ERIC Review: Effective Elements of Developmental Reading and Writing Programs.

The author summarizes the literature on developmental reading and writing programs by discussing strategies for addressing remedial needs and obstacles to remediation. Based on the review, the author defines 16 strategies used by community colleges to implement effective remedial programs.

The literacy rates of high school graduates began to deteriorate in the mid-1960s, resulting in the matriculation of a large proportion of college students with inadequate basic skills. Duckett (1996) cites a Post-Secondary International Network study which claims that between 50 and 70% of university and college students in the U.S. need remedial and developmental support. Community colleges, because of their accessibility, low cost, and open-door policy, have enrolled the majority of underprepared students. A variety of strategies have been incorporated into the design of developmental programs for community college students. The purpose of this literature review is to define the essential components of a developmental program that have proven successful as measured by the percentage of students who complete these courses and continue with their college studies. Factors that promote or deter the success of two-year colleges in ameliorating the problems of declining literacy are also examined.

Approximately 25% of full-time freshmen reported having a learning disability in 1991 (Bigaj, Shaw, Cullen, McGuire, & Yost, 1995). Adelman (1996) cites a longitudinal study conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics that examined the academic careers of 2.45 million students in more than 2,500 institutions. Of the students in the study who had earned more than a semester of college credit by 1993, 55% of those who did not take any remedial courses and 47% of those who took only one remedial course earned bachelor's degrees. In comparison, 24% of those students who took three or more remedial courses earned bachelor's degrees. The data also show that those students who needed remedial math fared better in their studies than those who needed remedial reading: "Deficiencies in reading skills are indicators of comprehensive literacy problems, and they significantly lower the odds of a student's completing any degree" (p. A56). Adelman further reports that 1 out of 8 students took remedial reading courses, and 65% of this group needed to take at least three other remedial courses, including math.

Who needs to take responsibility for remediating college-level students with poor basic skills? According to Colby and Opp (1997), three different views exist on this issue. Many argue that inadequate high school standards and programs, coupled with a lack of parental concern and support, are culpable and that those institutions should therefore be solely responsible for remediation. Others believe that developmental education properly belongs in adult schools, the private sector, or on-the-job training programs. This controversial suggestion, to shift this type of education to the private sector, has already been made and decried in New York City. A third perspective is that fostering access to higher education is one of the community colleges' primary missions and if the community colleges abdicate their responsibility for teaching underprepared students, this "den[ies] the reality of today's educational landscape" (Colby & Opp, 1997).

Strategies for Addressing Remedial Needs

That students' needs are not being met at the high school or middle school level is certainly a reason for concern. Merely assigning blame, however, is not sufficient. The realities of this situation necessitate joint action by both high school and postsecondary institutions, particularly community colleges. Colby and Opp (1997) report that state higher education policymakers intentionally concentrate the remedial role within two-year colleges to free public colleges and universities from this function. Further, developmental education programs are a logical outgrowth of the community colleges' role. The open door policy also makes it untenable to deny access to a community college to students who require remedial reading, writing, and computation courses. Community colleges are places where these students, who are often ineligible to enter four-year institutions, can remediate their skills and obtain a college education that would otherwise be out of their reach due to poor basic skills (Adelman, 1996).

Establishing need and determining who should fulfill that need are only the first steps. Next, and equally critical, is selecting the key components that make up an effective developmental program. One essential element is "knowing" the incoming student population. To help achieve this, randomly selected remedial students can be surveyed or all incoming basic-skills students can be required to fill out a brief biographical and self-evaluation questionnaire. Carrasquillo (1986) reports a study that surveyed first-year community college students enrolled in remedial English reading at the City University of New York community colleges. Student biographical data were collected, as were the students' reasons for taking remedial English and their beliefs about how the course would help them attain their academic goals. The college used this study to become familiar with its students and also as an aid to match students with appropriate teaching techniques and goals. Pairing student profiles with teaching techniques was initiated after the researchers determined that the existing remedial program was not meeting its goal, which was to use academic activities and self-instructional and assessment tools to help students understand the program's academic: benefits. This study serves as an example of the multiple benefits of collecting student biographical data.

To be effective, surveys should be clearly written and provide a range of responses. Reminding students that one purpose for conducting the survey is to provide tailored services for them might increase the response rate and the validity of the responses. Extending the process into a longitudinal survey that can track students' progress throughout their remedial and nonremedial course-taking could help counselors, teachers, and administrators make needed adjustments to the program.

Incorporating mandatory counseling and strong administrative support to maintain developmental program goals can also be an effective element of a developmental program (Roueche, 1984). In a study conducted at Southwestern Community College in North Carolina, Conlin (1989) found that 30% of the students did not register for remedial courses (although they had been placed there by testing) or registered for the incorrect course. This resulted in negative effects on students' grade point averages and class retention rates. Early intervention policies such as preregistration counseling are needed. In addition, referrals to counselors and tutors might help to prevent a student's poor attendance policy or decrease the inclination to drop out (Hennessey, 1990).

Counselors can also attend to developmental students' needs by knowing the reading and writing requirements of specific regular courses. Walsh (1990) reports that Piedmont Virginia Community College requested this information in an attempt to minimize the noticeable three-year (19881990) dropout and failure rate of developmental students. The college established a "Pathways List" that identified the minimum competency levels required of students to enroll in each course offered at the college. The list was then disseminated to counselors. A follow-up survey to track the impact of using the "Pathways List" was not reported in the study.

Maxwell (1997) also speaks about the problems that spawn discouraged remedial students. She reports that experience and research indicate that stand-alone remedial courses are not cost effective and "have negative effects on students' attitudes and expectations, force students to take longer to finish degrees, lower their self-concepts, and make it more difficult for them to shed the image of being at-risk students" (1997). One solution Maxwell (1997) offers to combat these problems is to establish a strong Learning Assistance Center containing the following components: be course-related, be systematic with highly structured group tutoring, have some computer instruction, and provide developmental course credit.

Crawford (1993) also concurs that developmental as well as orientation courses should be assigned credit. He states that the more credit you award students, the more time they will spend working on that course. Assigning course credit results in more hours being devoted to instruction and homework on the part of the students; it also causes faculty to take the course more seriously than when there is little or no credit, and consequently they demand more of the students.

These findings are similar to earlier work done by Roueche and Champaigne. Addressing the dropout rate caused by discouraged remedial students faced with up to five remedial courses, Roueche (1984) suggests assigning elective credits to some of the courses. Champaigne (1981) also arrives at a comparable conclusion in his study at the Community College of Finger Lakes, New York. He describes how the college initiated the Personalized Approach to College Education (P. A. C. E.) program, a federally funded pilot program, in 1974. This program is team-taught and uses a developmental approach designed to improve basic college-level skills for academically deficient students. One of the criteria for enrollment is that the students do not have a high school diploma. The student simultaneously enrolls in the high school equivalency program, which provides no college credit, but is coordinated with his or her college credit courses. The P.A.C.E. program consists of each student enrolling in a nine-credit core course, consisting of English, math, and college study skills. The student also enrolls in one or two courses in a program of interest. A grade is issued for each of the three core courses. In this study, success was tracked and compared for the years 1974, 1976, and 1981. In 1974, the percent of students still in school or who graduated was 44%; in 1976, 48%; and in 1981, 53%. The study also found that 65% of all P.A.C.E. students attained a grade point average of 2.1 or better, and 23% had a 3.1 average or better. The student attrition rate declined 4% from 1974 to 1976 and 4.8% from 1976 to 1981. Champaigne's study scrutinized many aspects of the program, including course implementation and student profiles. Although assigning credit to courses that were formerly noncredit was not the only contributing factor to the rise in student success, it likely boosted student motivation, especially for those students who saw themselves as being very far behind without a high school diploma.

Incorporating successful remedial course structures and teaching practices is also a key component of basic skills program implementation. Courses should be structured and sequential while using multiple learning systems (Roueche, 1984; Yevoli, 1993). Yevoli (1993) states that computers, which are one example of a different learning system, can be used to review, test, provide motivation, and incorporate relevant activities through the use of e-mail and word processing applications. Similarly, Roueche (1996) reports that computers are an innovative approach to teaching and learning in the community college. She states that computers can be used in various ways, including posting class notes, using e-mail to clarify questions or problems, accessing World Wide Web resources, and for support services. Moore (1993) also reports that students had positive gains in reading and math with computer-based instruction at the Cumberland campus of Nova Scotia Community College.

Other factors related to coarse structure and teaching practices are class size and faculty proficiency. Garza and Gibbs (1994) analyzed the success of developmental reading programs in Texas community colleges and found that classes with 20 or fewer students have better success rates. An additional practice that promotes success includes hiring instructors that are specialists in remediation. These faculty members should work in conjunction with the regular faculty to incorporate basic skills in the regular curriculum and to use regular course curriculum content in the basic skills courses, especially reading and writing (Commander & Smith, 1995). Many community college faculty members who do not teach basic skills have no formal training in reading and writing remediation. To combat this problem, remedial instructors can be instrumental in making content-area faculty aware of the availability of support services, their own contributions to literacy problems, and ways to incorporate reading and writing instruction across the curriculum.

Commander and Smith (1995) report that the adjunct course model is a basic-skills teaching practice successfully used to meet the needs of remedial students. This model's design is based on a supplemental instruction model originally developed to help medical students at the University of Missouri. Adjunct courses are taught in conjunction with college content courses, such as history, political science, psychology, biology and others. These courses offer reading, language, and writing strategies. One of its benefits is that it fosters cross-curricular communication and sharing. Many different versions of the adjunct courses have evolved. Some are voluntary, and others are mandatory; some carry credit, and others don't. In their study, Commander and Smith identify the developmental student enrolled in this program as having at least a 340 on the verbal SAT, as well as being in the exit level of a two-course developmental reading studies program sequence.

The results of their study indicate that during the fall 1993 quarter, 12 developmental students had an average of 1.5 whereas the total class average was 2.5. These poor results prompted Commander and Smith to make changes in the program content and then retest another set of developmental students during the next quarter. This time the results showed that the 20 new developmental students, out of 841 total students, had an average GPA of 2.3 whereas the class average was 2.5. No developmental students failed or withdrew during this second quarter, although one had failed and another had withdrawn during the previous quarter. To facilitate success for these students in adjunct courses, Commander and Smith make the following suggestions: students should be graded, they should take one content course at the same time that they take an adjunct course, and well-trained instructors should teach the courses.

A collaborative, course-based reading program similar to the adjunct model was also successfully used at the Sam Houston State University (Olson, 1995). Olson reports that in the spring 1992 semester, 19 developmental students who enrolled in a survey course of U.S. history concurrently with the state-mandated developmental reading course earned final grades above the average for the entire class of 289 students. There were no failures for the developmental students. In addition, during the summer following the spring 1992 semester, all 19 developmental students passed the reading or writing (or both) section of the TASP (Texas Academic Skills Program) test. Olson further reports that all of the 19 students were still enrolled and working towards a degree program three years later. At this institution, the collaboration between the Department of History, the Learning Assistance Center, and the Department of Language, Literacy, and Special Populations was successful in using existing resources in an innovative way to meet the needs of at-risk students. It would have been helpful if Olson provided some additional information about the students that would enable factors such as motivation, background, and reading level to be analyzed. Developmental students whose grades are above the mean are usually more self-motivated and would likely fare better in this situation.

Commander and Smith (1995) offer another example. They cite a 1988 study by Dimons indicating that a pilot adjunct course program offered for six years at the California State University was successful. Once again, the basic level of students was probably higher because the study was conducted at a university rather than an open admissions community college. Despite these unknown variables, however, the adjunct model seems to be effective because cross-curricular learning can result in reinforcement, application, and relevancy. Additional studies should validate its usefulness.

In support of the community colleges' efforts to remediate students, Adelman (1996) suggests placing more value on the associate's degree. He says this can be done by encouraging employers to hire people with this degree. This can also provide the added benefit of showing doubtful students that this credential means something in our economy and that it is worth persevering through remediation to attain it. Adelman does not offer suggestions, however, as to how to motivate employers to move in this direction, which would be a difficult task at best.

Another innovative option suggested as a way to improve remedial programs is the use of tutoring companies. Gose (1997) reports that many community colleges have started to use tutoring companies to implement their remedial teaching. Sylvan Learning Systems and Kaplan are designing, overseeing, and even teaching remedial courses at some technical and community colleges. These companies promise to save the institution money by speeding up the remedial process. However, the initial setup is costly. According to Gose, some members of college faculties fear that they will be replaced, and many remedial education experts criticize this "assembly-line" approach. However, Kaplan argues that the company only wishes to provide curriculum support. Sylvan is also trying to negotiate with several colleges to offer summer remedial sessions as a means of helping students to go directly from high school to college-level work without having to enroll in fall semester remedial courses. The Kaplan program is used by Greenville Technical College in South Carolina and Chattanooga State Technical Community College in Tennessee, both of which enroll approximately 40% of their student population in remedial classes. Gose warns, however, that little evidence exists that can be used to evaluate whether or not the companies' approaches are effective, as none of the colleges have offered statistical proof of improvement.

One additional activity to consider is continuous assessment of a community college developmental program's immediate and long-range effects to ascertain whether students' needs are being met. Reis (1992) reports that longitudinal tracking can be cumbersome, time-consuming, and expensive, but is nevertheless a valued effort because ongoing evaluation aids in determining a program's worth. Further, Hennessey (1990) states that community colleges too often equate success with retention in remedial programs, forgetting two other main goals: (a) preparation for other college level courses and (b) improvement of skills that enable a student to complete a degree program or perform better in the work force. Table 1 summarizes general internal evaluation studies and compares different evaluation examples.

Table 1

Internal Evaluation Studies of Developmental Reading Programs

College         Morraine Valley CC, IL        Suffolk CC, NY
                (Reis, 1992)                  (Napoli &
                                              Hiltner, 1993)

Length          1988-1992                     1988-1991

Purpose         Provide baseline data for     Assess the program's
                departmental discussion of    effectiveness
                remedial student
                success and expectations

Course          Reading levels I and II       Reading levels I & II

Student         N = 130                       N = 6,433
Profile         52% Male, 48% Female
                Age: M = 21, Range 17-61

Performance     RL I 73% > C                  Pre- and Post-
Measurements    RL II 72% > C                  CFT Reading
                18% Withdrew                  Section Scores:
                  or incomplete               Pre: RL I = 55,
                10% Failed                     RL II = 64
                                              Post: RL I = 72,
                                               RL II = 76
                                              Mean GPA for
                                               all regular
                                               courses
                                               completed 2.4 as
                                               compared to 2.6 for
                                               nondevelopmental
                                               students

Tests Used      Not reported                  College Board
                                               Computerized
                                              Placement Test (CPT)

College         Mott CC, MI                   Johnson City CC, KS
                (Reinertson, 1989)            (Seybert & Soltz,
                                              1992)

Length          1988-1989                     1986-1990

Purpose         Determine success of          Assess remedial course
                developmental course as a     effectiveness
                prerequisite skill            plus student progress
                for regular coursework        and performance

Course          Reading                       Reading levels I & II

Student         N = 362                       RL I N = 252
Profile         107 Male, 244 Female          IlL II N = 759
                11 Unidentified
                10th grade average
                  reading level

Performance     85% Completed course          RL I 92% passed
Measurements    15% Withdrew                  Mean grade 2.85
                79% Passed and improved       RL II 91% passed
                reading level by two grades   Mean grade 3.14
                Also administered student     41% graduated
                biographical and              compared to
                 learning survey              15% graduation
                                              rate of total
                                              student body

Tests Used      Cooperative English Test      Stanford Diagnostic
                Gates-MacGinitie              Reading Test
                Reading Test

All four colleges prepared longitudinal studies and reported their developmental reading class results. None of the reports, however, provides a comprehensive picture. Hennessey suggests that colleges should consider personality variables, particularly self-esteem and self-confidence, as well as academic achievement and persistence. He also states that students' individual goals affect the assessment process; for example, many students may not have graduation as a goal. He further warns that attaining a large number of credits or a high GPA may also not adequately measure success for all students. Distributing student and instructor surveys at the completion of each course might help combat these problems. If colleges are to achieve maximum benefit from their program evaluations, they should include as many factors as possible. Such information could include complete demographic and biographical data, student reading levels, class size, related support services, the types of tests employed for assessment purposes and an assessment of developmental students in regular classes, as well as those classes' reading and writing requirements. Sharing these detailed data would enable colleges to compare their profiles with those of peer institutions and thus learn from each other's results.

Obstacles to Remediation

An implementation factor impossible to ignore is cost. Colby and Opp (1997) suggest that one way of cutting costs is to use paraprofessional aides to provide one-on-one instruction. Senior citizens, community members, and advanced students often find tutoring personally rewarding and are willing to work for low wages. The use of such aides in the classroom and in the learning lab allows the professional instructors to use their time in ways more befitting their skills (Adelman, 1996). Another method that would support the improvement of reading and writing skills, thus possibly reducing the need for remedial classes, would be to increase reading and writing assignments in regular college courses. Unfortunately, faculty members who are faced with increasingly large numbers of remedial students often reduce the number of reading and writing assignments. By doing so, they are unknowingly perpetuating student literacy problems (Colby & Opp, 1997).

The emphasis placed on standardized testing can often deter remedial success. Some experts have questioned the tests' validity and fairness (Colby & Opp, 1997; Duckett, 1996). Many feel that these tests are culturally biased instruments that inadequately assess students' deficiencies. Adelman (1996) suggests that to overcome these drawbacks, tests be given repeatedly and, as soon as the student is able, he or she can be moved up to the next remedial class or level of instruction. Also, the small group of students who can overcome skill deficiencies on their own or with computer-aided programs should be encouraged to do so. This can help reduce student frustration, which can result from sitting through a class with overly familiar content, and can even reduce remedial costs. Many community colleges are currently supplementing their basic skills tests by retesting students in previously identified areas of deficiency on the first day of remedial class instruction so as to target specific needs accurately, reevaluate skill levels, and even move students up to a higher level if they score well enough.

Conclusion

Based on this literature review, the following strategies have emerged as recommended ways of making developmental programs effective:

1. Collect student biographical data before and after remedial course completion.

2. Mandate counseling and support services.

3. Provide counselors with student profiles and course reading and writing requirements.

4. Continue or start learning assistance center activities and integrate these with classroom instruction.

5. Incorporate volunteer instructors and peer tutors in language labs.

6. Use computers in the classroom and learning lab.

7. Use multi-learning systems and structure sequential courses.

8. Initiate flexible testing and completion strategies.

9. Award college credit to some no-credit remedial courses.

10. Minimize remedial class size.

11. Hire instructors who specialize in remediation.

12. Ask remedial instructors to share remediation techniques and otherwise collaborate with content-area faculty.

13. Require content-area faculty to give reading and writing assignments to students.

14. Implement developmental education through the curriculum, as in adjunct models.

15. Monitor student behaviors and continuous evaluation of program effectiveness.

16. Communicate with other community colleges to share internal evaluations, suggestions, and successful activities.

Remediation is a practical response to the well-documented decline in student literacy. Because a low literacy rate currently exists and the major reforms necessary to address elementary and secondary school deficiencies could take more than a few years to actually implement, community colleges will continue to offer basic skills remediation. Delegating remediation to outside companies such as Kaplan appears to be risky and is not suggested, as studies offer no proof of success. Further, it may deter cooperative interaction among the educational components. Community colleges and high schools should collaborate on strategies and determine the next steps to be taken to improve existing developmental programs.

References

Adelman, C. (1996). The truth about remedial work: It's more complex than windy rhetoric and simple solutions suggest. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 43(6), 56.

Bigaj, S.J., Shaw, S.F., Cullen, J.P., McGuire, J.M., & Yost, D.S. (1995). Services for students with learning disabilities at two and four-year institutions: Are they different? Community College Review, 23(2), 217-31.

Carrasquillo, A. (1986). Perceived remedial English reading class benefits of community college students. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 285 127)

Champaigne, J. (1981). Developmental studies program review, 1974-1981. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 206 338)

Colby, A., & Opp, R. (1997). Controversies surrounding developmental education in the community colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 286 557)

Commander, N.E., & Smith, B.D. (1995). Developing adjunct reading and learning courses that work. Journal of Reading, 38(5), 352-60.

Conlin, S. (1989). Percentage of Southwestern Community College students bypassing remedial work and the effects on subsequent grades and dropout rate. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 317 240)

Crawford, J.J. (1993) Recession and the role of developmental education: An interview with John N. Gardner. Journal of Developmental Education, 17(1), 22-24, 26, 41.

Duckett, I. (1996, June 28). The American Way is sometimes confused (identifying and teaching core skills at community colleges). Times Educational Supplement, 4174, A29.

Garza, N.R. & Gibbs, L. (1994). A description and analysis of selected successful developmental reading programs in Texas community colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 377 912)

Gose, B. (1997). Tutoring companies take over remedial teaching at some colleges. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 44(4), A44-6.

Hennessey, J. (1990). At-risk community college students and a reading improvement course: A longitudinal study. Journal of Reading, 34(2), 114-120.

Maxwell, M. (1997). What are the functions of a college learning assistance center? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 413 031)

Moore, A. (1993). Computer-assisted instruction (ILS)for adults. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 377 897)

Napoli, A. & Hiltner, G.J. (1993). An evaluation of developmental reading instruction. Journal of Developmental Education, 17, 14-16.

Olson, J.E. (1995). Course based remedial reading remediation: A collaborative experiment. Reading Improvement, 32(1), 53-55.

Reinertson, J. (1989). Community college reading students: Data and demographics. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 307 000)

Reis, E. (1992). Remedial reading students at Moraine Valley. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 1356 005)

Roueche, I.E. (1984). Literacy needs and developments in American community colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 240 291)

Roueche, S.D. (Ed.). (1996). Innovation abstracts, 18,1-29. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 407 00)

Seybert, J.A. & Soltz. (1992). Assessing the outcomes of developmental courses at Johnson County Community College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 349 052)

Walsh, B.S. (1990). Piedmont Virginia Community College's pathways: The process of developing clusters of nondevelopmental courses for developmental students. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 336 132)

Yevoli, C. (1993). Corrective strategies in reading for at-risk community college students. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 366 370)

Manuela McCusker is a high school teacher and a reading instructor at Mercer Community College in New Jersey. ([e-mail])