Improving Developmental Courses is Not Enough:

Accelerating to a New Paradigm

Lisa Bernhagenlbernhagen@highline.edu

Wendy Swytwswyt@highline.edu

Highline Community College

Our old developmental sequence…English 30: Writing the Sentence

English 60: Writing the Paragraph

• COMPASS Placement (Score of 0-11 placed in English 71)

• ESL and native students mixed at all levels• English 71 and 81 were frequently combined

in one course because COMPASS placement was muddled.

• In English 71 and English 81, instructors faced an unwieldy range of students…they complained it was hard to teach the course effectively…it was unclear what the courses were supposed to do and for whom.

English 91: Writing the Essay

We changed the curriculum and placement. We thought we were fabulous…

English 71“English For

Nonnative Speakers”

English 81“Writing Skills”

English 91“College Preparatory

Writing”

•Paragraph responses•ESL COMPASS Placement•ReWrit 71: Linked to Reading 71

•Multi-paragraph responses•ReWrit 81: Linked sections for ESL students to Reading 81•ReWrit 81: ESL COMPASS•English 81: Regular COMPASS• COMPASS and ESL

COMPASS placement• ATD intervention

2010: We realized that we were not…

The pipeline effectMultiple exit pointsAcceleration

National Data on the Pipeline Effect Students taking Remedial Reading courses

From Referral, Enrollment, and Completion in Developmental Education Sequences in CommunityColleges (CCRC Working Paper No. 15). By: Thomas Bailey, Dong Wook Jeong & Sung-Woo Cho.December 2008. New York: Community College Research Center, Teachers College, ColumbiaUniversity. (Revised November 2009).

Student’s initial placement

% of students whosuccessfullycomplete college levelgatekeepercourse in subject

One level below college

42%

Two levels below college

29%

Three levels below college

24%

…students who are referred to developmental courses two or three steps below college-level rarely complete introductory college courses and are even less likely to complete degrees.

Bailey, Thomas. (February 2009). Rethinking Developmental Education. CCRC Brief. Community College Research Center. Teachers College, Columbia University.

Our pipelineEnglish 71“English For

Nonnative Speakers”

English 81“Writing Skills”

English 91“College Preparatory

Writing”

•Paragraph responses•ESL COMPASS Placement•ReWrit 71: Linked to Reading 71

•Multi-paragraph responses•ReWrit 81: Linked sections for ESL students to Reading 81•ReWrit 81: ESL COMPASS•English 81: Regular COMPASS• COMPASS and ESL

COMPASS placement• ATD intervention

Exit Points…Will the student pass English 71?Will the student go on to English 81?Will the student pass English 81?Will the student go on to English 91?Will the student pass English 91?Will the student go on to English 101?Will the student pass English 101? More exit points = less chance of a student making it to and through English 101.

Our Own Pipeline Data

…the costs of remediation, for both society and student, outweigh the benefits. -- Thomas Bailey

Initial placement in developmental English

Enrolled in English 101 (data shows enrolled)

English 91 67%

English 81 47%

English 71 32%

Bailey’s recommendations:1. Rethink assessment, focusing on understanding what students need in order to be successful in college rather than simply concentrating on placement within the sequence of a curriculum.

2. Abandon the dichotomy between developmental and college-ready students for a wide range of students above and below current developmental cutoff scores by opening college level courses to more students and by incorporating academic support assistance into college level courses.

3. For those students whose skills are so weak that they could not be successful even in augmented college-level courses, explicitly work to minimize the time necessary to prepare students for entry into those courses.

Bailey, Thomas. (February 2009). Rethinking Developmental Education. CCRC Brief. Community College Research Center. Teachers College, Columbia University

Acceleration Models: Ways to Shorten the PipelineMainstreaming

Place students directly into college level with support (Baltimore, HCC)

By-pass dev ed courses bridge courses, high school transcript placement,

placement prep/retake (Seattle CC’s)Compression

Offer content of two courses compressed into one quarterCurricular redesign

Change sequence and structure (TCC, Chabot)Embedded learning

Dev ed courses linked to college level “content”, I-BEST

Accelerated Learning Project (ALP)Community College of Baltimore County

Students placing into the course below College English are mainstreamed into a College English class.

In each ALP section, there are 8 “dev ed” students with 12 “regular” English 101 students.

Rather than taking English 101 as 3 credits (on a semester system), the “dev ed” students enroll for 5 credits.

The 8 students meet separately with the same instructor in support course each week (2 credits).

Completion statistics for college level EnglishNon-accelerated sequence: 40%Accelerated course: 75%

Chabot Community College: Open Access Developmental EnglishAt Chabot College in California, any student

scoring below college level English on their placement exam (Accuplacer) can take an accelerated four credit pre-college course instead of the traditional 8-credit two semester sequence.

“Open Access” college prep

Completion statistics for college level EnglishNon-accelerated sequence: 28-34%Accelerated course: 52-57%

Highline CC: What we are doingEnglish 101 combined with extra support in 10-credit

course. Though students get 10 credits and a grade in 101 and

91 at the end, this is not a compression model.Students work on English 101 assignments and

readingsSupport time is used for just-in-time remediation: what

do students need to do the readings and assignments?

Completion statistics for college level EnglishNon-accelerated sequence: 56%Accelerated course: 79%

In our own contextWhat allowed us to do this:AtD interventionSupportive administration: pilots are encouraged, institutional

researcher on boardFaculty experienced in both pre-college and college level

writing

What challenges we face:PlacementHistorical political structures: a separate reading departmentSome instructors who teach 71 and 81 are wedded to the 3-

level pipeline, despite the data about attrition. Our computer system (registration, transcripts, degree audit)

In your context…Questions to address in your small group:

1. What conversations need to happen on your campus to make acceleration work?

2. What are the strengths on your campus that might help with implementing acceleration?

3. What are the challenges you will face in shortening the pre-college pipeline at your own institution?

Our results so far…Instructors are challenged, excited,

galvanizedStudents are passing English 101 at a higher

rate than “regular English 101 students” (79/100 versus 76/100)

We are rethinking our entire sequence

Out of every 100 students …90

retained in 091

•(90% retention rate) LOSE 10%

79 pass 091 (2.0+)

•(88% pass rate)

67 enroll in 101

within 3 years

•(85% enrollment rate) LOSE 15%

60 retained in

101

•(90% retention rate) LOSE 10%

56 pass 101 (2.0+)

• (93% pass rate)

Office of Institutional Research, x32057/31/2012

Accelerated Pedagogy: Eng 101 with support (10 credits; one quarter).

92 retained in 101 with

support•(92% retention rate)

83 pass the support (2.0+)

•(90% pass rate)

79 pass Engl 101

(2.0+)•(86% pass rate)

Office of Institutional Research, x32057/31/2012

Pipeline No Pipeline100 start in English 91

56 pass Eng 101 (2.0+)

79 pass Eng 101 (2.0+)

Modified 10/10/12 from the Office of Institutional Research, created7/31/2012

100 start in Eng 101

with support

41% increase in the college course pass rate (23 percentage

points).

How did students do in gatekeeper courses after Eng 101?

41% MORE students make it into gatekeeper courses from Eng 101 with support than 91, 101; 5.3% MORE than from Eng 101. COMM 101 ENGL 205

PSYC&100, PSYCH100

SOC 110, SOC 101

Median Median Median Median

Eng 091, then 101 (n=2,815) (56% complete)

2.9 2.7 2.1 3.5

Eng 101 (n = 10,293) (76% complete) 3.1 3.0 2.5 3.4

Eng 101 with support (n=340) (79% complete) 2.5 3.1 2.1 3.2

Acceleration exposes and undermines many assumptions of developmental instruction:

Placement, though not perfect, correctly indicates where students “belong” in the sequence of pre-college courses.

We must front-load skills before students get

to the college level stuff – e.g. they first need to write clear sentences, then paragraphs, then essays.   

Acceleration: Big ideas High challenge, high support.Meaningful and integrated with college

contentOutcomes measure college-readiness, not

next-step readiness.Acceleration doesn’t mean “faster”; it means

deeper and better.

Principles for Accelerated Pedagogy-- Katie Hern, Chabot College#1: Engages students in intellectually challenging experiences that develop the most essential skills and ways of thinking required in college.

#2: Attends to the affective issues that get in the way of students’ learning and success.

#3: Facilitates an ongoing metacognitive conversation with students about what they are learning, why they are learning it, where the process breaks down for them, and how they can successfully approach it.

#4: Recognizes that mastery doesn’t happen all at once – celebrates emerging strengths, maintains a constructive, non-shaming orientation toward problems in student work, focuses on growth. (“College-readiness” ≠ Mechanical perfection)

Accelerated Pedagogy ActivityWhat do assignments in our accelerated English

101 Plus look like? How are they different from what has been

traditionally done in pre-college writing courses?

In your small groups, look at the two assignments we’ve passed out:1. How do these assignments differ?2. How does one more clearly reflect the

pedagogy of acceleration?

What we want you to leave with…1. It doesn’t matter how successful individual

developmental courses are; we must shorten the pipeline.

2. Acceleration takes many forms. Each institution must work with their structures, advantages, and challenges to develop what works.

3. Acceleration is not tied primarily to a curriculum “model”; pedagogy must also be accelerated.

4. We need to consciously and intentionally work against placement and traditional textbooks, both of which limit developmental curriculum and do not effectively address college readiness.