Innov High Educ DOI 10.1007/s10755-015-9343-6
When Developmental Education is Optional, What Will Students Do? A Preliminary Analysis of Survey Data on Student Course Enrollment Decisions in an Environment of Increased Choice Toby Park 1 & Chenoa S. Woods 1 & Keith Richard 1 & David Tandberg 1 & Shouping Hu 1 & Tamara Bertrand Jones 1
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015
Abstract Historically, college students needing additional academic preparation have been assigned to developmental/remedial courses. In 2013 Florida took a drastic departure from this model by passing Senate Bill 1720, which prohibited institutions from requiring placement tests and made developmental education optional for many students, regardless of prior academic preparation. For this pilot study we conducted a survey at two colleges in the Florida College System to begin to understand the kinds of courses students will take now that developmental education is optional and the factors that students considered when making their course enrollment decisions. Key words developmental education . community colleges . education policy
Toby Park is Assistant Professor of Economics of Education and Education Policy and Associate Director of the Center for Postsecondary Success at Florida State University. He received his B.S. in mathematics and his M.Ed. in higher education from the University of Pittsburgh and his Ph.D. in education policy from Vanderbilt University. His research interests include student outcomes in postsecondary education and exploring potential policy initiatives that could improve student success, with a particular focus on non-traditional students and institutions. He can be reached via
[email protected]. Chenoa S. Woods is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Center for Postsecondary Success at Florida State University. She received her B.A. in psychology and M.S. in school counseling from California State University, Long Beach, and her Ph.D. in education policy and social context from the University of California, Irvine. Her research interests include exploring the relationships between precollege counseling, college choice, postsecondary transitions, and student success. Keith Richard is a Ph.D. candidate in Sociology and a Research Assistant in the Center for Postsecondary Success at Florida State University. He received his M.A. in psychology from Florida State University and B.A. in psychology from Coastal Carolina University. His research interests include community college reform, sociology of education, and social inequalities. David Tandberg is Associate Professor of Higher Education and Associate Director of the Center for Postsecondary Success at Florida State University. He received his B.S. in history and education from Adams State College and his M.A. in political science and Ph.D. in higher education from Pennsylvania State University. His research interests include state higher education policy and politics.
Innov High Educ
As students transition into college from high school, military service, or the world of work, many may be underprepared for college-level work. Traditionally, these underprepared students have been placed in developmental–sometimes called remedial–courses in reading, writing, and/or mathematics in order to improve their skills and to prepare themselves for credit-bearing, college-level courses. However, when Senate Bill 1720 (SB 1720) passed in the state of Florida in 2013, developmental education (DE) became optional for all students graduating from a Florida public high school with a standard diploma since 2007, as well as for students who are serving as active duty members of the military. Whereas DE was previously required for all Florida College System students testing below established levels on standardized tests, these newly defined exempt students can now make their own enrollment decisions. Specifically, exempt students have the opportunity to bypass placement tests altogether and to opt out of DE courses and enroll directly into college-level work, regardless of previous academic performance. Given this environment of increased choice that is no longer strictly dictated by test scores, we sought to understand how students make course enrollment decisions. Succinctly stated, we wanted to explore what DE courses students will decide to take and why when they are advised to take such courses.
Literature Review and Background Developmental Education The reform of DE has gained a significant place in the federal and state policy limelight in recent years; however, research on the benefits of this approach has been mixed. Boatman and Long (2010) for example, found that the effects of DE courses on grades, credit accumulation, persistence, and graduation vary based on students’ academic preparedness. The authors found that it can have a positive or a small negative effect for students needing multiple levels of remediation compared to the larger negative effects for students who test on the margin and are placed into higher-level courses. Additionally, researchers have found that DE increased students’ persistence when compared to
Shouping Hu is the Louis W. and Elizabeth N. Bender Endowed Professor of Higher Education and the founding Director of the Center for Postsecondary Success at Florida State University. He received his B.S. in geography from Peking University and M.A. in economics and Ph.D. in higher education from Indiana University, Bloomington. His research interests include college access and success, student engagement and learning, and higher education policy. Tamara Bertrand Jones is Assistant Professor of Higher Education and a Senior Research Associate in the Center for Postsecondary Success at Florida State University. She received her B.J. in journalism from the University of Texas at Austin, and M.S. in higher education and Ph.D. in research and evaluation methods from Florida State University. Her research interests include sociocultural influences on the educational and professional experiences of underrepresented populations in academia.
* Toby Park
[email protected] 1
Center for Postsecondary Success, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA
Innov High Educ
similarly-prepared peers not placed into DE (Bettinger and Long 2009; Lesik 2007). Alternatively, other work has found negative effects of DE, including an increased likelihood of dropping out of college, lower self-esteem, and more frustration for those students who enrolled in DE (Bettinger and Long 2007; Jacob and Lefgren 2004). In addition to debates about its effectiveness, there are issues regarding appropriate DE placement and enrollment. For example, Perin (2006) found that there were loopholes such that students who tested into DE could (and did) enroll in higher-level courses despite state and institutional policies against doing so. Similarly, Bailey et al. (2010) reported that nearly one-third of students who are recommended for DE do not enroll in a DE course within three years. Further, it remains unclear whether or not placement exams have a discernable relationship with student success, suggesting that multiple measures regarding placement may be more appropriate (Scott-Clayton 2012). Recent trends in DE reform, which are supported by policy organizations as well as empirical research, have tended to focus on placement into DE via multiple measures and a gradual and planned implementation of policy changes. For instance, the Research for Action report (2015) recommended providing ample professional development for faculty and staff and piloting reforms using multiple measures in academic advising practices. Indeed, Scott-Clayton (2012) found that using multiple measures for placement could reduce student-course mismatch (i.e., severe misplacement) by about 15%. As such, North Carolina, which adopted its multiple measures policy as recently as 2013, implemented an exempt status for recent high school graduates who also met GPA, SAT/ACT, or placement test thresholds (Research for Action 2015). Florida, however, has taken a broader approach by no longer requiring placement tests and making developmental education optional for many students.
Florida Legislation In 2013 the State of Florida passed Senate Bill 1720 that changed developmental education in major ways. The legislation defined exempt students as those who graduated from a Florida public high school in the year 2007 or later or are active duty members of the military; and it gives these students the option to opt out of DE courses, regardless of academic preparation or demonstrated ability. Further, the new legislation mandated that colleges offer advising for all incoming students. In addition, colleges must now offer a range of course delivery methods for DE courses, including modularized courses that focus on students’ specific strengths and weaknesses, compressed courses taught in a shorter timespan than the typical 16-week semester, contextualized courses that relate course materials to major-course pathways and contain real-world connections, and co-requisite courses where students take DE courses alongside college level courses. Our study focused on the first part of the law, which no longer requires exempt students to take placement tests and makes DE optional. Given options, how will students make decisions when advised to take DE? Further, what are the factors that these students consider when they make course enrollment decisions? Answers to these questions may be useful for institutions in developing effective advising programs. Exploring these issues is particularly important given that there is increasing evidence suggesting that structured and guided pathways are beneficial for student completion of educational credentials in community colleges (Jenkins and Cho 2013).
Innov High Educ
Student Decision-Making and Advising Enrollment decisions that promote student success become more pertinent as the variety of course offerings change. Previous research has found that most students who are given several academic options often ignore advisors’ recommendations or enroll in courses that do not lead towards graduation, even when enrolled in a structured degree program (Complete College America 2012). As of fall 2014, students identified as exempt under Senate Bill 1720 have even greater freedom in their enrollment choices and course selection options through the optional, modified forms of DE offered by the 28 colleges in the Florida College System. DE courses are offered in a variety of new formats in an attempt to meet the varying needs of a diverse student population, and now exempt students may choose from DE and college-level courses alike. Much of the existing research on student course selection explored the process through factors such as student self-concept and characteristics (Yeung and Marsh 1997), course evaluations as sources of information (Wilhelm 2004; Wilhelm and Comegys 2004), and specific advising programs tailored to assist students in the course selection process (Van Wie 2011). Throughout the literature, factors affecting course selection can be divided into two broad categories: academic characteristics, which are related to the course or instructor, or personal characteristics, which are related to the individual student. The first category refers to academic information regarding the course such as course content and description, perceived difficulty, examinations, or instructor style and reputation. Babad’s (2001) study of students’ considerations in selecting first and last courses of their degree programs showed that students selected first courses based on intellectual level and expected quality of teaching and last courses based on low level of difficulty. In a later study, Babad and Tayeb (2003) identified learning value, perception of an instructor’s style, and course difficulty as highly important to students in the decision-making process about course selection. Moreover, professor and course reputation have been shown to be important factors (Leventhal 1976; Pass et al. 2012; Yeung and Marsh 1997). Students receive information regarding courses and professors from a variety of different sources including formal course bulletins or guides (Babad et al. 1999) or informally through peers or internet sources such as ratemyprofessor.com (DellaGioia 2008). The second category pertains to the individual student’s personal context and is manifested in decision-making based on the student’s personal needs. Examples of these needs can include the demands of a particular work schedule, the fulfillment of requirements for a program of study, career goals, social needs, or the need to fulfill an academic deficiency. Feather (1988) found that student selections of specific mathematics and English courses were related to their self-concept of ability in the subject area. Moogan and Baron (2003) identified problem recognition—the degree to which a choice fulfills a certain gap for the student—as an additional factor behind student course selections. Furthermore, students tend to use friends, family, peers, advisors, and faculty members as sources of information when selecting courses (Kerin et al. 1975). Peers and friends are often ranked highest in consideration although they are somewhat unreliable sources of information (Brooks 2002, 2003; Roberts and Allen 1997). Prior to Florida’s SB 1720, DE was required for certain students depending on college placement test scores. However, under SB 1720 the placement tests and DE courses are now voluntary for a substantial number of students; and one of the issues with making placement tests and DE enrollment optional is that students don’t do optional (Couturier
Innov High Educ
2010; Lay 2010). When students have the option to bypass DE courses that they may consider to be costly, time-intensive, and unnecessary, they may not see the potential benefits (e.g., better preparation for college-level work) of enrolling in DE courses. Thus, when important educational support systems such as DE are severely adapted and made optional, students may be less likely to enroll in the most appropriate course for their level of ability and future goals.
Different Choices for Different Students Existing evidence on DE indicates that there are differences in placement and success in relation to students’ race/ethnicity and gender. That is, females, Black students, and Latino students are recommended for more levels of developmental education regardless of the subject matter (Bailey et al. 2010). Black students are nearly twice as likely to be enrolled in DE when compared to their White peers (Attewell et al. 2006), and nearly 60% of DE students are Black or Latino (Melguizo et al. 2008). Females were more likely to progress from one level of developmental mathematics to the next when compared to males (Bailey et al. 2010). Although the research indicates that there is no significant difference related to students’ income status and developmental education enrollment (Fernandez et al. 2014), it may remain important to disaggregate findings by income level due to the correlations between race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Additionally, the type of course recommended has effects on students’ success in completing their course sequences. For example, students are more likely to complete their developmental course sequences in reading than in mathematics (Bailey et al. 2010). This trend may indicate a preference for continuing coursework in reading, lower rates of initial placement into developmental reading, and/or placement into fewer levels of developmental reading before reaching the preparation level needed for college-level coursework. Due to the evidence that developmental enrollment and completions vary by student background and course subject, we disaggregated our data by course subject (reading, writing, and mathematics) and race/ethnicity, gender, and income.
The Study and Research Design The purpose of this study was to begin to understand students’ enrollment decisions following the passage of SB 1720 and to explore what factors may be influencing these decisions. In addition, we also stratified our investigation by important student characteristics (race, gender, and income). While we surveyed all incoming students, we focused our analysis on exempt students who were advised into a developmental education (DE) course and either (a) enrolled in the DE course, (b) bypassed DE and took college-level coursework instead, or (c) did not take any core subject area course. The following research questions guided the study:
& & &
What are the students’ enrollment choices in DE mathematics, writing, and reading courses? How do these enrollment patterns vary for different groups of students? What factors do students consider as they make their enrollment choices?
Innov High Educ
Survey Instrument and Administration In order to understand student course pathways and the factors they considered in making their choices we designed a student decision-making survey that was administered online. After receiving Institutional Review Board approval, we collaborated with two institutions in the Florida College System, which then emailed the online survey to all first time enrollees in the fall 2014 semester. We obtained informed consent as participants advanced through the survey and acknowledged their voluntary participation in the study. Following the informed consent section, students were asked whether they had graduated from a Florida public high school since 2007 and whether they were currently active duty members of the U.S. military. Based on the response to these survey items, we hand-coded exempt students (those students who can opt out of DE). If a student was deemed to be non-exempt, they were not used in the analysis. For the remaining exempt students, we then asked about course enrollment decisions broken down by subject area. More specifically, for each area of mathematics, writing, and reading, all of the exempt students surveyed were asked to select one option from the following list: 1. I registered for a COLLEGE level [subject] course and was not advised to register for a developmental math/writing/reading course. In this case, students were Bcollege-ready^ and were not advised to enroll in a DE course. We assume that these students would enroll in college-level courses despite any changes in the legislation. 2. Actual DE course selection. For this option, students selected the specific DE course number and title in which they enrolled (e.g., MAT 0022; ENC 0051; REA 0056). In this case, students were advised into a DE course and indeed enrolled in the DE course in the subject. 3. I was advised to register for developmental [subject], but I chose to register for a COLLEGE level math/writing/reading course instead. These students were advised to take a DE course in the subject, yet chose to enroll in a college-level course instead of the DE course. This is one of the most critical changes possible because of SB 1720. 4. I was advised to register for developmental [subject], but I chose NOT to register for any math/writing/reading courses this semester. These students were advised to take a DE course in the subject, yet did not enroll in any course, neither college-level nor DE, in any of the three subject areas. From this survey question we restricted our sample by eliminating students who had not been advised to take DE (Option 1, above) and then classified the remaining students as having taken DE (Option 2), bypassing DE and directly enrolling in college-level coursework (Option 3), or not enrolling in any subject area course (Option 4). Next, we asked students to respond to a list of factors or influences that students found important in deciding whether to enroll in a DE course. We derived our list of 14 factors from the factors presented to the Florida College System institutions by the administrative team at the Division of Florida Colleges when the institutions were developing implementation plans for integrated advising of exempt students. We designed our survey instrument to allow students to indicate whether they found these factors very important, important, moderately important, somewhat important, not important or that they did not know how to include this information in their decision-making process. The 14 factors were high school grades in specific courses, high school grade point average (GPA), Postsecondary Education Readiness Test placement test scores, SAT scores (or
Innov High Educ
other standardized test scores), work history, military history, meta-major,1 high school extracurricular activities, parent/guardian recommendation, high school teacher recommendation, high school counselor recommendation, cost of developmental education, time to complete intended degree, and personal career goals. For reporting purposes, we present the percentage of students who responded Bimportant^ or Bvery important^ for each of the 14 factors. Finally, at the end of the survey, we asked a series of demographic questions including questions about gender, race, and family income.
Sample and Data The sample for this study came from two institutions in the Florida College System. All first-time college freshmen attending these institutions were given an online survey to complete during the Fall 2014 semester of college, a total of 8,779 students across the two colleges. The survey was distributed directly by the colleges via email and was available for two weeks. Follow-up reminders were sent by the colleges in the form of email and/or text message. Students were offered to be entered into a drawing to receive a $200 Amazon gift card in order to encourage participation. Ten gift cards were awarded at each college, provided by funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. We received a total of 668 student responses from both colleges that had data on all enrollment variables for all three subject areas, a response rate of 7.6%, a limitation we address later in this article. The sample consists of the 668 students from both colleges and represents a diverse group of students. The majority of participants identified as Latino (32%). The other groups and percentages were White (31%), Black (25%), Asian (6%) and Native American, Native Hawaiian, or another race/ethnicity (6%). More females (64%) participated in the survey than did males, and the modal (33%) household income for students living at home or for financially independent students was between $21,000 and $50,999. Eighteen percent reported living in households making less than $11,000 annually, 27% in households making $11,000-20,999, and 22% in households making $51,000 or more. Students ranged in age from 16 to 53 years of age, with 92% of the sample aged 25 years or younger. Most respondents were of traditional age for first time enrollees, with 71% of students 18 or 19 years old.
Analysis We used two analytical techniques to explore the data. First, descriptive statistics were used to present overall findings. Then, we used chi-square tests to determine whether statistically significant differences existed between student subgroups’ enrollment patterns. We also used chi-square tests to determine how our sample compared to the students’ overall college population. In the instance of comparing the proportion of men and women recommended to take developmental education courses instead of college-level courses, we used z-tests to test equivalency of proportions.
1
Meta-majors are collections of academic programs that share common coursework designed to help students select courses. Students in the Florida College System choose between eight meta-majors: arts, humanities, communication and design; business; education; health sciences; industry/manufacturing and construction; public safety; science, technology, and mathematics; and social and behavior sciences and human services (Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-14.065 2013)
Innov High Educ
Findings We present our findings in two parts. First, we present course enrollment patterns for students recommended to take DE in each of the three subject areas, disaggregating these patterns by gender, income, and race. Second, we examine the relationship between course enrollment patterns and the factors cited as important in making these decisions, again disaggregating our results by subject, gender, income, and race. Among exempt students, 79% were considered college-ready and enrolled in college-level reading, 76% enrolled in college-level writing, and 58% enrolled in college-level mathematics. Thus, roughly 21% were recommended for DE reading, 24% for writing, and 42% for mathematics. We focus on the students recommended for DE and disaggregate them by subject area.
Course Enrollment Patterns Overall Table 1 presents enrollment patterns for those students recommended to take DE, disaggregated by subject area. In mathematics, 41.9% enrolled in a developmental course (column 1), 22.5% enrolled in a college-level course instead (column 2), while 35.7% took no mathematics course at all (column 3). In writing, 32.5% enrolled in a developmental course (column 4), 27.4% enrolled in a college-level English course instead (column 5), while 41.3% enrolled in no writing or English course (column 6). Finally, in reading, a mere 8% enrolled in a developmental course (column 7), 36.1% enrolled in a college-level English course instead (column 8), and 56.2% enrolled in no reading or English course (column 9). While more students in our sample enrolled in developmental mathematics or writing courses as compared to developmental reading, these patterns suggest that a sizeable number of students may choose to either enroll directly in college-level courses or to not take any subject area courses when DE is optional.
Table 1 Exempt Students' Enrollment in Developmental Math, Writing, and Reading as a Percentage of Those Advised into Developmental Education By Gender, Income, and Race Math
Writing
Reading
1 DE 2 College 3 None 4 DE 5 College 6 None 7 DE 8 College 9 None All Students
41.9
22.5
35.7
31.5
27.4
41.3
8.0
36.1
56.2
Male
43.2
21.6
35.1
33.3
18.5
48.1
4.2
33.3
62.5
Female
40.7
18.6
40.7
25.5
29.8
44.7
7.0
30.2
62.8
Less than $11,000
44.1
11.8
44.1
34.8
13.0
52.2
9.1
31.8
59.1
$11,001-$20,999 $21,000-$50,999
56.3 28.2
18.8 20.5
25.0 51.3
33.3 19.4
25.0 35.5
41.7 45.2
0.0 0.0
26.7 39.1
73.3 60.9
$51,000 and above 44.4
27.8
27.8
37.5
12.5
50.0
28.6
14.3
57.1
Gender
Income
Race White
48.7
15.4
35.9
25.0
30.0
45.0
5.9
29.4
64.7
Black
51.4
22.9
25.7
37.5
16.7
45.8
4.5
36.4
59.1
Latino
30.8
17.9
51.3
23.1
34.6
42.3
9.5
33.3
57.1
Innov High Educ
Subgroups Females were more likely to be recommended for DE math. More specifically, a z-test of equivalent proportions indicated that the share of females recommended for developmental mathematics courses was greater than the share of males (z=2.0, p
