Underprepared Community College Students: Implications of Attitudinal and Experiential Differences

Abstract

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

Increasing Success Rates in Developmental Math: The Complementary Role of Individual and Institutional Characteristics

“…Students placed into developmental education are more likely to be African American or Latino (Attewell et al 2006;Long 2005, 2007;Crisp and Delgado 2014;Grimes and David 1999;Hagedorn et al 1999;Perry et al 2010), older (Calcagno et al 2007), female Long 2005, 2007;Crisp and Delgado 2014;Hagedorn et al 1999), low-income (Hagedorn et al 1999), or first-generation students (Chen 2005;Crisp and Delgado 2014).…”

Does Mathematics Remediation Work?: A Comparative Analysis of Academic Attainment among Community College Students

“…Critics contend that taxpayers should not be required to pay twice for the same learning opportunities, first in high school and then in college (Boylan 1999;Grimes and David 1999;Ignash 1997;Kozeracki 2002;McCabe 2000;Reising 1997;Roueche et al 2001;Saxon and Boylan 2001). Some argue that providing secondary-level coursework in postsecondary institutions diminishes academic standards and devalues postsecondary credentials (Brothen and Wambach 2004;Costrell 1998;Immerwahr 1999;Oudenhoven 2002;Mazzeo 2002;Roueche and Roueche 1999;Steinberg 1998).…”

“…Some studies indicate that remedial students exhibit academic performance and experience academic outcomes that are comparable to those of students who do not require remediation (Boylan and Saxon 1999a;Crews and Aragon 2004;Kolajo 2004;Kulik et al 1983;Overby 2003;Purvis and Watkins 1987;Southard and Clay 2004;Waycaster 2001). Other studies suggest the opposite conclusion: remedial students exhibit academic performance and experience academic outcomes that are less favorable than those of their college-prepared counterparts (Bickley et al 2001;Curtis 2002;Grimes and David 1999;Illich et al 2004;Tennessee Higher Education Commission 2001;Weissman et al 1997b;Worley 2003). Still other studies present mixed or inconclusive findings regarding the efficacy of remediation (Gray-Barnett 2001;Seybert and Soltz 1992).…”

“…Among the most common problems evident in prior work are: reliance on simple bivariate analyses or other analytical methods involving minimal statistical controls (e.g., Crews and Aragon 2004;Overby 2003), reliance on data drawn from a single college (e.g., Bickley et al 2001;Worley 2003), small sample size (e.g., Purvis and Watkins 1987;Southard and Clay 2004;Weissman et al 1997b), failure to distinguish remedial students who remediate successfully from those who do not (e.g., Curtis 2002;Tennessee Higher Education Commission 2001), failure to address longterm outcomes in a comprehensive fashion (e.g., Gray-Barnett 2001; Grimes and David 1999), short observation periods (e.g., Illich et al 2004;Seybert and Soltz 1992), and selection on the dependent variable (e.g., Kolajo 2004;Waycaster 2001). Put simply, most prior evaluative research cannot speak clearly concerning the efficacy of remediation.…”

“…Another common evaluative measure is persistence or retention (e.g., Grimes and David 1999;Kulik et al 1983;Purvis and Watkins 1987;Weissman et al 1997b). These studies ask whether remedial students persist in college at a similar rate to that of college-prepared students.…”