Underprepared Community College Students: Implications of Attitudinal and Experiential Differences.

Data from a freshman survey instrument (CIRP) completed by the 1992 entering cohort of 500 freshmen at a Florida community college and three-year outcomes data from the college's database were analyzed to define differences in college-ready and underprepared students classified according to a computerized placement test. Based on chi square analysis of categorical variables and multivariate ANOVAs for each cluster of related interview questions, the authors describe significant differences between underprepared and college-ready students and discuss their findings in relationship to the literature on at-risk student groups and psychological theories.

Recent changes in American higher education, which represent a substantial departure from previous practice, have extended college access to unprecedented numbers of minority, disadvantaged, and nontraditional (age 25 and over) students who are often less academically prepared than their peers (Gardiner, 1994). During the early aristocratic phase of American higher education, college admission often depended on social or financial status. During the later meritocratic phase, this elitist philosophy changed as land grant or people's colleges based admission decisions more on academic quality or merit, enrolling primarily "academically adept adolescents" (Pew, 1990, p. 1). However, the most dramatic transformation occurred when the community college movement introduced universal access and, therefore, changed the profile of the American college student (Cross, 1974).

The community college population has grown dramatically and has become a microcosm of society with an increasingly diverse student population more representative of American society than four-year college and university populations (Cohen & Brawer, 1991; Gardiner, 1994). Currently, community college populations represent 44% of all undergraduates and 49% of first-time-in-college students, including many minority, low socioeconomic status, and nontraditional age students who frequently enter college less academically prepared (Phillippe, 1995).

Similarly, as the pool of traditional (age 18 through 24) academically prepared freshmen has declined, four-year colleges and universities have enrolled a more diverse and challenging population. Nearly 6 in 10 higher education institutions report an increase in lower socioeconomic status students, and one-third cite student diversity as the greatest challenge for the next decade (El-Khawas & Knopp, 1996). Projections suggest student diversity will continue to increase far into the future (Gardiner, 1994).

Although colleges, especially community colleges, have made great progress in eliminating or minimizing many geographical and financial barriers that have historically restricted college access, social and cultural barriers, with their associated educational deficits, have been more difficult to address. Nationally, 46% of all public institutions and 57% of two-year institutions rank the academic preparation of entering students as fair or poor (El-Khawas & Knopp, 1996). In the fall of 1995, 29% of first-time freshmen in postsecondary institutions and 41% of first-time freshmen in public two-year institutions enrolled in at least one remedial course (Lewis, Farris, & Greene, 1996). Of the 1993 cohort of entering Florida community college students, 54.2% of the nonminority students and 90% of the Black students placed into at least one remedial course (Florida State Board of Community Colleges, 1996).

Although colleges have offered remedial courses for more than 150 years, remedial and developmental practices have often been too weak and discipline- or skill-oriented to elicit the powerful transformation needed to make a substantial difference in future prospects for students (McGrath & Spear, 1991). Southern institutions indicate that 55% of their remedial students are retained to enroll for a second year compared to 65% of their regularly admitted students (Abraham, 1992). Nationally, 47% of the remedial students graduate; just 24% of the students placing in three or more remedial courses, however, graduate (Adelman, 1996).

Historically, underprepared college students, their educational programs, and their academic performance have received little public attention; however, remedial college education has become an issue that is increasingly under attack by legislators and the public. Pressures generated from increasing numbers of underprepared students, decreasing financial resources, higher public expectations, and general negative public opinion have focused unprecedented attention on remedial college education and have sparked debates. Opponents generally argue that remedial education constitutes an unpalatable duplication of services with taxpayers paying a second time for skill development. Both proponents of the open-door policy and opponents of college remedial programs generally agree that the problem is significant and demands attention; solutions, however, remain elusive (Roueche & Roueche, 1999; Weissman, Silk, & Bulakowski, 1997).

Authorities acknowledge that additional financial support for remedial programs is unlikely, so resources must be used effectively. Approximately 75% of colleges have data regarding the numbers of underprepared students and some data on their retention in college level courses (Illinois State Board of Higher Education, 1997); little data is available, however, about attitudes, values, and self-expectation that could provide a deeper understanding: of these students and a basis for making informed program decisions. The research described in this report was designed to examine differences between groups of underprepared and college-ready students on extensive measures, including demographic data and students' self-ratings of their abilities, values, and future activities.

Background

Despite some acknowledgment of increasing student diversity and the need for pedagogical change, the remedial education problem is complex. It involves a difficult student population, faculty attitudes, evolving psychological theories of learning, and conventional wisdom about higher education. Roueche and Roueche (1993) use the expression "between a rock and a hard place" to describe the difficult position of colleges in providing access and ensuring opportunity for disadvantaged students while maintaining academic standards. These authors use the term "at-risk" to describe these underprepared students, who, they report, are frequently first-generation, low socioeconomic status, culturally disadvantaged, and low high school achievers (based on GPA) with low self-esteem and high failure expectations. Willette (1989) reported that 80% of community college students come from families where the parents and grandparents do not hold college degrees.

Tinto's retention model (1975) suggests that family background, individual attitudes, and precollege education interact with the students' commitment to goals and the institution to determine attrition or retention. Characteristics of underprepared students raise concerns in each of these three areas. Environmental stressors often complicate an already difficult educational process, especially for nontraditional-age students. Underprepared students are not simply students with lower academic skills; they constitute a group with specific characteristics and difficulties.

Additionally, many faculty express concern about the new realities of greater student diversity. These faculty remember nostalgically when they had well-prepared students (Cohen & Brawer, 1991). London (1980) suggests that faculty may even express ambivalence toward the mission of helping at-risk students, suggesting that students are responsible for their own success or failure and attributing student weaknesses to deficiencies in character, mind, or social background. Although they have extensive knowledge in a specific discipline, many faculty lack experience and confidence in coping with the special abilities and personal characteristics of underprepared students. Conventional practices formulated from many years of educating traditional American college students may not work for students with diverse educational competencies and different socioeconomic backgrounds.

Recognizing significant heterogeneity among academically underprepared college students, the researchers designed this study to gather information about these students by examining questions about differences between underprepared and college-ready students in numerous input and outcome variables. First, how do underprepared students differ from college-ready students in demographic, experiential, and attitudinal characteristics, including age, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, academic preparation, college enrollment decision, self-ratings, activities, goals, and values? Second, how do three-year outcome measures such as graduation rates, persistence, hours completed, course completion rate, and GPA differ for these students? Most important, what are the program implications of these and related research results?

Method

Students

During the 1992 freshman orientation, approximately 500 entering community college students provided extensive data by completing the Student Information Form, a freshman survey instrument developed by the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP). These students represented the entering, degree-seeking student cohort at an open-admission community college enrolling 8,000 students from a combination of suburban and rural areas in northwest Florida. The study did not include special nondegree students in the sample, so it is not representative of the entire entering student population. Nevertheless, it was generally reflective of the college population in ethnicity with 15.5% Black, 4% Asian and 80% White students and in gender with 62% female students. The average age of the sample was 23 years. Students in this sample (51%) who attained the statewide Computerized Placement Test (CPT) cutoff scores in both reading and English with at least pre-algebra placement in mathematics were classified as college-ready whereas the 48% who failed to achieve these scores were classified as academically underprepared.

Instrumentation

The freshman survey instrument was developed in 1966 by the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) under the auspices of the American Council on Education (ACE) and is now cosponsored by the Graduate School of Education at the UCLA. The CIRP instrument has collected normative data on first-time, full-time freshmen for more than 30 years to assess the effects of college on students and to provide data for longitudinal research. National normative data include characteristics of more than 8 million American college students from more than 1,000 institutions with stratifications for race, sex, institutional contribution (public, private), type (university, four-year college, two-year college), and admission selectivity (Chickering, 1990).

The CIRP provides more than 200 demographic, experiential, or attitudinal data elements including (a) demographic characteristics such as age, sex, race, family data, parental education, parental income and other socioeconomic data; (b) previous academic performance, such as high school GPA, high school coursework, study behaviors; (c) enrollment status; (d) degree aspirations; (e) goals and values; (f) reasons for college enrollment; (g) self ratings of abilities; (h) past year's activities; (i) student opinions; and (j) future activities.

The Computerized Placement Test (CPT), a nationally used test developed by the College Entrance Examination Board, provided measures of college readiness at admission in reading, English, and mathematics. Underprepared students were identified using statewide established cutoff scores for each area.

Procedure

Freshmen completed the CIRP survey during a one-hour fall orientation course for associate in science and associate in arts students; therefore, these students represented the entering cohort of degree-seeking students in college transfer and two-year vocational programs. The student database provided additional course enrollment, GPA, graduation, and enrollment data at the end of three years. The input and outcome variables were analyzed separately for underprepared and college-ready students using chi square procedures for the analysis of categorical variables and separate multivariate ANOVAs (MANOVAs) for the analysis of differences in linear variables for each cluster of related CIRP questions: (a) reasons for attending college, (b) self-ratings, (c) past years' activities, (d) goals and values, (e) future activities, and (f) academic performance. Levels of significance less than .05 on these two-tailed tests were considered statistically significant; however, levels of significance from .01 to .05 should be viewed cautiously due to the highly correlated nature of some of the variables and the measurement scale limitations in some clusters.

Results

ANOVA procedures did not reveal significant differences between underprepared and college-ready students in age or some family demographics, and chi square procedures did not reveal significant differences in gender or part-time versus full-time status. Both groups most frequently reported an average family income in the $25,000-$29,000 range and some postsecondary courses or training for the fathers.

The groups differed significantly by ethnicity, types of high school coursework, high school grade point averages (GPAs), degree aspirations, and numerous attitudinal measures. Black students were represented in greater numbers in the underprepared student group with 21% Black students compared to 6% for the college-ready group. The groups differed in the number of years of high school coursework in math (F(1, 487) = 4.31, p = .04), physical science (F(1, 487) = 4.17, p = .04), biological science (F(1, 487) = 5.02, p = .025), and foreign language (F(1, 487) = 28.47, p = .0001). They also differed on high school GPAs with average grades of B- for underprepared students compared to B for college-ready students (F(1, 487) = 40.63, p = .0001). Underprepared students planned fewer years of college with more vocational and associate of science degree aspirations than four-year or graduate degrees, whereas college-ready students planned to attend more years of college (F(1, 487) = 27.12, p = .0001) with higher degree aspirations including graduate degrees. Additionally, underprepared and college-ready students differed significantly in some reasons for attending college, ability ratings, previous year's activities, goals and values, future activities, and opinions, as well as academic performance and persistence.

Reasons for Attending College

Results of a one-way MANOVA between-group design analyzing differences between underprepared and college-ready students on reasons for attending college revealed significant differences for improving reading and study skills (F(1, 487) = 13.30, p = .0003) and satisfying parental desires (F(1, 487) = 6.73, p = .009), as well as experiencing difficulty finding a job (F(1, 487) = 7.68, p = .006). Table 1 indicates higher mean scores for underprepared students on these items. Both groups indicated obtaining a better job and making more money were two of the three most important reasons for attending college.

Table 1

Mean Self-Ratings of Reasons for Attending College by Student Status (Underprepared and College-Ready)

                                                    College
                                   Underprepared     Ready
Reason                             N=238             N=251

Get a better job                   2.76               2.73
Learn more about things            2.71               2.69
Make more money                    2.70               2.67
Gain a general education           2.63               2.55
Prepare for graduate school        2.46               2.47
Become a cultured person           2.31               2.32
Improve reading and study skills   2.48               2.25
Encouraged by parents              2.12               1.94
Encouraged by mentor               1.70               1.60
Could not find a job               1.48               1.30
Get away from home                 1.29               1.25
Nothing better to do               1.12               1.07

                                    Significance
Reason                                 Level

Get a better job                       .52
Learn more about things                .74
Make more money                        .36
Gain a general education               .14
Prepare for graduate school            .86
Become a cultured person               .85
Improve reading and study skills       .0003(*)
Encouraged by parents                  .009(*)
Encouraged by mentor                   .13
Could not find a job                   .006(*)
Get away from home                     .51
Nothing better to do                   .14

Note. (*) p < .05. Means based on 3. scale of 1 to 3 where 1 = not important and 3 = very important.

Self Ratings of Abilities

Results of another one-way MANOVA analyzing differences between underprepared and college-ready students indicated significant differences in self-ratings of academic ability (F(1, 487) = 77.29, p = .0001), mathematical ability (F(1, 487) = 23.67, p = .0001), reading speed and comprehension (F(1, 487) = 73.76, p = .0001), intellectual self-confidence (F(1, 487) = 20.35, p = .0001), writing ability (F(1, 487) = 17.55, p = .0001), public speaking ability (F(1, 487) = 16.30, p = .0001), and emotional health (F(1, 487) = 4.18, p = .04). Additionally, they differed significantly on the following highest rated abilities: cooperativeness (F(1, 487) = 10.05, p = . 002), achievement drive (F(1, 487) = 9.47, p = . 002), and understanding of others (F(1, 487) = 9.81, p = .002). Table 2 indicates lower means for underprepared students on these ratings but no significant differences in ratings of physical health, originality, competitiveness, leadership ability, social self-confidence, popularity, or artistic ability.

Table 2

Mean Self-Ratings of Abilities by Student Status (Underprepared and College-Ready)

                                                  College
                                  Underprepared    Ready
Ability                               N=238        N=251

Cooperativeness                       3.70         3.92
Drive to achieve                      3.62         3.87
Understanding of others               3.61         3.84
Academics                             3.18         3.71
Self-confidence (intellectual)        3.26         3.60
Emotional health                      3.40         3.57
Physical health                       3.58         3.56
Reading speed & comprehension         2.82         3.55
Originality                           3.42         3.52
Competitiveness                       3.35         3.49
Leadership                            3.32         3.45
Writing                               3.07         3.41
Self-confidence (social)              3.29         3.39
Popularity                            3.20         3.15
Mathematics                           2.68         3.10
Public speaking                       2.55         2.92
Artistic                              2.73         2.77

                                  Significance
Ability                              Level

Cooperativeness                      .002(*)
Drive to achieve                     .002(*)
Understanding of others              .002(*)
Academics                            .0001(*)
Self-confidence (intellectual)       .0001(*)
Emotional health                     .04(*)
Physical health                      .72
Reading speed & comprehension        .0001(*)
Originality                          .20
Competitiveness                      .08
Leadership                           .12
Writing                              .0001(*)
Self-confidence (social)             .22
Popularity                           .45
Mathematics                          .0001(*)
Public speaking                      .0001(*)
Artistic                             .60

Note. (*) p < .05. Means based on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 = lowest 10% in ability compared to peers and 5 = highest 10% in ability compared to peers.

Past Year's Activities

Results of another MANOVA revealed that college-ready students spent more dine during the previous year attending a religious service (F(1, 487) = 6.98, p = .009), discussing politics (F(1, 487) = 41.09, p = . 0001), and socializing with different ethnic groups (F(1, 487) = 7.73, p = .006). Underprepared students spent more hours during the previous year partying (F(1, 487) = 3.84, p = .049) and watching television (F(1, 487) = 4.71, p = .03). Activities applicable only to students were calculated for individuals enrolled in courses the previous year.

Goals and Values

Results of a one-way MANOVA analyzing differences in goals and values for underprepared and college-ready students revealed significant differences in mean scores for attaining success in their own business (F(1, 487) = 7.82, p = .005) and creating artistic works (F(1, 487) = 7.33, p = .007). Table 3 indicates higher means for underprepared students on these goals.

Table 3

Mean Self-Ratings of Goals and Values by Student Status (Underprepared and College-Ready)

                                                        College
                                        Underprepared    Ready
Goals and Values                            N=238        N=251

Raise a family                              2.84          2.97
Be very well off financially                3.01          2.86
Become authority in own field               2.70          2.83
Help others in difficulty                   2.77          2.83
Develop meaningful philosophy               2.37          2.44
Obtain recognition from colleagues          2.55          2.41
Have administrative responsibility          2.35          2.23
Influence social values                     2.29          2.29
Promote racial understanding                2.26          2.19
Keep up with political affairs              2.07          2.10
Participate in environmental cleanup        2.15          2.08
Be successful in own business               2.37          2.07
Participate in community action             2.02          1.92
Become a community leader                   1.98          1.93
Influence political structure               1.81          1.71
Make contribution to science                1.76          1.67
Write original works                        1.41          1.40
Create artistic works                       1.48          1.29

                                         Significance
Goals and Values                            Level

Raise a family                               .19
Be very well off financially                 .09
Become authority in own field                .14
Help others in difficulty                    .45
Develop meaningful philosophy                .44
Obtain recognition from colleagues           .14
Have administrative responsibility           .16
Influence social values                      .99
Promote racial understanding                 .43
Keep up with political affairs               .75
Participate in environmental cleanup         .43
Be successful in own business                .005(*)
Participate in community action              .21
Become a community leader                    .56
Influence political structure                .21
Make contribution to science                 .29
Write original works                         .89
Create artistic works                        .007(*)

Note. (*) p < .05. Means based on a scale of 1 to 4 where 1 = lowest and 4 = highest.

Future Activities

Results of another MANOVA indicated significant differences in expectations of failing one or more courses (F(1, 487) = 14.74, p = .0001), needing extra time for a degree (F(1, 487) = 6.75, p = .009), and getting tutoring (F(1, 487) = 18.13, p = .0001). Table 4 indicates higher means for underprepared students on these measures. The groups also differed significantly on expectations of graduating with honors (F(1, 487) = 19.39, p = .0001), getting a job (F(1, 487) = 6.06, p = .01), being elected to honor society (F(1, 487) = 30.82, p = .0001), making at least a B average (F(1, 487) = 19.16, p = .0001), getting a bachelor's degree (F(1, 487) = 10.38, p = .0014), and participating in volunteer service (F(1, 487) = 7.34, p = .007). Table 4 indicates lower means for underprepared students on these expectations.

Table 4

Mean Self-Ratings of Predicted Future Activities by Student Status (Underprepared and College-Ready)

                                                        College
                                     Underprepared       Ready
Future Activity                          N=238           N=251

Find job in own field                     3.47            3.51
Make at least a B average                 3.09            3.46
Be satisfied with college                 3.30            3.31
Get batchelor's degree                    2.93            3.27
Get job to pay expenses                   2.87            3.12
Graduate with honors                      2.49            2.86
Get tutoring in some courses              2.96            2.59
Participate in volunteer service          2.32            2.56
Need extra time for degree                2.68            2.45
Change career choice                      2.12            2.09
Seek vocational counseling                2.10            1.93
Participate in student protests           1.92            1.77
Fail one or more courses                  1.93            1.65
Drop out temporarily                      1.36            1.27
Drop out permanently                      1.19            1.11

                                     Significance
Future Activity                         Level

Find job in own field                   .67
Make at least a B average               .0001(*)
Be satisfied with college               .92
Get batchelor's degree                  .0014(*)
Get job to pay expenses                 .014(*)
Graduate with honors                    .0001 *
Get tutoring in some courses            .0001(*)
Participate in volunteer service        .007*
Need extra time for degree              .009*
Change career choice                    .73
Seek vocational counseling              .049*
Participate in student protests         .08
Fail one or more courses                .0001(*)
Drop out temporarily                    .16
Drop out permanently                    .12

Note. (*) p < .05. Means based on a scale of 1 to 4 where 1 = no chance and 4 = very good chance.

Academic Performance

The groups differed significantly on all academic success measures, including course completion rate (F(1, 487) = 59.70, p = .0001), semesters enrolled (F(1, 487) = 16.33, p = .0001), hours completed (F(1, 487) = 62.93,p = .0001), and GPA (F(1, 487) = 48.99, p = .0001). Course completion rates, calculated by dividing the total hours each student completed by the hours they attempted, were (a) 59.7% with 28.80 mean hours and 4.11 semesters completed for underprepared students and (b) 76.7% with 45.74 mean hours and 4.91 semesters completed for college-ready students. The mean GPAs, which reflected performance in college level courses only, were 2.36 for underprepared students and 2.82 for college-ready students.

Persistence was significantly greater for college-ready students ([chi square] (1) = 31.138, p = .0001), as demonstrated by a three-year graduation rate of 15%, with 32% completing more than 65 semester hours or continuing enrollment. Underprepared students demonstrated a 2% graduation rate with 25% completing more than 65 hours or continuing enrollment. Therefore, nonpersistence at the end of three years was 53% for the college-ready students compared to 73% for underprepared students.

Discussion

Clearly, underprepared students differ significantly in some demographic characteristics and rate themselves differently on many experiential and attitudinal measures than college-ready students. This confirms that colleges are facing more than academic performance differences in these students. These snapshots of entering underprepared and college-ready students and their academic performance after three years of college reveal different self-perceptions, experiences, attitudes, expectations, goals, values, and academic performance, including persistence. Persistence is an illusive measure, however, because nonpersisters may be stopouts or opt-outs who will leave in good standing to work, raise a family, or pursue other goals but return later to pursue a degree or other personal objectives (Grimes & Antworth, 1996; Losak, 1986). The three-year period provides a graduation measure at a time designated by some state performance standards, but the persistence measures at longer intervals would provide more comprehensive information about community college student success and persistence.

Both the magnitude and complexity of these differences confirm the challenges for higher education. Adelman (1996) suggests some optimism for students with a deficiency only in mathematics but a poorer prognosis for students placing in remedial reading or two or three remedial courses. Weissman et al. (1997) report differing policies and early remediation are necessary for language-deficient and triple-deficient students. Despite this heterogeneity within the underprepared student population, significant commonalities suggest that many of these students will require different and comprehensive educational experiences. It is unlikely that colleges will transform previously unsuccessful students into successful students by addressing a specific skill deficit. For example, learning in a critical skill level is unlikely to occur in underprepared students without a holistic approach and attention to broader developmental needs (Boylan, Bonham, & Bliss, 1994). Conventional wisdom about postsecondary education rooted in European and early American colleges is unlikely to be effective with high risk remedial students. Both student learning and personal development must be addressed to provide opportunity with a reasonable expectation of success. These developmental areas are included within the broad community college mission and could be addressed through modifications of current student service programs.

Although student learning and personal development have different historical roots and address different aspects of the educational process, they are "inextricably intertwined and inseparable" (ACPA, 1994, p. 1). College leaders must intentionally create conditions that provide an integrated perspective, simultaneously developing cognitive and affective dimensions despite the fact that language, organizational structure, and habit continue to separate development into individual domains (ACPA, 1994).

Educators can enhance their understanding of these students and their ability to design effective programs for them by examining (a) related groups with characteristics almost indistinguishable from underprepared students including first-generation and behavior problem students and (b) basic psychological theories with specific application for these students including, but not limited to, motivational theory, self-efficacy, and attribution theory. The identification of specific attitudes, behaviors, and values combined with the application of these psychological theories can assist in developing supportive microinstitutional environments for these groups within institutions in situations where macroinstitutional environmental changes are not feasible. A goal of these supportive microinstitutional environments is to mainstream students into less supportive environments as they succeed and develop greater self-confidence. Developmental educators and college counselors who have special backgrounds in these areas can provide leadership in this process.

Related Groups: First-Generation and Behavior Problem Students

The first-generation status of students is an important factor because approximately 80% of community college students are first-generation college students (Phillippe, 1995), and this first-generation status has often been associated with other risk factors such as remedial placement, lower socioeconomic status, and minority status. Pascarella et al. (1996) suggest that first-generation students enter college academically at risk and then encounter a world where they are less likely to experience many conditions positively related to persistence, performance, and learning. They report that first-generation students are often underprepared students with weaker reading, mathematics, and creative thinking skills. These students also indicate lower degree aspirations and anticipate a longer time to complete a degree. In college they study less, take fewer humanities and fine arts courses, work more, complete fewer hours, less frequently attend racial or cultural awareness activities, and receive less encouragement from friends to continue enrollment. Successful programs must include either (a) bridge programs to ease the transition from work or high school to college or (b) systematic and comprehensive academic support services (Pascarella et al., 1996).

Students described by Jessor, Donovan, & Costa (1991) as "problem behavior" college students also exhibit characteristics that closely resemble those of underprepared students, providing another overlapping classification or related group of students. These students are best distinguished from nonproblem behavior or conventional behavior freshmen by measures of goal-directed behavior, self-esteem, high school GPA, and remedial status. Although these problem behaviors are not antisocial, they can undermine college adjustment and academic achievement.

Problem behavior theory (Jessor, Donovan, & Costa, 1991) examines person-environmental interaction in three areas: (a) behavior (such as low academic achievement, substance abuse), (b) personality system (such as achievement motivation, self-esteem), and (c) perceived environmental system (such as controls from parents or significant others). Underprepared students in this study demonstrated significant difficulties compared to college-ready students in each person-environmental interaction area with significantly lower high school GPAs, weaker coursework in some academic areas, lower self-ratings of ability, and lower predictions of future accomplishments. Specifically, they provided lower self-ratings than college-ready students on the six highest-rated abilities including cooperativeness, drive to achieve, understanding of others, academic ability, intellectual self-confidence, and emotional health. Additionally they had lower academic ability measures than college-ready students in mathematics, reading, writing, and intellectual self-confidence. Lower ratings in affective areas may be causal, contributing, or resulting factors but tend to support a self-perpetuating cycle of low performance and self-esteem.

Despite the fact that problem behaviors are developmental in origin, research suggests that colleges can exacerbate or remediate them. Therefore, successful programs for these students must provide systematic and comprehensive academic support services, such as assessment and remediation, learning laboratories, tutorial services, intrusive advising, and progress monitoring at least until a student is firmly established in a major (Richardson & Skinner, 1992. p. 39). Thombs (1995) suggests that many conventional programs are too narrow and superficial because they focus on one issue; they must respond to the students' total life experiences to effect positive change.

Psychological Theories: Motivation, Self-Efficacy, and Attribution Theory

Some important psychological theories to consider in designing developmental programs for underprepared students are (a) motivational theory, (b) self-efficacy, and (c) attribution theory, including locus of control. Addressing specific discipline content without considering psychological theory might be effective for highly-motivated, goal-oriented students with a strong support structure but is less likely to be effective with previously less successful students.

Motivational theories are widely accepted as critical in influencing behavior and learning (McKeachie et al., 1990) and are especially important in breaking a self-perpetuating cycle of low performance exhibited by many underprepared students. Educators frequently assume that a student is demonstrating motivation to learn by enrolling in college (Stage, 1996). Differing reasons for attending college, however, and low success measures indicate this assumption is not necessarily accurate for underprepared students. Gardiner (1994) suggests that many of these students view college simply as a station on the way to a better job.

Recently theorists have suggested that internal goals for learning, aside from outside coercion, are most likely to promote success inside and outside the classroom (Stage, 1996). Although the highest-rated reasons for attending college are similar for both groups, the underprepared students are motivated more by other extrinsic circumstances including the lack of employment and parental encouragement.

McMillan and Forsyth (1991) indicate that students are more likely to be motivated if needs are being met, they see value in what they learn, and they believe success is attainable with reasonable effort. When educators perceive that these conditions are met, they are even more disappointed when at-risk students do not live up to their potential (King & Baxter-Magolda, 1996).

Another important psychological theory for understanding underprepared students is self-efficacy, defined as "students' beliefs about their capabilities to produce designated levels of performance that exercise influence over events that affect their lives" (Bandura, 1994, p.71). Beliefs about efficacy shape choices of activities, careers, environments, and thereby lives. Perceptions of academic ability and expectations for academic performance are significantly related to college persistence (House, 19921). Low self-efficacy in underprepared students as demonstrated by lower expectations and lower ability ratings than college-ready students can decrease motivation. Despite the fact that self-efficacy beliefs are specific to subject areas or domains, these beliefs and subsequent performance can be enhanced by focusing on success in other subject areas and developing positive beliefs (Bandura, 1994; Stage, 1996).

Attribution theory, another important psychological theory for understanding underprepared students, analyzes reasons that students give for their success or failure. These reasons, which include skill, luck, persistence, timing, illness, or ability, can enhance or thwart performance. If underprepared students attribute poor performance to low ability, this attribution will negatively influence their motivation to invest effort in a similar task in the future and will perpetuate a cycle of continued failure (Pressley & McCormick, 1995). Dimensions of attribution theory include locus (internal or external), stability, and controllability (Weiner, 1980)

Locus of control provides a measure of a student's expectations about whether the results of actions are (a) internal and under the student's control or (b) external and beyond the student's control (Rotter, 1966). Underprepared student perceptions and attributions of internal versus external control have dramatic implications in academic programs. For example, underprepared students with an internal perception of locus of control will analyze a situation, assume responsibility for taking action, and accept responsibility for failure. These students take action because they perceive that their actions will influence their academic performance, but they can suffer in accepting responsibility for failure. Underprepared students with an external locus of control tend to view luck, fate, or powerful individuals as controlling events in their lives and project blame on others. These students are less likely to exert effort on tasks, but they are more likely to experience anger, depression, substance abuse, or physical symptoms. Extreme externality developed from repeated painful or traumatic situations over which the individual has no control can produce "learned helplessness" or a "Why try?" attitude (Seligman, 1975). An understanding of each student's attributions and locus of control can assist in modifying effort-related study strategies and understanding self-esteem difficulties.

A valuable tool in assisting students to make accurate attribution determinations (Stage, 1996) and understand specific study or learning strengths and weaknesses is the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI). The lower self-ratings of underprepared students across many academic and affective areas point to the need for these students to understand these strengths and weaknesses. The LASSI, a diagnostic-prescriptive tool that provides a profile of a student's strengths and weaknesses in cognitive and affective domains, can be used to diagnose problem areas and improve academic performance. The LASSI provides a profile with ten important subscores: interest, self-discipline, concentration, time management, test anxiety, information processing, reasoning, study aids utilization, review skills, and test-taking skills (Weinstein, Palmer, & Schulte, 1987). Olejnik and Nist (1992) suggest that the LASSI measures critically important effort-related and goal-orientation activities, as well as cognitive activities. The LASSI's individualized diagnostic approach with attention to effort-related and goal-oriented activities offers more promise for underprepared students than more frequently employed shotgun or single-factor approaches to student learning problems.

Clearly an individualized diagnostic and prescriptive approach to understanding and educating underprepared students would be optimal, but a broader learner-centered approach is often more realistic. Learner-centered programs can meet individual student needs through carefully crafted educational experiences tailored to characteristics and needs of specific groups. A commitment to universal access means that open-door colleges cannot ask if the students are "college material"; they are tasked with ensuring that the colleges are "student material" (Gleazer, 1970).

Gardiner (1994. p. 105) suggests that a student's sojourn in higher education "often resembles not so much a carefully crafted educational experience tailored to each person's developmental needs as one of fruit bouncing erratically on a conveyor in a mass packing facility." He suggests that privileged students may survive the system, even learn a little, and then emerge with excellent grades. However, at-risk peers may find the system developmentally destructive. A combination of their uncertainty about the environment, self-doubt, inadequate academic skills, and unwillingness to express their needs can set them up for a frustrating and demoralizing path to failure that can last a lifetime (Gardiner, 1994).

Implications

Underprepared students offer a challenge to colleges in responding to diversity and special needs without relinquishing the commitment to high quality instruction. This research reports experiential and attitudinal differences for these underprepared students as well as significant differences in three-year academic success and persistence that indicates a need for dramatic program modifications. Additional research is needed to provide information about their longer term academic success because they frequently exhibit part-time and noncontinuous enrollment patterns.

Roueche and Roueche (1999) suggest that despite astounding annual expenditures on remedial education, little evidence is available about the success of current remedial programs. Current knowledge about underprepared students and their educational needs suggest that colleges must create a seamless system from individual courses and experiences by establishing partnerships, opening up channels of communication, and reducing obstacles from traditional departmental and administrative boundaries (ACPA, 1994; Schroeder & Hurst, 1996). Educators must plan, create, and sustain learning environments with the student learner as the focus (ACPA, 1994) so that remediation can be based on a developmental rather than a course-by-course perspective. Personal development must be a core, rather than a supplemental, component of academic programs for underprepared students.

References

Abraham, A.A. (1992). They came to college? A remedial/developmental profile of first-time freshmen in SREB States (No. 25). Atlanta: Southern Regional Education Board.

Adelman. C. (1996, October 4). The truth about remedial work: It's more complex than windy rhetoric and simple solutions suggest. Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A35.

American College Personnel Association (ACPA). (1994). The student learning imperative: Implications for student affairs. Washington, DC: Author.

Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V.S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press.

Boylan, H.R., Bonham, B.S., & Bliss, L.B. (1994). Characteristic components of developmental programs. Research in Developmental Education, 11(1), 1-4.

Chickering, A.W. (1990). The modern American college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Cohen, A.M., & Brawer, F.B. (1991). The American community college student (2nd ed.) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991.

Cross, K.P. (1974). Beyond the open door. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

El-Khawas, E., & Knopp, L. (1996). Campus trends 1996: Adjusting to new realities (Higher Education Panel Report, No. 86). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Florida State Board of Community Colleges. (1996). Florida Community College System accountability report 1994-1995. Tallahassee, FL: Author.

Gardiner, L.F. (1994). Redesigning higher education: Producing dramatic gains in student learning. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 23(7). Washington, DC: George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development.

Gleazer, E.J. (1970). The community college: Issues of the 1970s. Educational Record, 51, 47-52.

Grimes, S.K., & Antworth, T. (1996). Community college withdrawal decisions: Student characteristics and subsequent re-enrollment patterns. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 20(4),345-361.

House, J.D. (1992). The relationship between academic self-concept, achievement-related expectancies, and college, attrition. Journal of College Student Development, 33, 5-10.

Illinois State Board of Higher Education. (1997). The scope and effectiveness of remedial/developmental education in Illinois public universities and community colleges. Springfield, IL: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 411 008)

Jessor, R., Donovan, J.E., & Costa, F.M. (1991). Beyond adolescence: Problem behavior and young adult development. New York: Cambridge University Press.

King, P.M., & Baxter-Magolda, M.B. (1996). A developmental perspective on learning. Journal of College Student Development, 37(2), 163-169.

Lewis, L., Farris, E., & Greene, B. (1996). Remedial education at higher education institutions in fall 199.5. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.

London, H. (1980). In between: The community college teacher. Annals of the American Academic of Political and Social Science, 448.

Losak, J. (1986). What constitutes student success in the community college? Community College Journal for .Research and Planning, 5, 2.

McGrath, D., & Spear, M.B. (1991). The academic crisis of the community college. New York: State University of New York Press.

McKeachie, W.J., Pintrich, P.R., Lin, Y-G., Smith, D.A.F., & Sharm, R. (1990). Teaching and learning in the college classroom: A review of the research literature (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor, MI: Regents of the University of Michigan.

McMillan, J.H., & Forsyth, D.R. (1991). What theories of motivation say about why learners learn. In R. Menges and M.D. Svinicki (Eds.), College teaching: From theory to practice (pp. 39-52). New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 45. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Olejnik, S., & Nist, S.L. (1992). Identifying latent variables measured by the learning and study strategies inventory (LASSI). Journal of Experimental Education, 60(2), 151-159.

Pascarella, E.T., Whitt, E.J., Nora, A., Edison, M., Hagendorn, L.S., & Terenzini, P.T. (1996). What have we learned from the first year of the national study of student learning? Journal of College Student Development, 37(2), 182-192.

Pew Higher Education Research Program. (1990). Breaking the mold. Policy Perspectives, 2(2), 1.

Phillippe, K.A. (Ed.). (1995). National profile of community colleges: Trends and statistics 1995-1996. Washington, DC: Community College Press.

Pressley, M., & McCormick, C.B. (1995). Advanced educational psychology for educators, researchers, and policymakers. New York: Harper Collins.

Richardson, R., & Skinner, E. (1992). Helping first-generation minority students achieve degrees. In L. Zwerling & H. London (Eds.) First-generation students: Confronting the cultural issues. (pp. 29-43). New Directions for Community Colleges, No. 80. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rotter, J. (1966). Generalized expectations for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1-28.

Roueche, J.E., & Roueche, S.D. (1993). Between a rock and a hard place: The at-risk student in the open-door college. Washington, DC: Community College Press.

Roueche, J.E., & Roueche, S.D. (1999). Keeping the promise: Remedial education revisited. Community College Journal, 69(5), 12-18.

Seligman, M.E.P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.

Stage, F.K. (1996). Setting the context: Psychological theories of learning. Journal of College Student Development, 37(2), 227-235.

Schroeder, C.C., & Hurst, J.C. (1996). Designing learning environments that integrate curricular and co-curricular experiences. Journal of College Students Development, 37(2), 174-181.

Thombs, D.L. (1995). Problem behavior and academic achievement among first-semester college freshmen. Journal of College Student Development, 36(3), 280-288.

Tinto, V. (1975). Dropouts from higher education: Synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45, 89-125.

Weiner, B. (1980). Human motivation. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Weinstein, C.E., Palmer, D.R., & Schulte, A.C. (1987). The learning and study strategies inventory. Clearwater, FL: H & H Publishing Company.

Weissman, J., Silk, E., & Bulakowski, C. (1997). Assessing developmental education policies. Research in Higher Education, 38(2), 187-200.

Willette, L. H. (1989). Are two-year college students first generation college students? Community College Review, 17(2), 58-52.

Sue K. Grimes coordinates institutional research at Gulf Coast Community College in Panama City, Florida. ([e-mail])

Kelly C. David is a graduate student in counseling and psychology at Troy State University at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida.