review+of+the+literature+on+student+success+course+content+and+teaching+strategies

1. Student Progression Through Developmental Sequences in Community Colleges (CCRC Brief No. 45) By: Thomas Bailey, Dong Wook Jeong & Sung-Woo Cho — September 2010. New York: Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University. --This Brief is drawn from the full-length report [|//Referral, Enrollment, and Completion in Developmental Education Sequences in Community Colleges//] (CCRC Working Paper No. 15). Study analyzed the patterns and determinants of student progression through sequences of developmental education starting from initial referral. The authors relied primarily on a micro-level longitudinal dataset that includes detailed information about student progression through developmental education. This dataset was collected as part of the national community college initiative, Achieving the Dream: Community Colleges Count. The dataset has many advantages, but it is not nationally representative; therefore, we check our results against a national dataset—the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988. A final version of this paper is also available online as a journal article in //Economics of Education Review//. Please visit: []

2. Toward a New Understanding of Non-Academic Student Support: Four Mechanisms Encouraging Positive Student Outcomes in the Community College (CCRC Working Paper No. 28, Assessment of Evidence Series) A review of the literature on non-academic support yields evidence of four mechanisms by which such supports can improve student outcomes: (1) creating social relationships, (2) clarifying aspirations and enhancing commitment, (3) developing college know-how, and (4) addressing conflicting demands of work, family and college. Identifying these mechanisms allows for a deeper understanding of both the functioning of promising interventions and the conditions that may lead students to become integrated into college life. Notably, each of these mechanisms can occur within a variety of programs, structures, or even informal interactions. The paper concludes by discussing avenues for further research and immediate implications for community colleges.

3. The Shapeless River: Does a Lack of Structure Inhibit Students' Progress at Community Colleges? (CCRC Working Paper No. 25, Assessment of Evidence Series) , By: Judith Scott-Clayton — January 2011. New York: Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University. Central to the paper is the structure hypothesis: that community college students will be more likely to persist and succeed in programs that are tightly and consciously structured, with relatively little room for individuals to unintentionally deviate from paths toward completion, and with limited bureaucratic obstacles for students to circumnavigate. Evidence suggests that the lack of structure in many community colleges is likely to result in less-than-optimal decisions by students about whether and how to persist toward a credential. Though there is no silver-bullet intervention to address this problem, this paper highlights several promising approaches and suggests directions for future experimentation and research.

4. LITERATURE REVIEW: A RESEARCH-INFORMED APPROACH TO IMPROVING INSTITUTIONAL RETENTION, By Liz Thomas with Rob Jones and Helen May Research exploring the reasons for student withdrawal tends to conclude that there is rarely a single reason why students leave. In most cases, the picture is complex, and students leave as a result of a combination of inter-related factors. The most comprehensive national survey of students withdrawing from university was conducted by Yorke in the mid-1990s (n = 2151) (Yorke et al 1997). It identified the five most significant reasons for student non-completion: incompatibility between the student and institution, lack of preparation for the higher education experience, lack of commitment to the course, financial hardship and poor academic progress. Yorke and Longden’s more recent survey (2008) identified the following seven factors as contributing to early withdrawal: poor quality learning experience; not coping with academic demand; wrong choice of field of study; unhappy with location and environment; dissatisfied with institutional resourcing; problems with finance and employment; and problems with social integration. Davies and Elias (2002) obtained similar findings (with a sample of over 1 500 students). In their survey, the main factors for leaving were: a mistaken choice of course (24%), financial problems directly related to participating in higher education (18%), and personal problems (14%). More recently, the National Audit Office (NAO) (2007) identified seven types of reasons why students withdraw: personal reasons, lack of integration, dissatisfaction with course/institution, lack of preparedness, wrong choice of course, financial reasons and in order to pursue other opportunities.

5. BASIC SKILLS AS A FOUNDATION FOR STUDENT SUCCESS IN CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGES: A Review of Literature and Effective Practices, This study was commissioned by the California Community Colleges System office to identify effective practices in basic skills program and conducted by Associates of the Center for Student Success (CSS), which is affiliated with the Research and Planning Group for the California Community Colleges (RP Group). The report contains the following components: 1. An extensive review of literature related to basic skills practices, as well as an overview of examples of strategies employed by thirty three California Community Colleges as well as nine out-of-state institutions. The literature review references over 250 sources, making this the most comprehensive basic skills study conducted in California Community Colleges to date. A multitude of researchers and organizations commonly identify a consistent set of elements that characterize effective programs.A total of twenty six practices are outlined under four major categories in the literature review: organizational and administrative practices (including choices regarding structure, management, and organization); program components (including a number of specific services and policies); staff development (outlining the importance of strong training and support components; instructional practices (exploring highly effective pedagogical techniques). 2. A self assessment tool designed to engage college administrators, faculty and staff in a meaningful and reflective dialogue about their current practices and plans for program improvement, enhancement, or modification. The self assessment tool is directly linked to the findings of the literature review. It is organized around the four major areas and the twenty-six effective practices. The tool also contains a variety of suggested strategies for accomplishing each practice, as well as a series of prompts that will assist institutions with evaluating their current progress to each effective practice. A matrix is included for each section to allow colleges to develop a plan for changes, enhancements, or modifications. 3. A cost-revenue model for developmental education programs providing a way for exploring the incremental revenues that can be derived over time from effective basic skills programs, practices, and/or interventions.

6. Beyond Basic Skills: State Strategies to Connect Low-Skilled Students to an Employer-Valued Postsecondary Education Marcie Foster, Julie Strawn & Amy Ellen Duke-Benfield, Mar 14, 2011, www.clasp.org States can significantly improve the postsecondary and labor market success of lower-skilled individuals by transforming the way education and training are delivered, drawing on strategies shown to succeed across multiple sites. States that develop a comprehensive plan addressing the unique needs of lower-level learners are likely to find that investing in these oft-overlooked students will reap rewards in the form of greater competitiveness, economic returns to the state, and higher quality of life.

7. Massachusetts Community Colleges Developmental Education Best Policy and Practice Audit, June 30, 2009 Final Report Prepared by Charmian B. Sperling, Ed.D., Principal Investigator

8. Building Foundations for Student Readiness: A Review of Rigorous Research and Promising Trends in Developmental Education, Prepared for the NCPR Developmental Education Conference: What Policies and Practices Work for Students? September 23–24, 2010, Teachers College, Columbia University, Elizabeth M. Zachry and Emily Schneider

9. Student Success in Higher Education by AFT Higher Education, March 2011

Comparisons of 6 Research Studies/Literature Reviews - National and State Level Student Progress through DEV Sequences || Many of the students who failed to complete their developmental sequence did so because they never enrolled in a developmental course to begin with.
 * 1. CCRC - ATD

Just under one third of all students referred to remediation in this sample did not enroll in any developmental course in the relevant subject area within three years.

Of those students who did enroll in a remediation course, many—29 percent of all students referred to math and 16 percent of those referred to reading—exited their sequences after failing or withdrawing from one of their courses.

But a substantial number—11 percent for math and 8 percent for reading—exited their sequence never having failed a course. That is, they successfully completed one or more developmental courses but did not enroll in the next course in their sequence.

Thus if one combines the number of students who never enrolled with those who exited between courses, more students did not complete their sequences because they did not enroll in the first or a subsequent course than because they failed a course.

About 72 percent of those who went directly to the college-level course passed that course, while only about 27 percent of those who complied with their referral completed the college-level course || Non Academic Supports || A review of the literature on non-academic support yields evidence of four mechanisms by which such supports can improve student outcomes: (1) creating social relationships, (2) clarifying aspirations and enhancing commitment, (3) developing college know-how, and (4) addressing conflicting demands of work, family and college. || Lack of Structure || This review of the literature inside and outside of higher education suggests that the lack of structure in many community colleges is likely to result in less-than-optimal decisions by students about whether and how to persist toward a credential.
 * 2. LIT REVIEW
 * 3. LIT REVIEW

The observational evidence is very strong that community college students are often confused and sometimes overwhelmed by the complexity of navigating their community college experience.

evidence from other fields (such as consumer choice and financial planning) is very strong that individuals’ ability to make good decisions—or to make any decision at all—is adversely affected by several of the factors that are present in the community college context.

The evidence relating to specific solutions in the community college context is limited, but growing. Enhanced advising, assistance in navigating bureaucracy (e.g., financial aid forms), and the provision of linked cohorts/curricula through learning communities are among the interventions that have been evaluated and found to have positive (if not transformational) impacts.

In terms of future directions for policy and research, it is worth emphasizing that the structure hypothesis raises several different types of problems, each of which might require different types of solutions. For example, “hassle factors” such as long lines at registration, burdensome and/or redundant paperwork, or negative interactions with financial aid staff may require behind-the-scenes streamlining of bureaucratic processes, additional support staff, and/or new staff training. While the cost and effort required for such reforms may not be trivial, the argument for reducing hassle factors is uncontroversial.

Similarly, there is little substantive argument against providing students with better information (and better ways to search and navigate this information) to help them manage the sheer complexity of gathering and correctly utilizing all of the relevant information on the costs, benefits, and requirements of alternative educational paths (and then updating this information every semester).

One potential light-touch intervention to test in this area would be a sophisticated online college advising tool, which would integrate career exploration and goal setting, prerequisite navigation, course planning and recommendations, tracking of student progress in meeting requirements, and early warnings when students fall off track.

Such a tool would not replace trained counselors, but would assist currently overburdened counselors by automating the nuts-and-bolts aspects of college guidance, thus freeing up staff to focus on more complicated individual issues.

A related, but distinct challenge is the number of non-alignable program options students must choose from, which psychological evidence suggests can cause decision paralysis, arbitrary decision outcomes, and dissatisfaction.

Simply providing students with more information may not solve this problem, but reducing options is certainly more controversial. CUNY’s new community college, which explicitly limits students’ choices upfront, is a radical potential solution, and it deserves a well-conceived evaluation.

A middle option would be for schools to provide the equivalent of a “prix-fixe” menu, offering a limited selection of pre-packaged college pathways that students could choose from instead of planning their schedules a la carte.

Similarly, colleges might experiment with setting “smart defaults,” as companies have begun to do with their employees’ retirement plan choices. These defaults do not limit students’ ability to customize their own path through college, but provide them with a starting point. For example, incoming students could be “pre-registered” for a set of common foundational courses, which they would then be free to change; returning students could be pre-registered for a set of logical follow-up courses based on their major and previous coursework. || Retention || the main factors for leaving were: a mistaken choice of course (24%), financial problems directly related to participating in higher education (18%), and personal problems (14%). More recently, the National Audit Office (NAO) (2007) identified seven types of reasons why students withdraw: personal reasons, lack of integration, dissatisfaction with course/institution, lack of preparedness, wrong choice of course, financial reasons and in order to pursue other opportunities. ||
 * 4. LIT REVIEW
 * 5. LIT REVIEW and Effective Practices, California || A total of twenty six practices are outlined under four major categories in the literature review: **organizational and administrative practices** (including choices regarding structure, management, and organization); **program components** (including a number of specific services and policies); **staff development** (outlining the importance of strong training and support components; **instructional practices** (exploring highly effective pedagogical techniques).

A. __Organizational and Administrative Practices__ A.1. Developmental education is a clearly stated institutional priority. A.2. A clearly articulated mission based on a shared, overarching philosophy drives the developmental education program. Clearly specified goals and objectives are established for developmental courses and programs. A.3. The developmental education program is centralized or is highly coordinated. A.4. Institutional policies facilitate student completion of necessary developmental coursework as early as possible in the educational sequence. A.5. A comprehensive system of support services exists, and is characterized by a high degree of integration among academic and student support services. A.6. Faculty who are both knowledgeable and enthusiastic about developmental education are recruited and hired to teach in the program. A.7. Institutions manage faculty and student expectations regarding developmental education. B. __Program Components__ B.1. Orientation, assessment, and placement are mandatory for all new students. B.2. Regular program evaluations are conducted, results are disseminated widely, and data are used to improve practice. B.3. Counseling support provided is substantial, accessible, and integrated with academic courses/programs. B.4. Financial aid is disseminated to support developmental students. Mechanisms exist to ensure that developmental students are aware of such opportunities, and are provided with assistance to apply for and acquire financial aid. C. __Staff Development__ C.1. Administrators support and encourage faculty development in basic skills, and the improvement of teaching and learning is connected to the institutional mission. C.2. The faculty play a primary role in needs assessment, planning, and implementation of staff development programs and activities in support of basic skills programs. C.3. Staff development programs are structured and appropriately supported to sustain them as ongoing efforts related to institutional goals for the improvement of teaching and learning. C.4. Staff development opportunities are flexible, varied, and responsive to developmental needs of individual faculty, diverse student populations, and coordinated programs/services. C.5. Faculty development is clearly connected to intrinsic and extrinsic faculty reward structures. D. __Instructional Practices__ D.1. Sound principles of learning theory are applied in the design and delivery of courses in the developmental program. D.2. Curricula and practices that have proven to be effective within specific disciplines are employed. D.3. The developmental education program addresses holistic development of all aspects of the student. Attention is paid to the social and emotional development of the students as well as to their cognitive growth. D.4. Culturally Responsive Teaching theory and practices are applied to all aspects of the developmental instructional programs and services. D.5. A high degree of structure is provided in developmental education courses. D.6. Developmental education faculty employ a variety of instructional methods to accommodate student diversity. D.7. Programs align entry/exit skills among levels and link course content to college-level performance requirements. D.8. Developmental education faculty routinely share instructional strategies. D.9. Faculty and advisors closely monitor student performance. D.10. Programs provide comprehensive academic support mechanisms, including the use of trained tutors. || CLASP || States should adopt policies to: 1. Create ―bridge programs that ease the transition to postsecondary education by integrating basic skills instruction (or English language instruction) with higher-level academic content or technical skills training; 2. Dually enroll basic skills students in occupational or academic coursework and their developmental or adult education courses; 3. Contextualize basic skills instruction with occupational skills training or other college-level academic content;
 * 6. State Strategies

4. Require that college academic assessment be coupled with personalized academic and career guidance so that students can find the best fit for their skills and goals among developmental and adult education options connected to college and career pathways; 5. Promote college-going aspirations for lower-skilled adults and youth by developing pathways, with achievable milestones, from adult education and GED to college enrollment; and 6. Set goals and performance measures that give developmental education and adult education programs incentives to prepare students to enroll in and succeed in college. || 1. Match commitment with intentionality and accountability. 2. Bring many stakeholders under the tent. 3. Orchestrate instructional programs and services around students’ academic needs. 4. Push the fragments together. 5. Require what is necessary for success. 6. Capitalize on socialization and strong connections to other students, faculty and staff wherever possible. 7. Align professional development goals and strategies with student development and achievement goals. 8. Promote and support effective advising. 9. Pay attention to misaligned incentives. 10. Bridge the chasms between and among adult basic education, high school, and college. 11. Draw lessons from the best. 12. Encourage innovation and experimentation. 13. Build a culture that values and relies upon inquiry and evidence. 14. Grow successful practices. 15. Create collaborations to conduct further practice-based research and share results. || September 23–24, 2010 || As noted above, few developmental education reform efforts have been evaluated rigorously, thereby limiting the number of programs that can be causally linked with improved student achievement. Moreover, virtually all of the programs that have been experimentally evaluated using random assignment methodology have shown either no increases in academic success or only modest increases in student persistence or credits earned rather than long term effects on students’ overall achievement.
 * 7. Massachusetts Community Colleges Developmental Education Best Policy and Practice Audit, June 30, 2009 || The following recommendations draw upon the results of this Study:
 * 8. Building Foundations for Student Readiness: A Review of Rigorous Research and Promising Trends in Developmental Education

Untested Innovations in Developmental Education Practice

While most developmental education reforms have focused on modest tweaks to programs’ curricula and practices, a few recent innovations have focused on changing the foundations of these programs in an effort to more quickly advance students into credit-bearing courses and the attainment of post-secondary credentials.

Technology-Aided Approaches to Instruction

Computer-aided instruction poses a number of new avenues for developmental education instruction. To date, many colleges have integrated technology into developmental courses with traditional content and curriculum.

Improving the Alignment Between K-12 and Postsecondary Education

As suggested by several of the programmatic interventions discussed in this report, critical challenges remain with aligning the standards and curricula from K-12 to postsecondary education. While studies have noted that taking a college preparatory curriculum through the final years of high school may reduce the chances of students needing remediation, others have noted that a substantial proportion of these students still place into developmental coursework when entering college.

Transforming Developmental and College-Level Curricula and Practice

While a number of efforts are being made to better align K-12 and college curricula, even more radical efforts are taking place within colleges in an attempt to better align developmental and college-level practices and advance remedial students progress to college-level work. One of the most transformative of these movements is the Statistics Pathway (also known as Statway), a collaborative project being launched by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the Charles A. Dana Center at the University of Texas at Austin.

Additional Considerations for Future Research and Practice

While a number of promising innovations in developmental education are under development, most of these reforms will also need to consider how to tackle several institutional issues at the core of developmental education programming and practice.

Placement Assessments

Employing sophisticated statistical methods, have shown that students with skill levels denoted by some colleges as developmental performed successfully in college-level courses. Finally, these assessments are not diagnostic and provide little information about how instruction could better improve students’ skills, making their validity for classroom assignment questionable.

Adjunct Faculty

Studies have clearly demonstrated that a large majority of developmental education classes are taught by adjunct, or part-time, faculty. While consistent estimates are difficult to find, national surveys have found that up to three-quarters of developmental courses in community colleges are taught by adjuncts. While adjunct faculty make invaluable contributions to the nation’s higher education system, they can also suffer several major disadvantages as a result of their employment status. For instance, adjunct faculty are generally only paid for their time teaching in the classroom, which can limit their involvement in other activities at the college, such as departmental decision-making and piloting new programmatic strategies. Additionally, adjuncts tend to work multiple jobs, which usually makes them less accessible to students or other faculty. Finally, adjunct faculty are rarely paid for professional development, thus restricting their chances of being trained to fully implement programs seeking to transform developmental education practice.

Classroom Instructional Practice

Several studies have demonstrated that the quality and effectiveness of instruction is one of the most important factors influencing developmental-level students’ academic performance, and that classroom experiences are a major predictor of commitment to the institution for students at all levels.

Professional Development

Professional development is also a critical consideration in developmental education practice and reform. As might be expected, classroom instructors and other support staff play a key role in implementing new reforms to improve students’ success and, as such, may require substantial training to learn the methodology behind such practices. Professional development is particularly important for developmental education instructors as these individuals tend to have limited previous training for teaching basic skills students. ||
 * 9. Student Success in Higher Education || First, on the technical level, there are very serious problems with the federal formula for computing graduation rates and with the validity of various testing measures and their impact on the curriculum.

Second, too many policy discussions of student success avoid serious consideration of financial factors, as though investment in learning is not connected to student success. To the contrary—the at-risk population of nontraditional students who participated in the recent AFT focus groups demonstrates the intricate connection between student success and resources. These students report, for example, that paying for college is just about the biggest obstacle they face in completing their studies. Concerns about finances also lead students to work too many hours, which hampers their chances for success. Finally, students report that large class sizes, limited course offerings and difficulty in getting enough personal attention from overworked faculty and staff are key obstacles to their achievement.

Third, too many policy discussions about accountability have failed to incorporate the views and experiences of frontline faculty and staff. The AFT believes that the disengagement between workers on the ground and the accountability movement needs to be addressed if we are to achieve positive and lasting results for students.

Retention and Attainment

Much of the policy debate on accountability has been tied to the idea that college attainment and completion rates are too low. Even though the measurement of graduation rates is deeply flawed, AFT members fully agree that retention is not what it should be and that some action must be taken to improve the situation. Our recommendations include:

1. Strengthen preparation in preK-12 by increasing the public support provided to school systems and the professionals who work in them. As noted earlier, college faculty and staff at the postsecondary and preK-12 levels should be provided financial and professional support to coordinate standards between the two systems and minimize disjunctions.

2. Strengthen federal and state student assistance so students can afford to enter college and remain with their studies despite other obligations. Again, students report that paying for college is an overwhelming challenge, and that they must work a significant number of hours to support their academic career, often at the expense of fully benefiting from their classes. We cannot expect to keep balancing the books in higher education by charging students out-of-reach tuition and dismantling government and institutional support for a healthy system of academic staffing.

3. Institute or expand student success criteria along the lines of the student success elements described earlier (or an equally valid one). This is best based on deliberate, multidisciplinary planning in individual institutions led by frontline faculty and staff. Given that another one of students’ most called-for needs is assistance with developing a clear path toward their education goals, the aim is to provide clarity to the educational experience for students along with other stakeholders, including government and the general public.

4. Coordinate learning objectives with student assessment. The desire to compare learning across different institutions on a single scale is understandable. However, we believe that student learning would be diminished, not enhanced, by administering national assessments that overly homogenize “success” to what is easily measurable and comparable.

5. Provide greater government funding and reassess current expenditure policies to increase support for instruction and staffing. We cannot expect student success when institutions are not devoting resources to a healthy staffing system and are allowing students’ education to be built on the exploitation of contingent labor and the loss of full-time jobs. The system of higher education finance needs to be re-examined so colleges and universities can fulfill the nation’s higher education attainment goals.

6. Improve the longitudinal tracking of students as they make their way through the educational system and out into the world beyond. The current federal graduation formula is much too narrow. We need to look at all students over a more substantial period of time, and we have to take into account the great diversity in student goals if we are to account properly for student success. In conclusion, the AFT believes that academic unions, working with other stakeholders, can play a central role in promoting student success. Making lasting progress, however, will have to begin at tables where faculty and staff members hold a position of respect and leadership. ||