Your search found 4289 results.

Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; Individual Characteristics; Language Skills; Class Size; College Freshmen; Remedial Instruction; Influences; Mathematics Skills; Foreign Countries; Gender Differences; Teacher Characteristics; Age Differences; College Faculty

Abstract:
In this paper, we analyze class size effects on college students exploiting data from a project offering special remedial courses in mathematics and language skills to freshmen enrolled at an Italian medium-sized public university. To estimate the effects of class size, we exploit the fact that students and teachers are virtually randomly assigned to teaching classes of different sizes. From our analysis, it emerges that controlling for a number of individual characteristics, larger classes determine a significant and sizeable negative effect on student performance in mathematics. Importantly, this negative effect is significantly larger for low-ability students and negligible for high-ability ones. On the other hand, class size effects do not appear to be relevant for student achievement in language skills. (Contains 2 figures, 5 tables, and 3 notes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; Remedial Programs; Remedial Instruction; Educational Policy; College Readiness; Models; Prediction; Predictor Variables; Measures (Individuals); Program Costs; College Freshmen

Abstract:
Today, as many as 25 to 40 percent of students who attend college qualify for some form of remedial education program provided by postsecondary institutions (Kaye, Lord, Bottoms, Presson, & Cornet, 2006). Many colleges and universities view the inclusion of remediation as an integral part of their educational mission. However, the costs of such remedial programs are high. While estimates of actual costs vary greatly, most assume a national remediation expense of over one billion dollars annually. In Arkansas, the cost of remediation is over $53 million, up over 65% from costs about a decade ago (ADHE, 2006). The remediation policy in Arkansas relies on the premise that there is a single measure, namely ACT, which can predict the level of college readiness and, subsequently, the need for remediation. This study examined the predictive power of the ACT to determine college success, the relationship between the ACT and other measures of student achievement, and explored combinations of variables to determine if a stronger predictive model could be identified. (Contains 2 figures and 2 tables.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Educational Planning; College Credits; Developmental Studies Programs; Career Exploration; Community Colleges; Two Year College Students; Remedial Instruction; Mathematics Instruction; College Mathematics; Enrollment Rate; Academic Persistence; Academic Achievement; Outcomes of Education; Observation; Semi Structured Interviews; Holistic Approach; Program Evaluation

Abstract:
Originally designed for students who test into at least two levels of developmental education in a particular subject area, FastStart is a compressed course program model launched in 2005 at the Community College of Denver (CCD). The program combines multiple semester-length courses into a single intensive semester, while providing case management, career exploration, and educational planning services. This report discusses the development of FastStart, its program features, and student perspectives, and it presents findings from a quantitative analysis of the FastStart math program. The authors find that participation is associated with higher rates of enrolling in and passing college-level math courses but not with increased persistence or with increased accumulation of college-level credits. The analysis suggests that FastStart makes it possible for students to complete the developmental math sequence and required gatekeeper math course more quickly than would otherwise be possible, without harming other long-term academic outcomes. The report also analyzes pedagogical features of FastStart drawn from classroom observations and interviews. (Contains 11 figures, 5 tables, and 18 footnotes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (959K)

Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; College Credits; Grade Point Average; Enrollment; Program Effectiveness; Community Colleges; Control Groups; Grants; Scholarships; Remedial Instruction; Low Income Groups

Abstract:
"Can Scholarships Alone Help Students Succeed? Lessons from Two New York City Community Colleges" examined the effects of performance-based scholarships for low-income community college students (ages 22-35) who were required to enroll in remedial courses. The study evaluated the impact of the scholarships on continued community college enrollment, credits attempted and earned, and cumulative grade-point average (GPA). All study subjects were eligible for Pell Grants. Study authors randomly assigned 1,502 students at two New York City community colleges into one of three groups: (a) students were offered a performance-based scholarship for two semesters (up to $2,600); (b) students were offered a performance-based scholarship for two semesters plus one summer term (up to $3,900); and (c) students were not offered a performance-based scholarship, though these students were still eligible to receive other financial aid. Scholarships were awarded directly to students, on top of their existing financial aid, at the beginning, middle, and end of each semester, contingent on their continued enrollment and grades. The two scholarship groups were combined for most analyses. Study authors reported findings for a number of outcomes related to enrollment, course taking, and grades. The portion of the study that examined enrollment rates reported that at the end of the two-semester program, 78.1% of the scholarship students were still enrolled, versus 76.6% of the students in the control group. Enrollment for the scholarship and control groups, respectively, was 61.9% versus 60.7% one semester after the program ended, and 51.2% versus 49.5% two semesters after the program ended. None of these differences are statistically significant. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (89K)

Descriptors:
Student Placement; Remedial Instruction; Scores; College Attendance; Academic Failure; College Preparation; Tests; Regression (Statistics); Costs; Educational Attainment; Cutting Scores; Mathematics Tests; Reading Tests; College Students

Abstract:
About one-third of college students are required to take remedial courses to redress the lack of preparation for college-level coursework. Assignment to remediation is generally made on the basis of a placement test score, and in some states students are required to take a placement test prior to enrolling in college-level courses. In this type of setting, assignment to remediation may have the unintended effect of dissuading students from actually going to college. This is because remedial courses typically do not count towards a college degree, so remediation increases the cost of college by increasing the time required to complete a degree. Furthermore, being identified as in need of remediation could directly affect enrollment rates via stigma effects or by providing students with information about their unsuitability for college. This paper examines this issue empirically using administrative data from the state of Texas. Using regression discontinuity methods, we find that students whose placement exam scores would require them to be in remediation are no less likely to enroll in college than are those scoring just above the remediation placement cutoff. Appended are: (1) Distribution of Min (Math, Reading) Score; and (2) Average Max (Math, Reading) Score by Min (Math, Reading) Score. (Contains 5 figures, 7 tables and 23 footnotes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (822K)

Descriptors:
College Freshmen; Remedial Instruction; Enrollment; College Readiness; Public Colleges; Private Colleges; Two Year Colleges; Selective Admission; Student Characteristics; Majors (Students); Associate Degrees; Bachelors Degrees; Differences

Abstract:
A primary goal of the U.S. Department of Education's Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Blueprint for Reform is to improve the college readiness of high school graduates (U.S. Department of Education 2010). College readiness is a complex benchmark and has been measured in several ways, including transcript analysis (Adelman 2006) and standardized test scores (ACT 2005). One such measure, and the focus of this Statistics in Brief, is remedial coursework enrollment. Consistent with earlier NCES publications, this brief defines remedial courses as courses for students lacking skills necessary to perform college-level work at the degree of rigor required by the institution (Parsad and Lewis 2003). At the start of their college careers, students who are not sufficiently prepared to complete entry-level courses are often encouraged or required to take developmental or remedial courses. Results from previous surveys conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) that collected data on the percentage of students enrolled in remedial coursework found that 28 percent of first-year students who entered 2- or 4-year degree-granting postsecondary institutions were enrolled in remedial courses in both 1995 and 2000 (Parsad and Lewis 2003). Given evidence of stable remediation rates during the late-1990s, and the current education reform context that seeks to reduce remediation in college, this Statistics in Brief provides descriptive data on the frequency of self-reported enrollment in remedial courses within and across three time points, 1999-2000, 2003-04, and 2007-08. The purpose of the brief is to update the available evidence regarding self-reported student remediation and provide descriptive information as context for policy discussions. This Statistics in Brief uses data from the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) to examine the incidence of remedial coursetaking between the 1999-2000, 2003-04, and 2007-08 academic years. Specifically, this brief examines the percentages of first-year undergraduate students enrolled in institutions of higher education (IHE) who reported taking remedial courses in the 1999-2000, 2003-04, and 2007-08 academic years, by institutional characteristics, such as institutional control (public or private), level (2-year or 4-year) and selectivity. For students who attended public institutions, the brief examines enrollment characteristics, such as undergraduate degree program and field of study; and student characteristics, such as sex, race/ethnicity, age, parents' education, and dependency status. NPSAS is a nationally representative survey of all postsecondary students enrolled in Title IV institutions. Standard Error Tables are appended. (Contains 6 tables, 1 figure and 10 footnotes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (391K)

Descriptors:
Community Colleges; Clubs; Remedial Instruction; Sentences; Developmental Studies Programs; Two Year College Students; Punctuation

Abstract:
Nobody wants to be here. In remedial English, earning no credit, stuck. Now--after months of commas, clauses, and four-paragraph essays--students have one last chance to write their way out. Twenty students sit at computers, poised to start the final in-class essay for English 002 at Montgomery College. Anybody can enroll here, and all kinds do. In 85 minutes the students must craft a thesis and clear topic sentences, using evidence to support their opinions. They have to answer one of three questions, about their assigned book, "The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian," by Sherman Alexie, or their difficulty in mastering goals for the course, such as "Write and edit sentences that observe the conventions of standard American English." The students in English 002 stand at higher education's threshold. If they make it through, they advance to college-level courses that count toward a degree. Otherwise they must decide whether to try again, running down their financial aid, or give up on college and make do without it. For now, they all belong to the second-chance club known as remedial education. They're here because something, somewhere, went wrong. They didn't care about school, or school didn't care about them. For some, reading or writing never came easily. Maybe they didn't speak English as children. Or they lacked money, guidance, opportunity. Courses like English 002 are supposed to catch them all up. It's a lot to ask. Many students have a long way to go, and their obstacles are hardly confined to the classroom. Nationally, of the students who place into remediation--as many as 90 percent at some community colleges--only about a quarter go on to earn a degree. Here, past failures have worn some students down, and the prospect of success seems to frighten them. Several hope to attend four-year colleges and pursue careers, yet some have struggled to pull clear of bad circumstances or habits. Others are just drifting through. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Credentials; Developmental Studies Programs; Evidence; Measures (Individuals); Nonprofit Organizations; Community Colleges; Grants; Educational Change; Remedial Instruction; Two Year College Students; Interviews; Program Evaluation; Program Effectiveness; Qualitative Research; Statistical Analysis; Outcomes of Education; Partnerships in Education; Program Implementation; Intervention; College Instruction; Student Needs; Educational Policy; Professional Development

Abstract:
There is wide agreement that the well-paying jobs of the future will require postsecondary credentials. But for many students attending community college, developmental (or remedial) classes in reading, composition, and/or mathematics--the courses that students often must complete before they can enroll in courses that confer credit toward a degree--pose an often-insuperable barrier to progress. While over half of all community college students are judged to need at least one developmental class, the majority of students who are referred to developmental education do not complete their prescribed sequence of remedial courses, much less persist and obtain a diploma or certificate. To address this issue, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation created the Developmental Education Initiative (DEI) in 2009; Lumina Foundation for Education funded the evaluation. Fifteen colleges that had been early participants in Achieving the Dream (AtD): Community Colleges Count, a national community college reform network dedicated to evidence-based decision-making, were selected to receive grants of $743,000 each over a three-year period. The institutions are highly diverse in size, location, and the characteristics of the students they serve. The purpose of the DEI grants was to enable the colleges to scale up existing interventions, or establish new ones, that would help students to progress through developmental courses more rapidly and more successfully or to bypass these courses altogether. DEI funding also financed state policy teams that sought to influence state higher education legislation and policies. MDC, a North Carolina-based nonprofit organization, was selected as managing partner of the demonstration and in this role monitored and assisted the colleges, organized communications, and convened regular meetings of demonstration participants. Six other organizations made up the partnership that provided leadership and support for the colleges. Among these, MDRC, a nonprofit, nonpartisan policy research organization, was asked to evaluate the demonstration, with the Community College Research Center (CCRC) at Teachers College, Columbia University, serving as evaluation partner. The directive to the evaluators was to examine the implementation of the DEI at the participating colleges. This report--the second and final report from the evaluation--relies on a combination of qualitative data (primarily interviews with key personnel conducted during the course of site visits to all 15 institutions and through periodic telephone calls with project directors) and quantitative data (information on participation and on student outcomes that the colleges regularly collected). It addresses three main questions: (1) To what extent did the colleges scale up their chosen developmental education reforms to serve more students?; (2) What factors affected the colleges' ability to expand their programs and practices?; and (3) To what extent were the colleges' strategies associated with improvements in student outcomes? The report also considers ways that participation in the DEI influenced the colleges more broadly. For these reasons, it may be of interest to other colleges looking to scale up reforms (especially reforms that are related to instruction and the provision of student supports), as well as to funders concerned about how best to support community colleges in bringing promising ideas to scale. Technical Appendix is included. Individual chapters contain footnotes. (Contains 16 tables and 6 figures. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (1428K)

Descriptors:
College Students; Developmental Studies Programs; Enrollment; Scores; Data; Outcomes of Education; Grades (Scholastic); Remedial Instruction; Algebra; Reading; English; Writing (Composition); Program Effectiveness; Probability; Educational Improvement; Grade Point Average; Academic Persistence; Academic Achievement

Abstract:
There is a growing view that students who enroll in developmental courses are less successful in completing their programs than non-developmental students. Nevertheless, even though developmental students as a group ultimately might not be as academically successful as non-developmental students, many of them might still derive benefit from taking developmental courses. In this paper we address the question, "Does taking developmental courses benefit students at "all", in the sense that they are more successful than they would have been if they had not taken developmental courses?" Data for the study consisted of ACT[R] Test and college outcomes data for over 118,000 students who first enrolled in one of 75 two-year and four-year postsecondary institutions. We compared the success of students who initially enrolled in six developmental courses in English, mathematics, or reading with those of students who initially enrolled in associated higher-level courses. We first estimated probabilities of success with respect to twelve outcome variables ranging from performance in the associated higher-level college course to Bachelor's degree completion in six years. The probabilities of success were conditioned on ACT Test score, enrollment status (full- or part-time), college type (two-year vs. four-year), and the grade received in the developmental course (if taken). We then compared the probabilities of success of students who did and did not take the developmental course, but who otherwise were similar. Like others, we found that the developmental students in this study were less successful as a group than the non-developmental students with respect to GPA/persistence over time and degree completion within a fixed time period. Further consideration of time to degree, however, showed that developmental students typically completed a Bachelor's degree in six years at a rate similar to or higher than that of non-developmental students in five years. Particular subgroups of developmental students, as characterized by their ACT Test scores, the grade they received in the developmental course, and their enrollment status benefited from taking the developmental course. In particular, students who received an A (or sometimes a B) grade in the developmental course appeared to benefit from taking it. Moreover, part-time students appeared to derive more benefit from taking developmental courses than full-time students did. The report concludes with a discussion about the practical implications of these findings and possible contributing factors to academic success, such as the quality of developmental instruction, the time needed to complete a degree, and the noncognitive characteristics of developmental students. Appended are: (1) Pooled Descriptive Results; (2) Hierarchical Logistic Regression Models for Predicting Success in College; (3) Differences in Estimated Probabilities of Success for All Students and by Developmental Course Grade; and (4) Estimated Probabilities of Success for Full- and Part-Time Students. (Contains 33 tables, 25 figures and 17 footnotes.) [This paper was prepared with assistance from Justine Radunzel. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (6474K)

Descriptors:
College Readiness; State Standards; National Curriculum; National Surveys; Teacher Surveys; Academic Standards; Teacher Attitudes; Secondary School Teachers; Middle School Teachers; Elementary School Teachers; High Schools; College Entrance Examinations; Developmental Studies Programs; Remedial Instruction; Elementary Secondary Education; College Faculty; Access to Computers

Abstract:
Every three to five years, the ACT National Curriculum Survey[R] asks educators about what they teach (or don't teach) in their courses and how important they feel various topics in their discipline are for students to know to be successful in these courses and in future coursework. The survey also asks educators for their opinions on educational topics of current interest, such as the college readiness of their students or the implementation of improved standards, such as ACT's College Readiness Standards or the Common Core State Standards. The National Curriculum Survey is a critical step in the process used to build and regularly update a valid suite of ACT assessments that is empirically aligned to college readiness standards. The survey helps to inform the test blueprint for the assessments. This policy report highlights the findings of the survey, describes in detail the findings leading to the implications, and offers policy recommendations suggested by the findings and the implications. Description of Survey Sample and Process is appended. (Contains 10 figures, 1 table, and 4 footnotes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (297K)