DOCUMENT RESUME - ERIC · 2013-08-02 · DOCUMENT RESUME. HE 016 607. Keimig, Ruth Talbott Raising...

ED 233 669

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCYREPORT NOPUB DATECONTRACTNOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUBTYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

DOCUMENT RESUME

HE 016 607

Keimig, Ruth TalbottRaising Academic Standards: A Guide to LearningImprovement. ASHE-ERIC/Higher Education ResearchReport No. 4, 1983.Association for the Study of Higher Education.; ERICClearinghouse on Higher Education, Washington,D.C.National Inst. of Education (ED), Washington, DC.ISBN-0-913317-03-97783400-82-0011100p.Publications Department, Association for the Study ofHigher Education, One Dupont. Circle, Suite 630,Washington, DC 20036 ($6.50, nonmembers; $5.00,members).Information Analyses ERIC Information AnalysisProducts (071) -- Guides - Classroom Use Guides(For Teachers) (052)

MF01/PC04 Plus Postage.Academic Achievement; Academic Persistence; *AcademicStandards; *College Students; Decision Making;*Developmental Studies Programs; *EducationallyDisadvantaged; Educational Objectives; *EducationalPlanning; Educational Research; Grade Point Average;Higher Education; High Risk Students; IndividualizedInstruction; Program Evaluation; *Remedial Programs;Student Evaluation; Teacher Role; Teaching Methods

ABSTRACTLearning improvement programs for underprepared

postsecondary students are reviewed, and a Decision Guide forEffective Programs, which summarizes knbwledge needed for decisionmaking, is presented. Research data are analyzed to identify featuresof learning improvement programs associated with improved grade pointaverage and retention. Successful programs were found to have twobroad Characteristics in common: comprehensiveness in their supportservices, and institutionalization into the academic mainstream. TheDecision Guide for Effective Programs includes a hierarchy oflearning improvement programs that describes and ranks four types ofprograms: remedial courses, learning assistance to individualstudents, course-related learning services, and comprehensivelearning systems. Twenty-six critical variables for learningimprovement are presented in the Hierarchy of Decisions. The possiblechoices that educators can make for each variable are identified andranked for effectiveness to increase overall academic achievement.The 26 variables are grouped as decisions relating to goals andrationale, instructional methods and content, institutional policiesand standards, professional and paraprofessional staff and roles, andthe evaluation of learning improvement programs. A bibliography isappended. (SW)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.

Minor changes have been made to improvereproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in this docu-ment do not necessarily represent official NIEposition or policy.

Raising Academic Standards:A Guide to Learning Improvement

by Ruth Talbott Keimig

ASHE-ERIC1H,igher Education Research Report No. 4, 1983

Prepared by® Clearinghouse on Hider EducationThe George Washington UniversityERIC

Published by

Association for the Study of Higher Education.

Jonathan D. Fife,Series Editor

Cite as:Keimig, Ruth T. Raising Academic Standa;ds: A Guide to Learning Inprove-Ment: ASHE -ERIC Higher Education Research Report No. 4. Washington,D.C.: Association for the Study of Higher Education, 1983.

The ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education invites individuals tosubmit proposals for writing monographs for the Higher Education Re-search Report series. Proposals must include:I. A detailed manuscript proposal of not more than five pages.2. A 75-word summary to be used by several review committees for

the initial screening and rating of each proposal.3. A vita.4. A writing sample.

ISSN 0737-1292ISBN 0-913317-03-9

Clearinghouse on Higher EducationThe George Washington UniversityOne Dupont Circle. Suite 630Washington. D.C. 20036

Association for the Study of Higher EducationOne Dupont Circle. Suite 630Washington. D.C. 20036

LTAThis publication was prepared with funding from the National Instituteof Education. U.S. Department of Education, under contract no. 400-82- 0011. The opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect

the positions or policies of NIE or the Department.

CONTENTSExecutive Summary 1

Making Decisions in an Imperfect World 1

Using Research to Improve Learning and Retention 2The Decision Guide for Effective Programs 4Overall Thought for Piecemeal Action 6

Knowing What Works to Improve Learning 8Misleading Assumptions 9Using Research to Make Better Program Decisions 11

A Framework of Decisions That Affect Learning andRetention 13

Characteristics of Successful Programs 15

Chtracteristics of Less Successful Programs 16

Making the Transition from Existing to ImprovedPrograms 18

The Decision Guide for Effective Programs 20The Hierarchy of Learning Improvement Programs 20The Hierarchies of Possible Decisions 27The Hierarchy of Decisions Relating to Goals,Objectives, and Rationale 30

The Hierarchy of Decisions Relating to InstructionalMethods and Content 42

The Hierarchy of Decisions Relating to Policies andStandards 51

The Hierarchy of Decisions Relating to Professionaland Paraprofessionh! Staff and Roles

The Hierarchy of Decisions Relating to the Evaluationof Learning Improvement Programs 66

The Emerging Role for Learning ImprovementPrograms 76

Bibliography 77

ASHE-ERIC HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH REPORTSERIES

CONSULTING EDITORS

Robert H. AtwellVice President

American Council on Education

James L. BessProfessor of Higher EducationNew York University

Robert T. BlackburnActing Director. Center for the Study

Higher EducationUniversity of Michigan

Hunter R. BoylanDirector, Kellogg InstituteAppalachian State University

K. Patricia CrossHarvard University

Estelle A. FishbeinCicneral CouritelThe Johns Hopkins University

Donald R. GerthPresidentCalifornia State University at

Dominguez Hill

Fred HarcleroadProfessor of Higher EducationUniversity of Arizona

Richard B. HeydingerAssistant to the Vice President for

Academic AffairsUniverSity of Minnesota

Norman D. KurlandExecutive DirectorUniversity of the State of New YorkThe State Education Department

John LombardiConSultant

Richard LonsdaleProfessor of Educational AdministrationNew York University

Linda Kock LorimerAssociate Genera! Counsel

of Yale University

Virginia B. NordbyDirectorAffirmative Action ProgramsUniversity of Michigan

Eugene OliverDirector, University Office of School &

College RelationsUniversity of Illinois-Champaign

Harold OrlansLawyer

Marianne PhelpsAssistant Provost for Affirmative ActionThe George Washington University

Gary K. ProbstProfessor of ReadingPrince Georges Community College

Cliff SjogrenDirector of AdmissionsUniversity of Michigan

Al SmithAssistant Director of the Institute of Higher

Education & Professor of InstructionalLeadership & Support

University of Florida

FOREWORD

"For higher learning, the most precious asset is public confi-dence. Despite. constrained resources, higher education has,on the whole, managed to maintain the quality of its pro-grams. But there are signs that quality standards are beingjeopardized. Criticism is growing that many entering studentsare deficient in the academic skills necessary to successfulpursuit of higher education, along withthe subsequent sug-gestion that degrees no longer certify those who earn themare men and women of learning. These warning signs will beignored only at great peril.

For this reason the Commission selected for its primary at-tention the issue of enhancing academic quality." (1982.p.r.)

This statement in the foreword of the National Commission'sReport on Higher Education Issues entitled To Strengthen Qual-ity in Higher Education (Washington. D.C.: American Councilon Education) indicates the importance to higher education ofestablishing methods to raise or maintain their academic stan-dards.

One solution that has been offered is to change admissionstandardi'so only the brightest are allowed entrance. The ra-tionale is that if institutions admit students with acpclemic defi-ciencies, then the quality of education will be lowered and thegraduates will be a priori academically deficient. Not only is

o the assumption falsesince it presumes once deficient, alwaysdeficientit also ignores the historical mission of Americanhigher education to provide educational opportunity to the larg-est number possible.

This "solution" assumes that the only recourse for a collegeor university is to lower standards rather than improve studentperformance.

The movement to raise admission standards has two otherunacceptable results. First. it is indirectly racist, since a largemajority of students demonstrating academic deficiencesfrom minority groups. Second, it hinders the advancement ofstudents who, through no fault of their own, have received kininferior education.

Since the establishment of Harvard in 1636, higher educationhas consist ntly been faced with admitting students who neededadditionai help to meet academic standards. In the I800's, withthe absence of a uniform high school system, institutions estab-lished preparatory units to help students move successfully into

the regular academic program. Remedial or: developmental edu-cation programs have served the same role todity.

In this report by Ruth Talbott Keimig, formerly the Dean ofFreshman amt Chairman of the Learning Resources Division ofMarymount College of Virginia and now a consultant in thearea of adult education and training programs, these programsare reviewed. After carefully analyzing why many developmen-tal programs have appeared to fail, Dr. Keimig develops amodel that outlines the steps necessary to integrate learning im-provement practices into the regular academic process. Thegreater the integration of learning improvement practices, thegrunter the reinforcement and consequently the increased proba-bility of long term academic improvement.

Institutions can turn their backs neither on academic stan-dards nor on countless students who have been a product of in-ferior schooling. Aside from the purely economic and survivalreasons for many institutions to accept educationally disadvan-taged students, there is still a need to fulfill the historical mis-sion of U.S. higher education. The analysis in this report willgreatly assist' institutions in meeting their mission while stillraising their academic standards

Jonathan D. FifeDirector and Series EditorIv Pscr Clearinghouse on Higher EducationThe George Washington University

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Ideas have their season. and the time is right for the DecisionGuide for Effecti% Programs. lts de\ elopment has been antici-pated Lind intluen, by many people with whom I haveworked and studied.

From the George Washington l'niersio. School of kelucii-tion. I am indebted to Dr. Joseph A. Greenberg, for broadknowledge and experience enthusiastically shared; Dr. RuthPeterson. teacher, friend, and proi-essional colleague over theyears: Dr. Martha Burns. who made valuable suggestions aboutorganizing the data: Dr Walter N. Davis, also of Prince Wil-liam County (Virginia) Public Schools, for an extraordinarygrasp of the management and organization of instruction.

The contributions should he noted of mans individual faculkIn undergraduate institutions. faculty who have participatedwith me in learnin4 improvement and who have shared practi-cal insights that are undoubtedly reflected but impossible toidentify throughout the Decision Guide. I especially appreciatethe work of Elizabeth Messman, Coordinator of the LearningResource Center of the I'vlarym9unt College of Virginia, whosesuperb teaching anu counseling enlarge our perception of thepossible in education.

I am indebted also to Allen and Karen, for their thoughtfulediting, criticism, and encouragement of the dcelopingmanuscript.

A study group in the mathematics of chemistrywas just beginning. being led by one of our studentcounselors. who said. As you all know. 100percent means onethe whole thing. . . ."

'That is not common knowledge." interruptedan older student. with firmness and dignity. "Ijust learned it yesterday."

A Student Counselor ina College LearningAssistance Center.

Cun icular reform of significance requires ( I )overall thought but (2) piecemeal action. Overallthought tends to lead to attempts at overall action.but overall action tends to lead to overall resistance.Piecemeal action tends to follow piecemeal thought.Tile difficult task is to get-overall thought and thento have the patience and the persistence to carryout its conclusions one at a time. . . .

President Lowell ofHarvard University.quoted in Missions ofthe College Curriculum.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Making Decisions in an Imperfect WorldMost educators make decisions that directly affect students'learning and retention. Whether as faculty, administrator, pro -graEn manager, student services coordinator, or specialist, aneducator's daily decisions have cumulative effects, for good orbad, that may not be readily and immediately discerniblc. Yet achoice must be made, usually among alternatives that arepoorly defined, shadowed by uncertainties beyond zany one per-son's contra!, and constrained to a, lits-than-ideal set of possi-bilities.

So what's new? Haven't educational decisionsalways been difficult?The demographic depression and the-prevailing mood of de- ,

cline, diminished resources, and threatened retrenchment arenew, at least to this generation of faculty. So are the kinds ofstudents new to the many. institutions that have altered their ad-missions practices and curricula, as most institutions haye done(Cress 1981; Carnegie Council 1980). Suppose too many stu-dents just drop the course, or transfer, or choose a differentprogram with fewer and easier requirements? Compelled tochoose between academic quality and retention, given today'sunderprepared mix of students, many educators make compro-mising and regrettable decisions. Abuses of integritj, in theconduct of education are widespread (Carnegie Council 1979,1980; Levine 1980). Colleges and universities are maintainingenrollments by retaining whatever students they have, by re-cruiting more aggressively, by reducing admissions standards.and by allowing students to finesse their way around require-ments (Cross 1979; Manzo 1979).

Does it matter what students learn?_Students report cynicism about their academic "achievements"(Levine 1980, p. 66; Wellborn 1980). Faculty are not preparedto cope with the extreme diversity of students in their courses(Simmons et al. 1979; Cross 1976) and resent the circum-stances they are forced to endure in today's educational envi-ronment. The public is losing confidence in and conscquentlydiminishing support for higher education; that loss will rival theloss in prestige suffered by higher education during the 1960sera of student activism if integrity is not restored to the ecbtca-tional process (Carnegie Council 1980).

College andUniversitiesaremaintainingenrollmentsby retainingwhateverstudents theyhave.

Raising Academic Standards

Improving the quality of learning for admitted students isbasic to raising academie standards, becade no other way ex-ists for our current-students to susceea by academically honestcriteria in sufficient numbers to ensure the survival of our insti-tutions and our programs. The improvement of instruction isthe most urgent need in colleges and universities today (Carne-gie Council 1979, 1980; Carnegie Foundation 1977; Levine1980).

Do learning improvement programs make a differencein the achievement of postsecondary students?Learning improvement programs have been the mainstay ofhigher education's response to its changing and underpreparedstudent clientele. Whether designed to eradicate educational de-ficiencies (remedial) or to intervene with,an appropriate learn-ing experience at the time the need is recognized(developmental), since the 1960s the expected payoff fromthese programs has been increased grade point average (GPA)and retention. Remedialidevelopm ntal programs continue to beestablished in colleges and universi tes at a rate faster than anyother type of course Xfslagarrell 1).

Learning improvement programs;,however, have had mixedreviews in higher education (Richardson et al. 1981; Grant andHoeber 1278; Roueche and Snow 1977; ross 1976; Gordon1975). The ambiguity of published assn .-rts has its counter-point in equivocal attitudes among faculty, iro often regarddevelopmental teaching as a mystery ("What can you do:withthese students?"), a lifeline ("You must do sontrthingl.::), and'a failure ("He h#s had English 099 and kill can't answer*essay question.').

Using Research to Improve Learning and RetentionKnowing what really has worked to improve postsecondaryachievement has been made more difficult by certain commonbut fallacious research practicq. In manystudies, (1) dataabout GPA and retention are inappropriately used to assess theeffect of students' participation in a single remedial course;(2) quantitative outcomes from very, different kinds of programsare averaged and statistically manipulated to provide generalconclusions about the effectiveness of learning improvementprograms, as though the qualitative differences among the pro-grams and studies are unimportant; (3) the lack of a consistentframework of terminology about the goals, methods, structure,

12

and evaluation of learning improvement programs interfereswith comparing, understanding, and applying research results;and (4) important realities remain obscured and all effects aremistakenly attributed solely to whatever remedial/developmentalservice is being. evaluated because program evaluators usuallyexclude relevant institutional factors from the analyses ofcauses and effects.

Despite the limitation of some research studies, whatpractical knowledge can be obtained from the aerature?A productive focus for action-oriented research is the qualita-tive analysis of successful programs to identify those specificpractices the researchers have singled out as having positivelycontributed' to improved GPA and retention. Researchers whohave studied the effects on GPA and retention of many differ-ert learning improvement programs have much to say to theon-line educator about what works and what does not work toimprove learning in college. Unfortunately, this extensive andimportant body of knowledge, derived from over 20 years ofcollective experience with postsecondary learning improvement,is generally inaccessible to academic faculty, administrators,and other decision makers who are oriented primarily to theirown disciplines. Yet the findings and conclusions from thesestudies provide a base of practical, tested knowledge that couldguide faculty and planners to those practices that have a recordof having produced better learning.

In successful learning improvement programs,what characteristics are associated with increasedGPA and retention?Successful learning improvement programs are broadly de-scribed as having two dimensions: comprehensiveness and insti-tutionalization.

Individualized support services are provided with the flexibil-ity to meet a wide range of students' needs. Curricula are ad-justed in the planning of academic courses and.tutorialassistance, remediation, and ongoing social and psychologicalsupport provided.

In a successful program, the developmental concept is per-ceived as an institutional mission, and learning services are in-tegrated into the academic mainstream. The remedial/developmental program has departmental or divisional statusand maintains a close working relationship with the academicareas of the college or university.

Raising Academic Standards 3

13

- Less successful programs emphasize remedial courses andprecollege treatments, providing no systematic support servicesin academic courses. Operating as an appendage outside thecollege mainstream, less successful programs fail to effect thelong-term changes in the institution's and in students' behaviorthrough which lasting gains in GPA and persistence are made.

The Decision Guide for Effective ProgramsBased upon a qualitative analysis of proven successful prac-tices, the Decision Guide for Effective Programs summarizesthe knowledge that pragmatic educators need to make informeddecisions. The types and characteristics of postsecondary learn-ing improvement programs are classified and ranked for theireffectiveness in increasing GPA and retention. The analysis anddata provide a consistent, logical basis for comparing programson their essential elements and for selecting beneficial prac-tices, despite the distraction of local, superficial differences inlabeling or implementation.

What types of learning improvement programsare generally used?In the Hierarchy of Learning Improvement Programs, fourbasic program types are described and ranked, differentiated bythe extent to which they are comprehensive in response to thevarious needs of students and institutionalized into the aca-demic mainstream.

Most common and least effective rze the Level I, isolatedcourses in remedial skills. In ascending order (for impact onGPA and retention) are programs that combine certain addi-tional dements to the basic courses: Level II, learning assis-tance to individual students; Level III, course-relatedsupplementary learning activities for some objectives; andLevel IV, comprehensive learning systems in academic courses.

What program features and characteristicsare associated with improved GPA and retention?Twenty-six critical variables for learning improvement are pre-sented in the Hierarchy of Decisions. The possible choices thateducators can make for each variable are identified and rankedfor effectiveness to increase overall academic achievement.

For convenience, the 26 variables are grouped within the Hi-erarchy of Decisions, as decisions relating to goals and ratio-nale, instructional methods and content, institutional policies

4

14

and standards, professional and paraprofessional staff and roles,and the evaluation of learning improvement programs. The im-portance of some of the specific variables may be surprising,however, because they are typically not purposefully managed.PI5or decisions about unrecognized but important determinantsof achievement, therefore, often undercut an institution's effec-tiveness.

Variables such as the perception of the institution's responsi-bility, the local rationale for learning services, and the prevail-ing attitude toward nontraditional students may seem intangible.Yet they have profound effects on students' achievement andare highly responsive to leadership within a college oruniversity.

Variables such as the responsiveness to students, the devel-opment of prerequisite skills, and the course instructor's rolemay appear tradition-bound and resistant to change. Yet theyare readily evolved when remedial/developmental program re-sources are aligned with academic program resources to achievespecific, targeted goals.

The proper management of Variables such as the direction ofstudents into appropriate courses and services, the enforcementof competencies in academic courses, and the use of systematicprocedures for advisement restore greater control of educationalprocesses and outcomes to the faculty. The necessity to com-promise quality to maintain enrollment is thereby reduced.

Why is learning improvement inexorably bound toinstructional. change in today's postsecondary environment?As demonstrated in countless studies, the integration of learn-ing services into the ongoing academic life of the institution isclearly superior. Researchers and policy analysts have alsoreached a consensus for instructional change in colleges anduniversities. The consensus affirms that a level of learning ap-propriate for college disciplines is unattainable by most under-prepared students through traditionally delivered collegeinstruction, regardless of previous, isolated remedial experi-ences.

The potential of a particular decision to promote or inhibitchange in the institution's academic programs is therefore aninherent value for ranking possible choices about policies andprograms for improving learning. The involvement of other fac-ulty, administrators, and counselors profoundly affects both thecontent of the learning services offered as well as their success


15

by fostering not only remediation for prerequisite abilities butalso facilitative adaptations in the presentation of the academicmaterial. Gaps in background knowledge are bridged and inap-propriate behaviors of learners are overcome within the aca-demic setting so that genuine learning can occur.

This interaction among academic and developmental educa-tors is the fundamental dynamic in successful learning improve-ment programs, producing gains in GPA and retention thatcannot be delivered by remedial/developmental personnel work-ing alone in remedial settings. In most colleges and universitiestoday, an administration that constrains developmental educa-tors to isolated roles consigns to itself and to the academic fac-ulty the unpleasant tasks of negotiating precarious compromisesof program integrity amid today's relentless pressures for sur-vival.

Overall Thought for Piecemeal ActionFew educators enjoy the luxury of starting over or the freedomto single-handedly execute sweeping changes in existing pro-grams. Yet through their decisions; faculty and administratorscontrol enormous resources that can be coordinated t9 producegreater control of learning outcomes than is commonly per-ceived. Educators need to know what specific activities andchanges would be likely to improve learning, how to beginmaking the transition to more effective instruction, and how tofocus resources on high-priority objectives.

Educators who use the Decision Guide achieve greater con-trol of educational processes and outcomes through the use ofmore effective techniques of management, delivery, and evalu-ation. The use of the Decision Guide ensures the considerationof a full range of options and leads to the recognition of thepossibilities available in an institution through the integation ofexisting resources, which are typically fragmented and under-used. Planners of instruction and student services find withinthe Decision Guide the best methods for bringing students toacceptable standards of achievement. The use of the DecisionGuide fosters long-term planning, interdisciplinary innovation,and evolutionaty change to more effective programs even asshort-term constraints force an immediate continuation of lessdesirable alternatives.

"Overall thought tends to lead to attempts at overall action,but overall action tends to lead to overgll resistance. Piecemealaction tends to follow piecemeal thought," wrote Harvard

6

16

president Lowell in-1938. "The difficult task is to get overallthought and then to have the patience and the persistence tocarry out its conclusions one at a time . . . .( C a r n e g i e Founda-

tion 1977, p. 16). The Decision Guide for Effective Programs__provides research-based overall thought to guide the pragmatic

educator's piecemeal actions through which instructional pro-grams and change can be evolved.

Musing Academie Standards 7

1 "

KNOWING WHAT WORKS TOIMPROVE LEARNING

To be useful in the decisions of busy educators, research resultsmust be easily accessible, consistent, and relevant to their mostpressing, practical concerns. The research literature on learningimprovement programs, however, seems anything but practicaland coherent to-the-practitioner-who reads-an-occasional-study,hoping to find a logical basis for decisions about instructionand student services. It is difficult to know what findingswould be worthwhile in one's own situation because of theconfuking differences among programs and studies, the impre-cise i:ntl_nonstandard terminology, and the sometimes contra-dictery.,outcomes that seem so typical of the literature. Despitethe obvious importance of knowing how to improve students'academic performance, the vast amount of knowledge that has,been accrued from more than 20 years of collective experienceremains hidden and fragmented.

What is needed to make sense of this literature is a commonand consistent framework of definitions, values, and criteria.Such a framework would provide a consistent method of ana-lyzing students' learning needs and outcomes in their collegesas well as a basis for comparing the findings of various re-search studies (Richardson et al. 1981; Walvekar 1981).

Without such a framework for analyzing the data, the out-. comes of learning improvement programs seem inconsistent and

contradictory. Although many studies report positive effects ongrade point average, the reported gains are often slight. Bothnegative and inconclu3ive reports are common, and a definitiveassessment of the outcomes of learning improvement is not

considered possible at this time (Richardson et al. 1981;Roueche and Snow 1977; Sherman and Tinto 1975). Long-termeffects are rarely examined and are more likely to be equivocalthan short-term effects, which are more likely *to be positive(Trillin and Associates 1980).

What has gone wrong? Surely learning improvement pro-grams should make a noticeable difference in the overall col-lege performance of the students who are served. Increasingly,the value sought by most colleges when they establish remedial/developmental programs is improved learning and retention(Richardson et al. 1981; Maxwell 1979; Donnovan 1977;Fincher 1975; Pedrini and Pedrini 1970). The widespread useof inappropriate research designs for program evaluation, how-

ever, has tended both to depress the outcomes demonstrated

and to obscure the relative strengths and weaknesses of very

different programs and practices.

18

Misleading AssumptionsImplicit assumptions which limit the real learning payoff andthe demonstrability of positive outcomes -go unstated andunexamined in the design of many learning improvement pro -grams and -their evaluations. It is assumed that the "regular"academic program is a consistent criterion; that the "regular"program represents genuine, measurable learning; that the skillsbeing developed through remediation are useful or necessary inother courses; that one instructor (remedial) should be held ac-countable for failures that occur in other ("regular") courses;that students should, can, or will choose to change their behav-ior permanently as a result of taking one remedial course. Theevidence does not support these assumptions.

Assumption: A remedial course can havea measurable effect on GPAMany programs and studies are constructed in the belief that asingle variable, such as a characteristic of students (for exam-ple, reading ability or the participation in a precollege course),can be demonstrated statistically to influence GPA and re-tention.

The evidenceGPA and retention are complex outcomes with a large numberof contributing factors (Carney and Geis 1981). Because educa-tional variables tend to be interrelated, attempts to control orisolate them are usually unproductive (Donnovan 1977; Snaffle-beam 1971). No single factor universally and unambiguouslymakes a difference in learning (Grant and Hoeber 1978). It

-seems reasonable to conclude that, when GPA and retentionoutcomes are used, any study that is narrowly focused on a fewclosely related independent variablesas are so many studiesof remedial/developmental programscan demonstrate onlyslight effects.

Assumption: The distinctions betweenremediation and college level workare based upon true differencesThe prevailing myths of remediation (Maxwell 1979; Chaplin1977b) and of "college level work" foster.the attitude, "Theyshould have learned that in high school." As a consequence,remedial teaching tends to be isolated from the academic main-stream in special programs in which a separate remedial faculty

What isneeded tomake sense ofthis literatureis a commonand consistentframework ofdefinitions,values andcriteria.


work toward the elimination of students' "deficits." If, lateron, these students falter in the "real" academic world of ottic.1courses, the failures are cited as evidence of the ineffectivenessof the remedial pnigram.

The evidenceThroughout the history of higher education in the United Statesand even today, agreement has never been reached on whatconstitutes "college level" instruction. The Carnegie Founda- .don addressed this issue in a chapter entitled "Basic SkillsWhere Does College Begin?" (1977, chap. 11). The practiceof adapting college instruction to the neeis of its students hasbeen the norm and the tradition in this mem" (Maxwell 1979;Cross 1976). Because of the double standard in research,whose focus has.been'primarily remedial/developmental pro-grams, traditionlitnethods and courses of instruction tend tocontinue, unexamined for effectiveness and unresponsive towhatever student reeds are revealed in the evaluations of theremedial/developmental programs (Richardson et al. 1981;Donnovin I977)..

Assumption: GPA reflects learningGPA is assumed to be a Measure of how much students havelearned.

The evidenceA. strong tradition against evaluation, and resistance to it, existsin higher education; systematic analysis of_the teaching/learning--process and its outcome, student achievement, is seldom under-taken (Webb.1977). Once installed, programs tend to stay (Ball1977). When program are evaluated, they generally are poorlydone (Grant and Hod&r 1978; Sherman and Tinto 1975). In allbut a few institutions with competency-based programs, credithours completed is the significant statistic for determining suc-cess and the completion of requirements.

Assumption: Student assessment equals program evaluationMany practitioners consider student assessment sSmonymouswith program evaluation (Richardson et al. 1981; Grant andHoeber 1978). As a consequence, evaluators gather too muchmicroscopic data (about individual students and classes) and donot consider enough macroscopic data (about relevant but pos-sibly less easily quantified factors, such as the college, state,

10

and national aspects of the problem being investigated) (Stuff le-beam 1971).

The-evidowe--The knowledge that measurement can provide is limited. Thetraditional indices of change, such as opinion surveys, testscores, and GPA, offer insights but never illuminate enough(Donnovan 1977). The "soft" data are necessary and accept-able evidence in program evaluations. Soft data include evi-dence based on observation/testimony, clinical/case study,systematic expert judgment, and survey analysis, whereas"hard" data include standardized student assessment, correla-tional status, and controlled experimental evidence (Ball 1977;Maxwell 1979).

Using Research to Make Better Program DecisionsDespite the ambiguities of published assessments, expectationspersist that remedial/developmental programs can improve stu-dents' performance in the overall college program (Richardsonet al. 1981; Magarre 11 1981). The continued willingness of col-lege-administrators to invest in remedial/developmental pro-grams and the persistence of positive outcomes with regard to

,GPA and retention in some careful, published studies despitethe inadequacies, unknowns, and obstacles to good researchmay be testimony to the redemptive power of these programs inthe colleges they serve (Roueche and Snow 1977). On the other

---hand-,-the-persistence --orpOsitive statistics on GPA and retentionmay also reflect an institution's or curriculum's symbiotic adap-tation through grade inflation and lowered standards to the stu-dents it has, without whom there would be no program.College planners need to know what is occurring in their insti-tutions and need to effect positive control on the processes ofchange.

Decision makers need to know the answers to several ques-tions: Do certain kinds of learning improvement programs af-, feet the overall learning of students differently? Are thesedifferencesinasked in summaries of the conclusions- that com-bine-the results of very different kinds of programs? Which de-cisions within a college directly affect students' academicperfonnanc,eTFor the educator seeking to maximize the payoff(in academic perfnnance and persistence) from investment inremedial/developmental programs, what intermediate out-

Raising Academic Standards 11.

At`

comesfor the institution as well as its studentsshould besought?

Given today's environment for higher education and thewidely expressed mandate to improve postsecondary instruction(Cole 1982; Newton 1982; McCabe 19,81; Levine 1980; Carne-gie Council 1979, 1980; Carnegie Foundation 1977; Train andAssociates 1980; Cross 1976, 1979; Maxwell 1979; Rouecheand Snow 1977), the central issue becomes, What constitutesimproved instruction? Which "basic processes" within the in-stitution should be the subject of evaluation and possible reformwhen the goal is to improve students' retention and GPA?

"Better instruction" in today's educational environment, isthat which would enable contemporary students to learn andfaculty to cope with the prevailing realities in ways that do notdilute the academic content of their courses and programs. Fourspecific circumstances inhibit learning yet are contemporaryrealities that educators must accommodate: a decline in basicskills, a shift in power, a willingness to cheat, and an intensecompetition for students.

Many and in some institutions most entering-college studentsdo not comprehend, write; compute, think analytically, or solveproblems adequately for college study (Watkins 1981; Roueche1981-82; Levine 1980, p. 72; Maxwell 1979; 'Newsweek1975). The decline in basic skills affects all levels of abilityand socioeconomic classes of students and cannot be attributedsolely to shifts in the population of students entering college(Carnegie Foundation 1977, pp. 212-13). However, populationshifts also are reflected in the changing nature of students(Cross' 1981; Carnegie Council 1980).

In these economic hard times, faculty and institutions havelost power in relationship to students (Levine 1980). Even themost fundamental policies that every course instructor expectsto controlgrading practices, the acceptable quality and num-ber of assignments, rules for attendancetend to become nego-tiable currencies in daily confrontations between students andinstructors (Cross 1979; Carnegie Foundation 1977; Manzo1979). And on the average, students tend to win (Ashdown1979).

Motivated largely by the desire to be able to get a job ratherthan by a quest for knowledge or by humanistic goals, manystudents cheat to get the grades they needin all kinds of in-stitutions, including the most prestigious and selective (Levine1980, p. 66; Wellborn 1980, p. 39).

12

In the coming two decades, the proportion of students whoare most diverse will increase, including students who are fe-male, black, Hispanic, part-time, foreiip, and concurrently en-rolled in high school (Cross 1979, 1981; Carnegie Council1980; Mayhew 1979). Institutions will compete harder to re-cruit, satisfy, and retain students, 40 percent of whom nowdrop out, boredom being cited most often as the reason forleaving (Carnegie Council 1980, p. 53).

Countless faculty-student-administrator transactions comprisethe daily business of education, through which our changed stu-dents and circumstances are being accommodated. These dailytransactions are the "basic processes" that must be understoodand better managed to improve learning in today's highereducation.

A Framework of Decisions That AffectLearning and RetentionContext evaluation is the most basic type of evaluation, be-cause it is concerned with providing a logical rationale forchoosing educational objectives. Concerned with the total rele-vant environment, context evaluation describes the contrast be-tween " . . . desired and actual conditions . . ," identifies" . . . unmet needs and unused opportunities." diagnoses "theproblems that prevent needs from being met and opportunitiesf r o m being used . . . ." and provides an " . . . essential basisfor developing objectives whose achievement results in programimprovement" (Stufflebeam 1971, p. 218). Evaluations shouldaccount for a variety, not just a few, of student input variables,-institutional variables, program variables, and outcomes(Roneche and Snow 1977, pp. 104-11).

Which aspects of the institutional context are relevant andimportant for improving learning and retention? Applying Stuf-flebeam's concept to the jirogram planner's effort to increasestudents' success, the boundaries of the system being evaluatedmust include policies and practices in the "regular" program aswell as practices of the remedial/developmental program. In theevaluation of a remediaUdevelopmental program, the concurrentanalysis of,relevant features in the overall instructional pro-grams and policies for freshmen would develop a basis forchange within the total experience for freshmen. Better deci-sions about institutional and "regular" courses and about fea-tures of developmental programs would be likely to follow suchan analysis.


23

The recurring daily decisions that educators make about in-struction, programs, services, and policies comprise the contextfor learning in a college or university. Could a framework ofthese daily decisions be used to analyze institutional data and toclarify future possibilities and the desirable intermediate stepsfor improving learning? What are the critical decisions that af-fect how much students learn in today's colleges and univer-sities?

Changing circumstances for higher education have produceda different institutional context and role for learning improve-ment programs. Old assumptions and methods are inadequate.New values and criteria are implicit in this changing context,and they call for new definitions of success for remedial/devel-opmental programs.

How are the resources of learning improvement programsmost effectively used within a college to improve students'overall learning and retention? Does research evidence supportthe continued use of separate skills courses to teach generic,basic skills that students can then transfer to other courses?Does evidence encourage the use of developmental programmodels that integrate developmental resources and activitiesinto the regular academic courses?

Many research studies of the 1960s and 1970s were morebroadly conceived and more comprehensive than the earlier andsmaller studies had been. The comprehensive studies of thosedecades were better financed as well, because they were moreoften a central concern of college administrators themselves andwere often undertaken to fulfill federal or state requirements(see Donnovan 1977; New York State Education Department1977). The findings from such studies provide a vast store ofpractical information that is obscured by too much attention toterminal outcomes alone.

The focus in'this analysis of the data is to identify programfeatures that were associated with improved GPA and retentionand Menlo determine what, if any, patterns emerge. The avail-ability-of -many diverse and comprehensive studies has made thisanalysivpossible, because the studies provide a considerable baseof qualitative information about many different aspects of col-leges' instructional practices, information that was excluded fromearlier studies and is often overlooked in analyses that consideronly outcomes related to GPA.

14

Characteristics of Successful ProgramsWhen the success of remedial/developmental programs is mea-sured by indicators of overall academic performance and persis-tence, the successful programs, despite many other differences,have certain characteristics in common. Although conclusiveevidence is not available, successful programs have two broadcharacteristics in common: (I) comprehensiveness ;n their sup-port services and (2) institutionalization of the developmentalprograms and goals into the academic mainstream.

Successful remedial/developmental programs offer compre-hensive support services and have the flexibility tc, meet a widevariety of individual students' needs and to personalize the aca-demic experience (Barshis 1979; Maxwell 1979: Donnovan1977; Roueche and Snow 1977; New York State Education De-partment 1977, 1980; Cross 1976; Rossman, Astin, et al. 1975;Baehr 1969; Bridge 1 970: Christensin 1971; Losak and Burns1971; Smith 1972: Gordon 1975). Curricula are adjusted in theplanning of academic courses, and tutorial support, remediationwhere necessary, and ongoing counseling and social and psy-chological support are provided (Renner 1979: Ludwig 1977;Jason et al. 1976; Gordon 1975; New York State EducationDepartment 1977, 1980: Davis et al. 1973; Mc Dill et al. 1969).

The individual is emphasized in a positive, person-centered en-vironment that fosters self-concept (Barshis 1979; Roueche andSnow 1977: Donnovan 1977). Successful programs employ a de-velopmental philosophy of instruction (Walvekar 1981, p. 21).

Successful programs are integrated into the academic andsocial mainstream, avoiding the punitive, low-status overtonesand the you cure them" mentality connoted by isolationwithin a separate remedial component (Maxwell 1979: Gordonand Wilkerson 1966: Donnovan 1977: Obler et al. 1977: Grantand Hoeber 1978; Fincher 1975; Sherman and Tinto 1975). Ina_successful program, the developmental program is institution-alized into the college and given the status of division or de-partment (Grant and Hoeber 1978: Roueche and Snow 1977).

The college administration thus demonstrates commitment todevelopmental goals and creates a highly visible testing groundfor innovative efforts. The learning improvement programmaintains a close working relationship with academic areas, a

factor associated with success in four-year colleges (New. YorkState Education Department 1980: Roueche and Snow 1977).In this way, all college support services can be coordinated.Comprehensive course designs that integrate tha development

. . . success-ful programshave twobroad charac-teristics incommon: (1)comprehen-siveness intheir supportservices and(2) institu-tionalization. . . into theacademicmainstream.


of basic skills ino, regular course content are associated with

su,,:ess (Renner 1979;. Ludwig 1977; Carter 1970; Shaughnessy1477; Bergman 1977; Fishman and Dugan 1976; Schiavone '

1477).The specific features of learning improvement programs

(suc'a as clearly articulated goal statements and systematic in-struction) that various colleo,f,-, use to achievecomprehens'ive.student support and an instuotionalized developmental pldoso-.phy of instruction are clearly'very important. (The complete listof research-validated features is discussed in the following sec-

tions.) The composite result of whatever specific program fea-

tures have been deployed, however, is an instructional programthat meets a greater or a lesser number of students' needs and adevelopmental concept that is more` or less ipstitutionalized intothe academic mainstream. It is these two dimensions, howeverthey have been achieved, that make the difference in how muchstudents learn. Colleges that meet a greater number of students'individual learning needs and integrate the developmental con-

cept and practices into their overaA academic program obtain

better learning and retention outcomes for their students.

Characteristics of Less Successful ProgramsJust as successful programs share certain characteristics, lesseffective programs, which fail to improve overall learning andpersistence, have certain characteristics in common. an empha-

sis on remedial courses, a lack of systematic support services,

and a lack of institutionalization.Isolated remedial courses did not make a difference in stu-

dents' overall success or retention and were the least effective

of all remedial efforts (Berg and Axtell /968; Klingelhofer andHollander 1973; Bynum et al. 1972; Grant and Hoeber 1978).

Traditional remedial courses seem "relatively ineffective" but

are suitable for targeted remediation based on specific identifiedneeds (Roueche and Snow 1977; Gordon 1975). Most students

resent remedial courses; they perceive them as a rehash of ear-

her schoolirg and a delay Tor their other study (Fincher 1975).More of the same cannot and will not succeed (Shaughnessy

1977; Grant and Hoeber 1978). -

The impressive gains often recorded in remedial courses do

not seem to hold up past the semester including the course

(Trillin and Associates 1980). Success in remedial course work

does not readily transfer to traditional academic disciplines.

Away from the remediatinstructor's influence and back in the

16

26

traditional academic environment, students revert to their oldhabits. Most attempts to change human behavior are suspectwhen subjected to rigorous analysis and evaluation (Fincher1975).

For disadvantaged students, the hours of tutoring and coun-seling intervention are positively correlated with GPA (Breh-man and McGowar 1976). When systematic support servicesare not available, students receive less tutoring and counseling.Learning improvement programs in which systematic supportservices are not used tend not to irnprovestudents' overall aca-demic performance (Gordon i975).

Remedial/developrnental programs outside the academicmainstream are ineffective. They lack clear goals or have goalsinccinpatible with the institution's goals, "in essence :: .

neglecting to address the issue of systematically changing thestructure-df the institution" (Sherman and Tinto 1976, p. 15).Unsuccessful programs operate as appendages, without a theo-retical base, separate from the institution (Gordon 1975;FinCher 1975).

Remedial/developmental programs are failing because theyhave not yet foundthe_right solutions to the problems involved(Further 1975; Gordon and Wilkerson 1966). Practitioners in.the field do not agree .as to how, When, and where develop-mental efforts should be organized. The most common ap-proaches to learning improvement programs are precollegesummer programs; concurrent first semester programs, and"vestibule" or "holding" colleges where deficiencies must becorrected (Grant and Hoeber 1978, p. 19). These courses andprograms are usually designed to prepare students for the in-flexible, traditional curriculum. Institutions refuse to see themas an indication that the institution's entire curriculum mayneed revision (Newton 1982; Grant and Hoeber 1978).

Lacking an institutionwide developmental purpose and ratio-nale, learning improvement programs fail to effect the long-term changes in the institution's responses and in students' be-havior through which long-term gains in academic learning andpersistence are made. The evaluation of students' achievementsin less successful programs, focused narrowly on the practicesof the isolated developmental program, does not develop theproblem-solving dialogue with other program managers andfacuity,through which the institution's procedures might bechanged, nor does it develop an institutional information baseand theory of successful practice.


27

Making the Transition from Existing to Improved ProgramsFor students in college today, the Carnegie Council (1980) rec-ommends (among others):

. . . education that teaches the skills of reading, writing,arithmetic, speaking, problem solving, "crap detecting" (inidentifying the drive!, exaggerations, and untruths that wehear and read each day). . . . These skills are critical for ageneration raised on the media, weak in the threeR's . . . (Levine 1980, p. 131).

The education thus described is not conceptualized as one in

which basic and cognitive skill:: are assumed to have been de-veloped before college; rather, they are developed within it andthrough it. Students' needs are thought of, not as,individual de-

ficiencies, but as acculturated chiracteristics developed in re-sponse to unfortunate and damaging circumstances of society.(See Levine 1980, chaps. 6 and 7, for an insightful discussionof contemporary society and its impact on young people.)

A basic principle in the design of instruction is to begin at alevel consonant with students' backgrounds of already acquiredprerequisite knowledge and skills. The affirmation of this prin-

ciple in the proposals of recent policy commissions for highereducation and in the research on learning improvement hasenormous implications for the design of both academic andlearning improvement programs for today's underprepared col-

lege population.Yet existing programs, policies, and staffing cannot be dis-

carded or reformed by decree. We must understand what deci-sions foster gradual change in regular college programs, howconsensus for these changes can be achieved among an inde-pendent and traditional faculty who are oriented primarily totheir own disciplines and who may not be informed about themethods or the urgency to improve learning, and what specificchanges and activities have been demonstrated to promotelearning. The Decision Guide for Effective Programs is a toolfor the practitioner, an aid that provides accurate informationaboul what works to improve learning and the most practicalfirst steps toward achieving better instruction.

Possibilities, are as important in the Decision Guide as thehistorical record of what has worked to improve learning. Thecomprehensive set of possible choices within each type of deci-

18

sion provides not only the ideal choice but also the effectiveintermediate and increwental choices that can be made untilconsensus for greater change is achieved. The annotated re-search findings that justify the ranking of choices provide aquick summary of the data as well, as the reference where moredetailed information can be obtained if it is desired. A veryproductive use of the Decision Guide is as a model for the col-lection and interpretation of in-house data, which can then beused to increase awareness of the need for learning improve-ment and co develop an institutional rationale and experientialbasis for change.

Raising Academie Standards 19

29

THE DECISION GUIDE FOR EFFECTIVE PROGRAMS-

Two inseparable values underlie the ranking of programs and

possible decisions within the'Decision Guide for Effective Pro-

grams: their demonstrated potential for improving learning in

the overall academic program and their potential for bringingabout gradual change toward the use of more responsive meth-

ods in academic courses. These rankings reflect the analyses

and conclusions of countless diverse research studies in which

GPA was a measured outcome. They also reflect the emerging

consensus that traditional postsecondary instruction must

change to promote genuine learning in today's higher education

environment (Cole 1982; Newton 1982; McCabe 1981; Levine

1980; Carnegie Council 1979, 1980; Carnegie Foundation

1977; Trillin and Associates 1980; Cross 1976, 1979; Maxwell

1979: Roueche and Snow 1977).The interdependence of these two values--improved learning

and changed instruction is the central message of the research

literature. How to obtain these values in a college or university

is the central message of the Decision Guide for Effective Pro-

grams. The Decision Guide is a plan for our timea timewhen learning improvement is an urgent necessity, a time when

improvements must come from the more effective use of exist-

ing resources rather than from major new initiatives.

The Hierarchy of Learning Improvement ProgramsThe organizational structure of the learning improvement pro-

gram extends or limits its effect on achievement and retention

more than any other single characteristic of the program. Themechanisms that operate to make this statement true and the

four commonly used types of programs are described in Figure

I. The four types of programs are differentiated by the extent

to hich they provide comprehensive support services to meet

a b oad spectrum of students' personal learning needs and are

inst tutionalized into the academic mainstream of the college or

uni ersity. Within the Hierarchy of Learning Improvement Pro-

grams. the higher level programs include each of the lower

level program structures plus additional features that achieve

greater (1) comprehensiveness and (2) institutionalization.

Level I programs: Remedial coursesSeparate remedial, basic skills courses are historically the most

v.idely usectstructure for learning improvement programs. This

program structure is based on two assumptions: (I) The student

has W deficit (such as a lack of writing ability or a bad attitude)

20 a u

Figure 1The Hierarchy of Learning Improvement Programs

High potential for improvedlearning and instructional change

IVComprehensive/ learning systems

Course-relatedlearning services

11

Learning assistancefor individual students

1

Remedial courses

Low

that interferes with college learning; when the deficit is over-come (in the remedial course), the student will succeed;(2) Skills such as critical thinking, reading, problem solving,and quantitative reasoning can be developed as generic skMs inseparate courses; students will then transfer these new skills toother applications in other courses.

Neithcr of these assumptions is supported by the research lit-erature for the students who need remediation in college. It isincreasingly recognized that generalized approaches to remedialand tutorial assistance are less likely to be effective than thosetargeted at specific aspects of learning within the academiccourses in which the need for the knowledge or skill becomesapparent (Gordon 1975).

--Separate remedial, basic skills courses are at the lowest levelin the Hierarchy because they are the least likely to effect long-term academic achievement and persistence and because theytend not to foster the shared problem solving (with other fac-

Raising Academic Standards21

ulty and counselors) that leads to providing improved and more

responsive learning environments in the regular academic

program.

Level II programs: Learning assistance for individual studentsLearning assistance for individual students is based upon theassumptions that (1) the student has the problem and therefore

must seek the solution; (2) students can overcome deficienciesthrough independent study and tutorial assistance; (3) personal

attention helps to counter low self-esteem and poor study habits

and will enable students to overcome academic failure. Learn-

ing as,istance centers and various tutoria: services came into

widespread use in the 1960s and 1970s. Students who sought

extra help could obtain it through a center; some tutorial pro-

grams assigned high-risk students to peer counselors.Learning assistance for individual students offers many advan-

tages over isolated remedial courses. The advantage to students is

that they receive help directly with,their academic course work, in

informal situations that provide ongoing social and psychological

support as well as instruction. Course instructors may refer stu-

dents for assistance and may seek out developmental instructors to

discuss the learning problems of their students. When these con-

tacts occur, developmental progam personnel have the opportu-

nity to obtain firsthand knowledge and insight into institutional

practices and problems, knowledge that can then be used to build

support for more effective services. .

Learning assistance for indh idual students comprises Level

H of the Hierarchy of Learning Improvement Programs be-

cause, when established in addition to instruction in basic

skills, the likelihood increases that some students' atypical

needs will be met and their learning improved. Assistance to

students with their academic course work is an important com-

ponent of college learning improvement programs, because it

can be a developmental planner's first step out of the narrow

confines of a separate program toward more comprehensive and

better coordinated services and the academic instructor's first

step toward creating a more responsive classroom environment.

Learning assistance to individuals'is not effective as a total

program, however. Tutorial assistance to individuals, when it is

the only service, is the least successful for students' overallsuccess because it fails to address students' very real weak-

nesses in knowledge and skills (Cross 1976). Such informal or"walk-in" learning assistance has several major disadvantages:

22

32.

(1) it is not systematic: (2) it tends to be used too little. topp

late: (3) it happens after a failure has occurred rather than ear-lier to prevent the failure (Grant and Hoeber 1978): and (4) itusually is avoided by the students who need it most.

Level II! programs: Course-related learning servicesSystematic coordination of developmental objectives and activi-ties into academic course assignments distinguishes the LevelIII programs from the lower level programs. Ali the studentswithin a given class or course have the opportunity to partici-pate in the supplementary activities.

The assumption in Level III programs is that the collegemust provide whatever extra instruction is necessary to bridgethe gap betWeen students' skills and knowledge at entry andthose required to master the course material. The principles ofmastery learning may also be the underlying'philosophy behindsupplementary instructional opportunities' o ensure that appro-priate learning occurs. Students' learning needs are presented asbeing necessary because of the natu& of the objectives andcontent of the course rather than because of students' deficien-cies. Therefore. all students have access to supplementary, pos--,sibly innovative, instructional experiences, which benefitnonremedial students as well (Gordon 1975).

In a Level III program, adjunct learning experiences for re-view, reinforeement. and/or reteaching of selected requisite top-ics are integrated into the ongoing requirements for the course.Through a variety of assignments, including media. tutorial,and small-group learning experiences, students receive addi-tional directed instructional time with important course content.They may have to demonstrate competency as well. Masterylearning technology, in which students practice and restudy un-til they demonstrate mastery, is particularly suited to Level IIIriuxIel programs. It is the most effective of the single develop-mental components for achieving academic success for the un-derprepared student (Cross 1976).

The trend in colleges is to replace traditional reading andstudy skills programs with learning centers. The learning centerhas three functions: service to students, training of teachers,and research and program development (Maxwell 1975). Thefeature that distinguishes Level III from Level 11 learning cen-ters is the link of services to specific academic courses in LevelHI. Through this link, faculty receive help both for studentswith needs that faculty are ill-equipped to handle and with the

Systematiccoordinationofdevelopmentalobjectives andactivities intoacademiccourseassignmentdistinguishesthe Level IIIprogramsfrom thelowerprograms.

.41 mimic .Claiuhmit

3313

extremes of diversity that have increased the instructor's work-

load (Cross 1976).Lower level components have important roles in Level III

programs. Lower level "walk-in" learning assistance leads toproblem-solving interaction among students, academic faculty,

and developmental personnel for learning objectives presentlyoutside the course-related service. The learning assistance cen-

ter thus becomes a laboratory for experimenting with more suc-cessful instruction (Manzo 1979) and a proving ground forinnovations that can lead to more systematic and effective

higher level services.In a coordinated learning services program, the basic skills

courses are designed to develop specific skills for a relativelysmaller population of students, who are assigned to the courses

on the basis of diagnostic placement tests. Skills courses areappropriate for the student whose needs are too pervasive to be

met entirely in the course-related supplementary support com-ponents of the program. For example, students who need to re-learn many operations in arithmetic should take the basiccourse, whereas students who need to review only percents cando so through learning experiences that are a part of the sylla-bus of a chemistry, nursing, or accounting course.

Level IV programs: Comprehensive learning systemsDifferent both in scope and precept from lower level programs,comprehensive learning system!: provide for the total learning

needs of all students through more sophisticated and complex

methods than the reinforcement technology applied in Level IIIprograms. Learning processes for the course or curriculum arepurposefully designed with students' particular needs and atti-

tudes in mind. The instructor does_ not merely dump informa-tion on an unknown student audience. Rather, the instructor

uses a variety of resources and techniques to maximize stu-dents' involvement with the course and their commitment to

learn.In Level IV programs, the assumption is that the total educa-

tional experience within the course should be systematically de-signed according to the principles of learning theory. TheStudent's overall developmental needs are provided for, includ-.

ing interpersonal and affective needs and cognitive and requi-site skills. The .instructor monitors students' responses(including learning) and adjusts teaching strategies and learning

experiences individually.

24

34

The design of such instruction embodies several importantconcepts. Colleges can be educationally effective only if theyreach students where they are, only if learning is made relevantto students' central concerns, and only if the three personalcompetencies (intellectual competence, physical-manual skills,and interpersonal competence) are developed as part of a whole(Chickering 1969). Time, rather than achievement, should bethe variable in education. Students differ in the amount of timeneeded for learning; by increasing time spent on a task, stu-dents can learn a given content to specified criteria (Grant et al.1979)

Developmental theorists such as Bruner, Erikson, and Piagetproposed hierarchical, cross-cultural, predetermined sequencesin the growth or maturation of abilities. A "critical period" isthe time when an individual is most ready for a "task-relevantexperience" to help facilitate his or her development. "Inter-vention" with the appropriate lemming experience at the criticaltime promotes maximal learning (Roueche-and Snow 1977, p.13). Other significant teaching methodologies include cognitivebehavior modification (Killian 1980; Sadler and Whimbey1979), inquiry teaching, problem solving (Whimbey and Lock-head 1981; Ozer 1980), Piagetian learning cycles (Killian1980), and leading in the content areas.

A comprehensive, instructional system is synthesized out ofconventional instructional practices and developmental learningtheory, guided by the practical experience of what works bestfor given students in a particular course. A comprehensive sys-tem includes whatever content, personal growth, and learningactivities students need to accomplish the objectives of acourse, merged into a coherent and unified instructional pro-gram using personalized course and instructional support activi-ties (Newton 1982, p. 42).

Comprehensive programs represent the highest level in theHierarchy of Learning Improvement Programs because they aremost likely to improve students' learning and to effect changein academic instruction. Comprehensive systems are bestevolved out of the experiences derived from lower level pro-grams for three reasons: (I) the lower level support componentsmust be in place to provide auxiliary learning experiences forthe courses; (2) the experience that developmental and regularinstructors obtain in implementing lower level services providesplanneis with the knowledge and confidence they need to estab-lish comprehensive systems; (3) continued, quiet, incremental


change is more likely to occur and be accepted than massiverefonns undertaken all at once (Levine 1978, p. 420).

Relatively few Level IV programs, compared to the numberof remedial course programs, are described in the research liter-ature. Early holistic attempts involved team teaching to achievethe fusion of instruction in reading/study skills into history/social studies courses and an engineering physics course (Dia-mond 1976; Shaw 1960). A recent structure is the back-to-backreading/content course, sometimes called t'piggybacking." Allstudents in an academic course are enrolled in the parallel read-ing course, in which text and course materials are used to de-velop mature reading abilities (Moran 1980; Bergman 1977).

"Block programs" at the Community College of AlleghenyCounty (Pennsylvania) are multidisciplinary courses incorporat-ing reasoning, reading, writing, speaking, or mathematics in-struction into an academic course such as social studies, whichmeets for expanded hours of time (Holmberg et al. 1979).

The Loop College (Chicago) program is a holistic system ofblock courses and a full range of support services for individ-ualizing instruction.; including peer tutoring and audiovisual in-struction (Barshis 1979).

At the University of New Mexico, freshmen below certainlevels are placed in social studies or natural sciences courses oftheir choice designed primarily to raise students' ability to read,analyze, and evaluate the materials of the discipline. In thesecourses, the goal of developing generic cognitive skills is con-sidered more important than learning content (Minnick and Tei-telbaum 1980). An individualized social studies instructionalprogram at Cuyahoga Community College (Ohio) has been suc-cessful in raising students' cognitive levels of operation in pro-cessing the content of the course (Ludwig 1977).

At Southern Illinois University, as part of the AccelerationProgram in Science and Technology for disadvantaged stgdents,the quasi-modular approach (QMA) is used for the teaching ofremedial and precalculus mathematics. QMA is a comprehen-sive learning system that coordinates counseling and tutoring,with conventional lectures tha! have workshops built in. Theearly courses in the acceleration program comprise an alterna-,_tive educational system founded on cognitive and affective sup-port systems (Jason et al. 1976).

In practice, the distinction between Level Ill and Level IVprograms blurs somewhat, because real prgrarns often containa miXture of elements from both lever. The ,Loop College pro-\

26

3 6

gram, for example, is totally a Level IV program, able to re-spond to the whole gamut of inner-city students' needs thougha highly personalized system of support. QMA is also fullycomprehensive for students' cognitive and emotional develop-mental needs; however, it is targeted only at mathematics.Other programs, such as those at the University of New Mex-ico and Cuyahoga Community College, apply learning theoryand systematic course designs to achieve students' languageand cognitive developmental needs (thereby qualifying as LevelIV programs) but foster students' affective development onlyincidentally through procedures that may be more characteristicof Level II or Level III programs. The distinction betweenLevel III and Level IV programs is important, however, be-cause it provides a meaningful basis for classifying and corn-paling programs and for designing improved proi,,am elements.

The Hierarchies of Possible DecisionsWithin an existing learning improvement program, whatever itsstructure, instructors and managers make many important deci-sions that will affect program outcomes. The' possible decisionsthat can be made represent the options that managers can use todesign services, procedures, policies, and other features of theprogram. However, these options may not exist in the institu-tion and therefore may have to be created (Stufflebeam 1971),or less desirable decisions, already operationalized, may haveto be changed. Decision makers need to know what vari-ables in a learning improvement program are associated withimproved academic achievement and what presently existingprogram features should be analyzed for effectiveness and pos-sible modification.

Importast program featuresCertain variables (features) of !earning improvement programsOccur frequently in research studies and are repeatedly cited asbeing of central importance in determining the learning out-comes described in the studies. Although these variables aregrouped for convenience around the usual categories of deci-sions that are made for any programthe goals and rationale.the methods and content, the policies and standards, the staffand roles, the evaluation processmany of the variables areneither widely recognized nor typically used to full advantage.

Figure 2 lists the variables that researchers have identified asbeing associated with improving learning. Decisions must be


31

Figure 2Critical Variables for Learning Improvement Programs

Goals, Objectives, and Rationale for InstructionI. Developmental program goals2. Perceptions of institutional responsibility3. Methods for choosing instructional objectives4. Rationale for teaming services I5. Compatibility of devqlopmental gals with regular

program and institutional goals6. Attitude toward nontraditional students7. Structure of the developmental program

Instructional Methods and Content8. Methods of ir_struction9. Responsiveness to students

10. Development of cognitive and basic skillsI I. Affective development of students12. Control for learners success

Institutional Policies and Standards13. Directing students into appropriate courses and programs14. Definition of competencies in academic courses15. Credit earned for remedial ,developmental study16. Systematic procedures for advisement17. Organization of the developmental prograin within the

collegei8. Institutionalization of developmental services

Professional and Paraprofessional Staff and Roles19. Regular course instructor's role20. Developmental program staff-and-role21. Counseling staff and role22. Faculty and staff development

Evaluation of Learning Improvement Programs23. Institutional context 4nd outcomes24. Student outcomes25. Academic standards and the grade point average26. Ongoing evaluation

3

made about each of them. Therefore, these variables comprisea comprehensive list of the critical factors in the design of aremedial/developmental program. Decisions about these featuresdistinguish various programs, are likely to affect their suc-cess, and therefore will be most productive as starting points forthe analysis and redesign of a particular instructional program.

Ranking the possible optionsIn the Hierarchies of Possible Decisions, the decisions that canbe made about each program variable are summarized andranked according to their probability of effecting positivechange in students' overall achievement and instruction withinthe college. In the aggregate, these decisions comprise a corn-

' prehensive list of the options from which educators can selectthe most facilitative combination of program features for a par-ticular situation.

The four levets of alternative decisions for each variable pro-vide gene parameters rather than specifically defined alterna-tives for t e choices available. Level IV decisions rank 'high onthe Hie hies because they enhance long-term overall learningand becp se they facilitate evolutionary instructional change;Level I" tematives rank low because they are least likely toobtain itive overall. effects. The levels in between suggestincreasi gly desirable alternatives, as measured against the val-ues of ater learning and change being sought from learningimprov rpent programs today. The levels are intended to sug-gest a ontinuum of possible variation on the dimension

. being onsidered for decision rather than fixed, precisely de-imits.

The most comprehensive, institutionalized, ideal alternativefor ea h decision would of course be the Level IV decision.

,Howe er, it is usually not, practical, prudent, or possible to at-temp to initiate learning improvement programs with all *LevelIV o tions. In reality, a college learning improvement programus y includes activities and features from each level; supportfor one academic division may be course-related and systematicand for another may, be on an unorganized walk-in basis only

'or nonexistent,lt takes years of shared experiences within a-college to know which practices should be institutionalized and,to achieve consensus for doing so. Colleges should initiate newprograms with primarily remedial components until institutionalexperience and knowledge lead to evolving more complex pro-,gram features (New York State Education Department 1977).


39

1543

An extensive body of research supports the values implicit inthe Hierarchies and the relative superiority of certain programfeatures over ethers for obtaining these values. Comprehensivestudies have been made of multiple programs in which comrar-ative analyses of program elements and effects have been ob-tained (see,, for example, Simmons et al. 1979; Grant antiHoeber 1978; New York State Education Department 1977;DOnnovan 1977; Roueche and Snow 1977). Researchers of in-dividual programs have also specified elements associated withthe success of a particular developmental program. Thereforo..certain variables have been validated to be associated witb stu-dents' long-term academic improvement and retention in a largenumber of two-year and four-year institutions:, they are includedin the Hierarchies.

Conclusive proofs are not available. however. Researcher.;have far more evidence abart what does not work in the longterm (isolated remediation) than proof of what does because ofthe past emphasis on remedial programs and the less frequentuse of integrated, comprehensive ones. It may also be true thatthe best instructional systems have subsumed the developmentalconcept into a focus that is entirely on ..tudents' learning of thecontent (engineering, for example) and thus may not be recog-nizable as developmental programs (Simmons et al. 1979).

The Hierarchy of Decisions Relating to Goals,Objectives, and RationaleSuccessful learning improvement program; are founded uponstatements of rationale and goals that define the specific needsand problems that the learning improvement program shouldaddress as institutional missions. instead of You (theremedial/developmental staff) must solve these problems," theapproach is, Our studeqts need these things. How can we besthelp them learn?" Local institutional dpta are interpreted in thelight of the relevant general issues within today's higher educa-tion environment. institutional concerns and problems are moreunderstandable and fewer hackles are raised when it is apparentthat nearly every college and university is struggling with thesame problems. Local data and problems become the basis fordialogue among faculty, departments, and committees at alllevels in the college. Through this dialogue, 'appropriate ratio-nale>, goals, and objectives are chosenfor academic programsas well as for the developmental program.

304 u

Figure 3 contains the decisions relating to goals, objectives,and rationale that researchers have identified as having impacton the success of learning improvement programs. The vari-ables are:

I. developmental program goals2. perceptions of institutional responsibility3. methods for choosing instructional objectives4. 'rationale for learning services

!.. 5. compatibility of developmental goals with regularprogram and institutional coals

6. attitude toward nontraditional students7. strucutre of the d,:velopmental program.

Variable 1. Rive lopenental program goalsGoals are imprecise, poorly thought rout, and not specified inmany programs, which. as a consequence are haphazardly im-plemented and impoisible to evaluate (Sherman and Tinto1975). Goals should include both short-range and long-termstudent-centered, staff-centered, program-centered, and institu-tional outcomes (New York State Education Department 1977).Expectations for students may range from providing equal op-portunity to providing a little better chance (Grant et al. 1979).

Level I decisions. Ernplmsizing the short-term goal of students'achieving readiness for college work (Minnick and Teitelbaum1980), objectives for the remedial progrim concern the develop-ment of basic skills, playing "catch-up" (Webb 1977).

Level II decisions. Goals are established for individual students.Level Ill decili'ons. Certain shared developmental and aca-

demic program objectives are specified to be accomplished insupplementary learning experiences, which are presented aspart of the ongoing life of the course.

Level IV decisions. Comprehensive goals include all students,all learning encompassed by the course, and relevant staff andprogrammatic outcomes for both the developmental and regularprograms. Long-term and short-term developmental program goalsare established ;by !xr:dents, staff, program, and instruction.

Variable 2., Perceptions ef institutions/ responsibilityIn the past, atat.rneon was given to creating conventional stu-dents out of disadvantaged ones. Now it is more generally per-ceived (as occasionally noted earlierGordon and Wilkerson1966) that the more central problem is to mconstruct the educa-

t airing Standards ,51

2

Do

A

Figure 3 The Hierarchy of Decisions:

Variables

DevelopmentalProgram Goals

Perceptions ofInstitutional

Responsibility

Methods forChoosingObjectives

Include long-and short-termgoals for aca-demid and de-velopmenialprograms, stu-dents, staff.and institu-tion.

Accept thatthe collegeshould adaptregular in-structicn to.meet theneeds of alladmitted stu-dents.

Buse choiceon applied in-stitutional re-search intolearning sta-tus, course re-quircmcnts,students'needs.

Include spe-cific, course-related objec-tives.

Acknowledge'the need toprovide sys-tematic sup-port for someobjectivesonly, in exist-ing courses.

Base choiceon systematicanalysis ofsome classtests or work.

Include goalsprimarily forindividual stu-dents.

Limit col-lege's respon-sibility tomaking extrahelp available.

Teach stan-dard'develop-mental contentor course ma-terial that stu-dent requests.

Specify goalsin terms ofstudents' gen-eral readinessfor collegework.

Perceive col-lege's respon-sibility only toadmit atypicalstudents. Ac-cept high at-trition asinevitable.

Teach stan-dard develop-mentalcontent.

--32

Relating to Goals, Objectives, and Rationale

Variables

Rationale forLearningServices

Compatibilityof Goals

Attitudetoward

Students

Structure ofDevelopmental

Program

Focus pro-gram on pos-sibilities andneeds to knowwithin curric-ulum unit.

Link develop-mental goalsto college'smission state-ment. Usecommittees tonegotiate de-velopmentalconcept intoother pro-grams' goals..

Accept all ad-mined stu-dents non-judgmentally,with positiveexpectations.

IVComprehensive

LearningSystems

Focus pro-gram on pre-requisiteobjectiveswith knowncriteria forexit or com-petency.

Create aware-ness of pro-gram-specificneeds; articu-late develop-mental/academic pro-gram goals.

Accept somestudents asnecessary topopulate pro-grams; up-grade theirskills asneeded.

IIICourse-related

LearningServices

Base programon student'sdeficiencies orproblems inacademiccourses.

Negotiate de-velopmentalobjectiveswith individ-ual studentsand faculty.

Let the stu-dent obtainhelp to solvehis own prob-lem.

IIIndividualLearning

Assistance

Base programon students'deficiencieson basic skillstests.

Accept "re-medial" statusand goals inan unyieldingtraditionalcollege.

Isolate unfitstudents untildeficienciesare reme-diated.

IRemedialCourses.

Raising Academic Standards 4 33

tional system so that college is a useful experience for mostyoung people (Kendrick 1969). The responsibility of the col-lege is to educate admitted students, whether qualified or not(Simmons et al. 1979). The university deeds to redefine its rolein society and its responsibility for the education of all Stu-dents, whether or not they fit the traditional image (Gordon1975). American edUcation may be judged historically by itssuccess in educating\ the disadvantaged (Fincher 1975).

Level I decisions. 'Mk e college provides easy access with astandard remedial program and accepts very high attritionwhen(as is often the case) 'students do not make a successful transi-tion to the regular program (Roueche and Snow 1977).

Level II decisions. The college defines its responsibility interms of making extra help available to individual students.

Level ill decisions. The college acknowledges its responsibil-ity to provide developmental support for some objectives. Be-cause it is always easier to add an extension than to restructurethe mainstream educational experience (Gordon 1975), the sup,port is supplementary though coordinated within the ongoingacademic course. Leadership and resources,are provided to de-velop consensus for more basic instructional change.

Levi. 'V decisions. Leadership and resources are expended oncomprehensive institutional and programmatic adaptations of theinstructional program to meet the full range of students' needs.

Variable 3. Methods for choosing instructional objectivesFaculty are ill-equipped to deal with the diversity of students intheir courses (Simmons et al. 1979; Cross 1976). Faculty mustlearn new methods of teaching, testing, and thinking (Grant etal. 1979). Developmental specialists have a special role inhelping faculty develop new abilities (Grant and Hoeber 1978)and in providing information obtained through local institu-tional research projects about students' status and learningneeds and about effective approaches (Maxwell 1975).

Level I decisions. Students are taught traditional collegepreparatory courses in isolated remedial settings.

Level 11 decisions. Students are helped individually with rou-tinely assigned, possibly entirely inappropriate (for them), aca-demic course work or with standard remedial work selectedfrom traditional college preparatory courses. .

Level III decisions. Based on systematic analysis of selectedclass tests or work, developmental support for some objectivesis provided through the academic course. Insight about stu-

344 4 ,

I

dents' learning needs is used in planning subsequentinstruction.

Level IV decisions. Comprehensive revisions to the courseand curriculum are based on local reseanh findings and providea full range of appropriate learning activities to develop thecontent of the course. Textbooks are selected for understanda-bility. (Fifty-ei rcent of engineering faculty consideredthis fact portant in the success of stvients, reported Sim-

s et al. in 1979.)

Variable 4. Rationale for learning servicesAn institution reveals its attitude toward students in the title itselects for its basic skills program. A choice of "remedial"(implying blame) versus "developmental" (implying learningsequences or stages) is an ideological issue. The remedial or"deficit" model posits blame on students for lacking certainknowledge or skills. It is negative and should be abandoned(Cross 1976; Sherman and Tinto 1975). The questions are,Who has failed, the student or the educational system? andWho should change? (Grant and Hoeber 1978).

Level I decisions. The remedial component is based on stu-dents' deficiencies on basic skills tests.

Level II decisions. Students' problems in courses are the fo-cus of the learning assistance provided.

Level III decisions. A supplementary basic skills componentfocuses on specific objectives identified within a related courseor within a follow-on unit or course. Known standards forachievement and recognizably important definitions of compe-tency favor students' acceptance of the instruction (New YorkState Education Department 1977).

Level IV decisions. A philosophy.of basic skills instruction isarticulated. Skills are taught as needed and as they are relevantto the content of the course, not as they are identified as defi-cient in a single test or performance. The rationale that guidesinstruction is one of possibility, not deficiency (Chaplin1977a). Written statements of the program's philosophy andobjectives foster success (Roueche and Snow 1977).

Variable 5. Compatibility of developmental goalswith regular program and institutional goalsAre the goals of learning improvement programs accepted bythe administration? Byother academic program managers?Does the college's mission statement reflect a developmental

Developmen-tal specialistshave a specialrole inhelpingfacultydevelop newabilities.

Raising Academic Standards . 35

4

philosophy of teaching? Many value systems are involved .(Stufflebeam 1971): institutional values such as survival, mis-sion, growth; external values such as requirements for ac-creditation and integrity of disciplines; subsystem values suchas priorities for programs and curricula; and private, personalvalues and prejudices. The institutional impact of an active,successful developmental program includes the shifting of moreresources to "C" and "D" students. a redistribution of thefaculty's labor so that more time is spent teaching basic skills.Some faculty resist these changes (Grant et al. 1979).

Level I decisions. Unyielding elitist tradition is at odds withdevelopmental philosophy and forces the constraint of "reme-dial" status on the learning improvement program. Most of thecollege reading programs reported in the literature have yieldedto this constraint, despite the widespread dissatisfaction of read-ing specialists with this role (Walter 1979; Chaplin 1977b;Carter 1970) and despite the strong theoretical base within theliterature for reading instruction based on academic course ma-terials and content.

Level II decisions. The faculty believe that students shouldnot be spoon fed. Developmental staff help individual studentsand faculty as much as possible and use the knowledge gainedfrom individual experiences to negotiate shared goals for moresystematic instruction to meet recurring needs.

Level III decisions. Local institutional research findings aredisseminated to increase faculty's and administrators' awarenessof the need for instructional services and development. If anadjunct service is contemplated, the relevance and value of un-developed, requiiite basic skills to course content are demon-strated. If the shared developmental-academic goals are notwholeheartedly endorsed, they are at least perceived as a meansof alleviating the pressure of the dilemma of a program's sur-vival versus its integrity.

Level IV decisions. Developmental program goals reflect the.language and intent of institutional mission statements and providea framework for specific program objectives. Administrative pro-cesses (the program planning and budgeting cycle, the curriculumcommittee, for example) are used to articulate the developmentalphilosophy. Both short-term-and long-term goals are negotiatedwith superiors (New York State Education Department 1977, p.75). The highest level services possible are implemented within

academic areas where goals are compatible.

.36

Variable 6. Attitude toward nontraditional studentsIn a survey of 38 engineering school programs for the disad-vantaged, 80 percent of the faculty stated that the teacher's sen-sitivity is a "most important" programmatic variable forstudents' success, exceeded only by students' motivation (97percent) (Simmons et al. 1979, p. 32).

The traditional predictors of academic success, test scoresand high school grades, do not necessarily measure a person'spotential to benefit from college (Astin et al. 1972). After one-half century of research, the most sophisticated psychologicaland statistical methods can account for only 25 percent of thechange in achievement indexes (Roueche and Snow 1977,p. 82).

Two conflicting purposes present the developmental plannerwith a dilemma. The dissemination of information about testscores for individual students is necessary, both to build con-sensus for developing instruction and to facilitate faculty's ad-vising of individual students. Yet the dissemination of suchinformation to elitist or uninformed faculty members risks prej-udicing them against the students who most need expressions ofconfidence and support. Researchers suggest three methods ofresolving this dilemma:

1. Educate the faculty to the limitations of the Scholastic Ap-titude Tests. SATs are not aptitude tests and do not measure"capacity for learning," according to Harvard researchers.They are just another standardized achievement test and are athird-rate predictor of success in college, behind high schoolgrades and subject-relevant achievement tests (Slack and Porter1980).

2. Uso criterion-referenced tests-instead of standardized sur-vey tests. Criterion-referenced reading tests, constructed fromthe college textbooks being used, are accurate for identifyingspecific instructional needs and for demonstrating learning thathas occurred (Flippo 1980; Anderson 1973).

Even students of high ability demonstrate surprising specificweaknesses when criterion-referenced tests are used. This useof criterion-referenced tests thus helps to prevent the institu-tional testing program from embarrassing any one segment ofthe student population. At one typical college, for example, tobe admitted to the nursing program, incoming freshmen musthave SAT mathematics scores above 450, which is slightlyabove the national norm. Yet four consecutive years of testingfor fractions, decimals, percents, and ratios (needed to compute


47

dosages) have shown that approximately one-third of the nurs-ing students needed to participate in supplementary instruction(Keimig 1982). The national studies of declining skills corrob-orate the decline in basic skills among higher ability students aswell as others (Carnegie Foundation 1977, pp. 212-13).

3. Develop local norms for whatever tests are ustd (Maxwell1970). Knowledge about ranking within the institution or thetendency cf failure within particular programs to be associatedwith weaknesses of specific skills is far more useful than na-tional data and norms. Because such information is more situa-tion specific, students are more likely to perceive it as usefulrather than demeaning (Roueche and Snow 1977).

The institution's attitude toward students, which tends to be-come self-fulfilling, is managed by decisions such as these.

Level I decisions. Students face self-defeating disparagementfrom other f.udents and negative expectations from faculty,which are reinforced by their isolation in remedial programs.

Level Il decisions. The student has the problem and can ob-tain help to overcome it if he or she chooses.

Level HI decisions. Within academic courses, appropriate op-portunities for review are provided, albeit begrudgingly, be-cause students are needed to populate the programs; to fail to-upgrade their skills would damage the program.

Level IV decisions. Students are accepted nonjudgmentally,with positive expectations for success. When perceived as simi-lar to others in the institution, they are more successful(Roueche and Snow 1977). Comprehensive instruction providesfor all learning needs without special designations of supportcomponents as "remedial."

Variable 7. Structure of the developmental programThe organizational structure of developmental programs has in-terested researchers since the post-war influx of nontraditionalcollege students (Braken 1954; Bliesmer 1956; Gordon 1975;Arkwardy and Chafin°1980; Sanders 1980). Before that time,the remedial course model was generally assumed, being'wellsuited to the institutional purposes of the time (see McAllister1954 ;. Causey 1955, 1956, 1957; Robinson 1965 for descrip-tions of early programs.

The structure of support services has become increasinglycomplex and varied, with the broadening of institutional pur-poses for learning improvement programs. Whereas integrated

services were rarely reported before the 1950s, in recent de-

38

4&

cades integrated services have been described more often byprogram evaluators (Arkwardy and Chafin 1980; Sanders 1980;Fincher 1975, for example).

Research evidence is accumulating to show that integratedservices providing an immediate link between the need to knowand the learning experience are the most effective (Trillin andAssociates 1980; Manz° 1979; Cross 1976). Multilevel, com-prehensive services related to regular academic courses allow adegree of individualization that is otherwise unattainable andcan meet the most serious learning needs (Ludwig 1977). Aca-demic faculty place high value on the importance of organizedsupport services that use structured formats for tutoring and re-view (Simmons et al. 1979). Similar surveys exist showing fac-ulty support for isolated remedial programs in institutionswhere no integrated support services exist (Fairbanks andSnozek 1973). In no instance in this extensive review of theresearch, however, was a survey found in which faculty, hav-ing both alternatives, rejected coordinated, integrated supportservices in favor of casual assistance or remedial courses. The-remedial function of drills in basic skills, however, was consid-ered a highly important component, even in the integrated pro-grams (Simmons et al. 1979).

Each Hierarchy of Decisions highlights the developmentalprogram structure because its significance outweighs all othervariables if the developmental program is to fulfill its potentialrole as catalyst and lead the institution to`the reaffirmation ofits teaching mission. When the organizational structure of thedevelopmental program fosters involvement of staff in all disci-plines and at all levels, programmatic goals, objectives. and ra-tionale evolve to become developmental and hence moreeffective. Denied this interaction, however, developmental pro-grams tend not to influence the goals, objectives, and rationalethat are operationalized in other programs within the collegeand to have little influence on overall academic achievementand persistence.

The Hierarchy of Decisions Relating toInstructional Methods and ContentMost college learning improvement programs provide learningcenter services such as tutoring, multimedia materials, diagno-sis, and remediation. But most programs differ in the inclusive-ness of students likely to be served, whether a targeted high-risk group or all freshmen, for example, and in the comprehen-

Researchevidence isaccumulatingto show thatintegratedservicesproviding animmediatelink betweenthe need toknow and thelearningexperiencesare the mosteffective.

Raising Academic' Standards 39

45

siveness of the goals. objectives. and content of the servicesprovided.

Successful developmental programs are more inclusive andmore comprehensive in scope. usually containing several com-ponents: reading. grammar. writing, mathematics. science, eth-nic studies, study (survival) skills, self-development. andcareer/life planning (Grant and Hoeber 1978). Programs under-take cognitive development, using the concepts of Perry (Cross1976, pp. 161-67) and others, as an alternative to acceptinglow-level thinking as an immutable characteristic in lowerachieving students. The inclusion of these various components,however, does not necessarily mean the creation of additional,separate courses.

In Figure 4, the range and ranking of the possible decisionsrelating to instructional methods and content are charted for thefollowing developmental program variables:

8. methods of instruction9. responsiveness to students

10. development of cognitive and basic skillsI I. affective development of students12. control for learners' success.Level Ill and Level IV decisions are achieved through the_

systematic link of developmental support services to academiccourses. This link expands the course instructor's resources andcontrol of instruction through the creation of a highly flexibledelivery system in which a wider range of individual needs canbe met. The focus within each variable is on decisions that aremade relevant to academic course instruction. The research evi-dence cited is from studies of programs in which this academic/developmental services link has been made; some of the re-search reflects academie-course faculties' estimation of whathas worked for their students.

Variable 8. Methods of instructionUnderprivileged and low-ability students do not always partici-pate in self-paced programs. Other elements are needed as well(Ludwig 1977). Contrary to popular belief, high-ability studentsachieve better in small discussion classes; low-ability studentsachieve better in larger daises taught in a benevolentlj, authori-tarian manner (Bernstein 1976). Eclectic instruction works best,providing a balanced combination of individualized laboratorypractice and class interaction (Wassman 1977).

40

59

Asked to indicate the relationship of special teaching meth-ods to students' survival, faculty indicated greater importancefor basic skills instruction; teaching concepts; group discussionwith tutors, with other students, and with teachers; drill andrepetition; and personalized systems of instruction. Faculty alsovalued video and audiotipes, the inquiry method, the discoverymethod, interdisciplinary studies, team teaching, and varyingteaching styles. No single strategy was positively related to sur-vival by more than 24 percent of the faculty (Simmons et al.1979, 43), which is an indication of the need for a variety ofapproaches. Engineering faculty reported success for underpre-

\hpoared students with review sessions (50 percent), discussion ofmework (48 percent), selection of an understandable text.(58rcent), relating discussions to life experiences (29 percent),

tutoring sessions (60 percent) (Simmons et al. 1979, p.32).

Learning methods should include formal, informal, and inci-dental learning experiences (Jason et al. 1976; Gordon 1975).Several characteristics of courses are related to students' suc-cess: clear goals for students; eva;aation through frequent test-ing; self-paced\learning; active, not passive, students; and smallmodules (Cross "1976).

,Level I decisios Standard methods are used within the aca-demic course. Students experiencing academic difficulty receiveno assistance directliwith their course work beyond that whichbenevolent instructors can provide on their own time.

Level II decisions. Standard methods are used within the aca-demic course. Outside tutoring services may provide an alterna-tive, or at least more repetition, for some students.

Level II! decisions. Coordinated, supplementary, variedlearning experiences are specially designed to augment theusual course presentation for somlearning objectives.

Level IV decisions. Eclectic approaches to instruction areused in academic courses, recognizing that no ones method willbe sufficient for all students and that each method may workbest for some. A balanced combination of, classroom interper-sonal interaction and out-of-class learning assistance providesopportunities for students' participation in class, which is nec-essary to achieve involvement and cognitiVe development, anddrill/repetition, which are needed to achieve mastery of requi-site basic information and skills. The course content is devel=oped sequentially, includes requisite cognitive and basic-skills,and is based upon students' diagnosed needs.

4


Figure 4

Variables

The Hierarchy of Decisions

Methods ofInstruction

Responsiveness toStudents

Development ofCognitive and

Bask Skills

Within academicCourse, useeclectic methodsand combinationof class interac-tion and out-of-class drill.

Within academiccourse, varyteaching timeand tasks accord;ing to responseof students.

Incorporate de-velopment ofrequisite knowl-edge and skillswithin ongoingacademic curric-ulum.

Systematicallydevelop otherlearning expert-ences for someobjectives to aug-merit the course.

Develop selectedspecific skills incoordinated, sup-plementary activ-ities.

Develop selectedspecific skills incoordinated, sup-plementary activ-ities.

Use standardmethods only inacademiccourses; encour-age individuals to°seek help fromothers.

In academiccourses, providesame time andtasks for all. Letother services re-spond to atypicalneeds.

Assume basicskills and knowl-edge to be ade-quate for

,academiccourses.

Use standaramethods only inacademiccourses; provideno individual as-sistance for aca-demic coursework.

Assume that re-medial courseswill eliminate_differences; inacademiccourses, providesame time andtasks for all.

Teach genericskills in remedialcourses; assumethose who com-plete course tobe ready for reg-ualar courses.

42

Relating to instructional Methods and Content

Variables

Affectivedevelopment of

Students

..

Control forLearners' Success


Program

Incorporate per-sonal gowth andcounseling intoacademic pro-grams.

Within courses,manage instruc-Lion to providefrequent suc-cesses; usegrades based oncompetency withabsolute learningstandards.

IVComprehensive

LearningSystems

.

Structure seriesof counseling/ad-xicc contacts forall students.

Maintain mini-mum compe-tency byreteaching andretesting for se- ,lected objectivesin academiccourses.

IllCourse-related

Learning 'Services

Refer studentsWith emotionalproblems tocounselors forhelp.

Help individualsbecome self-di-rested learnersthrough counsel-ing on theirlearning prob-lems.

IIIndividualLearning

Assistance

.

Est ablish compo-rent in appliedpsychology as aseparate courseor within an ori-entation or reme-dial course.

\--

Allow studentsto sink or swimin the regularprogram.

I _

RemedialCourses

r.


Variobk 9. Responsiveness to StudentsMany educators wino seek .to meet students' individual learningneeds find that it is 'easier said thn done. A survey of commu-nity college programs in New Jersey_showed that there waslittle true individualization of students' real needs despite thewidespread claims that these prograrir were individualized(Kahn 1977).

The critical variables for learning are (1) the amount of stu-dents' exposure to course material, (2) the amount of time stu-dents spend in directed, structured learning situations, and(3) teachers' skills (Maxwell 1979,'p. 381). When the task isheld constant, the time needed to complete the task variesamong students. A sizable amount of evidence supports thisview (Grant et al. 1979; Webb 1977). \

Teaching methods should be researched and practiced beforebeing used in an academic course. If a particular method is effec-tive with students, it should be retained; if not, ii should be ais-condnued with that particular group (Simmons et al. 1979; Grantand Hoebet 1978). Faculty shouldlary their teaching style andlook for nonverbal responses to lectures (Simmons et al. 1979).

In colleges with successful developmental programs, morefaculty feel that the college in general tries to respond to stu-dents' needs and desires (68 percent in colleges with successfulprograms, 48 percent in colleges with unsuccessful programs).Similarly, more students in the colleges with successful devel-opmental programs feel that their colleges generally respond totheir needs as students (New York State Education Department19771. 42).

Personalized systems for instruction have been validated forgreater effectiveness for long-term learning than the lecturemethod. Bloom's conclusion was that 95 percent of students ,'can master a subject if sufficient time is allowed. Bloom'sbasic concept is supported by the research, but not all learnersachieve equally (Ludwig 1977). The learning time that can beprovided is limited, howeyer, by institutional and personal re-sources and by students;frnotivafion to persist (Cross 197b).

Tutoring enhances pre responsiveness of programs and is ef-fective whether done by course instructors, professional staff,

peers, or computers (Cross 1976).Level I decisions. The assumption is that remedial course&

reduce the differences among students and adequately respondto any special needs. Therefore, within academic courses,learning time and tasks are not varied.

44

Level it decisions. Within academic courses, teaching timeand tasks are the saw. for all. Students who do not respond areencouraged to seek assistance from other sources in the college,such as the developmental program staff or counselors.

Level /II decisions. Within academic courses, individual stu-dents' needs for some objectives are systematically met through

*coordinated supplementary activities that provide additionaltime on a task.

LevelJV decisions. Academic faculty use diagnostic informa-tion and monitor students' response to instruction, modifyingthe procedures when necessary. Instructional time and tasks arevaried according to individtial:students' learning needs.

Variable 10. Development of cognitive and basic skillsMany remedial programs seek to improve basic skills in read-ing and mathematics; however, few concentrate on problemsolving. Cognition needs to be taught (Ludwig 1977; Kagan1973) and abstracting and generalizing skills developed (Whim-bey and Lockhead 1981; Simmons et al. 1979).

Low-ability students are oriented toward concrete matters.They have difficulty dealing with abstractions, are inclined toright answers rather than complexities, abstractions, or problemsolving, and demonstrate lack of reasoning ability during evalu-rrtions. The work of such 'students may reflect the use of mem-urted material that cannot be appropriately used in differentcontexts, confusion when memorized words are used in incor-rect multiple choice test items, and interest in answers only,not in processes for obtaining answers (Ludwig 1977).

The extent to which basic scholastic ability can be improvedunknown and subject to question (Kendrick 1969). Students

can be taught higher level cognitive processes, at least throughthe level of application. However, some processes such as anal-ysis, synthesis, and,evaluation may be beyond the reach ofsome learners. Nevertheless, faculty_ must make are cffort to im-prove students' cognitive functioning in college (Ludwig 1977).

Piaget's research has implications for higher education. Fiftypercent of college freshmen are concrete Thinkers, the propor-tion being higher in institutions with open admissions (Killian1980). Although all people develop reasoning abilities in thesame sequence of stages, some adults never achieve fa-nal op-erations stages, which poses major questions for college plan-ners: How much teaching intervention facilitates the move intoformal 6perations? What constitutes formal operations in the


various disciplines, especially history, social studies, and litera-ture? Are the wrong age students in college? The design of in-structional programs must include teaching activities forstudents in various stages (Killian 1980).

Engineering instructors most often correlate,: the followingspecial teaching methods with effective retention. individualizedinstruction (45 percent), instruction in basic skills (45 percent),personalized system of instruction (39 percent), and emphasison concepts (39 percent) (Simmons et al. 1979).

A democratized higher education institution in a pluralisticsociety must become a multipurpose institution with variableroutes to success, with various missions for different students(Gordon 1975).

Level I decisions. Generic reasoning and basic skills are de-veloped in special courses. 'Students who complete the courseare assumed to have achieved "readiness" for regular academiccourses and thereafter to have no further need to learn basicskills.

Level II decisions. Students in academic courses are assumedto have achieved mature cognition and mastery of basic skills;therefore, teaching is conducted in the traditional manner. Stu-dents may obtain assistance for whatever they may -need ontheir own.

LeVel III decisions. Certain cognitive and basic skills are de- t'veloped through coordinated adjunct learning activities.

Level IV decisions. Relevant, requisite basic and cognitiveskills are incorporated into the structure of academic coursesand progotms. (See Killian 1980 and Ludwig 1977 for descrip-tions of science cour.,es and a history course, respectively, thatdevelop cognition skills.)

Variable I \ . Affective development of studentsAlthough researchers increasingly recognize the importance of .students' emotional needs in determining their success in col-lege, components and goals for affective develpprntnt .i-c sel-dom incorporated into either academic or developmentalprograms. The primary emphasis on purely cognitive outcomeshas resulted in the neglect of such important "informal learn-

1ings" as self-c ceps, lotus of control, attitude toward educa-tion, and motiv ion (Renner 1979; Duck 1978; Sherman andTinto 1975). /

Motivation an, drive, which are impossible to statisticallymanipulate or col trot (McFadden 1979), are nevertheless con-

/

5 6

sidered by faculty and researchers to be the most importantcharacteristic of students for determining success in college.Motivation and persistence are more important than traditionalpredictors (such as test scores) of success in college (Renner1979; Simmons et al. 1979; Donnovati 1977; Lesnick 1972;Meister et al. 1962: Bntwisle 1960; R4ueche and Kirk 1973).

Poor academic self-image is a cause of failure in college(Grant and Hoeber 1978; Cross 1976). The underprepared stu-dent has been victimized by the school and certified an aca-demic failure and is justifiably wary, feeling incompetent andimpotent in the educational world (Grant and Hoeber 1978,Glasser 1969). Such students must be helped to overcome fearin a competitive environment (Simmons et al. 1979), a sense ofworthlessness, alienation, and hostility (Renner 1979: Jelfo1974).

Students' genuine involvement in special programs is a nec-essary precondition for academic success. Three stages of stu-dents' involvementattraction, participation, and sustainedinvolvementcan be used as a barometer to measure the com-prehensiveness of developmental programs (Donnovan 1977),

Research results, though tentative, correlate students' locusof control with success in college. Counseling students to be-come responsible for themselvesto internalize their locus ofcontrolrather than to place responsibility and dependence onschoo!s, parents. and peers is an element in successful pro-grams (Grant and Hoeber 1978). Problem-solving techniquesare beneficial for internalizing this locus of control (Ozer 1980;Barshis 1979; Ludwig 1977).

Students' success in college can be predicted from a check-list of behaviors that differentiate successful and unsuccessfulstudents. Success is predicted from such behaviors and attitudesas motivation (committed. ambitious, industrious, responsible),coMpletion of assignments and projects on time, and an orieri-tlion toward goals (realistic, flexible, purposeful behavior).

I . .F 'lure in college can be predicted from the persistence of theopposite behaviors and attitudes: a lack of motivation (apa-thetic, depressed, uncommitted. uninterested); incomplete or

'late assignments and projects (exhibiting plagiarism, lack of at-, tention to detail, repeated errors. an inability to generalize con-

/ cepts); and a lack of orientation toward goals (erratic.irresponsible, nonpurposeful behavior) (New York. State Educa-tion Department 1977. Appendix C).

Students'success incollege can bepredictedfrom a checklist ofbehaviors thatdifferentiatesuccessfulandunsucessfulstudents.

Raising A it Standards

57

47

Counseling assists "personhood development" (Jelfo 1974)and helps the student make realistic choices, establish careergoals- (which are related-to-persistence-in-college), assert innercontrol, and become more purposeful in daily behaviors in theacademic life. Both peer and professional counseling are effec-five (Cross 1976).

Level 1 decisions. A component in applied personal psychol-ogy to enhance students' affective development is incorporatedwithin a basic skills course or an orientation r mrse or is estab-lished as a separate course.

Level 11 decisions. Students withemotional problems are re-ferred to counselors for help.

Level III decisions. A series of counseling/advising contactsis established to systematically achieve certain specific affectiveobjectives for all students in the academic program.

Level IV decisions. Affective goals are incorporated in thedesign of instructional programs. Facilitative experiences areprovided for the development of self-concept and problem-solving abilities to foster internal locus of control (Brawer1982). Counseling and advising to enhance positive behaviors,to help students develop career goals, and to improve overallmotivation are ongoing activities within academic programs.

Variable 12. Control for learners' successTeachers and managers must prcvide opportunities for successand rewards for students while simultaneously providing chal-lenging experiences (Simmons et al. 1979). The mastery ofskills enhances students' self-concept, se:.se of personal worth,internal control, and the creation of positive expectations (Grantand Hoeber 1978). Successful encounter; with learning raiseexpectations; repeated failures lower th.t.:i. Successful learningexperiences strengthen self-motivated persistence and overcomepassivity (Arkwardy and Chafin 1980; Cross 1976; Bruner1973).

Management and control for success are achieved throughthe use of diagnostic instruction, grade&based on competence,responsibility for learning, and organization of the coursecontent.

Assessing requisite skills for freshmen courses and enteringstudents' abilities provides a "contrast profile" of particularskills to be developed for each student (Roueche and Snow1977, p. 83). This assessment is used to guide planning andinstruction for academic programs and for remedial programs.

48

50

Effective education is the product of a match between learners'characteristics, the learning environment, and learning tasks

-9Z5__Grading should be based on competency, with an absolute

grading standard to reflect mastery (Grant and Hoeber 1978;Donnovan 1977; Cross 1976). Reteaching and repeating testsup to three times improve learning; the fourth time does not(Donnovan 1977).

Under such conditions, achievement in a course depends lesson students' entering skills or abilities. Correlation between ap-titude and achievement is typically lower under mastery learn-ing than under other instructional programs. The sloweststudents have the time they need, and the systematic structureallows for necessary remedial assistance in a regular, prescribedmanner. Learning outcomes rather than teacher behaviors areemphasized (Ludwig 1977).

In the past, compensatory education has tended to shift theresponsibility for learning more to the teacher than to the stu-dent (Gordon 1975). Students must, can, and should, however,assume more responsibility for their own learning (Cross 1979).The design of instructional material featuring mastery learningand individualized methods causes students to assume responsi-bility for achieving goallj,la- flexible schedule; teachers andstudents plan together*to overcome a particular difficulty andretest when necessary (Renner 1979).

Within the course, clear statements of objectives enable stu-dents to know the outcomes required; courses should also pro-vide different formats and alternate routes for reaching thoseobjectives (Cross 1979). Communicating positive expectationsfor success and sequencing instruction from the more easily un-derstood concepts to the more complex ones are associated withsuccessful programs (Simmons et al. 1979 Roueche and Snow1977).

Level I decisions. Students are allowed to sink or swim asbest they can in the regular academic program. Remedialcourses attempt to teach students how to learn.

Level II decisions. The rescue of some students is attemptedthrough tutoring services. Students are helped to become moreself- directed, effective learners through the use of problem-solving techniques applied to the course in which they are ex-periencing difficulty (Maxwell 1975).


Level I!! decisions. Minimum competency on some courseobjectives is maintained through the use of adjunct learning ex-periences and retesting.

L wl IV deaiiiins:Tistruction within the academic course ismanaged so as to provide frequent successful learning encoun-ters for all students. Grades based on competency to an abso-lute standard and retesting when necessary are used instead ofrelative or curved grading standards. Clearly communicatecrob-jectives and alternative routes for learning ensure an opportu-nity for success for most students.

Learning improvement and program structureThe most effective instructional system for learning would notbe thought of as a learning improvement program, becausemost of the services provided by the developmental personnelwould be fully incorporated into academic courses. It is verydifficult, however, to change, through formal administrativeprocedures, the way academic instruction is organized anddelivered.

For this reason, the structure of the developmental programwithin the college determines, more than any other single vari-able, the ability of the program to influence academic instruc-tion and thereby genuinely improve learning. If resources forthe developmental program are expended in a structure of activ-ities that directly supports academic courses, then course in-structors' capabilities are greatly expanded and eclectic,diagnostic instructional methods in academic courses are possi-ble. Atypical and extreme needs can be responded to, and rele-vant cognitive and basic skills and affective development canbe provided. Furthermore, academic faculty and curriculumleaders perceive as helpful the evolving reorganizations of in-struction that they themselves have helped design.

This process works both ways. integrated services lead to achanging organizational structure for the developmental pro-gram as well, changes that are well received by the facultywhose classroom problems are being ameliorated but may behardly noticed by anyone else.

The Hierarchy of Decisions Relating toInstitutional Policies and StandardsUltimately, to become permanent. these changes in structuremust be established in the policies of departments. divisions,

50

6u

and the college or university. One manifestation of administra-tive support for an improvement in learning is the academicpolicies and standards that are established and enforced withinthe institution (ArIcwardy and Chaim 1980). Standards implyachievement of genuine learning. which is more than "merelysucceeding" (McCabe 1981). Figure 5 indicates the range ofpossible decisions for each of the following variables relating toinstitutional policies and standards:

13. directing students into appropriate courses and programs14. definition of competencies in academic courses

45. credit earned for remedial developmental study16. systematic procedures for advisement17. organization of the developmental program within the

college18. institutionalization of developmental services.

Variable 13. Directing sturknts into appropriatecourses and programsIt is rare to find a college that has not modified its admissionsstandards in the last 10 years (Grant and Hoeber 1978). Col-leges are coping with kinds of students not previously educatedto this level. Current controversies are similar to the debateabout secondary schools in the 1890s and 1900s. the central is-sue today being the adequacy of the higher education system toabsorb and adapt to its new clientele (Grant et al. 1979. p. 8).The average high schdol graduate.today has a "B" averageover four years of high school yet reads at the eighth gradelevel, a loss of two grade levels in the last 10 years (Roueche1981-82, p. 17).

Controversy has raged over whether underprepared studentsshould be'required to participate in remedial courses. Somestudies show a decline during the 1970s in the number of insti-tutions mandating remedial courses. perhaps indicating thetrend of the future (Grant and Hoeber 1978). Of institutionssurveyed in 1977, 89 percent did not require the courses (p.28). The New York State Education Department study (1977)also favors voluntary enrollment in remedial courses, whichstudents would accept when counseled properly.

Three studies over a four-year period involving large num-bers of students at the Bronx Community College show a dif-ferent outcome, however. Although many students did enroll,high percentages of students, ranging from 14 to 65 percent,


DoCes

Cd

Ts

O

t.at

403

C.0M to

E;0°.

00.Enrt.

0.

Figure 5 The Hierarchy of Decisions---

Variables

Madden ofCompatriot:les

.

Crud II Earnedfor

DeveispmenudStudy

Use placement In academic Award credit

tests and courses. spec- for remedial/

achievement ify minimum developmental

indicators as competencies study whether

the bases for for entry and in skills

academic pro- exit courses or as

gram plan- part of the as-

ning. signed workin an aca-demic course.

Pretest for In academic

some objet- courses. spec-

lives: use re-sults for some

ify minimum,competency

requirements for selected

and assign-ments.

objectives.

Allow stu- Assume avail- Disallow

dents to elect ability of as- credit for par-

or reject indi- sistance to ticipation in

vidual diagno- ensure ade- skills courses

sis. advice. quate learn- or supplemen-

and remedia- ing. tary remedial

Lion. work. -

Allow stu- Adjust learn-dents' partici- ing standard

pation in by curvingremediation to grades in aca-

be voluntary. demiccourses.

52

62

Relating to Institutional Policies and Standards

Variables

AdvisementPrimedeps lerSpear&

°rpm Maimet

DevekapiaddPrograms

wItteln Coder

Depot ofInetitutiensi

bads.

Stricture ofDevelopmental

Preinnil

Monitor stu-dents' prog-ress. Enforcepolicies forquality anddirection ofstudents. Usediagnostic in-formation inprogram plan-sting.

Establish divi-sion so lead.staff, and co-ordinate skillscourses pre-sented inother aca-demic divi-sions.

Integrate de-velopmentalconcept intocollege poll;cies. problemsolving, andcurriculathrough par-ticipatior. ofdevelopmentalstaff ci com-mittees.

IV

ComprehensiveLearningSystems

Establish divi-sion to coot-dinate supportservices andpresent itsown courses.

Integrate de-velopmentalconcept intopolicy re-quirements ofcongenial. co-operating de-partments andcourses.

IllCourse-related

LearningServices

Advise stu-dents rou-tinely throughtypical coursesequences.Use advisorswho lack in-formationabout stu-dents' basicskills achieve-MeM. per-sonal goals.and learningneeds.

Subordinateleadership ofdevelopmentalserviceswithin anotherdivision orprecollegeunit.

Establish de-velopmentalconcept in in-dividual ser-vices tostudents andfaculty.

II

IndividualLearning

Assistance

Scatter skillscoursesamong exist-ing divisionswith no au-tonomy andlittle or no co-ordination.

Seek interdis-ciplinary linksand contactsto overcomeisolation ofskills courses.

I

RemedialCourses

I

Raising Academic Standards ;i3

63

chose to bypass the courses (Bronx Community College 1974,

1975; Eagle 1977).The impact of large numbers of underprepared students on

the practices and standards within regular courses has rarely

been considered in research studies. It has been assumed that

traditional academic standards would prevail and that instruc-

tors would fail inept students who chose to bypass coursesteaching basic skills and enter regular programs. What has oc-

curred instead is a drift' of standards so great that it has threat-ened the credibility26f all of higher education and particularly

of community collige general education programs, where free

access despite academic deficiencies has been proilided, even to"semiliterate" and "illiterate" students (Cohen 1979). Stu-

dents from community colleges have a higher attrition rate than

other students after they transfer to four-year institutions'

(Roueche 1981-82). Cohen (1979) associates the increased in-

terest in junior year examinations to four-year colleges' efforts

to deal with the extremes of ability among junior-year transfer

students. ,

Mandatory placement in skills courses is associated with suc-

cessful programs (Roueche and Snow 1977). Current opinionlinks.participation in dehlopmental services with the inainte-

nance of standards in the overall academic program ( Roueche. :-1981-82; Arkwardy and Chafin 1980), a connection that here-

tofore has been largely ignored.Robert H. McCabe, President of Miami-Dade Community

College. initiated major changes in policy to upgrade the stan-

P' dards of achievement of students at his institution, among them

the controlled flow-of deficient students through remedial pro-

grams and restricted schedules until students demonstrate their

ability to perform successfully. Given these controls, facultywill be able to provide instruction to students "within a nar-

rower range of academic competence," thus increasing thelikelihood of success (McCabe 1981, p. 10). Only if a student

body is properly prepared in basic skills can standards be main-

tained in other courses (Trillin and Associates 1980, p. 262).

Restricting high-risk students' 11..,t-semester credit hours and

guiding their selection of courses r 'hose in which they have a

chance of cceedini have been vex lied as ways to enhance

long-term :, ':cess (t.3, his 1979). If' students' skills are ads -quate, theh r ';7tiCipe.cit'41 in a support program alone might be

justified. If `,` .v are ;IL. .;:late, remediation is a must (Sim

mons et al. 1S- /3) Wo-' 1z. students must not be permitted

54

enroll for a full academic course load ( Roueche 1981-82). Stu-dents with deficiencies who begin programs should be expectedto take longer to finish them (Roueche 1981-82; McCabe1981).

Placement testing of all students who enter the college isnecessary to enable the college to provide proper direction toits students. Colleges should develop their own local norms anddetermine their own success thresholds for whatever tests areused (Roueche 1981-82; New York State Education Depart-ment 1977; Cross 1976).

Level I decisions. Participation in remediation is voluntary.Learning specialists' recommendations are not communicated toadvisors and not used in students' academic planning.

Level II decisions. Students may elect or reject individual di-agnosis, advisement, and remediation. Learning specialists* rec-ommendations about which courses to select may or may itbe used in students' academic planning:

Level III decisions. Within an academic course, pretestingfor some objectives provides a basis for some required supple-mentary assignments.

Level IV decisions. For all incoming students, placementtesting provides the basis fpr directing students into appropriatecourses, supplementary study, and schedules. Credit hours forhigh -risk and working students are restricted until students-demonstrate their ability to do more.

Variable 14. Definition of competencies in academic coursesNo absolute standards of competency exist for college coursesand degrees: Standards for entry and exit must be defined forcourses and programs (Cohen 1979; Jelfo 1974). It is patroniz-ing to students to modify standards; to do so implies that theyare incapable (Gordon 1975). "Colleges must make a commit-ment to standards . . . " (McCabe 1981, p. 10).

Considerable national interest exists for defining the compe-tencies to be obtained from a college education. Governmentofficials and state accreditation agencies increasingly seek ac-countability as a condition of funding (Chronicle 16 December1981; Magarrell 1980; Fincher 1975). Colleges must establishand enforce high performance standards for credit and degrees(Arkwardy and Chafin 1980); otherwise, society will reject theinstitutions. There must be a point at which it is determinedthat a student is not going, to succeed in the institution and thatfurther investment is not justified (McCabe 1981).

1111111.11Considerablenationa:interest existsfor definingthecompetenciesto be obtained

-from acollegeeducation.


The College Outcome Measures Project (COMP) is a cooper-ative effort of approximately 130 participating colleges and theAmerican College Testing program (ACT) to define and mea-sure the competencies obtained from general education in col-lege. Several "generations" of tests have been used and a database accumulated. through which institutions can assess the rel-ative effectiveness of their programs (ACT Program 1980).

Level I decisions. In academic courses, standards are ad-justed by curving grades and/or changing requirements. The ac-ceptable level of competency is allowed to fluctuate with thenorm of each group of students taking the course.

Level II decisions. The availability of tutorial assistance toindividuals is assumed to ensure adequate learning by weakerstudents.

Level decisions. In academic courses, minimum compe-tency for some objectives is specified and required of all stu-dents.

Level IV decisions. In academic courses, minimum acceptablecompetencies for most objectives are specified. Prerequisiteentry-level skills are published to guide the placement of studentsand any concurrent (or preenrollment) remediation indicated.

Variable 15. Credit earned for remedial/developmental studyShotild credit for graduation be earned in remedial/developmentalcourses and 'supplementary study? This issbe has been'a divi-sive one, although the trend is to award credit. In a 1977 sur-vey, 65 percent of responding institutions indicated that theygrant credit rzuch courses (Grant and Hoeber 1978). Institu-tions should .... credit (Cross 1976; Jelfo 1974), especially ifcourses are required (Grant and Hoeber 1978). The granting bfcredit is associated with successful learning improvement pro-grams (Roueche and Snow 1977) and is necessary to motivatestudents to take the courses seriously,'

Low-potential decisions. Credit is not awarded foi remedial/developmental study.

High-potential decisions. Remedial/developmental studyearns credit, either as an individual course or as part of theassigned work for grades within an ac_idemic course.

Variable 16. Systematic procedures fort advisementTraditional advisement and counseling services are inadequateto help students understand their options, registration policies,program requirements, and other comjonents of the educational

6

system. in addition, a strategy of academk intervention isneeded, Which will incorporate student orientation and providesystematic monitoring of students' progress and regular follow-up (Boylan 1980).

implementing policies that allow performance, not time inthe program, to determine a student's rate of progress and en-forcing performance standards will increase the time needed bymany students to complete their programs. Typicaldescriptionsof program sequences and time frames are inappropriate andshould be eliminated (Roucche 1981-82). Students will pursueunique combinations of courses and complete requirements atindividual, atypical times.

Advising studedts, traditionally routine and perfunctory, Mustbecome personalized. Diagnostic information about students'abilities and complex information about course and program re-quirements must be interpreted for students and used to helpthem choose appropriate courses in which they can realisticallybe expected to succeed. Information about students' progressmust be given to advisors, and a system of monitoring progresstoward the completion of program goals must be established.

Low-potential decisions. Students are routinely advisedthrough typical course sequences by faculty advisors who lackdiagnostic information about students' individual instructionalneeds.

High-potential decisions. Systematic procedures for monitor-ing students' progress, initiating intervention, and enforcingpolicy and standards are implemented.' An information systemto support the use of diagnostic information in the selection ofcourses and the planning of the program is established.

_Variable 17. Organization of the developmentalprogram within the collegeTwo categories of problems are associated with the administra-tion of learning improvement programs: (1) those that concernthe integration of the services into the existing structures of thecollege and (2) those that concern the leadership and adminis-tration of the, program itself (Kingston 1959. The literature re-viewed for this monograph supports the ir.Tration ofdevelopmental instruction into the academic programs of. thecollege and recommends many ways to better integrate ser-vices.

°Establishing remedial courses in already existing departmentsis easier in terms of administration. but the evidence suggests


that establishing a separate department or division of develop-mental studies is more effective (Grant and Hoeber 1978; Je lfo1974). A division or departnient is characterized by its own ad-ministrative leader, who plans, coordinates, and allocatesfunds. This structure has several advantages: the ability of thedivision to conduct systematiccollegewide assessments ofneeds, to develop and promote the program, and to be a highlyvisible center for innovation and change (Roueche and Snow1977). The most successful programs have their own space,which is centrally located on campur.(eonnovan 1977). Theyhave their own staff and have easy accel\Students perceivelocations that are difficult to reach as demeaning (New YorkStat, ,.ducation Department 1977).

Developmental programs organized around a department ordivision accounted for 67 percent of the successful college pro-grams in one study. Programs consisting of fragmented coursesscattered throughout other divisions tended to be less success-ful, as did programs comprised of regular faculty attached totheir own departments who worked with counselor (Rouecbeand Snow6977, pp. 89- -9).

Successfully integrated programs use a variety of-unique_andflexible arrangements in which developmental faculty workingwith regular faculty coordinate objectives for basic and regularinstruction (see Roueche and Snow 1977, sec. 3). Courses in -

basic skills are most successful when they are perceived asregular-Courses-within an academic department's academicprogram courses that some students are placed ii. as a resultof testing and that others exempt. No commitments to awardcredit for exemption are necessary or implied by exemption.

The staff of developmental programs should have a "larger"role in the college's academic decision making to avoid feel-ings of alienation and to bring their insight and influence tohew ,n planning. Developmental faculty should be appointed to&dministrative positions and to faculty committees, whichwould have the additional benefits of improving students' andfaculty's perception of them as "real" teachers (Simmons et al.1979). It would improve the perception of the program as hav-ing a central, vital role, not an ancillary one (New York StateEducation Department 1977).

Level I decisions. Courses in basic skills are scattered amongexisting divisions with little or no coordination.

Level II decisions. The leadership of the developmental pro-.gram is subordinated within another division or precollege unit.

,

66

Level III decisions. A developmental division coordinatessupport services and prev.tnts its own courses.

Level il" decisions. A developmental division administers theprogram through a leader who plans, coordinates, and allocatesfunds for a comprehensive program. Developmental facultyparticipate in college and academic decision making. Develop-mental courses and components are subsumed into the regularcourse sequences within the academic divisions but are staffedand-coordinated by the developmental division.

Variable 18. Institutionalization of developmental servicesDecisions about policies and standards reflect the extent towhich a college has institutionalized the developmental concept

' developmental services into its academic mainstream. Thelevels of decisions within the Hierarchies represent these

varying, degrees of institutional commitment. They comprise aswell the sequence of stages through which developmental lead-ers gain influence and help to shape decisions about policiesand standards within the college.

Level I decisions. Interdisciplinary links, contacts. and op-portunities for service are sought to enlarge the influence of thedevelopmental program beyond the constraints of isolatedcourses in basic skills.

Level II decisions. The developmental concept is establishedin individual, voluntary service to students and teachers.

Level III decisions. The developmental concept is writteninto policy. requirements, and procedures of congenial depart-ments and courses. Consensus for the concept of a develop-mental program is evolving; however, an agenda for thedevelopmental program for the curriculum or irstitution is notyet recognized.

Level IV decisions. The chair of the developmental programand. the developmental faculty serve on-college committees andstrive to integrate the developmental concept into policy state-ments, design of curricula. and problem-solving processes.Statements describing requirements for proficiency and proce-dures for reinforcement and remediation arc specified for ap-propriate courses, levels, and transitions in the college. Thesestatements are published in catalogs and syllabi.


The relatfionship between the enforcement of policies andstandards and the structure of learning servicesThe enforcement of policies that guide students into andthrough appropriate academic programs and maintain prescribedperformance standards can be expected to improve students'achievement. However, merely declaring policy statements thatare not carri44 out is of link! value. The structure of the learn-ing services within the institution determines the extent towhich such policies ?re c,aforceable. given the practical con=straints of the contem.orary higher education environment.

Level IV, cornpreht.nsiv, multiservice prugrams provide theflexibility ofIcourses skins and alternative instructionalarrangements thriAign rdfich resour_es can be efficiently ap-plied for stude.v.,.. . Such fle ibility is importantfor gaining stutknts' ceptancc .t: rerfo ce standards andfor providing for problems that therwise would In-sult in waivers of rf: qnzre:ments.

For example. a 1!:. problem in four -y .nr c(licgcs is thetransfer student who needs it:mediation of a basic skill despitchaving transf-rrr.:1:1 with :Accept:A:tie cretin. for relztect ?eneral ed-ucation courses. Consort.:um agreements' with other orother practical considerations may precluilT thc requiremet ofan in-house Version of a course for which another cdlege hitsawarded credit. However, the rernediation-an be accomplishedthrough mandated competency require ents-and individuallearning assistance or cour;c-related i structional requirements.Given the fat that one-third of all col ege students are transferstudents (Cohen 1979). feasible. enforeable ways to ensurethat transfer !students have basic skills are significant considera7tions in the design of developmental P °grams.

The HierarChy of Decisions Relating oProfessional and Paraprofessional Sta and RolesThe changing environment for teaching nd the increasing di-versiv of students place demands on teat ers for new kinds ofskills. Figure shows the ranking of the ssible decisions re-lating tc professional and paraprofessional taff and roles forthe following Variables:

19. regular course instructor's role20. developMental program staff and role21. counseling staff and role22. faculty 4nd staff development.

60

The variables are ranked accordin to whether they have high

or low potential for improving students' learning and effecting

instructional devetopment.

Yariabk 19. Regular course instructor's roleThe academic instructor is the content specialist and the man-ager of the instructional p :.x.7ess (Arkwardy and Chafin 1980).In the Loop College Individual Needs Program, a programidentified as highly successful for developing students' achieve-ment (Roueche 1981-82). the course instructor is a "focusingagent" for the student and is learner-centered and caring (Bar-shis 1979).

Teaching faculty can manipulate six closely related aspectsof the learning environment to fit students' learning styles andneeds: (I) content--the subject matter, sequence, and pace;(2) classroom format and structurethe mix among alternativeteaching strategies; (3) noninstructor-centered, out-of-classactivities--homework, fieldwork, supplementary activities;(4) instructor-centered, out-of-class activities and meetings withindividuals and groups; (5) evaluation modes; (6') personal styleand classroom climatestyle of' interaction between instructorand student and among students (warmth versus coolness, per-sonal visibility and role modeling versus low-key profile) (Bess1979, p. 260).

In one study, engineering faculty stated that as teachers theyneed to understand that the purpose of a teacher is to serve as amediator between content and student, that they may sometimesneed to move outside their classrooms into other-experimental-learning situations such as seminars and informal occasions,that students are "overwhelmingly" dissatisfied with teachingand the quality of instruction, and that interdisciplinary ap-proaches are superior for mile purposes (Simmons et al.

1979).Low-potential decisions. Academic course instructors func-

tion primarily as -passive purveyors of information" (Ark-wardy an 'halm 1980, p. 113).

High-potential decisions. Academic course instructors focuson learners' needs and responses, manipulate the learning envi-sonment to improve learners' achievement of course objectives,and use developmental program resources to extend the rangeof options and support available to their students.


Figure 6 The Hierarchy of Decisions: Relating to

Variables

-4-

Course Instructor'sRole

Developmental Staffand Role

Manage learner-centered instructionalprocess. Interact withdevelopmental pro-gram staff to extendrange of options forlearning.

Use a multilevelstaff. Make a spe-cialist available toconsult and collabo-''rate with academicfaculty.

Teach course con-tent., formation inIraditir nal, inflexibleways. Provide fewalternative learningactivities.

Use professionalstaff only. Restrictspecialists primarilyto remedial teach-ing.

62

Professional and Paraprofessional Staff and Roles

Variables

Counseling Staff andRole

Faculty and StaffDevelopment


Program

Coordinatecounselor-studentcontact within aca-demic programs.For academic fac-ulty. develop skillsas advisors andcounselors.

Use informal andformal settings forinstructional prob-lem solving as astaff developmentactivity. Regularfaculty and develop-mental specialistscollaborate to de-velop needed tech-niques

IVComprehensive

Learning Systems

IIICourse-related

Learning Services

Isolate counselingand advising withinycpardre faCilitieS.

Ignore staff dev'el-opment needs.

it

Individual LearningAssistance

Remedial Courses


Variable 20. Developmental prof.-erg4 staff and roleThe developmental program usts multilevel staff, includingprofessionals, paraprofessionals, and volunteers.

The influence of the learning specialist is increasing. For-merly ignored in academic decisions about students, learningspecialists are increasingly asked for assistance by academicfaculty attempting to meet the needs of underprepared students(Maxwell 1979, p. 386: Pinette and Smith 1979; Walter 1979),They are increasingly asked to provide specific serf ices stai..h asconducting workshops for faculty and students and developingmodules on vocabulary, comprehension, and other topics(Adams 1974).

successful programs use well-trained peer helpers and otherparaprofessionals such as graduate assistants and teaching assis-tants (Awkwardy and Charm 1980; Simmons et al. 1979; Max-well 1979; Wassman 1977; New York State EducationDepartment 1977; Roueche and Snow 1977; Gordon 1975;Jelfo 1974). The use of such affordable helpers as tutors, coun-selors, and clerical aides enlarges the developmental program'scapability to enhance resources for academic courses as well asits own courses. Peer helpers are particularly successful withstudents.

Low-potential decisions. Restrict the learning specialist's roleto teaching remedial courses and die professional staff only.

High-potential decisions. Use a multilevel staff. Make alearning specialist available to consult and collaborate with aca-derr'f2 faculty.

Variable 21. Counseling staff and roleCounselors must get out of their offices (Roueche and Snow1977, p. 122). Faculty must develop special sensitivity to theirstudents.. Faculty, in both formal and informal advising situa-tions, must have the skills to communicate positively instruc-tional needs and options. They must respond appropriately toresilient learners, who have the energy to learn; to reluctantlearners, who are affected by past histories of failure; and tonaive learners, who mistakenly believe as a result of being re-warded for nonachievement that they have certain skills (Ark-wardy and Ctufin 1980). Cognitive gains may be much lessimportant in the long run than the changes in attitude, whichare infinitely harder to bring about (Grant and Hoeber 1978).

Low-potential decisions. Counseling contacts are available tostudents only within a separate facility..

64

7

High-potential decisions. Academic faculty develop sensitiv-ity and skills as advisors/counselors to students and incorporatecounseling in their programs for their students' affective devel-opment.

Variabk 22. Faculty and staff developmentThe average faculty member must learn new methods to dealwith the range of abilities confronted in the classroom (Cross1979). Sixty-three percent of engineering faculty consideredthemselves inadequate to teach underprepared students andmentioned their needs for training in evaluation, diagnosis, tra-ditional and new methods of teaching, development of curricu-lum, and organizational development, including team building,decision making, and problem solving (Simmons et al. 1979,p. 17).

Faculty and staff must be energetically involved in both plan-ning and implementing for staff development to have lasting ef-fect (Simmons et al. 1979; New York State EducationDepartment 1977). In a time of steady and declining enroll-ments with concomitant diminishing resources, it is importantto reorient the educatiohal system to create self:directed learn-ers (Cross 1979).

Low-potential decisions. Staff development is not undertakenin formal or informal contacts.

High-potential decisions. Developmental and academic fac-ulty collaborate for staff development that focuses on instruc-tional problem solving and development.

The relationship between professional roles andthe structure of the learning improvement programOngoing, mutual staff development occurs as a natural conse-quence of the collaboration of developmental and academic fac-ulty to develop learning activities for stude:As. Resistance tochange is diminished when faculty seek assistance to solve stu-dent' Ir.arning problems in their programs. The structure of adevelopmental program is thus the most important variable forachieving effective staff development. Developmental programmodels that foster interdisciplinary contact facilitate staff devel-opment. Program models that isolate learning specialists inhibitthe ongoing, problem-solving contacts through which academicfaculty might be influenced to use new methods and acquirenew skills.

Faculty andstaff must beenergeticallyinvolved inboth planningandimplementingfor staffdevelopmentto have alasting effect.


The Hierarchy of Decisions Relating to theEvaluation of Learning Improvement ProgramsWhat should be measured, and how, in the evaluation of learn-ing improvement programs when the values being sought areimproved GPA and retention? Evaluation is the . . . processof delineating, obtaining, and providing useful information forjudging decision alternatives . . . " (Stufflebeam 1971, p. 37).Because students' leamine outcomes and the impact of theremedial/developmental program are enhanced or constrainedby the decisions of many people within the college, the scopeof the evaluation must be such that all decision makers haveaccurate information about the effects of all the controllablevariables that are relevant to a particular instructional settingincluding 'students' behavior, developmental and regular pro-gram practices, and institutional policies.

The Hierarchies in the aggregate contain a compt's.hensive listof variables that research has demonstrated to be significant inthe design of learning improvement,programs. Determining theinstitutional status of each of these variablt-s provides a frame-work for evaluation and the subsequent improvement ofremedial/developmental and academic programs.

Figure 7 ranks the possible decisions relating to the evalua-tion of learning improvement programs for four critical vari-ables:

23. institutional context and outcomes24. student outcomes25. academic standards and the grade point average26. ongoing evaluation.

Variable 23. Institutional context and outcomesThe more successful remedial/developmental programs arecharacterized by a high degree of integration of developmentalservices, philosophy, and staff within the academic life of theinstitution. So it is with evaluation itself. All aspects of policy,regular programs, and institutional context that affect the deiiel-opmental program, influence the learning of students, and/orestablish the standards by which students tlie judged must beconsideredif the study is to account for a significant proportionof the factors affecting students' learning (Roueche and Snow1977, p. 104; Gordon 1975).

Success in effective programs is measured against the institu-tion's long-term goals and its short-term performance objectives(New York State Education Department 1977, p. 74) and exter-

66

cud standards of accountability when they are arplicable (Mc-Fadden 1979). The criteria of success may be betterperformance in the next level class as well as better test scores(Maxwell 1970, 1979; Cross 1976). Local definition., of suc-cess are legitimate. For example, in light of extraordinary cir-cumstances of background, a modest rate of persistence of 40percent might show success (Donnovan 1977).

In strong programs, institutional outcomes are assessed in ad-dition to student outcomes; those institutional outcomes mightinclude the most efficacious allocation of resources, revisionsof admissions criteria and program standards, greater programvisibility and acceptance, staff development, increased coopera-tion and communication among faculty, and a broader base ofsupport (New York State Education Department 1977). Al-though it is important to understand the impact of programs forthe disadvantaged on their institutions, almost nothing is knownabout the subject (Richardson et al. 1981; Donnovan 1977).Evidence of institutional response and change toward more useof developmental concepts is sought.

Several levels within the college are involved in the evalua-tion, including the developmental program staff, the academicprogram staff, and participating program administrators (Sim-mons et. al. 1979; Nev., York State Education Department1977). Evaluators should ask several questions: What is the re-lation of the developmental program evaluation to the regularacademic program evaluation? Are the appropriate academicfaculty, involved in diagnosis and setting standards for thelearning services and skills courses? Does scheduling allowinteraction and cooperation with other faculty? Do opportunitiesexist for staffing dual assignments? (New York State EducationDepartment 1977).

Level 1 decisions. Although overall learning, represented bydata on GPA and persistence, may be used as a criterion ofsuccess, the outcomes are explained only in terms of the reme-dial program. The influence of the college's policies and aca-demic program practices is not examined.

Level II decisions. Some institutional factors are consideredin evaluating the assistance given to individual students; how-ever, the college's practices are not systematically described,evaluated, or recommended for their effect on learning.

Level III decisions. instruction and other relevant factorswithin an associated academic course or program are included


7 7

Figure 7 The Hierarchy r3r Decisly,

InstitutionalContext andOutcomes Student Outcome:

Analyze A relevantregular faculty prac-tices, institutionalfactors, circumstan-ces, and outcomes;make institutionalrecommendations.

Assess changesbased c criteriontasks relzt.d to thecontent of servicesand course, ongrades, and on indi-ces in academiccourses.

Analyze selected rel-evant features withinan adjunct academicCourse.

Within an acaderniCcourse, assesschange using crite-rion tasks for a fewintegrated develop-mental activities asin Levei IV.

Mention some insti-tutional factors per-taining to assistedstudents. Do not sys-tematically analyzeinstitutional factors.

Assess changes us-ing general testsand academiccourse grades.

Exclude institutional Assess outcomesfactors, effects, aca- with no analysis ofdemic faculty. Study change.students and remedialprogram only.

68

76

4

the Evaluation of Learning Improvement ProgramsVariables

AcademicStandards and

GPAOngoing

Evaluation


Program

Analyze cor4eten-ties represented byGPA. Assess rela-tionship betweendevelopmental andregular programs.

Assess and provideperfodic feedback.Use follow-up stud-ies. Analyze long-term effects,changes.

IVComprehensive

Learning Systems

Within adjunct orfollow-on course,assess relationshipbetween regular andremedial instructionand competenciesrepresented bygrade criteria.

Monitor changesthrough a courseand a follow-oncourse.

IIICourse-related

Learning Services

Use grades in ver-bal or quantitativecourses as a cite-rion of the effec-tiveness ofassistance to indi-viduals.

Limit evaluation toa single semester.

IIIndividual Learning

Assistance

Use GPA as a trite-rion for discreteskills courses. As-sume relevance ofskills and course'work to the contentrepresented byGPA.

Undertelte no Sys-tematic evaluationof the develuptrien-tal program onoverail, long-termlearning.

I

Remedial Courses

.

-


79

in the evaluation of developmental services. The regular courseinstructor participates in the evaluation.

Level IV decisions. Regi liar faculty as well as developmentalfaculty are involved in planning andlinplementing the evaluation.The evaluation of the learning improvement program is perceivedin relation to the college's mission a=id to its overall instructionalprogram. Using a variety of indices, it assesses regular programand institutional wills, needs, and change. It produces recom-mendations for institutional policy and charges in the regular pro -grama.s well as in the developmental program.

Variable 24. Student outcomesAcademic performance is the ultimate validator of a learningimprovement program. Appropriate measures include survivalin the regular program and completion of the degree (Simmonset al. 1979; Gordon 1975) and such indices as GPA and gradesin certain subsequent courses (Boylan 1981; Roueche and Snow1977; Sparks and Davis 1977; Cross 1976; Maxwell 1970).

, The value-added concept is increasingly important in timesof scarce resources. Therefore, researchers seek evidence ofchange and improvement. Student outcomes are judged relativeto students' entry level aptitudes (Arkwardy and,Chafin 1980:McFadden 1979; Baird 1977; Roueche and Snow 1977).

The measurement of change for remedial students is difficultbecause of the statistical and research design problems dis-cussed previously. The success of developmental programs de-pends in part on the criteria used (Cross' 1976); many indicesare preferable to a few. (Barrow 1980; Trillin and Associates'

k 1980; Roueche and Snow 1977). Success must be defined inrelation to both institutional and individual goals. For example,a failure to persist in particular college might not represent afailure in cases where students are helped to clarify their own -goals and to find employment or to transfer to another school(New York State Education Department 1977; Roueche andSnow 1977).

tha\

Standardized tests do not measure the specific reading skillst are develoitei m particular courses (Maxwell 1979; Ander-

son 1973) and thus tend to understate the growth that,may haveoccurred in reading ability (Hippo 1980). Results are likely tobe\ more accurate and favorable when such variables are mea-sured as the attainment of a specific skill, the application ofskills and knowledge in regular program courses, retention, therates of continuation and success (as defined locally), academic

70

status, attitudes and behaviors such as attendance and class par-ticipation, commitment, and decision-making skills (Walve 'car

1981, pp. 75-94; New York State Education Dept .,ctent 1977,

p. 741). Criterion measures consistent with the objectives ofthe program are preferable to standardized tests, whirl'. are in-appropriate for measuring an individual student's growth (Ark-wardy and Chafin 198N Anderson 1973; Maxwell 1979, p.221). A student's perfoanance of the criterion task should be

interpreted in relation to the specific performance standards,.should reflect the instructional intent, and should generalize tothe domain of instructionally relevant tasks in subsequentcourses (Arkwardy and Chafin 1980).

More accurate measures of academic success may be the key

to making basic educational processes more meaningful in de-velopmental programs. Interest is emerging in measuring learn-ing processes as well as level of achievement; however, few

useful instruments exist for doing so (Gordon 1975). Accept-able evidence includes data about interactions, small groupfeedback, indicators of attitude, and procedural research (NewYork State Education Department 1977; Gordon 1975). The"acceptability" of evidence is established by its appropriate-ness for the purpose for which it is used (Moore 1981; Max-well 1979).

The grouping statistic, whether a rut-off score or an average,will affect the result obtained from evaluation (Trillin and As- (sociates 1980). When a mean is the measure, it is a statisticalfact that by definition half the people will always be below av-erage (Cross 1976, pp. 9-13). If a remedial program is limiteto the weakest students, assistance to them may result in a"C" performance in a follow-on course for which the averaggrade is "B." Comparing these scores could discredit the re-medial program and mask genuine gains in learning (Maxwe1979). Criterion-referenced cut-off scores are therefore-more

meaningful indicators-of-success-than-are average scores.

Level / decisions. Student outcomes are assessed without ananalysis of their entry-level abilities:

Level ll decisions. Student growth is assessed using generalcriteria for tests and grades.

Level III decisions. Within an academic course, students'learning and change are assessed for each of those objectives

fot which developmental and regular instructional activitieshave been integrated. Specific skills and knowledge are mea-sured by means of criterion tasks that are related to support of


ap

the developmental program and to content of the regular aca-demic program. Grades in the regular program are a measure ofsuccess in the developmental program.

Level IV decisions. Within academic courses, students' learn-ing and change are assessed using many indices of participa-tion, persistence, and commitment. The same criterion tasksand criteria of success for Level fit decisions are used.

Variable 25. Academic standards and the grade point averageWhy does GPA as a criterion of success provide such inconsis-tent results as reported in the many studies in which it has beenused? Do these findings reflect the inefficacy of the programsbeirig evaluated or the inadequacy of GPA.asa oiterion? Whatis the proper use of GPA as a criterion in learitinf, improvementprograms?

Of itself, GPA is not a consistent stanuard, either amongprograms within a school or among colleges. Grading practicesvary among faculty, departments, and colleges; grading stan-dards vary with changes in admissions policy or skills of admit-ted students (Gordon 1975). Because remedial programs workwith the least prepared students, the apparent result of the pro-gram can be influenced by drifts in the admitted students' abil-ity profiles (Maxwell 1979, p. 189).

Research does not support the use of GPA as the only crite-rion, but it does support it as one of the possible bases forjudgment (Tillman 1973; Maxwell 1979). Furthermore, grade-related criteria such as GPA, success in follow-on courses, andthe relation of credit hourseamed to credit hours attempted areappropriate measures only when the developmental program isdesigned to supplement the regular curriculum, not when it op-erates as a discrete program (Webb 1977).

A definition of the standards of competence required in thecourses that contribute to GPA and the relevance of those stan-dards to the content of the developmental program must be den-onstrated for GPA tohe a meaningful criterion. This informationis not provided in many studies in which GPA is used as a crite-rion, however, particularly studies of isolated remedial readingprograms. The omission of this information may account for theinconsistency of the results obtained in these studies.

In effective programs, the eyaluations have provided answersto several questions. about how developmental studies interfacewith the regular Atmic. program: (1) Are valid enbance andexit standards e ied? (2) Are regular faculty aware of the

72

82

standards? (3) Is the diagnosis of students' needs specificenough to guide instruction? (New York State Education De-_

partment 1977).Level I decisions. GPA is used as a criterion of the effective-

ness of remedial skills courses, which are assumed to be gener-

ally relevant to the content of the academic program.Level II decisions. Grades in verbal or quantitative courses

are used as a criterion of effectiveneSs for verbal or quantitativelearning assistance to individuals. The assumption lis that theindividual's need to know in academic courses determines thequestions he asks and thereby guides the support received, en-surim: .ime relevance to the content of the academic program.

Le, III decisions. Within an' adjunct or follow-or, academiccour-e. the relationship between regular and developmental in-struction and content is assessed. If the course gri,de is used asa criterion of the effectiveness of the developmental program,evaluators must decide whether the grade represents competen-cies developed in the remed :ogram..

Level IV decisions. The c, _tiveness of the relationship '.x.-tween the regular program and the developmental program is

assessed. Evaluators decide whether entri-t.;ce and exit standardsare valid, recognized, and specific enough to guide invoction.A criterion for GPA is interpreted in 1:1-it of the standirds ofachievement (i.e., competencies) represented (by the grades

from which GPA is derived.

Variable 26. Ongoing evaluationOngoing evaluation is associated with successful learning im-provement programs (Grant and Hoeber 1978; Roueche andSnow 1977; Gordon 1975). Systematic evaluation and problemsolving help to clarify institutional goals and program:lade ob-jectives (Roueche and Snow 1977). Ongoing evaluation pro-vides the basis for improving instructional services (Simmons etal. 1979; Maxwell 1975). Continuous assessment of needs anddissemination of informar:^n about the population to be servedby the developmental program are necessary to build aware-ness. support, and rationale for instructional services. Ongoingevaluation facilitates awareness, negotiation, and inr ovation,which tend to produce.not only better learning outcomes butalso greater congruence between institutional philosophy andthe working objectives for the program being evaluated.

A comprehensive eva!' on of a learning improvement pro-gram should address s= ;:.1 kinds of outcomes at various time

Systematiccaluationand problemsolving helpto clarifyinstitutionalgoals andprogrammaticobjectives.

Raising Academic. Standards 73

,intervals. Fo llov, up studies an ongoing component ollpro-.

gram assessment. addressin '-range goals. long-rangegoals. -ad carryover of skill, ,:gular academic prograMs andrequireinents and focusing on students who leave as well 'asthose who col1/21plete the program (New York State EducationDepartment 1977. pp. 73-74).

Level 1 decisions. No sy-,ematie .valuation of the effects ofthe remedial prograr. on st.idents' overall l.Y.rning is under-taken.

Level 11 decisions. Evaluation is limited to a singleLevel III decisions. The effects of ins:ructional services

!.; within a course and a related follow-on cour..e are Monito.,-.,Level IV decisions. Students' leart;:ft, outcomes and needs

are periodically assessed, and academic and developmental fac-ulty receive regular feeuJack. Follow-up studies and analysis oflong-term effects, trends, and changes are onooii7,4.

The structure of the remedial /developmental program us afacilitator of changeThe development of an "innovative enclave" is a relatively in-expensive strategy for achieving institutional, "self- renewal"and change (Levine 1978, p. 419). Collabo;ation to solve prob-lems is ari effective strategy for change, normally requirin!, aconsultant in the role of "outside facilitator" (Nordvall 1982).The learning specialistlfulfills the role of facilitator in success-ful learning improveir..int programs and uses the evaluation ofneeds and learning services as the starting point for problem

ing.ihe process of change involves f*,,ur steps: (!) research,

which unc possibilities and ;),, Wee's a theoretical basis forchange; ievelopment, which in .ves design of alternatives;(3) diffusion, which 1) dissemination and demorktration per-suades target audiences to participate; and (4) adoption, whichinvolves training, trial, installation, and institutionalization ofthe innovation (Stufflebeam1971, p. 31).

Involvement of interdisciplinary faculty in the evaluation andredesign of instruction occurs naturally in those settings inwhich remedial/developmental services are being planned coop-eratively for integration or have been int rated into ongoingacademic programs. The central focus of the evaluation is theprocesses of the developmental programtheir appropriatenessgiven students' needs and the specific outcomes desired. Inevi-tably, the participating regular and developmental faculty ana-

74

lyze regular progri.m processcs as well, seeking information tohelp them refine their own couse. prrigram. or service. Theensuing analysis of a shared enterprise is unthreatening to par-ticipating faculty and affords evaluators much greater accessand insight into regular programs than could otherwise be pos-sible. Data thus obtained are more likely to explain more of thefactors that would otherwise tend to confound the results instudies including only developmental. processes.

An organizational structure that fosters joint projects andevaluations is therefore the critical element the developmen-tal program when the goal is evolutionary instructional change.Research has demonstrated that faculty's initiative and coopera-tion are essentiai if instructional development projectsare to work and that faculty's initiative and cooperation aremore important even than administrative and staff support(Lawrason and Hedberg Ic77). What better way to foster suchinitiative and cooperation than to provide the possibility of al-ternatives and the faculty's involvement in the process ofchange?

Raising Academie Standards 75

THE EMERGING ROLE FORLEARING IMPROVMENT PROGRAMS

The research literature provides strong support for three conclu-sions MO!, when ignored in the design of learning improvementprograms and evaluation studies. produce programs with pri-marily short-term effects and studies that do not explain thebasic instructional processes contributing to students' achieve-ment.

;. In response to urgent pressures threatening academic val-ues and survival, educators seek Improved learning and reten-tion in le overall academic program from their investment Inremedial/developmental programs. These benefits have not beenforthcoming from programs whose only service to the . h:ge isisolated remedial courses.

2. Instructional models for academic courses that ar,founded upon developmental learning theory and pros for allof the students' educational needs improve learning and are fea-sible and cost effective when developmental program resourcesare aligned with academic program resources.

3. The most effective roles for remedial/developmental pro-grams in a college or university arP those of catalyst and ener-gizer for instructional development and of codeveloper, guide,and deliverer of services to create more responsive educationalenvironments.

These generalizations can be expected to provide the mostproductive foundation for improved learning and academic pro-gram planning, as long as Me current environment of decliningpopulation diminished resources, and increasingly unethicalcon:petition for students prevails. The Decision Guide for Ef-fective Programs is the pragmatic educator's blueprint forachieving survival with int,'37rity and for controlling the pro-cesses of inevitable change.

76

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education abstracts and indexesthe curren; . erature on higher education for the National Institute ofEducation's Gionthly bibliographic journal Resources in Education.Most of these publications are available through the ERIC DocumentReproduction Service (EDRS). For ;:,.blications cited in this bibliog-raphy that are available from EDRS. ordering number and price areincluded. Readers who wish to order a publication should write to theERIC-Document Reproduction Service. P.C. Box 190. Arlington. Vir-ginia 22210. When ordering. please specify the document number.Documents are available as noted in microfiche (MF) and paper copy(PC). Since prices are subject to change it is advisable to check thelatest issue of Resources in Education for current change based on thenum...n of rages in the publication.

Adams. W. Royce. 1974. The Reading Instructor's Role in AssistingContent Area Instructors in Reading and Study Skills:' Paper pre-sented at the annual meeting of the International Reading Associa-

, tion. New Orleans. Louigiana. ED 096 609. MF-$1.17: PC-$3.70.

American College Testing Program. 1980. COMP: College OutcomeMeasures Project. Summary Report of Research and Development.1976-1980. :owa City, Iowa: American College Testing Program.

Anderson, William W. 197? "Evaluation of College Reading andStudy Skills Programs: Problems and Approaches." Paper presentee,at the annual meeting of the College Reading Association. SilverSpring, Maryland. ED OR-1 MF -$I. 7: PC-$3 70.

Arkwardy, Joseph W., and Chafin. Carl K. ISSC. The TransitionalCurricu!um Prograrl. coward Learner Independence through Devel-opr. -7:tal Education." Paper presented at the National Developmen-tal ,tudies Conference, Atlanta. Georgia. ED 197 662. MF-$1.17;PC-$3.70.

Ashdown. E. 'March 1979. ",'Humanities on the Front Line." ChangeII, 18-21.

Astin. Alexander W. 1975 Preventing Students from Orepping Out.San Francisco: Josses. -Bass.

Astin, H. S. et al. 1972. Higher J:.(lucation and the DisadvantagedStudent. Washington. D.C.: Human Services Press.

Baehr, R. F. 1969. "Project Success. Final Report." Washington.D.C.: Office of Education. DHEW. ED 039 870. MF-$1.17: PC-$7.20.

Baird. L. I. I97-. Assessing Student Academic and Soc;-' Progress.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ball, Samual. 1977. "Research and Program Evaluation: Some Princi-ples. Precepts. and Practices." In The Final Report of NationalProject II: Alternatives to the Revolving Door, edited by R. A.

/An


Donnovan. Washington. D.C.: Fund for the Improvement of Post- .

secondary Education. ED 151 054. MF-5I .17: PC-53.70.Barrow. John C. November 1980. "Follow-Up of Dropouts from De-

velopmental Programs: A Supplemental Program Evaluation Ap-proach." Personnel and Guidance Journal 59: 186-89.

Barshis, Don. 1979. "The Loop College Individual Needs (IN) Pro-gram: An Analysis of Its Success and a Guide to the Implementa-tion or Adaptation of Its Techniques." Chicago: Loop College. ED181 946. MF-51.17: PC-53.70.

Berg. E. H., and Axtell. D. 1968. Programs for Disadvantaged Stu-dents in California Community CollegeS. Oakland: Peratta JuniorCollege District. ED 026 032. MFS1.17: PC-59.33.

Bergman. Irwin B. January 1977. "Integrating Reading Skills withContent in a Two-Year College." Journal of Reading 20: 327-29.

Bernstein, H. R. 1976. Manual for Teaching. Ithaca. N.Y.:.Center forImprovement of Undergraduate Education. Cornell University.

Bess. James L. May/Jui,c 1979. "Classroom and Management Deci-sions Using Student Data: Designing an Information System." Jour-nal of Higher Education 50: 256-79.

Bliesmer. Emery P. 1956. "Review of Recent Research in CollegeReading." In Exploring the Goals of College Reading Programs.edited by 0. S. Causey. Fort Welh: Texas Christian UniversityPress.-ED 130 222. MF-5!.17: PC-53.70.

Boylan. Hunter. 1980. "Academic intervention in Developmental Ed-ucation." Journal of Developmental and Remedial Education3:10-1 I .

. 1981. "Program Evaluation: Issues. Needs, and Realities."In Assessment of Learning Assistance Services, edited by C. Vial-vekar. San Francisco: lossey-Bass.

Braker'. Dorothy K. 1954. "Organization ;and Administration of Col-lege Reading Programs: Problems Involved.'' In Evaluating CollegeReading Programs, edited by 0. S. Cause)'. Rut Worth:' TexasChri:,1:an University Press.

Brawer, Michael P. 1982. "Integrating Motivational Activities into In-struction: A Developmental Model." Tallahassee, Fla.: Deportmentof Education. ED 222 106. MF-51.17: PC-53.70.

Brehman. George C.. and McGowar. Kristine. 1976. "Higher Educa-tion Equal Opportunity Program: 1974-75. Annual Report." Harris-burg, Pa.: Pennsylvania Department of Education.

Bridge, W. T., ed. 1970. "Research and Compensatory Education:What Are We Doing?" Proceedings of a workshop sponsored bythe Florida Educational Research Association. racksonville. ED 041581. MF-51.17: PC $5.45.

Bronx Community College. 1974. "The Academic and RemedialPlacement Profile of Students Entering B.C.C. in September 1974

78

by Curriculum Group." New York: Bronx Community College. ED ,099 051. NIF-S1.17: PC- $3.70..

. 1975. "The Academic and Remedial Placement of StudentsEntering B.C.C. in September 1975 by Curriculum Group." NewYork: Bronx Community College. ED 115 330. MF-SI.17: PC-$3.70.

Bruner, Jerome. 1973. The Relevance of Education. New York: Nor-ton Library.

Bynum. Effie. et al. 1972. Report of the Study of College Compensa-tors Education Programs for DrsadvanNged Youth: A Draf t. NewYork: Columbia University Teachers College. ED 110 525. MF-S1.37. PC-539.25.

Carnegie Council on Policy ;.Itudi..s id Higher Educatio; 1979. Fairin Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

. i980. Three Thousand Futures: The Next Twenty Years forHigher Education. San Francisco: Josscy-Bass. ED 183 076. MF-51.17: PC not 3-..ailAle '_ DRS.

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 1977. Mis-sions of the C011ege Currie 'um San Francisco: Josscy-Bass.

Carney. Myrna, and Geis. Lynna. 1981. "Reading Ability. AcademicPerformance. and C11eN Attrition.' Journal of College StudentPer-onnel 22: 55-59,

Carter, Homer. 1970. "The of Today's Students upon CollegeProgram. in Reading." Paper presented at the national conferenceof the international Reading Association.,St. Petersburg, Florida.ED 049 004. MF-51.17: PC-S3.70.

Carter. Larry G. 1976. ".rx .lopmental Studies Project: Post Seemdary Education: Final Repo,;." Canandaigua, N.Y.: Comnr.nnityCollege of the Finger Lakes. ED 131. 888. MF-SI.17:

Causey, Oscar S.. ed. 1955. Who; the Colleges Are Doing fand improving Colic Reading Programs. Fort Worth: TexasChristian University Press. ED i30 220. MF-S1.17: PC-S14.97.

. 1956. Exploring the Goals of College Reading Programs.Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press. ED 130 222. MF-$1.17: PC-$12.143.

1,5 ?. Si,eni /icuat Elements in College and Adult 'Wading Im-piovemend. Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press. HI 130

- 223. MF-51.17: PC-512.83.Chaplin. Miriam T. May I977a. "An Analysis of Current Procedures,

Practices, and Principles in College Reading Instruction." ReadingWorld 16: 270-78.

. 1977b. "Where Do We Co from Here? Strategics for Sur-vival of College Reading Programs." Paper presentee; to the annualmeeting of the Colleg.c. Reading Association, Cincinnati, Ohio. ED147 791. MF-S1.17: PC-53.70.


!,969 L ucation and identity. San Francisco:

Chntc.

: e,." ,k . 1 OX- Devc!.-,drriew of as Academic System

fri; i.)N.advantaged 1-`37,1r presented at the

APGA Atlantic Cl. Ef) 050 2: t MF-Si

Chronicle .j::1's Education. 16 December 1981. "Academic

Norms Urgc....t 1r Aid Recipients." 23: 16-17.Cohen. An tur r-:. April (979. "Shall We Segregate the Functionally

Illiterate?" Community and Junior College Journal 49: 14-18.

Cole. Charles C.. Jr.. 1982. Impiovirf Instruction: Issues and Alter-

natives for Higiler*Education. AAHL-ERIC/Higher Education Re-

search Report No. 4. Washington. D.C.: American Association forHigher Education. ED 222 159. MF-51.17; PC-57.20.

Cross. K. Patricia. 1976. Accent on Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

. 1979. "Looking Ahead: Spotlight on the Learner." Paperpresented at the National Conference on Developmental Education,Lexington. Kentucky. ED 177 971. MF-51.17; PC-53.70.

. 1981. Adults as Learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

David. J. L.. and Pelavin. S. H. 1978. "Secondary Analysis in Com-

pensatory Education Programs." In Secondary Analysis. edited by

R. F. Barouch. New Directions for Testing and Measurement No.

4. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Davis. J. A.. et al. 1973. "The impact of Special Services Programs

in Higher Education for Disadvantaged Students." Princeton. N.J.:

Educational Testing Service.Diamond. Lynn. 1976. "The Development of Reading Skills through

a Holistic Team Teaching Approach." Paper presented at the annual

meeting of the International Reading Association. Anaheim. Califor-

nia. EL) 12-6 519. MF-$1.17; PC-$3.70.Donnovan. Richard A.. ed. 1977. The Final Report ofNational Proj-

ect II. Alternatives to the Revolving :.-Nror. Washington. D.C.: Fund

for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education. ED 151 054.

MF-51.17: PC-59.33.Duck. Gary A. 1978. Student Performance Measures for Evaluelig

Secondary and Postsecondary Intervention Programs. vol. 5 (APlanned Variations Study. Washington. D.C.: Office of Education.

ED 154 674. MF-51.17; PC-511.08.Eagle. Norman. 1977. "The Academic and Remedial Placement Pro-

file of Students Entering B.C.C. in September 1976 and September

1977 by Curriculum Group." Research Report BCC 4-76. 4-77.

New York: E re.;:x Community College. ED 148 434. MF-51.17;

PC-57.20.Educational Testing Service. 1981. National Report on College-Bound

Seniors, /98/. Princeton. N.J.: ETS.

80

Entwisle: Z.:. I... March 1960. "Evaluations of Study-Skills Courses: AReview." Journal of Educational Research 53:243-51.

Fairbank . Ntir;lyn M.: and Snozek. Dorothy A. 1973. "Checklist ofCurrent Practices in Reading and Study Skills Programs for CollegeStudents." Paper presented at the annual meeting of.the CollegeReae.. Association. Silver Spring, Maryland. ED 088 020. MF-$1.17; PC- $3.70.

Fetcher. Cameron. 1975. "The Access Placement Retention Gradua-tion of Minority Students in Higher Education." Paper presented ata conference on equality of access in postsecondary education. At-lanta, Georgia. ED 114 011. MF-$1.17; PC-$7.20.

Fishman, F., and Dugan, M. 1976. "Alternative Programs and Ser-vices for the Non-Traditional Student." Philadelphia: CommunityCollege. ED 129 380. MF-$1.17; PC-$3.70.

Flippo, Rona F. 198Q. "The Need for Comparison Studies of CollegeStudents' Reading Gains in Developmental Programs Using Generaland Specific Levels of Diagnosis." Paper presented at the South-eastern Regional Conference of the International Reading Associa-tion. Nashville, Tennessee. ED 185 525. MF-SI.17; PC- $3.70.

Glasser, William, M. D. 1(469. Schools without Failure. New York:

Gordon. Edmund W. 1975. Opportunity Programs for the Disadvan-taged in Higher Education. AAHE-ER1C/Higher Education Re-

) search Report No. 6. Washington. D.C.: American Association forHigher Education. ED 114 028. MF-$1.17; PC- $3.70.

Gordon, Edmund W.. and Wilkerson. Doxey. 1966. CompensatoryEducationfor the Disadvantaged. New York: College EntranceExamination Board. ED 011 274. MF-51.17; PC- $26.24.

Grant, Gerald, et al 1979. On Competence: A Critical Analysis ofCompeteace. Reforms in Higher Education. San FranciscoJossey-Bass.

Grant, Mary K., and Hocbcr, Daniel P.. 1978. Basic arils Programs..Are They Working? AAHE-ERIC'Higiicr Eiticatioi; Research ReportNo. I. Washington. D.C.: r merle:in Association for Higher Educa-tion. ED 150 918. MF-51. I PC-$7.20.

Holmberg. James, et al. 1979. Th- Tee7hinr. of History 41 Develo,7-mental Students: A Block Project. Pa...1u:gh: C ,ant'.-

. Community College. ED 168 617. MF-51.1 7; PC--;5.46.Jason,: Emil, et al. 1976. ':Accelerated Program in M:atterrvtcs tot

Disadvantaged Students." Paper presented at the TBIO Programs..Conferenee. Fontanno. Wisconsin. ED 152 931. MF-$1.17, PC-

$5.45.Jelfo, Donald T. 1974. An Evaluation 7f the DeYelopmental Education

Program at Cuyahoga :ommunity College. Fort Lauderdale, Fla.:Nova University. ED 099 036. MF- Sl.17; PC-$3.70.


Kagan, Jerome. 25 February 1973. "The Deprived Child: Doomed To

Be Retarded?" Los Angeles Times.

Kahn, Edward. 1977. "A Survey of Community College Reading Pro-

grams aal Personnel in New Jersey. Master's thesis, Rutgers Uni-

versity. ED 150 557. MF--$1.17: PC-514.97.

Keimig, Ruth Talbott. 1982. "The Change Facilitator Model for Man-

aging and Evaluating Developmental Stud', ''1..,,r3fris Applied to

the Study of Freshmen. Achievement and lc. tt the Mary-

mount College of Virginia." Ed.D. c :;corge Washing-

ton University.

Kendrick ,Lt. 1969. "Extending Edueat.ty ial Opportunity: Problems

of Recruitment and Admissions, High Risk Students." Summary of

aper presented at the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association of

Tican Colleges, Pittsburgh. Pennsylva,-..ia. ED 025 227.

; PC-$3.70.*ell, Gail B. 1978. "All College Students Benefit from Reading

-talon." Paper presented to the annual meeting of the South-

eastern Conference on English in the Two-Year Colleges. Nashville,

Tennessee. ED 159 622. MF-$1.17: PC-$3.70..Killian, C. Rodney, ed. 1980. Reasoning, Piaget, and Higher Educa-

tion. Papers presented at the National Conktence of Reasoning,

Piaget, and Higher Education. Denver, Colorado. ED 197 644.

MF-$1.17; PC-$11.08.Kingston. Albert J. 1955. "Problems in the Administration of a Col-

lege Reading Program." In What the Colleges Are Doing in Plan-

ning and Improving College Reading Programs, edited by 0. S.

Causey. Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press. ED 130 220.

MF-41.17; PC-$14.97.Klingelhofer, Edwin L., and Hollander, Lynne. 1973. Educational

Characteristics and Needs of New Students: A Re, iew of the Litera-

ture. 2d cd. Berkeley: Center for Research and Development in

Higher Education. ED 084 482. MF-$1.17; PC-514.97,

Lawrason, Robin E., and Hedberg, John G. 1977. -Predicting Suc-

cessful Instructional Development Projects in Higher Education."

Paper presented at a meeting of the American Educational Research

Association. ED 153 555. MF--$1.17; PC-55.45.

Lesnick, M. 1972. "Reading and Study Behavior Problems of College

Freshmen." Reading World 296 -319.

Levine, Arthur. 1978. Handbook on Undergraduate Curriculum. San

Francisco: JoSsey-Bass.

. 1980. When Dreams and Heroes Died: .4 Portrait of Today's

College Student. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Losak, J., and Burns. N. 1971. "An Evaluation of the Community

College Studies Program for the Year 1969-70." Miami: Miami-

Dade Junior College. ED 056 683. MF-$1.17; PC-$11.08.

94:

Ludwig. L. Mark. 1977. Educitinul Consulting Stu & Special Tech-niques for Assisting the Underprepared College .Siruilent. WorkingPapers on Professional Development in Teaching No. 5. Clexland:Cleveland Commission orrHigher Education. ED 175 324. MF-S1.17: PC-S5.45.

McAllister. David. 1954. "Enlisting Faculty Aid." lm Evaluating Col-lege Reading Programs. edited by 0. S. Causey. Fon Worth: TexasChristian University Pre... ED 130 221. MF-SI .17: PC-S3.70.

McCabe. Robert H. May 1981. "Now Is the Time to Reform theAmerican Community College. Community and Junior i-oitrgeJournal 51: 6-10.

McDill. et al. 1969. Strategies for Success in Compensator% l duceBaltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

McFadden. Ronald. 1979. "Program Evaluation and Educational Re-search in Developmental Studies: A Systems Model." Athens. Ga.:University of Georgia. ED 184 393. MF-S1.17: PC-55.45.

Magarrell, J. 10 March 1980. "Use Tests of Students to Judge Perfor-mance of Colleges. Ex-Education Commissioner Urges." Chronicleof Higher Education. 22:8.

. 1 June 1981. "Colleges Offered 1,5 Percent More Caut...-.This Year. Survey Finds: Remedial Classes increase 22 Percent."Chronicle of Higher ii-ation. 23: 173.

Manz°. Anthony. 1979. "College Reuling: Clone. Illegitimate Child.or Hybrid?" ED 178 881. MF-S1.17; PC-S3.70.

Maxwell. Martha: 1970. "Evaluation of College Reading and StudySkills. Programs." Paper presented at the conference of the Interna-tional Reading Association. Anaheim. California. ED 045 294.MF-SI 11; PC-S3.70.

. March 1975. "Developing a Learning Center: Plans. Prob-lems. Progress.' Journal of Reading 18: 462-69.

. 1979. Improving Student Learning Skills..Sar; Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Mayhew. Lewis B. 1979. Surviving the Eighties. San Francisco:Josscy-Bass.

Meister. M.. et al. October 1962. "Operation Second Chance."Junior College Journal 33: 78-88.

Minnick. Kirk P. and TeitelbauM. Herta. 1980. "Impact of a Devel-opmenta: Program on Student Performance." Paper presented at theannual forum of the Association for Institutional Research. i1;n.nta.Georgia. ED 189 938, ME-SI.17: PC-S5.45.

Moore. Robert-L. 19s1. "Role and Scope of Evaluation." In Assess-ment of Learning its.viytance Services, edited by C. Walvekar. SanFrancisco: Josscy-Bass.

Moran. Patrick J. 1980. "r.ggybacking Reading and Study Skillsonto College Courses." N.:Nr presented at the annual meeting of

Raising Academic- Standards 83

the International Reading Association. St. Louis, Missouri. ED 186879. MFS1.17; PC $3.70.

Mornell. Eugene S. 1973. "The Program of Special Directed Studies:A Five-Year Summary." Claremont. Calif.: Claremont UniversityCenter. ED 088 638. MFS1.17: PC $3.70.

Newsweek 8 December 1975 "Why Johnny Can't Write." 58-61.Newton. Eunice S. 1982. The Case for Improved College Learning:

Instrixting High Risk Students. New York: Vantage Press.

New York State Education Department. 1977. Developmental Studies

for Ocisupational Students: Postsecondary Programs. Albany: NewYork State Education Department. ED 173 635. MF$1. i7; PC$12.83.

. 1980. New York Stdte Programs of Postsecondary Opportu-

nity. 1977-78 and 1978-79. Albany: New York Stare EducationDepartment. ED 197 030. MFS1.17; PCS9.33.

Nordvall. Robert C. 1982. The Process of Change in Higher Educa-

tion Institutions. AAHE-ERIC/Higher Education Research ReportNo. 7. Washington. C.: American Association for Higher Educa-tion. HE 015 832. Ni PC $7.20.

Obler. Martin. et al. Ja:..;ary/February 1977. "Combining TraditionalCounseling, Instruct t, and Mentoring Functions with Academi-cally Deficient Co' . e Freshmen." Journal of Educational Re-

search 70: 142-4 r.Ozer. Mark N. 19.:s, 1'.-ilving Learning and Behavior Problems of

Children. San Y r co:I Jossey-Bass.

PeOrini. Bonnie C.. a.id Pedrini. D. 1970:---Reading Ability and

Grades: A Brief -view." Omaha: University of Nebraska atOmaha. ED 087 t 0. MF$1.17; PC $3.70.

Pinette. Clayton. an Smith. Kent. eds. 1979. College Reading Skills.

Newark. Dv International Reading Association. ED 179 915.MFS1.17; PCS5.45.

Renner. S. M. PO9 "College Reading Programs: What Is Success ?"In College Reading Skills. eaitedby.Clayton Pinette and KentSmith. Newark. Del.: International Reading Association. ED 179915. MFS1.17; PC-S5.45.

Richardson. Richaid C.. Jr.. 1981. Functional Literacy in the

College Setting. AAHE -ERIC /Higher Education Research ReportNo. 3. Washington. D.C.: American ASsociation for Higher Educa-

tion. ED 211 032. MFS1.17; PC $7.20.Robinson. H. Alan. 1965. "Critique of,Current Research in College

and Adult Reading." In New Concepts in College-Adult Reading.

edited by E. L. :ihruston. New Orleans. La.: National ReadingConference.: ED 176 244. MFS1.17; PC $3.70.

Rossman. J. E.. Astin. A. W.. et al. 1975. Open Admissions at theCity University of New York: An Analysis of the First Year. Engle-

wood Cliffs. N.J.: Prentice Hall.

44

Roueche. Jo' - E71981-82. **Don't Close tK-.. Door. Community andJunior-C.. v Journal 52: 17-23.

Roueche. John L.. and Kirk. ;...:. Wade. 1973. Catching Up: RemedialEducanan. San Vrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Roueche. hrrin E. and Snow. Jerry J. 1977. Overcoming LearningProblems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

w, Sadla. William A.. Jr.. and Whimbey. Arthur. 1979. -*Developing aCognitive Skills Approach to Teaching.- Paper presented at a con-ference of the American Association of Higher Education. Washing-ton, D.C. ED 187 380. MF-5-1,17: PC-53.70.

Sanders.-Vickie. 1980. "College Reading and Study Programs: DoThey Make Any Differ...-:cer Paper presented at the annual meet-ing of the Western College Reading Association. San Francisco.California. ED 185 532. MF- $I.17: PC-$3.70.

--Schiavone. J. Suminer 1977. "Integrated Remcdiation for the Com-munity College. Improving College an.-.' CA- . -sit). Teaching 24:183-85.

Shaughnessy. Mina P. 1977. 4:r; ' '7 and F:;(' 4, (C:,:t)IIS: A Guide for theTeacher of Basic Writing. lc Oxviird Unive,-'ty Press.

Shaw. Phillip B. 1960. "Inte..,:t.... of Reading Instaiction with Reg-ular Offerings:' In Phases of College and Othi r Adult Reading

_ Programs. edited by E. P. BliesintirThrt:Wor lit National ReadingCOnference. Inc. ED 176'231. MF---5I .17: PC -53.70. _

Sherman. Ruben H.. and Tinto. Vincent. 1975. "The Effectiveness of- Secondary and Higher Education Interve Ilion Programs: A Critical

Review of Research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the_American Educational Research Association. Washington. D.C. ED

:06 378. MF-Si.17; PC-55.45.Simmons. Ron. et al. 1979. ''Teaching the'Disadvantaged in Engi-

rnering.- ED ISO 356. MF-51.17: PC-47.20.Slack. Wafnei. V.. and Porter, Douglas. May 1980. "The Scholastic

Aptitude Test: A Critical Appraisal." liaiard Educational Review50: 154 -75.

Smith. G. M. 1972. "The Two-Year Compensatory Program of theCollege of Basic Studies; Implications of 'a Successful Model. InOn Equality of Educational Opportunist , bdited by F. Mosteller andD. P. Moynihan. New York: Vint4.:::-.

Sem.11cs. June R.. and Davis. Cinthia 1. t(,.:'7.. "A Systems Analysisand Uvalua,'-...r of a Junior College Devel(pmental Studies Pro-gram." l'aper presented at the annual meeting of the American Edu-cation; Research Association. New York! New York. ED 136 892.MF-51.17: PC- $3.70.

Stufflebeam. D. 1. 1971. Educational Lvaliaftion and Decision Mak-ing. Itasca. Ill.: 17. E. Peacock Publishers.!

,Tillman. Chester E. Spring 1973. "Four-Ye. i ir,-illege Readin

,L _Raising Academic Standards 85 t,

grams and Grades: An Annotated Review. 1945-1971." Journal of

Reading Behavior 100-109.Trinity, Alice S.. and Associates. 1980. Teaching Basic Skills in Col-

lege. San Francisco: Josscy-Bass.;Walter. Judith M..:1979. "The Emergent Role of Readiog Specia.4sts

as Consultants to College Faculties." In College Readdig Skills, ed:

ited by C. Pinette and.K. Smith. Newark.Del..International Read-

ing Association. ED 179 915. MFS1.17: PCS3.70.Walvekar, Carol C.. ed. 198 I.,Assessmerit of Learning Assistance Ser-

vices -San Fanciso. Jussey-Ba-s-s.-FWassman, Rose. 1977. Californic: College Reading Programs: The

State of the State. De Anza Colleg'. California7E-131-46-559-. MFS I.17: PCS3.70.

Watkins. Beverly T. Ft ary 1981 Scholars Increasingly Con-

cerned about Deterior.o. of Literacy." Chronicle Higher Edu-

ation 23:1.Vicbb, Jeanine. 1,77. "Vrogram Evaluation: Cognitive Achieve-r ment." In The Final Report of National Project Alternatives to

the Revolving Door, edited by R. A. Donnovan. Washington.t4 Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education. ED 151

054. MFS1.17; PCS7.20..Wellborn, S. N. 20 October 1980. "Cheating in College Becomes an

Epidemic." U.S. NOWA and World Report 39-42.WhimbcY. Arthur. and Lockhead. J. 1981. Problem Solving and Com-

prehension: A Short Cmrse in Analytical Reasoning. 2d ed. Phila-delphia: The Franklin Inst;.ute.

ASHE-ERIC HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH REPORTS

Starting in 1983 the Association liar the Study of Higher Education as-sumed co-sponsorship of the Higher Education Research Reports withthe ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education. For the previous I Iyears ERIC ar.L; the American Association for Higher Education pre-pared and published the reports:.

Each report is the definitive analysis of -a tough higher educationproblem. based on a thorough research of pertinent literature and insti-tutional experiences. Report topics. identified by a national survey. arewritten by noted practitioners and scholars with prepublication manu-script reviews by experts.

Ten monographs in the ASHE-ERIC/Highcr Education Research Re-port series are published each yeat. available individually or by sub-scription. Subscription to 10 issues is $50 regular: $35 for members ofAERA. AAHE. and AIR: $30 for members of ASHE. (Add $7.50outside U.S.)

Prices tier single copies. including 4th class postage and bridling.are $6.50 regular and $5.00 for members of AERA. AAHE. AIR, andASHE. If faster first-class postage is desired for U.S. and Canadianorders, add $.60; for overseas. add $4.50. For VISA and MasterCardpayments. give card number, expiration date. and signature. Ordersunder $25 must be prepaid. Bulk discounts arc available on orders of25 or more of a single title. Order from the Publications Departinent.Association for the Study of Higher Education, One Dupont Circle,Suite 630, Washington. D.C. 20036. (202) 296-2597. Write for acomplete list of Higher Education Research Reports and other ASHEand ERIC publications.

1981 Higher Education Research ReportsI. Minority Access to Higher Education

Jean L. Preer

7. Institutional Advancement Strategics in Hard TimesMichael D. Richards and Gerald Sherratt

3. Functional Literacy in the College SettingRichard C. Richardson. Jr,. Kathryn J. Martens. an Eli:abethC. Fisk

4. Indices of Quality in the Undergraduate ExperienceGeorge D. Kul;

5. Marketing in Higher EducationStilm ley Al. Grabowski

6. Computer Literacy in Higher EducationF, wick E. Masai

7. Financial\Analysis for Academic UnitsDonald L. Walters

8. Assessing the impact of Faculty Collective BargainingJ. Victor Baldridge. Frank K. Kemerer, and Associates

Raising Academic Standards87

9 Strategic Planning. Managennt, and Dec.ision Making

Rohe rt G. Cope

Orgamiational Communication in Higher EducationR,,bert D. Gratz anti Philip J. Salem

1982 Higher Education Research Reports

I. Rating College Teaching: Criterion Studies of,Studeot

of Instruct to InstrumentsSidnel Benton

2 Faculty Evaluation: The Use of Explicit Criteria for Promotion.

Retention. and Tenure.Vcal It Infiniti, and Elaine Wei.v.%

lbe Enrollment Crisis: Factors. Actors. and Impacts

J Victor Bahlridge. Frank R hernerrr, and Kenneth C Green

-4 Improx mg Instruction: Issues and Alternatix es for Higher

Education(boric.% C. Cole, Jr

Planning for Program Discontinuance. From Default to Design

Gerbuda S . .11 di Ilion

H. State Pkinning. Budgeting, and Accountability: Approaches for

Higher EducationCarol Floyd

7. The Process of Change in Higher Education Institutions

Robert ('..\'rrrdral/

x. Information Systems and Technological Decisions: A Guide for

Don- Technical AdministratorsRobert L. Bailey

Government Support for Minority Participation in Higher

EducationKenneth C. Green

W. The Department Chair: Professional Deselopment and Role

ConflictOnid B. Booth

1983 Higher Education Research Reports

1 The Path to Excellence: Quality Assurance in Higher Education

Laurence' R. O. Leone. and Edward 1).

Golilberif

2 Faculty Recruitment. Retention, and Fair Employment: Obliga-

tions and OpportunitiesJohn S

3. The Crisis in Faculty Careers: Changes and Challenges

,whorl C T. Bro,,Aes and Katherine L. German

xx

9J

4. SLind.irds Ihr 1>icis!(01 (;ukliProgram.

Ruth hihott Ac/mti;

Lti.sing Academic Standarib 89

9

Pnoio 1.1111e, t \\ alkcr

Ruth Talbott Keimig, hay mg taught and :iLmini,,tcrcd pro-grain mam, le\el, in unmer,itie,. college,. and publicschool,. 1, uniquel (pal:fled to pre,cni thew re,. archwhich ,hou uhat uork, and doe, not 1/4ork to improve thelearning of contemporar\ ,tudent, in college Mo,t rwentl. asDean of Fre,hmen and Chairman of l'he Learning Re,ourcesDivnion Mar\ mount College of Virginia, Dr Kenningfounded and managed an integrated ,tem of learning servicesand the a,,,(k.iated college uide record keepin., communica-tion,. placement. and ad iqng ,v,tem, She received her Ed.Din Higher Education from Th,_. George Wahim.,,ton Lniver,itvand ha, puhlihed ,Ther article, concerned u nth integrated de-!ier-N %,,tern for learning ,erice, and the training of aca-demic coun,elor, Recent! relocated h, MAI-, land. Dr Keimigpros.nle. pr(.1e,,nnal ,cr ice, to college,. ,,hoof ,,,tern,. andother ;I:luncie. In the area, of adult cduLatio;) and training pro-giarn,. information dcelopment. and other, Shenia\ h ontacted KI.1\11G INCORPO-R A, I I' H No. -1-1L). I osh\ NU:\ land l'oo5.7

; 4

ISBN 0- 913317 -03- 977$6.50

Date post:	07-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times