Thanks for stopping by ... Liz Knowlton
Survey Questionnaire
My name is Liz Knowlton, the professional educator at Adventures In Education, and you may have communicated with me over the past few years. As a PhD candidate at Northcentral University, School of Education, I am currently researching and collecting data on remedial mathematics education at Community Colleges.
The survey consists of 10 questions and is designed to only take a few minutes of your time. Your participation is voluntary and strictly confidential, and your input is of great value to my research.
To complete the survey simply hit the reply button and type answers to the questions listed below. Feel free to add any valuable comments.
I thank you in advance for your participation.
Revamping Remedial Math Education at Community Colleges:
One of the most pressing challenges facing Community Colleges is improving outcomes for students placed in developmental mathematics courses. Some institutions are experimenting with implementing alternative ways to structure and deliver developmental education, and to improve the placement testing process.
A. Remedial Math Education in General
1. Does your college use a computer lab for remedial math?
a. Yes
b. No
2. If your college uses a computer lab for remedial math, what software do you use?
a. Hawkes
b. Mymathlab
c. Other: __________
B. Placement Test:
3. What placement test does your college use for mathematics?
a. COMPASS computerized
b. Other: ___________
4. Is a Paper and Pencil Test available in addition to the computerized testing?
a. ASSET
b. Other: ____________
c. No
5. In addition to the placement test as a placement criterion for each student, does your college consider other criteria?
a. High school grades
b. ACT scores
c. Other: Explain: ___________
C. Students with minimal deficiencies:
According to a 2007 study (Achieving the DreamCommunity Colleges Count by Biswas), students who need limited remediation can be discouraged at having to spend a semester in remedial math. The study also showed that remediation rates for students completing the highest level of mathematics in grade 12 were as follows:
- Algebra II or an equivalent course--63%
- Advanced mathematics, such as algebra/trigonometry--32%.
- The next higher level of mathematics, such as pre-calculus--15%.
- The most advanced mathematics level, such as calculus--3%.
6. Does the placement test used at your college identify specific areas of deficiencies?
a. Yes
b. No
Comments: _______________
7. In your opinion, could remediation of students with limited deficiencies be administered in a much shorter time period (i.e. via tutoring), and without having to enroll in a semester of remedial math?
a. Yes
b. No
Comments: _______________
8. Does your college offer such services?
a. Yes
b. No
Comments: _______________
D. Students with great deficiencies:
Research further indicated that nearly 50% of students placed in developmental mathematics were referred to courses three levels below college-level math. Many students who see three levels to climb get so frustrated that they will never advance to college courses (Biswas, 2007). And of those, fewer than a fifth (18%) attempted a college algebra course, and only 14% completed that course.
9. Does your college offer accelerated courses for remedial math?
a. Yes
b. No
10. If your college offers accelerated courses for remedial math students, how can students get through the remedial sequence faster?
Explain: ______________________
Again thank you for your participation!!
Copyright 2008 by Elisabeth H. Knowlton
Survey Results
A. Remedial Math Education in General
1. Does your college use a computer lab for remedial math?
2. If your college uses a computer lab for remedial math, what software do you use?
B. Placement Test:
3. What placement test does your college use for mathematics?
4. Is a Paper and Pencil Test available in addition to the computerized testing?
Results will be posted later!!
5. In addition to the placement test as a placement criterion for each student, does your college consider other criteria?
My survey indicated that 34% of institutions did not use other criteria for placing students in developmental programs, whereas other criteria were used at 56% of institutions. ACT scores, high school grades, or both were the most commonly used additional placement criteria (see Chart above).
Comments
It was surprising to see that 10% of faculty members were unfamiliar with placement test policies. It is even more alarming when considering that faculty members are responsible for course design and instructional delivery. Apparently instructors have minimal input into the process of designing guidelines and policies for placement testing. This lack of involvement could be attributed to the increasing number of adjunct faculty at community colleges, who generally are not involved in the decision making process.
C. Students with minimal deficiencies:
6. Does the placement test used at your college identify specific areas of deficiencies?
7. In your opinion, could remediation of students with limited deficiencies be administered in a much shorter time period (i.e. via tutoring), and without having to enroll in a semester of remedial math?
| Percentages | |
| Answer | Percentage |
| Yes | 66% |
| No | 25% |
| For Some | 7% |
| Dont Know | 2% |
8. Does your college offer such services?
My survey produced somewhat surprising results. Two percent of respondents were unsure if remediation of minimal deficiencies is feasible. One fourth of the participants were opposed to address remediation of minimal deficiencies. Teachers opined that it was not worth their time and effort, believed too few students have minimal deficiencies or lacked an understanding of basic math concepts, and thus needed rigorous remediation. One community college educator remarked that, I cannot imagine inventing a special recognition for placing certain students. But approximately two-thirds of community college educators felt that it is worth investing time and effort to remediate students with minimal deficiencies via one-week jump-start, four-week intensive review, brush-up, or express math courses.
Comments. My overall survey findings contradict Biswas (2007) findings as they indicate that the majority of community college educators are willing to identify and remediate students with minimal deficiencies and instructors are not fixated on a traditional design and delivery system, i.e. a 15 to 16 week course delivery. My study also showed that many math educators have assumed a leadership role by promoting flexibility, innovation and challenging the status quo--they have abandoned a one-fits-all attitude (Bass, 1990; Kouzes & Posner, 2007).
Educators in general are servant leaders. They enter the teaching profession due to a desire to teach and receive great satisfaction from helping others and bringing out the best in their students (Bowman & Garten, 2006). Servant-leaders assure that the highest priority needs of others are being served (Greenleaf, 2003). For students this translates to successfully completing a course or degree and gaining the knowledge and skills to become productive and respected citizens. Furthermore, many students identify faculty members as their primary mentors and guides (Astin & Astin, 2000). Thus, it is important for faculty members to adhere to their principles and make the success of their students a priority. It is also imperative that community college leaders become proactive in dialoging with high school math teachers and school administrators. This approach would help identify the math skills and knowledge that high school graduates need for college work (Thompson, 2006).
D. Students with great deficiencies:
9. Does your college offer accelerated courses for remedial math?
Results of my survey showed that slightly more than half (52%) of the community colleges have tried accelerated programs, but instructors remarked that most students did not successfully complete such programs (see Figure 2). They indicated that most students in accelerated courses needed more time and more interaction with the instructor to complete the course. Self-paced programs proved to be ineffective due to lack of student motivation, insufficient direction provided by the instructor, and lack of training of the instructor in developmental education. Unfortunately, these results contradict the findings presented by Achieving the Dream institutions. Thus, it may be advantageous for community colleges to consider further experimentation and encourage instructors and administrators to refine such programs. Collaboration with faculty and administrators at other institutions and determining what worked successfully could be of great value in helping improve to the success of an institution (Kouzes & Posner, 2007).
10. If your college offers accelerated courses for remedial math students, how can students get through the remedial sequence faster?
According to my survey, one third of the community colleges have not yet considered computer-aided instruction as a viable option. Some instructors stated that their institution has tried technology-aided instruction, but abandoned the idea due to a very low success rate, i.e. 5%, or insufficient enrollment. On the other hand, 66% of community colleges already use computer-aided instruction in remedial math courses.
The most commonly used software, MyMathLab, provides student-centric instruction and serves as a perfect match for both the millennials and students with varying degrees of deficiencies (see question 2).
Making a Case for the Millennials
According to a Fall 2000 NCES report, leading developmental educators in the community college system estimated that, 60-70% of freshman test into remedial mathematics and only 40-50% of those students pass on their first attempt (Trenholm, 2006, 1). These numbers are unacceptably high and demand that educational leaders and developmental educators look for ways to improve the instructional success rate (Trenholm). Trenholm claimed that the inefficiency of the didactic lecture may compound and perhaps be a major contributor to these statistics. The current generation of traditional college freshman, students born after 1981, is known as the millennial generation and has been characterized as heavy technology users (Trenholm). Trenholms study examined if current and advancing computer technology could effectively increase learning success and retention in the classroom by leveraging the millennial generations propensity to utilize technology (Trenholm).
However, there appears to be a generational gap problem, i.e. whereas older faculty and administrators are reluctant or skeptical to use technology (Trenholm, 2006, 17). This skepticism may lead senior faculty and administrators to reluctantly or inefficiently implement some form of computer mediation (Trenholm). Trenholms study revealed that learning outcomes and/or cost savings were realized in most cases, and were primarily accomplished by increasing class sizes and modifying course design. In all cases, learning outcomes improved over the traditional lecture style instruction although retention rates varied (Trenholm). Trenholm further noted that, one needs to realize that even though computer technology provides the building blocks for faculty to design effective courses, the instructional format has a priori importance and significance in what outcome we derive from the use of these building blocks (Trenholm, 36).
Student-centric Technology
Christensen, Horn, & Curtis (2008), in their article Teaching to the New Test, proposed a way to use innovation to disrupt the broken and monolithic U.S. public classroom model and move toward a mode that puts the needs of each student at its center, namely student-centric technology ( 1). Online learning technology can make instruction truly personalized as it offers students the ability to learn in ways that match their intelligence types. Today 80% of a typical teachers time is spent in monolithic activity, i.e. preparing to teach, teaching and testing the entire class. Less than 20% of that time is available to help students one-on-one. Through student-centered online technology, assessment and individualized assistance can be interactive and woven into instruction (Christensen et al., 11). Computer aided instruction allows students to move forward if he/she demonstrates mastery. If the student has not understood a lesson, the software will move back. The authors noted that some students just need more opportunity to understand and practice the lesson in different ways (Christensen et al.). The advantage of these programs is inherent in that it provides teachers with feedback so that they can home in on target instruction (Christensen et al.).
Summary
Studies have shown that more of the U.S. workforce will need to be educated if the U.S. wants to keep pace with other industrialized nations (Colby & Opp, 2000). Today, community colleges enroll 6.5 million degree-seeking students, or 47% of college undergraduates (Colby & Opp). An expanding demand for workforce training and non-credit courses exists, which constitutes an additional estimated enrollment of five million students (Colby & Opp). Due to their open-door policy and their commitment to serve the local community, community colleges serve as bridges for disadvantaged students to both higher education and career-path employment (Colby & Opp). They are the go-to destinations for displaced workers and immigrants seeking skills (Marklein, 2008, 3).
Acknowledging the significant role of community colleges does not negate the fact that enrollment in developmental courses, in particular mathematics, is exacerbating at a rapid rate. However, the success rate of students and student progress continues to decrease at a troubling rate (Trenholm, 2006; Colby & Opp, 2000). One of the most pressing challenges facing community colleges is how to improve the outcomes for students placed in developmental mathematics courses. Many institutions are experimenting with implementing alternative ways to structure and deliver developmental education and improve the placement testing process. While many leaders in higher education have taken steps to correct this problem, their efforts alone are by no means sufficient. To improve student success, community college leaders need to take the initiative and become proactive in redesigning the structure, delivery, and assessment procedures for developmental education programs (Astin & Astin, 2000; Bass 1990; Kouzes & Posner, 2007). Leaders in K-12 and higher education need to be more result-oriented, reward outstanding teachers by honoring their achievements, and invest their time and money wisely. In short leaders must take an active role in upgrading educational standards by practicing a more democratic, transformational, and servant style of leadership (Astin & Astin; Bass; Bowman & Garten, 2006, Kouzes & Posner).
Achieving the Dream institutions and states, have made developmental math education a top priority and delved into the challenges needed to improve student success in and through developmental education (Biswas, 2007). But policies and practices specific to remedial education vary as much as the mission of community colleges (Shults, 2000). In launching these alternatives, colleges often encounter policy frameworks and structures that reinforce the traditional design and delivery of developmental education, thereby hindering flexibility and innovation (Biswas). Policies are needed to promote better educational outcomes rather than simply focusing on allowing students to enroll (Brown & Niemi, 2007).
Methodology
While various reports served as the backdrop for this study, I developed a survey questionnaire targeting community college math educators. The survey focuses on issues concerning remedial math program components such as assessment of college preparedness and placement, computer use in remedial classes, and facilitation of accelerated courses. The survey was emailed nationally to 7,000 community college math teachers, and nearly 400 positive responses were received. Due to the large volume of responses, a random sample of 125 completed surveys served as the basis for the results presented. Since the collection of data did not identify the location of the institution, size of the institution and response rate per institution, differences between institutions sampled and U.S. community colleges overall most likely are prevalent. Thus, the study may not be viewed as a nationally representative sample, and caution is recommended in using information from this study for comparative purposes.
References
Astin, A. W., & Astin, H. S. (2000). Leadership reconsidered: Engaging higher
education in social change. Retrieved October 5, 2008, from the W. K. Kellogg
Foundation website: www.wkkf.org
Bass, B. M. (3rd ed.). (1990). Bass & Stogdills handbook of leadership: Theory,
research & managerial applications. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, Inc.
Benet, L. (1983). Bell asks boards for increase in leadership. Retrieved October 5,
2008, from www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1983/10/12/04060010.h03.html
Biswas, R. R. (2007). Accelerating remedial math education: How institutional
innovation and state policy interact. Boston: Achieving the Dream/Jobs for the
Future.
Blair, R. (2008). Enrollments in developmental mathematics are increasing! What should
be done? American Mathematical Association of Two-Year Colleges, 22(5), 2.
Blanchard, K. H., Dewey, J., & Hersey, P. (9th ed.). (2008). Management of
organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/ Prentice Hall.
Bowman, R., & Garten, E. (2006).
Perspectives on servant-leadership as critical
foundation for academic excellence: A dialogue in professional practice.
Winona,
MN. Unpublished Paper.
Brown, R. S., & Niemi, D. N. (2007). Investigating the alignment of high school and
community college assessments in California. Retrieved November 11, 2008, from
www.highereducation.org/reports/brown_niemi/index.shtml
Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., & Johnson, C. W. (2008). Teaching to the new test.
Forbes, 182(4), 81.
Colby, A., & Opp, R. (2000). Controversies surrounding developmental education in the
community college. Retrieved October 23, 2008, from www.Ericdigests.org/pre-926/
community.htm
Davis, J. L. (1999). Developmental education paradox. Retrieved October 23, 2008, from
http://occrl.ed.uiuc.edu/Newsletter/1999/fall1999_7.asp
Greenleaf, R. K. (2003). The servant-leader within: A transformative path. Mahwah, NJ.
Hagedorn, L. S. (2006). Increased needs for community college research in a no frills
world. Retrieved October 23, 2008, from http://occrl.ed.uiuc.edu/Newsletter/
2006/spring/spring2006_2.asp
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2007). The leadership challenge. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Marklein, M. B. (2008). U.S. community colleges at a turning point. Retrieved October
23, 2008, from www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-07-22-comcol-main_N.htm
Owens, R. G. (1998). Organizational behavior in education. San Leandro, CA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Pourciau, T.A. (2006). Leadership for scholarly excellence: A qualitative examination of
department chair facilitation methods to promote research productivity in pre-tenure
biological sciences faculty. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State
University and Agricultural and Mechanical College.
Shults, C. (2000). Remedial education: Practices and policies in community colleges.
Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges.
Smydo, J. (2008). Remedial courses used by many to adjust to college. Retrieved
September 8, 2008, from www.post-gazette.com/pg/08245/908603-52.stm
Thompson, L. (2006). Math gap equals trouble for students heading for college.
Retrieved October 23, 2008, from Business Dateline database. (Document ID:
979731731).
Trenholm, S. (2006). A study on the efficacy of computer-mediated developmental math
instruction for traditional community college students. Research & Teaching in
Developmental Education, 22(2), 51-62.
copyright 2008 Elisabeth Knowlton