Characteristics of Remedial Courses and Programs

Credit for remedial courses is an issue of considerable debate among educators. Some argue that awarding some form of credit is an incentive for completion of the course, while others believe credit for such courses represents a lowering of standards. In order to qualify for financial aid, students often must meet full-time enrollment status. To ensure full-time student status, institutions may grant "institutional credit" for remedial courses, which becomes part of a student's permanent college record but does not count toward degree completion.

Type of Credit

The survey collected information on the most prevalent type of credit institutions award for each subject: no formal credit, institutional credit, degree credit toward elective requirements, or degree credit toward subject requirements. Institutional credit was the most frequent type of credit given for remedial courses in fall 1989. For example, of institutions offering remedial mathematics courses, 69 percent gave institutional credit (Table 6). In contrast only 20 percent awarded some degree credit (5 percent* for subject requirements and 15 percent * for elective requirements) for such remedial courses. The remaining 11 percent* gave no formal credit.

Although this pattern was similar for reading writing and mathematics, certain types of institutions were more likely to award institutional credit than others. For remedial math, for instance, 79 percent of public and 2-year colleges awarded institutional credit, as compared to 51 percent* of private and 60 percent of 4-year colleges.

Significant regional differences in Northeast institutions versus institutions in other areas also appeared. Institutional credit in remedial reading was given in 83 percent of colleges in the Southeast, 79 percent in the West, 64 percent in the Central region, and 39 percent in the Northeast. Institutions in the Northeast were more likely to give elective degree credit (32 percent*) or to give no formal credit (28 percent*) in remedial reading than institutions in the Southwest or West.

Requirement Status

Institutions were asked whether remedial courses for students needing remediation were most frequently required, recommended but not required, or voluntary. At least 50 percent of institutions offering remedial courses in fall 1989 most frequently required students needing remediation to take remedial courses (Table 7). Such courses were voluntary at only 2 to 3 percent of institutions. At the remainder of institutions, remedial courses were recommended but not required. Remedial writing was required by 68 percent of institutions; remedial mathematics, by 63 percent; and remedial reading, by 54 percent (Figure 2).

Requiring remedial courses was more common at 4-year colleges than 2-year colleges. For example, 74 percent of 4-year colleges required students needing remediation in mathematics to take a remedial mathematics course, while 51 percent of 2-year colleges did so. In contrast, recommending but not requiring remedial courses occurred more frequently in 2-year than 4-year colleges. For example, taking remedial mathematics courses was recommended by 48 percent of 2-year colleges and 23 percent* of 4-year colleges.

Entering and Exiting Remedial Courses

The survey asked institutions whether or not they used placement tests to select participants for remedial-courses in fall 1989. Ninety four percent of colleges used placement tests for remedial writing 93 percent for mathematics, and 88 percent for reading (Table 8). The proportion of colleges and universities using placement tests was consistently high at all types of schools.

Institutions also noted whether or not they based remedial-course exit skills on regular academic-course entry skills. About 80 percent of institutions reported doing so in fall 1989--86 percent in remedial mathematics 81 percent in remedial writing and 70 percent in remedial reading.

Taking Regular Academic Courses

Some institutions did not allow students to take regular academic courses until they had completed their remedial courses. Others permitted students in remedial courses to take any regular academic course. Still other institutions limited students in remedial courses to some regular academic courses. A student in remedial mathematics, for example, might not be able to take any regular mathematics courses, but could take regular English or history classes.

About two-thirds of institutions in fall 1989 allowed students to take some regular academic courses while taking remedial courses (Table 9). The percentage with this policy ranged from 69 percent in mathematics, to 68 percent in writing, to 63 percent in reading. Almost no institutions ( 1 to 2 percent) entirely prohibited students who were enrolled in remedial courses from taking regular academic courses. The remaining one-third of institutions let students take any regular academic course while taking remedial courses.

Public colleges were more likely than private colleges to let students take some regular academic courses while taking remedial courses. These differences were statistically significant in remedial reading: 69 percent of public institutions let students take some regular academic course while taking remedial courses; the corresponding figure for private institutions was 49 percent*.

Providers of Remedial Education

The survey collected information on which administrative unit of the institution most frequently provides remedial/developmental education: separate remedial division/department, traditional academic departments, counseling/tutoring center, learning center, or other area. The traditional academic department was the most frequent provider of remedial education, with 69 percent of institutions offering remedial mathematics, 65 percent remedial writing, and 51 percent remedial reading in the respective academic department (Table 10). However, 26 percent* of all institutions reported separate remedial departments or divisions in fall 1989 as the most frequent provider of remedial reading, 20 percent* for remedial writing, and 19 percent* for remedial mathematics.

Evaluating Remedial Programs

The survey asked institutions to rank in importance the principal types of evaluation they conduct of remedial programs. Institutions selected from a list consisting of the following:

Student evaluation of course or program;
Instructor evaluation of course or program;
Student completion rate or grade for course or program;
Follow up studies of grades at the next level of courses;
Other follow up studies of students' academic performance; and
Other evaluations.

Institutions ranked only those evaluations which they conducted.

Almost all institutions conducted evaluations of remedial programs. Half of them used four or more different types of evaluations (Figure 3). Student evaluations (80 percent of institutions), instructor evaluations (78 percent), and student completion rates (78 percent) were the most prevalent types of evaluation conducted (Figure 4). Follow up studies of grades and other follow up studies were conducted by 65 and 54 percent respectively. Other types of evaluations were conducted by 6 percent of institutions. These included pre- and post-testing, as well as various other assessments of students.

Thirty percent* of institutions viewed studies of student completion rates for remedial courses or programs as the most important type of evaluation conducted (Table 11). Student and instructor evaluations were ranked first by 25 percent* and 23 percent*, respectively.

Maintaining Records of Student Retention and Graduation Rates

One goal of the study was to compare retention rates to the second year for students enrolled in remedial courses with those for all freshmen. Too few institutions maintain these records, however, to provide valid national estimates. The item non response rates for the percentage of all 1988-89 full-time entering freshmen who continued at an institution to the start of the second year was 27 percent. The non response rate for the parallel item for freshmen who had enrolled in at least one remedial course was 47 percent. The non response rates increased when institutions were asked to report these figures by racial/ethnic group--to about 51 percent for all freshmen, and to approximately 66 percent for freshmen who enrolled in at least one remedial course.

Seventy-seven percent of institutions in fall 1989 maintained baccalaureate-degree graduation rates for all freshmen, but only 40 percent maintained the rates by racial/ethnic group (Table 12). Even fewer institutions could report baccalaureate-degree graduation rates for freshmen who had enrolled in at least one remedial course:

Eighty-one percent* of institutions do not maintain these data for freshmen who enrolled in at least one remedial course; and
Eighty-seven* percent of institutions do not maintain these data by racial/ethnic group for freshmen who enrolled in at least one remedial course.

The percentage of institutions maintaining graduation rates for students who had enrolled in at least one remedial course was uniformly low at all types of institutions (Figure 5).

Academic Support Services

Institutions were asked to choose from a list of support services which ones they provide specifically for students needing remedial education. The list contained the following peer tutoring, faculty tutoring, additional diagnostic testing, counseling, assistance laboratories, learning center, and other services. In fall 1989, nearly all colleges provided academic support services specifically for students needing remediation. More than half provided five or more services (Figure 6); peer tutoring (85 percent) and counseling (82 percent) were the most frequently offered. Over 60 percent of colleges provided faculty tutoring, learning center, assistance labs, or additional diagnostic testing (Figure 7).

Public and medium or large institutions were more likely than private and small institutions to offer most of the academic support services (Table 13). Differences were statistically significant for assistance laboratories, learning centers, additional diagnostic testing, and counseling. For example, 78 percent of public colleges provided a learning center; 76 percent; assistance labs; and 68 percent, additional diagnostic testing; while 54 percent of private colleges provided a learning center; 44 percent*, assistance labs; and 49 percent*, additional diagnostic testing.

Sixteen percent* of institutions provided other types of support services, such as text taping, word processing, computer assistance, study skills workshops, and supplemental instruction.

Reducing the Need for Remedial Education

Institutions reported on the activities they were engaged in to reduce the need for remedial education: communicating with high schools about skills needed for college work, participating in or organizing workshops for high school faculty, or other activities. Communicating with high schools about skills needed for college work was the most typical institutional activity in fall 1989, with over half of institutions participating in it (Table 14). Public (71 percent) and large institutions (69 percent) were more likely than private (28 percent*) and small institutions (30 percent*) to communicate with high schools (Figure 8).

Nearly one-fifth* of institutions participated in organized workshops for high school faculty. Thirteen percent* engaged in other activities, such as providing programs for high school students or raising admission standards. Forty percent of institutions offering remedial courses did not engage in any activity to reduce the need for remedial education.¹⁰

¹⁰ Percentages add to more than 100 because institutions may engage in multiple activities to reduce the need for remedial education.

*Standard error is greater than or equal to 10 percent of the estimate (Table 19).

Top