of potentially deficient cognitive functions organizedaround phases of input, elaboration, and ouput; a aw-nftive map that can be used to analyze tasks in terms ofseven dimensions of analyis; and a theory of developmentthat sirezes the role of mediated lapwing everience inthe development of intelligence (p. 22).

Feuerstein's theory of the development of intelligence is saidto be based primarily on the concept of mediated learningexperience, wherein the development of cognitive structurein an organism can be viewed as a product of two modalitiesof interaction between the organism and its environment:direct exposure to stimuli and mediated learning. (The formeris a much needed intervention for the experientially deficientstudent, and the latter is inherent to the context of develop-mental instruction.)

Lipman: Philosophy in the ClassroomAlthough Lipman (1980) does not address the Luse of psy-chometric models of prediction, diAgnusis, and instruction

Postseconizny Developmental Hvgrams 67

I

directly, his opposition to psychometric approaches is evidentin his discussion of reading:

R e a d i n g is . . the focus of much attention . . Critics accusethe schools of not teaching read°71g well and many schoolsrespond by paying greater . . attention to reading . . . atthe expense of other educational objectives . increasinglythe mess is on reading while the thinkingprocoses it wassupposed to build are neglected . . . It may seem strangethat we urge the teaching of reasoning to improve children'sreading and that . . . reading be seen in turn as a meansto hep children think, rather than as an end in WI .

instruction in the procedum of reasoning can be hepfulin developing . . . thinking (p. 19).

It is also apparent that Lipman does not adhere to thenotion of developmental stages, which are characteristic ofPiagetian models. He explains his training apprcrach asfollows:

Unlike "atomistic teaching" which introduces a segmentof knowkilg4 drills for it until it is mastered by the student4and then moves on to something new this "organic"afproach to teaching touches lightly on philosophical con-cepts in the beginning and then slowly builds a derperunderstanding of the same concepts as they relate to recur-rent motifs (p. 82).

In his discussion of the improvement of moral judgment,Lipman states that 'The net pedagogical effect of stage theoryis to confuse and misguide teachers rather than illuminatethem as to the proper role they may assume in moral guid-ance of their students" (p. 184).

A general amceptualination of the nature of intelligenceis offered by Lipman from the perspective of thinking skillsand their relationship to basic skills. He describes the thinkingprOCeSS as a "vast and intricate family of activities," whichinclude mathematical, historical, practical, and poetical think-ing, as well as the kinds of thinking one does during suchactivities as reading, writing, dancing, playing, and speaking.According to Lipman,

Reading and mathematics are sometimes called the "basicskills" because they are said to be able to urdode and to

N...

E1/4,

reinforce other cognitive skilb. But reading and ,natbe'ratio are simply tux) expressions of cognuive procmIng;performance in thca. areas can be no better than the think-ing skis that underlie them. From an educational pointof view the improvement of thinking skills is of crucial andfoundational importance (p. 16).

Theoretical Bases ComparedIn a discussion of Feuerstein's instrumental and Stemberg'scomponential approaches to the training of intelligence, Stemberg (1984) analyzes the differences and similarities of theunderlying theoretical bases. He indicates that they bothemphasize information processing and the training of intel-ligent thinking and behavior and that they both perceive intel-ligence as a dynamic entity, unlike the static factorial (psy-chometric) model, which cannot capture all that intelligenceis about. Sternberg, however, sees Feuerstein's construct ashaving too many discrete pans, which he says overlap andinteract to proms informatim. Feuerstein's theory of intel-ligence is said to be componential, while Stemberg's theoryis based on the concept of metacomponential performance.

The more specific comparisons made by Sternberg indicatethat he perceives his taxonomy as tighter, more succinct. Hecharacterizes Feuerstein's components as representing a broadrange of functions, while he considers his metacomponentialstructure to be one that classifies processes according to thefunctions they serve. Sternberg acknowledges Feuerstein'suse of noncognitive elements, such as motivation, while heuses none. Thus, the theories have different implications forthe kinds of training that should be used to enhance intel-ligence performance.

Sterd.;erg (19S4) perecives his theory as one that impliesdetailed process training with emphasis on transferability ofthe process trained, such as the crystallized ability to derivemeanings of words from contexts. Transferability of Feuer-stein's training has been more widely questioned in termsof the relativity of his visual/spatial symbol tasks to such areasas reading comprehension and oral and written expression,akhough both theories show concern for generalizability aswell as durability by building in assessments for these con-siderations. Finally, Sternberg indicates that group implemen-tation of both training programs would result in the lass ofnecessary individualization. Thus, both programs would be

Postsecondary Deuekpmenial Programs 69

more suitable for a one on-one context in the developmentallaboratory setting.

In another discussion of understanding and increasing intel-ligence, Sternberg (1984) compares Feuerstein's instrumentalapproach to Lipman's philosophical approach. He indicatesthat whereas Feuerstein's program minimizes the need fora knowledge base (experiential background), the philosoph-ical approach draws greatly on the need for a knowledge base.Whereas Feuerstein's training approach minimizes the verbalload in problem solving, Lipman's approach relies on a heavyverbal load because the philosophical program emphasizesclass disc ion. (It would seem that Lipman's verbal ap-proach would have more transferability than Feuerstein'svisual/spatial approach.) Finally, whereas Feuerstein's instru-mental approach N considered more appropriate for indi-viduals with low-level abilities, Lipman's philosophical ap-proach is said to be more appropriate for those with higherlevels of abilities.

Sternberg, Feuerstein, and Lipman, proponents of threedifferent approaches to the development of intelligence, eachadvocate a theory and/or program of training that has beenwidely implemented and indicative of success irt .nrying aspests verbal comprehensicar, vistr.d/spatial p, -)blem solving,and the logic of discussion. It would seem that vi,lere thesemodels do not overlap but do yield success in response totheir specifi: focus, the most timely instructional programswould seek to adapt the most p skive elements from eachand utilize them when deemed .specifically appropriate forthe particular student.

Relativity of Current Theoryto Developmental StudiesDevelopmental programs need to deliver instruction of theutmost integrity in terms of purpose, content, and scope. Suchprograms should provide developmental/remedial instructionto all individuals seeking postsecondary education who dem-onstrate interest, effort, and persistence in pursuing furthereducation and who are in need of improvement in any of thebasic skills areas. This instruction should seek to developundeveloped abilities, remediate difficulties in the individual'slearning proce&ses, and assist students in replacing poor studyhabits with effective study habits. Such programs should alsoembody a content that will optimize the learning experience

70

87

for the student by using methods and materials that challengeand provoke curiosity and are also in congruence with thestudent's general ability level, specific strengths and weak-nesses, and the Fantle-War sociocultural identity.

Finally, the scope of such programs should include all as-pects of instruction that contribute to successful study at thecollege level. Emphasis should be placed not only on thefundamentals of the basic skills areas, but also on a diversespectrum of information, including that which is classic, con-temporary, and futuristic. Students shouid be taught not onlyto understand and remember information, but also to ques-tion and criticize that which is stated and to infer and generatenew intimation.

Ideally, developmental programs would offer instructionthat incorporates aspects of Stemberg's approach to vocabu-lary and comprehension development, Fetters. tein's approachto visual/spatial problem solving, and Lipman's approach tophilosophical thought and discussion as an underlying frame-work for the enhancement of intelligence.

If we are concerned about the long-term success of studentswho progress through developmental studies and, subsequently, regular course offerings, then we must deliver thecaliber of instruction, and allow the student the length of rime,necessary to achieve a proficiency level beyond that requiredat the core course level. Indeed, students who initially enrollin developmental courses for the improvement of basic skillsare, ultimately, in need of instruction that will develop theirability to engage in critical thinking and creative problemsolving that can carry them beyond the basic skills examsand beyond core course levels.

Developmental students may also be in need of what Stern-berg (1984) refers to as practical competencestrategies forsuccessful interaction in the teaching/learning arena, suchas appropriate turn-taking during class discussion or the ap-propriate prioritization of various assignments ways inwhich the individual can successfully manipulate his or herabilities or demonstrate talents in order to attain further de.velopment.

If we seek to address the whole student, the programsshould be both interdisciplinary, exemplifying the relativityof the basic skills areas to each other, and intercontextual,as conceptualized in Stembe-rg's "uiarchic theory of intelligence," which refers to the internal underlying cognitive

Posisecondwy Dievelopmental Prtgrains

F.;

mechanisms, the external environmental aspects, and theexperiential backgrounds of the individual. More succinctly,according to Sternberg (1984),

Before any proram is adapted in a school curriculum, itshould meet a set of basic prerequisite4 such as: a) soundpsychological and education foundations; b) socioculturalappropriateness; c) responsiveness to motivational as wellas cognitive needs and d) the existence of links betweenthe training and tad -war l behavioral requirements (p. 11).

In keeping with the parameters of teaching and learningthat are embodied in the efforts of Sternberg, Feuerstein, andLipman, developmental programs should also strive to deliverthe type of instruction that encompasses topics related to theservices that many auxiliary intervention programs usuallyaim to address. While emphasizing the improvement of intel-ligence through practice in the areas of verbal comprehension,visual/spatial relationships, and philosophical thought, devel-opmental programs would do much to optimize the effec-tiveness and value of curriculum and instruction by incor-porating content directed toward student needs in the areasof personal health, self awareness, interpersonal relations,career development, personal finance, and consumerism.

Individuals are better able to optimize their capabilitieswhen they feel they can exert control over themselves andtheir environment Programs of holiest intent and integritycan afford to make a sincere effort to imbue students witha sense of self worth and integrity by acknowledging theircultures, philosophies, and milieus in all that the curriculumimparts. Students need to perceive in their education someof the best of that which is characteristic of themselves sothat they can perceive themselves as having a positive placein the world, for which the educational system professes toprepare its student body.

72

xti

POLICY AND POSSIBILITIES FORFUTURE DEVELOPMENTAL PROGRAMS

The 19808 have been a period of great change in our edu-cational outlook. long-standing policies have been revampedand educational reform has been considered from many per-spectives. New precollege curriculum requirements and newadmissions and placement standards will be the primary fac-tors that influence the administration of developmental pro-grams. Public policy and its capacity to address the role ofinstituticas of higher education, new trends in college cur-riculum, and the preparation of teachers and administratorswill also have significant impact on the future directions ofpostsecondary developmental programs. Trends in the tran-sition of students from high school to college will be a criticalinfluence on program implementation.

A variety of new directions in public policy have been sug-gested for the provision of remediation by all educationalsegments. In California, for example, four actions pertainingto the remedial education of skill-deficient adults have beenproposed to the Board of Governors of the California Com-munity College. The intent of the proposal is to generatecohesion in remediation policy. Its components are as follows(Farland 1985):

1. That the Board of Governors approve a definition of remediation that identifies purposes and course levels andendorse modification of course classifications to createconsistency with the definition.

2. That the board direct staff to develop guidelines for deter-mining which levels of instruction in English as a secondlanguage are equivalent to standards applied in Englishfor remedial instruction.

3. That the Board should continue to seek legislation toauthorize the implementation, funding, and evaluationof matriculation.

4 That areas are identified in which there will be a majorinitiative for establishing public policy for the provisionof remedial insductkot and services.

Additional emphasis has also been placed on the role of theboard in policyrnaldng which would eliminate the awardingof degree credit for remedial courses and give priority inmatriculation funding to colleges that agree to participatein a state evaluation of remedial instruction. Considerationis also given to monitoring the improvement of high schoolpreparation, interfacing with state universities, and delineating

New prvcollegecurare

mand mutadmisskrnsand placem entMandan* wNbe the primaryfactoss thatbiflmence tbeadmissistnitkm

programa

aftstwondeay Developmental Programs 73

responsibility with the adult schools.Focal points in policymaking should be influenced, to some

octent, by the concerns expressed by developmental educa-tors. Recent survey research indicates that faculty and admin-istrators within institutions strongly identify with many con-cerns about developmental programs that would first appearto he external concerns. Although financial concerns and con-cerns for program quality, overall curricular integrity, andproper evaluation criteria represent policy issues for stateagencies and the governing boards of public and private insti-tutions, faculty and administrators also invest great interestin these areas (Cloves 1984a).

The Role of the State in Policyit is essential that sound policies pertaining to developmentaleducation he established at the state level, the predominantsource from which a majority of postsecondary developmentalprograms receive financial support and governance. The fol-lowing recommendations on the nie of state governmentsin related policymaking have been selected from the literaturebecause they seem the most timely, most aggressive, or mostresponsive to the future:

States should facilitate the concept that the interdepend-ence of all levels of education is critical and thus "-;eekto build an organizational and operational infrastructurethat fosters cooperation, mutual respect, and creativeinteraction among educators and administrators through-out the system" (American Council on Education/Edu-cation Commission of the States 1988, p. 29).States should hold doctoral-granting and research insti-tutions, including flagship universities, as equally respon-sible for strengthened developmental programs because"these institutions have sizeable enrollments and, al-though their percentages may be lower, the number ofstudents affected could be higher than in many othergate institutions of higher education" (Abraham 1988,p. 4).States should require that mandated statewide assessmentand placement programs be established and be the sameacross all public institutions of higher education (Abra-ham 1988).Suites should authorize funding for developmental pro-

74

grams that will "at least be at a level commensurate withlower-division non-remedial courses and students" be-cause such programs "can require comparatively greaterefforts and costs" (Abraham 1988, p. 6).States should facilitate the implementation of interactiveprograms for high schools, two-year colleges, and four-year colleges, such as the Bridge Program model (Rich-ards and Poster 1989), to bolster the success of highschool graduates at riskgates should consider the establishment of relationshipswith private industry and other businesses that may bol-ster funding of developmental programs by enrollingtheir employees in need of developmental instruction(Malloy, Bullock, and Madden, 1987). At a time whencollege enrollments are decreasing in many systems, cor-porations may compete for prospective students by offer-ing training and jobs simultaneously. Since technologicaland demographic change have resulted in fewer preparedindividuals, corporations will assume the responsibilityof training many workers that they cannot afford to waitfor while they progress through traditional institutionsof higher education (Nash and Hawthorne 1987).States should consider the establishment of links amongpostsecondary institutions, developmental programs,and other institutions (e.g., community centers, adultcenters, and religious gimps) in order to administercommunication/literacy education more widely(Mallery, Bullock, and Madden 1987).States should support their institutions' developmentalprograms in the creation of courses for preparation indegree and technical areas in order to meet the needsof employed and nonemployed individuals in the non-traditional age rangethis would help to reverse de-dining enrollment (Malloy, Bullock, and Madden 1987).States should set standards for the involvement of supportservices personnel in state and institutional decisionsconcerning admissions standards, assessment, and place.ment and in general policies related to academic assis-tance (Illinois Association for Personalized Learning Programs 1985).States should set standards that support communicationand cooperation between vocational and developmentalstaff in their provision of services that develop the stu-

Posbecondary Devektonettial He ms 75

dents' job skills at the community-college level (Egbert1985).

Since state interest in higher education will continue toshape the future context of Independent higher education(Patillo and Redmon 1988), state government may also beinstrumental in Influencing policy of the independent insti-tutions in response to the underprepared student. Possibleactions taken by private institutions may include thefollowing:

restating the policy and philosophy undergirding admis-sions practices,challenging regional and national traditions in admissions,working with public and private schools and state systemsto redefine the standards for moving from high schoolto college, andassisting high schools with efforts to prepare studentsfor college-level work (Patillo and Redmon 1988, p. 4).

Despite the fact that public policy will inevitably affectdevelopmental programs through the processes of top-levelgoverning boards in ways perceived as both Ewell-4111e andunfiworable, Institutions and programs in some systems findsatisfaction in the separation of policy and procedure. To theextent that procedures can now be changed in a programwithout necessarily requiring a change in policy, as was pre-viously the case in many systems, the concept of policy isless of a deterrent to the flow of program administration andmore of a resource for structure. Policy may make clear theneed for meeting certain goals and objectives or satisfyingcertain requirements within set parameters. The institutionor program may then decide to ensure its compliance byadapting procedures, such as involvi the registrar's officein recordkeeping for the developmental department or creat-ing a system of due process for developmental students, atits discretion. Thus, a balance between external policy andinternal procedure can be achieved, hopefully to the ultimatebenefit of those being served.

Although historical trends indicate that complete elimi-nation of the problem of underprepared students is impos-sible, popular opinion does recognize the possibility of min-imizing the extent of the problem. Concerned educators and

C (7.a..1

administrators are advised to consider more rigorous highschool curricula to reduce the number of underprepared stu-dents, better communication between high schools and colleges to aid students' transitions, and more carefully imple-mented remedial and developmental programs to increasethe success rate of high-risk students (Ross and Roe 1986).In effo rts to achieve a balance between equity and excelltmce,proponents suggest that major changes in faculty-ltrad for-mulas and credit-hour funding would also do much to ensureequal access and quality (Cross 1983). The viability of a devel-opmental studies program that is integrated into the total cur-riculum of the institution and that assists in integrating itsstudents into the mainstream of its student population hasbeen considered as another response to the pressures createdby the equal accemiacademic standards dilemma (Clowesand Creamer 1979).

At the instructional level, trends and pressures also indicatethe need for change. Developmental educators need to buildon their flexibility and adaptability and to strive for profes-sionalism. The needs of the nontraditional student shouldbe given priority regarding program focus because programsuccess is contingent on the effectiveness and efficiency ofthe progtam's effort to address those needs. Attention to pro-fessionalism is af.a.) critical because the important of devel-opmental proirams is frequently minimized in comparisonswith other amdemic programs. Professionalism will enhancethe atodemi achievements of students and dispel mis-conceptions.

Training forAdminfarnstoss and FacultyImprovements in the professionalism of teachers and administrators of developmental programs will be given additionalmomentum by new developments in graduate training. Several doctoral programs in developmental education are nowoffered at various institutions across the nai;cr... Most recently,attention has been directed to the c-xpansion and refinementof these doctoral programs in terms of focus. Great emphasishas been placed on the need for stronger management train,ing for individuals who will direct developmental and learningassistance programs (Keimig 1983; Maxwell 1910;3. Rouecheand Baker 1986). A 1981 survey of learning assistance programstaff members, for example, indicates that one of the top three

Postsecondary Devekipmental Pmgrancy 77

training priorities for such personnel was management devel-opment (Boylan 1981). In a statement issued by the NationalCouncil of Educational Opportunity Associations, the needfor further development of management skills for those whodirect programs for disadvantaged students was again recog-nized as a critical priority in higher education (Mitchem1%6).

More specifically, there has been recognition of a needfor more training in the administration of developmental pro-grams. Until very recently, only two institutions in the nationhad established such graduate -level trainingAppalachianState University in Boone, North Carolina, and Murray StateUniversity in Kentucky. Yet at the same time, over 40,000 peo-ple were involved in developmental education and learningassistance programs serving approximately 3 million studentsacross the United States (Boylan 1985).

Recently, Grambling State University submitted a proposalfor a doctor of education degree in developmental education,which included the following specifications: curriculum andinstruction, student development and personnel services,instructional design and technology, and higher educationadministration. The Board of Regents of Louisiana approvedthe first three areas of specialization in 1986 but rejected thespecialization in administration because of low interest andinsufficient faculty available to instruct in this area Since then,the decision on an administrative specialization has been re-versed. Due to substantial numbers of applicants expressinginterest in the administrative focus, an increase of faculty withexpertise in the administration of developmental programs,and communication from college systems indicating interestin enrolling their middle-management personnel in the doc-toral program if a degree track in administration became avail-able, the proposal for an administrative specialization wasfinally accepted.

The expansion and refinement of related graduate programsare also exemplified by Grambling's recent establishmentof a visiting scholar's program designed to bring some of thenation's leading researchers and practitioners in develop-mental education to teach in their doctoral program, and bythe establishment of a research- in residence program to bringadditional individuals involved in developmental educationresearch to the campus to use research facilities and interactwith Faculty and students. Gramhling has recently set up a

78

special arrangement with Hunter College of the City Universityof New York whereby Hunter will allow faculty meinbers timeoff to meet the residency and other requirements of the doe-tonal degree. Over a three-year period, 30 Hunter faculty mem-bets will participate in the degree program. Similar arrange-ments are also being negotiated with other universities (joiner1988).

The effects of improved teacher and administrator profes-sionalism that should be generated within developmentalprograms as a result of renewed policy, planning, and imple-mentation strategies should become evident gradually. Thepreparedness of educators and administrators of develop-mental education can be continuously measured, to someextent, by the effectiveness of programs. Ultimately, however,program trends will still be affected largely by the nature andchanges of student populations. Student preparedness, asmeasured in terms of transitions from high school to college,will remain a primary factor in determining the future direc-tions of pastsecondary developmental programs.

The Prospective DevelopmentalStmlent PoptdationData on the percentage of freshman enrolled in remedial sub-jects, recently included in Indicators of Educational Statusand Trends (U.S. Department of Education 1985), indicatethe importance of monitoring change in this profile and theneed to determine the reasons for any change as a functionof the percentage of high school graduates attending college,the adequacy of high school preparation, student aptitude,student choke of college, college entrance standards, therigor of entrylevel courses, and the availability of remedialcourses (Wright and Cahalan 1985). More research will alsobe needed to delineate the types of students who enter devel-opmental courses and the curriculum and instructional modesbest suited to different groups of students, as well as the success rate of developmental saidents in degree programs ( Mor-gan 1988).

A report of the Commission on Minority Participation inEducation and the American Life, entitled One Third of aNation, predicts that "between 1985 and 2000, minorityworkers will make up one-third of the net additions to theU.S. labor firm" and that "by the year 2000, almost 42 percentof all public school students will be minority children or other

Postsecontkiry Devdopmermal Pry grams 79

children in poverty" (American Council on Education/Education Commission of the States l988, p. 2). Perhaps theseprojections hold implications for an even greater increasein the diversity of the prospective developmental student pop-ulation (the projected one-third minority is said to consistmainly of African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Ameri-cans). That population will consist of many nonminotity indi-viduals, however, as evidenced in economic forecasts of thestate of the nation. In an exhaustive analysis of the economicperlimmance of our country during the 1980s, Peterson (1987,p. ({)) reemphasizes a conclusion of the 1983 National Com-mission on Excellency in Education: "for the first time in thehistory of our country, the educational skills for one gener-ation will not surpass, will not equal, will not even approach,those of their parents." No doubt this statement holds impli-cations for nonminorities because, to date, minority youthscontinue to exceed their parents' educational achievementlevels for the aggregate (see also section 2).

1 some systems, future changes in the profile of the devel-opmental student population will, no doubt, be a functionof recent changes in policy related to efforts to improve qual-ity. In some cases, the upgrading of college-level work willaffect the number of students enrolling in developmentalprograms. The recent requirement of higher SAT scores toavoid developmental courses will also affect the profile. Inthe University System of Georgia, for example, lower-divisionmath courses outside of the COW curriculum have beenupgraded, required SAT scores have been raised, and the long.used Basic Skills Exam has been replaced by the new CollegePlacement Exam, which has higher minimum standards--all expected to lead to an increase in the enrollment of devel-opmental students. These policy changes have been gener-ated, in part, by the Quality Basic Education (QBE) Act foreducational reform, which was initiated in 1983 and has notyet been fully implemented. The first high school studentsrequired to meet the QBE requirements will graduate in 1989.They will then be faced with new college admission andplacement standards, which will inevitably create new profilesin the developmental program population.

Ironically, although institutions of higher education whoseprimary mission is msearch, or a combination of researchand teaching, are most likely to be opposed to the existenceor expansion of developmental proms on their campuses,

C I'

A.

the recent declines in student enrollment and the raising ofadmissions standards will probably create the need for thesesame institutions to establish, expand, or improve develop-mental programs. With their low priority on teaching, theseinstitutions tend to be more in danger of higher student attri-tion rates due to mismatches between student competencyand faculty expectations. In many instances, the more thatemphasis is placed on research, the less the effort faculty placeon refining pedagogical skills and the more often beginningstudents lase in the educational process. In other instances,students may be subject to the common misfortune of havingan instructor who is the "cream of the crop" in rt..earch expel,tise but who teaches above the heads of the class. The lit-erature indicates that approximately one-third of institutionsof higher education that do operate a developmental programare institutions whose primary mission is not teaching. Clearly,these institutions and those that have no learning assistanceprogram may need to reassess the value of such programsto their future success.

The General Prosperkyof ProgramsA substantial number of institutions that have developmentalprograms have selective rather than open admissions policies.As mentioned previously, faculty who are involuntarily as-signed to teach remedial/developmental courses and thosewho generally support the notion that such courses dilutethe academic integrity of the institution can often create amajor deterrent to the prosperity of the developmental pro-gram. In some cases, faculty and staff who may have negativeattitudes about the value of the program may also create detertents to obtaining objective and accurate information on inter-nal program evaluations. Where significant levels of resistanceare identified, administrators should respond to passible recalcitrance by conducting sensitivity workshor.

In approximately 50 percent of postsecondary institutionsconducting learning assistance programs, the programs areseparately or jointly administered. Some programs, for exam-ple, operate as a separate entity, not belonging to any otherschool or college c>r any other division on their campus; theyreport directly to the Office of Academic Affairs, the Officeof Student Affairs, or some combination of offices. Consideringissues of recognition, relativity of curriculum, and prosperity,

itotutioulary Dett4opmental PrWatti$ 81

C ta

it may be prudent for some of these programs to becomecentralized. Academic recognition and relativity may be facil-itated when developmental faculty are incorporated into astanding department or school, thereby increasing theiropportunities for joint research and curriculum developmentwith other experts in their field Programs may also be en-hanced if centralization obtains more substantial line-itemfunding. (The primary sources of funding for a majority ofprograms are university line items, federal funds, and aca-demic department funds.)

Developmental ResearchAnother area for future focus is the importance of develop-mental research, which is currently acknowledged by a major-ity of learning assistance programs, within which staff conducttheir own research. Surprisingly, however, a substantial num-ber of programs conduct very little in-house research.Although the literature provides reputable and continuoussources of research on a variety of topics and issues germaneto teaching and learning for remedialidevelcpmental pop-ulations, in programs in which developmental practitionersare not guided by their own research, there is more roomfor the possible deterioration of effectiveness. Staff shouldbe encouraged to conduct their own researth, and admin-istrators should provide the support necessary for such endea-vors. In terms of research for program evaluation, many insti-tutions indicate that they assess their program effectivenesson the basis of a variety of measures, including the frequencyof student attendance in =mandatory programs, the re-Nurses given in student evaluations of the program, top-level administrative office assessments and feedback, andstudents' performance and persistence in the program andbeyond the program.

Future focus should, advisedly, be placed particularly onthe grade point average as an indicator of program effective-ness. The literature indicates that the grade point average ismore defensible than any other measure of program effec-tiveness. It is a more accurate measure and predictor of stu-dent performanceeven more so than standardized testscores (Vines 1988) and student performance is the ultimatemeasure of program success. (Standardized tests, to someextent, measure only performance on the test, but the gradepoint average is an indicator of performance at a variety of

tasks over a substantial span of time.) It should also be notedthat, since numerous programs are based solely on the objec.tive of preparing students for the core curriculum (mainlyfreshman coursel), such programs would do more justiceto evaluations of effectiveness by using comparisons of gradepoint average up to and including only the first year ofmatriculation.

There is very little indication of external program evaluationin the literature. Perhaps, in the struggle to achieve a balancebetween equity and excellence, programs at all points onthe continuum of failure to success would do well to undergoevaluation by external agencies. It is likely that external eval-uation has not been considered frequently in order to protectthe developmental department that is often perceived as a"stepchild" fr om being evaluated as a "stepchild." The concept of accountability, often associated with evaluation, hascreated negative connotations in education when administutors and faculty are made to feel responsible for programand student outcomes, which can easily be hampered byuncontrollable variables. However, if sound evaluation procedures are identifiedin terms of utility, timeliness, participantownership of data, and cast effectiveness- --and those proce-dures are used with objectivity, then administrators and prac-titioners may enhance their ability to make informed andunbiased decisions about the improvement and directionof developmental programs for the future. The option of esternal evaluation will probably be best received by potentialparticipants when the evaluator is independent of federalfunding offices or boards that apply political pressure in orderto obtain funds, satisfy governing offices, or maintain publicconfidence.

Poskiecondary Devellonerzial PrroTams 83

REFERENCES

The Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouseon Higher Education abstracts and indexes the current literatureon higher education for inclusion in ERIC's data base and announcemeat in ERIC's monthly bibliographic journal, Resources in Edu.cation (RIE). Many of these publications are available through theERIC Document Reproduction Service (EI)RS). For publicationscited in this bibliography that are available from ED1LS, orderingnumber and price code are Included. Readers who wish to ordera publication should write to the ERIC Document ReproductionService, 39(X) Wheeler Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22304. (Phoneorders with VISA or MasterCard are taken at 800/227.1a1C or 703/8230500.) When ordering, please specify the document (ED) num.her. Documents are available as noted in microfiche (ME) and papercopy (PC). If you have the price code ready when you call EMS,an exact price can he quoted. The last page of the latest issue ofResources in Education also has the current cost, listed by code.

Abraham, A. 1986. "College level Study: What Is It?" issues in HigherEducation, Southern Regional Education Board, No. 22.

. 1987. Placement and Retention in Remedial/DmilqmientalPmgrams nr the SREB States Atlanta. Ga.: Southern Regional Education Board.

. 1988. "Remedial Education in College: !low WidespreadIs It?" is in Higher Education, Southern Regional EducationBoard, No. 24

Ahrendt, K.M. 1975. Community allige Reading Programs, Newark,Del.: International Reading Association.

Aka, G., and Hecht, M. 1980. "Program Evaluation" In A.S.and Associates, Teaching Basic Skills in College San Francisco:jossey-Bass.

Albright, B.T. 1927. -IWical Reading Disabilities of College Entrants."Master's thesis, I niversity of Southern CalitOrnia.

Algier, A.S. 1972. "A New Approach to Academic Rehabilitation."Educational Record 53: 80 84.

American Council on Education and the Education Commissionof the States. 1988. One third of a Nation. The Commission (pnMinority Participations in Education and American Life. Washington,D.C.: American Council on Education and the Education Cornmission of the States.

American Assiiciation off I ligher Education ERIC. 1981. FunctionalLiteracy in the Cam, Setting. I ligher Education Research ReportNo. 3. Washington, D.C.: American As.six-iation of Higher Education. El) 211 032. 52 pp. ME 01; PC 03.

Agin, A.W. 1971. "Open Admissions and Programs for the Disailvantaged." Paper presented at National Conference on HigherEducation, Chicago. El) 050 692. 18 pp. ME 01; PC 01.

POstsecondar,y Demlionental PrCtgrann 85

.16

. 1975. Preventing Students from Dry wing Out. San FraneiSCO:Jossey Bass.

Agin, HS.; A. AN.; Bisconti, A.S.; and Frankel, U.H. 1972. HigherEduaition and the Disadvantaged Student Washington, D.C.:Human Service Press. (Coslege Student Personne I Abstracts, 1973,8(2): 275,276.)

. 1985. "Providing Incentives for Teaching UnderprepredStudents." Educational Record66: 26 29.

Bailey, IL 1982. "An Evaluation of journal Published Research ofCollege Reading Study Skills, 1925-1980." Ph.D. dissertation, Uni-versity of Tennessee.

Bass, R. 1982. Junior College Articulation: AdmLcsion, Reterition,Remediation, Transfer Position Paper. College Park: Universityof Maryland. ED 231 484. 17 pp. MF- 01; PC: 01.

Belcher, MI 1971. "The Effect of Increased Reading Efficiency uponSemester Grade Point Average." journal of Reading 14: 381.(College Student Personnel Ataracts, 1972,7(4): 489 490.)

Bers, T.H. 1987. Evaluating Remedial Education Proisirams. Association for Institutional Research Professional File. Tallahassee:A.ssociation for Institutional Research. ED 282 492.9 pp. ME -01;PC 01.

Blake, W.S. 1953. "A Survey and Evaluation of Study Skills Programsat the College Level in the United States and Possessions." Ph.D.dissertation, University of Maryland.

Bloom, B.S. 1956. Taronomy of Educational Objecives The Ckis-gfication of Educational Goals New York: Longmans, Green.

. 1971. "Mastery Learning." In Mastery teaming. Tixory andPractice, edited byIH. Block. New York: Holt, Rinehart, &Winston.

Hook, W.f. 1927. "Results Obtained in a Special -How to !Andy"Course Given to College Students." S(huol and Soddy 26:529 -534.

Boylan, H.R. 1981. "Survey of Training Needs among Learning Assis-tance Program Personnel." Paper presented at the American Call-loge Personnel AssticiatiOn Convention, Roam.

. 1985. "Academic Achievement Trends among DisadvantagedYouth." Research in Developmental Education 2: 1.

Brody, L; Harris, B.; and Lachica, G. 1968. Discovering and leve(Ong the College Potential of Disadvantaged 110 School Youth:A Rtixirt of the Second Yew- of a Longitudinal Study of the CollegeTh,covery and Development Program. New York: Office ofResearch and Evaluation, City University of New York. ED 034809. 211 pp. MF- 01; IJC09.

Brown, A.L. 1978. "Knowing When, Where, and How to Remember:A Problem of Metatognition." In Advances in Instnictional Psy-chology, edited by R. Glaser. !Misdate, Eribaum.

86

Brown, W.F. 1971. "Effect of Student to Student Counseling on theAcademic Adjustment of Potential College Dropouts." fournulof Educational Pswbokw 2; 285-289.

Broyles, S.G. 1982. lid, Enrollment in 0)&141 and t 1982.Higher Education General Information System. Washington, D.C.:National Center for Education Statistics.

Bucldin, R., and Bucldin, M. 1971. "A Program to Assist Marginal Cllege Freshmen." Journal of the National AVOCialif in of WomenDeans and Counselors 34: 148 .150.

Budig,J.E 1986. "An Evaluation of a Junior College DevelopmentalEducation Program." AIR 1986 Annual Forum Paper Indianapolis,Ind.: Association for Institutional Research. ED 280 393. 22 pp.MF-01; PC- 01.

Buswell, G.T. 1939. Remedial Reading at the College and Adult fowls:An EVerimentatitudy. Supplementary Educational Monographs,No. 50. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Campbell, R. 1982. Developmental and &medial Education: A Surrtyof MTC American Association of Community and Junnor CollewMembers, 1981. ED 221 247. 16 pp. MF 01; PC-01.

Christ, FL 1971. "Systems for beaming Assistance: Learners, LearningFacilitators, and Learning Centers." Interdisciplinary Aspects ofReading Instruction, edited by F. L Christ Proceedino of theFourth Annual Conference of the Western College Reading Ass°.elation, Los Angeles El) 114 795. 159 pp. MF--01; PC: 07.

Clowes, D.A. 1984a. "Critical Issues Facing Devekipmental Education:A Survey." A Com pendium of Pm-Date Research on Ttincs Rangink from Software to Program Evaluation. National Associatitrnfur Developmental Research, Report No. 3. El) 274 382.713 pp.MF.-01; PC .04.

1984b. -11re Evaluation of Remedial/Developmental Pro.grams: A Stage Model of Program Evaluation. Journal of /Averopmental Education 8: I ff.

L Cloves, DA, and Creamer, D. 1979. "From Differentiatit in to Into'gratin n: Curricular Patterns in Developmental/Remedial Studies."Southern Studies. College Personnel Association Journal 2: 1ff

College Ward Educational Equality Protect. 1983. Academic Prep.aration fur College What Students Need to Know and Ableto flu. New Yo :k: Office of Academic Affairs. The College Board.ED 232 517. 53 pp. MF-01; PC not avail. EDRS.

Crass, LP. 1976. Accent on Learning. San Francisco: Jos.sey Bass.. 1981. Adults as Learners San Francisco: Jassey.Bas.s.. 1983. Onderprtpared Learners, Current Issues in Higher

Education, 1, 1982-1983. Washington, D.C.: American Associationfor Higher Education. ED 233 636. 35 pp. MF-0l; PC 02.

Davis, JA; Burkheimer, G.,; and Borders, Patterson, A 1975. Tht.Impact of Special Services Programs i.i Higher Education for nic

tbsitiecundaryl.kvekpmented Programs 87

163

rulrt.tltruk7l Prtriceti in, Ni.: Educatiiinal Testing Service.El) 112 -7/(1. 589 pp. ME 01; PC 24.

I )en apse 978. An Ilpdate on the ( trganization and AdminEgraMOI 1,1 Learning Avistance Programs in I.'S Senior Institutionsf 114"w I:thaw:on ED 257 33i. 52 pp. ME-01; PC 3.

likens, M.E. 1980. Convetendo for Det.ekvime!-'ul Fdticators2ndInstructiimul AC(tiiin Center. Fl) 23 909.

56 pp. ME-01-, PC. 03R.D. 1971. "A Remedial Program for t Indergraduate Evening

Students." Adult Education 21: 16(i 195.1)unhar. '. 1935. "Public versus Private Contnil of Iiigher Education

in Michigan, 1817 1855." Miuiiiirti Valley Historical Review 22:390 392.

Dunphy, Miller, T.E.; 'Wok 1'.; and Nels(m1,E. 1989. "Freshnun Seminars: A Retention x at Trent i HI C.ollek,e." TheFrediniun Year Experience Neuwietter,I.Iniversity <if South Cart1( 1): 6.

gbrt, M. 1985. ''Building Bridges: Vi ic-atit mai Educators ;MCI 1)evelTIMenTal WM:30041 Lifelong Learning 8(8):

29 3. ED 272 659. 3 pp. ME -01; PC 011.Egerton. J. 1968. Higher Education fur "Iii,e,#) Risk Students. Atlanta,

Southern Education Regxttting Service, Southern EdlIC:01011F.1) (123 745. 60 pp. ME 01; PC 03.

Enright, G. 197s. Colk,ge Learning Skids; Frontieriand Origins ofthe learning Assistance C'enter. Prticvedings of the Eighth AnnualConference of the Western College Reading Associatil in. las Cnt(-es. N.M.: Western College Reading Asmiciation. El) 105 12-t.20 pp. ME -01; PC 01.

Eric kson. M.E., and RI tsica, Al). 1978 "Dew' ipmental Courses AreCroditahle... Community Collive I:maulers, Spring, 6: 19.

Ervin. 1., anei'1'omlinstm, L 1986. Iinplications of the Neu, Criteriafor Det.e;iiimental Studies. Athens, (b.: institute I if !lighter Educant ED 277 303. 6 pp. ME-01, PC OE

Eirland, R.W. 1'485. Prilrix.6ab for Board Polities and Actions Con,cerium.; Remediation in the Ctdiforrua Gominunity C011eges. Sacramenu uo: Calif( irnia (:( Prrinumit Colleges, Office Of the Chancellor.

) 256 -#33. 7 pp. ME (11; PC 1.

Een-in, 1(.1. 1971. "Developmental Programs in Midwrstern Com.munity Colleges.- Cniftge Ourance Evainituniim Board BigberEducation .S1074.1' REV( ni No. . k 04/eve .s:tudent I kTsuniselMistral IN, 1972, 7(2): 229,1

Fenerstein, R. 1980. Insirumented Enrichment: An Mien vittion Program for CI Vidal Midifiability. Balt in R WC, Md.: 1 iniversity ParkPress.

Elavell, J.11, 1976. "Mtlacognitive A.speos of Pr( iblem solving." InIhe Nature of Intelligence, edited by 1.13. Resnick. New York: John

1 C

Wiley & Sons.Friedlander, J. 1981. "Stu mid Remediatic in Be Mandatory?" Corn

munity Cam, Review, 9: 311119.1ti4. "Delivering Academic Assistance: Exemplary

Appnuches." Journal of Derktunental anti Remedial Education7 (Spring): 13-1511

Gattman, E. 1967. "College? Man, You Must Be Kidding." NEA Journa4 pp. 8-10.

Gam, G. 1976. "Primary, Secondary, and Meta analysis of Research."Educationa! Research 5: 3- 8.

Gordon, E. 1970. "Programs and Practices for Minority Group Youthin Higher Education." In /farriers to Higher Education: A (ofteEntrance Examination Board CoRoquium. New Yo t*: thilegeEntrance Examination Board. (College Student PersannelAbstracts 288- 289. )

1971. "Equality of Educational Opportunity--ls It Possiblein Our lifetime?" Paper presented at the annual meeting of theNational Association of Human Rights Workers.

Gordon, E.W., and Wilkerson. DA 1966. Coinpensatoiy Educationfor the Distuhantaged -Programs and Practices: PreschoolThrough Coikge. New York; College Entrance Examination Board.

Hamerty, M.E., and Enrich, A.C. 1929 A Test of Reading Conon,pension. Minneapolis: University of Minn,. sota

Hardesty 1986. thordintaing Hoard of the Texas Colkge and Iversity System Newsletter 86: 1.

Herscher, B.R. 1980 "Competency-based EdtiVati011: A Viable Alternative for nevelt ipmental Studios ,4ram Design." louriud (4.Ileveltpmental and Remedial Education 4: lit

Higher Education Opportunity Program. 1970. Rtlion to the iax.islature Albany: State EtilWation 1)epartment of the State of NewYork. ED 043 304. 27 pp. ME 01; PC. 02.

Huey, E. 1969. The Ps:it:holm, and Pedagogy of Reading. 1908, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Human Affairs Research Center. 1970. The apansion of Equal Mucation Opportunities: An Evaluation Study of the Neuf York StateHOLT Education (44xtrtunity Privram. Albany: State EducatiniDepartment of the State if New York, El) 051 763. 49 pp. ME01; PC.02.

Illinois Association for Personalized Learning Programs. 1985. TheRole of Devekiunental Education Programs in Providing Mucational Ibccelkmce. Illinois Association for Po-still:third learningPrograms. El) 258 605. 12 pp. ME.. 01; PC,01.

Joiner. B. 1988. "Grumbling Initiates Developmental PhD. Pi ogram:Unique Degree Fills Educational Void." Black Issues in HigherEducation 4: 22.

Jones, G.P. 1984. "The Tutor as Counselor."Journal of Detvlop

PcGtsecondary Der :ipmentai Programs 89

mentat Education 8(1 ): 12t1Joplin, A. and Brown, A. 1981. Is Mere Any Difference? A Compar

atilt, Study Of Der vkfrinental Reading Programs in TraditionalMack Coaxes and I lniversities and Their White Counterpartsfor the 1979.80 Academic Your SI. lands, Ma ED 202 417.51 pp. MF 01; PC not avail. EDRS.

Kaye, RA 1972. "A Required Counseling Study Skills Program forFailing College Freshmen." Journal of College Student Personnel13: 159 162.

Keimig. R.I. 1983. Raising Academic Mandan . A Guide to Learninghignovement ASUF ERIC Higher Education Research Report No.4. Washington, 1).C.: Association for the Study of Higher Educaticm.El) 233 669. 100 pp. MF-01; PC -04.

Kersteins, G. 1971. Junior Community Collixe Reading/Study Skills.Newark, Del.: International Reading Association.

Kling, M. 1972. "Summer Head Start for Dimdvantaged College Fresh.men." Journal of Reading 15: 507 -515.

Klingelhofer, EL, and Longacre, KJ 1972. "A Case in Point." /WorthReporter-7( 3 ). 5- 8.

Kulik. C.C.; Kulik, JA; and Sehwalh, RJ. 1983. "College Programsfor High Risk and Disadvantaged Students: A Meta analysis of Findings." Review of Educatiotud Research 53: 397- 414.

Ledy. P1). 1958. "A History of the Origin and Developmem ofInsink.tion in Reading Improvement at the College Level." PhD.dissertatiim, New York I University.

1964. CollegeAdult Reading Instruction Newark, Del.: Inter.national Reading Association.

Lipman, M. 1980. Philosiphy in the Claslavom Philadelphia: TempleItniversity Press.

imbardi, J. 1979. "Four Phases of Developmental Education." Junior(oilege Resource Review. bus Angeles: llniversity of California andERIC Clearinghouse for Junior College Information. El) 165 8514.6 pp. ME-01; PC 01.

Lowe, AJ. 1966. Surf seys of (idle Reading Improvement Programs--/929 /966. ED 011 230. 14 pp. MF. 01; PC 01.

---. 1970. The Riw cof (Olkxr, Reading, the Good and Bad andthe indifferent 10154970 ED 040 013. 14 pp. MF 01; PC- 01.

Malleiy, A.; Bullock, T.L ; and Madden, DA 1987. "Future Trendsin College Developmental Reading Programs." Paper presentedat the American Reading Forum, Sarasota, Florida.

Marshall, J.S. 1981. A Model for Improving the RerenIUM and Academic Achievement of Mm.traditional Students at Livingston Col.lve/RuNers University New Brunswick, NJ.: Rutgers 1 university.ED 203 831. 34 pp. MF -0I; PC- 02.

Maxwell, M. 1980. Improving Student Learner, Ski& San Francisco:Jussey Bass.

14 L

Menges, RI; Max, R.; and Trumpeter, P.W. 1972. "E.ffectiveness ofTutorial Assistance for tlighRisk Students in Advanced CollegeCourses." Journal of Counseling Psychology 19: 229 233.

Miller, M.B. 1984. "Developmental Education and Speech Commitnication in the Community Cc' illege." Communication Education33:

Mitchem, A. 1986. Personal umversation at the National Conferenceon Exemplary Programs in Developmental Education, Atlatea.

Moore, W. 1971. Blind Man on a Freeway: The Communitt, Colkl,eAdministrator. lorickm: **sq. Hans,~.

. 1984. Summary of Review Cc onference. Report cal Interviewwith Ben C. Bach. Columbus: Ohio State University.

Morgan, D. 1988. "Dispelling False Notions." Systems, UniversitySystem of Georgia, 24: 5.

Nash, NS., and Hawthorne, E.M. 1987. Fornial Recognition ofErtployerSimsored instruction: Conflict and C:::litwiality in Postsmondary Education AMIE- ERIC Higher Education Report No.3. Washington, D.C.: Association for the Study of Higher Education.ED 286 437. 128 pp. MF -01; PC-06.

Ntxlander, KA., and Anderson, P. 1987. "Instructional Alternativesfor College Students with Learning Disabilities: Remediation orCompensation." Paper presented at the American Reading Forum,Sarasota, Florida.

Oskamp, S.; Hodges, P.F.; Thompson, KS.; and Spuck, D. 1970."Effects of a Compensatory College Education Program for the1)i:4dvantaged: A Further Repott." Paper presented at meetingof the Western Psychological Assxxiation, Los Angeles. El) 041973.8 pp. MF-01; PC-01.

Parr, F.W. 1930. "The Extent of Remedial Work in State t !nivel-sinesin the United States." School and Vociety 31: 547- 548.

Patin°, M., and Redman, E.R. 1988. "Imperatives for Private HigherEducation: Serving the Public Interest" Paper presented at theInvitational Seminar on Planning Imperatives for the 1990s, Institote of Higher Education, Georgia Center for Continuing Edu-cation, Athens.

Pauk; W. 1962. How tea Study at Coaely. Boston: HoughtonPerry, W.G. 1959. "Students' Use and Misuse of Reath rg Skills: A

Report to a Faculty." Harvard Educational Review 29. 193. 200.Peterson, P.G. 1987. 'The Morning Aft( r°' Atlanta Monthly 260(4):

43-69.Remmers, N.H. 1927. "A Diagnostic and Remedial Study of Ptxentially

and Actually Failing Students at Purdue University." Ph.1) dis.seriatim, University Of lowa.

Richards, W., and Foster, J.M. 1989. 'The Bridge Program: SuccessfulCollaboration among High Schools, a Community College anda Fouras Collew." Paper presented at the National Asslxiation

Postvecondary Devekpmental F4tgratras

1

for Develcipmental Education, 13th Annual Ca' inference. Cincinnati.Roberts, Gil. 1986. Devellynnenial Education. An liksiorical Study.

ED 276 395. 23 pp. ME. 01; PC, 01.

Robinson, F.P. 1933. The Role of Eye Motentents in Reading withan hialuation of Techniques for their Imprownient Set: !,; onAims and Pre %rem of Research, No. 39. Iowa City: Iowa Sate

Ross, E.P., and Rue, III). 1986. The Case for Basic Skits Programsin Higher Education. Fastback 238. Bloomington. Ind,: Phi DeltaKappa. ED 273 166. 43 pp. ME- 01; PC 02.

Roueche, _LE. 1984. Muteen a Rock and a Hard Plate Washington,D.C.: National Cf Inference on Adult literacy.

Roueche, J.E., and Baker, G. 1986. ColkWe Responses to toreachieringStudents. New York: Harcourt Brace & Jovanovich.

Roueche, J.E, and Slum, J. 1977. a vrcoming Learning Problems.San Francisco: Jcxs.sey MKS,

ituttc-Chej.E.; Baker, GA, III; and Roueche, S.D. 1984. CoikgeRepopitses to Low,achieving Students: A Nationed Study. Orlando.Eta.: 11113 Media Systems.

Roueche, S.D. 1983. "Elements of Plogram Success; Report ofaNatit trial Study." In A New look at Successful PrOgramti, editedhy Jahn Roileche. San Francisco: Jcxssey-Bass.

Sanders, VA. 1979. "A Mw analysis: The Relationship of ProgramContent and Operation Factors to Measured Ellivtiveness of Col.lege Reading Study." Ph.D. dissertation, University of the Pacific.

Schmelzer, R., and Breuer, W.G. 1982. "A Skills Therapy Approachfor Developmental Learning in College." journal of Reading 25(April ): 646- 655.

Sharma, S.C. 1977. ACadellik SUpp0P1 Sertices Prigrams in HigherEducation. Whitewater: t iniversity of Wisconsin. ED 221 079.73 pp. ME 01; PC not avail. EDILS,

Simmons, W.D. 1970. Surrey and Analysis Education Pro-grams for the Disadrantawd Student Washington, D.C.: Depart-ment of Health, Education and Welfare. ED 040 262.66 pp.ME 01; PC 03.

Southern Regional Education Board. 1971 The Colltge and CulturalDiriersity: The likick Student on Campus: A PTTOCt RePOrt Adana,Ga.: Southern Regional Education Board. ED 0S5 563.86 pp.ME, 01; PC 04.

Starks, G 1982. !IA:kitty in the HO's m Reading and Study SkillsEl) 222 861. 10 pp. MF-01; PC -01.

Sternberg, R.J. 1977. Intelligence, Information Processing andAnakwicat Reasoning. The COmponential Analesis of Human Atulities.Hillsdale, NJ.: Eribaum.

. 1983. How Can We 7each Intelliwnce?Philadelphia: IhbanDevelopment, Research for Better Schools, Inc.

.92

1 C

1984a. "Instrumental and Componential Approaches to theTraining of Intelligence," In Thinking and Learning Skil& CurrentResearch and Open Questorts, edited by S. Chapman, J. Segal,and It Glass. Vol. I. Hillsdale, NJ.: Erlbaum.

. 1984b. Understanding and Increasing Your Inteftentr,Teacher's Guide.

Tetkiw, W.L 1970. "Preliminary Investigations on the Academic Perfirmance (f Minority Gri.itip Students at Cornell University." Paperpresented at meeting of American Association for the Advancementof Science, Chicago. El) 051 744. 16 pp. ME -01; PC 01.

Tomlinson, L 1987. Or wnieut of atmputer Applications in Reading.ET) 276 978. 46 pp. ME 01; PC 02.

. 1985. Group Oral Review in the Reading lab: A Means of.4)ont&Nizing Individualized Appmaches to One Body of WrittenMaterial ED 259 305. 11 pp ME 01; PC 01.

"Toughening Up on Admissions." 1982. Time January 11, pp. 7 2.University System of Georgia. 1973. A Plan for the Further Dese

grt74ation of the OM mit), System of Georgia. OCR Rein Atlanta:University System of Georgia. El) 092 021. 244 pp. ME 01; Pt:-10.

. 1984. Response to Findings of the Office for Civil RONThe Regent's Test Prsgram. Atlanta: University System of Georgia.ED 245 636. 21 pp. ME-01; PC 01.

Urban Problem Solving Program. 1970. &port on Transitional Year1969-70, College of Arts and .iciences. Kansas City: I!niversity ofMissouri. El) 049 673. 19 pp. MF- 01; PC 01.

U.S. Department of Education. 1985. Indicators of Educational Statusand Trent& Washington, 1).C.: U.S, Derailment of Education.

U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. 1970. .VreCialServices for Disat:iyanaged Students in Institutions of Higher Editcation 1'1 gram: Application Information and Program Manual.Washington, DC,: Bureau of Higher Education. 11.S. Departmentof Health, Education and Welfare. V.1) 040 658. 39 pp. ME. 01;PC- .02.

1972. Annual Flu/nation Ripon on Education Pn#rams:Fiscal Year. Washington, D.C.: 11.5. Dipartment of health, Edocation and Welfare. El) 082 300. 333 pp. ME 01; PC 14.

Vassar College. 1866. Annual Report to the Board of Truste m. ,ugh

keepsie, N.Y.: Vassar College.Vines, D. 1988. "SAT Scores Dist( in Potential." Recruitment and

Retention in Higher I:'ducation 2(1): 9.Wenrich, J.W. 1971. Retiring Dnivouts Iry Retention of Students Iden

lifted as High Probability Dripoias, Washington, 1).C.: 1 i.ti. Departmen t of Health, Education and Welfare. El) 047 684. 32 pp.ME 01: PC-02.

Whimhey, A., and Warhead, J. 1983. AnalsWical Raiding and Rea.

Postsecondary tkveltionental Prifrarns

1C 19

sonic Stamford, Conn.: Innovative Sciences.Wilkerson, DA 1966. "CompensatIwy Prat:tic-es in Colleges and Uni-

versities." information Retrieval Center on the DisadvantagedBulletin, pp. 1-3. El) 011 908. 6 pp. MF- 01; PC-01.

Wilson, It 1970. 7 Effeas of Special Tutoring and Counselingon the Acadetik Suc(ms of Negro Preihnien at Southern StateCollege: Final Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. De' ailment of Health,Education and Welfare. El) 043 314. 107 pp. MF-01; PC-05.

Wright, DA, and Cahalan, M.W. 1985. Remedial/developmentalStudim in hwitutions of Higher Education: Policies andPracticm.Rockville, Md.: Woltz Research. ED 263 828.26 pp. MF -01;PC- 01

Yuthas, 1971. "Student Tutors in a College Remedial Program."Journal of Reading 14: 231. (College Student Perm mine! Abstracts,1972, 7(4): 490-491.)

Zanoni, C. 1982.1980 1981 General College Retention Program:Final Rtport. Minneapolis: General College, University of Min-nesota. ED 216 595. 156 pp. MF 01; l -07.

INDFI

AAcademic recognition: lack of, 51Access to education, 35Adjunct courses, 25Administrative support, 42Administrator training, 77-79Admission standards, 2,

criteria, 17minimum, 44.45state action, 6

Admissions policies, 81Admissions raging Program National &Dort, 20Adults

basic education programs, 25, 26learners, 61

Affirmative action, 45-46, 48AfricanAmerican gudents

academic support services, 37demography, 80

Afro-American Literature (course), 38Alabama: college placement standards, 10American Association of Community and Junior Colleges, 34American Indians (see Native Americans)Analytical and Critical Reading (course), 39Analytical Reading and Reasoning, 63Appalachian State Unrfersity, 78Arkansas- college placement standards, 10, 11Assessment: statewide, 74Attrition: cause, 39

BBask skills

and thinking skills, 68instruction, 64services, 30test, 39

Basic Skills Exam, 80Black Experience in America (course), 39Black students (see AfrkanAmerican students)Bloom's taxonomy, 63Bridge Program model, 75"Buddy" systems, 27Burnout, 44Business collaboration, 75

California:C

public polity, 73Campus assistance centers, 23-24

tiastsecondary Devekpmental &wants 95

96

Chicano/Latino students, 37City University of New York, 56, 79Classroom instruction methodolow, 63Cognitive models, 62 64College Board

Educational Equality Project, 17mission, 2

College Discovery and Development Program, 56"College-level" work, 8, 10, 11..15College placement, 10College Placement Exam, 80College Survival seminar, 39Columbia 1Inivcrsity, 2Commission on Excellence in Education, 6Commission on Minority Participation in Education and American

Life, 79Commis.sion on Non traditional Study, 61Community colleges

developmental course suitability, 18, 35distribution of services, 32 35mission, 33part tune students, 58public policy, 73remedial program concentration, 6retention rates, 47student programs, 25, 26

''Communiversity- life, 23immuter affairs pnigrams, 24

-Compensatory- definition,Competence: practical, 71Competency level requirements, 17Contemporary Chicano Issues (course). 38C(x iperatiVC relationships, 75CAnnell t iniversay,Cast effectiveness, 43Counseling

counselor role, 41dual function perm nine!. 27interventioks, 26, 27

:01.1ENCN

credit. 31, 73descriptions. 10, 38, 39

Credit, 31, 4!2,73Criteria for pn warns, 52Criticisms, 42 .43Curriculum

Telopinental ,heories 61lack of relativity, 50

1 1

6- I

precollege rewirements, 73remedial education: lm Huth,

DDefinition, 8..11Delivery service modes, 28-29, 33Demographic factors, 14, 79 80DesegregAion orders, 46"Developmental educatior" definition, 8 10Developmental programs

application of theory, 70 .72characteristics. 23 35defense of, 18 .19

Disadvantaged students: recruitment, 16Discontinuance threat, 51 52Diversify

students, 4, 14. 15. 16trends, 79- 80

Doctoral programs, 77 79Dual function counseling post wind. 27Duke University, 18

EEnrollment

in remedial work, 33, 79increases, 3, 4projections, 15. 18

Entrance requirements (see Admission standards)Entrrlevel tests, 42Equal Opportunity Fund, 39Ethnic background factor, 37Evaluation

assessments of program evaluation, 53 V,mparative eau:14c wies, 58

designs/implications, 56 60methods, 53models, 59-.60need for plan. 40

Evolution of developmental programs, 1 (

Dtit issuescriteria, 32requirements. 48 49

Experiential deficiencies, 20

FFaculty

problems, 44training, 77-79

Postsecondary Devekprnental PlifraMS 97

Feuerstein theory, 64, 66.67, 69, 70, 71, 72Florida: college placement standanis, 10, 11Freshman seminar, 9Freshman Studies Program (RW), 38-40, 50Funding

need, 42problems, 43..44

GGeneral College Retention Program, 37- 38(work*

college placement standards, 10, 11funding, 43junior colleges, 33mandatory developmental programs, 25program discontinuance threat, 51

Government role, 7477Governor's Committee on Pcxstsecondary Education (Georgia), 51Grade point average, 8283Grading systems, 30-31Graduate education, 77, 77Grambling State University, 78Group vs. individualized instruction, 29-.30

HHandicapped programs, 25, 26Harvard University, 2, 18Higher Education General Information Survey, 26Hispanic students, 37, 80Historical penpective, 1- 11Holistic app.th

model of instruction, 29vs. skills approach, 49- 50

Now to Study in College, 63Hunter College, 79

It

Illinois: remedial course reduction resolution, 6Indicators of Educational Status and Trends 79Instructors: competencies, 40Instrumental enrichment, 66.67Intelligence

measures, 61training, 63-66, 69, 70

Intercontextual approach, 71Interdisciplinary approach, 71Interventions

early/midterm, 25

11 44'

programs, 63types, 26-28

Issues in American Indian Education (course). 38

Junior colleges (see community colleges)

KKentucky: college placement standards, 10

LLibeling, 6Laboratoty instruction, 30language

barriers, 45modules, 38

Learner deficiencies, 19 20Learner-oriented progratns, 9Learning assistance model, 5Learning disabled students, HLipman theory, 64, 67 -69, 70, 71, 72Livingstone College/Rutgers I iniversity, 38-40Louisiana

college placement standards, ICdoctoral programs, 78

"Low-ability" students, 4

Mandatory programs /courses, 25, -*2Maryland: college placement srandards, 10Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 18Math phobia, 19Media and arts use, 26, 28Minority groups

population, 79 8(1programs for, 37-38

Mississippi: college placement standards, 10Models, 29-32Monroe County Community College, 34, 35Morrill Act of 1862, 1Morrill Act of 1890, 2Multidisciplinary app:oach, :57Murray State University, 78

National Collegiate Athletic .As.socizion, 44National Commission en Excellence in Education, HONational Council of Educational Opportunity Asmxiations, 78

Postsmondary Dovelopmental Proyants

11 5

Native Americansacademic support service, 37denlgraPhY, 80

Negative results, 55New jersey: basic skills testing, 6, 39New York: financial aid, 54Nontraditional student needs, 39Nontraditional study, 62North Carolina; college placement standards. 10

0Off campus instruction, 23, 24Ohio State University

funding, 43program for underpnrared students, 18

Oklahoma: college placement standards, 10(Orin Third of a Nation, 79Outreach programs, 23

PPeer support, 26, 27 28Perk finance evaluation, S5Perry, William, 18Persistence (see Retention rate)PerM wind

t'ompetencies, 40staff recruitment, 44

Piagetian models, (.2.68Placement

college, 10standards, 44-45tests, 46trends, 20 -21

Preparatory Studies program (Vassar). 1, 2Preprowam/postprograin MCatillreS, 56 57Prt transfer programs, 25.26Prii wen m LIniversity, 2Proficiency objectives. 49Program administration. 81Pntgram development

design, 41 42effectiveness, 55problems, 43. 52structure, 23-26

Program evaluation, 53.60Proposition 48, 44P.syholie, and Pedagro, of Reading, 63Psychometric models, 62, 65- 66, 68

LIG

Public policyreform, 73state role, 74- 77

Puerto Rican Studies (Giurse ), 39

QQuality Risk: Education (QBE) Act, lit)

Rationale, 13..21Reading instniction: emphasis, 3Recommendations: state policy, 74. 76Regents Test Program (Georgia), 9Relativity: lack of, 50.-51"Remedial"

definition, 8programs, 23, 25, 26, 27

Research areas, 82 83Re latorse to Findings of the Office for aril It Wes, 9Retention

data on, 58rates, 47 48, 49, 55

Rutgers Universay, 38.40, 5()

S

Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT)level, 44, 45, 80

intellectual measurement, 63WOW requirements, 17

Skills classes, 25Skills approach

-therapy approach, 27Vs. holistic apprixtch, 49 50

Social change, 14South Carolina: college placement standards, 1()Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, 17, 51 52Southern Regional Education Board (SREB), 10, 11, 16, 45Special Services for Disadvantaged Students (SSDS), 54SREB (see Southern Regional Education Board)SSDS (see Special Services for Disadvantaged Students )Staff recruitment, 44Randirdized placement tests, 20-.21Standards

admission /placement, 44.45, 80state, 75

Stanford-Binet Intelligence Quotient, 61Stanfiird I Iniversity, 18

Ratsecortelary Deveiopmentql "'warns lox

Slate actionadmission standards, 6college placement standards, 10, 74community college remediation, 73tkretoral programs, 78evaluative data, 54policy role, 74-77remedial program concentration, 2

Stembetx theoty, 64, 65-66, 67, 69, 70.71, 72Stigma, 51Stop-outs, 47Student focused approach, 13Study skills

early books on, 2emphasis on, 3underprepared students, 19.20

Successful programscharacteristics, 10pt.-mime!, 40-41program design, 41.42

Summer programs, 24.37Support services

evaluation of, 55 56examples, 38need for, 5

Survey methodology, 57-58

TTappan, Henry P., 1Teaching role, 8o-81Teaching/Imming interventions, 26, 27Tennes.see

college placement standards, 10, 11developmental program needs, 25

Testingadmissions/placement, 44 45discriminatory, 48skills placement, 80

TexasCollege and University System Coordinating Huard, 15college placement standards, 10, I I

Theoretical approaches, 63-72Thinking skills, 68-.69, 71Training

administrators/faculty, 77 79intelligence, 63. 66, 69, 70

Transferability, 35, 47

102

116

Tutoringand remedial programs, 23, 25evaluation of, 56tutor role, 41

Two-year colleges (see Community colleges)

UUnderprepared college students

early, 2support service need, S

Underactievers., 4University of Minnesota, 37.38University of Missouri, 25University of Southern California, 27University of Wisconsin, 1University role, 74University System of Georgia, 9, 15, 52, F0

VVassar College, 1, 2Virginia

admission standards, 0college placement standards, to

Visiting scholars program, 78

West Virginia: college placement standards, 10"Whole student" approach, 37Waid War II, 2

YYale University, 2

Postsecondary Deuricymmilial Pnwrams 103

ASHE-MIC HIGHER EDUCATION REPORTS

Since 1983, the A:s.sxxiation fur the Study of Higher Education (ASHE)and the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghuuse on Higher Education, a sponsored project of the Schoolof Education and Human Development at The George WashingtonUniversity, have c-osponsored the AWE ERIC 110er EducationReport series. The 1989 series is the eighteenth overall and the firstto he published by the School of Education and Human Developmeta at the George Washington University.

Each monograph is the definaive analysis of a tough higher education problem, based on thorough research tit' pertinent literatureand insitutional experiences. Topics are identified by a nationalsurvey. Noted practitioners and scholars are then commissionedto write the reports, with experts providing critical reviews of eachmanuscript below publication.

Eight monographs (10 before 1985) in the ASHE ERIC HigherEducation Report series are published each year and are availableon a individual or subscription basis. Subscription to eight issuersis $80.00 annually; $60 to members of AAHE, MR, or AERA; and $50to ASHE members. All foreign .subNcribers must include an additional$10 per series year for postage.

Prices for single o pies, including book rate ix)stage, are $15.00regular and $11.25 for members of AERA, AIR. AAHE, and icsliE($10.00 regular and $7.50 for members for 1985 to 1987 reports,$7.50 regular and $6.00 for members for 1983 and 1984 reports, $6.50regular and $5.00 for members for reports published before 1982 ).An foreign orders must inclutk $1.00 per hook for foreign postage.Fast United Parcel Service or first class postage is available for $1.00per book in the US. and $2.50 per book outside the t t.S. (ordersabove $50.00 may subRitue 5% of the total invoke amountdomestic postage). Make checks payable to ASHE ERIC. For VISAand MasterCard paynalas, include card number, expiration date,and signature. Orders under $25 must he prepaid. Bulk discountsare avilable on order of 15 or more reports (not applicable to subseription orders). Order from the Publications Department, ASI IFERIC Higher Education Reports, The George Washington University,One Dupont Circle, Suite 630. Washington, DC 200361183. or phoneus at (202) 2962597. Write for a complete catalog of all availablereports.

1909 ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports

I. Making Sense of Administrative Leadership: The *I: Word inligher Education

ILitela At &visit:um, Anna Neumann, and Robert Birnbaum

2. Affirmative Rhetoric, Negative Action: African American andHispanic Faculty at Predominantly White Universities

Valcira Washington and William Harrty

Itistsecondary ilevehirimental Programs 105

3. Postsetxxidary Developmental Programs: A Traditional Agendawith New Imperatives

L01400 M. Tomlinson

1988 ASHE -ERIC Higher Education Reports

1. The Invisible Tapestry: Culture in American Colleges andUniversities

George D. Kuh and Elizabeth." Whitt

2. Critical Thinking: Theory, Research, Practice, and PitcsihilitiesJoanne Gainer: Kurfiss

3. Developing Academic Programs: The Climate for InnovationDaniel T Seymour

4. Peer Teaching: To Teach is To Learn TwiceNeal A Whitman

5. Higher Education and State Governments: Renewed Partnership.Cooperation, or Competition?

1.:41ualni k Dines

6. Entrepreneurship and Higher Education: Lersons tor Colleges,!niversitie.i, and IndustryJames S. Fanwather

7. Planning for Microcomputers in Higher Education: Strategiesfor the Next Generation

Akynolds Ferrante, John Hayman, Mary Susan Carison, andHarry Maps

8. The aallenge for Research in Higher Education: HannonizingExcellence and Utility

Akan W Lindsay and Ruth T Neumann

1987 ASHE -ERIC Higher Education Reports

I. Incentive Early Retirement Programs for Faculty: InnovativeResponses to a Changing Environment

Jay L aronister and Thomas R. Kepplejr.

2. Working Effectively with Trustees: Building Cooperative CampusLeadership

fkutrara E Talior

3. Formal Recognition of EmployerSponsored Instruction: Conflictand Collegiality in Pastsecondaly Education

Nancy S Nash and Elizabeth M. Ilaretbwrie

. learning Styles: Implications for Improving Educational PracticesC.harks S Claxton and Patricia It Murrell

5. Higher Education Leadership: Enhancing Skills through Professional Development Programs

Shawn A McDade

106

6. Higher Education and the Public Trust Improving Statute inColleges and Universities

Richard L Alfred and lidie Weisman

7. Colkw. Student Outcomes Assessment: A Talent DevelopmentPerspective

Maryann/at:obi, Ake zinder Agin and ii-rank

ti Opptxtunity from Strength: Strategic Planning Clarified withCase Examples

Robert G. Clic

1986 ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports

1. Poo- torture Facility Evaluation: Threat cx. Opportunity?Christine M Licata

2. Blue Ribbon Commissions and lligher Education: ChangingAcademe from the Ont.side

Janet R. Johnson and Laurence !? Marcus

3. Responsive Prtfessional Education: Balancing Outcomes andOppontmities

Joan S. Stark Malcolm A LouthiT and Bonnie MK Ilmerty

4. Increasing Students' Learning: A Eafulty Guide to ReducingStress among Students

Neal A Whitman, Maid C Spendlote, and Claire II Clark

5. Student Financial Aid and Women: Equity Dilemma?Mary Moran

6. The Master's Dt.gree: Tradition, Diversity, InnovatioaJudith S Glazer

7. The College, the Cotraitutit in, and the uner Student: Implicatkins for Policy and Practice

Robert M. Hendrickson and Annette Giblas

K. Selecting College and 1. Iniversity Personnel: The Quest andthe Question

Richard A Kaplowitz

1985 ASKE-ERIC Higher Education Reports

1. Flexibility in Academic Staffing: Effective Policies and PracticesKenneth P Mortimer, Marque liagsbair and eindrerc1:Masland

2. Associations in Action: The Washington. D.C. Higher EducationCtimmunity

Thiriand G. Bkdand

3. And on the Seventh Day: Faculty Consulting and SupplementalIncome

Cray! M Buyer and Darrell R leuts

Postsecondary lAvelipmental .Programs 107

4. Faculty Research Performance: I4 ,scats from the Sciences andSocial Sciences

Jahn W &mall5. Academic Pnwam Review: Institutional Approaches, Expec-

tatknis, and COMUNCeSitliClifton F Conrad and Richard F Wilson

6. Students in Urban Settings: Achieving the Baccalaureate De weeRichard C Richanison, Jr. and hmis W. Render

7. Serving More Than Students: A Critical Need for College StudentPersonnel Services

Peter if Garland

8. Faculty Participation in Decision Making: Necessity or Luxury?Carol E Rod

1984 ASHE -ERIC Higher Education Repasts

I. Adult 'taming: State Policies and Institutional PracticesK Patricia Cross and Anne Marie McCartan

2. Student Stress: Effects and SolutionsNeal A Whitman, David C Spendlove, and Claire II (lade

3. Part time Faulty: Higher Education at a CrossroadsJudith M Gappa

4. Sex Discrimination law in Higher Education: The 1.4,ssons ofthe Pat Decade

J. Ralph Lindg ren, Patti 7: Ota, Perry A Alai and Nan VanGipson

S. Faculty Freedoms and Institutional Accountability: Interactionsand Conflicts

Steven G. OLswang and Barbara A Lee

6. The High Technology Connection: AcademiclIndusirial Coop,eration for Economic Growth

/pin G Johnson

7. Employee Educational Programs: Implications for Industry andHigher Education

Suzanne W. Morita

Academic Libraries: The Changing Knowledge Centers of COIleges and Universities

Barbara B. Moran

9. Nimes Research and the Strategic Planning Process: Implicanons for Higher Education

James L Morrison, Witham L Renfro, and Wayne I Boucher

10. Faculty Workload: Research, Theory, and InterpretationHarold E Yuker

108

1

1983 ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports

1. The Nth to Excellence: Quality Assurance in Higher EducatitLaurrnce k Marcus, Anita U. Leone and Edward I). Gokiberx

2. Faculty Recruitment, Retention, and Fair Employment: Oh lipions and Oprxxnanties

.1olm S Wamonan

3. Meeting the Challenges: Developing Faculty Careers"Mkhad C T linxikt. and Katherine L German

4. Raising AL2derni: Standards: A Guide to liming ImpixivementRuth Talbott Keimig

4. Serving Learners at a Distance: A Guk le to Pre ram Practices(barks hI Feasky

6. rAnnpetence, Admissions, anti Art iculatit in: Returning to theBasics in Higher Education

can L !eat"'

7. Public Service in Higher Education: Practices and Priorities&arida I>r Crosson

8. Academic Employment and Retrenchment: judicial Reviewand Administrative Actitxt

Robert M Hendrickson and Barbara A tee

9. Burnout: The New Academic DiseasesWinifred Albizu Me kndez and Rafael M de Guzman

10. Academit. Workplace: New lkmands, Heightened TensionsAnn IE. Austin and Zekla Gamson

"out of print. Availably. thmtigh 1:1)1ts. Call I Kt(' 227 ERIC

Postsecondary Lkwellrmental Pro trans 109

1 g". A4 -lc

ORDER FORM

Quantity A mountPlease begin my subscription to the 1989 AVIE.E.RICHigher Education &ports at $80.00, 33% off the coverprice, starting with Report 1, 1989

Please begin my subscription to the 1990 AMIE ERICIhkber fr.h4catiorz Reportsat $80.00 starting with Report1, 1990

Outside the U.S.. add $10 per series for postage

Individual reports are avilabie at the 'Wowing prices:1988 and forward, $15 1983 and 1984, $7.501985 to 1987. $10 1982 and back, $6.50

Book rate postage within the US. is included Outside US, pleasr add $1Per book for Postage. Fast UPS. shipping is amailable within the ('S at $1per book; outside the VS, $2.50 per book; orders over $50 may add 5%of the invoice total Al orders under $25 must be ptypaid

PLEASE SEND ME 'ME FOU.OWING REPORTS:

Quanthy Report No. Year

Sabtand:

Please check one of the following: Postnge{

0 Check enclosed, Flyable to (MI ERIC. Total Due..... __haze

. .ase on 1 attac

Charge my credit card indicated below:Visa MasterCaid

mir LTT] 1r TT]Expiration I)ate

Name

Title

Institution

Address

City State Zip

Phone

Signature

SEND AIL ORDERS TO:ASHE-ERIC Higher Education ReportsThe George Washington University

One Dupont Circle, Suite 63oWashington, DC 200364183

Phone: (202) 206-2507

k, 125'

PRAISE FOR PAST REPORTS

"I welcome the ASHE-ERIC monograph series. It is a serviceto those who need brief but dependable analyses of key issuesin higher education."

(ReR ) Theodore M. IltIburgh CSCPresident Emeritus, University of Notre Dame

"Running a successful institution requires mastering detailsquickly. The ASHE-ENC MALT Educati on Reports are valuablebecause they give a national perspective that helps me meetmy ovn reponsibilities."

Milton Greenberg Provw, American University

"The first hooks off my shelf when I'm looking for answers.Keep me aware of potential problems and offer solutionsthat really work"

Kathryn M. Moore, ProfessorMichigan State University

"The monographs make excellent textbooks, and theirbibliographies are exssential fir graduate students."

Eileen Kuhns, CoordinatorEducation Administration ProgramMich an Strut' University

"Excellent publications, authoritative and well researched,on timely topics."

Ronald W. Collin PTIVOSi and Via' President for Aca-demic Affairs, Eastern Michigan University

"A godsend to an administrator of a brand-new doctoral program with caps on resources for course development."

Antonia D'Onofrio, DirectorHigher Education PriwramWidener University

"Excellent --scholarly, informative, enlighteningsuperbfor administrative and faculty development."

Robert Gleason, Director of Library ,5ervicesRockland Community Colkge

"An invaluable resource that gets me on top of a topic in avery efficient manner."

Donald Reichard, Director of institutional Re carobUniversity of North Carolina at Greensboro

IL

amour& Toassalsory is assistmt prziessor of reading in theDivision of Developmental Studies a the University of Geor-gia, whew sh. e has taught developmental readirg, coottlinatedthe readbig taboratogy, and supervised a pactiaun for wadi% ..

h'struction in the prinutygnides. She has completed aRegents Administrative Fellowship in the Universky Systemof Geotgia a the Board of Regetus central dace, itternitkgla the atice of Research and Plan/ft and rem* tatqtatanalytical reading in a spedal summer enridunent program'at the Medical College of Gecogia. Jr, Taulinson received ,her M.S. in studies in behavioral disabilities and herfn curriculum and instruction hum the University ofWisconsin-Madison.